Re: [ga] Registration process suggestion - Third Party Monitoring....

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

David and all,

  David you make a good point here and a strong argument.  However I
believe there are reasonable alternatives, some of which have already been
presented to engender trust in a reasonable VOTING process.  Joe's,
Joops and Roelands proposals, Roelands being the strongest, but certainly
would incur some cost, is likely the better of them, with the caveat I
suggested for purposes of validity of Voters.

  It might also be wise and prudent to consider "Third Party" monitoring of
the voting process.  I believe that the Carter Foundation and the FEC
would provide these services.  Has anyone besides myself ask these
organizations?  The FEC is willing.  I did not hear back from the Carter
Foundation.

david@aminal.com wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208