[EM] March 29 Newsweek article on verifiable voting

[Dave Ketchum]

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.