Peter Trei wrote:
I entirely agree. I don't truely trust voting machines either - I would like
to see all elections decided by paper ballots stuffed in a box, after being
marked in a way which is private, and publically observable to be private.
The ballots should be counted with representatives
From: "Trei, Peter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:33:33 -0400
There are a number of results in the crypto literature on receipt-free
voting, most recently (that I'm aware of) one presented by Kazue Sako
at last month's Eurocrypt 2000. Receipt-freeness means that voters
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:52:24 -0400
From: Dan Geer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no doubt whatsoever that the sanctity of a vote once
cast can be absolutely preserved as it is moved from your house
to the counting house. What cannot be done, now or ever, is to
ensure the sanctity of the
--
From: Ray Hirschfeld[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 1:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Electronic elections.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:52:24 -0400
I'm not sure I care for the elitist tone in Dan's posting either, but
he raises some points that deserve serious consideration. Sure we
have mail-in absentee ballots now, but the number of people who
choose to vote that way is small and an absentee ballot split that
varied markedly from the
As a practical matter, requiring the voter to remember even one bit
is unlikely to fly. If as always there are several races on the
ballot, one bit is not enough, because the coercer can deduce the
bit from the pattern of votes. No voter can be expected to remember
several bits. The resulting
I'm not sure I care for the elitist tone in Dan's posting either, but
he raises some points that deserve serious consideration. Sure we
have mail-in absentee ballots now, but the number of people who
choose to vote that way is small and an absentee ballot split that
varied markedly from
--
From: R. A. Hettinga[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 9:33 AM -0400 on 5/30/00, Trei, Peter wrote:
If the person whose vote is being coerced has the
coercer looking over their shoulder as they cast it
Just for fun, think about the mathematics of this proposition?
If
"Arnold G. Reinhold" wrote:
7. The voting process should be simple enough to be used by people
with minimal education and should in no way discourage legitimate
voting.
That gets a bit political. Some would argue voting should not be so
simple (I had heard Isaac Asimov wanted voters to be
Along the same lines as this discussion, http://www.ivta.org
was recently brought to my attention in/on the "cert-talk"
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) mailing list.
I appreciate that pointer (and others like it such as are appearing
here and elsewhere) a great deal, especially in quotation:
At 07:52 AM 5/29/00 -0400, Dan Geer wrote:
There is no doubt whatsoever that the sanctity of a vote once
cast can be absolutely preserved as it is moved from your house
to the counting house. What cannot be done, now or ever, is to
ensure the sanctity of the voting booth anywhere but in a
On Sat, 27 May 2000, Per Kangru wrote:
So Im looking for a system that will give me the following:
* Ease of use for non computer experts.
* Secure, i.e. one vote per person.
* Anonymous voting, i.e. no conection between a certain vote and a certain
person.
* Shall produce good
A few years back I implemented the scheme described in "A practical secret
voting scheme for large scale elections", by Atsushi Fujioka, Tatsuaki
Okamoto, and Kazuo Ohta (Proceedings AUSCRYPT '92, 1993, 244-251). The system
is called E-Vox and can be found at
13 matches
Mail list logo
