[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:34:55
<jc at trillian.mit.edu> wrote:

> | On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:47:40PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> | > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:36:55 -0400
> | > Dan Ritter <dsr at randomstring.org> wrote:
> | >
> | > > I'm perfectly good with the current method we use in Waltham:
> you | > > fill out your paper scantron ballot, you put it in the
> machine | > > yourself, the vote counter increments, and your ballot
> is saved | > > in the lockbox for recounts or verification.
> | > >
> | > > It involves software, but not much.
> | > >
> | > > -dsr-
> | >
> | > The system you articulate would be even better if it gave the
> voter a | > receipt showing his/her choices. I like the lockbox for
> the paper | > ballots.
> |
> | Actually, such a receipt is a really bad idea -- it has enabled
> | vote selling. There are various schemes to enable voters to get
> | some token from the machine which signifies that they voted and
> | can handle verification that the vote was counted, but they are
> | always much more complex and expensive... and prone to rigging.
> | -dsr-
> 
> Indeed; when such schemes have been tried,  the  inevitable
> result  is  employers giving their employees a page listing
> how to vote, with the understanding that if you don't  have
> the  proper voting receipt, you shouldn't bother showing up
> at work at al.

I hereby revoke my endorsement of the receipt. I hadn't thought about
that.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
April 2016 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21