Just riffing here, but isn't there some kind of possility for "Blacknet" voting? In other words, if the "voting machines" were by nature untamperable because of...
1) No one actually knows where they are
2) "They" aren't actually anywhere, perhaps being distributed entities on the network. In fact, votes pass into the voting blacknet and are untraceable.
3) The voting blacknet can be audited perhaps periodically (modula provisions for denial of service attacks), to make sure there's be no systematic tampering (which theoretically should be impossible anyway).
OK, of course there are issues of multiple votes &c...but this seems no more difficult than digital cash.
-TD
From: Yeoh Yiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: David Jablon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Kelsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Trei, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], "'privacy.at Anonymous Remailer'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: voting
Date: 18 Apr 2004 23:12:24 -0400
Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Jablon wrote: > >
> The 'second law' also takes precedence: ballots are always secret, only > vote totals are known and are known only after the election ends. > > > What I see in serious > > voting system research efforts are attempts to build systems that > > provide both accountability and privacy, with minimal tradeoffs. > > There is no tradeoff prossible for voter privacy and ballot secrecy. > Take away one of them and the voting process is no longer a valid > measure. Serious voting system research efforts do not begin by > denying the requirements.
You get totals per nation, per state, per county, per riding, per precinct, per polling stion and maybe per ballot box. So there's a need to design the system to have more voters than ballot boxes to conform to your second law.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
