ACM on E-Voting

dadop writes "ACM's position is that while computer-based e-voting systems have the potential to improve the electoral process, such systems must embody careful engineering, strong safeguards, and rigorous testing in both their design and operation [something they don't do right now!]. Press release is here."

Thanks Due to CMU

[reporter]

That the ACM is entering the picture for e-voting is good news. Too many Americans lack the knowledge to understand the science of electronic voting, and e-voting machines without paper trails almost became the principal voting system in several states. Computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University and other top universities stepped into the picture and signed a petition demanding a paper trail on all machines.

Now that the ACM has also entered the picture, we can be sure that future e-voting machines will be reliable.

What I cannot understand is how the Pentagon can approve electronic voting by Internet without any paper trail for soldiers stationed overseas.

Re:Thanks Due to CMU

[Flexagon]

Too many Americans lack the knowledge to understand the science of electronic voting... Computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University and other top universities stepped into the picture and signed a petition demanding a paper trail on all machines.

Unfortunately, that was not enough. Much of that effort didn't even make the mainstream press initially, and certainly little positive action resulted... until the poorly designed voting machines actually failed, with no paper trail to recover with. And

Duh!

[El]

ACM has recommended that e-voting systems enable voters to inspect a physical (e.g., paper) record to verify the accuracy of their vote, and to serve as an independent check on the record produced and stored by the system. In addition, those records should be made permanent, not based solely in computer memory, to allow for an accurate recount. Exactly what I've been saying all along.

Genius.

[Anonymous Coward]

ACM on E-Voting.

They were just asking for that... o.O

CACM lead story

[dilger]

"The problems and potentials of voting systems" is the lead story of this month's Communications of the ACM. [acm.org] Unfortunately, the content is not available online unless you are an ACM Portal subscriber or have access through a library. I've read a couple of the articles [acm.org] since my copy of CACM arrived earlier today, and it is very important stuff indeed.

Here's a short excerpt from one article, "Small vote manipulations can swing elections":

[Considering the 2000 Florida election,] an adversary capable of changing one vote per voting machine could have swung 25 electoral votes from Bush to Gore. This would have made the final electoral college totals 246 votes for Bush versus 291 votes for Gore, rather than the actual 271 votes for Bush versus 266 votes for Gore. Thus, an adversary with the ability to manipulate one vote per machine could have changed the outcome of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election.

In my mind, ACM should be trying a lot harder to get the information in this issue of CACM into the public eye. Not only the article I've excerpted, but all of them.

cbd.

Just because we can...

[Thunderstruck]

Does not mean we should.

What exactly is wrong with paper voting? Electronic voting is just as prone to error if it has a working human interface, and prone to abuse if does not. I think a few trees every year is a small price to pay for my democracy.

Re:Just because we can...

[CodeWanker]

Exactly! The same way that the paper-based book is (and always will be) [epguides.info] superior to an e version in all ways (except looking busy at work when you're really screwing around,) so will paper ballots always be superior to some ephemeral electronic version. Investigators need paper ballots to avoid cracker tampering the same way we need photographic negatives to avoid Photoshop-style tampering with images. And in 3000 years, when the inks on DVD-Rs have degraded to uselessness and the magnetic material on ha