I totally agree with Steve. It's a big enough challenge to
accomplish what Steve said, and I think all of us on this list would
agree with that goal. Only a small number of people on this list
adopt your personal goal you stated. I personally don't agree with
it, and I believe that stating it as a goal wouldn't help us
accomplish Steve's challenge.
Best regards,
Arthur
At 11:02 PM -0700 8/9/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
>Thanks, Steve--haven't heard from you in a while
>
>I think it is essential to reason about the whole process of voting. Making
>the software for the voting machine is important, but, imo, there's a lot
>more we have to think about assuming we're interested in transitioning to
>the best voting system possible (where "voting system" does not equal
>"voting machine").
>
>Alan D.
>
>> I think that this is totally off-topic. I thought you were going to
>> build a voting machine that would be able to comply with the election
>> laws of each of the 50 states (plus DC and the territories), and lobby
>> to change any laws that would prevent certification of such a machine.
>> And I thought that the purpose of this list was to help facilitate that
>> goal. I don't see how a discussion such as the above advances the
>> cause; it seems a diversion of energy from this list's purpose.
>>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507 tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424 ================================================================== = The content of this message, with the exception of any external = quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain ==================================================================Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:06 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CDT