Re: Concerns about the election process

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 09:23 -0300, GermÃn Poà CaamaÃo wrote:
> > No.  It's not easy really.  Just because the number of voters matches
> > the number of anon tokens listed, doesn't mean that unique tokens were
> > handed out to voters.  The results can be perturbed by handing out the
> > same token to more than one voter, and insert phony tokens with
> > arbitrary votes attached to them.
>
> It is pretty hard that two voters receive the same token.

This statement is only true because we trust the elections committee.
Otherwise, I don't see why it's pretty hard to give two voters the same
token.  *That* is the point of this thread.

> > There's nothing we should rush for this year.  The point is /not/ that
> > the election committee cannot be trusted.  The point is, if we want to
> > have a system in which the voters do not have to trust the election
> > committee, then our current system does not qualify, and for the least,
> > it should not be advertised like it does.
>
> Having the list of all voters and each voter checking his or her vote,
> should be enough.  IMVHO, Any voter as member of foundation has the
> moral obligation to check it.

As Ryan noted and I tried to explain, checking votes in the current
system means almost nothing.


-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
 Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759