Ed,
The whole idea of photographing paper ballots
is a straw man. It is akin to saying that people
will just run through red lights anyway so we
shouldn't place them at intersections.
I agree that we need to improve voting systems,
but the current trend toward self-auditing devices
is going
At 01:33 PM 03/07/2003 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
David Howe wrote:
This may be the case in france - but in england, every vote slip has a
unique number which is recorded against the voter id number on the
original voter card. any given vote *can* be traced back to the voter
that used it.
This is
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:55:19PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:45:41PM -0600, (Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy wrote:
Seems there is still a problem unless each eligible voter brings a smart-
card, warm finger, eyeball, etc.
This is a perfect example of what I'm complaining
Barney Wolff wrote:
This is a perfect example of what I'm complaining about: You're holding
electronic voting to a much higher standard than you are paper ballots.
If it's going to replace paper ballots, it needs to offer advantages
that make up for its disadvantages, and if it gives us the
In the US it is a felony (in most, perhaps all, states) to sell
one's vote. One of the reason Internet voting is not having
much appeal here is because it will make it much easier to
do this (even simply by passing one's ID along). People
here also don't like the idea of having biometric ID for
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:35:22PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
| On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:38:42PM -0500, Dan Riley wrote:
|
| But this whole discussion is terribly last century--still pictures are
| passe. What's the defense of any of these systems against cell phones
| that transmit live
At 12:25 PM 3/6/03 -0800, Ed Gerck wrote:
Trei, Peter wrote:
Ballot boxes are also subject to many forms of fraud. But a dual
system (electronic backed up by paper) is more resistant to
attack then either alone.
The dual, and multiple, system can be done without paper ballot.
There is nothing
At 10:35 PM 3/6/03 -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:38:42PM -0500, Dan Riley wrote:
But this whole discussion is terribly last century--still pictures are
passe. What's the defense of any of these systems against cell phones
that transmit live video?
A Faraday cage.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:35:22PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
We certainly don't want an electronic system that is more
vulnerable than existing systems, but sticking with known-to-be-terrible
systems is not a sensible choice either.
Paper ballots, folded, and dropped into a large
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:50:44AM -0600, (Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy wrote:
Paper ballots, folded, and dropped into a large transparent box, is not a
broken system. It's voting machines, punch cards, etc that are broken.
I don't recall seeing news pictures of an election in any other western
- Original Message -
From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
For example, using the proposed system a voter can easily, by using a
small concealed camera or a cell phone with a camera, obtain a copy of
that receipt and use it to get money for the vote, or keep the job. And
no one
Francois Grieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there is the problem that the printed receipt must not be usable
to determine who voted for who, even knowing in which order the
voters went to the machine. Therefore the printed receipts must be
shuffled. Which brings us straight back to papers in
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:22:23AM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:50:44AM -0600, (Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy wrote:
Paper ballots, folded, and dropped into a large transparent box, is not a
broken system. It's voting machines, punch cards, etc that are broken.
I don't
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:45:41PM -0600, (Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy wrote:
Paper ballots ...
Surely you jest - where else did the term ballot-stuffing come from?
Perhaps you can elaborate on how ballot-stuffing is done without the
co-operation of most of the people overseeing a polling place.
(Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:35:22PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
We certainly don't want an electronic system that is more
vulnerable than existing systems, but sticking with known-to-be-terrible
systems is not a sensible choice either.
Paper ballots, folded,
Ian Brown[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote:
Printing a paper receipt that the voter can see is a proposal
that addresses one of the major weaknesses of electronic
voting. However, it creates problems that are even harder to
solve than the silent subversion of
Peter Trei wrote:
I'd prefer that the printed receipt be retained at the
polling station, after the voter has had an opportunity to
examine it. This serves two purposes: First, it prevents the
vote selling described above, and second, if a recount is
required, it allows the recount to be
- Original Message -
From: Bill Frantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: Scientists question electronic voting
[..]
The best counter to this problem is widely available systems to produce
fake photos
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:
The best counter to this problem is widely available systems to produce
fake photos of the vote, so the vote buyer can't know whether the votes he
sees in the photo are the real votes, or fake ones.
blink, blink.
you mean *MORE* widely available than
- Original Message -
From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
This is not possible for current paper ballots, for several reasons. For
example, if you take a picture of your punch card as a proof of how you
voted, what is to prevent you -- after the picture is taken -- to punch
another
Anton Stiglic wrote:
-Well the whole process can be filmed, not necessarily photographed...
It's difficult to counter the attack. In you screen example, you can
photograph
the vote and then immediately photograph the thank you, if the photographs
include the time in milliseconds, and the
Peter Trei wrote:
I'd prefer that the printed receipt be retained at the polling
station, after the voter has had an opportunity to examine it.
This serves two purposes: First, it prevents the vote selling
described above, and second, if a recount is required, it allows
the recount to be
Francois Grieu[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Trei wrote:
I'd prefer that the printed receipt be retained at the polling
station, after the voter has had an opportunity to examine it.
This serves two purposes: First, it prevents the vote selling
described above, and second, if a
bear wrote:
Let's face it, if somebody can *see* their vote, they can record it.
Not necessarily. Current paper ballots do not offer you a way to record
*your* vote. You may even photograph your ballot but there is no way to
prove that *that* was the ballot you did cast. In the past, we had
Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not possible for current paper ballots, for several reasons. For
example, if you take a picture of your punch card as a proof of how you
voted, what is to prevent you -- after the picture is taken -- to punch
another hole for the same race and
Dan Riley wrote:
The vote can't be final until the voter confirms the paper receipt.
It's inevitable that some voters won't realize they voted the wrong
way until seeing the printed receipt, so that has to be allowed for.
Elementary human factors.
This brings in two other factors I have
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:38:42PM -0500, Dan Riley wrote:
But this whole discussion is terribly last century--still pictures are
passe. What's the defense of any of these systems against cell phones
that transmit live video?
A Faraday cage.
Seriously, what current or historic voting
At 02:39 AM 3/6/03 +, Ian Brown wrote:
Ed Gerck wrote:
...
For example, using the proposed system a voter can easily, by
using a small concealed camera or a cell phone with a camera,
obtain a copy of that receipt and use it to get money for the
vote, or keep the job. And no one would know
Henry Norr had an interesting article today at
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/03/BU122767.DTLtype=business
Printing a paper receipt that the voter can see is a proposal that addresses
one of the major weaknesses of electronic voting. However, it creates
29 matches
Mail list logo
