Re: Critical analysis of VoteHere

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 21:11:37 CST


> I get the feeling that we are looking for reasons to dislike
> it, instead of looking at the contribution it makes.
Personally, I'm not much interested in VoteHere. We have two main things
we're pursuing with the voting-project list.

1) Demo software development for the OVC system

2) Production software development for the OVC system.

VoteHere technology has absolutely nothing to do with our demo software.
This is of immediate concern since we are trying to get something ready for
early January. I don't want to go off on to tangents, or other things that
distract from this goal (I realize you didn't bring it up. charlie did!)

Secondly, it has very very little to do with our production system. It is a
different system. It has pros and cons for sure. But the OVC is largely
about how to deliver our voting technology to election boards. This has
nothing to do with specifics about VoteHere technology.

Our system is very simple: You go to the computer and print your ballot.
If it's the way you want it, you take it to the ballot box and put it in. I
rate VoteHere somewhere along with Chaum's proposal. Would your Aunt Edna
take comfort regarding "the production of a formal, cryptographic-based,
mathematical proof that no ballots have been lost, forged, or added
incorrectly, a concept that has no analog in the paper world."? The Uber
Geek Society might do well with this system for voting for officers. I
don't think it meets the Aunt Edna test for public elections.

VoteHere is trying to sell their own system. If they make some sales,
that's fine with me. It just doesn't have anything to do with the Open
Voting Consortium.

Alan D.

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:17:15 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:19 CST