Re: Yes to Publicity! Not to Anonimity! Was: Re: GNOME Foundation Annual Elections - proposal

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 11:16:47AM -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 10:31, George wrote:
> > Also simply saying that the issue is not refuted even if you have not given a
> > strong logical argument for why it is still valid does not make it refuted
> > BTW.
> > 
> Pardon me?

'does not make it NOT refuted' I mean obviously.  The above paragraph is
using your own flawed logic (even with the typo fixed) BTW and is just as
circular as your arguments.

I think we're boring most people.  From the number of 'pro' responses vs. the
number of 'anti' responses (counting people, not instances).  I'd say the
point is a little moot, unless a real issue can be brought up.

To summarize though:  The worst real scenarious that you brought up were
compromises to anonymity.  Those compromises are easily solved by the voter
without modifying the system (whatever the system is).  In any case even if
such a compromise is possible.  It is already possible to compromise this
information if you are yourself running the voting 'server'.  However this
information doesn't add any more 'fraud', at most it makes it possible for
some 'evil' entity to 'revert' voting to be 'public'.  As such it obviously
is no worse then the previous public voting system.  So security of private
voting >= security of public voting (if the systems as used last year and as
proposed are used) and if this is the possible compromise.  The system is
really EXACTLY the same as last year except with the voter names and details
deleted in the public record.  For example if we all didn't know each other,
then there would be absolutely no difference in the two systems.  For this
reason it is not technically possible to find a flaw in this system which
doesn't exist in the old.  QED!  (ok, to prove it rigorously I'd have to
introduce more notation)

Again, sorry for those people truly bored with this ...  I can't help myself.
It's an occupational hazard in studying mathematics to get into such debates.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   If you think nobody cares if you're alive,
   try missing a couple of car payments.
                       -- Earl Wilson