[E-voting] Letter to the new minister

[Ryan Meade]

Given that we are not going to convince anyone of our case in one letter, I think we need to rephrase this letter a little to emphasise the request for a meeting.  The structure I would suggest is:

1) Request for meeting
2) Who we are
3) Summary of our position
4) Restate request for meeting

I don't think it helps to be too dogmatic in this letter.  This just means that instead of stating that the system "can never satisfy the fundamental and constitutional requirements of a secure, secret and accurate democracy", that we say "we hope to explain why the system can never satisfy the fundamental and constitutional requirements of a secure, secret and accurate democracy."

I'll wait to hear if anyone agrees with me before suggesting any specific text.

Ryan


----- Original Message -----
From: Fergal Daly <fergal at esatclear.ie>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:22:10 +0100
To: Colm MacCarthaigh <colm at stdlib.net>
Subject: Re: [E-voting] Letter to the new minister

> The "reach a common understanding" sentence seems a bit odd, like we see
> ourselves as equal partners, which might be a bit much. How about offering
> our assistance. I can't think of a good way of saying it though,
> 
> F
> 
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 07:33:25PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 07:14:23PM +0100, Adrian Colley wrote:
> > > Anything can be rationally disputed.  How about "rationally rejected"?
> > 
> > I've updated the pdf with all of the modifications, so here's a second
> > draft:
> > 
> > Further to my previous letters to your predecessor, my letter to
> > yourself (as Minister for something) of February twenty-third and again
> > on behalf of Irish Citizens for Trustworthy Evoting, I request a meeting
> > with yourself, or high-level representatives from within the department,
> > at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to reach a common
> > understanding of the future direction of Evoting in Ireland.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, as far as ICTE are aware, it remains the case that funds,
> > time and other resources are being spent on evaluating the previously
> > chosen Evoting system; a system that still does not include a Voter
> > Verified Audit Trail (VVAT) and thus can never satisfy the fundamental
> > and constitutional requirements of a secure, secret and accurate
> > democracy.
> > 
> > ICTE are not opposed to Evoting, or the undoubtable accessibility
> > benefits it has the potential to offer, and are are keen to see a
> > trustworthy voting system in place. As made clear on page 23 of the
> > Commission on Electronic Voting's Interim Report and in the overwhelming
> > majority of submissions made to the Commission, the need for a VVAT
> > cannot be rationally rejected.
> > 
> > In particular, the absense of a VVAT in any voting system significantly
> > raises the costs of testing and implementation, yet nevertheless results
> > in a system that simply cannot be regarded as trustworthy due to the
> > practical impossibility of verifying the accuracy of vote recording.
> > 
> > As such, ICTE respectfully request that you insist that any voting
> > system to be implemented in Ireland include a Voter Verified Audit
> > Trail.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Colm MacC?rthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > E-voting mailing list
> > E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> > http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
> > http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> E-voting mailing list
> E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
> http://evoting.cs.may.ie/