RE: Civitas: Toward a Secure Voting System
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/papers/civitas.html
as mentioned by Andrew Myers of Cornell
I will add it to my "to do" list to read about Civitas when I finish a
few other projects. For now, I took the liberty of asking a few
computer scientists who ar
> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 02:01:45 -0400
> From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines
>> Well here is where you and I differ. I think if electoral fraud in the
>> US were eliminated, it would be a good thing, but not dramatically
>> change
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:01:10 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> Or do we want the voter to be able to cancel the ballot and let
>> the poll workers know that he needs a paper ballot instead that
>> he can mark himself?
>
> I'm fine with the latte
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not sure
> I'm convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to implement,
> but suppose that any person or group (including parties) could
> register an STV ranking, and a voter could select that ranking i
Apropos voting machines, the current xkcd: http://xkcd.com/463/
<>
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Kristofer Munsterhjelm said:
> If there's a static or consistent majority that decide to, as an example,
> exclude minorities,
> that is "democratic", but still not a good state of things, and no amount of
> making the
> democracy more accurately translate the wishes of the majority into action
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to agenda
manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively on the
ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated with X and
not-X are sincere?
Citizens are free to form such lists. Each list may support and oppose
any
On Aug 15, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to
agenda manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively
on the ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated with
X and not-X are sincere?
Citizens are
Juho > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 8:27 PM
> I understood that in this case the parties were irrelevant and
> therefore basic lists may be sufficient to put in place a structure
> that covers all the relevant questions.
If by "party" we mean a formal (or registered) group with internal disc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
> It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally when
> still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly' coalition
re-organisation.
If all the legislators are elect
On Aug 15, 2008, at 22:27 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Juho wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented
proportionally when
st
On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Juho wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
rap
On Aug 15, 2008, at 20:05 , James Gilmour wrote:
Juho > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 5:24 PM
If you have some issue X, wouldn't it also be natural to have one
list "for X" and one list "against X"? I.e. lists but not "party
lists". You may need to arrange the candidates anyway according to
the
Chris Benham wrote:
*Kristofer Munsterhjelm* wrote (Sun. Aug.10):
"There's also the "it smells fishy" that nonmonotonicity - of any kind or
frequency - evokes. I think that's stronger for nonmonotonicity than for
things like strategy vulnerability because it's an error that appears in
the meth
Juho > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 5:24 PM
> If you have some issue X, wouldn't it also be natural to have one
> list "for X" and one list "against X"? I.e. lists but not "party
> lists". You may need to arrange the candidates anyway according to
> their opinions in some "lists" to make it
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is
Some more observations on the benefits of minority representation
(and problem too).
It is much easier to make decisions against the interests of some
minority when they are not in the room when compared to the situation
where they sit in the room and give comments on the proposals.
The m
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition re-organisation.
> Jobst Heitzig said:
> > It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally when
> > still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
> raphfrk replied
> I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
> coalition re-organisation.
I also disagree, but for a different r
Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> Or do we want the voter to be able to cancel the ballot and let
>> the poll workers know that he needs a paper ballot instead that
>> he can mark himself?
>
> I'm fine with the latter. Actually that seems like a reasonable
> thing to do.
Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> Now, I have the impression that a slight modification of the tax formula may
> reduce this incentive considerably. Consider this tax:
>
>?? sum { R(W,k) - R(W(i),k)
>?? + sum { ( R(W(i),k) - R(W(i,j),k) ) / 2
>?? : j different from i and k }
>?? : k different from i }
>
>
Readers of this list may be interested in our paper on a secure
electronic voting system published at the IEEE Symposium on Security and
Privacy this May. The system, Civitas, supports secure remote voting. As
described in the accompanying technical report, it also supports
Condorcet voting.
Jobst Heitzig said:
>
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
I disagree.? The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly' coalition
re-organisation.
If all the legislators are elected via a single seat system, th
23 matches
Mail list logo
