Re: MORE Questions from election officials

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 02:27:26 CDT

On May 4, 2004, at 3:19 AM, james_in_denver wrote:
> In the US, coercion is not likely a substantial portion of the voting
> populace (at least not yet, I hope), however in other situations that
> is
> a thought I had not taken into consideration.

The men-with-guns is an extreme example to make a point.

For a lesser kind of coercion that we still want to prevent, think
about overbearing family members who would "really appreciate it if you
vote for X." Sure, you won't get shot... but you shouldn't even be
emotionally intimidated, after the fact, to prove/reveal your vote.
This threat effects a -substantial- portion of US voting.

While I don't advocate it for OVC, do consider the pseudo-Chaum
technique I described. In the real Chaum system, you actually can
prove mathematically that your vote is part of the aggregate... but
without being able to reveal the specific content of your vote outside
the polling place. Math can do funny things.

But like I said, I think the Chaum thing is too-complicated-by-half.
Ph.D. mathematicians can understand why it works, but no one else can.
So it reduces to "just trust us"... something we've heard plenty of
from proprietary DRE vendors.
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:09 2004

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