Thank you! Shamos, while long, is well worth studying!
Are there any useful responses?
Which of the attempts you list at the end can legitimately claim to be
a step ahead?
DWK
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:50:17 -0400 Rick Carback wrote:
> The problem with hand counting is that it is not always clear that the
> record tabulated was the record generated by voters. You are trading
> something with a 40-50 year history of not being good enough with
something
> that has thousands of years of history showing it's not good
enough. It's a
> system we know doesn't work. An argument that says the older way
was less
> bad is perfectly acceptable, but you have to concede that it leaves
much to
> be desired. All but the fraction of a percent of the observers and
counters
> involved in the process get no assurance that their votes were counted
> faithfully. You might want to read and respond to Shamos:
>
> http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/people/faculty/mshamos/paper.htm
>
> If you are interested in advancing the status quo, what you really
need is
> something that operates on the actual record, a zero-knowledge
proof of some
> sort that lets the authority prove they properly counted the votes
but not
> who voted for what. See Scantegrity, Punchscan, Twin, VAV, ThreeBallot,
> Pret-a-Voter, and the numerous other systems that have recently been
> designed to try to solve this problem.
>
> -R
>
> full disclosure: I work on Scantegrity and Punchscan.
--
[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
