Angry

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, sfb posted:

It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt
then you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the
machine disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which
one is the true vote?

Why would a receipt *ever* be printed before the "final" button is
pressed? At that point, printing them in duplicate is not a problem.

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification, the
task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.


Additionally, just because a receipt is printed it does not mean that the
vote recorded is the same as printed on the receipt (screen says vote for
"X", receipt says vote for "X", record vote as a vote for "Y"). It appears
there is no way to insure fraud is not a part of the voting process. The
only thing that can be done is try and minimize the fraud.

Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

If you are going to use the paper receipt to recount, then you can't
allow them to leave the polling place. Imagine the law suits when you
have a million electronic votes and people only returned 500, 000
receipts.

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
ups.com...
Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them,
if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

Flyingmonk opined

Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...
The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.

That's a "big" problem? I would expect anyone involved in a major
vote-purchasing scheme would simply take advantage of absentee ballots. You
don't buy the behavior of the voter. You just buy their absentee ballot
(signed, of course).

I don't really think receipts are all that necessary (a single printed
ballot should be sufficient), but I don't see that they would present a big
problem either.

Pete

The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.

That's a "big" problem?

Uh... I think it would be. Another problem is anonymity. The voter
will either take the paper home (where it appears eventually in his
trash) or he leaves it at the site (along with his fingerprints). A
sufficiently clever and motivated opponent (personal or otherwise) could
make use of this information.

In any case, the issue is whether or not the vote the voter =thinks= is
cast, is =actually= the vote that gets counted. This is independent of
paper receipts to the voter.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
In any case, the issue is whether or not the vote the voter =thinks= is
cast, is =actually= the vote that gets counted. This is independent of
paper receipts to the voter.

Agreed. My point is (still) that giving the vote a receipt isn't going to
affect the issue of vote selling very much. There's not much to prevent
vote selling now, other than the risk of being found out, as it is now.
Handing a receipt to a voter isn't going to shift the problem much, given
how wide open it already is.

There's not much to prevent
vote selling now, other than the risk of being found out

Well, the receipt makes the vote you sold verifiable without going the
absentee ballot route.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Receipts will be a sea change for vote selling. It doesn't happen much
now because it is all risk no reward to the buyer who has no way of
knowing how the seller actually voted. A receipt removes all risk
guaranteeing the buyer gets what they paid for.

Without receipts, the buyer has to seek out voters in advance. With
receipts, the buyer just stands outside the polling place and buys a
sure thing after the vote is cast.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jose" wrote in message
...
In any case, the issue is whether or not the vote the voter =thinks=
is cast, is =actually= the vote that gets counted. This is
independent of paper receipts to the voter.

Agreed. My point is (still) that giving the vote a receipt isn't
going to affect the issue of vote selling very much. There's not much
to prevent vote selling now, other than the risk of being found out,
as it is now. Handing a receipt to a voter isn't going to shift the
problem much, given how wide open it already is.

("Ash Wyllie" wrote)
Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes.


Thomas Edison
1868: Came up with his first patented invention, an Electrical Vote
Recorder. Application for this patent was signed 0n October 11, 1968.
Because the invention was way ahead of its time, it was heartily denigrated
by politicians... He now becomes much more oriented towards making certain
there is a strong public demand and associated market for anything he tries
to invent.

Tripped over this while surfing.


Montblack