<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/10/3 Richard M. Stallman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rms@gnu.org">rms@gnu.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
If voting machines use software, it should be free software.<br>
But just having free software in voting machines does not make<br>
it possible to trust them. We need to be concerned that the<br>
manufacturers, or the election authorities, will fiddle with them<br>
to steal the election.<br>
</blockquote><div><br><br>I don't even understand the use or need for voting machines. In my country, the counting is done by random-selected people. People get selected to work during the voting day, much as you would select a jury member. They get paid a little for their work (60 euros, more or less) and are allowed not to go to work the next day. This system was implemented because Spain had suffered such a great amount of election-robberies that the only possible solution was considered random-people counting (the political parties supervise the counting, of course). It is not a perfect system, but at least it's tremendously trustworthy. If there are problems, it's because of human mistakes, (such as one vote missing up or down), and never because someone meddled with the voting machines. <br>
<br>I know it sounds archaic and obsolete, but considering the history of problems with voting machines, I have come to find the manual-counting system as the best one available. Considering the importance of what's a stake in an election, and the fact that it's only every four years, I am very much in favor of supervised human counting. Manufacturers and election authorities would have much more trouble to fiddle with random-chosen people supervised by members of the parties.<br>
<br>Regards,<br><br>Natsu<br></div></div><br>
</div>