[LINK] Blind voter demands secret vote

[Craig Sanders]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 07:51:32PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 00:51 -0700, David Goldstein wrote:
> > Let's face it, electronic voting is here with its imperfections, and
> > it's going to happen and be available to everyone in the not too
> > distant future. So make it work.
> 
> Yes. By all means. But let's NOT accept it WITH its imperfections. They
> are too dangerous.

i don't think anyone's dead-set against (good, well-designed, secure,
etc) machines that *assist* with voting. if that enables verifiable
private voting for the blind (e.g. by outputting both text and braille
on the ballot when printed or, alternatively, a bar-code which could be
scanned by a voice synthesizer to read the printed ballot to the blind
voter - but there *MUST* be a way for the blind voter to verify that the
printed ballot matches his/her voting intentions), so much the better.

the objection is with electronic *counting* of votes. that's too great
a security risk, too easy to subvert and, as Richard pointed out,
denies the right of all citizens to participate in the scrutineering.

i.e. machine-assisted voting while retaining manual counting would
probably be acceptable to most. use the machine, print the ballot, check
that it's correct, put it in the ballot box as normal.

unfortunately, there are commercial and government interests that want
electronic counting and are trying very hard to find excuses to justify
it - their best bet is to latch on and use disabled groups like the
blind to provide them cover.

they will conflate the two and present it as a package deal as if it's
impossible to have machine-assisted voting without electronic counting.



> > Karl, I agree "Non-discriminatory voting is NOT the same as electronic
> > voting, and it is a fallacy to equate the two." But, electronic voting
> > is probably the only viable method of giving people who are blind a
> > private vote.
> 
> I don't buy that for one second. If a few intelligent people put their
> minds to it, they could come up with a good low-tech solution to the
> problem. It probably wouldn't make anyone much money, though. Two
> minutes thought suggest various low-tech mechanisms to preserve the
> secrecy (not privacy) of the vote while allowing the blind voter to
> check his/her vote.

you've said this a few times now, but without providing any details of
these methods you claim to see....so, please, give us the benefit of
your two-minutes worth of thought.

> The dangers of current electronic voting technology mean it MUST NOT be
> introduced. Not even the most basic attack vectors have been dealt with;
> not even the most basic errors have been avoided. The gung-ho,
> go-for-it, lets-do-it, it'll-be-alright-on-the-night BS coming from
> various vested interests MUST be ignored.
> 
> Using the lack of voting secrecy for a few handicapped voters to justify
> endangering the entire system is just not acceptable - especially since
> it invalidates the system for those voters too.

precisely.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>