Quick way/last chance to comment to the EAC

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_at_uscountvotes_dot_org>
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 01:06:43 CDT

Here is a quick easy way to comment to the US EAC re. their voting
system guidelines in just a couple of minutes using the General Comments
TAB:

Tell the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and Professor Britt
Williams at Kennesaw.edu in Georgia that we are not
buying into "independent dual verification" (verifying
one electronic record with another electronic record) which does not
ensure the accuracy of vote counts via audits as the EAC is claiming.

http://guidelines.kennesaw.edu/vvsg/guide_toc.asp

Click the "General Comments" tab to make any comment:

http://guidelines.kennesaw.edu/vvsg/register.asp

------------------------------------------
Below here is the General Comment that I submitted to the EAC:
------------------------------------------

I entered many comments on Appendix D as Section Comments - but I had to
use Section "1" because your form did not permit Appendix D or D-1 to be
used as sections. Please forward them to the right authors.

Appendix D regarding "Independent Dual Verification" contains logic errors.

For one example, if one is trying to ensure the accuracy of vote counts
by auditing, then one needs to have records to audit that are
independent of insiders within the system, not records that are
independent of each other.

In banking and financial industries, audits are done independently of
insiders within the system in order to detect errors that could be
innocently or maliciously introduced by insiders. Voting systems should
provide the same protections.

The payoff for vote tampering is larger than for embezzling funds from
financial institutions because elected officials control budgets from
the millions at the county level to the trillions at the national level.

So the Independent Dual Verification (IDV) measures proposed in Appendix
D, while good for system reliability or redundancy, are wholly
inadequate to protect our voting systems from insider errors or
embezzlement because the IDV audit methods proposed are most often not
independent of insiders within the voting systems.

There were other logic errors in the analysis of "Independent Dual
Verification Systems" as well.

To claim that IDV systems as described in Appendix D would ensure the
accuracy of vote counts, is incorrect.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kathy Dopp
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Sep 30 23:17:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 30 2005 - 23:17:04 CDT