Sunday, 29 April 2007

Slashdot article

They've picked up a story I was going to post about anyway:

UK Voters Want to Vote Online

Some interesting comments in the story (bear in mind the majority of contributors are from the US, so they tend not to know about the odd bits of UK legislation):

"One of my biggest gripes about elections is how simplified the issues have become, and how difficult it is to understand what each candidate *really* stands for.IF they instituted online voting they could have drop down boxes for each candidate with summaries of opinions and hyperlinks to voting records, speeches... Hell, they could even link in the publically disclosed lists of contributors. I believe most voters don't have the time or inclination to do this sort of research on their own, but might be more inclined if the info was more easily accesible.A voter could spend all the time they like reading about each candidate and issue on the ballot *while* casting their vote.All it would take is some legislation and a bit of funding to amass the linked materials.Political spin would have a reduced effect on anyone with enough motivation to click a couple of links.Regards."

Saturday, 28 April 2007

I turn, U turn

Jason's seems to be turning again. Despite eVoting being incredibly dangerous and a huge threat to democracy he's now posting links to OSS eVoting projects! (Shurely shome mistake?)

The article's very interesting, as it seems to contradict a number of arguments that Jason has raised, namely that of interception, alteration, co-ercion, receipts, etc.

I'll see if I can sniff out the source of this, could be an interesting read. But all in all a strange link for Jason to be posting... seems he only really dislikes non-OSS eVoting systems. I wonder if he'd be as positive if the source to a commercial system were released for peer-review?

Thursday, 26 April 2007

ORG as observers

Still no word from ORG / Jason on which pilots they've been allowed to observe. They've been refused access to one pilot, which Jason seems reluctant to name (wonder why?).

One of the requirements for observers is that they're independent and impartial. Do ORG meet these requirements? They've already stated their clear opposition to electronic voting (although they haven't given me the clarification I was after), and now their activities are being funded by the same organisation that funds the LibDems. Independent and impartial? Maybe not.

More on grants...

Further to my previous post, it seems some people aren't too happy about the level of donations being made to the LibDems by JRRT :


So ORG got a grant of £24,000 from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?

Let's have a quick look at some of the political orgs JRRT have also made grants to:


Liberal Democrats
£1,802,500 allocated as follows:

* £537,500 towards the development costs of a database;
* £200,000 for diversity measures to provide support to women, black, minority ethnic and disabled candidates;
* £500,000 towards the campaign costs of elections held in 2007 in England, Scotland and Wales;
* £500,000 towards the cost of the next General Election campaign;
* £65,000 to develop on-line resources for local parties.

The Office of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats
£100,000 to support the Office of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Scottish Liberal Democrats
A grant over eighteen months to address political disengagement in the lead up to the 2007 local elections in Scotland.


Keighley Liberal Democrats
£1,250 towards General Election campaign literature.


Burnley Labour Party
£4,321 to assist with campaign costs in the 2004 local elections.

Liberal Democrats
£500,000 towards the campaigning costs for the local elections and the 2005 General Election.

Liberal Democrats - Hartlepool
£3,000 towards the campaigning costs for the September 2004 by election.

That's a lot of money for the Lib Dems. So much for ORGs independence.

Monday, 16 April 2007

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it...

... it still doesn't make it true, and Becky Hogge of all people should know this isn't true:

"in an election, your identity cannot be associated with your vote without your privacy being breached"

From a New Statesman article. Go disinformation!

Edit : I see what she's done there. Only mention the link of ballot to voter in the context of eVoting as a way of rubbishing electronic voting... nice work Becky! I would have thought that ORG were all about being open and completely truthful, seems they're not adverse to spinning to get their way.

Tuesday, 3 April 2007

Quote of the Day

"Criticism comes easier than craftsmanship."