It was a dark and stormy night when PAT wrote:
Standard (majority) voting should be fairly simple to write software for, and there is no reason it could not be Open Source software. There is in fact Open Source software for Single Transferrable Vote/Instant Runoff elections, which are rather more complex to keep track of (IRV and STV are systems used in a few jurisdictions where voters rank the candidates, and the voting is processed as a series of runoffs with the lowest candidate being dropped until winner(s) are determined.
As with absentee ballots, with online voting it is virtually impossible to ensure voting remains private. Not only is there the problem of the vote being submitted to the government together with identifying information, how do you deal with the husband who watches while his wife votes, or the vote buyer who insists on supervising the vote to ensure he gets his money's worth?
Dave
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, what you need to do is require that _all_ employees of the election (computer workers, clerks, etc) be required to take the same oaths required of any professional who deals with members of the public. They are required under most circumstances to work on a 'client privilege' basis. How do you keep what you tell your pychiatrist for example from becoming public knowledge? Those people _presumably_ are ethically motivated to maintain the trust. How do you deal with insurance company which is paying for someone's mental treatment who insists on making sure _they_ are getting their money's worth? You basically would have to use two computer systems; the first system is intended to identify the person's right to vote; his name, address, etc and to make sure his identification is not presented two or more times. Upon validating the voter, he is given an anonymous 'ticket' to use in voting. This part is basically what the election judges do now; you announce your name, the clerks find you in their books; then and only then are you permitted to walk past them to the voting booth where no record is maintained of how you voted, just that you _had_ used your entitled vote. So the first computer satisfies itself that you are (a) entitled to vote, and (b) have not done so previously in this election. Then the second computer (or a different function of the same computer) accepts your right to vote 'ticket' and accepts your vote. All it knows (or could ever tell anyone) was that ticket number whatever cast a vote. And all the first computer knows is that you presented yourself and requested admission to the voting process and it found you eligible or not.Needless to say, neither computer volunteers any information to any voter. If the first one is satisfied, it generates a 'ticket' in the form of some extremely long, very elaborate encryoted number; your 'authorization' to vote. If it is not satisfied (a) driver's license or other ID does not correctly match up or (b) it issued a 'ticket' for this same person from an 'unlikely' location for this voter elsewhere five minutes ago, then it does NOT deny you the right to vote; it merely suggests manual voting will be required, first call phone number xxx so an experienced election worker can shake you down on required details, and possibly then unlock your computer or suggest that you present yourself and all requisite identification at the manual polling place. Its easy enough to do; what margin of error in the results would be tolerated has to be decided.
Everyone would be required (if they wish to vote by computer) to use a computer associated with either an IP address or phone number of record to get their voting 'ticket'. Of course there will be some cheating; I am not sure what level of cheating there would be or if the cheating was any more or less than at present, but it could be tried at first with a minor or mock election, and the process fine-tuned as it was being done, trimming back on the fraud as it was being honed. PAT]