Re: Chaum's punchscan

daw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David Wagner) writes:
Phil Carmody wrote:
Is there an Applied Crypto level description of all of the protocols

Not that I know of. The following is about as good as I've seen:

Many thanks, David. Looks pretty good, apart from the fact that
males have been disenfranchised!

I'm not sure I see why E1 is required - why can't one simply obligate
the retention of a particular half? If coercion, a la chain voting,
was an issue, there is no way that E1 prevents coercion. And with the
non-relation between (any two of) positions and letters and votes,
I don't immediately see how chain voting would be an issue.

It's actually considerably more understandable than those presentations
might make it look on first glance.

Worse than that - while I was trying the 'orrible javascript demo -
I accidentally voted for Bush!

This makes the skew butterfly ballots look as complicated as
like texas pick-up.

My favorite scheme is a variation of Pret-a-Voter. One of the reasons
I like it is because it is particularly easy to understand. I gave a talk
at Crypto this year that described the protocol. You can find the slides
at the following URL:

I don't know whether the slides will be understandable without the verbal
explanations that go along with it, but maybe it will make sense. Read
everything up to "Criticisms of ...", then skip "A Better Voting Machine",
then start reading at "A Better Paper Ballot" (which describes my favorite

It's certainly simpler than punchscan. I think these need to be
tried out in real-world competitive, but not leading to world war
three, situations, such as university student body elections.
Let's see them work on the small scale, and then check that
they scale up in progressively larger trials. Are any of these
schemes actually in use anywhere currently?

"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.