Dr. Michael Geist University of Ottawa 12/26/08

[This was sent on email - subject line:Would EFF be interested in this?] Dear Mr. Geist: I do not usually forward chain letters, but the one included as an example intrigued me. I was wondering if you could share any insight with me on the potential effects it might have? I attempted to find a snail mail address for you on the University of Ottawa site, and the best I could do was: [University address on world wide web.] The other address I found was to Tabaret Hall. I had in mind to send you a CD-R or DVD-R with relevant supporting documentation, but I wasn't satisfied that merely putting an envelope to your attention would be sufficient. It consists of large PDFs, bitmaps and TIFFs, not the kind of thing I can send as an attachment. I investigated yousendit.com but there is a monthly limit. I here insert indented the text from the chain email that is supposed to be from the Cato Institute. The subject line was "A message from the Cato Institute." [This format does not indent. INDENTATION BEGAN HERE.] As a market research measure, in conjunction with the Gallop Organization we are attempting to determine if the market penetration of Personal Computer ownership is adequate to support an improved voting mechanism. If a broad enough sample of the population is able to install and use the attached program, it will be proof of concept that a ballot system used from the home computer can be made practical. To use, simply forward a copy of the attached program to a friend with whom you currently, or in future would like to exchange Instant Message communications via the internet and use it in place of your current Instant Messaging Client. Although the instructions are detailed, we have high hopes that many people will be able to master it. Beyond installing and using the attached program, nothing is required on your part by way of notification. Gallop Organization will make its determination from analysis of internet traffic. Regards, Jim Jackson [INDENTATION ENDED HERE.] I recall from history class that (George) Gallup incorrectly predicted Dewey over Truman in 1948. I understand that this miscalculation grew from using telephone polls instead of walky talky polls. I'm not sure if the email is superficial or not, but it appears to be an attempt to forestall a future duplication of the same mistake. From my core competency as a computer tech, I have long accepted that Internet Election results could be securely transmitted. Despite this confidence, I am suspicious of the idea of transmitting a 4 B(illion) count vote securely around the web, without any mechanism to recount it, if there was computer fraud. US population stands at ~300 M(illion.) The Electoral College cannot be said to be optimal. I have seen (research?) http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/10/2152203 to the effect that it can be improved upon reliably. A US nationwide internet election would suggest a precipitous embarkation on a discussion of Direct Democracy. For my part, I do not like to attempt to make a rational-voter political evaluation of Dallas Judges every FOUR years. Any undertaking of direct democracy must surely bring new emphasis to both the tyranny of the majority and the strident nature of special interest groups. Various fatigues of public involvement would likely make results non-representative in legendarily unscientific ways. Please share with me an evaluation of the net positive or negative effect of the annotated email. Warm Regards, Robert Johnson