2011-05-05T11:45:53Z, “Jameson Quinn” <[email protected]>:
> You have come up with one of many possible systems which would be
> sufficiently secure. The security of the system you propose is not
> significantly affected by the fact that a voter is required to explicitly
> approve or non-approve each candidate. Yes, an automated check for spoiled
> ballots is a good thing. But, given sufficient other security measures such
> as you suggest, ballot security is not significantly impacted by the choice
> of system, so should be discussed separately.
Explicitly voting is still necessary:
One should study magic:
A supporter for Candidate H with a piece of pencil in a ring could
approve Candidate H in front of the all of the people wanting to watch watching
as well as webcams just before the ballots go to the humans and optical
scanners for counting. None would ever notice:
Please remember that the fraud Uri Geller managed to con scientists.
The magician James Randi had to expose Uri Geller on the Tonight Show with
Johnny Carson
People developing procedures for voting and counting votes should study
magic. One can be right next to the magician and see nothing. Search for
“close up magic”, or “table magic” or “micromagic”.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
