Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?

williamgrogan

In my opinion the hard core opposing the implementation of E-Voting as proposed by the government and advocating VVAT are in the same category of illogical activists as the anti-MMR, anti-Fluoridation, anti-Nuclear Power, anti-GMO’s and are in general Luddites who oppose technological change simply because they fear change.

I do believe that they are grossly exaggerating the risks to democracy, the risk of a major failure of the E-Voting system and even the risks of failure that would be greater than the current system which disenfranchises the equivalent of the population of Bandon and Clonakilty put together at every election.

More to the point, should the government spend millions more of tax payers money now and every year for ever more to placate this Luddite lobby group? The money thus wastefully diverted in a futile attempt to make something that will be far more accurate then the present system even more complex and perhaps more prone to error and introduce conflict between the data stored on paper and the data stored electronically will cause a downside elsewhere. How many schools’ modernisation plans will be postponed again, how many people waiting on hip replacements will have to carry on limping in pain so that this illogical group are satisfied?

Some of the arguments put forward are; cosmic rays that can flip bits (solved by parity bits), mad hackers (who can’t gain access because its not on the Internet), anti-democratic loonies with bar magnets (where were these people when petrol bombs were the weapon of choice?), useless Analysts & Programmers (these are the same people who have brought computers successfully into all our lives), buggy software (solved by testing) and idiotic civil servants and Ministers.

Look who is opposing the introduction of the government's proposals for E-Voting; Activists from the States who pop up everywhere E-Voting is being introduced, The Labour Party who along with the Trade Union movement traditionally oppose technology because thing erroneously believe it costs jobs, FG=Conservative, Old Fashioned, Civil War, slightly pro-Unionist, members of the Christian coalition in the EU, want God in the constitution and the Green Religion/Party who oppose technology at every turn and want us back to knitting our own clothes and cycling everywhere.

Besides the type of person who thinks his tooth fillings are poisoning them, there are other people who after a cursory glance might be “fooled” into thinking that these people have a point but the difference between the two would be that most people when analysing the matter further would conclude that there was an irrational and unfounded fear here. The hard core anti-fluoridation or anti-MMR or the type that have found Jesus can never be convinced. Even with the disclosures over the weekend regarding Dr Wakefield’s “conflict of interest” and letter in which he denied that there was a conflict of interest, the anti-MMR brigade are now saying that if you oppose Wakefield you are part of a “witch hunt”. I suspect that if Wakefield’s paper had not been published by the Lancet as they now say it shouldn’t have been that the uptake of vaccinations would be far higher than it currently is.

A major difference between all the other matters that the ISS debates is that the VVAT is relatively new and unchallenged. If we are any use we should be able to analyse this in “real time“ so to speak and make a prediction that it is another scare story.

bminish

Personally I don't think the VVAT deals with the real issue, at best it's a kludge.

Secure and accurate electronic voting is of course perfectly possible but unless the software and system that is used is open to independent public analysis then why should it be trusted?

For example PGP encryption is a widely trusted and secure encryption system because it's innards (source code) is available to anyone who wants to take a look and see if there are any backdoors or

Linux is a reasonably secure operating system (when correctly configured anyway!) because it's source code is available to all and bugs get fixed when discovered. I don't think I need to spend long explain in which ways windows differs in this regard!

I'll trust electronic voting when I can see for myself that it's secure but for now all we have to go on are the claims of our politicians and the manufactures.

As a sceptic I am not given to accepting things as being true on the basis of faith alone so for now I don't trust the proposed Irish electronic voting system

.Brendan

williamgrogan

Personally I don't think the VVAT deals with the real issue, at best it's a kludge

I agree with this. If the software is properly written, tested and independently verified by a competent oversight committee than we do not need VVAT. Or to put it another way VVAT is not going to make the system any more secure and is on par with using sellotape to fix an air traffic control system’s weaknesses. The “need” for solid paper is I think a Psychological thing and not a logical thing.

Secure and accurate electronic voting is of course perfectly possible but unless the software and system that is used is open to independent public analysis then why should it be trusted?

No problem, except for the public bit. I know Open Software is a big hit among many people but I for one wouldn’t put my software out as open source or I would lose its value. This was not specified originally for some reason but while there are pro’s and con’s most (the vast majority) of computer systems are not open source and that doesn’t cause a problem and certainly does not invalidate the E-Voting system.

I'll trust electronic voting when I can see for myself that it's secure but for now all we have to go on are the claims of our politicians and the manufactures

I think this is an extraordinary demand because you do not apply this rule to all the other computer systems you use.

As a sceptic I am not given to accepting things as being true on the basis of faith alone so for now I don't trust the proposed Irish electronic voting system

As a skeptic neither am I. Why do you need “faith” to trust the E-Voting Computer System but not faith to trust the computerised ABS system in your car. I am presuming you are not a Green Party member who only has a bike.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan


No problem, except for the public bit. I know Open Software is a big hit among many people but I for one wouldn't put my software out as open source or I would lose its value. This was not specified originally for some reason but while there are pro’s and con’s most (the vast majority) of computer systems are not open source and that doesn’t cause a problem and certainly does not invalidate the E-Voting system.

I didn't say open source (as in GPL) I meant source code open to full examination by anyone who wishes to take a look. A mechanical Voting machine would be open to scrutiny, why not an electronic one?
By all means copyright the source code but make it available for scrutiny

I think this is an extraordinary demand because you do not apply this rule to all the other computer systems you use.

Actually I do make this requirement of systems that I require to be secure, Do I need to see (or have available to me) the source of MS office to word process a letter ? Of course not

Would I trust an encryption system or a firewall that I don't have access to source code for ? Absolutely not

As a skeptic neither am I. Why do you need “faith” to trust the E-Voting Computer System but not faith to trust the computerised ABS system in your car.

I don't have ABS or Airbags and have little faith in either as means of improving one's chances of survival in a crash.

ABS is only effective when drivers know how to use it and may actually lengthen stopping distances if you are used to removing your foot when you feel the wheels lock up which is the way most of us are used to doing things.

The effectiveness of airbags has not been examined in the context of the European driver / Car and airbags have a proven detrimental effect in accident situations (even quite minor accidents) on people such as myself who wear glasses..

Anyway these are different issues since I can take apart and test the ABS and airbag systems if I so desire. I can't do this with software when the source code isn't available

I need to be able to trust beyond reasonable doubt that any voting system that replaces paper in this country is secure and trustworthy, not that paper was always perfect either, the Dead have turned out to vote in the past in this country

I am presuming you are not a Green Party member who only has a bike.

Which way I vote is entirely my business but I would like to have confidence that widespread election fraud cannot take place and that my preferences remain private.

.Brendan

williamgrogan

By all means copyright the source code but make it available for scrutiny .... Would I trust an encryption system or a firewall that I don't have access to source code for ? Absolutely not

Again I don’t in principal have any problem with the Independent Commission (IP) getting experts to examine the software but neither of us demand this of other systems. OK, so you picked one system that you presumably know how to “read”, a Firewall, and say that you would need to access the code to ensure its OK but that does not apply to say the Air Traffic Control software that you rely on not to fly you into the nearest skyscraper. Those of us who would be looking into a dark sack for all the good examining the source code of a Firewall system would be cannot have this luxury. If you were to examine all software that your life depended on you would need to be an expert on many different types of systems, computer languages, methodologies and have an awful lot of spare time. Unless you happen to be an expert on Firewalls and have a lot of time even examining those is of limited use.

Whether or not ABS saves lives when it works as designed is a tangent. My point is that everyone who drives a car with ABS or has an airbag fitted trusts the computer to work properly without any paper and without examining the source code. Their lives depend on it more so than a few glitches in an E-Voting system.

As you say the paper system was from any measurement of accuracy very poor and no one complained and now many orders of magnitude of accuracy is demanded up to and included the billion to one event where a bit gets reset and counts a vote wrong.

Those that have decided not to vaccinate their children make similar arguments about the dangers of MMR versus the benefits.

Actually I think demanding VVAT is very like demanding the three separate jabs instead of the all in one MMR.

Syth

I've always thought that we should be skeptical about the current implementation of E-Voting. We are asked to put a lot of faith in this system with very little actual evidence. We can make the system trustworthy and transparent, yet the government won't do this, we have to just trust them.

How about if someone claimed something about the safeness of a given technology (eg GM, CAM, take your pick), and we could test these claims in the field, so to speak, but we are asked to just trust them. Thus we must be initially skeptical about the E-Voting claims.

More to the point, should the government spend millions more of tax payers money now and every year for ever more to placate this Luddite lobby group?

VVAT won't cost millions. The E-Voting system alone will, if you have been following the mailing list, the cost of e-voting has arisen. There is an extra cost in personell, storage. If you are so concerned about money you should advocate paper ballots as it costs less. But cost shouldn't be an issue about ensuring democracy is seen to be done.

(BTW bminish GPL'd code technically is copyrighted, but it's semantics)

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
A... but that does not apply to say the Air Traffic Control software that you rely on not to fly you into the nearest skyscraper.

I do not need how to read a ATC system, nor do I demand to see source code before flying. there is however a fundamental difference between ATC systems and electronic voting or data Encryption.

If an ATC system fails or is tampered with the effects are hard to ignore and are gone over very carefully (for years and years) by the accident investigators.

If a voting system fails to register some votes (or mis-registers some of them) due to software flaws
or is electronically 'Ballot Stuffed' due to poor back end security, there is as it stands a high probability that the problem will not be visible and the problem would go un-noticed, not a healthy way to run a democracy.

Those that have decided not to vaccinate their children make similar arguments about the dangers of MMR versus the benefits.

Why similar ? My 3 have had the MMR although I was pleased to see that mercury is no longer used as a vaccine preservative.

I cannot myself test vaccines so I have to accept the results of others in that regard however one of the key things with science is the process of open peer review.
let's see truly open peer review of the electronic voting process, this is the only way to have trust in the integrity of the process of voting.

(BTW bminish GPL'd code technically is copyrighted, but it's semantics)

Yeah I know that, thanks.


.Brendan

Syth

That's one of the crucial reasons why we need VVAT. It is very difficult to notice an error without a VVAT.

williamgrogan, you seem to be against VVAT, what procedure would you suggest to gaurantee that there were no errors, while also preserving voting secrecy.? VVAT is the best option, (and I'll think you'll agree that we need to be able to gaurantee the result of an election is accurate.)

williamgrogan

How about if someone claimed something about the safeness of a given technology (eg GM, CAM, take your pick), and we could test these claims in the field, so to speak, but we are asked to just trust them. Thus we must be initially skeptical about the E-Voting claims.

But these things are tested by experts and you do trust them normally and also by 400,000 voters in Ireland in 2 elections. Bminish has no ABS or airbags (at least he said he didn’t – does he not go around in other people’s cars with these features?) Do you trust your cars computer systems, if you have any? If so have you examined the source code? Is it open?

I suspect most Skeptics would vaccinate their kids because all the science (done by experts) points to it being not alone safe but even if a tinchy bit risky, its acknowledged to be far safer than getting any of the diseases that it prevents.

None of us has the time or training to personally check everything, why change this with the Voting mechanism?

Why are people demanding far far higher standards of a simple E-Voting computer system than virtually any other computer system they use daily? Is it not technophobia?

I don’t remember any movement to check that the current paper system was working OK. Everyone just assumed it was. In fact the paper system was full of flaws and these bothered no one until a computer was introduced into the equation. I would suggest that many of the flaws are now only coming to people’s attention with the introduction of computerised voting. Now suddenly everyone wants to check the source code, print copies of the ballot papers, do parallel running “for a few elections” and generally go into denial about the normally accepted risks associated with technology.

VVAT will add millions and certainly cause a delay which in itself will cost millions. The last operation to upgrade the polling machines cost something like €2,000 per box and there are 6,000 of them. The paper has to be designed (will it need holograms?), purchased, installed in all 6,000 machines, controlled, stored and presumably counted. Then there most certainly will be a discrepancy between the counted paper votes and the computerised totals what do we do? Count all the paper again and then again like every election ever and come up with a different figure every time. Then what do we do?

People are latching onto VVAT in the same way as they have to supplements and if this nonsense continues the government will take the easy route and waste a few more millions of tax payers money.

Personally I would have gone straight to Internet and ATM’s and probably saved an absolute fortune. It looks like this is the route the UK may take. But the £40,000,000 is spent so we might was well get stuck and use it and not waste any more money.

williamgrogan

If an ATC system fails or is tampered with the effects are hard to ignore and are gone over very carefully (for years and years) by the accident investigators.

If a voting system fails to register some votes (or mis-registers some of them) due to software flaws ………… the problem will not be visible and the problem would go un-noticed, …

There is a contradiction here. If a plane crashes then there is a catastrophic failure and then they examine the system. ATC systems (all computer systems in fact) can and do run for years with bugs that never cause a failure, ditto E-Voting. In the highly unlikely event there was a catastrophic failure then the E-Voting system would have to be examined in the same way and the Minister gets to resign.

But there are two big differences between the 2. ATC=10,000,000 lines of code, E-Voting = a few thousand? E-Voting systems are relatively simple and many orders of magnitude easier to debug and test.

So what if there are “a few votes” missed. At present there are 10,000 in every election that we know of.

williamgrogan

…let's see truly open peer review of the electronic voting process, this is the only way to have trust in the integrity of the process of voting.

We do not have “an open peer review” of ATC systems, car software, bank ATMs, etc.. why do we need it for E-Voting systems? The E-Voting the government has proposed has been tested by independent entities. They have agreed to set up, at more expense, an independent oversight committee. Is that not enough?

I don’t have a problem with more testing but there comes a point when the testing is only being done for the sake of appearances and to placate those who will never be happy.

PS There are now organisations dedicated to stopping nano-technology and I have absolutely no doubt that when NASA’s next major mission to Jupiter, JIMO, becomes widespread public knowledge the anti-nuclear brigade will be out again to try and stop it.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
But these things are tested by experts and you do trust them normally and also by 400,000 voters in Ireland in 2 elections.

All we know is that electronic voting produced some result in past elections, there is no way of verifying that this result has any relationship to how the voters actually voted.

None of us has the time or training to personally check everything, why change this with the Voting mechanism?
Why are people demanding far far higher standards of a simple E-Voting computer system than virtually any other computer system they use daily? Is it not technophobia?

All that needs to be done is to open it up to those who wish to be able to verify the entire system's integrety. I DO NOT trust a few politically appointed people working behind closed doors to do this on my behalf.

I don't remember any movement to check that the current paper system was working OK. Everyone just assumed it was. In fact the paper system was full of flaws and these bothered no one until a computer was introduced into the equation. I would suggest that many of the flaws are now only coming to people’s attention with the introduction of computerised voting. Now suddenly everyone wants to check the source code, print copies of the ballot papers, do parallel running “for a few elections” and generally go into denial about the normally accepted risks associated with technology.

With the paper system there were a lot of people hanging around at every stage looking for irregularities, that's why some of the past irregularities have come to light !

with the new system about all that is available to the various hangers on is a per polling station breakdown of results.

Personally I would have gone straight to Internet and ATM’s and probably saved an absolute fortune. It looks like this is the route the UK may take. But the £40,000,000 is spent so we might was well get stuck and use it and not waste any more money.

But the system is ****e, pure ****e unless it's accuracy and validity can be assured absolutely.

personally I do not think that a paper audit trail is necessarily a good way to do this but proper INDEPENDENT scrutiny of the entire system, end to end in an open and transparent manner would be a good start.

.Brendan

williamgrogan

It is very difficult to notice an error without a VVAT ….. what procedure would you suggest to guarantee that there were no errors, while also preserving voting secrecy.? VVAT is the best option,

Perhaps you might explain why printing paper can be used to test the system better than its already been tested. If you are not suggesting a test then....

1) do we count all the votes on paper every time, remember if we don’t its still only a test.
2) do we allow the candidates to ask for a re-count of the paper? If so under what conditions?
3) what if the paper and the electronics disagree by say 20 votes? Do we count the paper again? If we do and its now out 50 votes what do we then do? Remember it is bordering on impossible to count by hand accurately. Even with a printed ballot paper there may be votes that are unclear. Printing is also a manual event. No parity checking possible with a printer.
4) How long do we keep VVAT? If no problem crops up for say 10 years can we drop it? If so how do we know that there wasn’t a bug that will only crop up after 11 years?
5) do you really think that counting bits of paper is better than a structured test done using the computers themselves by computer experts?

I suggest that we accept the testing that has already been done. If the oversight committee decide it was inadequate then they can order further tests and controls.

and I'll think you'll agree that we need to be able to guarantee the result of an election is accurate.

It hasn’t been accurate up to now and it hasn’t bothered anyone!

There is an issue here that is worth mentioning. A properly conducted test can prove certain things to a very high degree of accuracy. You do accept that don’t you? If not then all the scientifically conducted studies in the world will not convince you of anything. Tests do convince those that have a scientific bent that proof has been obtained. For those without a scientific bent it doesn’t.

Here’s a moral dilemma. Lets suppose I’m correct and VVAT is useless. Should the government waste millions of tax payers money and print paper knowing that it’s a complete waste of time and will prove nothing, to placate those that are not of a scientific leaning? (Lets assume for the sake of argument that politicians have morals.)

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
We do not have “an open peer review” of ATC systems, car software, bank ATMs, etc.. why do we need it for E-Voting systems? The E-Voting the government has proposed has been tested by independent entities. They have agreed to set up, at more expense, an independent oversight committee. Is that not enough?

ATM machines are 'tested' by the banks, they have strong interests in making sure they are working correctly, the customer has his / her statement, gets a withdrawal slip and if needed has an ombudsman to appeal to. ATM fraud / Error has happened in the past and probably continues to happen on occasion.

Car software is tested by the manufacturers who have strong vested interests in getting it right due to litigation lawyers.

The concern I (and many others ) have with electronic voting is that errors are unlikely to get detected as the system currently stands, there may also be potential for ballot stuffing in an un-traceable manner.

I don’t have a problem with more testing but there comes a point when the testing is only being done for the sake of appearances and to placate those who will never be happy.

I agree but on the other hand I have a rather nice piece of ' research ' which was sent to my grandfather in the mid 50's which concludes that there were no ill effects from smoking. it's not quantity of testing / research it's the quality and openness of same that counts.

.Brendan

williamgrogan

All we know is that electronic voting produced some result in past elections, there is no way of verifying that this result has any relationship to how the voters actually voted

1) Well no one got 1,000,000 votes?
2) No one, to the best of my knowledge objected to the result.
3) No problem of any note cropped up.
4) The voting machines functioned OK.
5) The people controlling them could use them OK.
6) The voters seemed to be happy using them and understood them
7) The results were more or less as expected.

A rather important point to bear in mind is the tests are not done on the basis of a secret ballot.

I DO NOT trust a few politically appointed people working behind closed doors to do this on my behalf.

I thought that was the basis of Parliamentary Democracy?

The people who run Aer Rianta are politically appointed! They control the ATC system, same difference. OK – I propose Bminish for a position on the Oversight Committee.

bminish

Originally posted by williamgrogan
1) Well no one got 1,000,000 votes?

So no Gross software errors then, at least not any shown to the public

2) No one, to the best of my knowledge objected to the result.

How can they with no other records or audit trail to prove lack of tampering

3) No problem of any note cropped up.

No real way of noting problems though is there?

4) The voting machines functioned OK.
5) The people controlling them could use them OK.
6) The voters seemed to be happy using them and understood them

so they didn't crash, the GUI is fairly straightforward and the user instructions were on dispaly, fundamental requirements that..

7) The results were more or less as expected.

Not exactly overwhelming proof that every vote was correctly counted though is it?
Let's do away with elections altogether and have a GOV commission to appoint at election time who the MORI opinion polls suggest we want. We could save a bundle that way.

I thought that was the basis of Parliamentary Democracy?

It is, However politicians here and elsewhere have provided ample proof that they are not to be trusted where vested interests are concerned.

Not of course suggesting any of the current crop would ever engage in anything even slightly improper at election time, but why leave the remotest possibility of this option open?

The people who run Aer Rianta are politically appointed! They control the ATC system, same difference.

NOT the same at all, A faulty ATC system does little to help Aer Rianta and is very obvious when it fails !

If you must force this analogy then consider the BTSB or the various politically appointed Co managers positions, I admit this does not involve the trustworthiness and security of computers but if public systems aren't wide open to public scrutiny then systems are only as trustworthy as the people who manage the systems and we haven't the best of track records in that department.

OK – I propose Bminish for a position on the Oversight Committee.

What are the terms

.Brendan

bminish

By the way this poll doesn't seem to be going williamgrogan 's way.... evidence of a flawed electronic voting system perhaps

ecksor

Originally posted by bminish
By the way this poll doesn't seem to be going williamgrogan 's way.... evidence of a flawed electronic voting system perhaps

The polling system on boards has worked successfully and without complaint for years.

williamgrogan

I strongly suspect a dawn raid by the Luddite brigade. I was surprised that a poll on a new and obscure thread went from zero to 30 votes in as many minutes.

However I have been in a minority of 1 before and no doubt will be again. As someone said, when you know something for a fact all the dissenting opinions in the world are irrelevant.

The idea that the best solution to testing and controlling a computer system is a multi-million euro parallel paper system is literally absurd. If it looks like sh1t, smells like sh1t and tastes like sh1t it probably is sh1t.

I actually suspect that VVAT is an April Fools Joke and someone is going to jump up and say gotcha!

However The Pro-VVAT Forum is currently safe from my input due to a bit of private enterprise imposed censorship.

One of the problems with all these “debating” type forums is that the majority of people using them agree with each other.

However, many of you who are now ISS supporters admitted that you were originally fooled by various false philosophies. That was why I posted the question on Chernobyl. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!

williamgrogan

Bminish, have you read this post and would you like to comment?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1422335#post1422335

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
However I have been in a minority of 1 before and no doubt will be again.

1? Nobody voted yes.

williamgrogan

Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?
You have already voted on this poll

So you can reset the counter. Hilarious!

A thought struck me reading my again delayed New Scientist of the 14-02-04 which carries a one sided article on E-Voting, (quoting the ever present Ms Mercuri). When voting was first introduced it was even more primitive than it is today. Much of what we now take for granted in the current voting “system” evolved, such as the secret ballot, the PR system, the locked box, the returning officer, the list of electors, everyone voting the same day etc.. As I already said with all new computer systems they too will evolve, become more secure and easier to use via the Internet.

The article also pointed out the much touted 134 “missing votes” out of 10,000 cast in a recent Florida election could simply have been people not voting after registering to do so in the booth. There is no indication of an error.

Some stats:

Only 0.01% of the world’s information is now on paper

100 million Brazilians voted electronically in 2002 and India (pop: ~1,000,000,000) expects its next general election to be fully electronic after a successful test in the last state elections.

williamgrogan

I have linked the MMR vaccine scare to the VVAT scare because I think they are caused by similar woolly thinking. After Wakefield has been embarrassed, to put it mildly, by the Lancet saying they regret printing his research, his supporters didn’t bat an eyelid and continue to claim MMR causes their children’s autism. It seems from the lack of reply to my point that testing the E-Voting computer software also hasn’t impressed the VVAT lobby. Can I ask an obvious question, will any amount of testing and examination of the code by independent experts and monitoring by an oversight committee do? Or do you want VVAT irrespective of any amount of testing and improvements to the security of the system?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
So you can reset the counter. Hilarious!

What? Either you voted the wrong way by mistake or you did that deliberately to sow some confusion. Our system is tested and has performed satisfactorily on thousands of occasions.

williamgrogan

Does Boards.ie use VVAT?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Does Boards.ie use VVAT?

The facility does exist actually, but it doesn't maintain the anonymity of the vote.

williamgrogan

Well it was made quite clear to me that boards.ie is not a democracy and its obviously without free speech so who cares about a secret ballot?

ecksor

Well, it's like the private message facility, we tend not to invade the privacy unless there's very good reason. I was actually surprised to learn that it stored each voter's preference rather than just the fact that they'd voted.

You're perfectly correct though in your point, qualitative arguments decide things around here, not quantitive support.

Syth

Perhaps you might explain why printing paper can be used to test the system better than its already been tested

If every voter is allowed to inspect their vote and verify that it is correct and it is then deposited into a ballot box, then it's like the system is being tested every time it is used. If any mistake occurs anywhere in the country, then we can be made aware of it. That was we would know with 100% accuracy that the election is a true representation of the electorate's intent.

I thought that was the basis of Parliamentary Democracy?

The basis of parlimentary democracy is that the people choose their representatives and they make the decisions. If the current set of represetatives gets to choose the next set of representatives, then that is not democracy.

It hasn’t been accurate up to now and it hasn’t bothered anyone!

OK so the current paper system isn't perfect, and non-VVAT E-Voting would be better, but VVAT E-Voting would be better still, so why don't we switch to that.

williamgrogan, the only real reason you are giving for not having VVAT is the cost. Is there any other reason?

ecksor

On the whole paper thing,

I was told last week that a friend of mine had been to an e-voting conference in Spain and had been told about a non-paper based scheme that the inventor claims gives an acceptable VVAT implementation without paper. Unfortunately I don't have a link to this scheme or much information about it.

Also, on the E-voting forum earlier a link was given to http://www.vreceipt.com/article.pdf which proposes another non-paper based VVAT mechanism.

I'll take a good look at that and offer my comments upon it if anyone cares? Disclaimer: I'm not an expert by any means (yet ) but I have a little bit of experience in recognising glaring issues with security schemes. If either of these systems stands up to rigourous scruting then it may turn out that paper will not be required in, say, 5 years or so.

Sparks

There was a code review performed on the proposed eVoting system now being railroaded through by Cullen. As bonkey pointed out, it's not particularly reassuring.

Further, it takes a fair degree of gullibility to insist that our system is trustworthy when noone knows how it works, and even more gullibility given the record of the Diebold voting machines in the US.

The VVAT is the bare minimum needed for trustworthyness in this system. However Cullen has now stated that the VVAT will specifically be omitted.