[7223] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Electronic elections.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Honig)
Mon May 29 12:40:12 2000
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000529063954.00814800@pop.sprynet.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 06:39:54 -0700
To: Dan Geer <geer@world.std.com>, cryptography@c2.net,
"coderpunks@toad.com" <coderpunks@toad.com>
From: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <200005291152.HAA01518@world.std.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:52 AM 5/29/00 -0400, Dan Geer wrote:
>There is no doubt whatsoever that the sanctity of a vote once
>cast can be absolutely preserved as it is moved from your house
>to the counting house. What cannot be done, now or ever, is to
>ensure the sanctity of the voting booth anywhere but in a
>physical and, yes, public location attended to by persons both
>known to each other and drawn from those strata of society who
>care enough to be present.
So I typically elect to vote by mail. Is my vote worthless because of that?
There are no replacements for the
>voting booth as a moment of privacy wrapped in inefficient but
>proven isolation by unarguable witness, a place where we are
>equal as in no other.
'Sanctity'? 'Moment of privacy?' Sorry, no sacred cows allowed
here, unless they're seeing eye cows, or nicely barbequeued.
>Move the dispatch of a vote to a remote
>browser and $100 bills
So standing in line with the masses like some Russian waiting for
bread somehow immunizes against voter fraud?
>Internet voting is anti-democracy and those who cannot bestir
>themselves to be present upon that day and place which is never
>a surprise to do that which is the single most precious gift of
>all the blood of all the liberators can, in a word, shut up.
Yeah right... real purty flame there, real Daughters of the American
Revolution material, blood of the liberators and all, but how about a real
argument? Or is your retro dogma supposed to be lapped up
on the basis of your empty, inflamatory assertions?
