Derek Atkins wrote:
> It's not snake oil if you can possibly produce it. There are plenty
> of "electronic voting" (read: NOT internet voting) systems that are
> "foolproof, secure, simple to operate", so the question is whether you
> can make it affordable. This is not selling a product, it's selling a
> project goal. Therefore, it is not snake oil.
Derek:
The idea of more people working on voting projects and products
is excellent and useful, IMO. What is less than useful is promising
what cannot be delivered -- and, clearly, promising to "give everyone
a record of their vote, so they know exactly what they have done at the
polls" as Baltimore's words did, and that is why you will like the system
I produce, is snake oil of good quality IMO.
I know you are at MIT, but please do not feel offended -- just help
correct it, if you can.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
> Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/15/politics/15MIT.html
> >
> > "The idea," Dr. Baltimore said, "is to produce a system that is
>foolproof, secure,
> > simple to operate and affordable so that it can be in every precinct in
>America. The
> > system should also give everyone a record of their vote, so they know
>exactly
> > what they have done at the polls."
> >
> > and which allows the voter to prove how he voted (and cash in), might
> > someone add.
> >
> > I guess snake-oil projects are getting a good company. Also, they all seem to
> > like to promise "foolproof, secure, simple to operate and affordable".
