[E-voting] details about ClearVoting

Colm MacCarthaigh colm at stdlib.net
Fri Aug 31 22:01:34 IST 2007


On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:13:36PM +0200, emanuele lombardi wrote:
> I'm still against electronic voting, but I'm afraid that electronics will
> enter voting more and more despite our talks (1.5 Million French voted
> electronically, last May). So my aim is to propose vendors a technological
> system that preserve as much popular control over elections as possible. 

You are contradicting yourself! How can you be against it while
proposing it?

> I'm sure you'd prefer to vote using my system than Nedap's, Diebold's,
> Sequoia's or any other on the market today (and tomorrow, as Claude just
> told us)!

We defeated Nedap's system. We have paper voting. I would not prefer
your system to paper. "This is less stupid than a range of even stupider
things, but still not as clever as what we stated with" is a plainly
ridiculous thing to propose.

> 3) VVBP are the only legitimate vote and they are printed in plain human
> language. Their count (if any) must be manual (and public, of course!)

It's the "if any" part that renders your system useless. The VVPB *must*
be counted, the software cannot be trusted. Nothing in your proposal
changes that.

> Colm: VVBP are human-readable thus they must be counted and not scanned.

There's nothing saying you can't do both.

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net



More information about the E-voting mailing list