Statement by Mark Ortiz on fallacy of "accessible" voting

[diva77]

http://www.ncvoter.net/blindvoting.html

"All computer voting violates a central principle of inclusiveness and democracy:
the voting and vote-counting process must be transparent and verifiable to all citizens,
or the largest number practicable.

Much is made of the alleged advantages of the computer systems for people with disabilities,

snip

For some reason, inclusiveness trumps everything else here,

snip

Yet when it comes to verification of the validity of the count,
many of the same people who say it's a violation of inclusiveness to require a blind person to vote
with another person's assistance suddenly see no violation of inclusiveness in asking practically
everybody to trust IT experts. This is double-think.

snip

Not only is observed manual counting the only method verifiable by most people,
it is also the only allegedly verifiable voting technology that will be physically available nationwide in time
for the 2004 election."
 
snip
- Mark Ortiz, candidate for congress, 8th district. 
 

[grannylib]

1. Spot on. I really think the accessibility issue could be the saving grace for

verifiable voting overall.
God knows we can't trust the current process.

[kster]

2. Kick n Recommended, I want people to see the votes counted

ALL people, from high school drop outs, to a College Professors, but there are some people, that want to keep up with their STUPID F*ck*ng BULLSHIT argument, that a machine HAS TO DO THE COUNT, because We The People are not CAPABLE of Counting a Complicated ballot. SCREW THEM, itS a very ASININE, STUPID and a make "NO SENSE" argument.

Machine Counts are over, We the People will be Counting Our "Complicated Ballots" from now on, without the help of their SECRET VOTE COUNTING MACHINES (PERIOD)

If you noticed no one, And I mean NO ONE, can debate the TWO COUNT system, one count OPTISCAN and the Second, Optiscan ballots Hand Counted by the People. Because the MACHINE PEOPLE are in love with the first machine count, but the Second Automatic People Hand Count, is not what they are about.

THEY BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO A SECOND COUNT OF THE OPTISCAN BALLOTS!

WHY? :)

[kster]

3. See what I mean, the TWO COUNT system makes you feel like

No one will challenge you. B-)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. "NOBODY VOTES UNASSISTED ON A COMPUTER"

Diva, Mark is fine with the entire op being reproduced.
He allowed me to post it in its entirety on my website.

Mark and I bumped heads on strategy, but I agree with his statements.

Here is another key paragraph:

But the absence of assistance is in fact an illusion.
Nobody votes unassisted on a computer.
Everyone who votes on a computer is "assisted" by anonymous programmers.
Everyone who decides to trust the computer is "assisted" by the "experts" who tell the rest of us
that the system is okay (probably over the objections of other "experts").

[galloglas]

5. K and R !!

As voting itself should be made accessible to the least able of voters, if at all possible, it is even more importantthat "that the manner of casting and counting of votes should be intelligible to the least sophisticated of voters."

It should not take a degree in computer logic to believe (or not) that one's vote is being counted.

Seeing is believing! Let everyone see the votes counted out, just as their change is counted out at the grocery store... in plain sight, and by the numbers.

Hand Counted Ballots!