[ANNOUNCE] [REMINDER] Social Tonight - The Maple Leaf, Covent Garden

[james@mastros.biz]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:03:10PM +0000, Peter Corlett wrote:
> Nicholas Clark <nick at ccl4.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > People keep saying bad things about Diebold, but it's never been proven in
> > court. Unlike the UK postal voting system. Twice.
> 
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4425519.stm
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4406575.stm
> 
> I think the point of an open voting system like the UK's is that it is open
> and fraud can be observed. In theory, that should discourage fraud.

And thus the missing point: It's possible to prove the UK postal system is
messing with votes.  It's not possible to prove that Diebold is doing so.
That doesn't mean it isn't, just that we don't have the information to do
more then guess either way.  Similarly, when I submit my absentee balot in
the 2006 US elections, I have no way to verify if it is counted or not.

    -=- James Mastros
    Concerned US citizen