On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:29:55PM -0800, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> >option of paying you $20 for your verifiable vote receipt. Or
> >threatening you if you don't get a receipt and give it to them.
>
> Actually, there's a trivial way to avoid the problem of 'coerced
> ballots', even with plaintex
On Nov 14, 2003, at 1:55 PM, David GLAUDE wrote:
I think that before any electronic system get introduced, you need to
carefull set the goal and define what democratic election are.
I actually think that this is an excellent point.We may disagree
about how easy a technical solution is, but I
Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
There's also something to be said for not over-optimizing for the corner
cases. At least in the vast majority of precincts in the U.S., active
coercion is quite rare. We should design to avoid the most common
problems, as long as there was some way to address the edge
Ken Johnson wrote:
Okay, I see your point. If means exist for verifying my particular vote
then vote buying or coersion becomes possible.
Obvious but clearly stated (better than all my attempt).
Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be for the voting machine to
generate printed ballots
Paper a
On Nov 14, 2003, at 12:24 PM, Ken Johnson wrote:
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:43:18 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you have the option of verifying your ballot, then someone has the
option of paying you $20 for your verifiable vote receipt. Or
threatening you if you don't get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:43:18 -0500
From: Rob Speer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Re: touch screen voting machines
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
If you have the option of verifying your ballot, then someone has the
option of
