[7231] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Electronic elections.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnold G. Reinhold)
Tue May 30 10:22:34 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210101b5596e3ecf72@[24.218.56.92]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20000529063954.00814800@pop.sprynet.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:32:48 -0400
To: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>, Dan Geer <geer@world.std.com>,
cryptography@c2.net, "coderpunks@toad.com" <coderpunks@toad.com>
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not sure I care for the elitist tone in Dan's posting either, but=20
he raises some points that deserve serious consideration. Sure we=20
have mail-in absentee ballots now, but the number of people who=20
choose to vote that way is small and an absentee ballot split that=20
varied markedly from the regular vote would certainly stand out.
Today's headline's include concerns over the fairness of Peru's=20
election, just ended. Elections in the US have been free from major=20
ballot tampering for so long that most of us have forgotten the=20
reasons for the complex voting procedures we use. These were hard=20
fought reforms when they were introduced. We should look at Internet=20
voting from every angle, including historical lessons, before=20
employing it to select our governmental leaders.
Of course Internet voting has many applications besides political=20
elections. And I don't think anyone would seriously consider its use=20
in political elections until access to the Internet is nearly=20
universal. We have time. Let's err on the side of caution.
Arnold Reinhold
At 6:39 AM -0700 5/29/2000, David Honig wrote:
>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.=A0
>
>'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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
