Re: Voting System Standards

From: Adrianne Wang <xinxin_2000_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 18:55:36 CDT

Adrianne

Alan Dechert wrote:

>From: "Douglas W. Jones" <jones@cs.uiowa.edu>
>
>
>
>>I certainly didn't want to imply that the Federal standards are good
>>ones! There are lots of holes in them. On the other hand, they
>>include lots of useful stuff -- handicapped accessibility rules,
>>etc.
>>
>>
>>
>It might be nice if someone would sort through this and pick out the stuff
>that might be relevant to the demo project. Any volunteers?
>
>
>
>>>For example, strictly speaking, this voting machine is NOT a DRE.
>>>
>>>
>>Indeed, your system, and for that matter, the Populex system and the
>>Avante system, both of which print "receipts" that serve, legally,
>>as ballots, are not, strictly speaking, DRE systems.
>>
>>But, they will be evaluated as such by all who see them, including
>>the eventual source code auditors at the independent testing
>>authority. ...
>>
>>
>>
>Okay, but we're not going for certification of the demo software. It's
>throw away software.
>
>
>
>>Legalistic wrangling won't convince anyone that it
>>shouldn't be evaluated that way! Certainly, all the user interface
>>components will be seen that way, and your machine must retain
>>electronic images of the ballots as well as printing them out --
>>so in effect, it will meet the redundant storage requirement for DRE
>>machines by producing one paper copy and one electronic copy of
>>each ballot.
>>
>>
>>
>Doesn't sound too difficult.
>
>
>
>>They have their good elements, and as you've noticed,
>>they have laughable ones. Sadly, some of these bad elements are
>>being preserved in the IEEE draft standard I just read.
>>
>>
>>
>It's not sad, really. It means we have something to do. The larger full
>blown [funded] study will address these things. We'll write the
>standards -- "Regulatory Capture," as they say. If we do it right, our
>system will fully comply with all the rigorous standards that will be
>developed.
>
>For one thing, we should define some minimum amount of data that the voting
>machine should be able to present on one page. After all, in the document
>on Usability
>
>http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/v1/v1ac.doc
>
>it says,
>
> - The design should minimize voter inputs, e.g., don't
> add unnecessary steps, minimize need to turn pages,
> and to navigate displays;
>
>see that? MINIMIZE NEED TO TURN PAGES. With a large screen and high
>resolution, we can get more than any existing system.
>
>Add to this other requirements:
>
>- Must easily accommodate multiple languages
>- Must enable blind voters to have a secret ballot.
>- Poll site system must follow the absentee system in the following ways
>(same in both systems):
> Electronic ballot image
> Paper ballot format
>- Source code must be open to public audit
>
>etc. etc.
>
>Alan
>
>
>
Received on Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:55:36 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 12:50:26 CDT