Re: NPR Show on e-voting, Raba report

From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Wed Feb 11 2004 - 17:05:48 CST

Alan,

I sent a reply to this list. Did you not rfeceive it?

David

--- Alan Dechert <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:
> Jan,
>
> > My answer has been no, primarily because of the security
> problems. But
> > even if those can be solved, I have said that it would be
> unlikely - at
> > least if it means remote unattended internet voting. ...
> >
> Quite right.
>
> > The primary reason would be that this could make it possible
> for
> > a voter to prove to someone else how the votes have been
> cast. ....
> >
> I believe there are several reasons remote unattended Internet
> voting will
> never work (or never work very well) even if the software
> issues are
> solved..
>
> The possibility of proving the vote to someone else is
> certainly one of
> them. However, absentee ballots have the same problem--and
> they're widely
> used. One thing widely demonstrated here in the U.S. of A is
> that just
> because some procedure in the voting system is incredibly bad,
> it doesn't
> mean it won't be done that way. The more that
> scientific-minded people look
> at the system, the more amazing the voting system
> appears--amazingly arcane,
> idiosyncratic, quirky, goofy, and just plain bad. I was
> talking with Matt
> Bishop today (UC Davis CS Prof and one of the authors of the
> Raba report).
> He has delved deeply into the voting system in recent years
> and is amazed at
> one thing he has NOT found: Namely, S-C-I-E-N-C-E. This is
> what we are
> proposing to do. We are proposing a large-scale scientific
> investigation of
> all these issues. Nothing like this has ever been done. A
> lot of people
> got the impression that Caltech/MIT folks were going to do
> that but it
> really didn't happen. They wrote a few reports--some more
> useful than
> others.
>
> Back to remote unattended Internet voting ... there is another
> serious
> problem I see: You will never be able to identify the voter.
> How do you
> know the husband is not casting his wife's ballot too? This
> voting model
> would be highly susceptible to coersion. That is, this model
> would
> faciliate a dominant head of household--or even an
> employer--that wants to
> control the votes of others.
>
> Remote *ATTENDED* Internet Voting would not have all the
> advantages of
> unattended voting, but it could at least solve the problem of
> knowing the
> voter. I don't believe that unattended voting is worth
> studying, but
> attended Internet voting might be worth studying in some
> detail--especially
> a system that produces a paper ballot besides the electronic
> ballot image.
>
> David Jefferson one of the main experts in this field, and
> maybe he could
> give us a little summary. David, are you there?
>
> --Alan D.
>
> > Implications of this may be:
> >
> > * It can create a market for politically uninterested
> people to sell
> > their votes.
> >
> > * It opens up for pressures and threats: "Vote for me as
> Dog Catcher,
> > or you'll get your knee caps broken!"
> >
> > From what I have read about the problems with internet
> voting, it only
> > concerns the usual security problems, and not the ones I
> mentioned above.
> > It would be interesting to hear the view of Douglas Jones,
> or other voting
> > experts, about this.
> >
> > /Jan
> >
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Feb 29 23:17:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 29 2004 - 23:17:02 CST