In message 
<cfv1-committee-elections-2009-20091023210735$1561@gradwell.net>, Barry 
Salter  writes
>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)

< much snipped >

>1) One person, one vote.
>
>2) No two voters may vote from the same email address.
>   In the event that only one address is available to two persons
>   who both wish to vote, both these persons should contact the
>   votetaker prior to voting.

I have a couple of questions:

1) How would it be possible to determine whether one person was voting 
from two (or more) email addresses and thus getting two (or more) votes?

2) Given the number of people who have chosen to use an invalid or false 
email address in their postings to Usenet, how can their identity be 
verified?

-- 
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie wrote:

> I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) How would it be possible to determine whether one person was voting 
> from two (or more) email addresses and thus getting two (or more) votes?

As previously stated in votes where multivoting has been detected, the 
exact method by which this is detected is not stated, so as not to aid 
would be multivoters in future.

> 2) Given the number of people who have chosen to use an invalid or false 
> email address in their postings to Usenet, how can their identity be 
> verified?
> 
Again, we have our methods, though having been a member of UKVoting for 
over 10 years now, the vast majority of voters are easily identified.

And, of course, there's a space on the ballot paper for a "usual posting 
address" as well as a (valid) address to which the ballot paper is sent.

Cheers,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, bsalter (at) ukvoting (dot) org (dot) uk

In message , at 12:35:39 on Tue, 3 
Nov 2009, Paul C. Dickie  wibbled
>In message 
><cfv1-committee-elections-2009-20091023210735$1561@gradwell.net>, Barry 
>Salter  writes
>>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)
>
>< much snipped >
>
>>1) One person, one vote.
>>
>>2) No two voters may vote from the same email address.
>>   In the event that only one address is available to two persons
>>   who both wish to vote, both these persons should contact the
>>   votetaker prior to voting.
>
>I have a couple of questions:
>
>1) How would it be possible to determine whether one person was voting 
>from two (or more) email addresses and thus getting two (or more) votes?

This is not divulged in public even in results that note that multivotes 
have been rejected. Not useful to possibly aid those who might consider 
trying a multivote as it not in anyone's interest to provide even a 
partial how to not to get caught.

If we did happen to miss something, the results are published and can be 
scutinised by all and sundry and anything raised would be investigated 
if needed.
>
>2) Given the number of people who have chosen to use an invalid or 
>false email address in their postings to Usenet, how can their identity 
>be verified?
>
You get to recognise a fair number straight off after a while which 
helps.

-- 
Pedt
Member of, but not speaking for, UKVoting

In message , Barry Salter 
 writes
>Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>  1) How would it be possible to determine whether one person was 
>>voting  from two (or more) email addresses and thus getting two (or 
>>more) votes?
>
>As previously stated in votes where multivoting has been detected, the 
>exact method by which this is detected is not stated, so as not to aid 
>would be multivoters in future.

How is one supposed to have any more faith in the detection of electoral 
fraud if all one has been told is that it is detected?  For all we know, 
you could be using a crystal ball or trying copromancy, neither of which 
has been proven to be reliable.

>Cheers,

Bottoms up!

-- 
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie  wrote:
> In message , Barry Salter 
>  writes
>>Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>>  1) How would it be possible to determine whether one person was 
>>>voting  from two (or more) email addresses and thus getting two (or 
>>>more) votes?
>>
>>As previously stated in votes where multivoting has been detected, the 
>>exact method by which this is detected is not stated, so as not to aid 
>>would be multivoters in future.
> 
> How is one supposed to have any more faith in the detection of electoral 
> fraud if all one has been told is that it is detected?  For all we know, 
> you could be using a crystal ball or trying copromancy, neither of which 
> has been proven to be reliable.

Because when the results are published, anyone who disagrees can object.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

In message <q2y$BuwcoE8KFw1u@bozzie.unospace.net>, at 15:19:56 on Tue, 3 
Nov 2009, Paul C. Dickie  wibbled
>In message , Barry Salter 
> writes
>>Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>>  1) How would it be possible to determine whether one person was 
>>>voting  from two (or more) email addresses and thus getting two (or 
>>>more) votes?
>>
>>As previously stated in votes where multivoting has been detected, the 
>>exact method by which this is detected is not stated, so as not to aid 
>>would be multivoters in future.
>
>How is one supposed to have any more faith in the detection of 
>electoral fraud if all one has been told is that it is detected?

You mean apart from UKV as a whole seeing the draft result and, IIRC, 
also relevant information in every case of multivoting so we can quibble 
or confirm the VT assessment?

Also, in the event of an objection, relevant information would be shared 
with the Committee in confidence and there are more than enough people 
in the Committee with the technical expertise to backtrack themselves.

Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post, they 
can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any objections 
could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for example, a claim 
that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same person that was 
passed to me would be treated with the disdain it deserved).

 >For all we know, you could be using a crystal ball

We have them polished every three lunar cycles.

-- 
Pedt
Member of, but not speaking for, UKVoting

In  on Tue, 3 Nov
2009 16:24:01 +0000, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
wrote:

>Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post, they 
>can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any objections 
>could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for example, a claim 
>that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same person that was 
>passed to me would be treated with the disdain it deserved).

I know them both but I've never seen them together, and that's got
to be highly suspicious.

-- 
DG

At 16:24:01 on Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> 
wrote in :

>Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post, 
>they can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any 
>objections could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for 
>example, a claim that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same 
>person that was passed to me would be treated with the disdain it 
>deserved).

*checks hair in mirror* *sighs with relief*
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

Molly Mockford  said:

> At 16:24:01 on Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Pedt <"\"@
> @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
> :
>> Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post,
>> they can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any
>> objections could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for
>> example, a claim that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same
>> person that was passed to me would be treated with the disdain it
>> deserved).
>
> *checks hair in mirror* *sighs with relief*

Geoff's has just slipped a bit.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

In message , at 16:44:46 on 
Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Dick Gaughan  wibbled
>In  on Tue, 3 Nov
>2009 16:24:01 +0000, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post, they
>>can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any objections
>>could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for example, a claim
>>that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same person that was
>>passed to me would be treated with the disdain it deserved).
>
>I know them both but I've never seen them together, and that's got
>to be highly suspicious.
>
Didn't see anyone I recognise in that BBC4 documentary "Different kind 
of love song" which is even more suspicious.

-- 
Pedt

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:04:46 -0000, "kat" 
wrote:

>Molly Mockford  said:
>
>> At 16:24:01 on Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Pedt <"\"@
>> @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
>> :
>>> Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post,
>>> they can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any
>>> objections could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for
>>> example, a claim that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same
>>> person that was passed to me would be treated with the disdain it
>>> deserved).
>>
>> *checks hair in mirror* *sighs with relief*
>
>Geoff's has just slipped a bit.

Next stop helicopter hobnobs.

Paul C. Dickie has a point.

We have 3 people left in ukvoting who have been here forever and don't
want to change or be scrutinised so they fall back on the same old
excuses.

This is no longer acceptable.

Maybe chiark can count to 10 ?

-- 
vic

At 18:32:19 on Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> 
wrote in <$6pePWRzcH8KFwH5@fishcake.eternal-september.org>:

>In message , at 16:44:46 on 
>Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Dick Gaughan  wibbled
>>In  on Tue, 3 Nov
>>2009 16:24:01 +0000, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post, they
>>>can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any objections
>>>could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for example, a claim
>>>that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same person that was
>>>passed to me would be treated with the disdain it deserved).
>>
>>I know them both but I've never seen them together, and that's got
>>to be highly suspicious.
>>
>Didn't see anyone I recognise in that BBC4 documentary "Different kind 
>of love song" which is even more suspicious.

You missed me??  I was in shot over and over, although I admit it was 
mostly from the back (there was a cameraman behind my right shoulder).
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:02:37 +0000, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 16:24:01 on Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> 
>wrote in :
>
>>Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post, 
>>they can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any 
>>objections could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for 
>>example, a claim that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same 
>>person that was passed to me would be treated with the disdain it 
>>deserved).
>
>*checks hair in mirror* *sighs with relief*

Hair is overrated...
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

Victor Meldrew wrote:

> Next stop helicopter hobnobs.
> 
> Paul C. Dickie has a point.
> 
> We have 3 people left in ukvoting who have been here forever and don't
> want to change or be scrutinised so they fall back on the same old
> excuses.

*yawn* Change the record. Would you expect the Audit Department of 
<Insert Company here> to reveal how they discovered fraud being committed?

If you do, you're clearly a clueless fuckwit.

If you don't, then why do you expect UKV to do so in relation to 
attempted voting fraud?

> This is no longer acceptable.
> 
> Maybe chiark can count to 10 ?
> 

As has been stated on several occasions, if you think you could do a 
better job than UKVoting, you're free to submit an RFD to change the 
Voting Procedures.

Cheers,

Barry

In message , at 19:06:14 on 
Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Geoff Berrow  wibbled
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:02:37 +0000, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>At 16:24:01 on Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
>>wrote in :
>>
>>>Finally, the results are published and, as I said in my other post,
>>>they can be scrutinised by the electorate if they wish and any
>>>objections could be investigated further (I say /could/ as, for
>>>example, a claim that Geoff Berrow and Molly Mockford were the same
>>>person that was passed to me would be treated with the disdain it
>>>deserved).
>>
>>*checks hair in mirror* *sighs with relief*
>
>Hair is overrated...

There are only a few perfect heads, the rest had to have a lot of hair 
stuck on them.

-- 
Pedt

In article , Geoff Berrow 
 writes
>Hair is overrated...

And here was me thinking it was overhead.


Adrian
-- 
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:52:15 +0000, Adrian Simpson 
 said:
> >Hair is overrated...

> And here was me thinking it was overhead.

At least it isn't underhand.

I can take it on the chin.


--
-- 
Sent from my phone (yes I know that may be sad)
Therefore please excuse errors in formatting,
spelling, typos, simple logic or reasoning.