Re: Fw: new voting system

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

I do not give Steve and F.

There are work-arounds that I think might work.  I think all of them are
necessary in order to do this with "best practices".

Workaround 1:  Voter ids are not unique.
I propose that there be, say, three duplicate voter id's in the system.
When a voter requests that her ballot be displayed, then that ballot plus
two others are displayed.  The voter can verify that one of them is hers but
will not be able to definitively establish to a third party that the vote
was hers.

The problem, of course, is that the voter might identify her ballot by
overvoting, say, the third assistant dog catcher.


Workaround 2: Write-ins are not displayed.
It is too easy to associate a write-in with an individual.  Frankly, I don't
know what to do about write-in candidates.


Workaround 3: Only the result of the vote and not the actual ballot is
displayed.

Although Article VII Section VIII states that "... in case paper ballots are
required to be used, no ballots shall be marked in any way whereby the
ballot can be identified as the ballot of the person casting it" there is no
penalty for an elector to mark a ballot so that it can be uniquely
identified.

Thus a vote buyer could ask that a dot be placed outside the box after the
third assistant dog catcher's position so as to identify the vote.



I want to make clear that my suggestions are ad hoc and may not represent
best practices.  Nonetheless, Steve's proposal is definitely a step in the
right direction -- in the sense that they stimulate further discussion.


It is also important to note that vote buying and voter coercion are not now
a serious problem precisely because of the safeguards we have in our voting
systems.  It was not always so. Tammany Hall & Chicago are favorite
examples.

Of course, as mail-in ballots become the norm (God, I hope that stops), vote
buying and coercion become far more problematic.

The last thing we need is to substitute transparency (a good thing!) for
vote buying and coercion (a bad thing!).

Ralph Shnelvar



On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:45:22 -0700, you wrote:

>You are correct, Ralph.
>
>I'd grade Steve's proposed solution with an "F".
>
>Al
>
>
>
>Al Kolwicz
>CAMBER - Citizens for Accurate Mail Ballot Election Results
>2867 Tincup Circle
>Boulder, CO 80305
>303-494-1540
>AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
>www.users.qwest.net/~alkolwicz 
>www.coloradovoter.blogspot.com 
>
>CAMBER is a dedicated group of volunteers who are working to ensure that
>every voter gets to vote once, every vote is counted once, and that every
>ballot is secure and anonymous.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:29 PM
>To: stevepom335; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Fw: new voting system
>
>Steve:
>
>How would your system prevent vote selling and/or voter coersion?
>
>Once a voter has a receipt that identifies the association between the voter
>and the ballot ...
>
>Also, it is my assertion that such voter/ballot associations are in
>violation of the Colorado Constitution: Article VII Section VIII.
>
>Ralph Shnelvar
>
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:50:22 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: stevepom335 
>>To: humboldt_elections@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
>bbvreport@xxxxxxxxxx 
>>Cc: Liss, Josh 
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:48 AM
>>Subject: new voting system
>>
>>
>>To the folks working on the Humboldt County ballot system:
>>
>>I am a former city council member in Boulder CO, and have been thinking
>about voting systems using publicly accessible data bases for a while.
>Yesterday I discussed my ideas with Josh Liss, the Boulder County CO
>election coordinator, and he said that just yesterday morning he had
>received an email about the proposed Humboldt County system using scanned
>images of paper ballots. Apparently good ideas pop up in multiple places at
>once.
>>
>>In any case, I have written up my approach in the attached paper. I think
>it could make the idea of public data base voting a bit easier to implement
>than the approach apparently under consideration in Humboldt County. Thus I
>thought you might find this brief paper of some value.
>>
>>Please contact me with any thoughts on this matter, and feel free to
>forward the paper to others who might be interested.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Steve Pomerance
>>335 17th Street
>>Boulder CO 80302
>>303 447 8026