Thursday, June 03, 2004

Prescott predicts high vote despite (or rather, because of) the recent "furore" over the "bungling" of postal-only voting.

Firstly, it reminds me that in our existing political system, it's somewhat difficult to actually get on with anything without having what is effectively competition try to dig holes in it. Our system means that whoever isn't in charge is encouraged to want those in charge to fail, which is preposterous, IMHO.

Secondly, I'm curious as to the way in which postal ballots have been designed - there doesn't seem to be any media coverage as to exactly how they've been made secure. For example, recent disussions on the near-dead Cypherpunks list highlighted the opportunities available for regional sabotage. If you know a particular region tends towards a political party, then you have more chance of swinging a vote through "persuasion" (i.e. bribes) there. I was thinking that you'd have more chance of getting a lesser-voted party in by disrupting the postal system in a similar region (more people voting for the other party = more of their votes disrupted = more chance of success for your chosen party) but now I think that might just be a proportional disruption - the *absolute gap* between the two parties would be smaller, but (theoretically) the more popular one should still win. I think.

But it demonstrates that by adding a longer chain of voting process, the system becomes more "tamperable". How much do you trust the Post Office?

No comments: