Re: "dumb scanners"

From: Marc Baber <marc_at_botworks_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 07 2006 - 12:50:37 CST


Thank you for keeping the two aspects of my proposal separate and for
taking time to formulate a workable solution that uses the dumb scanner
idea in a scenario where ballot secrecy is 100% preserved and vote
selling is eliminated. I think different places will want to make
different trade-offs, so I'm somewhat flexible about how each part of my
proposal gets used (or not) in different places, as long as the election
system as a whole has strong integrity and the scenario you describe is
one such good plan given the requirements choices you've outlined. Good

Personally, I'd be sorry to lose the possibility of ranked voting, but I
don't see a way to break up ballots into pieces, as you suggest, and
still keep it. I suppose one could keep the ranking columns together as
a unit, but that could (especially in Calif Gov. Recall race with 130
rankable candidates) give voters a way of encoding the tail end of the
rank choices as a "signature" for vote-buying purposes. Perhaps, if the
IRV was limited to top-3 or top-5 choices the risk would be acceptable?

Best regards,

Marc Baber

charlie strauss wrote:
> Al large part of our discussion comes down to just this:
> Should we be dismissive of the secret ballot?
> You would argue yes while other's like me hold it sacrosanct.
Fair enough. I don't like being characterizes as "dismissive". I would
prefer to say that I think 100% verifiability trumps 100% secrecy, but
that's mainly rhetorical.

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:08 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST