Dave Farber
2018-08-09 02:33:48 UTC
Subject: Re: [IP] xkcd: Voting Software a to true comment on our field
Date: August 9, 2018 11:30:36 JST
Dave and all,
Using multiple and variety channels in information theory can defeat any "noise", taken as attackers or faults. See how, and comments requested, on The Witness-Voting System <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286459956_The_Witness-Voting_System>
But reading current comments online, they seem to cluster, sooner later, regarding the high risks of networking, or the benefits of a paper copy.
1. A networked machine (not addressable on the Internet), watchable by political friends and political foes alike, is inherently more secure than an isolated machine watchable by friends only.
2. Having a paper copy does not guarantee that the voter read and verified it, is less secure the N independent electronic copies, whicn is also less costly to verify and maintain.
3. Oligarchs have long been able to control their suppliers and their machines to their end -- not to the community they supposedly serve -- it is a known market failure.
Software can help, including problems in #1-3, but that is why the FUD against software and AI continues -- no one honestly wants supervision! Isolated is better against Information Theory methods, they know better...
Theoretically, however, for fair elections, we should benefit by treating voting stochastically, albeit making it a rule (unlike today) that every vote counts, and that votes be private. These and other conditions can make voting to become trustworthy, as shown in the paper linked above, for comments.
Best,
Ed Gerck
-------------------------------------------Date: August 9, 2018 11:30:36 JST
Dave and all,
Using multiple and variety channels in information theory can defeat any "noise", taken as attackers or faults. See how, and comments requested, on The Witness-Voting System <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286459956_The_Witness-Voting_System>
But reading current comments online, they seem to cluster, sooner later, regarding the high risks of networking, or the benefits of a paper copy.
1. A networked machine (not addressable on the Internet), watchable by political friends and political foes alike, is inherently more secure than an isolated machine watchable by friends only.
2. Having a paper copy does not guarantee that the voter read and verified it, is less secure the N independent electronic copies, whicn is also less costly to verify and maintain.
3. Oligarchs have long been able to control their suppliers and their machines to their end -- not to the community they supposedly serve -- it is a known market failure.
Software can help, including problems in #1-3, but that is why the FUD against software and AI continues -- no one honestly wants supervision! Isolated is better against Information Theory methods, they know better...
Theoretically, however, for fair elections, we should benefit by treating voting stochastically, albeit making it a rule (unlike today) that every vote counts, and that votes be private. These and other conditions can make voting to become trustworthy, as shown in the paper linked above, for comments.
Best,
Ed Gerck
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=26461375
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=26461375&id_secret=26461375-c2b8a462&post_id=20180808223358:A951F1A2-9B7C-11E8-92B1-BCE84C4BBFDB
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com