One small additional trick for the alternative method (described below).
The receipts could have two parts. The voter could tear the parts
apart and give one of them to some organisation (maybe right after
stepping out from the voting location) that takes care of checking
that the election w
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:56:21 +0300 Juho wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2006, at 20:06 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:48 +0300 Juho wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 15, 2006, at 7:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>
Note that many voters will vote the same as for Plurality, for
which a special
On Oct 15, 2006, at 20:06 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:48 +0300 Juho wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 2006, at 7:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> Note that many voters will vote the same as for Plurality, for
>>> which a special form might be possible.
>> Yes, there is space for optimisati
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:24:48 +0300 Juho wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2006, at 7:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>
>>Note that many voters will vote the same as for Plurality, for
>>which a special form might be possible.
>
>
> Yes, there is space for optimisation. Storing plurality style votes
> as they
P.S. Works best with margins.
Juho
On Oct 15, 2006, at 13:24 , Juho wrote:
> On Oct 15, 2006, at 7:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Note that many voters will vote the same as for Plurality, for
>> which a special form might be possible.
>
> Yes, there is space for optimisation. Storing plurality
On Oct 15, 2006, at 7:02 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Note that many voters will vote the same as for Plurality, for
> which a special form might be possible.
Yes, there is space for optimisation. Storing plurality style votes
as they are should not be a big problem (for privacy in most cases).
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:13:12 +0300 Juho wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:30 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
Is it compatible with Condorcet? I remain a backer for Condorcet's
combining capability with tolerable complexity.
>>>
>>> I think yes, but unfortunately it is more difficult to serve
>>
On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:30 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> Is it compatible with Condorcet? I remain a backer for Condorcet's
>>> combining capability with tolerable complexity.
>> I think yes, but unfortunately it is more difficult to serve
>> Condorcet than e.g. plurality (one has to trade a bit wit
Adding a couple trivial notes:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:38:43 +0300 Juho wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:58 , David Cary wrote:
>
>
>>--- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ps, As to privacy, I read of video-camera phones. Their usage has
>>>to be tricky - can they verify a voter's a
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:28:18 +0300 Juho wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:15 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>
>>Is 3ballot worth the pain?
>
>
> I think Rivest proved the concept to work. He obviously also tried to
> make the method as usable as possible. Wether benefits are bigger
> than pain may dep
On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:58 , David Cary wrote:
> --- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ps, As to privacy, I read of video-camera phones. Their usage has
>> to be tricky - can they verify a voter's actual vote as such
> without
>> voting machine operation being set up compatible with such
On Oct 9, 2006, at 1:15 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Is 3ballot worth the pain?
I think Rivest proved the concept to work. He obviously also tried to
make the method as usable as possible. Wether benefits are bigger
than pain may depend on where the system is used. In countries with
no tradition
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:58:35 -0700 (PDT) David Cary wrote:
> --- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>ps, As to privacy, I read of video-camera phones. Their usage has
>>to be tricky - can they verify a voter's actual vote as such
>
> without
>
>>voting machine operation
--- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ps, As to privacy, I read of video-camera phones. Their usage has
> to be tricky - can they verify a voter's actual vote as such
without
> voting machine operation being set up compatible with such?
>
> ps, quoting: "I doubt there is a voting system
Validation takes a long list:
Easy to do valid setup.
Easy for voter to use.
Protects voter privacy. Conceded impossible if only one voter uses
the machine, but ballots can be stored in random order for normal usage.
Does accurate counting.
Hard to do anything simila
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Is it worth bothering with without demanding a TRUE voting machine for its
> installation? ABSOLUTELY NOT, for there are too many ways to falsify the
> counting!
>
> Given a TRUE voting machine, why add 3ballot? ZERO value in this effort.
What do you mea
Is 3ballot worth the pain?
Does it REALLY provide the claimed service?
Does it complicate the voters' lives?
Is it compatible with Condorcet? I remain a backer for Condorcet's
combining capability with tolerable complexity.
Is it worth bothering with without demanding a TRUE voting machine fo
--- Warren Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then still, your (KPY's) attack idea is still applicable even in
> just one
> race (if there are enough candidates, e.g. 135 in the CA governor
> Schwarzenegger race)
> and Rivest includes discussion of this attack in his (latest! but
> not his origi
To KPY:
I thought you had in mind, computer randomizes pattern and prints out the 3
ballot
plus 1 copy (it decides which).
That is a disaster since enables trivial vote buying using statistical effects.
If same, but YOU decide which to copy, then
the scheme still is vulnerable to statistical e
Warren Smith wds at math.temple.edu wrote:
> [The specified pattern] attack appears to be quite devastating to me.
> I personally regard Rivest's scheme as therefore dead or anyway on the critical list,
> for purpose of applying it to plurality voting. Rivest has a few lame attempts
> to res
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Warren Smith wrote:
> Somebody needs to waterboard Rivest until he sees the light, which
> is that his method works synergistically with range and approval voting.
> (I don't even think the WORDS "approval voting" even OCCUR in Rivest's
> paper, even the revised one, which shows
>Ka-Ping Yee:
I'm talking about "marking the ballot" by filling in bubbles, not
by scribbling on it. There may be enough down-ballot contests in
many elections (at least in the U. S.) that the vote-buyer could
instruct a voter to create a distinct pattern of filled bubbles in
down-ballot contests.
At 12:07 AM 10/2/2006, Jan Kok wrote:
>On 10/1/06, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This can be alleviated by putting different contests on different ballots.
>
>There is still the possibility of mischief if there are many
>candidates in a contest.
Very difficult. However, what ab
>>Warren Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A revolutionary new protocol called "3ballot" was introduced in September
2006 by MIT's Turing-award-winning cryptographer Ron Rivest.
You know, you said this, and I didn't even realize that Rivest was the R
in the RSA public key encryption algorithm. A very brig
On 10/1/06, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:49 PM 10/1/2006, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> >I'm talking about "marking the ballot" by filling in bubbles, not
> >by scribbling on it. There may be enough down-ballot contests in
> >many elections (at least in the U. S.) that the vote-bu
At 08:49 PM 10/1/2006, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>I'm talking about "marking the ballot" by filling in bubbles, not
>by scribbling on it. There may be enough down-ballot contests in
>many elections (at least in the U. S.) that the vote-buyer could
>instruct a voter to create a distinct pattern of filled
At 12:54 PM 10/1/2006, Brian Olson wrote:
>The down side is the strategy arguments about casting an honest ballot vs
>casting a ballot more likely to get you some of what you want. Straight
>ratings does not promote honest voting, but instead promotes saturating
>your ballot to the min and max of w
Hi, Warren, and thanks for your response.
> The > inconvenience might be the real killer obstacle here.--true..
> definitely a worry.
>
> --Australia makes rank ordering all candidates on all races,
> compulsory for every voter (and voting also is compulsory).
Good point. I hadn't thought of tha
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Warren Smith wrote:
>> B.Olson:
>> The down side is that since this directly accomplishes summation of the
>> ratings, per-ballot-rating methods such as IRNR and raking-derivation to
>> Borda or Condorcet/VRR are not possible [with 3ballot].
>
> --well, whether this is a "down
(I sent this yesterday morning, but unfortunately I cut and pasted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyway, it still seems on-topic.)
I read through "Rivest-TheThreeBallotVotingSystem.pdf," and I was
wondering one thing. It says:
To vote FOR a candidate, you must fill in exactly two
he laws"
www.wikocracy.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: election-methods@electorama.com
Sent: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] 3ballot - revolutionary new protocol for secure secret ballot elections
> Ka-
> Ka-Ping Yee
> discussion of 3ballot at http://usablesecurity.com/
RESPONSE BY Warren D Smith:
>How hard would it be to get voters to properly mark three ballots (or
a perforated ballot with three separable columns)? The instructions
are simple — mark one or two in each row — but it may not be s
>B.Olson:
>The down side is that since this directly accomplishes summation of the
>ratings, per-ballot-rating methods such as IRNR and raking-derivation to
>Borda or Condorcet/VRR are not possible [with 3ballot].
--well, whether this is a "down side" depends on your point of view.
I personally re
>M.Rouse:
>Very interesting method. Just a quick question. The article mentions that
>rank-order methods would be really tough to do. Wouldn't the method just
>be two votes with the correct rank-order and one with the reverse order?
--that is an interesting point. I had been imagining handling Co
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Warren Smith wrote:
> A revolutionary new protocol called "3ballot" was introduced in
> September 2006 by MIT's Turing-award-winning cryptographer Ron Rivest.
Intriguing! I participated in a discussion with several other
Berkeley students about it today, and posted some of my
I'm not sure about rankings, but Warren's extension to ratings is neat and
straightforward.
Rivest mentions that his three ballot checker machine would have to
enforce the single-vote plurality rules as an extra check that could just
be removed, losing nothing of the benefits of three-ballot.
Very interesting method. Just a quick question. The article mentions that
rank-order methods would be really tough to do. Wouldn't the method just
be two votes with the correct rank-order and one with the reverse order?
If you wanted A>B>C, you'd have two votes for that and one for C>B>A.
Borda wou
ful.
Raphfrk
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the laws"
www.wikocracy.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: election-methods@electorama.com
Sent: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] 3ballot - revolutionary new protocol for secur
Nevermind, google shall provide, this must be it:
http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-TheThreeBallotVotingSystem.pdf
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Sounds interesting, can you post a link to Rivest's original paper on
this? Or at least a Bibliographical entry on what journal it was published
in?
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
A revolutionary new protocol called "3ballot" was introduced in September 2006
by MIT's Turing-award-winning cryptographer Ron Rivest. It accomplishes the
seemingly incompatible goals of
1. Each voter's vote is secret, preventing vote-selling and coercion.
2. Each voter can verify that his vote
41 matches
Mail list logo
