CDR: A secure voting protocol
Okay, this information is old hat to most folk here - but it seems relevant just now, and if the infrastructure had been in place for this election, it could have saved us a heck of a lot of trouble. Bear An Election Protocol: Or, a way for people in voting societies to exercise their franchise without stirring themselves to get down to the polls or, for that matter, leaving their computer. 1) Alice the voter creates twenty sets of ballots. Each set of ballots contains one ballot each for all the different things Alice could vote for. ie, if it's a presidential election, each set would contain: a ballot voting for the American Reform Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Constitutional Party candidate a ballot voting for the Democratic Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Green Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Nazi Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Republican Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Socialist Party candidate, a ballot voting for the Whig Party candidate, et cetera. Each set of ballots also has an identification number, chosen at random from a number field big enough to make collisions unlikely. The identification number is on each ballot, and is common to all ballots in that set. For 3 * 10^8 voters, a 25-digit decimal number should make collisions acceptably unlikely. 2) Alice now blinds all the ballot sets with different blinding factors and transmits them to Bob the vote tabulator. She Also sends Bob a digitally signed message that says "I'm voting -- Alice". 3) Bob checks the digital signature, checks to make sure he hasn't already signed a ballot for Alice, picks one of the twenty sets, and communicates his choice to Alice. 4) Alice responds by sending Bob the blinding factors for the other nineteen sets of ballots. 5) Bob unblinds the nineteen sets of ballots, making sure that they all have exactly one ballot per candidate and that each set uses its own identification number. Satisfied that Alice is not trying to "pull a fast one", Bob then signs each ballot in the chosen set of ballots and returns them all to Alice. 6) Alice unblinds the ballot set while preserving Bob's signature. She now has a set of ballots signed by Bob. She encrypts the ballot reflecting her choice with Bob's public key and sends it to Bob anonymously. 7) Bob decrypts the ballot, checks his own signature to make sure it's valid, checks the identification number to make sure no other ballots from this set have been submitted already, writes down the identification number to check future ballots against, and increments his tally for the candidate Alice selected. 8) When the election is over, Bob publishes the ballots and the signed "I'm voting" messages. Alice can scan the published information to make sure that her vote is present and that the numbers all add up correctly. Alice can also check to make sure that there are NOT more ballots than there were "I'm voting" messages, preventing Bob from stuffing the ballot box. The protocol enforces the one vote per voter rule. If Alice tries to obtain more than one set of ballots, Bob will detect it in step 3. If Alice tries to submit more than one ballot from the same set, Bob will detect it in step 7. No one other than the voter can tell whom a particular voter voted for. Bob signs the ballots from the selected set under a blinding factor in step 5. When he later gets the unblinded ballot in step 6, he can check his signature, but cannot correlate it to any particular ballot he's signed. The only person who can prove who Alice voted for is Alice. She can communicate her submitted ballot to a third party before Bob publishes the results, and when Bob publishes the ballots the third party can make sure there's a ballot that matches. Bob is able to generate fake ballots, but he cannot generate signed "I'm voting" messages from eligible voters. Therefore if he uses fake ballots to try to stuff the ballot box, he will be detected in step 8. One exception to this is if people obtain ballots (giving him "I voted" messages) but do not then complete the protocol by submitting a vote. Bob can then enter a fake ballot without being detected. One fact about this protocol is that even though you cannot prove who anyone voted *for*, you can prove that they did or did not *vote*. This may or may not be a problem depending on the application. A vulnerability about this protocol is that Alice can transfer her vote if she wants to. To do this, Alice would unblind her ballots in step 6, and send the whole set to Carol. Carol could pretend to be Alice in step 7, and check in step 8 to make sure Alice didn't submit one of her own votes (invalidating Carol's purchased vote). So California Democratic supporters could swap ballots with Nevada Green supporters, enabling the Nevadans to vote Green in California (where it's "safe" to vote for a third party because there isn't a close race between the major parties one of whom they regard as EVIL) while the Californians voted Democratic in Nevada, where they'd stand a better chance of having their vote make a difference in the determination of electoral votes and keeping the EVIL guy out of office. Again, this may or may not be a problem depending on the application - in most voting situations, where there is no electoral college, there would be no motive to exchange ballots. But selling of ballots is also usually bad for the process, and the US seems to dislike transfer of ballots in general as regards its own elections - so I'm listing this as a vulnerability.
At 2:46 PM -0800 11/10/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Okay, this information is old hat to most folk here - but it seems relevant just now, and if the infrastructure had been in place for this election, it could have saved us a heck of a lot of trouble.
An Election Protocol: Or, a way for people in voting societies to exercise their franchise without stirring themselves to get down to the polls or, for that matter, leaving their computer.
1) Alice the voter creates twenty sets of ballots. Each set of
2) Alice now blinds all the ballot sets with different blinding
3) Bob checks the digital signature, checks to make sure he hasn't
4) Alice responds by sending Bob the blinding factors for the
5) Bob unblinds the nineteen sets of ballots, making sure that
6) Alice unblinds the ballot set while preserving Bob's signature.
7) Bob decrypts the ballot, checks his own signature to make sure
8) When the election is over, Bob publishes the ballots and the
(I've left out the details, but kept the first line of each of the steps.) The problems with these protocols are obvious to all who have looked at these things over the years: * most voters, at least 99% of them, will not understand or trust or bother with the protocols * the steps will of course all be automated into some WindowsMe or Mac client called "MyVote." This package will itself not be trusted by most people. * the large fraction of people who are not computer literate, or who don't own a PC, etc. will have to use someone else's PC or terminal. This then raises all the usual issues about their blinding numbers, passphrases, keystrokes, etc., being captured or manipulated by someone else. Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament." Further, people can _watch_ their ballots going into a voting box, a "mix." I know I watch my ballot going in. And while it is _possible_ for secret cameras to be videotaping my choices, or for DNA from my fingers being able to "mark" my ballot, I understand from basic economic and ontologic issues that these measures are very unlikely. This assurance doesn't exist with the protocol described above. Some folks will think their protocol failed, some will think there is a "backdoor" for seeing how they voted, some will think their are not adequate methods for auditing or double-checking the protocols. I would not trust such a system, or be willing to take night school classes in crypto and higher math in order to begin to understand the system...so imagine what other folks will think. It won't happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in European nations, but only because the average citizen does what he is told to do more so than American paranoids and individualists will do. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net> To: <cypherpunks@algebra.com> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:11 PM Subject: CDR: Re: A secure voting protocol
The problems with these protocols are obvious to all who have looked at these things over the years:
* most voters, at least 99% of them, will not understand or trust or bother with the protocols
[Augusto] Well... how many people don't understand SSL and still use it for home banking?
* the steps will of course all be automated into some WindowsMe or Mac client called "MyVote." This package will itself not be trusted by most people.
[Augusto] Code signing might be an option, but (a) who is going to sign the code (governement, parties, independent organizations, all of them), and (b) how is this code signature *securely* verified?
* the large fraction of people who are not computer literate, or who don't own a PC, etc. will have to use someone else's PC or terminal. This then raises all the usual issues about their blinding numbers, passphrases, keystrokes, etc., being captured or manipulated by someone else.
[Augusto] One can still maintain public sites for casting votes, using the same "MyVote" system and identifying themselves with smartcards.
Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament."
[Augusto] Same as above [SSL].
Further, people can _watch_ their ballots going into a voting box, a "mix." I know I watch my ballot going in. And while it is _possible_ for secret cameras to be videotaping my choices, or for DNA from my fingers being able to "mark" my ballot, I understand from basic economic and ontologic issues that these measures are very unlikely. This assurance doesn't exist with the protocol described above. Some folks will think their protocol failed, some will think there is a "backdoor" for seeing how they voted, some will think their are not adequate methods for auditing or double-checking the protocols.
I would not trust such a system, or be willing to take night school classes in crypto and higher math in order to begin to understand the system...so imagine what other folks will think.
It won't happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in European nations, but only because the average citizen does what he is told to do more so than American paranoids and individualists will do.
[Augusto] I would like to see this happening after the scientific/academic community approves a secure protocol and its implementation architecture. And I also understand that it will be quite hard to convince the general voter of the security of e-voting. Regards, Augusto Jun Devegili
At 9:40 PM -0200 11/10/00, Augusto Jun Devegili wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net>
The problems with these protocols are obvious to all who have looked at these things over the years:
* most voters, at least 99% of them, will not understand or trust or bother with the protocols
[Augusto] Well... how many people don't understand SSL and still use it for home banking?
1. It's built-in and they barely notice it. 2. Many folks don't think about wiretapping for online transactions, or sniffers. They would likely do limited amounts of home banking even without SSL. High rollers don't move large amounts of money around with MyHomePiggyBank and QuickenMe. 3. In particular, there are many people who don't do any online banking at all. Which is fine, as this is their choice and they have ample alternatives. But such is not the case with voting, where we cannot disenfranchise large blocs of people who distrust online voting. 4. The basic concept of point-to-point crypto, such as with PGP or SSL or whatever, is well-understood. It's the concept of an envelope. Such is not the case with the notoriously complex blinding protocols. People will bog down the first time the explanation is attempted.
...
[Augusto] One can still maintain public sites for casting votes, using the same "MyVote" system and identifying themselves with smartcards.
And people will of course fear that the link between their smartcards and all of the interactions on the local terminal will be made. The point is that they don't have their own PC, their own local processor, to do all the necessary computations and local storage.
[Augusto] I would like to see this happening after the scientific/academic community approves a secure protocol and its implementation architecture.
You're welcome to "see it happen." Leave me out of out, though. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Augusto Jun Devegili replied to Tim May:
It won't happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in European nations, but only because the average citizen does what he is told to do more so than American paranoids and individualists will do.
[Augusto] I would like to see this happening after the scientific/academic community approves a secure protocol and its implementation architecture. And I also understand that it will be quite hard to convince the general voter of the security of e-voting.
I think I have to agree with Tim here. That blind-sign-sign-blind-vote protocol might be wonderful but is not going to be accepted by the average voter. Or even the brainiest. And us non-individualistic Brits are so non-paranoid that we still won't accept voting machines or mechanical counting. All done by crosses on the paper, counted by hand, with the candidates in the room watching the counters. Which is the best defence against fraud. Everything is literally out in the open, on big tables, with the candidates there, and paranoid card-player rules - all boxes sealed at the polling station and opened again at the count before witnesses, no-one except the counters & Returning Officer (a sort of election supervisor) to physically touch the ballots, no hands under the table, the counters can't even wear jackets in some places. It works. Ken
At 6:42 PM +0000 11/13/00, Ken Brown wrote:
Augusto Jun Devegili replied to Tim May:
It won't happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in European nations, but only because the average citizen does what he is told to do more so than American paranoids and individualists will do.
[Augusto] I would like to see this happening after the scientific/academic community approves a secure protocol and its implementation architecture. And I also understand that it will be quite hard to convince the general voter of the security of e-voting.
I think I have to agree with Tim here. That blind-sign-sign-blind-vote protocol might be wonderful but is not going to be accepted by the average voter. Or even the brainiest.
I saw a good piece on one of the networks about why "voting at your home PC" is not a good idea for _other_ reasons. To wit, families kibitzing about the vote. Or watching while the wife or husband votes properly. Or even people literally buying votes and then watching while their bought votes are voted the right way. None of these things is even fractionally as possible with the "secure voting booth" protocol we have today, where only one person is in a booth at any given time. The wife whose husband has said he'll beat the shit out of her if she doesn't vote for Bush can vote for whomever she wishes and know that no one will know how she voted. A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem. -Declan
At 5:53 PM -0500 11/13/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
California absentee ballots require no such thing. My parents, as I said, voted absentee California for many years. They simply filled out their absentee ballots and dropped them in the mailbox. Maybe the rules were later changed. From 1961 to 1977, this is the way it was. I just checked. http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm "To vote an absentee ballot, a voter needs to submit a completed application or letter to the county elections official between 29 days and 7 days before the election. The application or letter must contain the voter's name as registered, the registered voter address, the address to which the absentee ballot should be sent if different than the registered voter address, the name and date of the election for which the applicant wants the mail-in ballot, and the voter's signature. Once the application is processed by the county elections official, the proper ballot type/style will be sent to the voter. You must then cast your ballot and insert it in the envelope provided for this purpose, making sure you complete all required information on the envelope. Although you sign the outer envelope in order to establish your eligibility to vote, your absentee ballot will be separated from the envelope prior to counting the ballots so that there is no way to violate your confidential vote. You may mail back your voted absentee ballot, return it in person to the polls or county elections office on election day, or, under certain conditions, authorize a legally-allowable third party (relative)to return the ballot in your behalf -- but regardless of how the ballot is returned, it MUST be received by the county elections office by the time polls close (8 p.m.) on election day. Late-arriving absentee ballots are not counted." No mention of getting a witness, etc. I'll leave it for others to check on Florida, Idaho, etc. versions. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
At 2:41 PM -0800 11/13/00, Tim May wrote:
No mention of getting a witness, etc.
I'll leave it for others to check on Florida, Idaho, etc. versions.
I just checked the Florida site, http://www.absenteeballot.net/Florida.htm, and found no mention whatsoever of requirements that someone witness the process, etc. However, I _did_ find this interesting language: "Marked ballots must be mailed or delivered in person reaching the supervisor of elections' office not later than 7 p.m. on the day of the election." So, what's with this business about the absentee ballots coming in until Friday, November 17th? --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
So, what's with this business about the absentee ballots coming in until Friday, November 17th?
Federal law that trumps the state's laws. The federal laws only applies to certain classes of absentees. For those that weren't covered by the Federal standard the state standard applies. I believe the state standard applies to state and local offices as well. So the late arriving ballots will only effect the national offices, not the state ones. But since I'm in Tim's kill file he won't get to see any of this wisdom.
I did some more digging on various Florida sites which discuss absentee ballots. It looks like Florida makes a clear distinction between what I'll call "ordinary absentee ballots" and what I'll call "military absentee ballots." Ordinary absentee ballots--students, tourists in Israel or France, bluehaired yentas living in Tel Aviv, etc.--must have their ballots returned by 7 pm on the day of the election. _Military_ absentee ballots get the "postmarked by election day, received within 10 days" treatment. This has not been widely reported, and contradicts the many press interviews with residents of foreign countries who are presumed to possibly be the hinge votes. At least I have not seen such a distinction made, and I've been following this thing for probably 14 hours a day for the past five or six days. Here is language from Bay County's Web site: "Absentee ballots must be returned to the Supervisor of Elections by the voter, either in person or by mail. If the voter personally delivers the ballot, he or she must present his or her own picture identification before the ballot will be accepted. If the voter is unable to mail or personally deliver the ballot, the voter may designate in writing a person to return the ballot. The designated person may NOT return more than two (2) absentee ballots per election, other than his or her own ballot, except that additional ballots may be returned for members of the designee's immediate family (as defined in the section on requesting absentee ballots). The designee must provide a written authorization from the voter as well as present his or her own picture identification. Voted absentee ballots must be received no later than 7 p.m. election day at the office of the Supervisor of Elections. A VOTED BALLOT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT A POLLING PLACE. MILITARY INFORMATION Military personnel may apply for voter registration or request absentee ballots with a Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) which may be obtained from the unit voting officer. If the FPCA is not available, phone or send a written request to the Supervisor of Elections Office, 300 E. 4th Street, Room 112, Panama City, FL 32401-3093. Spouses and dependents are considered to be of the same category of absentee voters as military members and generally should follow the same rules. U.S. Embassies and Consulates can assist in completing, witnessing, notarizing and mailing FPCA forms, absentee ballots and other election materials. Federal portions of general election and presidential preference primary ballots voted by persons outside the U.S. are counted if postmarked no later than election day and received within 10 days of the election. Additional military election information is available from: -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
The Ant and the Grasshopper, Election Version Original The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold. Da Hoppers in Da 'Hood The ants work hard to make their businesses prosperous, their farms productive. They save and invest and educate their children. The grasshoppers party all summer, hangin' out with the homeys, struttin' on the beaches, and figurin' that Massah Bill Clintonhopper in the Big White Plantation House will keep on sending dat federal welfare money to Florida to keep the crack pipes full. To a Grasshopper-American, it's all obvious: Why work when government is there? Why save when Hillary is promising to raise taxes on the ants? Hard work is for suckers, or, as they say, suckas. Besides, Albert Gorehopper invented the Internet. Ironically, the hard-working ants make use of the Internet, but the crack-smoking hopheads say that "books are for whitey." Better yet, to the grasshoppers, the top Demohoppers have made it their top campaign pledge to take away the guns of the ants. (The Hopper Bloods and Crips get a good laugh out of this one, as they know the hopper gangbangers will still have their Uzis and AKs.) Winter arrives, and the Demohoppers have made their final promises to the crack-dealing, Bingo-playing, welfare-taking grasshoppers of Florida. The ants are wary, fearing what the grasshoppers will do in the name of "democratic fairness." The ants appear to have won the vote, but the Demohoppers in Palm Beach County claim that some butterflies confused them and that they want a "do over." Hopper Jesse Jackson, who once called New York City "Hymietown," has made a new alliance with the "Judenhoppers" of affluent Palm Beach. He calls in Al Sharpton, Alan Dershowitz, and Tawana Brawley to help his Hopper Crusade. He threatens a war between the ants and the grasshoppers unless the hoppers get as many chances to vote and re-vote and fiddle with the ballots as they need to let Albert Gorehopper win. The grasshopper strategy is to take the counties which were most heavily infested with grasshoppers and then do a "manual count" to find more votes which the neutral machines had rejected because they were incorrectly punched, or double punched, or had chads hanging. The grasshoppers have been told that, from basic statistics, this biased re-counting will ensure that Albert Gorehopper gets enough extra votes to win. The ants say that this is a theft of the election and that the grasshoppers just want more handouts from the hopheads in Hopperton, D.C., and, besides, if the grasshoppers had bothered to learn how to read and weren't smoking so much crack they'd've had no problems with butterflies. The Chief Grasshopper sends his team of lawyerlocusts, close relatives of grasshoppers, into Florida. The ants try to block a recount in hopper havens like Broward, Palm, and Volushia. The Grasshopper-Americans scream dat dis be racist! The promised war begins and the ants kill all the grasshoppers. No longer will the grasshoppers use the "democratic process" to take the food the ants had worked so hard for. Life is once again good. [Note: I wrote everything here except the "Original." I mention this because it is routine for people to pass around various versions of the "Ant and the Grasshopper" without indicating who wrote which parts. So, Tim May wrote all but the opening set-up paragraph. Tim May, 11-13-2000] -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
And then the locusts descend. And they feed. Because the ants and the grasshoppers never could get their shit together. MacN On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
The Ant and the Grasshopper, Election Version
Original
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
Da Hoppers in Da 'Hood
The ants work hard to make their businesses prosperous, their farms productive. They save and invest and educate their children. The grasshoppers party all summer, hangin' out with the homeys, struttin' on the beaches, and figurin' that Massah Bill Clintonhopper in the Big White Plantation House will keep on sending dat federal welfare money to Florida to keep the crack pipes full.
To a Grasshopper-American, it's all obvious: Why work when government is there? Why save when Hillary is promising to raise taxes on the ants? Hard work is for suckers, or, as they say, suckas. Besides, Albert Gorehopper invented the Internet. Ironically, the hard-working ants make use of the Internet, but the crack-smoking hopheads say that "books are for whitey." Better yet, to the grasshoppers, the top Demohoppers have made it their top campaign pledge to take away the guns of the ants. (The Hopper Bloods and Crips get a good laugh out of this one, as they know the hopper gangbangers will still have their Uzis and AKs.)
Winter arrives, and the Demohoppers have made their final promises to the crack-dealing, Bingo-playing, welfare-taking grasshoppers of Florida. The ants are wary, fearing what the grasshoppers will do in the name of "democratic fairness."
The ants appear to have won the vote, but the Demohoppers in Palm Beach County claim that some butterflies confused them and that they want a "do over." Hopper Jesse Jackson, who once called New York City "Hymietown," has made a new alliance with the "Judenhoppers" of affluent Palm Beach. He calls in Al Sharpton, Alan Dershowitz, and Tawana Brawley to help his Hopper Crusade. He threatens a war between the ants and the grasshoppers unless the hoppers get as many chances to vote and re-vote and fiddle with the ballots as they need to let Albert Gorehopper win.
The grasshopper strategy is to take the counties which were most heavily infested with grasshoppers and then do a "manual count" to find more votes which the neutral machines had rejected because they were incorrectly punched, or double punched, or had chads hanging. The grasshoppers have been told that, from basic statistics, this biased re-counting will ensure that Albert Gorehopper gets enough extra votes to win.
The ants say that this is a theft of the election and that the grasshoppers just want more handouts from the hopheads in Hopperton, D.C., and, besides, if the grasshoppers had bothered to learn how to read and weren't smoking so much crack they'd've had no problems with butterflies.
The Chief Grasshopper sends his team of lawyerlocusts, close relatives of grasshoppers, into Florida. The ants try to block a recount in hopper havens like Broward, Palm, and Volushia. The Grasshopper-Americans scream dat dis be racist!
The promised war begins and the ants kill all the grasshoppers. No longer will the grasshoppers use the "democratic process" to take the food the ants had worked so hard for. Life is once again good.
[Note: I wrote everything here except the "Original." I mention this because it is routine for people to pass around various versions of the "Ant and the Grasshopper" without indicating who wrote which parts. So, Tim May wrote all but the opening set-up paragraph. Tim May, 11-13-2000]
-- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim, Probably not a good idea to use ants as the heroes in YOUR story since they are probably the best example of the subjugation of individual freedoms to the goals of a society. However, I found an interesting discussion of the fable and it's variants at: http://www.progress.org/archive/antgrass.htm I thought this version was interesting: The ants work hard all summer, producing products and services, such as in manufacturing, farming, and transportation. Grasshoppers laugh and dance and play all summer, without producing anything. Come winter though, the productive ants are hungry and shivering, while the unproductive grasshoppers are warm and well-fed! How did this happen? Easy: the grasshoppers own the land the hardworking ants live and work on. The grasshoppers collect land taxes from the ants, but call it land "rent". Since the grasshoppers did not produce the land, these land taxes (land "rent" payments) are really welfare payments to grasshoppers. Some grasshoppers are somewhat productive, providing building maintenance for their tenants. But the part of the "rent" that is simply a payment for using the land, which the grasshoppers did not make, is simply a land tax, used for welfare payments to grasshopper- landlords. Some grasshoppers used to make the mistake of calling these land payments by what they are: land taxes. But then libertarians raised a fuss, since they're against taxes. So, the grasshoppers changed the name, and started calling the land payments land "rent". Then the libertarians said "Oh, that's different. Go right ahead and collect these land payments from the ants." And they did. And they still do. This version of the fable is by Mike O'Mara. On the humorous side: (See http://www.klydemorris.com/society.htm ). And I know Tim, People like me need killing. Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC
At 10:21 PM -0600 11/13/00, Neil Johnson wrote:
Tim,
Probably not a good idea to use ants as the heroes in YOUR story since they are probably the best example of the subjugation of individual freedoms to the goals of a society.
Of course any animal is going to be an imperfect fit to a political point. Both ants and bees, to just name two, are "social insects." Anyway, we are stuck with the basic core, brilliantly given to us 2500 years ago by Aesop (my recollection is that he compiled standard fables). A pity that today's children are so busy being fed junk like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and are not being taught the most basic core values. Of course, I am not arguing that it is the role of State education to do this...this is why parents should not be taxed for schools. Or, failing this, they should at least get vouchers for the school of their choice. Or, failing either of these better alternatives, set up a fairly simple system of "Blue" and "Red" schools, with competing curricula. The Blue School teaches reading, writing, and arithmetic, plus mix-ins of history, sports, science, etc. The Red School teaches self-esteem, racial harmony, the joys of lesbian sex, the horrors of capitalism, etc. Let parents decide which school they want their children in. If 70% want their kids in the Red School, so be it. By the way, this can logistically be done simply by erecting a moveable barrier down the middle of a school. Minor issues, not insurmountable. Then, as the parental preference shifts the percentage, the barrier can be moved. Apparently complex problems often have simple solutions, something I once learned from John McCarthy. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Tim May wrote:
Apparently complex problems often have simple solutions, something I once learned from John McCarthy.
if you simplify them enough. for example, I know a couple of people who believe in "racial harmony" but not in "the joys of lesbian sex". and I'll be damned if there aren't lots of lesbians around that are firm capitalists.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:07:40PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
I did some more digging on various Florida sites which discuss absentee ballots.
It looks like Florida makes a clear distinction between what I'll call "ordinary absentee ballots" and what I'll call "military absentee ballots."
Yes. Except the military absentee ballot category, under federal law, include U.S. citizens living abroad permanent-wise. I posted the language over the weekend. Here it is again: http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=vote_uocava (5) "overseas voter" means -- (A) an absent uniformed services voter who, by reason of active duty or service is absent from the United States on the date of the election involved; (B) a person who resides outside the United States and is qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States; or (C) a person who resides outside the United States and (but for such residence) would be qualified to vote in the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States. -Declan
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
California absentee ballots require no such thing. My parents, as I said, voted absentee California for many years. They simply filled out their absentee ballots and dropped them in the mailbox.
I'm fairly sure that virginia in 1996 was similar -- I voted absentee in VA that year (being a college student at the time) and I don't recall having to find a notary public, which, given that I was in bumfuck, west virginia would have been a significant outing (along the lines of going to K-mart -- and I remember all the times we did that...) Ph.
I voted by absentee ballot in 96. Iowa: 1. Mail in a request for one (Used a form I received in some Democratic campaign literature, though I didn't vote that way :) ) 2. Get the ballot in Mail, 3. Fill it out (#2 Pencil Please!), 4. Place ballot in an "anonymity" envelope, 5. Put it in another envelope you sign saying it's truly your vote. 6. Put it in the mailing envelope and send it on its way. Went to the polls this year (Didn't get a form from anyone in the mail, too lazy to write my own letter). Neil M. Johnson njohnson@interl.net http://www.interl.net/~njohnson PGP Key Finger Print: 93C0 793F B66E A0C7 CEEA 3E92 6B99 2DCC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim May" <tcmay@got.net> To: <cypherpunks@algebra.com> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 4:41 PM Subject: CDR: Re: A secure voting protocol
At 5:53 PM -0500 11/13/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
California absentee ballots require no such thing. My parents, as I said, voted absentee California for many years. They simply filled out their absentee ballots and dropped them in the mailbox.
Maybe the rules were later changed. From 1961 to 1977, this is the way it was.
I just checked. http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm
"To vote an absentee ballot, a voter needs to submit a completed application or letter to the county elections official between 29 days and 7 days before the election. The application or letter must contain the voter's name as registered, the registered voter address, the address to which the absentee ballot should be sent if different than the registered voter address, the name and date of the election for which the applicant wants the mail-in ballot, and the voter's signature. Once the application is processed by the county elections official, the proper ballot type/style will be sent to the voter. You must then cast your ballot and insert it in the envelope provided for this purpose, making sure you complete all required information on the envelope. Although you sign the outer envelope in order to establish your eligibility to vote, your absentee ballot will be separated from the envelope prior to counting the ballots so that there is no way to violate your confidential vote. You may mail back your voted absentee ballot, return it in person to the polls or county elections office on election day, or, under certain conditions, authorize a legally-allowable third party (relative)to return the ballot in your behalf -- but regardless of how the ballot is returned, it MUST be received by the county elections office by the time polls close (8 p.m.) on election day. Late-arriving absentee ballots are not counted."
No mention of getting a witness, etc.
I'll leave it for others to check on Florida, Idaho, etc. versions.
--Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:41:14PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
At 5:53 PM -0500 11/13/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
California absentee ballots require no such thing. My parents, as I said, voted absentee California for many years. They simply filled out their absentee ballots and dropped them in the mailbox.
Ah, I was talking about Florida law. To wit: a. One witness, who is a registered voter in the state, must affix his or her signature, printed name, address, voter identification number, and county of registration on the voter's certificate. Each witness is limited to witnessing five ballots per election unless certified as an absentee ballot coordinator. A candidate may not serve as an attesting witness. b. Any notary or other officer entitled to administer oaths or any Florida supervisor of elections or deputy supervisor of elections, other than a candidate, may serve as an attesting witness. -Declan
At 05:53 PM 11/13/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:08:01AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
A "vote at home" protocol is vulnerable to all sorts of mischief that has nothing to do with hackers intercepting the vote, blah blah.
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
The state of Oregon uses vote-by-mail for their elections, though I think there's an option for physical delivery if you want. I'd be surprised if they require witnesses - if anything, that encourages your spouse to look at how you voted. I've never been required to have witnesses for voting with absentee ballots in New Jersey or California. Besides, in places like Chicago or Tammany-era New York City, it'd be easy for the Party to obtain notaries to witness ballots. "OK, Mr. Jones, the stamp on your ballot, and here's the stamp on your bottle of whiskey. Next, please!" and optionally to put the correct party ballots in the correct box and the incorrect party ballots in the round container. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 05:31 PM 11/13/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
No, an absentee ballot requires a signature that matches the one you gave the election board and a stamp. In CA at least. No notaries involved.
David, see my other post citing Florida law, which is what I was talking about earlier in the thread. -Declan On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:14:18AM -0500, David Honig wrote:
At 05:31 PM 11/13/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
No, an absentee ballot requires a signature that matches the one you gave the election board and a stamp. In CA at least.
No notaries involved.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, David Honig wrote:
At 05:31 PM 11/13/00 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Righto. Absentee ballots require a witness, usually an officer (if you're in the military) or a notary-type, to reduct in par tthe intimidation problem.
No, an absentee ballot requires a signature that matches the one you gave the election board and a stamp. In CA at least.
No notaries involved.
Nevada doesn't even require the stamp. -David
At 8:50 PM -0500 11/14/00, David Honig wrote:
At 01:40 PM 11/14/00 -0500, dmolnar wrote:
Nevada doesn't even require the stamp.
Damn, machine guns, no income tax *and* no stamp on absentee ballots. Gotta move there.
Believe me, I've looked into it. The absentee ballot thing is, as we've discussed, not an issue, as even California doesn't require the draconian stuff Declan was mentioning. As for machine guns, I personally don't care to own one--I appreciate the constitutional point, but I don't personally have a compelling desire to own one. I'm happy with semi-automatic FALs, HK91s, and AR-15s. So far, California has not tried to take mine away. If they try, I should have the several months of warning I need to move to Nevada or some other nominally free place. Income tax is a bigger issue. California collects about 9.5% from me, currently, but other states tend to make up for lower income tax by having higher property taxes and suchlike. Nevada doesn't, because of gambling. However, if the gambling business in Vegas and Reno suffers the way I expect it to, for various reasons beyond the scope of this piece, then I expect the large numbers of "blue collar workers" (hotel workers, casino workers, maids, restaurant workers, etc.) to vote for taxes on wealth of a kind that will make California look like a libertarian paradise. This is one major reason I'm not moving to Nevada. Another is that California basically staked out the claim on the Mediterranean climate in America! 1200 miles of coastline that has a classic Mediterranean weather and climate pattern: mild and rainy winters, sunny and mild the rest of the time. It would take a _lot_ for me to give this up to live in Montana, or Utah, or Texas. --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
At 06:42 PM 11/13/00 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
And us non-individualistic Brits are so non-paranoid that we still won't accept voting machines or mechanical counting. All done by crosses on the paper, counted by hand, with the candidates in the room watching the counters.
That's nice and trustable. Neither George Bush nor Al Gore has the time to watch 100,000,000 ballots counted, though one could argue that we'd be better off if they couldn't take office until they'd sat down together and done it, or until one of them had conceded that the other was more patient :-) Even counting all the ballots in a large city has to be parallelized. Of course, political parties are often good at that, at least parties big enough to be successfully elected.
Which is the best defence against fraud. Everything is literally out in the open, on big tables, with the candidates there, and paranoid card-player rules - all boxes sealed at the polling station and opened again at the count before witnesses, no-one except the counters & Returning Officer (a sort of election supervisor) to physically touch the ballots, no hands under the table, the counters can't even wear jackets in some places. It works.
The difficult problems are making sure that the ballot box wasn't stuffed, and that the people who voted all existed and were unique, and that their votes weren't obtained through bribery (though deception is fine :-) Here in the US, it's traditional that ballot boxes (where they're used) are sealed at the polling place and ostensibly only opened with witnesses, but fraud is nonetheless possible and perhaps still practiced on a small scale. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Bill Stewart wrote:
At 06:42 PM 11/13/00 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
And us non-individualistic Brits are so non-paranoid that we still won't accept voting machines or mechanical counting. All done by crosses on the paper, counted by hand, with the candidates in the room watching the counters.
That's nice and trustable. Neither George Bush nor Al Gore has the time to watch 100,000,000 ballots counted, though one could argue that we'd be better off if they couldn't take office until they'd sat down together and done it, or until one of them had conceded that the other was more patient :-)
Neither George Bush nor Al Gore are actually standing for election in Boca Raton. But there will be a rag-bag of supervisors and commissioners and representatives and city and county and state officials of various sorts. And these people can appoint agents to stand in for them at the polls.
Even counting all the ballots in a large city has to be parallelized. Of course, political parties are often good at that, at least parties big enough to be successfully elected.
Exactly.
The difficult problems are making sure that the ballot box wasn't stuffed,
Reasonably easy as long as it is in the open and sealed at all times. People go in and out of the polling station all the time. And there will be more than one official present. Again candidates and their agents (local councillors, people like that) can (in this country) be present at polling stations & they see people going in and out and can talk to the officials (I've often done this - it can be very boring). That makes it risky to do the stuffing. Where stuffing is easy is where the local political establishment is entirely controlled by one party or faction. If the officials at the polling stations & the police & the people doing th ecoutn are all on the same side then a lot of the openness is lost of course. But the chances are that those will be just the sort of places where votes won't be close.
and that the people who voted all existed and were unique,
That's the hard part. Do you have to give id to vote? Here we don't, so impersonation is possible. Rare I think (doing it enough times to influence a nationwide, or even a city or county -wide election would be risky) although it is rumoured to be traditional in parts of Northern Ireland - from where it was rumoured to have been exported to parts of north America :-) I have to confesss that I am fascinated with the mechanisms of elections - well, I suppose some people are train spotters. Ken
Bill Stewart wrote:
That's nice and trustable. Neither George Bush nor Al Gore has the time to watch 100,000,000 ballots counted, though one could argue that we'd be better off if they couldn't take office until they'd sat down together and done it, or until one of them had conceded that the other was more patient :-)
come on - he's not referring to the president candidates. for your crazy double-indirect voting system, these would be the "electorates" or whatever they're officially called.
The difficult problems are making sure that the ballot box wasn't stuffed, and that the people who voted all existed and were unique, and that their votes weren't obtained through bribery (though deception is fine :-) Here in the US, it's traditional that ballot boxes (where they're used) are sealed at the polling place and ostensibly only opened with witnesses, but fraud is nonetheless possible and perhaps still practiced on a small scale.
but it is lots easier to detect fraud if you have a physical bill than detecting fraud on some electronic "push this button to vote" machine. or whatever other crazy stuff you're using. I heard you had more than a dozen completely different voting systems, from hole-pushing to touchscreens.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Tim May wrote:
At 2:46 PM -0800 11/10/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament."
...
It won't happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in European nations, but only because the average citizen does what he is told to do more so than American paranoids and individualists will do.
--Tim May
Agreed. I envision a day (background music swelling and eyes tearing slightly -- an obvious Oscar moment) when it matters little who the President-elect is, because DC is bound and emasculated by its original constitutional chains. The day when the Pres has little more power than the Queen Mother. (Of course the Clinton Administration's idea of a Queen Mother might mean something altogether different ;-) (tim: is a smiley face acceptable as a meta-closing paren?) That should be an easier problem to solve than getting people to accept the validity of exotic crypto voting protocols. jim -- Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
At 05:47 AM 11/10/00 -0600, Jim Burnes wrote:
I envision a day (background music swelling and eyes tearing slightly -- an obvious Oscar moment) when it matters little who the President-elect is, because DC is bound and emasculated by its original constitutional chains. The day when the Pres has little more power than the Queen Mother.
Somebody buy that man a beer!
That should be an easier problem to solve than getting people to accept the validity of exotic crypto voting protocols.
Yup. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
-- At 03:11 PM 11/10/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament."
Ideally, we should organize an election so that the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk will generally fail to vote correctly. Unfortunately someone would then issue the handy dandy automatic party vote generator, and hand it out to the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk, adding a bottle of cheap wine when handing it out to the drunk. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KwZlt9KCijOCzrhw3QZ/cuaemiOw53HCV/PevL0V 4ovZu0o0N7DYZPyCzqgtAMc88qwb/ne5KZ7U4x/6s
-- At 03:11 PM 11/10/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament."
Ideally, we should organize an election so that the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk will generally fail to vote correctly. Unfortunately someone would then issue the handy dandy automatic party vote generator, and hand it out to the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk, adding a bottle of cheap wine when handing it out to the drunk.
The easiest way to do this would be to have the ballot books only contain numbers, and the sample ballots mailed to each (allegedly) registered voter provide the mapping from name/issue to number. Then have a *lot* more numbers on the ballot & ballot booklets than in the sample ballots. x+1 punches in the wrong hole and the entire ballot is discarded. No sample ballots available at the polling place. This would mean that to vote in a deliberate way (i.e. not punching holes at random) you would have to retain your sample ballot. Oh--and your sample ballot goes into a shredder by the door. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
At 4:19 PM -0800 11/11/00, petro wrote:
-- At 03:11 PM 11/10/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament."
Ideally, we should organize an election so that the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk will generally fail to vote correctly. Unfortunately someone would then issue the handy dandy automatic party vote generator, and hand it out to the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk, adding a bottle of cheap wine when handing it out to the drunk.
The easiest way to do this would be to have the ballot books only contain numbers, and the sample ballots mailed to each (allegedly) registered voter provide the mapping from name/issue to number.
I did not write the paragraph you attributed to me (presumably through not-so-careful snipping). Please be more careful. If necessary, manually add a line like "James Donald said:" --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Mr. May said:
At 4:19 PM -0800 11/11/00, petro wrote:
-- At 03:11 PM 11/10/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
Physical ballot voting has its problems, but at least people _understand_ the concept of marking a ballot, as opposed to "blinding the exponent of their elliptic curve function and then solving the discrete log problem for an n-out-of-m multi-round tournament."
Ideally, we should organize an election so that the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk will generally fail to vote correctly. Unfortunately someone would then issue the handy dandy automatic party vote generator, and hand it out to the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk, adding a bottle of cheap wine when handing it out to the drunk.
The easiest way to do this would be to have the ballot books only contain numbers, and the sample ballots mailed to each (allegedly) registered voter provide the mapping from name/issue to number.
I did not write the paragraph you attributed to me (presumably through not-so-careful snipping). Please be more careful. If necessary, manually add a line like "James Donald said:"
Anyone who can read a Florida Ballot, and is the least familiar with how MUAs and Newsreaders work can tell that you wrote the part with the three (now four) angle brackets (>). As to adding the <x> wrote: sometimes I remember, sometimes I forget. I am still human, and hence not perfect. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
At 02:22 PM 11/11/00 -0500, James A. Donald wrote:
Ideally, we should organize an election so that the illiterate, the stupid, and the drunk will generally fail to vote correctly.
I'm told that during past Yugo elections, when the folks in charge wanted to keep turnout low, the (state-run) TV stations played pornos.
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
I would not trust such a system, or be willing to take night school classes in crypto and higher math in order to begin to understand the system...so imagine what other folks will think.
It won't happen in our lifetimes. It may happen in European nations, but only because the average citizen does what he is told to do more so than American paranoids and individualists will do.
Just as we're forced to obey gun, drug and tax laws, why do you think "paranoids and individualists" will be any more successful in stopping some government forced electronic voting system? I expect that such various types of such proposals will be adopted within the next few years. As Josef Stalin so aptly remarked- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd., PMB 176, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/ **************************************************************************
participants (17)
-
Augusto Jun Devegili -
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
dmolnar -
James A. Donald -
Jim Burnes -
Ken Brown -
Mac Norton -
Matt Elliott -
Matthew Gaylor -
Neil Johnson -
petro -
Phaedrus -
Ray Dillinger -
Tim May -
Tom Vogt