Re: [ga] Registration process suggestion

[david@aminal.com]

On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 01:54:46AM -0500, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
> Once the vote is registered - properly and the registration deposited with
> Joop's trusted people the remaining process is only subjected to
> verification process.  The best method is each voter name is published
> with the vote.  I think this is best for assemblies - open voting
> processes.  However if people insist on hiding their vote - or voting
> anonymously - that same can be achived and still maintain the integrety
> and validity of the vote.
> 
> A list of aliases is generated and each alias assigned to a voter with a
> password.  The voter receives the alias and password from one of Joops
> trusted people via email and then proceeds to vote at Joop's voting
> booth.  The alias is then published with details of what each alias has
> voted for.  The actual voters can then confirm their alias voted in the
> way they wished.  This is the best electronic audit proceedure to gurantee
> the vote free of fraud.  The voter is in fact their own auditor and the
> trusted people are there incapable of committing fraud.

A list of votes by alias would partially work, but it would eliminate the
ability for everyone to cross check against the registration role. You could
see if the numbers matched up, but you couldn't tell if fake aliases had been
substituted for real registrants that didn't vote. It's close to the same
kind of problem that can occur if your own vote is confirmed, but the rest
are unknown.

I sympathize with the desire for secret ballots, but until there is some
trust in the people/organization compiling the vote, I don't see how it
can be done.

David Schutt