[E-voting] Terms of Reference ("TOR")

Michael McMahon michael at hexmedia.com
Sat Mar 13 11:03:42 GMT 2004

I doubt that the secretariat have the power to exclude
any serious submissions (as opposed to filtering out spam from
their published email address). If they did do that, it would
only diminish the credibility of the commission, and make them
irrelevant ultimately, because the Courts can't exclude arguments
on such an arbitrary basis, and the issue may end up in the courts anyway.

I think the purpose of the slighty restricted TOR is an attempt
to separate the issues of accuracy and secrecy from trustability & 
in order to encourage a recommendation along the lines of  "more testing
of the system, but that it's not necessary to change the system itself"

If you make a decent argument, that accuracy (and to a lesser extent 
depends completely on verifiability and trust then logically at least, they
have to accept the argument, even it superficially conflicts with the TOR.


Fergus O'Rourke wrote:

>I have a very bad feeling about the Commission's TOR.
>ISTM that they were drawn carefully to enable the secretariat to exclude the
>vast majority of submissions.
>To me, the lack of VVAT is not really an accuracy or secrecy issue.
>Submissions which fail to link to those issues will *not even be seen* by
>the members of the commission. Adrian Colley's draft, useful though it is
>other purposes, is in this category IMO.
>I am not saying that this is fatal to the possibility of useful input, but
>it does put a premium on clear thinking regarding the issues.
>E-voting mailing list
>E-voting at lists.stdlib.net

More information about the E-voting mailing list