Re: MORE Questions from election officials

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 01:49:16 CDT

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 02:35, David Mertz wrote:
> No, no, no! See above. Ballot, yes. Receipt, no.
>
> But it's possible you're thinking of something like the Chaum method.
> It's cryptographically OK, but way too complicated for real life voters
> to ever understand or trust.
>

Just briefly reviewed the "Chaum" method, what I am thinking of appears
to be along those lines. What I see/hear as being important is for any
voter, at any time, to be able to pull out a stub from their ballot,
enter a code printed on that ballot (hopefully at any internet-browser
pointing at that particular elections web-site), and be able to review
their voting record. Doesn't require that each vote be recorded on the
"receipt". More of a thought that the receipt is actually just a pointer
to their actual voting results for that particular election? does that
make sense? or am I further behind the magic 8-ball than I feared?..

James

> > Thus paper recount will become the default method of vote counting,
> > mitigated only by the high cost of
> > such recounts. If this is to be the case, why use voting machines in
> > the first place?"
>
> More sophistry. The answers are obvious (and well documented in OVC
> materials): Increase voter-intent accuracy; enable disabled
> accessibility; allow multi-lingual voting; provide redundant checks of
> integrity; etc.
>
> Yours, David..
>

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT