Re: USEAC news & question on #precincts/polling location

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 02:19:47 CDT

when an ITA approves a version then that version is approved and no
other.

Thus when a bug is discovered you have a huge problem. YOu have a
dillema:
either you must run the election with the known bug but an approved
version.
or you must cancel the election and wait 6 months for the patched
version to be approved by the ITA.
or you must illegally patch it.

so far the first and the last have been the only way it's been done.

the second one sort of happens too because some vendors try to say
that the bug was in a device driver which is a piece of "cots"
software that can be replaced without ITA approval.

The ITAs have now moved to approving only systems of components, not
the components themselves. This sort of fixes this end-around but
introduces a new problem. It means that end-users get locked into a
vendors end-to-end system and have to buy every peice from the
vendor. You cant mix and match pieces from different vendors and
thus you cant tolerate hybrid systems that combine old and new
equipment that are not part of the approved "system".

It's a freakin' mess.

The only solution to this mess is to make systems sufficiently robust
that they are bug-tolerant. For example, if you have the OVC system
with it's voter verified paper trail, then even if there is a known
bug that messes up the electronic records you can still proceed with
the election under many circumstances since the paper trail will
still function. Similar comments can be made about optical scan.

On Aug 19, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Richard C. Johnson wrote:

> Kathy,
>
> Will they do version control and retest new versions or does one
> certification fit all future versions? The testing and
> certification documents also must be associated with both version
> and test results to be truly informative.
>
> Cheers!
>
> -- Dick
>
> Kathy Dopp <kathy@uscountvotes.org> wrote:
> I attended the Summer National Association of State Election
> Directors'
> conference.
>
> GOOD NEWS:
> Brian Hancock, on the voting systems Board of the USEAC, had some good
> news. He said that Full Test Code Reports w/ Only Source code &
> Schematics redacted would be made publicly available through the
> new EAC
> voting machine certification process. Testing & Certification Docs
> will
> be available.
> ----------------
>
> QUESTION:
> I mentioned that research shows that the more precincts/polling
> location, the higher the under-vote rate so that Voting Centers might
> cause increased voter disenfranchisement.
>
> Georgia's Election Director said "Show me the research on that!"
>
> Does you have URLs of studies of undervote rates versus the number of
> precincts per polling location?
>
> Thank you.
>
> p.s. We need election activ! ists and someone from OVC to attend the
> NASED.org conferences. I will put out a report soon on the summer
> NASED
> conference since I was almost the only election activist there and
> there
> did not seem to be any reporters.
>
> Kathy Dopp
> http://uscountvotes.org
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Aug 31 23:17:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:44:12 CDT