[8552] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: smartcards, electronic ballots
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd)
Sun Feb 4 22:34:38 2001
Message-Id: <200102050318.WAA0000083376@torque.pothole.com>
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:43:19 PST."
<3A7DB0D7.B1F44250@nma.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 22:18:36 -0500
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
From: Ed Gerck <egerck@nma.com>
Message-ID: <3A7DB0D7.B1F44250@nma.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:43:19 -0800
To: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
Cc: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>, cryptography@c2.net,
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, Ed Gerck <egerck@nma.com>
References: <20010201184240.5587.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> <3.0.6.32.20010204103813.00868d90@pop.sprynet.com>
>.>...
>> The voting apparatus may keep a serial record of each vote, in order, for
>> auditing purposes.
>
>No, it MUST not. See the FEC standards on voting. The FEC standards also
>demand "storage alocation scrambling" in order to avoid even a serial order
>of storage.
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a preferential voting system is used
which is voting order depenent. This requires that all ballots be
numbered so that can be processed in the same order on a recount or
else different results could occur because of the change in order.
>.>...
