Scientists question electronic voting

[Barney Wolff]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 12:45:41PM -0600, (Mr) Lyn R. Kennedy wrote:
>
> > > Paper ballots ...
>
> > Surely you jest - where else did the term ballot-stuffing come from?
> 
> Perhaps you can elaborate on how ballot-stuffing is done without the
> co-operation of most of the people overseeing a polling place.
> 
>  
> > The key, imho, is >=2 independent means of counting the votes.  Online,
> > as each vote is cast, and a paper trail, for later reconciliation.
> > It's hard for both to be skewed by the same amount, and differences
> > will both raise suspicion and give an order of magnitude of the fraud.
> > That seems to be the direction the experts are heading.
> 
> What is to prevent the people overseeing a polling place from casting the
> votes for the dead? They would be recorded properly both ways.
> 
> Or they could void and re-vote for ordinary voters.
> 
> Seems there is still a problem unless each eligible voter brings a smart-
> card, warm finger, eyeball, etc.

This is a perfect example of what I'm complaining about:  You're holding
electronic voting to a much higher standard than you are paper ballots.

Perfect is the enemy of better.  We do have to take care that electronic
voting does not introduce new and catastrophic vulnerabilities.  Other
than that, it merely has to be better (and no more expensive) than the
best existing systems.

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com