Interesting People mailing list archives

important Workshop on Voter-Verifiable Election Systems


From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:42:29 -0400


------ Forwarded Message
From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:25:42 -0700
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: fwd: important Workshop on Voter-Verifiable Election Systems

Is there anything more central to a real democracy, than the
integrity (AND auditability!) of counting votes cast in secret
ballots?  That IS in peril!

In the wake of Florida's 2000 election debacle (and millions of
federal bucks allocated to "improve" elections systems nationally),
some counties and/or states have already adopted new computerized
election systems that DO NOT PROVIDE ANY ABILITY TO AUDIT the votes
cast based on original voter ballots!

There has already been at least one surprise, upset result in a
federal congressional election in one state, where no such
ballot-based audit was possible, and there may have been others.

--jim, Jim Warren
[self-inflating puff: founded the Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conferences;
Califiornia Senate Task Force on Electronic Access to Public Records (1996);
Soc.of Prof.Journalists-Nor.Cal.James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award;
Electronic Frontier Foundation Pioneer Award (1992, its first year);
Playboy Foundation Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award (1994); blah blah blah]

===

Billions of dollars will be spent in the next few years on voting equipment.

Unfortunately, some believe the new technology may *reduce* election
integrity and voter confidence.  A proposed solution is to provide
"voter verifiability", so that election results are guaranteed to
reflect the intent of the voters.  [Computer-aided paper-ballot
voting systems DO exist that can do this. --jim]

The workshop aims to bring together people concerned about these issues.


Workshop on Voter-Verifiable Election Systems
July 28-29, 2003, Denver Colorado
Adams Mark Hotel

To maximize attendance by election officials, vendors, and
technologists, the workshop is co-located and co-scheduled with the
IACREOT Annual Conference, which is the dominant conference for local
election officials.  This year, IEEE will also have a meeting of its
election standards working group just after the workshop.

The Workshop will be in two parts. Monday afternoon will be a more
technical meeting and discussion, aimed at technologically oriented
participants. Tuesday morning will be aimed at election officials as
well as the media. The Monday discussions will be summarized on
Tuesday by a panel. Tuesday will also feature some panel format debate
on key issues of interest to election officials, which can be expected
to engender lively discussion.

We have worked out a general plan for the workshop and would now like
to invite proposals for presentations and panels, particular on Monday
afternoon.  Please email these to "elections () chicory stanford edu".

Here are some examples of topics we might want to discuss in the Monday
and Tuesday sessions.  More details will appear in subsequent mailings.

Monday Afternoon:

Vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems

  Various weaknesses and specific attacks have been identified by
  researchers-from malware scenarios to mechanical-but until now little
  of this has been reported.

Voter-verifiable election technology proposals

  Various schemes have been proposed in the last few years, but there
  has not been a focused forum for their presentation; remote or
  Internet and other remote voting is a separate subject and would not
  be included in this session. Examples include: printout under-glass,
  printout in box, frog voting, secret-ballot receipts, non-printing,
  etc.

Debating the relative merits

  Panel format debates on various technology choices, such as:
  differences between audit systems and tally systems: two kinds of
  voter-verifiable technology.


Tuesday Morning:

Summarizing the vulnerabilities
  Summary of first session Monday.

Summarizing the technology options
  Summary of second session Monday

Election officials on operational issues

  Election officials have expressed various operational concerns over
  the course of the public debate and this would be an opportunity for
  them to be aired in a cohesive way.

Brief presentations of solutions by vendors

  There are several voting system vendors that have developed
  voter-verifiable receipt printers solutions, none widely displayed to
  date.

Status of local efforts for voter-verifiable systems

  Efforts have appeared in a half-dozen or more states, led by
  government, scientists, and
  other groups; those involved have had neither a forum in which to meet
  each other nor
  report their experiences.

Potential outcomes:
     o Creation of a community of interest
     o Election official awareness/education
     o Potential follow-on events
     o Potential follow-on organization
     o Impact on imminent standardization
     o Press coverage

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Co-Chairs:
David L. Dill           Stanford University
Barbara Simons          USACM - Association for Computing Machinery

David Chaum             SureVote
Lorrie Faith Cranor     AT&T Labs Research
Bill Gardner            Secretary of State of New Hampshire
David Jefferson         Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
Douglas W. Jones        University of Iowa
Douglas Kellner         Commissioner, Board of Elections, City of New York
Rebecca Mercuri         Bryn Mawr and Harvard University
Peter G. Neumann        SRI International
Rob Richie              Center for Voting and Democracy
Peter Ryan              University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Warren Slocum           Chief Elections Official, County of San Mateo, Calif.


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: