CDR: Re: A secure voting protocol

[Bill Stewart]

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 at pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639