[E-voting] Commission on Electronic Voting

David GLAUDE dglaude at gmx.net
Thu Mar 11 22:10:56 GMT 2004

Fergal Daly wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:47:51PM +0000, Dr J Pelan wrote:
>>Agreed. Make very, very few points but make them very, very well.
>>Don't worry about the side-issues. Look after the voter-verified, paper
>>audit trail and the side-issues will take care of themselves.
> So rather than focussing on how VVAT is an acceptable solution, we need to
> focus on how no-VVAT is not not acceptable. These are not quite the same.
> For example givng a detailed description of some particular VVAT system
> would be pointless. Talking about other types of critical systems and how
> they are made robust and the fact that these techniques have not been used
> (and cannot be used) for voting machines is pointful.

Just make sure you explain that VVAT is possible without breaking the 
secrecy of the vote or other show stopper.

Because if they believe VVAT is not acceptable for other reason, they 
might prefere no-VVAT.


Don't let computer expert control election...
Endorse: http://www.free-project.org/resolution/
For Belgium: http://www.poureva.be/

More information about the E-voting mailing list