What Eva Waskell said is agreeable to me. It seems honest; I can admire her integrity, unless I am proven wrong.
My purpose in writing this overview is threefold. 1) To raise some questions about the impact of computers on the election process and to propose ways for citizens to become involved in helping to find solutions. 2) To encourage an informed public debate about the risks and reliabilities of electronic vote tabulating systems. 3) To point out the lack of scientific studies and factual data in this area and to demonstrate the urgent need for some comprehensive research upon which to base public policy.
She wrote this in 1993. Hopefully, the powers that be were listening; Hopefully, there were some studies done in the intervening years, studies to bridge this horrible gap of lack of research--a lack of research which has become a frantic refrain here.
There have been no insinuations of time bombs, virus, Trojan horses or trap doors in this election. This is the year 2000, and neither side believes Trojan horses got into the program (but who knows?). The presence of worms is undisputed, and certainly is a valid criticism...
You know, Opalapril, these people have access to the best experts in the world--and they are motivated by marvellous personal rewards. The fact that neither of the parties have contended against the validity of the machines used in the count, is a profoundly significant indication (considering the turpitude of the protagonists), that the machines are RELIABLE. Why introduce hostility and bias into what (at this point) can be no more than miniscule error? Meager error existing at a random, at an impartial, and at an acceptable level?
Error that is random and impartial is still fair. Error that is created, and contrived, and invented, and surmised...Can never be fair... |
