Of NIST, bottlenecks, 2006 and voting solutions

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Mon Jun 13 2005 - 20:53:46 CDT

Charlie,

Good catch.

I was surfing on vote.nist.org and EAC on the weekend and missed all this -
they hid it well.

I did spot the recent comments on ECPosStat - and I added my two cents to
that on
my site http://trustedelections.org

On to the NIST list of stuff - clearly this is a result of the materials we
threw at them - so
they had to categorize different systems - and I noticed that a lot of
issues with
implementation methods also made it into their report - makes me feel better
about
countless hours spent writing stuff up and sending it to key people and
lobbying.

This will be very helpful to our cause - since it will force election boards
to know about
the differences and ask about strengths and weaknesses of vendors
implementations.

That is when a matrix can show that only by ensuring certain things are
taking place,
or not taking place - that you can arrive at a trusted result. Given I
little time - I'll
probably have that matrix done - based on their criteria. Probably good
feedback
to give them. Based on your own criteria - here's the analysis - and what
it
deduces.

BTW - the TLV approach is a combo - of the split process architecture and
the optically scanned ballot - I'll try not to make the matrix blatently a
win
for TLV ; -)

The biggest questions though are these asked here:

http://www.countynews.org/CountyNewsTemplate.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16671

I cannot make up my mind if the deferment argument is good or bad. Perhaps
if we can say - no deferment needed - and here is why....

If we can show we can have a secure system available well before Nov 2006 -
we should be gold - compared
to all these vendors that are whining about not being able to get through
the process by then.

Of course the single biggest factor here is the vendors are the bottle neck.
If you produce an open source
solution - then you can literally empower thousands of programmers in each
State to take that toolset
and build a ballot using off-the-shelf equipment - thus removing that
bottleneck issue.

DW

_______________________________________________
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 Thu Jun 30 23:17:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 23:17:11 CDT