Diane and all,
Could you please explain in some detail how 1% of potential voters,
as you contend, could do "So much Damage"?
Diane Cabell wrote:
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Thank you Diane. You had a password, so you could go inside. Did you
> > actually vote and observe what happens? You can still do so.
>
> I tried the freebie site because the 48 hour voting limit had passed by the time
> I got there.
>
> > Actually our whole voters' roll has been authenticated by the membership
> > committee.
> > This was the main reason for the delay with our election. It took time to
> > verify all members' domains.
> > The unique passwords are generated by the system. It is very easy to
> > generate new passwords for every election to increase security.
>
> Imagine having to do this for 5000 voters who aren't even required to have
> domain registrations. We recommended such a password system back in January.
>
> > Nobody else can vote (at least not on the items that are not "open to all"
> > or open to a group-password) and nobody can vote more than once on any
> > passworded topic.
>
> I saw the same person listed twice as a candidate, by the way.
>
> > Add secured servers and backend software to merge mailings and
> > >personnel costs to do mailings, tech support, answer member questions, etc.
> > >Please, folks, the MAC put in a lot of time looking at various gruesome
> > details
> > >that you're not taking into account.
> > >
> > I still believe that dishonesty of the voters is not the central problem
> > and that web based voting can easily be audited after an election in case
> > the results are challenged.
>
> The Committee disagreed. 99% of the voters may be honest, but the remaining 1%
> can do so much damage.
>
> The MAC debated *when* to authenticate an election, before or after. We felt it
> was much more difficult to "undo" an election, particularly because people who
> have been elected will be more inclined to contest the review, questions about
> political motivation would arise, the election would be delayed indefinitely
> until the matter was resolved, etc. We recommended having the review process
> occur before the election. Check that the software works, check the
> authenticity of the voters, check that the distribution of enrollment is within
> norms, and then let 'er rip. After that it would be up to the membership
> population to notice any problems and flag them.
>
> Diane Cabell
> http://www.mama-tech.com
> Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
> Boston, MA
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
