Re: Brand new concept in audit trails

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 16:25:12 CDT

On May 4, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Jim March wrote:

> Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
>>> I'd like to hear from privacy experts about the merits or demerits
>>> of publishing individual votes (identified only by precinct and
>>> ballot type, and perhaps by voting machine). I know that this is an
>>> issue that Kelly raised on Sunday's OVC tech (not tek, please)
>>> meeting.
>> It's already an issue for members of the smaller parties. Often there
>> is only one Peace & Freedom or Green Party voter in a precinct.
>> Party affiliation is public record. If primary results are published
>> by precinct, you could tell how the person voted because it's the
>> only ballot of that type cast at that precinct. In a general
>> election,
>> you could make an educated guess and be right most of the time.
>> Cameron
> Hmmmm. Yeah, but we already make the votes-by-precinct a public
> record so we're not having any effect on that issue.

One of our procedures should require them to be posted behind glass at
each precinct, as well as on the 'net.

> I would argue that the privacy rights of the minority party folks
> don't outweight the public's right to fair elections with oversight.

I have a big problem with that. The election is not fair if its conduct
disadvantages some participants because of their party membership or
choice of candidates. This is particularly so when it disadvantages
small parties and little-known candidates. We hardly need to give the
major parties more power.

Unfortunately, I think transparency and fairness pull in opposite
directions here, and fairness must prevail.


OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT