[E-voting] Summary of meeting

[Catherine Ansbro]

The ideal solution would be to let them think that they came up with the 
solution.   That is how they will save face.

We can drop lots of strategic hints (e.g., look what Ohio has just 
decided), point the right civil servants in strategic direction, etc.  
(And also point them in the direction of technical solutions to the 
current Optiscan technical problems so they can be avoided.  Avoiding 
the pitfalls of other countries will truly demonstrate that we are clever.)

I completely agree with Aengus's point re: first, define the problem(s) 
to be solved.  This is the first step that must occur.

Catherine



Dave Madden wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 11:56:50AM +0000, Cian wrote:
>  
>
>>Hm. My thoughts about this lead me to the conclusion that coming up with a
>>precise description - technology, policies, procedures and all - is not really
>>our job; all we can realistically do is point out what is wrong with the current
>>system and why it can't be trusted as well as the one it is replacing.
>>    
>>
>
>Regardless of the technical justification, I think we should be very
>careful about specifying an exact technical solution. (There's a reason
>why politicians are often evasive.) If we were to do so, we'd have to do
>so with great care and with the commitment of considerable time and
>effort (and possibly money).
>
>My own view is and has for a long time been that OptScan is the best way
>to go. DRE+VVAT has serious challenges ahead of it. Not to be at all
>critical of the three people who met the Minister, but reading the
>write-up on the list, I did find myself thinking "Yeah, I was never
>satisfied about that either".
>
>  
>
>>It is up to engineers and security/elections/policy people to figure out
>>    
>>
>
>As someone else pointed out, it would be great if ICTE could endorse
>proposals/specifications put forward by others.
>
>  
>
>>Am I being unreasonable here?
>>    
>>
>
>No, but reasonableness isn't necessarily what wins elections. 
>
>If our objective is to change policy rather than just feel good, we need
>to find a politically acceptable way out for the Government. Adding VVAT
>to the current system would meet that test, though it mightn't be
>technically viable. (I don't know.)
>
>OptScan's my prefered technical solution, but how can we give the
>Government a way to accept it? Politics isn't fair or reasonable - it is
>very unlikely that the Government will say "Sorry, we were wrong". The
>concept of a sunk cost isn't an easy sell, even if they say "We don't
>want to through good money after bad". If they back down, they will be
>massively criticised by the Opposition for having wasted money. Such
>criticism can currently be disputed ("The system's fine!") but could not
>be disputed if the project were publicly abandoned.
>
>As well as a way out, we need to motivate them to take it. I can't think
>of any carrot or stick that's likely to work, especially as people's
>views are usually just reinforced when they're criticised.
>
>We should also consider the next Government. If the current Opposition
>gets in, we should have gotten them to commit to our proposals
>clearly, publicly, repeatedly and _in advance_. A 10 second clip in 
>the Dail from Rabbitt or Kenny saying "I will scrap the current Evoting
>system" would be about right!
>
>Dave
>
>(PS I'm a member of the PDs.)
>
>_______________________________________________
>E-voting mailing list
>E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
>http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
>http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
>
>
>  
>