[Tfug] SQL database question

[Bexley Hall]

--- David Cowell <davidwcowell at cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 18:47 -0700, Bexley Hall
> wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't accept any "black box dump" unless you
> > know what else is "under the hood".  I.e., you
> > need to know how data was committed to the
> database
> > (was it "colored" by the procedures used to store
> > it??) as well as how the "results" were officially
> > reported vs. how the *dump* was created.
> > 
> > Imagine a human agent acting as the DBMS.  You
> > *tell* him you are voting "DEMOCRAT".  How do you
> > *know* that this is what he is "recording"?
> > 
> > Likewise, regardless of what he has recorded, when
> > you ask him to tabulate the results, you are
> relying
> > on him to faithfully reproduce the data that he
> > has stored (assuming that data to accurately
> > reflect the data *given* to him).  How do you 
> > assure yourself that if someone *else* asks him
> > for "results" (in a different form -- i.e., a
> dump)
> > that those results agree with the "reported"
> > results?
> > 
> > Since there is no other way of auditing the
> accuracy
> > of the *process* (from "data in" to "results
> out"),
> > I would insist on complete transparency (i.e.,
> > roll up your sleeves and *show* me there's no
> > rabbit hiding up there...)
> 
> What has always filled me with wonder is: "Why the
> devil do we make this an electronic process at all?"
> 
> Somehow, back a hundred years ago (and even more
> recently) we were able
> to periodically muster the *manpower* to count the
> ballots in relatively

With respect to the folks who *work* the elections,
most (at least in *my* precinct) tend to be way
past the age of retirement!  Finding your name on
the list seems to take them quite a long time, etc.
I've had experiences with several who just were
not aware of *how* to do their job (e.g., the
woman who removed my ballot from its "security
envelope" and then manually fed it into the
tabulator -- hint:  the whole purpose of that
envelope is so the ballot is never exposed to
*any* eyes!)

Note that these folks aren't paid particularly well
and its just a "one-time" deal for many of them.
Shows you what sort of value we place on our
"right to vote"  :-/

> short order. The system was no more fallible than
> the present system...
> and it had a paper trail that could be audited if
> the normal procedures
> were followed.

When I grew up, the machines were huge mechanical
monsters with gazillions of little levers, etc.
Must have cost an arm and a leg to purchase!  And,
as a result, don't "scale" well.
 
> Are we just too lazy or uncommitted, or do we just
> *hafta* know who won before we go to bed at night?

I see nothing wrong with electronic systems to do
this.  The problem is the way many of these
systems *appear* to have been implemented  :-/

Note that casinos move millions of dollars every
day -- 25c at a time -- and somehow manage to get
it right!



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ