Re: An attempt to sneak Internet voting in via the back door?

From: compodinamic <contact_at_compodinamic_dot_it>
Date: Fri Jun 19 2009 - 01:44:27 CDT

The voting system that will be established throughout the world as a
normal election, it will be just what use Internet safely. in practice
certified mail. This is the system I'm studying. All the objections that you
made are valid but are now already outdated by the innovative methods that
are being studied both by me and by others . The U.S.A seems to be short
of ideas.
Cascella - Italy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Keller" <voting@kellers.org>
To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Cc: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] An attempt to sneak Internet voting in via the
back door?

> At 3:41 PM -0700 6/18/09, Edward Cherlin wrote:
>>On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Arthur Keller <voting@kellers.org>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Military Voting USING the Internet is a great idea. But I'm
>>> opposed to Military Voting VIA the Internet. What's difference, you
>>> say? I think it is reasonable for a military, overseas, or other remote
>>> voter to go to an Internet website, type in information about the
>>> jurisdiction of the voter, be shown a ballot where the voter enters
>>> his/her selections. The system would download a PDF file, which would
>>> be printed, sealed in an a "universal vote-by-mail envelope," where the
>>> appropriate affirmations and identification and voter's signature was
>>> affixed,
>>
>>That's one option. What's the difference? Why not allow military
>>ballots to be printed in the US, by the military at a military
>>facility, with secure data transmission via MILNET? This does not have
>>any of the security issues of voting over the open Internet.
>
> Because your approach does not have the voter's signature on the outside
> of the ballot, that's why. My approach does, and that makes all the
> difference. The voter seals the ballot in the envelope with a signature,
> and no one sees it until it arrives at County Central, where officials
> determine whether to count it before they open the ballot envelope.
>
>>If your option were to be used, I would like to see the information
>>printed on the envelope at the time of voting, all except the
>>signatures. I would like the military to be required to get and verify
>>the signatures, and not permit invalid envelopes to go through.
>
> The signatures are supposed to match the registration form, to which it is
> unreasonable for military officials to have access. You must not take
> acceptance of the ballot away from the local election officials for any
> group of voters, however worthy.
>
>> > and then the ballot and envelope could be mailed or otherwise
>> delivered to the local jurisdiction for counting. The ballot would be
>> handled the way provisional ballots are handled, safely and securely.
>>
>>It is widely known that mail services in some countries where the
>>military is deployed are utterly unreliable. If you mean using
>>military mail, maybe.
>
>
>
>> > These universal vote-by-mail envelopes would be widely available, and
>> the voter would write the jurisdiction's address on the envelope, and the
>> website that chooses the correct jurisdiction's ballot could give the
>> address information to the voter.
>>
>>Please print the information on the envelope. Anything to reduce human
>>error in voting is a plus. Currently about half of military absentee
>>ballots are reportedly rejected.
>
> That could be done but it not required. Not everyone has a printer with
> the capability of printing envelopes. Besides the online vote printer
> shouldn't know the identity of the voter either, but merely the voter's
> jurisdiction, for voter privacy.
>
>> > Military bases and US embassies could accept ballots up to the time
>> the *first* polling places close in the US, and the ballots could be
>> considered on time even if received at the local jurisdiction later (but
>> within, say, 7 days of the election). These acceptance locations might
>> or might not be required to check ID.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Because the ballots could be mailed to County Central by depositing it in
> mailbox and having the identity checked.
>
>> > In any event, it is the local jurisdiction that verifies the voters
>> identity including signature.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>> > Arthur
>
> Best regards,
> Arthur
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Experienced advisor to leading edge startups and
> accomplished expert witness on patent infringement cases.
>
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release
> the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of
> copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly
> archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
>

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Jun 30 23:17:04 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 23:17:20 CDT