[EM] March 29 Newsweek article on verifiable voting
Adam Tarr
atarr at purdue.edu
Sun Apr 4 10:53:01 PDT 2004
Dave Ketchum wrote:
>How about leaning on IMPORTANT topics:
>
>How well do these schemes attend to voter secrecy?
> Without secrecy, voters can sell "voting right" to those willing to
> pay for such.
> Without assurance that secrecy is being maintained, voters can
> PROPERLY fear that, if they dare to vote "wrong", this may be known and
> result in punishment.
>
>Voters NEED the right to inspect those boxes labeled "voting machines" to
>verify whether they properly let the voters indicate their desires and
>report proper counts at end of election.
This dichotomy is directly addressed by David Chaum in "Secret-Ballot Receipts:
True Voter-Verifiable Elections"
(http://www.voterverifiable.com/article.pdf). The Article is very
accessible and the idea is very well thought out; I recommend everybody who
is concerned with these issues take a look at it.
> BTW - the right should be enough to ensure compliance by most vendors;
>average voter is unable to do such inspection but a group of voters could
>pay someone willing and able.
Right, although it's not extremely hard to check in this system. As the
author points out, if even a small number of people check, then any vote
tampering is likely to be noticed.
-Adam
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list