> Dave Ketchum wrote: > >> How about leaning on IMPORTANT topics: >> >> How well do these schemes attend to voter secrecy? >> Without secrecy, voters can sell "voting right" to those willing >> to pay for such. >> Without assurance that secrecy is being maintained, voters can >> PROPERLY fear that, if they dare to vote "wrong", this may be known >> and result in punishment. >> >> Voters NEED the right to inspect those boxes labeled "voting machines" >> to verify whether they properly let the voters indicate their desires >> and report proper counts at end of election. > > > This dichotomy is directly addressed by David Chaum in "Secret-Ballot > Receipts: > True Voter-Verifiable Elections" > (http://www.voterverifiable.com/article.pdf). The Article is very > accessible and the idea is very well thought out; I recommend everybody > who is concerned with these issues take a look at it. > Seems to be a DISCONNECT.
You seem to believe his pretty printing makes it unnecessary to do the validation I ask for so:
1. NOTHING about my topic in the article.
2. NOTHING to make me believe the inspection I ask for is not needed!
>> BTW - the right should be enough to ensure compliance by most vendors; >> average voter is unable to do such inspection but a group of voters could >> pay someone willing and able. > > > Right, although it's not extremely hard to check in this system. As the > author points out, if even a small number of people check, then any vote > tampering is likely to be noticed. > > -Adam
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
