A proprietary election voting system by any vendor...

2008-08-25T09:17:00.000-04:00

A proprietary election voting system by any vendor does not guarantee public scrutiny.

Your right to vote is not abridged if you use an absentee ballot. It's a valid and perhaps more convenient option than touchscreen as you have ample time to fill and submit it.

As for why it is illegal to use nonproprietary software, that is a problem that needs to be addressed. I will not argue that point. I will say that neither the Republicans NOR Democrats seem to consider this an issue worth tackling. The rank and file might, and I agree. Once the representatives are elected, how representative are they of their electorate?

In short, I agree with your sentiment. I think the idea of proprietary software is that external people won't easily be able to make changes to the software and the "proprietary" software can be vetted against its original installation while "open source" may not have that assurance to the people who certify that software.

I don't necessarily hold or agree with that position. I'm merely providing an idea to the thought process to answer your question.

As a computer guy, do you know whether or not a pr...

2008-08-25T06:58:00.000-04:00

As a computer guy, do you know whether or not a proprietary election voting system, Diebold or some other, guarantees public scrutiny? The issue is the elimination of our right to vote by removing the public's right to subject proprietary voting systems to public scrutiny.

Australia's software is free to the world to download, modify and use for our elections. In the U.S., it is illegal to use nonproprietary software. Why?

Comments on A Mind in Transition. A Heart Open.: Diebold and the voting (NON) fiasco

A proprietary election voting system by any vendor...

As a computer guy, do you know whether or not a pr...