D
Dave Fawthrop
Guest
On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:15:06 +0100, Mike Swift <[email protected]>
wrote:
| In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
| <[email protected]> writes
| >I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
| >that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
| >must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
| >and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
|
| Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
| the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
| with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
| more votes for their preferred party.
You have less faith in people than I have.
No it is a *trial*. They have already run a small pilot when, if I were
running it I would check 1000-2000 random papers. This time they will
probably check 10,000 to find the error rate.
The real problem is is it less than the Polling Booth error rate.
All polliing systems have problems.
Dave F
wrote:
| In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
| <[email protected]> writes
| >I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
| >that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
| >must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
| >and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
|
| Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
| the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
| with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
| more votes for their preferred party.
You have less faith in people than I have.
No it is a *trial*. They have already run a small pilot when, if I were
running it I would check 1000-2000 random papers. This time they will
probably check 10,000 to find the error rate.
The real problem is is it less than the Polling Booth error rate.
All polliing systems have problems.
Dave F