[EM] March 29 Newsweek article on verifiable voting
Dave Ketchum
davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Apr 4 22:41:02 PDT 2004
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 12:51:59 -0500 Adam Tarr wrote:
> 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.
>
Seems to be a DISCONNECT.
You seem to believe his pretty printing makes it unnecessary to do the
validation I ask for so:
1. NOTHING about my topic in the article.
2. NOTHING to make me believe the inspection I ask for is not needed!
>> 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
--
davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list