What do you think about this and have you seen this popular site before?
This was taken from a web site http://www.afvr.org
How can we safeguard the integrity of each vote?
Today we have technology that protects our financial systems, military
weapon systems and national intelligent organizations. These proven
systems can be combined in a way to issue serialized equipment to
authorize personnel for the dates and hours needed. Each would have
their own level of clearance to perform the tasks they are responsible
for. Each action would be recorded and verified with a higher levels
of network authority and again, only available during the hours and
dates needed.
Ballots would only be printed after the voter has cast
their vote but before they leave the booth. If the voter made a
mistake he could put the printed ballot into the booth's scanner for
correction. All ballots scanned at the booth would go into a shredder
and the voter could then correct his ballot on the screen and reprint
his ballots.
Once the voter accepts the printed ballot he submits his
vote on the screen and takes the two ballots to the depository. So
two computer generated, serialized and scanner perfect receipts of the
completed ballot are printed.* One for the voter and one for the
public record. This would eliminate all the extra ballots that could
be used for unauthorized voting as well as any question of voter
intent.
Each piece of equipment involved in the issuing of the
receipt would be linked to the serial# of that ballot and an
electronic document would be generated that exactly matched the two
printed receipts. So the voter themselves has validate the printed
ballots, keeping one for themselves, while the other electronic
time-stamped document is deposited into an optical scanner used as a
secure depository. This second scanned count which should always match
the electronic count.
This paper ballot could also be used for recounts if needed. The voter
could use the receipt to inquire about their vote in the future. The
stuffing of the ballot box or "finding ballots" would be eliminated.
With this system, if you find a ballot, you have to find the voter
that cast that ballot too. This is not so in any of the current
systems in place today nor have we ever heard such a system ever
proposed.
http://www.afvr.org
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds very reasonable to me. But
you need to recall that *accurate and honest* elections are a very
political issue in and of themselves. No one really wants an honest
and effecient election with results immediatly known afterward.
Everyone has their own agenda here: Either they want the Republicans
to lose, or the Democrats to lose, or black people or poor people or
whoever to not get a chance to vote. Or maybe the polls should open
too early or not be open late enough. Maybe military personnell in
overseas points should not have their votes arrive on time to be
counted. You name the problem; there are always supporters of whatever
is done wrong. Computerized voting schemes such as you described
would resolve all those problems. They'll always hasten to tell you
how computerized, internet voting would 'never work', how 'hackers
and other cheats' would steal the election, etc.
I cannot imagine how any *computerized system* of voting could have
been more corrupt and dishonest than the national election in 2000,
for example, in Florida, nor the various elections in Chicago most
any time. But you just cannot shake the people off of their notion
that computerized, internet voting would not work. The suggestions
offered by AFVR are very good ones. Now, good luck in trying to get
them implemented, maybe with a couple more tweaks. PAT]
D Flint (david@qssp.com)