[E-voting] The VVAT Debate - Technical or Not ?

Adrian Colley aecolley at spamcop.net
Mon Mar 8 21:52:04 GMT 2004

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:49:28PM +0000, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> personally I think a 100% verification is workable. It would not be
> urgent, and take place over a month, the likelyhood of an error (with

s/month/few hours/

No, really.  OCR, a modified post-office sorting machine, and a few
volunteers and you'll quickly have a hand-verified set of piles of
counted votes which unambiguously indicate the set of elected
candidates (or, in the case of random distribution, the set of all
possible sets of elected candidates).  If you were starting with
zero knowledge of the ballots, it would take longer, but if you're
verifying the electronic result, you already know the right sort

Without the sorting machine, it would take longer by maybe another
couple of hours, because the ballots would have to be manually
sorted instead of automatically.  This would be no slower than a
first-round in an all-paper count.  But then you'd be done without
having to resort to further rounds.

If we spread it out for too long, there would be a risk of tampering
with the ballots, so it's best to get the count over with before
everyone has to go home and sleep.


GPG 0x43D3AD19 17D2 CA6E A18E 1177 A361  C14C 29DB BA4B 43D3 AD19

More information about the E-voting mailing list