CDR: Re: A secure voting protocol

[Tom Vogt]

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.