[E-voting] alternative e-voting systems

Dr J Pelan J.Pelan at gatsby.ucl.ac.uk
Thu Mar 4 13:34:07 GMT 2004


On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Michael McMahon wrote:

> 10% checking could mean a 90% chance of getting away with fraud (in one
> particular election)

No. You sample the votes with various degrees of statistical confidence.

IMHO, the main problem is that 'e-voting' is an answer looking for a
question (or, in other words, it's machine vendors looking for buyers and
politicians trying to look progressive with a grand project).

If our existing system is in some way deficient, you identify the problems
and look for suitable solutions, which may or may not be 'e-voting'. You
fairly assess all the solutions, including maintaining the status quo.  
Whatever you do should not compromise confidentiality, accuracy,
transparency nor undermine the confidence of the electorate.

AFAICT, we are being told that unintentionally spoiled votes are the main
issue. The proposed system is an over-engineered answer to that and also
compromises accuracy and transparency to boot. 

--
John P.





More information about the E-voting mailing list