Paper Trails Don't Ensure Accurate E-Voting Totals 363
An anonymous reader writes "In an new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation they say that paper trails increase costs and can actually reduce the chances a voters' choices are accurately counted. Congress is considering a 'Voter Confidence and Increased Accountability Act of 2007,' which would mandate 'voter-verified' paper audit trails."
Grammar school (Score:1, Informative)
What do you expect ? (Score:5, Informative)
"Rhett Dawson is President and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI). Immediately prior to being selected as President of ITI, Dawson was Senior Vice President of Law and Public Policy for the Potomac Electric Power Company. In the Reagan administration, Dawson was Assistant to the President for Operations. At the White House, he managed the staff and decision-making process for President Reagan and was responsible for three White House support units: the White House Office, the Office of Administration, and the White House Military Office. He also was Executive Director of two presidential commissions, the President's Special Review Board (the Tower Board) that investigated the Iran-Contra matter, and the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (the Packard Commission). During the 1980s Dawson was a partner in two Washington law firms. Earlier in his career, he was Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Minority Counsel for the Senate Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the Church Committee), and Minority Counsel for the Joint Committee on Defense Production. He is a member of the statutory Commission on National Guard and Reserve, and he is Vice Chair of the State Department's advisory committee on International Communication and Information Policy. Dawson received his undergraduate degree from Illinois Wesleyan University, where he was recognized in 2001 as the Alumni of the Year. He was awarded his law degree from Washington University."
CC.
Re:What do you expect ? (Score:4, Informative)
The basic idea (and I'm oversimplifying, I apologize) works like this:
1) You go to vote. You are shown a voter ID number on the screen. You are welcome to write it down if you wish.
2) You select your candidate of choice. If you wish, you are given a paper receipt providing cryptographic proof that the voter ID you were shown in step 1 voted for the candidate you chose.
3) If anything goes wrong in steps 1 or 2, complain loudly and immediately. This is equivalent to you not being allowed to enter the voting area or a machine displaying a candidate other than the one you pushed.
4) If you wish, you may opt to receive copies of paper receipts of other votes for other candidates too. (So that someone can't demand to see your receipt to prove you voted for a particular candidate, since you can get a receipt of someone else who voted for any candidate.)
5) When the results are publicized, the total number of votes is checked against the total number of voters. Any voter with a paper receipt not on the final tally knows their vote wasn't counted. (Though they can't prove it was their vote, of course, they can prove that *a* valid vote wasn't counted.)
6) The receipts can be scannable with barcode and groups may, if they wish, stay outside of voting areas and ask voters if they may scan their receipts. A church group, for example, could make sure all of its members votes are counted this way, though they could never be truly sure how each member voted.
Anti-Privacy and Anti-Citizen (Score:5, Informative)
Who funds these people?
Re:Why the fuck do you guys need the machines? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why the fuck do you guys need the machines? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Worthless article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why the fuck do you guys need the machines? (Score:3, Informative)
Elections which use proportional representation usually allow you to vote for more than just a political party.
Re:Why the foolishness do you guys need the machin (Score:4, Informative)
While I was taught about the electoral college, voting system, and government while I was in school, it seems that the "real world" is a lot different. (surprise!) If I remember correctly, the electors don't even have to vote for the candidate with the most ballot votes, they can choose to vote another way, becoming faithless electors.. WTF? And I'm supposed to trust these people? I find a lot of problems with the system.. Personally, it seems that if a candidate receives the majority of the votes (citizen votes, not electoral votes), then they should be the elected official. However, as we've seen in the past, that's not necessarily true.
I have no faith at all in our political system. I vote because I want my voice heard. Apparently I'm not in-tune with popular opinion, though, because I have yet to vote for any of these elected officials..
Re:Worthless article (Score:4, Informative)
* barring the presence of any bad actors in the simulation.
It's always the caveats that get you. See these guys are interested in "resilience against corruption". They're only interested in cheaper and more accurate because that's the only thing that supports their position.
I have to agree with you, the whole article screams "Industry Shills".
Re:What do you expect ? (Score:3, Informative)
Board:
Cal Dooley - Masters degree in Management
Jennifer Dunn - BA
Dr. Robert D. Atkinson - Ph.D. in City and Regional Planning
Rhett B. Dawson - undergrad law degree
David Hart - Professor of Public policy
Staff:
Dr. Robert D. Atkinson - Ph.D. in City and Regional Planning
Julie A. Hedlund - M.A. degree
Daniel D. Castro - M.S. in Information Security Technology and Management
Daniel K. Correa - degree in American political history
So in the entire "foundation" there seems to be just one person who has gone through the trouble of getting a relevant degree.
Re:Why the fuck do you guys need the machines? (Score:2, Informative)
Why is the count so fast in Canada, because each subsection counts its votes and reports back up. Usually we get the results by next morning and by midnight it is generally known who won, unless it is very tight.