On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 09:23 -0300, Germán Poó Caamaño wrote: > > No. It's not easy really. Just because the number of voters matches > > the number of anon tokens listed, doesn't mean that unique tokens were > > handed out to voters. The results can be perturbed by handing out the > > same token to more than one voter, and insert phony tokens with > > arbitrary votes attached to them. > > It is pretty hard that two voters receive the same token.
This statement is only true because we trust the elections committee. Otherwise, I don't see why it's pretty hard to give two voters the same token. *That* is the point of this thread. > > There's nothing we should rush for this year. The point is /not/ that > > the election committee cannot be trusted. The point is, if we want to > > have a system in which the voters do not have to trust the election > > committee, then our current system does not qualify, and for the least, > > it should not be advertised like it does. > > Having the list of all voters and each voter checking his or her vote, > should be enough. IMVHO, Any voter as member of foundation has the > moral obligation to check it. As Ryan noted and I tried to explain, checking votes in the current system means almost nothing. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
