[MG] Introducing PdI (Partido de Internet)

Michael Allan mike at zelea.com
Wed Jun 2 11:31:14 EDT 2010


Ed and David,

I agree with Ed's points.  Public voting is a natural form of
expression, and ordinarily it would be our expectation; whereas
private voting (at least on public matters) is an awkward and harmful
contrivance.  But still, for better or worse, people have come to
expect privacy in voting.  They have come to believe that the secret
ballot is a basic right (as though it were a hard won victory over the
authorities, as opposed to an imposition by them!).  This is the sense
in which I concede to David, for sake of the argument, that people do
indeed expect privacy in voting.

David Ruescas wrote:
> I have just stated what I think the public expects, and that the
> people I have talked to (experts in researching voting schemes) do
> not consider public voting systems seriously for the purposes of
> replacing or complementing current private election methods.

But we cannot reply to "experts told me so" arguments.  If it's in the
literature, as you say, please cite your sources.

For my part, I cited a recent discussion among experts on the topic.
You may go into that forum and ask questions (they tend to be helpful
to non-experts).

> There's also the choice of words. In the literature, a "secure" voting
> system usually implies privacy.

Please provide references for this, too.  Where do you find that
public voting systems are generally characterized (I would say tarred)
by the label "insecure"?
 
> ... What I have said is that it doesnt matter what I think, so long
> as society has decided on the matter. / If you want to know, I dont
> have a qualified opinion. My intuition tells me...

Again, it's best just to cite your sources.  (We cannot debate on the
basis of intuition.)

> > Setting all that aside, we could focus on the likelihood of
> > success/failure for a private voting system.  Before beginning, I
> > would ask you to briefly describe your method of verification.  What
> > assurance will you give people that the results are trustworthy?
> > (Just roughly, in a sentence or two.)
> 
> A voting system that satisfies this property is said to be universally
> verifiable. You can read up on this in the literature, but basically
> a universal verifiable voting scheme allows any third party to verify (in a
> mathematically provable way) the results of an election. This usually
> involves a public bulletin board, where all the data from an election is
> posted for anyone and everyone to see.

You did not answer the question.  Have you designed a verification
scheme, yet?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/



More information about the Start mailing list