[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] MEMEBRS AS WATCHDOGS - RECOUNT
Reminds me of the corporate accounting firm of Arthur Andersen quote watching the books unquote of Enron corporation while receiving monies at the same time from Enron for quote consultant work unquote.
There is an old saying, the fox has been put in charge of watching the henhouse.
Regards,
Micheal Sherrill
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 07:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
Folks -
I've explained this a few times, I will do so one more time...
> > There is no apparent way to check that (1) only valid member's votes
> > were counted,
> You have the list of the voters.
...Since the votes have been stripped of their "identity," there is no
link to the "list of voters." All we know is X number of votes were
received and X number of votes were counted. All sorts of errors or
irregularities could have caused the X number of votes counted to NOT
represent the actual votes cast.
> 1. you have the program which took the raw data and removed the noise
> (and identification means to preserve the secrecy fo the vote).
...we have "a program." There were no controls over the program that
would have ensured what we have will "run" as it did "run" when the votes
were counted, or that it is the program that was "run."
When the identity of the voter does not stay with the vote cast, many
controls and many observers are used to ensure there are no errors or
irregularities. Just think about one's own local elections...
One reason we have never stripped identity information and have used
watchdogs to count - is that under this "simple," "non-complex" system,
the certainty of only counting valid votes, and counting them correctly,
can be easily maintained.
Under the "complex system" we used, in order to maintain the same level of
"certainty" as under the system we had used, a variety of controls needed
to have been used, "before," "during" and "after" the voting process.
Without the "before" and "during" controls, any actions performed
"after," are not conclusive.
We cannot ensure there were no errors or irregularities...
> I think that the system we ran did that.
...I know that while the system you ran might have produced accurate
results, running it as you did without the necessary "before" or "during"
controls does not allow us to know this, with any degree of certainty...
--
--- REgards, walts@dorsai.org Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA Blue(^) ---
- - Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Media Center Edition - HPMC 873n ---
- - Associate Expert - Expert Zone - -
--- http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/ ---
- - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/schmidt/ ---
- - 52 Ken http://www.dorsai.org/~walts/ Sun 57 - -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
*************************************************
Listen to the "World's Classical Radio Station"
http://www.beethoven.com
Great Music, Free Email, Exciting Bulletin Board!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de