Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In fact some computer scientists just recently mathematically PROVED
that it is impossible to even verify that the certified software is
actually running on a voting machine.
Tell us more, a bit more convincingly as to fact behind this opinion -
assuming proper defenses.
Here is the info. I have not read the proof yet myself:
"In 'An Undetectable Computer Virus,' David Chess and Steven White show
that you can always create a vote changing program (called virus
there) that no "verification software" can ever detect.
Without having read the paper, I suspect this is a reduction to the
Halting problem. Of interest regarding my earlier idea of
special-purpose machines is that most voting systems don't need full
Turing capability to find out who the winner is, so one may be able to
make a program (or chip) for counting votes that can be proven not to
have modifications (subject to the assumptions of the surrounding,
less-than-Turing, framework).
It seems to me that most of the persons on this list would rather have
votes fraudulently counted using some alternative voting scheme that
requires an unverifiable unauditable electronic voting system, than
accurately counted using the plurality election method.
Curious.
Say that the losses due to fraud is p. Also say that the losses due to
using Plurality is q. Then, if there is no fraud at all under Plurality,
and a lot of fraud under the better method, and p < q, then switching to
an alternative voting scheme, even if that would lead to fraud, is an
improvement. This is a quick and dirty argument (because surely there
can be some fraud under Plurality, and no voting method would work if
all the ballots have been subject to fraud, i.e the entire input is
garbage), but it should get the point across.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
