4 ms·
I don't think this article adds anything to the discussion. It repeats Halderman's earlier point. the important point is that all elections should be audited,
by i-think 10y ago
I don't think this article adds anything to the discussion. It repeats Halderman's earlier point.
the important point is that all elections should be audited, and not only if you have statistics suggesting that something might be fishy.
And repeats other conclusions which say that there are no signs of something fishy in the currently available data, at least based on initial statistical analyses.
- fanzhang 10y agoIs it not currently the case that there are redundancy tests (i.e. overconstraint tests / unit tests) on election results already? Would a manual miscount of a vote have a near-nil chance of getting caught? If so, I totally agree we need to have samples of all elections verified to at least get bounds on error rates.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoIt's a pity that journalists (and a few self-interested politicians) distorted Halderman's points so dramatically. This stuff's never going to go away, now -- it'll be the foundation of wild conspiracy theories for decades.
- whybroke 10y agoMore damaging would be if it implicitly changes the message from 'audits should always be done' to 'we're doing it because there was monkey business'
- mzw_mzw 10y agoIt already has. Which is doubly unfortunate since there is no evidence whatsoever of monkey business anyway.
- magicalist 10y ago> This stuff's never going to go away, now -- it'll be the foundation of wild conspiracy theories for decades. Eh, the same stuff was said after Bush v Gore and it died down within a few months of inauguration. You can see it happening already, most people are uninterested in pushing this.