http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/07/05/profile.e.voting.ap/index.html
Two thoughts:
1) In principle, there's no reason that an electronic voting system that was open enough to corruption wouldn't produce essentially the same results as any other election. That is, advocates on all teams have an equal chance of bribing whomever needs to be bribed; it might make the election a little closer, but it won't necessarily produce victory, as long as there's more than one programmer to be bribed. (Though of course, it won't be the programmers who get bribed!)
2) Following this train of thought, there's something really charming about the fact that a Canadian company, with the word global in its name, no less, is the source of these systems. Gee... I wonder how the Canadians would like to see the next election play out?
No comments:
Post a Comment