<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_04_2321213</id>
	<title>Maryland Town Tests New Cryptographic Voting System</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1257335880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:chris@swiedler.org" rel="nofollow">ceswiedler</a> writes <i>"In Tuesday's election voters in Takoma Park, MD <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/scantegrity">used a new cryptographic voting system</a> designed by David Chaum with researchers from several universities including MIT and the University of Maryland. Voters use a special ink to mark their ballots, which reveals three-digit codes which they can later check against a website to verify their vote was tallied. Additionally, anyone can download election data from a <a href="https://scantegrity.org/svn/data/takoma-nov3-2009/PUBLIC/PUBLIC/">Subversion repository</a> and verify the overall accuracy of the results without seeing the actual choices of any individual voter."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ceswiedler writes " In Tuesday 's election voters in Takoma Park , MD used a new cryptographic voting system designed by David Chaum with researchers from several universities including MIT and the University of Maryland .
Voters use a special ink to mark their ballots , which reveals three-digit codes which they can later check against a website to verify their vote was tallied .
Additionally , anyone can download election data from a Subversion repository and verify the overall accuracy of the results without seeing the actual choices of any individual voter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ceswiedler writes "In Tuesday's election voters in Takoma Park, MD used a new cryptographic voting system designed by David Chaum with researchers from several universities including MIT and the University of Maryland.
Voters use a special ink to mark their ballots, which reveals three-digit codes which they can later check against a website to verify their vote was tallied.
Additionally, anyone can download election data from a Subversion repository and verify the overall accuracy of the results without seeing the actual choices of any individual voter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988618</id>
	<title>Transparency fail.</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1256995620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On Tuesday voters in Takoma Park, Maryland, got to try out a new, <strong>transparent</strong> voting system that lets voters go online to verify that their ballots got counted in the final tally.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>Scantegrity uses a process called &ldquo;zero knowledge&rdquo; that allows <strong>skilled, independent auditors</strong> to verify that the codes result in votes going to the right candidates, without actually revealing an individual voter&rsquo;s selections.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Transparency fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On Tuesday voters in Takoma Park , Maryland , got to try out a new , transparent voting system that lets voters go online to verify that their ballots got counted in the final tally.Scantegrity uses a process called    zero knowledge    that allows skilled , independent auditors to verify that the codes result in votes going to the right candidates , without actually revealing an individual voter    s selections .
Transparency fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Tuesday voters in Takoma Park, Maryland, got to try out a new, transparent voting system that lets voters go online to verify that their ballots got counted in the final tally.Scantegrity uses a process called “zero knowledge” that allows skilled, independent auditors to verify that the codes result in votes going to the right candidates, without actually revealing an individual voter’s selections.
Transparency fail.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988964</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?</p></div><p>I was about to write a long reply about how democracy depends on the fact that bla bla bla... and how you cannot trust people, especially what in politics and bla bla bla... but you asked a simple question so I'll give you a simple answer:



 <b>Yes.</b> </p></div><p>To most people it's only "Yes" if the election doesn't go their way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but are we that concerned about votes not being counted ? I was about to write a long reply about how democracy depends on the fact that bla bla bla... and how you can not trust people , especially what in politics and bla bla bla... but you asked a simple question so I 'll give you a simple answer : Yes .
To most people it 's only " Yes " if the election does n't go their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?I was about to write a long reply about how democracy depends on the fact that bla bla bla... and how you cannot trust people, especially what in politics and bla bla bla... but you asked a simple question so I'll give you a simple answer:



 Yes.
To most people it's only "Yes" if the election doesn't go their way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991542</id>
	<title>It completely misses the point</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1257016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It completely misses the point. The point is not that a system is "impossible" to manipulate. The point is that \_every\_ voter has the ability to check the vote.</p><p>Just compare it with the pen and paper based system. Everybody can understand it. You have a box which must be empty when they start voting. And people come in, get a piece of paper each, fill it out in private fold it and throw it into the box. At the same time his name gets crossed out on a list. Now everybody can check this fairly easily.</p><p>Now let's look at whatever machine-based system you've got. You've got this machine, either mechanical or electronical. You usually cannot look inside of it. You cannot tell if the levers are labelled correctly or if the firmware is really what it's supposed to be. Even if you have sourcecode that's completely unusable for the 90\% of people who cannot read code. Relying on others is not an option as the others could be against you. Just imagine a party forming beeing against computers, which programmer would help them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It completely misses the point .
The point is not that a system is " impossible " to manipulate .
The point is that \ _every \ _ voter has the ability to check the vote.Just compare it with the pen and paper based system .
Everybody can understand it .
You have a box which must be empty when they start voting .
And people come in , get a piece of paper each , fill it out in private fold it and throw it into the box .
At the same time his name gets crossed out on a list .
Now everybody can check this fairly easily.Now let 's look at whatever machine-based system you 've got .
You 've got this machine , either mechanical or electronical .
You usually can not look inside of it .
You can not tell if the levers are labelled correctly or if the firmware is really what it 's supposed to be .
Even if you have sourcecode that 's completely unusable for the 90 \ % of people who can not read code .
Relying on others is not an option as the others could be against you .
Just imagine a party forming beeing against computers , which programmer would help them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It completely misses the point.
The point is not that a system is "impossible" to manipulate.
The point is that \_every\_ voter has the ability to check the vote.Just compare it with the pen and paper based system.
Everybody can understand it.
You have a box which must be empty when they start voting.
And people come in, get a piece of paper each, fill it out in private fold it and throw it into the box.
At the same time his name gets crossed out on a list.
Now everybody can check this fairly easily.Now let's look at whatever machine-based system you've got.
You've got this machine, either mechanical or electronical.
You usually cannot look inside of it.
You cannot tell if the levers are labelled correctly or if the firmware is really what it's supposed to be.
Even if you have sourcecode that's completely unusable for the 90\% of people who cannot read code.
Relying on others is not an option as the others could be against you.
Just imagine a party forming beeing against computers, which programmer would help them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.30002952</id>
	<title>UMBC, not University of Maryland</title>
	<author>Arathon</author>
	<datestamp>1257440820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're kinda touchy about this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) <br> <br>

Slashdot has run stories about this system before, too, and it's awesome.  But yeah, this was developed largely at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're kinda touchy about this .
; ) Slashdot has run stories about this system before , too , and it 's awesome .
But yeah , this was developed largely at the University of Maryland , Baltimore County .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're kinda touchy about this.
;)  

Slashdot has run stories about this system before, too, and it's awesome.
But yeah, this was developed largely at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988374</id>
	<title>first vote!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256994420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>457</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>457</tokentext>
<sentencetext>457</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388</id>
	<title>Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256994480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an interesting idea, but I wonder what additional cost and labor is involved? I know the Florida ballot count debacle wasn't <i>all</i> that long ago, but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an interesting idea , but I wonder what additional cost and labor is involved ?
I know the Florida ballot count debacle was n't all that long ago , but are we that concerned about votes not being counted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an interesting idea, but I wonder what additional cost and labor is involved?
I know the Florida ballot count debacle wasn't all that long ago, but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988422</id>
	<title>So how long...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1256994660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before one of the current election systems players sues them for being all mean and competitive, after the fashion of TDS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before one of the current election systems players sues them for being all mean and competitive , after the fashion of TDS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before one of the current election systems players sues them for being all mean and competitive, after the fashion of TDS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995322</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257438960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you have any concrete suggestions?</p></div><p>Concrete boots?</p><p>Oh wait... you meant to <em>eliminate</em> worker intimidation. Never mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have any concrete suggestions ? Concrete boots ? Oh wait... you meant to eliminate worker intimidation .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have any concrete suggestions?Concrete boots?Oh wait... you meant to eliminate worker intimidation.
Never mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994670</id>
	<title>Re:Is voter verification really desirable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257435720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.</p></div><p>Except that the evil employer in your scenario could require you to take a camera with you into the "verification station".  I suppose that applies to the original voting booth as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.Except that the evil employer in your scenario could require you to take a camera with you into the " verification station " .
I suppose that applies to the original voting booth as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.Except that the evil employer in your scenario could require you to take a camera with you into the "verification station".
I suppose that applies to the original voting booth as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988584</id>
	<title>Question?</title>
	<author>javelinco</author>
	<datestamp>1256995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like where they are going with several of these things, but why go with paper and magic markers?  Why not use the same exact concept, only put it on a computer, print out a receipt with the codes and serial number, and go from there?  It seems like a no brainer.  Not only does it reduce overhead in terms of manpower, but it also reduces the amount of paper wasted, the cost of these "special markers", etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like where they are going with several of these things , but why go with paper and magic markers ?
Why not use the same exact concept , only put it on a computer , print out a receipt with the codes and serial number , and go from there ?
It seems like a no brainer .
Not only does it reduce overhead in terms of manpower , but it also reduces the amount of paper wasted , the cost of these " special markers " , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like where they are going with several of these things, but why go with paper and magic markers?
Why not use the same exact concept, only put it on a computer, print out a receipt with the codes and serial number, and go from there?
It seems like a no brainer.
Not only does it reduce overhead in terms of manpower, but it also reduces the amount of paper wasted, the cost of these "special markers", etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990398</id>
	<title>Who does this benefit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257006480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If candidate a loses to candidate b, you are going to have millions of A voters claiming that their vote wasn't counted properly.  Not to mention that you are walking out of the booth with proof of who you voted for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If candidate a loses to candidate b , you are going to have millions of A voters claiming that their vote was n't counted properly .
Not to mention that you are walking out of the booth with proof of who you voted for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If candidate a loses to candidate b, you are going to have millions of A voters claiming that their vote wasn't counted properly.
Not to mention that you are walking out of the booth with proof of who you voted for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996956</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1257447000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As well, anyone who says the system is rigged will be asked to produce their code and then one can actually check to see if they're lying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As well , anyone who says the system is rigged will be asked to produce their code and then one can actually check to see if they 're lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As well, anyone who says the system is rigged will be asked to produce their code and then one can actually check to see if they're lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990214</id>
	<title>Re:Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1257005280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, one problem: the moment you enter that code, you are giving up personal information that can be tracked to you, individually. Don't forget, an IP address is traceable. Private citizens may not know how you vote, but data correlation means the voting authority may.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , one problem : the moment you enter that code , you are giving up personal information that can be tracked to you , individually .
Do n't forget , an IP address is traceable .
Private citizens may not know how you vote , but data correlation means the voting authority may .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, one problem: the moment you enter that code, you are giving up personal information that can be tracked to you, individually.
Don't forget, an IP address is traceable.
Private citizens may not know how you vote, but data correlation means the voting authority may.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994904</id>
	<title>Re:Is voter verification really desirable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257437040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.</p></div><p>The voter could just remember another number that corresponds to a vote for another candidate. Essentially you'd give voters the opportunity to remember a code for each candidate. This would allow voters to vote any way they want, verify that their vote is counted AND potentially lie to a vote buyer that they voted in the requested way. In other words, the vote buyer cannot be sure that the voter is lying with their vote number.</p><p>As mentioned previously, you'd also need to ensure that the vote verification process doesn't link the voter to a ballot.</p><p>However, these complex crypto voting systems are useless in political elections because they completely fail in human factors terms (usability, understanding of the process, etc). Pencil and paper voting is THE best voting system because no one needs special complex knowledge of security engineering to understand how the voting system works. Any untrained person can follow the paper trail at each step of the way, ensuring the vote is tallied correctly.</p><p>Where this research *may* turn out to be useful is in implementing voting systems for online communities, games, etc. Otherwise, it's completely useless because it miserably fails basic human factor requirements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.The voter could just remember another number that corresponds to a vote for another candidate .
Essentially you 'd give voters the opportunity to remember a code for each candidate .
This would allow voters to vote any way they want , verify that their vote is counted AND potentially lie to a vote buyer that they voted in the requested way .
In other words , the vote buyer can not be sure that the voter is lying with their vote number.As mentioned previously , you 'd also need to ensure that the vote verification process does n't link the voter to a ballot.However , these complex crypto voting systems are useless in political elections because they completely fail in human factors terms ( usability , understanding of the process , etc ) .
Pencil and paper voting is THE best voting system because no one needs special complex knowledge of security engineering to understand how the voting system works .
Any untrained person can follow the paper trail at each step of the way , ensuring the vote is tallied correctly.Where this research * may * turn out to be useful is in implementing voting systems for online communities , games , etc .
Otherwise , it 's completely useless because it miserably fails basic human factor requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.The voter could just remember another number that corresponds to a vote for another candidate.
Essentially you'd give voters the opportunity to remember a code for each candidate.
This would allow voters to vote any way they want, verify that their vote is counted AND potentially lie to a vote buyer that they voted in the requested way.
In other words, the vote buyer cannot be sure that the voter is lying with their vote number.As mentioned previously, you'd also need to ensure that the vote verification process doesn't link the voter to a ballot.However, these complex crypto voting systems are useless in political elections because they completely fail in human factors terms (usability, understanding of the process, etc).
Pencil and paper voting is THE best voting system because no one needs special complex knowledge of security engineering to understand how the voting system works.
Any untrained person can follow the paper trail at each step of the way, ensuring the vote is tallied correctly.Where this research *may* turn out to be useful is in implementing voting systems for online communities, games, etc.
Otherwise, it's completely useless because it miserably fails basic human factor requirements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494</id>
	<title>This allows vote buying!</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1257007140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see a single thing in this system that would prevent vote buying.  You get a receipt with your choices on it, encoded in some form, yes?  You can then go to a website, and enter codes, to see who you voted for, yes?  True, only the individual voter (or someone possessing the receipt) can do this.. but that doesn't matter a damn to a vote buyer.  Why?  Because, as this system's designers seem to have forgotten, the voter is complicit in vote buying.  The voter gets money for turning over his receipt and secret knowledge, whatever that may be, to the person who wants a verified vote for his candidate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a single thing in this system that would prevent vote buying .
You get a receipt with your choices on it , encoded in some form , yes ?
You can then go to a website , and enter codes , to see who you voted for , yes ?
True , only the individual voter ( or someone possessing the receipt ) can do this.. but that does n't matter a damn to a vote buyer .
Why ? Because , as this system 's designers seem to have forgotten , the voter is complicit in vote buying .
The voter gets money for turning over his receipt and secret knowledge , whatever that may be , to the person who wants a verified vote for his candidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a single thing in this system that would prevent vote buying.
You get a receipt with your choices on it, encoded in some form, yes?
You can then go to a website, and enter codes, to see who you voted for, yes?
True, only the individual voter (or someone possessing the receipt) can do this.. but that doesn't matter a damn to a vote buyer.
Why?  Because, as this system's designers seem to have forgotten, the voter is complicit in vote buying.
The voter gets money for turning over his receipt and secret knowledge, whatever that may be, to the person who wants a verified vote for his candidate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1256995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?</p></div><p>I was about to write a long reply about how democracy depends on the fact that bla bla bla... and how you cannot trust people, especially what in politics and bla bla bla... but you asked a simple question so I'll give you a simple answer:<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <b>Yes.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but are we that concerned about votes not being counted ? I was about to write a long reply about how democracy depends on the fact that bla bla bla... and how you can not trust people , especially what in politics and bla bla bla... but you asked a simple question so I 'll give you a simple answer :     Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but are we that concerned about votes not being counted?I was about to write a long reply about how democracy depends on the fact that bla bla bla... and how you cannot trust people, especially what in politics and bla bla bla... but you asked a simple question so I'll give you a simple answer:
  
  Yes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989120</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>Strilanc</author>
	<datestamp>1256998200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everyone has to verify their vote. An attacker will have to throw away a large number of ballots in order to sway an election. If each voter has a 5\% probability of checking their vote and only 100 votes are thrown away, the probability that the attacker is at least detected is greater than 99\%.</p><p>There's also no need for perfection. The number of reports will be higher when the election is attacked. Apply basic statistics to figure out how likely it is the election was stolen instead of just people making mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone has to verify their vote .
An attacker will have to throw away a large number of ballots in order to sway an election .
If each voter has a 5 \ % probability of checking their vote and only 100 votes are thrown away , the probability that the attacker is at least detected is greater than 99 \ % .There 's also no need for perfection .
The number of reports will be higher when the election is attacked .
Apply basic statistics to figure out how likely it is the election was stolen instead of just people making mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone has to verify their vote.
An attacker will have to throw away a large number of ballots in order to sway an election.
If each voter has a 5\% probability of checking their vote and only 100 votes are thrown away, the probability that the attacker is at least detected is greater than 99\%.There's also no need for perfection.
The number of reports will be higher when the election is attacked.
Apply basic statistics to figure out how likely it is the election was stolen instead of just people making mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994334</id>
	<title>The Problem Is...</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1257433980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe one of the benefits of and primary arguments for a secret vote is that one may vote their conscious without fear of reprisal or other repercussions. The paper ballot fulfills this perfectly.</p><p>The system described here has a double edged sword. If the voter can log on to verify their vote, then someone else can force them to log on a prove they voted "correctly".</p><p>A simple solution would be to enable a voter to only confirm their vote was tallied correctly at the registrar's office, after providing picture ID, allowing only the voter to view the confirmation, and not providing any kind of receipt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe one of the benefits of and primary arguments for a secret vote is that one may vote their conscious without fear of reprisal or other repercussions .
The paper ballot fulfills this perfectly.The system described here has a double edged sword .
If the voter can log on to verify their vote , then someone else can force them to log on a prove they voted " correctly " .A simple solution would be to enable a voter to only confirm their vote was tallied correctly at the registrar 's office , after providing picture ID , allowing only the voter to view the confirmation , and not providing any kind of receipt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe one of the benefits of and primary arguments for a secret vote is that one may vote their conscious without fear of reprisal or other repercussions.
The paper ballot fulfills this perfectly.The system described here has a double edged sword.
If the voter can log on to verify their vote, then someone else can force them to log on a prove they voted "correctly".A simple solution would be to enable a voter to only confirm their vote was tallied correctly at the registrar's office, after providing picture ID, allowing only the voter to view the confirmation, and not providing any kind of receipt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994646</id>
	<title>Re:Is voter verification really desirable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257435600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't allow you to verify *who* you voted for, only that the ovals you filled in are the ovals that got counted.  There is no way to correlate which ovals correspond with which candidate without the actual ballot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't allow you to verify * who * you voted for , only that the ovals you filled in are the ovals that got counted .
There is no way to correlate which ovals correspond with which candidate without the actual ballot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't allow you to verify *who* you voted for, only that the ovals you filled in are the ovals that got counted.
There is no way to correlate which ovals correspond with which candidate without the actual ballot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288</id>
	<title>Is voter verification really desirable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257005760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have real doubts about allowing voters to check how they voted AFTER they leave the polling place.  By allowing a voter a way to verify how he voted you open the door to all sorts of abuses.  A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.  Another abuse is employers threatening his employees with firing if he did not vote the way the employer wanted.</p><p>The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have real doubts about allowing voters to check how they voted AFTER they leave the polling place .
By allowing a voter a way to verify how he voted you open the door to all sorts of abuses .
A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted .
Another abuse is employers threatening his employees with firing if he did not vote the way the employer wanted.The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have real doubts about allowing voters to check how they voted AFTER they leave the polling place.
By allowing a voter a way to verify how he voted you open the door to all sorts of abuses.
A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.
Another abuse is employers threatening his employees with firing if he did not vote the way the employer wanted.The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988924</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256997060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm far more concerned about phantom votes being counted than real votes not being counted.</p><p>There is a long history of not counting write in candidates and absentee votes when the total number of such ballots does not exceed margin the winner holds.</p><p>Many people just start whining when you tell them this and insist every vote be counted, but it is irrational emotionalism unswayed by 3rd grade math skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm far more concerned about phantom votes being counted than real votes not being counted.There is a long history of not counting write in candidates and absentee votes when the total number of such ballots does not exceed margin the winner holds.Many people just start whining when you tell them this and insist every vote be counted , but it is irrational emotionalism unswayed by 3rd grade math skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm far more concerned about phantom votes being counted than real votes not being counted.There is a long history of not counting write in candidates and absentee votes when the total number of such ballots does not exceed margin the winner holds.Many people just start whining when you tell them this and insist every vote be counted, but it is irrational emotionalism unswayed by 3rd grade math skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988736</id>
	<title>Re:Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1256996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It does what many people would have said is impossible: It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly, but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, apparently it's only "skilled auditors" who can verify things. And voters <em>can</em> prove who they voted for to anyone who has access to the ballots post election.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does what many people would have said is impossible : It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly , but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for .
No , apparently it 's only " skilled auditors " who can verify things .
And voters can prove who they voted for to anyone who has access to the ballots post election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does what many people would have said is impossible: It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly, but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for.
No, apparently it's only "skilled auditors" who can verify things.
And voters can prove who they voted for to anyone who has access to the ballots post election.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996030</id>
	<title>Re:Cost of printing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257442500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello?<br>Anybody there?</p><p>The Robinson Voting Method solves all fraud problems, costs hardly anything to set up and use, and requires no computers or even electricity.</p><p>http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello ? Anybody there ? The Robinson Voting Method solves all fraud problems , costs hardly anything to set up and use , and requires no computers or even electricity.http : //paul-robinson.us/index.php ? blog = 5&amp;title = the \ _robinson \ _method \ _a \ _really \ _simple \ _way \ _&amp;more = 1&amp;c = 1&amp;tb = 1&amp;pb = 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello?Anybody there?The Robinson Voting Method solves all fraud problems, costs hardly anything to set up and use, and requires no computers or even electricity.http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988900</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our current voting system has the same issues plus old people tallying the votes.  I personally trust the computer's counting skills more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our current voting system has the same issues plus old people tallying the votes .
I personally trust the computer 's counting skills more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our current voting system has the same issues plus old people tallying the votes.
I personally trust the computer's counting skills more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989240</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256998860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This system assumes three things:</p><ul> <li> <strong>Everyone participates</strong> - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.</li><li> <strong>Everyone is perfect</strong> - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.</li><li> <strong>Everyone is sane</strong> - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.</li></ul></div><p>I voted the parent post down as a troll, but instead the Slashcode modded it up as "funny"...what the hell?   I demand this site be taken down until the parent post is rated -1 Troll as it has been voted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This system assumes three things : Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it 's still correct .
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud , calling the entire election into question .
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system , cast doubt on the election , etc.I voted the parent post down as a troll , but instead the Slashcode modded it up as " funny " ...what the hell ?
I demand this site be taken down until the parent post is rated -1 Troll as it has been voted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system assumes three things:  Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.I voted the parent post down as a troll, but instead the Slashcode modded it up as "funny"...what the hell?
I demand this site be taken down until the parent post is rated -1 Troll as it has been voted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991674</id>
	<title>Re:Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257017880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course with a little help from your local ISP, they can see who is viewing what ballots, tie that to an IP and an IP to a home or in some cases a specific user.</p><p>They haven't really done what others said was impossible, but the process requires enough different organizations to be involved in the fraud to be an improvement over the existing methods since they added another layer to the process.</p><p>You want to have it so no one holds all the data so correlations can't be made without everyone being in on it, while at the same time allowing verification to be possible.  It is a non-trivial task and I don't think a magic bullet will pop up.</p><p>Much like computing however, there is rarely a major breakthrough, its almost always incremental based on previous experience and innovations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course with a little help from your local ISP , they can see who is viewing what ballots , tie that to an IP and an IP to a home or in some cases a specific user.They have n't really done what others said was impossible , but the process requires enough different organizations to be involved in the fraud to be an improvement over the existing methods since they added another layer to the process.You want to have it so no one holds all the data so correlations ca n't be made without everyone being in on it , while at the same time allowing verification to be possible .
It is a non-trivial task and I do n't think a magic bullet will pop up.Much like computing however , there is rarely a major breakthrough , its almost always incremental based on previous experience and innovations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course with a little help from your local ISP, they can see who is viewing what ballots, tie that to an IP and an IP to a home or in some cases a specific user.They haven't really done what others said was impossible, but the process requires enough different organizations to be involved in the fraud to be an improvement over the existing methods since they added another layer to the process.You want to have it so no one holds all the data so correlations can't be made without everyone being in on it, while at the same time allowing verification to be possible.
It is a non-trivial task and I don't think a magic bullet will pop up.Much like computing however, there is rarely a major breakthrough, its almost always incremental based on previous experience and innovations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988886</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1256996880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The system doesn't assume "everyone" does anything. Statistically, only a small sample is necessary.<br>FTFA: "People who don't want to do it or don't care can completely ignore it," Chaum said. "We only need 3 to 5 percent of people to verify their votes [to make it effective], depending on how close the contest is. If it becomes close, then you need a larger percentage to get the same level of confidence."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system does n't assume " everyone " does anything .
Statistically , only a small sample is necessary.FTFA : " People who do n't want to do it or do n't care can completely ignore it , " Chaum said .
" We only need 3 to 5 percent of people to verify their votes [ to make it effective ] , depending on how close the contest is .
If it becomes close , then you need a larger percentage to get the same level of confidence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system doesn't assume "everyone" does anything.
Statistically, only a small sample is necessary.FTFA: "People who don't want to do it or don't care can completely ignore it," Chaum said.
"We only need 3 to 5 percent of people to verify their votes [to make it effective], depending on how close the contest is.
If it becomes close, then you need a larger percentage to get the same level of confidence.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993568</id>
	<title>Re:Web Logs?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257429600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would knowing your identity reveal anything? All you see are the codes that were on your ballow next to the choices you made. Each ballot has different codes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would knowing your identity reveal anything ?
All you see are the codes that were on your ballow next to the choices you made .
Each ballot has different codes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would knowing your identity reveal anything?
All you see are the codes that were on your ballow next to the choices you made.
Each ballot has different codes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991756</id>
	<title>Combining new tech and old tech</title>
	<author>twomi</author>
	<datestamp>1257018780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about combining new tech and old tech for a new solution: instead of using pen and paper you use voting machine, which prints your vote on a paper (ballot card), and also stores the vote in some database. You then drop the ballot card for voting box (same as you do now). Electronic votes are used for result approximation and for press and news etc (you can use simpler scheme than in TFA), and the paper votes are still the official result and are counted and verified by hand.

Obviously this does not cut down costs, but gives you the security of a current pen and paper system, yet delivering speedy results and other benefits electronic systems have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about combining new tech and old tech for a new solution : instead of using pen and paper you use voting machine , which prints your vote on a paper ( ballot card ) , and also stores the vote in some database .
You then drop the ballot card for voting box ( same as you do now ) .
Electronic votes are used for result approximation and for press and news etc ( you can use simpler scheme than in TFA ) , and the paper votes are still the official result and are counted and verified by hand .
Obviously this does not cut down costs , but gives you the security of a current pen and paper system , yet delivering speedy results and other benefits electronic systems have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about combining new tech and old tech for a new solution: instead of using pen and paper you use voting machine, which prints your vote on a paper (ballot card), and also stores the vote in some database.
You then drop the ballot card for voting box (same as you do now).
Electronic votes are used for result approximation and for press and news etc (you can use simpler scheme than in TFA), and the paper votes are still the official result and are counted and verified by hand.
Obviously this does not cut down costs, but gives you the security of a current pen and paper system, yet delivering speedy results and other benefits electronic systems have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988632</id>
	<title>Web Logs?</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1256995680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoting TFA</p><p>"When polls close, voters can go to the election office website, type in their ballot serial number and see a rendition of a ballot, showing the three-digit codes for their votes. This way voters can be assured that their ballot was included in the final tally."</p><p>One would hope there are no web logs kept, because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting TFA " When polls close , voters can go to the election office website , type in their ballot serial number and see a rendition of a ballot , showing the three-digit codes for their votes .
This way voters can be assured that their ballot was included in the final tally .
" One would hope there are no web logs kept , because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity , and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting TFA"When polls close, voters can go to the election office website, type in their ballot serial number and see a rendition of a ballot, showing the three-digit codes for their votes.
This way voters can be assured that their ballot was included in the final tally.
"One would hope there are no web logs kept, because simply checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.30030480</id>
	<title>I still prefer...</title>
	<author>simonfunk</author>
	<datestamp>1257763980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still prefer this: <a href="http://sifter.org/~simon/journal/20081009.html" title="sifter.org" rel="nofollow">http://sifter.org/~simon/journal/20081009.html</a> [sifter.org] (if I don't say so myself...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still prefer this : http : //sifter.org/ ~ simon/journal/20081009.html [ sifter.org ] ( if I do n't say so myself... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still prefer this: http://sifter.org/~simon/journal/20081009.html [sifter.org] (if I don't say so myself...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990964</id>
	<title>Re:Very interesting stuff.</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1257011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>avoid using the word "subversion"</i>
<br> <br>
I can see you've never been to Takoma Park, MD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>avoid using the word " subversion " I can see you 've never been to Takoma Park , MD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>avoid using the word "subversion"
 
I can see you've never been to Takoma Park, MD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988856</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This system assumes three things:</p><ul> <li> <strong>Everyone participates</strong> - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.</li></ul> </div><p>Per TFA, only about 5\% of participants have to validate their vote afterward to assure the election's integrity to within normal margins.  Also, exit polls in the Maryland town showed that about 30\% of voters copied down their validation info.  If a third of them bother to go online to check their ballots, that will be double the required participation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>Everyone is perfect</strong> - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.</p></div><p>Individuals will always have suspicions, but unless there is a widespread pattern of "errors", rational voters will be able to have greater confidence than they do in any other system.  Unlike any other system, this one actually provide a way where lost or altered ballots have a chance of being discovered.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>Everyone is sane</strong> - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.</p></div><p>Again, isolated cases will occur, but that happens regardless.  In the absence of significant numbers of reports from generally honest and reliable people, then we'll have more confidence in the accuracy of the vote than any other system can provide.

</p><p>Basically, your objections boil down to "Nothing is perfect".  Well, duh.  But it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better.  And it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This system assumes three things : Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it 's still correct .
Per TFA , only about 5 \ % of participants have to validate their vote afterward to assure the election 's integrity to within normal margins .
Also , exit polls in the Maryland town showed that about 30 \ % of voters copied down their validation info .
If a third of them bother to go online to check their ballots , that will be double the required participation .
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud , calling the entire election into question.Individuals will always have suspicions , but unless there is a widespread pattern of " errors " , rational voters will be able to have greater confidence than they do in any other system .
Unlike any other system , this one actually provide a way where lost or altered ballots have a chance of being discovered .
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system , cast doubt on the election , etc.Again , isolated cases will occur , but that happens regardless .
In the absence of significant numbers of reports from generally honest and reliable people , then we 'll have more confidence in the accuracy of the vote than any other system can provide .
Basically , your objections boil down to " Nothing is perfect " .
Well , duh .
But it does n't have to be perfect , it just has to be better .
And it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system assumes three things:  Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.
Per TFA, only about 5\% of participants have to validate their vote afterward to assure the election's integrity to within normal margins.
Also, exit polls in the Maryland town showed that about 30\% of voters copied down their validation info.
If a third of them bother to go online to check their ballots, that will be double the required participation.
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.Individuals will always have suspicions, but unless there is a widespread pattern of "errors", rational voters will be able to have greater confidence than they do in any other system.
Unlike any other system, this one actually provide a way where lost or altered ballots have a chance of being discovered.
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.Again, isolated cases will occur, but that happens regardless.
In the absence of significant numbers of reports from generally honest and reliable people, then we'll have more confidence in the accuracy of the vote than any other system can provide.
Basically, your objections boil down to "Nothing is perfect".
Well, duh.
But it doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better.
And it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995166</id>
	<title>CVS?</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1257438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not use CVS instead of subversion? then you could have your CVS Voting System? And all the bearded admins would be happy. You want your admins to be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not use CVS instead of subversion ?
then you could have your CVS Voting System ?
And all the bearded admins would be happy .
You want your admins to be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not use CVS instead of subversion?
then you could have your CVS Voting System?
And all the bearded admins would be happy.
You want your admins to be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988534</id>
	<title>I think I know what the 3 letter code is...</title>
	<author>ickeicke</author>
	<datestamp>1256995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... obviously it is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSEOXRLSpVc&amp;fmt=18" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">DRE (700), serial number 34491.</a> [youtube.com]
<br>
<br>
Let's hope that this new system prevents <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrDzZCOQtI&amp;fmt=18" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">premature revelation of election results...</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>... obviously it is DRE ( 700 ) , serial number 34491 .
[ youtube.com ] Let 's hope that this new system prevents premature revelation of election results... [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... obviously it is DRE (700), serial number 34491.
[youtube.com]


Let's hope that this new system prevents premature revelation of election results... [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991478</id>
	<title>Re:Cost of printing?</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1257015840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what the three digit code represents. It's too short to be a hash and since the ballot isn't printed by a computer, it can't be any form of error-correction or tamper-proofing code. And although there's not going to be 1000 candidates in a given district, there's probably going to be in the hundreds in some cases, so there's a limit to the number of codes that could equal an individual.</p><p>Personally, I'd have gone for a 5 or 6 digit code. I'd also have the ballot papers printed by an electronic voting machine, so that the codes could contain error-correcting information and thus prevent alterations to the ballot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what the three digit code represents .
It 's too short to be a hash and since the ballot is n't printed by a computer , it ca n't be any form of error-correction or tamper-proofing code .
And although there 's not going to be 1000 candidates in a given district , there 's probably going to be in the hundreds in some cases , so there 's a limit to the number of codes that could equal an individual.Personally , I 'd have gone for a 5 or 6 digit code .
I 'd also have the ballot papers printed by an electronic voting machine , so that the codes could contain error-correcting information and thus prevent alterations to the ballot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what the three digit code represents.
It's too short to be a hash and since the ballot isn't printed by a computer, it can't be any form of error-correction or tamper-proofing code.
And although there's not going to be 1000 candidates in a given district, there's probably going to be in the hundreds in some cases, so there's a limit to the number of codes that could equal an individual.Personally, I'd have gone for a 5 or 6 digit code.
I'd also have the ballot papers printed by an electronic voting machine, so that the codes could contain error-correcting information and thus prevent alterations to the ballot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29999952</id>
	<title>Very Cool</title>
	<author>Zotdogg</author>
	<datestamp>1257416580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sure this new system is not where electronic voting needs to be in the end but the fact that people are working on making these systems better truly puts my mind at ease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure this new system is not where electronic voting needs to be in the end but the fact that people are working on making these systems better truly puts my mind at ease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure this new system is not where electronic voting needs to be in the end but the fact that people are working on making these systems better truly puts my mind at ease.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993828</id>
	<title>Re:This allows vote buying!</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1257431340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, this system does not allow vote buying, it does not verify that your vote was counted the way you voted, only that your vote was counted. Of course that is part of the problem, how do I know that the system recorded my vote the way I entered it? Second, how does a non computer programmer know that the system actually does what is claimed? Finally, how does even a computer programmer know that the software that does this is actually installed on the voting machine he/she votes on (and not some software that mimics it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this system does not allow vote buying , it does not verify that your vote was counted the way you voted , only that your vote was counted .
Of course that is part of the problem , how do I know that the system recorded my vote the way I entered it ?
Second , how does a non computer programmer know that the system actually does what is claimed ?
Finally , how does even a computer programmer know that the software that does this is actually installed on the voting machine he/she votes on ( and not some software that mimics it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this system does not allow vote buying, it does not verify that your vote was counted the way you voted, only that your vote was counted.
Of course that is part of the problem, how do I know that the system recorded my vote the way I entered it?
Second, how does a non computer programmer know that the system actually does what is claimed?
Finally, how does even a computer programmer know that the software that does this is actually installed on the voting machine he/she votes on (and not some software that mimics it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988724</id>
	<title>Re:Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1256996100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the <b>practical</b> implementation <b>could</b> provide a way to prove that they voted for someone.  My cynical suspicion is that by the second or third election, they'll use mass-produced ballots ballots that only have three or four different sets of codes on them to reduce the cost of ballot printing.  And no one will be the wiser except for the people exploiting it.  Where this system fails is in proving that the codes are truly unique.  The only way you can guarantee that is if instead of using fixed printed codes, you provide the person with an electronically-generated cryptographic hash of the vote data with a random number that the voter cannot obtain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the practical implementation could provide a way to prove that they voted for someone .
My cynical suspicion is that by the second or third election , they 'll use mass-produced ballots ballots that only have three or four different sets of codes on them to reduce the cost of ballot printing .
And no one will be the wiser except for the people exploiting it .
Where this system fails is in proving that the codes are truly unique .
The only way you can guarantee that is if instead of using fixed printed codes , you provide the person with an electronically-generated cryptographic hash of the vote data with a random number that the voter can not obtain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the practical implementation could provide a way to prove that they voted for someone.
My cynical suspicion is that by the second or third election, they'll use mass-produced ballots ballots that only have three or four different sets of codes on them to reduce the cost of ballot printing.
And no one will be the wiser except for the people exploiting it.
Where this system fails is in proving that the codes are truly unique.
The only way you can guarantee that is if instead of using fixed printed codes, you provide the person with an electronically-generated cryptographic hash of the vote data with a random number that the voter cannot obtain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995440</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1257439620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely.</p><p>The interesting thing about the Florida debacle isn't that it was a unique breakdown in our voting system.  Quite the opposite - the interesting thing is that it goes on <i>all the time</i> but usually nobody notices.</p><p>Florida's count wasn't the worst in the 2000 election, even.  It just happened that, in the order results were tallied and reported, Florida's was perceived to be the one screw-up that was deciding the election.  Gore chose to make political hay over it, and while it didn't work out, it threw a spotlight on one instance of a problem that is ever-present in any large-scale vote, and that should have as much attention as is required to correct.</p><p>For the record - I don't know or care who the "legitimate" winner of the FL vote was.  I am not a Bush supporter, but I do think Gore was in the wrong in that you can't pick and choose where to set more stringent counting standards, especially after the vote has been taken.  And that's the point - what we should want are better counting standards <i>everywhere</i>, in every election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely.The interesting thing about the Florida debacle is n't that it was a unique breakdown in our voting system .
Quite the opposite - the interesting thing is that it goes on all the time but usually nobody notices.Florida 's count was n't the worst in the 2000 election , even .
It just happened that , in the order results were tallied and reported , Florida 's was perceived to be the one screw-up that was deciding the election .
Gore chose to make political hay over it , and while it did n't work out , it threw a spotlight on one instance of a problem that is ever-present in any large-scale vote , and that should have as much attention as is required to correct.For the record - I do n't know or care who the " legitimate " winner of the FL vote was .
I am not a Bush supporter , but I do think Gore was in the wrong in that you ca n't pick and choose where to set more stringent counting standards , especially after the vote has been taken .
And that 's the point - what we should want are better counting standards everywhere , in every election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.The interesting thing about the Florida debacle isn't that it was a unique breakdown in our voting system.
Quite the opposite - the interesting thing is that it goes on all the time but usually nobody notices.Florida's count wasn't the worst in the 2000 election, even.
It just happened that, in the order results were tallied and reported, Florida's was perceived to be the one screw-up that was deciding the election.
Gore chose to make political hay over it, and while it didn't work out, it threw a spotlight on one instance of a problem that is ever-present in any large-scale vote, and that should have as much attention as is required to correct.For the record - I don't know or care who the "legitimate" winner of the FL vote was.
I am not a Bush supporter, but I do think Gore was in the wrong in that you can't pick and choose where to set more stringent counting standards, especially after the vote has been taken.
And that's the point - what we should want are better counting standards everywhere, in every election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991702</id>
	<title>Re:This allows vote buying!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, nothing prevents vote buying now, its just hard to verify.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , nothing prevents vote buying now , its just hard to verify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, nothing prevents vote buying now, its just hard to verify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989642</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>4181</author>
	<datestamp>1257001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... putting [illegal, but still] pressure on employees to vote for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>... it isn't a huge concern, but worth mentioning.</p></div><p>I'd say it is a huge concern.  Besides voter intimidation (be it by employer, spouse, or local thug -- ever read Rohinton Mistry's "A Fine Balance"?) it also raises problems with vote buying.  A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret\_ballot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">secret ballot</a> [wikipedia.org] is "sine qua non for a functioning democracy."  While a voter is permitted to reveal his or her choice, the system must not be allowed to verify it to anyone else, allowing the voter to lie and thus making voter intimidation and vote buying less effective.</p><p>Some "get out the vote" campaigns can be seen as a form of intimidation, and while they are always targeted at favorable populations, they run the risk of alienating the voter if they go too far, and the voter must be allowed to secretly either spoil the ballot or vote for an opposing candidate.  Unless this system offers a none-of-the-above option (with corresponding code) for each office or measure, this system degrades a voter's ability to anonymously spoil his or her ballot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There are ways to mitigate this,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Do you have any concrete suggestions?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... putting [ illegal , but still ] pressure on employees to vote for ...... it is n't a huge concern , but worth mentioning.I 'd say it is a huge concern .
Besides voter intimidation ( be it by employer , spouse , or local thug -- ever read Rohinton Mistry 's " A Fine Balance " ?
) it also raises problems with vote buying .
A secret ballot [ wikipedia.org ] is " sine qua non for a functioning democracy .
" While a voter is permitted to reveal his or her choice , the system must not be allowed to verify it to anyone else , allowing the voter to lie and thus making voter intimidation and vote buying less effective.Some " get out the vote " campaigns can be seen as a form of intimidation , and while they are always targeted at favorable populations , they run the risk of alienating the voter if they go too far , and the voter must be allowed to secretly either spoil the ballot or vote for an opposing candidate .
Unless this system offers a none-of-the-above option ( with corresponding code ) for each office or measure , this system degrades a voter 's ability to anonymously spoil his or her ballot.There are ways to mitigate this , ...Do you have any concrete suggestions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... putting [illegal, but still] pressure on employees to vote for ...... it isn't a huge concern, but worth mentioning.I'd say it is a huge concern.
Besides voter intimidation (be it by employer, spouse, or local thug -- ever read Rohinton Mistry's "A Fine Balance"?
) it also raises problems with vote buying.
A secret ballot [wikipedia.org] is "sine qua non for a functioning democracy.
"  While a voter is permitted to reveal his or her choice, the system must not be allowed to verify it to anyone else, allowing the voter to lie and thus making voter intimidation and vote buying less effective.Some "get out the vote" campaigns can be seen as a form of intimidation, and while they are always targeted at favorable populations, they run the risk of alienating the voter if they go too far, and the voter must be allowed to secretly either spoil the ballot or vote for an opposing candidate.
Unless this system offers a none-of-the-above option (with corresponding code) for each office or measure, this system degrades a voter's ability to anonymously spoil his or her ballot.There are ways to mitigate this, ...Do you have any concrete suggestions?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</id>
	<title>Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1256994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does what many people would have said is impossible:  It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly, but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for.  An audit trail, without opening the door to coercion.  This is a major improvement over traditional voting technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does what many people would have said is impossible : It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly , but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for .
An audit trail , without opening the door to coercion .
This is a major improvement over traditional voting technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does what many people would have said is impossible:  It allows voters to verify that their votes were cast and counted correctly, but does not provide them with any way to prove to anyone who they voted for.
An audit trail, without opening the door to coercion.
This is a major improvement over traditional voting technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988954</id>
	<title>Re:Cost of printing?</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1256997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The printing of ballots in most jurisdictions already falls under the category of "custom" printing.  Ballots are unique every election (despite an enormous preponderance of re-elected incumbents).  Ballots can vary from precinct to precinct to the extent that, in theory, no two precincts are alike, because of differing jurisdictions (different counties, different cities, different municipalities of various flavors).  That combined with the relatively low number of copies made for any particular precinct means that the cost of printing each one uniquely isn't different.  The printing won't be done by high-speed high-volume expensive-setup full-color color-separated presses anyway.  It'll be done by laser printer or thermal printer or such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The printing of ballots in most jurisdictions already falls under the category of " custom " printing .
Ballots are unique every election ( despite an enormous preponderance of re-elected incumbents ) .
Ballots can vary from precinct to precinct to the extent that , in theory , no two precincts are alike , because of differing jurisdictions ( different counties , different cities , different municipalities of various flavors ) .
That combined with the relatively low number of copies made for any particular precinct means that the cost of printing each one uniquely is n't different .
The printing wo n't be done by high-speed high-volume expensive-setup full-color color-separated presses anyway .
It 'll be done by laser printer or thermal printer or such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The printing of ballots in most jurisdictions already falls under the category of "custom" printing.
Ballots are unique every election (despite an enormous preponderance of re-elected incumbents).
Ballots can vary from precinct to precinct to the extent that, in theory, no two precincts are alike, because of differing jurisdictions (different counties, different cities, different municipalities of various flavors).
That combined with the relatively low number of copies made for any particular precinct means that the cost of printing each one uniquely isn't different.
The printing won't be done by high-speed high-volume expensive-setup full-color color-separated presses anyway.
It'll be done by laser printer or thermal printer or such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988832</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256996640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc."<br>
&nbsp; ah one of the great features of democracy the recount.  it does not matter how many votes you actually win but how much doubt you can cast about your opponents votes.  gone are the days when the middle east leaders won their position by favor from the previous leader or through direct conquest themselves.  now all they have to do is create doubt that no one can easily refute and they will if not win the election get a rerun, ah abdullah cough*, and drop out of the rerun thus removing any possibility that the issue can be laid to rest.  who really benefits from this big question about the validity of Karzai?  the taliban because now many people from the Afghans to the international community are questioning weather or not he should be the leader of the country. or maybe abdullah did it for personal reasons I don't know but Karzai does not benefit from any doubt to his legitimacy in any way just makes his job harder.  only other real option, and honestly the thought that the taliban committed the fraud to steal legitimacy is a long shot, is the many different factions, groups, organizations, companies in and outside of Afghanistan participating in the fraud hopefully to get their preferred candidate in office whoever he may be.  as for the first point of yours, not everyone needs to participate in the validation to ensure that there is limited fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system , cast doubt on the election , etc .
"   ah one of the great features of democracy the recount .
it does not matter how many votes you actually win but how much doubt you can cast about your opponents votes .
gone are the days when the middle east leaders won their position by favor from the previous leader or through direct conquest themselves .
now all they have to do is create doubt that no one can easily refute and they will if not win the election get a rerun , ah abdullah cough * , and drop out of the rerun thus removing any possibility that the issue can be laid to rest .
who really benefits from this big question about the validity of Karzai ?
the taliban because now many people from the Afghans to the international community are questioning weather or not he should be the leader of the country .
or maybe abdullah did it for personal reasons I do n't know but Karzai does not benefit from any doubt to his legitimacy in any way just makes his job harder .
only other real option , and honestly the thought that the taliban committed the fraud to steal legitimacy is a long shot , is the many different factions , groups , organizations , companies in and outside of Afghanistan participating in the fraud hopefully to get their preferred candidate in office whoever he may be .
as for the first point of yours , not everyone needs to participate in the validation to ensure that there is limited fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.
"
  ah one of the great features of democracy the recount.
it does not matter how many votes you actually win but how much doubt you can cast about your opponents votes.
gone are the days when the middle east leaders won their position by favor from the previous leader or through direct conquest themselves.
now all they have to do is create doubt that no one can easily refute and they will if not win the election get a rerun, ah abdullah cough*, and drop out of the rerun thus removing any possibility that the issue can be laid to rest.
who really benefits from this big question about the validity of Karzai?
the taliban because now many people from the Afghans to the international community are questioning weather or not he should be the leader of the country.
or maybe abdullah did it for personal reasons I don't know but Karzai does not benefit from any doubt to his legitimacy in any way just makes his job harder.
only other real option, and honestly the thought that the taliban committed the fraud to steal legitimacy is a long shot, is the many different factions, groups, organizations, companies in and outside of Afghanistan participating in the fraud hopefully to get their preferred candidate in office whoever he may be.
as for the first point of yours, not everyone needs to participate in the validation to ensure that there is limited fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990598</id>
	<title>yes, yes, and yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the paper on it people.  They've though this through a whole lot better than 99.99\% of the people here could.</p><p>http://www.scantegrity.org/papers/ScantegrityII-EVT.pdf</p><p>For sure there are no stupid things like the vote checking showing who you voted for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the paper on it people .
They 've though this through a whole lot better than 99.99 \ % of the people here could.http : //www.scantegrity.org/papers/ScantegrityII-EVT.pdfFor sure there are no stupid things like the vote checking showing who you voted for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the paper on it people.
They've though this through a whole lot better than 99.99\% of the people here could.http://www.scantegrity.org/papers/ScantegrityII-EVT.pdfFor sure there are no stupid things like the vote checking showing who you voted for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988566</id>
	<title>What's a digit?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256995380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The image in wired.com shows a two letter code "JX" appearing in the oval.  The article mentions "three digit" codes.  Nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The image in wired.com shows a two letter code " JX " appearing in the oval .
The article mentions " three digit " codes .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The image in wired.com shows a two letter code "JX" appearing in the oval.
The article mentions "three digit" codes.
Nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993948</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1257431880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Election frauds are usually due to additional votes being counted which shouldn't be counted.  This isn't going to stop that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Election frauds are usually due to additional votes being counted which should n't be counted .
This is n't going to stop that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Election frauds are usually due to additional votes being counted which shouldn't be counted.
This isn't going to stop that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29998448</id>
	<title>Re:Is voter verification really desirable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257453420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice job reading the article.  The system verifies that the codes you wrote down (which are generated randomly for each ballot) match the codes that the system read for your vote.  No one knows who you voted for (even you if you forgot) just which confirmation codes went with your ballot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice job reading the article .
The system verifies that the codes you wrote down ( which are generated randomly for each ballot ) match the codes that the system read for your vote .
No one knows who you voted for ( even you if you forgot ) just which confirmation codes went with your ballot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice job reading the article.
The system verifies that the codes you wrote down (which are generated randomly for each ballot) match the codes that the system read for your vote.
No one knows who you voted for (even you if you forgot) just which confirmation codes went with your ballot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29992244</id>
	<title>Re:This allows vote buying!</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257414120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's right in your post:</p><p>``The voter gets money for turning over his receipt and <strong>secret knowledge</strong>, whatever that may be, to the person who wants a verified vote for his candidate.''</p><p>The key is in the words I've emphasized. You can show your sponsor the codes you wrote down. Your sponsor can then go to the website and see that there indeed exists a ballot that matches these codes. You get paid, you're both happy. Only you have the secret knowledge that these codes mean you voted for Bob, not Alice as you told your sponsor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's right in your post : ` ` The voter gets money for turning over his receipt and secret knowledge , whatever that may be , to the person who wants a verified vote for his candidate .
''The key is in the words I 've emphasized .
You can show your sponsor the codes you wrote down .
Your sponsor can then go to the website and see that there indeed exists a ballot that matches these codes .
You get paid , you 're both happy .
Only you have the secret knowledge that these codes mean you voted for Bob , not Alice as you told your sponsor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's right in your post:``The voter gets money for turning over his receipt and secret knowledge, whatever that may be, to the person who wants a verified vote for his candidate.
''The key is in the words I've emphasized.
You can show your sponsor the codes you wrote down.
Your sponsor can then go to the website and see that there indeed exists a ballot that matches these codes.
You get paid, you're both happy.
Only you have the secret knowledge that these codes mean you voted for Bob, not Alice as you told your sponsor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410</id>
	<title>Cost of printing?</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1256994540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm missing something, but for this to be truly secure against the problem of being able to see who somebody else voted for, you would have to have a distinct set of three-digit codes for every ballot, or at least such a large number of distinct ballots that no person could practically conspire with a few other people to figure out that XWP in the third field means Hillary Clinton.  Wouldn't printing each ballot individually result in a tremendous cost compared with traditional ballot printing?  I'm just trying to understand how this could be feasible on a large scale....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm missing something , but for this to be truly secure against the problem of being able to see who somebody else voted for , you would have to have a distinct set of three-digit codes for every ballot , or at least such a large number of distinct ballots that no person could practically conspire with a few other people to figure out that XWP in the third field means Hillary Clinton .
Would n't printing each ballot individually result in a tremendous cost compared with traditional ballot printing ?
I 'm just trying to understand how this could be feasible on a large scale... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm missing something, but for this to be truly secure against the problem of being able to see who somebody else voted for, you would have to have a distinct set of three-digit codes for every ballot, or at least such a large number of distinct ballots that no person could practically conspire with a few other people to figure out that XWP in the third field means Hillary Clinton.
Wouldn't printing each ballot individually result in a tremendous cost compared with traditional ballot printing?
I'm just trying to understand how this could be feasible on a large scale....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29999960</id>
	<title>Re:Web Logs?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1257416640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.</p></div><p>No chance in hell. It's illegal to force someone to disclose their vote, and there's no way a court is going to grant a subpoena that breaks the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>checking your ballot would reveal your identity , and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.No chance in hell .
It 's illegal to force someone to disclose their vote , and there 's no way a court is going to grant a subpoena that breaks the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>checking your ballot would reveal your identity, and someone is sure to wrangle a subpoena for that.No chance in hell.
It's illegal to force someone to disclose their vote, and there's no way a court is going to grant a subpoena that breaks the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994000</id>
	<title>The proof I'm a genius is gone</title>
	<author>Spinlock\_1977</author>
	<datestamp>1257432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the exception of the 'magic ink', I proposed this exact mechanism on Slashdot about 18 months ago.  I'd provide a link to the post, but it was a comment on someone else's thread, and apparently they get purged after a time.  Ain't that ducky?  I've finally proven to my own satisfaction that I'm far smarter than everyone keeps telling me, and the proof is gone.  Maryland, if you're looking for someone with a huge ego to help out with that/my system, drop me a line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the exception of the 'magic ink ' , I proposed this exact mechanism on Slashdot about 18 months ago .
I 'd provide a link to the post , but it was a comment on someone else 's thread , and apparently they get purged after a time .
Ai n't that ducky ?
I 've finally proven to my own satisfaction that I 'm far smarter than everyone keeps telling me , and the proof is gone .
Maryland , if you 're looking for someone with a huge ego to help out with that/my system , drop me a line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the exception of the 'magic ink', I proposed this exact mechanism on Slashdot about 18 months ago.
I'd provide a link to the post, but it was a comment on someone else's thread, and apparently they get purged after a time.
Ain't that ducky?
I've finally proven to my own satisfaction that I'm far smarter than everyone keeps telling me, and the proof is gone.
Maryland, if you're looking for someone with a huge ego to help out with that/my system, drop me a line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991424</id>
	<title>Re:This allows vote buying!</title>
	<author>tmassa99</author>
	<datestamp>1257015360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can then go to a website, and enter codes, to see who you voted for, yes? </p></div><p>No!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can then go to a website , and enter codes , to see who you voted for , yes ?
No !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can then go to a website, and enter codes, to see who you voted for, yes?
No!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996616</id>
	<title>Re:This allows vote buying!</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1257445200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does vote buying matter?  Look at the NYC mayoral race <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/brawlforthehall/2009/11/bloomberg-and-thompson-by-the.html" title="nydailynews.com">$157.27 per vote for Bloomberg, $13.12 per vote for Thompson.</a> [nydailynews.com]  They did it in advertising.<br>
<br>
We already buy and sell votes.  I don't think it would really matter if you could buy or sell a vote.  If the issues matter in an election they couldn't pay you enough to change your vote.  If the issues don't matter then why not sell your vote.  You couldn't have paid me enough money to vote for Barack Obama (I voted Ron Paul - McCain is as bad or worse).  As for city elections for something like school board, I'd so sell my vote because it really doesn't matter to me.  But for any office where they have the option to tax or make something illegal you couldn't buy my vote (well in a way you do by your policies...)  The entire system is based on buying and selling votes.  You think that Barack's promises of health care for all weren't vote buying? Or not taxing anyone making less than $250,000 a year.  That was so vote buying.  A direct check from the candidate would be a much more efficient method.<p><div class="quote"><p>The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.</p></div><p> - not Tocqueville or Tytler so we'll say unknown.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does vote buying matter ?
Look at the NYC mayoral race $ 157.27 per vote for Bloomberg , $ 13.12 per vote for Thompson .
[ nydailynews.com ] They did it in advertising .
We already buy and sell votes .
I do n't think it would really matter if you could buy or sell a vote .
If the issues matter in an election they could n't pay you enough to change your vote .
If the issues do n't matter then why not sell your vote .
You could n't have paid me enough money to vote for Barack Obama ( I voted Ron Paul - McCain is as bad or worse ) .
As for city elections for something like school board , I 'd so sell my vote because it really does n't matter to me .
But for any office where they have the option to tax or make something illegal you could n't buy my vote ( well in a way you do by your policies... ) The entire system is based on buying and selling votes .
You think that Barack 's promises of health care for all were n't vote buying ?
Or not taxing anyone making less than $ 250,000 a year .
That was so vote buying .
A direct check from the candidate would be a much more efficient method.The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public 's money .
- not Tocqueville or Tytler so we 'll say unknown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does vote buying matter?
Look at the NYC mayoral race $157.27 per vote for Bloomberg, $13.12 per vote for Thompson.
[nydailynews.com]  They did it in advertising.
We already buy and sell votes.
I don't think it would really matter if you could buy or sell a vote.
If the issues matter in an election they couldn't pay you enough to change your vote.
If the issues don't matter then why not sell your vote.
You couldn't have paid me enough money to vote for Barack Obama (I voted Ron Paul - McCain is as bad or worse).
As for city elections for something like school board, I'd so sell my vote because it really doesn't matter to me.
But for any office where they have the option to tax or make something illegal you couldn't buy my vote (well in a way you do by your policies...)  The entire system is based on buying and selling votes.
You think that Barack's promises of health care for all weren't vote buying?
Or not taxing anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
That was so vote buying.
A direct check from the candidate would be a much more efficient method.The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
- not Tocqueville or Tytler so we'll say unknown.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988986</id>
	<title>Approval voting</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1256997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It appears as though we can only see the code for a candidate if we reveal it with the invisible ink; checking the others would ruin the form.</p></div><p>Lobby your legislators to switch your jurisdiction to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval\_voting" title="wikipedia.org">approval voting</a> [wikipedia.org]. This system allows voters to sort candidates into two bins: desirable and undesirable. Once your jurisdiction uses approval voting, you can mark two candidates that you'd be happy with (e.g. a Democrat and a Green, or a Libertarian and a Conservative), and both votes will be counted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears as though we can only see the code for a candidate if we reveal it with the invisible ink ; checking the others would ruin the form.Lobby your legislators to switch your jurisdiction to approval voting [ wikipedia.org ] .
This system allows voters to sort candidates into two bins : desirable and undesirable .
Once your jurisdiction uses approval voting , you can mark two candidates that you 'd be happy with ( e.g .
a Democrat and a Green , or a Libertarian and a Conservative ) , and both votes will be counted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears as though we can only see the code for a candidate if we reveal it with the invisible ink; checking the others would ruin the form.Lobby your legislators to switch your jurisdiction to approval voting [wikipedia.org].
This system allows voters to sort candidates into two bins: desirable and undesirable.
Once your jurisdiction uses approval voting, you can mark two candidates that you'd be happy with (e.g.
a Democrat and a Green, or a Libertarian and a Conservative), and both votes will be counted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29998756</id>
	<title>Re:Cost of printing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257411600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello?<br>Anybody there?</p><p>The Robinson Voting Method solves all fraud problems, costs hardly anything to set up and use, and requires no computers or even electricity.</p><p>http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1</p><p>Every time some sort of electronic voting features on Slashdot, I post up about the Robinson Voting Method, and some douchebag or other tells me 'it won't work' or 'it's too complicated'. Retards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello ? Anybody there ? The Robinson Voting Method solves all fraud problems , costs hardly anything to set up and use , and requires no computers or even electricity.http : //paul-robinson.us/index.php ? blog = 5&amp;title = the \ _robinson \ _method \ _a \ _really \ _simple \ _way \ _&amp;more = 1&amp;c = 1&amp;tb = 1&amp;pb = 1Every time some sort of electronic voting features on Slashdot , I post up about the Robinson Voting Method , and some douchebag or other tells me 'it wo n't work ' or 'it 's too complicated' .
Retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello?Anybody there?The Robinson Voting Method solves all fraud problems, costs hardly anything to set up and use, and requires no computers or even electricity.http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&amp;title=the\_robinson\_method\_a\_really\_simple\_way\_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1Every time some sort of electronic voting features on Slashdot, I post up about the Robinson Voting Method, and some douchebag or other tells me 'it won't work' or 'it's too complicated'.
Retards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993770</id>
	<title>Re:Is voter verification really desirable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257430980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have real doubts about allowing voters to check how they voted AFTER they leave the polling place.  By allowing a voter a way to verify how he voted you open the door to all sorts of abuses.  A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.  Another abuse is employers threatening his employees with firing if he did not vote the way the employer wanted.</p><p>The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.</p></div><p>You are totally right. The secrecy is one of the most important thing in the paper voting system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have real doubts about allowing voters to check how they voted AFTER they leave the polling place .
By allowing a voter a way to verify how he voted you open the door to all sorts of abuses .
A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted .
Another abuse is employers threatening his employees with firing if he did not vote the way the employer wanted.The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.You are totally right .
The secrecy is one of the most important thing in the paper voting system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have real doubts about allowing voters to check how they voted AFTER they leave the polling place.
By allowing a voter a way to verify how he voted you open the door to all sorts of abuses.
A voter could sell his vote and the buyer could have a way to check he indeed did vote the way the buyer wanted.
Another abuse is employers threatening his employees with firing if he did not vote the way the employer wanted.The problems might be overcome if the voter would have to visit the election clerks office and prove his identity and was also alone when he viewed the way he voted.You are totally right.
The secrecy is one of the most important thing in the paper voting system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988676</id>
	<title>Re:Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>Judinous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly do we verify that the choices we didn't pick on the form don't have the same set of verification characters as the candidate we did choose?  It appears as though we can only see the code for a candidate if we reveal it with the invisible ink;  checking the others would ruin the form.  I think that these verification characters should be readily visible with or without the invisible ink applied.  Otherwise, it would still be possible to fudge with the system and change the vote count while passing all of the verification tests.<br> <br>Perhaps this is somehow handled by the "independent auditors", but TFA is light on details in that area.  Since they don't have access to the voting machines and their source code, nor the actual forms themselves, I don't see how they could verify this, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly do we verify that the choices we did n't pick on the form do n't have the same set of verification characters as the candidate we did choose ?
It appears as though we can only see the code for a candidate if we reveal it with the invisible ink ; checking the others would ruin the form .
I think that these verification characters should be readily visible with or without the invisible ink applied .
Otherwise , it would still be possible to fudge with the system and change the vote count while passing all of the verification tests .
Perhaps this is somehow handled by the " independent auditors " , but TFA is light on details in that area .
Since they do n't have access to the voting machines and their source code , nor the actual forms themselves , I do n't see how they could verify this , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly do we verify that the choices we didn't pick on the form don't have the same set of verification characters as the candidate we did choose?
It appears as though we can only see the code for a candidate if we reveal it with the invisible ink;  checking the others would ruin the form.
I think that these verification characters should be readily visible with or without the invisible ink applied.
Otherwise, it would still be possible to fudge with the system and change the vote count while passing all of the verification tests.
Perhaps this is somehow handled by the "independent auditors", but TFA is light on details in that area.
Since they don't have access to the voting machines and their source code, nor the actual forms themselves, I don't see how they could verify this, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988406</id>
	<title>Very interesting stuff.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256994540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that really matters after reading TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Chaum says he hasn&rsquo;t decided on a cost yet for jurisdictions who will license it after the initial adopter but says he can easily sell it for half the cost of current optical-scan voting systems, which run about $6,000 apiece.</p></div><p>Very good stuff. I would just avoid using the word "subversion" when talking about it. You know, because of its double meaning</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that really matters after reading TFA : Chaum says he hasn    t decided on a cost yet for jurisdictions who will license it after the initial adopter but says he can easily sell it for half the cost of current optical-scan voting systems , which run about $ 6,000 apiece.Very good stuff .
I would just avoid using the word " subversion " when talking about it .
You know , because of its double meaning</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that really matters after reading TFA:Chaum says he hasn’t decided on a cost yet for jurisdictions who will license it after the initial adopter but says he can easily sell it for half the cost of current optical-scan voting systems, which run about $6,000 apiece.Very good stuff.
I would just avoid using the word "subversion" when talking about it.
You know, because of its double meaning
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991372</id>
	<title>Re:Chaum's system is very cool</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1257014820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is cool. I proposed something similar, albeit electronic voting, in the past on Slashdot but I'm thinking their approach has many advantages - not least that it reduces the number of attack vectors.</p><p>A three digit code is probably adequate, but I'd have probably opted for a longer value. It depends on how the code is used and what it represents. I'm assuming it represents a given candidate, as you're unlikely to have more than 1000 candidates for a given district but will likely have more than 1000 voters in a given voting station.</p><p>Regardless, a larger code would allow for easier detection of ballot-stuffing or ballot-concealing, so long as it wasn't too much larger. I presume 3 digits was picked as a compromise value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is cool .
I proposed something similar , albeit electronic voting , in the past on Slashdot but I 'm thinking their approach has many advantages - not least that it reduces the number of attack vectors.A three digit code is probably adequate , but I 'd have probably opted for a longer value .
It depends on how the code is used and what it represents .
I 'm assuming it represents a given candidate , as you 're unlikely to have more than 1000 candidates for a given district but will likely have more than 1000 voters in a given voting station.Regardless , a larger code would allow for easier detection of ballot-stuffing or ballot-concealing , so long as it was n't too much larger .
I presume 3 digits was picked as a compromise value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is cool.
I proposed something similar, albeit electronic voting, in the past on Slashdot but I'm thinking their approach has many advantages - not least that it reduces the number of attack vectors.A three digit code is probably adequate, but I'd have probably opted for a longer value.
It depends on how the code is used and what it represents.
I'm assuming it represents a given candidate, as you're unlikely to have more than 1000 candidates for a given district but will likely have more than 1000 voters in a given voting station.Regardless, a larger code would allow for easier detection of ballot-stuffing or ballot-concealing, so long as it wasn't too much larger.
I presume 3 digits was picked as a compromise value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989232</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1256998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd trust it a lot more if I could log on online and verify my vote. I have heard one reason against it: Suppose you work for a company that enjoys putting [illegal, but still] pressure on employees to vote for the Baby Eating party because it supports their economic policy. They could then demand that employees tell them their numbers so they can check that they didn't vote for the Cute Animal Hugging party instead.</p><p>There are ways to mitigate this, and it isn't a huge concern, buth worth mentioning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd trust it a lot more if I could log on online and verify my vote .
I have heard one reason against it : Suppose you work for a company that enjoys putting [ illegal , but still ] pressure on employees to vote for the Baby Eating party because it supports their economic policy .
They could then demand that employees tell them their numbers so they can check that they did n't vote for the Cute Animal Hugging party instead.There are ways to mitigate this , and it is n't a huge concern , buth worth mentioning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd trust it a lot more if I could log on online and verify my vote.
I have heard one reason against it: Suppose you work for a company that enjoys putting [illegal, but still] pressure on employees to vote for the Baby Eating party because it supports their economic policy.
They could then demand that employees tell them their numbers so they can check that they didn't vote for the Cute Animal Hugging party instead.There are ways to mitigate this, and it isn't a huge concern, buth worth mentioning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991806</id>
	<title>Gee, this couldn't be faked or anything!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257451380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to know the freedom loving angels at MIT are thinking about these things.</p><p>Let's see:</p><p>Include code on card.<br>Reproduce who they correctly voted for on the site.<br>Automatically choose the winning candidate anyway.</p><p>Freedom in action folks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to know the freedom loving angels at MIT are thinking about these things.Let 's see : Include code on card.Reproduce who they correctly voted for on the site.Automatically choose the winning candidate anyway.Freedom in action folks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to know the freedom loving angels at MIT are thinking about these things.Let's see:Include code on card.Reproduce who they correctly voted for on the site.Automatically choose the winning candidate anyway.Freedom in action folks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989872</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257002880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is irrelevant anyway, because once the person is elected, all of their decisions are "closed source." They can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't piss off an enormous amount of people enough to get themselves impeached. And they do. Much to the detriment of this alleged democracy.</p><p>If you really care about democracy, then open everything. Get rid of the politicos. Make everything inclusive and transparent.</p><p>Yes all of that is possible and in the works: <a href="http://metagovernment.org/" title="metagovernment.org" rel="nofollow">http://metagovernment.org/</a> [metagovernment.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is irrelevant anyway , because once the person is elected , all of their decisions are " closed source .
" They can do whatever the hell they want as long as they do n't piss off an enormous amount of people enough to get themselves impeached .
And they do .
Much to the detriment of this alleged democracy.If you really care about democracy , then open everything .
Get rid of the politicos .
Make everything inclusive and transparent.Yes all of that is possible and in the works : http : //metagovernment.org/ [ metagovernment.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is irrelevant anyway, because once the person is elected, all of their decisions are "closed source.
" They can do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't piss off an enormous amount of people enough to get themselves impeached.
And they do.
Much to the detriment of this alleged democracy.If you really care about democracy, then open everything.
Get rid of the politicos.
Make everything inclusive and transparent.Yes all of that is possible and in the works: http://metagovernment.org/ [metagovernment.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648</id>
	<title>Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256995740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This system assumes three things:</p><ul><li> <strong>Everyone participates</strong> - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.</li><li> <strong>Everyone is perfect</strong> - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.</li><li> <strong>Everyone is sane</strong> - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>This system assumes three things : Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it 's still correct .
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud , calling the entire election into question .
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system , cast doubt on the election , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This system assumes three things: Everyone participates - voters have to validate their vote afterward to make sure it's still correct.
Everyone is perfect - people who incorrectly cast their vote will always suspect fraud, calling the entire election into question.
Everyone is sane - individual voters do not lie about about their vote to game the system, cast doubt on the election, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995886</id>
	<title>Re:Great on paper - but in real life?</title>
	<author>fremen</author>
	<datestamp>1257441780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What defines a "widespread pattern of errors?"  In small elections or close elections, changing a small fraction of votes could affect the outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What defines a " widespread pattern of errors ?
" In small elections or close elections , changing a small fraction of votes could affect the outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What defines a "widespread pattern of errors?
"  In small elections or close elections, changing a small fraction of votes could affect the outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988856</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29992244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29998756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29999960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29998448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_04_2321213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29998448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29998756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29992244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29996956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29995886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29989240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29999960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29993568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29994334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29991372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29990214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_04_2321213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_04_2321213.29988618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
