[E-voting] Clear Thinking (was: Re Meeting)

[Fergus O'Rourke]

Aengus wrote

> Actually, I think you've skipped the most important first step - "define
> the problem".
>
> What problem is e-voting supposed to solve? If we knew what the
> Government was really trying to achieve with the introduction of
> e-voting (indeed, if the Government really knew what it was trying to
> achieve), then the correct approach might be more obvious. [snip]

Hear, hear.

On the same line, what is ICTE trying to achieve ? Is it:

1. To sabotage any and all e-voting proposals (EVPs); or

2. To ensure that its own EVP prevails; or

3. To discuss the possibilities ad nauseam; or

4. To get the government out of a hole; or

5. To participate in the government's preparation of a new EVP in accordance
with proper standards; or

6. To insist that any EVP meets reasonable criteria ?

For myself, it seems obvious that the first three are out (OUT, OUT, OUT in
fact !) and I am not too keen on 4 and 5, though I see their attractions and
would have no problem at all with individuals who wanted to go that way.

Despite our name, I prefer a narrow focus on 6 which, I accept, requires us
to seem more negative than we'd like to be. For the latter reason, I am
prepared to countenance - I know that comes as a relief to many of you - the
group at least exploring the option 4 and/or 5 route. Also, as a citizen and
taxpayer, I'd love to see some value being obtained for our EUR 100
million - it will be the correct figure soon if it isn't already - and for
the attention invested.

My current position is that I *am* in favour of e-voting if it is
technically possible - unfortunately all that I have learnt since we began
tends to show that it is *not* possible without doing violence to democratic
values.

Ministers' stories of the defects of the paper-based traditional system have
horrified me: none of those defects require an "e-solution" (if there was
one, which there isn't, yet).