[E-voting] UK govt circular mentions open-source e-voting

Marian Beddill beddill at nas.com
Sun Jul 24 21:26:43 IST 2005

I am of course not privy to the corporate plans of the company, just what 
we see, even though they are only 90-miles from me, and I once visited 
their shop with a civic group (LWV).

But my reference to a change is very recent - 4-months or so. They have 
long been intensely opposed to VVPB as something that undercuts their 
essential product, online verification of even online votes.  But you are 
likely right, that since "...some State laws have been written, VVPB is 
non-negotiable, and as a commercial concern they have to live with that....".

Without detailing, I have observed that their concentration has been on 
encryption, and poor on marketing.


At 7/24/2005  12:48 AM, you wrote:

>Marian Beddill wrote:
>>The previously proposed "VoteHere" system does not meet that criteria, 
>>because even if there are two tracks, both are electronic, and need a 
>>machine interface to read them, thus there is opportunity for error or 
>>fiddling in both tracks.  Anyway, I hear that VoteHere may have parked or 
>>downplayed their encryption online voting verification system. At least, 
>>they are now pushing a system that track ballots, not votes.
>Hi Marian,
>VoteHere did originally talk about a different system. Maybe that is the 
>one you refer to.
>The one I am talking about it is described  (currently) on their website.
>It is also a system with encrypted printed receipts, which can be verified 
>by different channels including telephone, and Web. The impression I get 
>from the
>docs, and from discussing some details of it with one of their engineers, 
>is that this
>system is still under development. If you are referring to the same system 
>then I'd
>be interested to get more details of the flaws. Do you have any more 
>I'm surprised they are pushing a system that tracks (paper?) ballots.
>At the link below, they have some unflattering things to say about VVPB.
>However, it does seem to be specifically aimed at postal ballots, so maybe 
>that is
>a slightly different scenario. Perhaps also, the way some State laws have 
>been written,
>VVPB is non-negotiable, and as a commercial concern they have to live with 
>Maybe they should update the FAQ though :)

More information about the E-voting mailing list