[E-voting] Minimum requirement to juge voting "technology"

[Timothy Murphy]

On Friday 10 September 2004 12:49, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:

> > In my view, a paper trail should be available
> > for cases where there is a reasonable doubt about the outcome,
> > in much the same way that a recount is available now.
>
> What is a reasonable doubt? Who arbitrates? How do you prevent
> nuisance abusers?

I think the electoral officer should decide in the first place,
as I assume he/she does now,
with an appeal to a court available as a last resort.

Many of the fears on this mailing list seem to me fanciful in the extreme,
verging on paranoia.
In this real world one can only protect against resaonably likely dangers.

Also, the major motivation should be to maximise 
the number of people who vote.
Personally, I don't think the secrecy of the vote
is as important as people on this list seem to think.
I don't mind telling anyone who wants to know how I voted,
and I think that is how the vast majority of people think.

I don't think anyone is going to go to inordinate trouble
to find out how individuals voted.
A political party would have much better ways
of spending their money and time.

It is of course vitally important that people should feel confident
that the vote is conducted in a proper manner
without any fraudulence or error.
That is why I would support VVAT.


-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland