Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress about fradulent voting machine source code

Re:Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress abou... by brlewis on Thursday December 13, 2007 @11:07AM (#89181)

Random 1% error is easily dealt with. When the election is close they do a supervised recount.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress abou... by angryprofessor on Thursday December 13, 2007 @11:33AM (#89197)

There are certainly no problems with supervised recounts. Look how well they go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_gubernatorial_electi...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_200...

I'm not saying electronic is definately the way to go. I'm just saying that paper ballots also have big problems, and that one can protect reasonably well against pure software hacks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Clinton E. Curtis, programmer, testifies to Congress abou... by brlewis on Thursday December 13, 2007 @01:51PM (#89246)

You've pointed out exactly why supervised recounts with paper ballots are so much better. You can look how well they go.

[ Parent | on HN ]