[E-voting] M.I.T. strategy for internet voting, early voting, voting my mail & voting centers

Craig Burton caburt at alphalink.com.au
Wed Aug 30 04:48:47 IST 2006


Catherine,
This isn't entirely pertinent to Ireland, so if you want to reply off 
list I'll post back if anyone is interested.

I'll think you'll find ACCURATE is Rubin et al, the people who took down 
Accenture/SERVE, they are also in support of PVVAT and the grant was 
funded by the NSF, (actually not much funding compared to HAVA: 7m over 
three years for three universities).

If you see no promise in this approach I think you might be advocating 
the US stays entirely with paper, including remote email/FAX UOCAVA 
votes, provisional voting, early voting, postal voting, disabled 
person's assisted paper voting, and this will run off of paper 
registers?  If not, perhaps if you could explain how it can continue to 
scale accurately with an increasingly "time-poor", mobile population who 
also happen to be breeding up.

Best,
Craig.


Catherine Ansbro wrote:
> [posted by JoAnne Karasek at 
> http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=8&post=27654#POST27654] 
>
>
> *M.I.T. strategy for internet voting, early voting, voting my mail & 
> voting centers*
>
> My review of --
>
> "Controlling Democracy"
> The Principal Agent Problems in Election Administration
> by Michael R. Alvarez and Thad E. Hall
> http://vote.caltech.edu/journals/PSJ-revised-6-20-06.pdf
>
> This article from the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project is a 
> shameful discredit to MIT/Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 
> Note--they neither put the authors or Caltech/MIT's name on it.
>
> No joke--they are now recommending trying internet voting, which was 
> completely discredited a few years back! [p.28] The voting public 
> already knows that is a stupid idea. They also are recommending trying 
> voting by mail and early voting, which those who understand voting 
> security oppose because there are so many opportunities for 
> error/fraud without public supervision of even the chain of custody. 
> Since they don't understand voting security, why are they posing as 
> authorities on the subject!
>
> Further, they recommend trying vote centers (high population precincts 
> inaccessible to large numbers of voters, especially those who are 
> minorities and not well-to-do), which involve a voting security 
> problem due to the enormous number of people and confusion involved, 
> as well as the voting inaccessibility problem.
>
> Internet voting is proposed by them, even though they acknowledge 
> there is a potential for fraud, which they ignore by writing, "the 
> odds of these security threats occurring are unknown and it is unclear 
> whether these threats are more significant than those facing voting 
> methods currently used." [p25] Since they don't know the odds of the 
> security threats occurring (it probably is 100%) and they don't know 
> whether these threats are more significant, why the _ _ _ _ are they 
> recommending it!
>
> So why the _ _ _ _ are they recommending it! They are considering the 
> problems of election administrators! Never mind the voters--they think 
> it is the election administrators that are to be served! The voters 
> are just the suckers who pay for all this loss of their vote. 
> Caltech/MIT just doesn't want to get it that the election 
> administrators are to serve the voters. It appears what Caltech/MIT 
> WANTS IS TO MAKE MONEY ON THE ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES.
>
> They should solve the election administrators' problems by getting 
> them poll workers (by giving them reasonable shifts of 1 of 3 shifts 
> in the voting day, paying poll workers enough to attract them, having 
> an election holiday so that public workers and others are available to 
> help at the polls, making high school students 16 years and up 
> eligible to be poll workers.) They should throw out the overwhelmingly 
> expensive electronic voting machines (that are machines so they break 
> down, they have software so they are misprogrammed, and software has 
> glitches--we don't even have to discuss fraud to know that the 
> electronic voting machines should go.)
>
> They aptly name this article "Controlling Democracy". Had they started 
> it with a name such as Promoting Democracy or Improving Democracy, 
> they might have had a chance of getting it right.
>
> (I reported this all to M.I.T.--it makes them look terrible!)
>
> Jo Anne
>
> Questions--
>
> Why is M.I.T. off the wall on voting issues?
>
> Is M.I.T. cooperating with Republican operatives to push internet 
> voting, early voting, voting by mail and voting centers?
>
> J
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> E-voting mailing list
> E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
> http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
>
>



More information about the E-voting mailing list