william(at)elan.net [william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Julian Mehnle wrote:
How can you consider talking to others and changing your mind a
"manipulation scheme"?? This is normal democratic practice and has
nothing to do with manipulating elections.
Its manipulation during the voting process or when someobody already
voted that is abusive. Obviously prior its all ok.
I don't see the difference. People can also be manipulated after the
election has started but before they cast their vote. How is that any
better?
If you allow only one vote and invalidate _all_ of my votes as soon
as I cast another vote, an attacker can try to invalidate my vote by
casting a forged vote before or after I submit my real vote. The
attacker's chances of submitting before or after me are 100%.
Most people will go to web and then immediatly send confirmation. After
that person might disrupt it by sending additional confirmations
Why exactly would that be disruptive?
[...] with the third option voters have the change to change their
mind before the election is over. I consider that a good thing.
Not really. Its responsibility of the person voting to think about it
and consider everything before actually doing it.
And if you wanted to be consequential, we'd have to shut down this mailing
list during the election period in order to prevent people from
influencing each other. And we'd probably have to cut their phone lines
and lock them into their houses as well. Sorry if I'm being sarcastical,
but I just don't see what you are trying to achieve.
Russian proverb for this situation is translated as "measure many
times, but only cut once".
You are comparing apples with oranges. A non-anonymous election using
modern technical equipment isn't something where you as a voter can only
cut once. This is like saying we can't have astronauts moving 10 ton
objects with their bare hands in space because, after all, it isn't
possible down on earth.
But this shall be my last post on this topic. :-)