more on a new DoD Internet voting scheme

Begin forwarded message:

From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Date: October 26, 2006 11:45:42 AM EDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [IP] more on a new DoD Internet voting scheme

[email protected] writes:
> There is NO way to ensure that the voter is not voting with a gun  
> held to their head (figuratively, or even LITERALLY).
[...]
> While the same argument can be made about mailin ballots in  
> general, those in most places represent a small percentage of the  
> total vote;  if Internet voting were to become widespread, it could  
> easily become 60% or more of the total vote, and with an inherent  
> and uncontrollable risk of fraud... in fact, it would be an  
> irresistable target for it.

The first point is true, of course, but:

(a) I don't see the anti-Internet voting activists campaigning  
against mail-in-ballots, which would be consistent with the coercion  
argument if they're serious about its validity.

(b) In Oregon, all elections are conducted by mail. In Washington  
state, 33 of 39 counties are entirely vote-by-mail. The parade of  
horrors that the coercion argument predicts has not been publicly  
reported. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote-by- 
mail#First_State_with_vote-by-mail)

(c) I think the security argument (customized malware) is a far  
stronger one against Internet voting than the coercion one.

-Declan