[E-voting] details about ClearVoting

Louise Ferguson louise.ferguson at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 13:44:00 IST 2007

> Any election system that--
> --increases the number of attack vectors
> --or decreases the chances of discovery of errors (whether accidental,
> deliberate, or due to incompetence)
> --or increases the number of votes that could be affected by a
> successful exploit
> --or makes the voter do extra steps (e.g. verify a ballot)
> --is a bad idea IMO.
> I didn't think of these things as necessarily being big problems in the
> past.  I've changed my mind as I have kept up with new information
> coming to light in the USA and other research.

And then of course there are other considerations, such as the expense.
In 2007 pilots in the UK, some figures have been produced, which suggest
that some 'modernised' channels are costing in excess of GBP400 per vote
cast. That is plainly a ludicrous amount of be spending, and way and above
old-style per capita cost. And it's around half of the total annual local
authority tax (council tax) paid by the average citizen here.

There are so many *surveys* run by various stakeholders, which ask people
whether they *would like* the new channels. Many people say yes. What's not
to like, if you know nothing about them? Maybe a better question might be
'are you prepared to pay an extra GBP400 in tax (or even GBP50) so that you
can vote remotely/by internet/by phone/etc.' I reckon the responses might be
a little different.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stdlib.net/pipermail/e-voting/attachments/20070830/261afc=

More information about the E-voting mailing list