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).
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 style
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 are should
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 optimisation.
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 form might be
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 with
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 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 depend on
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 actual vote as
--- 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 in
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
--- 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 original!)
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
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
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 bright
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 about
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.
---
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the 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 - revolutiona
(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
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 side
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 that.
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
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-buyer could
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
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
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 regard
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 so
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
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
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
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 secure secret ballot election
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.
32 matches
Mail list logo
