SiliconValley.com's weeklong roundtable on e-voting

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Researchers and registrars in weeklong e-voting debate
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:20:40 -0400
From: Paczkowski, John S <JPaczkowski () knightridder com>
To: <dave () farber net>, <declan () well com>

Dave, Declan:

It's a shame that they keep calling these Q&A sessions with the 
presidential candidates "debates." You want a good election year debate? 
One with a dozen experts and a well-informed audience mixing it up over 
a controversial topic, with well-framed and supported arguments 
replacing catch phrases and comebacks? Keep an eye on our e-voting 
roundtable all week 
(http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/9851518.htm). Here's a 
sample of what's being said:

If one set out to design systems to prevent checks and balances, it 
would be hard to outdo current paperless e-voting machines. Electronic 
voting in its current form is equivalent to handing over the counting of 
votes to private groups who count the ballots behind closed doors -- and 
then destroy them before anyone else can do a recount. -- David Dill, 
Verified Voting

What about all those who are being encouraged to vote an absentee/mail 
ballot? They place their faith in the U.S. Postal Service, which handles 
their mail ballot by computerized processes. If they are delivered to 
the Elections Department, for decades, those ballots have been tabulated 
through computers (not networked). Yet, that voter has no idea whether 
his/her ballot has been counted in every contest because of the 
anonymity of the voter and secrecy of the ballot. -- Mischelle Townsend, 
Riverside County registrar of voters

I am not against technology. I drive a car, get on airplanes and ride 
elevators. However, if the code in any of these was as bad as Diebold's 
software, I wouldn't. -- Avi Rubin, computer science professor

One of my company's customers makes electronic slot machines, and hires 
us as one part of the independent verification process. The 
manufacturer, the casinos, and the state regulators all take the 
verification of software for these machines very seriously -- much more 
seriously than most election officials seem to take the verification of 
DRE software. -- Jim Horning, reader

The question begs asking: how did all of these experts find such serious 
flaws that passed the scrutiny of the testers who approved the systems? 
As it turns out, it's not entirely the fault of the testers. The 
standards by which they are asked to rate and judge voting systems are 
highly flawed themselves and are severely outdated. -- Kim Zetter, Wired 
News

At this point in time in the election cycle, there is no constructive 
value in perpetuating the debate. Election officials are conducting the 
election with the tools that they have. To continue discrediting these 
tools serves only to actively undermine the legitimacy of the election 
before a vote has been counted. To deride and malign election officials 
who are working tirelessly with the tools they have to conduct a 
transparent, fair and accurate election to the best of their ability in 
November serves no positive goal. It is a fair question to ask the 
motive of those who do either.
 -- Scott Konopasek, San Bernardino County registrar of voters

____________________________________________
John Paczkowski
Good Morning Silicon Valley | 
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/ 
<http://www.gmsv.com>
SiliconValley.com | http://www.siliconvalley.com
-----
Knight Ridder Digital
35 South Market Street
San Jose, CA 95113

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)