[E-voting] Re: a new voting system
kiniry at acm.org
Wed May 23 15:03:04 IST 2007
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Colm MacCarthaigh <colm at stdlib.net> wrote:
> Subject: Re: [E-voting] Re: Re: a new voting system
> To: Timothy Murphy <tim at birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie>
> Cc: e-voting at lists.stdlib.net
> Message-ID: <20070518144256.GA12510 at infiltrator.gizzard.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:24:49PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>> This is fundamentally incompatible with the laws of physics.
>>> components are simply too small and operate at too quick a time-
>>> for any level of surity.
>> That's a bit sweeping, surely
>> (as also is ClearSoftware's claim).
>> I don't see what the size of electronic components has to do with it.
> It has everything to do with it, it's basically the only reason why
> trustworthy electronic voting is unimplementable, it is incapable of
> human-level review.
> Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm
> +pgp at stdlib.net
Colm, I strongly disagree with this assertion, as do many expert
computer scientists and cryptographers, if I am interpreting your
statements correctly---by "trustworthy electronic voting," I presume
you mean "trustworthy, verifiable elections operated via electronic
One need not have trustworthy electronic voting equipment to have a
trustworthy, verifiable election. This is the entire point of a half
dozen or more of the recently proposed voting systems like those of
Adida, Chaum, Clarkson, Myers, Neff, Rivest, Ryan, Schneider, and
Of course, I personally advocate that the electronic voting
equipment, both hardware and software, must be designed and
constructed to the highest standards, but that is an orthogonal issue.
School of Computer Science and Informatics
University College Dublin
More information about the E-voting