| Author |
Message |
    
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 120
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:47 pm: | 
|
In an effort to keep the seeVote conversaton focussed in one place, I am responding to the questions from other threads here!
This visual may help answer many of the questions:
http://www.seevote.com/version6/calc.html |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 121
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
JT says:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=72&post=30651#POST30651
What you cannot understand is that these questions have been answered, many times by me and others. I guess I'll do it again for fun. This time, I'll run the logic backwards in the vain hope that you may gain understanding into your own poorly formalized ideas.
Let us say that someone wants to Coerce you into voting in some manner. For example, let us say that a Bush supporter wants to ensure that you, as a Democrat, do not vote for Kerry.
Are you with me on this point? This is easy to see correct?
They demand that you SeeVote for "SpongeBob Squarepants for President."
Now you take a receipt for "Bush" and a receipt for "Kerry". According to your ideas, there is no way to prove that it is
YOUR vote. You turn it into the bad guys.
The Bad Guys look online and they find that there is no votes for "Spongebob". So no matter what way you voted, no matter what receipts you turned in, they know you are lying.
Not very anonymous eh?
seeVoteDan says:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=72&post=30713#POST30713
JT,
you almost understand! hang in there!
in your example above.. "the Bad Guys" will take your DECOY receipt .. and find that your DECOY receipt IS online!! wow!!
because the decoy receipt for you .. is someone else's REAL receipt..
get it??
in seeVote every voter has access to one randomly cast ballot of any candidate.
yes , for now, we are talking about a one-race ballot .. as to preserve anonymity.
this protects the Thug from purchasing votes!
SpongeBob would not be on the ballot AND no one really vote for him/it/she.
I understand where you did not understand seeVote from the start.. it is ok.. do you get it now?
JT says:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=72&post=30729#POST30729
1) You never mentioned no write in votes. So you are limiting the voting system. I didn't misunderstand anything, you never mentioned that fact.
2) You have introduced a "chicken-and-egg" problem. Let us say that "the bad guys" decided to force you to vote Bush. They coerce you into being first in line to vote. Then when you go in and pull the ballot, they can instantly check to ensure that you have voted correctly by being the SECOND person to vote. See that?
Everyone that votes after you thus has some information on your vote. While during the course of an election that become small, your probabilities start out very large. Hence you can communicate information across SeeVote in violation of what you have said.
JT,
thank you for this honest debate!
..and in a format we can all understand.
You bring up two good points.
I have a rebuttal.
1) Yes, "Write-ins" are problematic.
You never mentioned no write in votes. -You never said you wanted write-ins.
I rationalize not including write-ins in these 4 ways:
-- a) NOT carried in all states
-- a) If candidate can't get X amount of petitions signed to be on the ballot, then this candidate should not be on ballot.
-- b) Voter hand writing/spelling ties ballot to voter
-- c) Ability to have write-in should not stand in the way of voter-verified results!
JT, what is the advantage to democracy to insist on write-in candidates?
2) Yes, display of ALL ballots DURING the receipt collection phase would be a problem.
To resolve this, two issues have to be addressed.
-- a) The first voters have a special opening process to disguise their ballots.
-- b) Only a limited amount of receipts per party are available to each voter to be used as a decoy receipt.
Maybe the seeVote calculator helps visualize things.
-- a) Special Opening Process
The special opening process for first voters would involve DECOY ballots. These are produced in equal amounts (the example
shows 1 decoy ballot per candidate).
These decoy ballots are pooled together with the ballots of the first voters. From that pool, the first voters may pick a decoy receipt.
There a few ways each state can decide how to handle this. I do not care to spend time debating how to do this best, but clearly a solution can be found.
Suggestions:
-- a1) Volunteers to vote without collecting receipts til later in the day.
-- a2) Three members of each party vote first without receipts til later.
etc..
-- b) Limit of receipts available
The machine which prints the ballots receipts can also be used to print a receipt for any of the candidates by randomly selecting a cast ballot, instead of allowing the voter to select from a list of cast ballots.
JT, I too belive strongly we must eliminate or minimized the ability for coersionin in our voting system.
Even though the law does allow coersion, as we have in Oregon and their use of state-wide ballots-by-mail, seeVote protects us from the thugs anyway. Nothing prevents a ballot-by-mail being sold to the highest bidder. I am less concerned about the current laws and voting standards .. as I am to promote a system that is TRUSTworthy and without coercion.
Only I can verify my ballot.
(Message edited by seeVoteDan on November 11, 2006) |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 30
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Number can be altered explain to me the process that will detect a number change that does not change the number of ballots cast + decoy balots.
Expain to me the security you will use to keep your site/data secure from prying eyes etc.
I dont believe your theory so show me how it also remains anonymous.
If you want to have a seevote post fine I will play your game so explain Dont say "this post" shows it I dont want to have to jump from post to post to follow your logic put your logic in one place. Or write a paper with your logic and I will read it.
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 123
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Matt R. Jezorek says:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/show.cgi?tpc=72&post=30768#POST30768
Or what if I coerce you to vote in some method and wait for you to vote and strong arm the receipt out of your hands before you can post a "decoy" balot?
Matt,
From the voting booth each voter can opt for a receipt of their ballot .. and/or a receipt of any existing ballot for any particular candidate (receipt is randomly selectled by computer).
The display of this ballot, after the polls close, will protect the receipt. The person trying to buy a vote will not be able to know WHO actually cast the ballot.
So, in your example, a thug waiting outside the polling station would be foiled. |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 124
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Number can be altered explain to me the process that will detect a number change that does not change the number of ballots cast + decoy balots.
Matt,
can you explain this question again.. I think you are making an important point.
thank you. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 31
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 1:22 pm: |
|
So then here we go with the first issue I see.
Machine X is tampered with.
You vote for Y. Machine X says records 2 things. What you really pushed and what the machine decided (Z). When you ask for a reciept for your actual vote it displays a reciept for Y randomly selected from someone else who voted Y. Now you go check your vote says you voted for Y (except its not your vote is a randomly generated vote).
Lets say You voted for Y and you want a decoy. The system records a decoy and hands you Z. Which is really not a decoy but the system records it as a decoy. It will give you a reciept for your actual vote.
The machine can always print what ever it wants you to print and add to the decoy counter everytime someone asks for a decoy ballot
The machine here still rules over all which is the downfall.
You cant verify by that. If the human can pick a decoy and have it print what ever they want it to print then the machine too can print what ever it wants
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Jt Gleason
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Entropyfails
Post Number: 61
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
in seeVote every voter has access to one randomly cast ballot of any candidate.
When you say this and do not see the problem, it worries me.
Let us say that the "bad guys" are 25% of the population and they coerced another 25% into voting. Now watch this magic.
Bad guy goes in and gets ballot number 13427 and votes for Bush. You go in and get ballot number 27914 and vote for Kerry, even though you were not "supposed to". You say, oh well, I'll just get a random Bush ballot.
You push the "give me bush ballot" button. The ticker tapes reads off a random ballot number... 13427.
There is a 50% chance that you turn in a "bad" ballot. (actually it is more if you really want to work out the probabilities). They shoot you for lying.
So there you are, dead and anonymous. Something must have went wrong with SeeVote. Thus, I understand SeeVote better than you! *laugh*
Scientists who have worked on this problem have a better way of doing this. They propose that your ballot has a random number next to each candidate. You can then use those numbers to "sign" a ballot. If you design the math cleverly, you can make it so no one ever knows (EXCEPT the computer) which random number is the "real" random number that identifies who you voted for. Then you can publish the results. Anyone can add all of the votes together and ensure the results of the election. The math works out in a way that proves the count of the vote without proving who voted for what.
I think this is a bad idea from the requirement of a secure computer to do the cryptography. If you break into that computer, you have all of the voter records. The scientists who have published it... (noar? anyone remember who did this system?) say that they can figure out no way around that problem.
Either way, thanks for posting your own thread. |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 125
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
JT says:
Let us say that the "bad guys" are 25% of the population and they coerced another 25% into voting. Now watch this magic.
Bad guy goes in and gets ballot number 13427 and votes for Bush. You go in and get ballot number 27914 and vote for Kerry, even though you were not "supposed to". You say, oh well, I'll just get a random Bush ballot.
You push the "give me bush ballot" button. The ticker tapes reads off a random ballot number... 13427.
There is a 50% chance that you turn in a "bad" ballot. (actually it is more if you really want to work out the probabilities). They shoot you for lying.
No, JT, The ability to TRUST the word of one thug over another is one thing.. but no one can PROVE anything .. cause the bad guy might have a decoy receipt too.
We can talk about the meaning of "RANDOM" another time.. the point is that the order of voters is unknown.. therefore the numbers are random to the computer. this arguement is valid.. not as the siuation you describe above. I would agree if the order of voter receiving random numbers was known, but the voters get registered in one place .. and vote in another.. usually didvidded by several machines used on a first come first serve basis. The computer can not possible keep track of who votes when.
Can we close the anonymous receipt issue?
What appeared at first to be impossible .. now with a bit of understanding.. you see that ALL votes are displayed at the same time. this is important!.
And we will have to eliminate the use of "write-in" candidates in order to protect the anonymity of ballots.
We have plenty of other issues to beat to death.
I suggest we discuss how seeVote does not need machine security or cryptography.
Other threads are discussing the strength of the double-blind counting methods of seeVote, thus minimizing the need for secure machines during the counting phase. This allows hand-counting and machines to be used at the same time to eliminate the debate about which is better. Use both! |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 32
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
5 + 5 = 10
1 + 9 = 10
2 + 8 = 10
So how do you prove that the 5 1 or 2 is correct.
I dont want to shoot you down till you explain everything as if I was a 80 year old lady who could barely hear and see so I need a good "How it works" make it as if you are trying to sell the 80 year old lady this system because she is also the Elections Supervisor
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 33
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
No, JT, The ability to TRUST the word of one thug over another is one thing.. but no one can PROVE anything .. cause the bad guy might have a decoy receipt too.
That does not matter even numbers aside.
Good guy goes votes for X, Bad guy comes in votes for Y even though he was coerced to vote for X. He asks for a reciept for X. Good guy trusts american voting systems and does not ask for a reciept or does not validate it later only. Bad guy gets reciept for X, when it comes down to the computer part.
Computer knows I voted for Y. I ask for X it knows how many people voted for X Y and how many decoy. The system increments all the numbers to stay in sync. Like If I ask for X but Voted for Y computer say.
voter 101 vote X gets X print out
voter 102 vote Y gets Y print out
voter 103 votes X gets Y print out
voter 104 votes Y gets X print out
voter 105 votes X gets X
voter 106 votes Y gets Y
voter 107 votes X gets Y
Vote Tally
X Y Decoy
4 3 3 = 10
How can you stop X = 3 and Y = 4 if
X+Y+Decoy = 10?
If the votes are modified at time of creation then you never would know the results are modified.
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Jt Gleason
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Entropyfails
Post Number: 64
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 2:59 pm: |
|
No, JT, The ability to TRUST the word of one thug over another is one thing.. but no one can PROVE anything .. cause the bad guy might have a decoy receipt too.
So a "thug" is not actually a "thug" but a real voter who will fraud his other "thug partners"?
What the hell are you talking about?!?! *laugh*
The thugs know who they voted for. They know their own receipt numbers. That's the whole point of your "SeeVote." With this knowledge, they can check to see if you are lying because there is a significant chance that you will "turn in" one of the receipts that THE THUGS CAST!
You end up dead and "anonymous."
Why can you not see this? I assume because you have a vested interest in your ideas.
This SeeVote idea is just a stress response to the bad voting we see currently. It isn't a voting system, it is a belief system that you hold. You cannot prove anything about it because you cannot think clearly about it. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 34
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
This guarantees the inability to sell votes or trust any receipt as proof of your actual vote. http://www.seevote.com/version6/more.html
Welp that said it all seeVote itself says its not worth the paper its printed on
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Early in the voting, JT's example is a real problem if you didn't cast a decoy vote. However the only thing that gets your 'correct' vote counted is to have an ID number on it in the 'real' ballot box. If your decoy is to work, it has to be shown on the vote tally indistinguishable by the voter (and the would-be vote coercer) from the decoys. If your ballot in the 'real' ballot box is removed and the decoy is substitued with the ID numbers (this is an inside job, of course) then you think your ballot has been correctly counted and the decoy has been, and you have no idea (which is how you were protected from the vote-coercer, but not from your ballot choices being stolen).
Conclusion: the one thing that SeeVote was supposed to do that other voting systems can't, is the one thing it can't ensure. |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 126
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 4:39 am: |
|
JT,
yes! not a gang of thugs .. but the indivdual thug receiving a DECOY receipt, which turns out to be the same receipt as their receipt. You could get shot! Is this what you are saying?
Yes! you are correct!
seeVote has anonymous receipts, but can not safeguard against a 1 in 10,000* chance of the same person threatening a voter as being the same person who voted in the same voting booth as the coerced and then pick the same ballot as the thug to be used as their only decoy. As remote as this scenario is, it is still possible, but less likely to be a threat than using absentee or ballots-by-mail. Therefore, seeVote is a HUGE improvement!!
Thank you for making this clear.
seeVote 100% completely protects a thug from buying votes. This is a huge step up from ballot-by-mail of Oregon, where coercion of both forms (threat and purchase) are encouraged. Ballot-by-mail can produce coecion on a mass scale.. where as seeVote's caveat is limited to the one thug's receipt.
seeVote minimizes threat of coercion and eliminates the selling of votes. With seeVote every voter has the option (and duty) to verify their own vote AND this is a huge advatange to eliminating THUGS who threatens fraud and corruption without detection in today's system!!
you are choosing one thug over another, JT.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT OBSERVATION!
what is your point?
Stay with paper counting in secret?
OR
Stay with buy/sell ballots-by-mail?
seeVote is a solution to counting in secret AND eliminates the ability to sell your vote... to ensure fair elections.
If someone was going to get killed, Oregon would not have ballot-by-mail state-wide.
You are attacking seeVote..
because it allows the public to count their votes instead of the select few poll workers you advocate. I believe in democracy, not fascism.
some continue attack seeVote cause its not paper-only .. Counting in secret with machines or paper-only clearly allows corruption that can never be detected. seeVote exposes all the ballots for public counting and verification.
Thank you for debating your points. I do not subscribe to your belief that we should count in secret because as you say thugs MIGHT kill over how I vote.
Thugs kill for smaller reasons, voting is not going to stop them. A thug could threaten death for showing up to vote in any system, would you advocate eliminating elections? your logic is flawed.
..but with seeVote we do have an opportunity to TRUST our election system.
what is your point? seeVote is anonymous. The thug still can NOT prove how I really voted.
JT, does seeVote utilize anonymous ballots? |
Jt Gleason
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Entropyfails
Post Number: 69
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 5:59 am: |
|
You say...
You could get shot!
and then you say...
Therefore, seeVote is a HUGE improvement!!
How do you ever expect anyone to agree to that?!?!
I will agree that vote-by-mail is a very poor idea that should be banned. If voting isn't important enough for said person to be present, then it is best that said person not vote. For troops, they should have polling stations in their bases and ships and they should vote just like the rest of us.
As for calling vote counters "fascists", well, I'll let everyone else make up their minds. But I don't think that comment will win you any converts. |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 127
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 6:39 am: |
|
Brant,
I am not sure what you are saying. I thank you for spending time to understand seeVote.
Let me understand your statement:
Early in the voting, JT's example is a real problem if you didn't cast a decoy vote. However the only thing that gets your 'correct' vote counted is to have an ID number on it in the 'real' ballot box. If your decoy is to work, it has to be shown on the vote tally indistinguishable by the voter (and the would-be vote coercer) from the decoys. If your ballot in the 'real' ballot box is removed and the decoy is substitued with the ID numbers (this is an inside job, of course) then you think your ballot has been correctly counted and the decoy has been, and you have no idea (which is how you were protected from the vote-coercer, but not from your ballot choices being stolen).
Conclusion: the one thing that SeeVote was supposed to do that other voting systems can't, is the one thing it can't ensure.
Let me say, that seeVote does allow your vote to be correctly counted. And the the voter can verify this by reviewing ballots on the Internet.
If the voter sees a different vote on their ballot with a unique ID.. then that voter will KNOW something is wrong.
If the ID system is hacked .. then the voter will know.
Please rephrase your question.
thank you,
seeVoteDan |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 128
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 6:51 am: |
|
JT,
you could get shot walking to the store.. is my point.
yes, the military should vote like we vote too.
With seeVote they can! no need for ballot-by-mail.
what is your point?
so.. cause ballots-by-mail outta be banned so should seeVote? no logic there. the two systems are very different. what is your point?
seeVote is REAL voter verification in addition to eliminating coercion tactics found in ballot-by-mail sytems. what is your point?
why are you attacking seeVote?
why do you want people counting OUR BALLOTS in secret?
what is wrong with people seeing their own ballots? what is your hidden agenda?
Does seeVote use anonymous ballots or not?? |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 36
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 7:34 am: |
|
what is wrong with people seeing their own ballots? what is your hidden agenda?
Because you cant prove it's my ballot
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 129
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
Matt,
we are talking about anonymous receipts.
we can talk about "seeing ballots" in a bit.. jumping around does not us build on anything.
Will you please comment on anonymous receipts. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 39
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
I already have you just wont answer it in a fashion that makes sense
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Jt Gleason
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Entropyfails
Post Number: 73
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
you could get shot walking to the store.. is my point.
Nice point. I'm glad we have come full circle from talking about voting to walking to the store. I think SeeVote could be a great help in my store walking. I heartily recommend SeeVote to anyone walking to the store. You get a paper receipt that you can use to PROVE you went to the store, but not which store you went to! Pure Genius!
what is wrong with people seeing their own ballots? what is your hidden agenda?
As for 1, SeeVote destroys the secret ballot, as you have proven yourself.
As for 2, I'm part of a master conspiracy that controls the entire universe. We have sent our galactic representatives here to ensure that SeeVote never sees the light of day because it will destroy our cleverly designed plan of ensuring that anyone who counts the vote is a fascist.
Part of my conspiracy is to get you to post on this forum so We can identify your computer and implant a tracking device. This device ensures that anyone who reads your posts will become too stupid to understand the PURE GENIUS of SeeVote. You have already fallen victim to our plot, you may as well give it up. Perhaps if you rename your project to VoteSee, you may have a chance. But we have determined that you will never make the necessary change.
Does seeVote use anonymous ballots or not??
Well you said it yourself, you can get shot from turning in the wrong ballot. You are both Anonymous and Dead. It is like the Schrodinger's cat that is both alive and dead at the same time. I suppose there is some anonymity in death.
I will sign off this one time using my real name and title.
Lord Zargon
Galactic High Commander of Baby Eating and Fascism
Ruler of the Chip Implanting Bargazinels |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 40
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
okay now that i wiped the coffee off my computer monitor I may have to sue Lord Zargon for damages suffered by my innocent computer hardware
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 130
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Lord Zargon,
nice debate technique!
Since seeVote NEVER reveals voter's real ballot intent (except to its voter) by definition IS anonymous.
I think it's clear to see you use Diebold speaking-points to accept the status quo excuses for counting ballots in a vacuum.
Fine, you have not proven why seeVote is not anonymous. Proving how I did NOT vote is not the same as knowing how I voted. MY ballot is anonymous. I can not sell my vote.
Lets talk about some of the other attacks you are confused about. Like TRUSTing the public display of ballots on the internet... if you will agree the seeVote uses anonymous ballots.
In conclusion,
You are raising a minor point (thugs killing over one "proof negative" receipt) that the entire state of Oregon disagrees with you. So can move on?
(Message edited by seeVoteDan on November 12, 2006) |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 131
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Matt,
Looking at your ballot on the internet can not possibly reveal voters intent since the voter see ALL ballots .. together .. at the same time.. on the net. The ID on the receipt would match the ID on the Internet.
If the ballot on the net is different than the receipt.. then something has gone wrong.. it might have gone wrong at the start .. or upto the last step of displaying properly on the net. In all cases .. something would be wrong IMMEDIATELY (and now time for a re-vote .. this forces everyone to be honest..the danger of vacuum systems is that they dont know when they've been hacked).
The seeVote receipt is anonymous to everyone, but the voter.. only the voter knows if the net is correct.. one ballot/voter at a time.
seeVote works on the idea that if I can see that my ballot is correctly displayed.. then all the other ballots are correct too (unless people are demanding a re-count).. and therefore the totals that I can count.. are the same as everyone elses.. and if my results equal the results announced on the news ..and from everywhere I check the Internet .. then that is all joe-public needs to understand.
Voters do not know how seeVote works anymore than how touchscreens work or the electorial college .. or other accepted systems.. the great thing about seeVote is that any voter can see their vote.. if they can not see their vote accurately on the net .. then even joe q understands something is wrong.
I did not mean to ignore your points til now, Matt .. part of the anonymous aspect of seeVote is that the Internet allows the "thug" to look up a receipt too .. the thug will be able to verify the receipt, but also knowing that the receipt may or may not be the voter's real ballot... even decoy ballots are displayed on the net too .. all are counted for total.. since the decoy receipts are receipts of real ballots .. while being used as a decoy for everyone else.
I hope that makes sense. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Okay so here it is
Thug says Vote for X.
You go vote for Y get a dummy of X
HOW DO I KNOW my vote for Y went to Y and not X.
Same thing mystery behind the scenes your "verfied vote" is nothing more then a sham at that point.
Whats to say that the machine puts a dummy ballot on more people then actually request one but the machine says they did. Now I can show them what ever I want where ever. Now Vote for X becomes Vote for Y with a dummy Ballot of X for you to view.
I think your too wrapped up in your idea.
You cant see the forest for the trees
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Okay simple terms.
IF i was persuaded to cast my vote for some other candidate. How do I see my vote?
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Jt Gleason
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Entropyfails
Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 6:40 pm: |
|
I think it's clear to see you use Diebold speaking-points to accept the status quo excuses for counting ballots in a vacuum.
Shhh. They will stop sending the manila envelopes filled with cash if you keep that up. Don't ruing my thing, man.
Proving how I did NOT vote is not the same as knowing how I voted.
In our two party system, it is in fact the same thing. But logic obviously has no effect on you.
Perhaps it is possible for the entire state of Oregon to be wrong... Nah... Say SeeVote like 20 more times. Repetition will make it as true for us as it has for you! |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 45
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Boy seeVote sure is spamed all over the internet
http://www.mathdaily.com/lessons/SeeVote
Sorry but your credibility with me as a human just went down
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Matt says: "Okay so here it is
Thug says Vote for X.
You go vote for Y get a dummy of X
HOW DO I KNOW my vote for Y went to Y and not X.
Same thing mystery behind the scenes your "verfied vote" is nothing more then a sham at that point." Matt's telling you the same thing I was 6 months ago, Dan. While you can find out that your ballot is in the database for the SeeVote ballot box (both the real one and all the decoys), you can't tell whether it's going to be counted or not, or you have the situation where anybody can tell what the decoys are and what the real ones are, which makes the decoys worthless.
" |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 132
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Matt says:
Okay so here it is
Thug says Vote for X.
You go vote for Y get a dummy of X
HOW DO I KNOW my vote for Y went to Y and not X.
Matt,
I can tell you have the wrong understanding of seeVote. Let me explain...
The reson you know your vote is there ..and is counted .. is that you can see ALL the ballots (in your precinct) on the net on one BIG webpage... all ballots have IDs but.. YOU only TRUST that YOUR real ballot is accurate. If your Y ballot (your real vote) is displayed properly .. then you KNOW "your Y vote went to Y". It is up to the owner of the X vote to verify their ballot .. or not .. its up to them .. that's democracy. ..at least your ballot is counted accurately... and you KNOW it. you TRUST it.
yes, there are other seeVote concerns to discuss .. but do you understand the "net display" part of seeVote?
thank you for your time! |
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 133
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Brant you are jumping ahead ..and Matt is not talking about the decoy ballot issue.. he is talking about the decoy RECEIPT and where it comes from.
Let everyone catch up, Brant, jumping around helps no one .. and so that the others can understand your concern.
Brant, the decoy ballots are fixed in number and only help in disguising first voters real ballot. More as everyone else catches up. thanks. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 4:33 am: |
|
Dan said: "The reson you know your vote is there ..and is counted .. is that you can see ALL the ballots (in your precinct) on the net on one BIG webpage... all ballots have IDs but.. YOU only TRUST that YOUR real ballot is accurate. If your Y ballot (your real vote) is displayed properly .. then you KNOW "your Y vote went to Y". It is up to the owner of the X vote to verify their ballot .. or not .. its up to them .. that's democracy. ..at least your ballot is counted accurately... and you KNOW it. you TRUST it." As far as I've seen written, the only thing that makes your "my-real-ballot" my counted ballot is that it has an ID number in the "real ballot box", and if that ballot is exchanged so that it's replaced with another ballot that matches a decoy and has the original ID number, you think your ballot counted and you'd be wrong. It takes an inside job capable of numbering ballots, but that's all. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 46
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 5:34 am: |
|
Okay so you give me 2 receipts?
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 5:52 am: |
|
Whats to say here.
I want to vote for X.
Thug wants me to vote for Y.
I go vote for X.
I get a decoy of Y.
The machine says in its internal brain. "HAHA Got ya"
Machine Records Vote for Y (number: 123456)
Machine records Decoy of X (number: 789012)
I hand you 123456 as you decoy number You believe your actual vote to be 789012 which is realy the decoy vote.
You cant mark the item as a Decoy or it fails. You cant mark my vote as a Vote or it fails.
You cant verify my vote was actually counted it fails.
In otherwords so far....seeVote fails
But I do have some oceanside property in nebraska I need to sell if you get anyone else on this bandwagon let me know I could use an extra 1M this year to help on taxes
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Daniel Frank McMullan
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Seevotedan
Post Number: 134
Registered: 03-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 8:11 am: |
|
ah.. the decoy receipt is merely a receipt of someone elses REAL ballot. so both decoy receipts AND real receipts .. will be found on the internet .. and together they will represent the results of that precinct.
decoy ballots.. are something different .. and obviously something that is confusing to everyone.. but lets get through the understanding of DECOY RECEIPTS.. i think I have confused the two of you so much.. that you are arguing against something that seeVote is not.
It is up to someone else to verify their ballot (their real receipt; possibly your DECOY receipt)
does that help?
all decoy receipts are of someone else's real ballot. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 50
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
So you give me two reciept numbers? You did not answer that yet.
If not how do i know if my reciept number is a decoy or the real deal, which means how do I verify that my vote actually counted.
If its two then all i need to do is reverse the ORDER of the print so that the decoy prints in the real place and the real prints in the decoy
for example
private void printReceipt(int TrueReceipt, bool genDummy)
{
int dummy;
if (genDummy)
{
dummy = randomSelectionNumber();
}
sendToPrinter(TrueReceipt, dummy);
}
lets say thats valid then all i need to do is modify your vote and then pass
sendToPrinter(dummy, TrueReceipt);
done now you will verify the wrong vote to be true and your decoy to be true .
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
No, Dan, that decoy receipt that matches someone else's vote is likely worthless to keep the guy off of me that said, "vote this way or I'll break your legs", I need a decoy that looks the way I tell it to look, and so does anybody else. (The safest decoys would be straight ticket votes, one of each.)If you're an early voter, you must tailor make your own decoy, not "use somebody else's real vote" . You have to satisfy the thug, remember?
And you still haven't given any way that the voter verifies his real vote, he just sees it amongst the dummies and other real votes in the representation of the SeeVote box. Mattt has shown this, I have shown this, it isn't us that's not getting this Dan, it's you. And I raised these same arguments the first time that you posted this, months ago, as well. |
Matt R. Jezorek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mattjez
Post Number: 51
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Here is the other issue so far we are looking at one race. What if I tell you how to vote exactly each ticket line by line who to vote for.
Guess what if it randomly picks a ballot what if it does not match. Or what if I tell you that I want X voted for but I want a ticket for Y on 1 election and I want Z voted for but I want a ticket for A.
Now they just have to be more creative in influencing the vote but trust me people are creative.
Voting is not the Olympics. There are no votes awarded for difficulty
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 6:01 am: |
|
Matt, without a decoy receipt that indicates what the voter wants it to say this scheme doesn't keep the persuader off your back (except by luck of the draw), and it still doesn't give you any surety that your real ballot is counted, only that it's in the SeeVote ballot box.
The only thing that proves it is your real vote is in the other ballot box (the ID number on the ballot in the real ballot box), where you can hope it hasn't been tampered with, but you have no surety of that from this method.
Also, there's nothing to stop them from matching 40 ballots to the same one in the real and SeeVote boxes (when the 40 people all voted the same way) they pull 39 out of the real ballot box and the see-vote gen new numbers in pairs, put one in each box and screw you all over again, all of you looking on whatever posting it's made on and viewing the same ballot to see that your ballot was counted, what stops this? It's an inside job. They have to be pulled before the real box is counted, but if it is an inside job, this is at least possible. But if it were done, how would you detect it? The ID number can't be tied to the voter if you want anonymity. |
