Re: Hand count or open source

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Paul:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:46:30 -0700, you wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:33:22AM -0700, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
>> Dear Paul:
>> 
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:52:49 -0700, you wrote:
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >
>> >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.
>> 
>> It will not, at least, receive my blessing.
>> 
>> Of the two evils
>> 
>>  (1) Not knowing if my vote was counted properly.
>> 
>>  (2) Knowing that I can sell my vote
>> 
>> I much prefer the first evil.
>
>I'm not surprised. I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure I agree
>either.  This list is about verifiable voting (cVV right?). I'm
>probing for ideas as to what "verifiable voting" means. 

Well, I'll tel you what it means to me.

It means that recounts are verified by a different audit method (hand
counting is my favorite) rather than merely recounted.

It means that the process is transparent so that one can verify that the
election process is fair.

It means that those entitled to vote can actually vote (and vote only once)
and that the process is verifiable.

It means that those not entitled to vote do not cast ballots and thus
pollute election results.

It means that any electronics used be easily verifiable by interested
outside observers.

It does not mean (to me) that a voter can verify that her individual vote
was counted correctly because to do so means that anonymity is breached.  

(Sorry Nick.  I'm still not convinced that David Chaum's system is as
secure/anonymous as you think it is.  I'm willing to be convinced, though.)

Ralph Shnelvar