Re: Hand count or open source

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 07:40:14PM -0700, Nicholas Bernstein wrote:
> Computers have the potential to be faster and more accurate. But we need 
> a way of verifying their accuracy.
> 
> I have said it before and I will say it again...
> 
> What we need is a way for people to check whether or not THEIR INDIVUAL 
> vote counted. Statistical sampling is a poor way to verify the accuracy 

Checking an individual vote seems to me to require that each ballot
have a serial number or ID number that the voter can write down and
use to check the his vote record in a database of counted votes. I can
contemplate this idea, but I have a hard time believing that it will ever
receive the blessing of this group, or of any other in my lifetime.

Is something else meant by "check"? 



> of a tally. Letting individuals check their own ballot is more accurate 
> with less work. David Chaum's ideas are a step towards this. I'm not 
> crazy about his specifics but I like the idea: everyone gets an 
> encrypted paper receipt that they can check against a public list. Their 
> are, of course, many variations on this theme. All of which make it even 
> more incredible that their are machines that give no receipt at all.
> 
> BTW, IEEE Spectrum had a good article on e-voting in their October issue 
> with a sidebar explaining Chaum's idea. I have downloaded the pdf to my 
> webpage. You can get it at osl-www.colorado.edu/~bernsten/chaum.pdf
> 
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mary Eberle wrote:
> 
> >I support computer counts backed up by statistical sampling and full 
> >hand counts if necessary, which is to say that I think we need to make 
> >our first goal to change the Colorado law that stands in the way of 
> >such a rational, modern approach.
> >
> >Mary
> >
> >Some Guy wrote:
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> My razor-sharp wit was confiscated at airport security.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx