Slightly flawed protocol used in LAT of voting computers

[Kevin_Lowe]

From Black Box Voting (.org):

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/3506.html?1109016869


Friday, Feb. 19 2005:

Black Box Voting investigators Bev Harris and Kathleen Wynne attended and videotapted a Logic & Accuracy test at Broward County.

1. About 120 ES&S touch-screens were set up for voting. All were positioned so that not a single observer could see the screens (even with binoculars and a zoom lens).

2. Several computers were in an adjacent central tabulator room. None of the central tabulators used were positioned so that any observer could see any part of the screen.


The article as a whole is a hoot and well worth a click.

I think it's much more likely that the "test" was arranged in this fashion because ES&S' computers are bug-ridden and unreliable than because they were trying to cover up genuinely criminal election rigging. (Although as always the problem is that we don't know this, and we damn well should). However, incidents like this render increasingly hilarious the claim that the USA has a robust and healthy tradition of open democracy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
I think it's much more likely that the "test" was arranged in this fashion because ES&S' computers are bug-ridden and unreliable than because they were trying to cover up genuinely criminal election rigging. (Although as always the problem is that we don't know this, and we damn well should). "Damn well should"? Please contact your congressperson. What's that? You don't live in America?

I love that you are so concerned with our elections.

However, incidents like this render increasingly hilarious the claim that the USA has a robust and healthy tradition of open democracy. Non Sequitur.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by RandFan
"Damn well should"? Please contact your congressperson. What's that? You don't live in America?

I love that you are so concerned with our elections.

Non Sequitur.

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

[corplinx]

For those who don't know, we exposed Bev Harris and her ilk as the woos they are back during the election. Kevin seems unhealthily enamored with their org for some reason.

[corplinx]

Let me go ahead and predict the response to my previous thread. It will be something along the lines of "just because Bev is a woo and probably a leech doesn't mean the article is innacurate, are you concerned about fair elections? blah blah blah".

There are about 10 news orgs/agencies I have on my blacklist since I consider their right or left wing bias so strong it affects their news (sorry BPSCG, wash times is not a reliable source). Given that I won't pay attention to outright biased and innaccurate news, why would I heed Bev Harris?

That's like paying heed to Richard Hoagland on the subject of cosmology.

[Random]

Originally posted by corplinx
Let me go ahead and predict the response to my previous thread. It will be something along the lines of "just because Bev is a woo and probably a leech doesn't mean the article is innacurate, are you concerned about fair elections? blah blah blah".
Absolutely. This is the rule of thumb that I use. Once one person with a certain belief turns out to be unreliable, we know that the belief is wrong and can therefore be ignored entirely. Beverly Harris is a woo, so therefore electronic voting has no problems whatsoever. Jeff Gannon was a male prostitute, therefore homosexual marriage is OK. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer’s, therefore the Soviet Union never had nukes. Bush was a drinker, therefore there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Wait a minute, I think I’ve been derailed by my own sarcasm…

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Random
Once one person with a certain belief turns out to be unreliable, we know that the belief is wrong and can therefore be ignored entirely. Beverly Harris is a woo, so therefore electronic voting has no problems whatsoever.

You couldn't have made better prediction of the sort of strawman he will come back at me with. Now that you've already his lampooned his most likely response though, what will he come back with?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by corplinx
You couldn't have made better prediction of the sort of strawman he will come back at me with. Now that you've already his lampooned his most likely response though, what will he come back with?

I could refer people to the last time you brought this up, because exactly the same response applies.

Or I could ask you and Randfan to go and start your own "Is there any reason non-USians should be interested in US elections, and by the way isn't Bev Harris just totally insane?" thread.

Or I could ask you what you think about the events of the article I linked to. Which could (just barely conceivably) be more interesting.

So, corplinx. What you think about the events described in the article I linked to?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
What you think about the events described in the article I linked to? I think the article is a cause for concern but nothing worth getting up in arms about. I also I think your response to the article is hyperbole and your conclusion does not follow from the article.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Random

Bush was a drinker, therefore there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Can we formalize that?



Dubya-M-D (noun)

1. Idiomatic expression in the language of messianic nationalism: History might forgive the Coalition invasion of Iraq, even if no link is proven between terrorism and Dubya-M-D.

2. Ready-made stat, prevarication or pick-up line made handy through its specific use or ironic misuse in the expression of a metaphysical principle: I am certain that the distinct chemical, biological and nuclear mental forms or entities that are the manifestations, actualizations and objectivizations of fissionable ectoplasmatic Dubya-M-D must be somewhere around here.

3. New comedy/drama pilot starring former president George W. Bush as a zany neurosyphilitic psychiatrist self administering heroic doses of a powerful antipsychotic drug.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


So, corplinx. What you think about the events described in the article I linked to?

Didn't read it, not worth my time. Not worth yours either. Do you really trust some kooks who believe in a great media conspiracy to suppress the truth about the US elections to give an accurate report about this stuff?

Why don't I go read what Richard Hoagland's observations about the mars lander stuff while I am wasting my goddamn time?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by RandFan
I think the article is a cause for concern but nothing worth getting up in arms about. I also I think your response to the article is hyperbole and your conclusion does not follow from the article.

Are you aware you just supported my conclusion?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
From Black Box Voting (.org):

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/3506.html?1109016869



The article as a whole is a hoot and well worth a click.

I think it's much more likely that the "test" was arranged in this fashion because ES&S' computers are bug-ridden and unreliable than because they were trying to cover up genuinely criminal election rigging. (Although as always the problem is that we don't know this, and we damn well should). However, incidents like this render increasingly hilarious the claim that the USA has a robust and healthy tradition of open democracy.

Bev Harris, confirmed liar, also witnessed black helicopters circling the area.