Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: SOS Election Task Force Meeting

Expand Messages
  • jcbolo2001@yahoo.com
    1. HOW CONTACT?: (a) Could you let me/us know how to contact the Secretary of State s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Elections, that you referred to in our egroup
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 2, 2001
      1. HOW CONTACT?:
      (a) Could you let me/us know how to contact the Secretary of State's
      Blue Ribbon Task Force on Elections, that you referred to in our
      egroup IRV CO? I'd like to see what we could do to help support
      awareness of the importance of IRV compatibility for new election
      machines. (Unless you advise otherwise, I would like to
      call/email/fax/or mail contact person(s) on the Task Force to ask what
      their plan is for IRV compatibility and to recommend it to them.)
      (b) Is this task force dealing only with electoral mechanics/process
      and not electoral reform like IRV...? (i.e.: What's their
      2. IRV RETROFITTABLE: Even if the current election machine is not IRV
      capable, it might be OK, if it is capable (& so warranteed) of being
      retrofitted to IRV application, once code was adapted for it. Is this
      distinction made?
      3. VERIFIABLE HARD COPY BALLOTS: I agree that hard copies of each
      election ballot should be saved. Specifically, it would be best to
      have a copy (or receipt) both for the voter & for the voting
      commission. Then, we could spot check the computer registry for
      accuracy, compared to our receipt (with a unique record #). Also the
      receipt could be one way to verify that who we intended to vote for is
      actually who we did vote for. Then in this case, whether we enter
      paper ballots that are scanned or enter directly into the election
      computer machine, would then be secondary & probably not important.
      4. SECURITY PROTECTION: With you David & others being experienced in
      computer security applications, I'd like to pose a question as to the
      practicality of the following. (a) Could all the input values be
      available in a read-only access, in order for "watchdog" types to
      check on the election machine variables? (b) Also could not the code
      be hardened to be extremely hard to change, without many levels of
      Thanks for you good work!!!
      j.bollinger, bolo@..., 303-666-7422 h

      --- In InstantRunoffCO@y..., David Aitken <daitken@t...> wrote:
      > At 10:02 PM 3/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
      > >Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
      > >David Aitken <daitken@t...> said:
      > > >
      > > >All vendors escrow their computer software source code; none give
      it to the
      > > >counties, which is a real plus for security purposes. It means
      that no
      > > >election officials can skew the output by changing the software.
      > > >changes would have to be done by the vendor's personnel. It
      > > >appears that the highest probability that voting fraud could
      occur would be
      > > >in the process of getting the voting data from the precinct to
      the county
      > > >election offices. It did not occur to me to explore what
      > > >procedures were in place to prevent fraud during that process
      during the
      > > >meeting.
      > > >
      > >Actually, if done right, open source systems would be much more
      > >If the code is not available to anyone other than the manufacturer,
      > >vendor has unchecked ability to skew results. If the source code
      can be
      > >inspected, it can be verified accurate. This would need to be
      > >with something like digital signature/fingerprinting (with some
      > >Of course, the method of transferring vote information from
      precinct to
      > >county courthouse remains the biggest security issue...
      > Unfortunately, open source does not prevent a poll worker from
      applying a
      > software change just before the polls open, and then removing it
      just after
      > the polls close. And if they're smart enough to do that (or whoever
      > the patch is), then they're also probably smart enough to deal with
      > signatures. It also doesn't prevent a similar scenario from
      happening at
      > the election office where votes are counted. At some point you have
      > trust people.
      > In short, there isn't any system that can't be tampered with. All
      we can
      > do is decrease the probability that is likely to happen. In my
      > unrevealed source is less likely to be tampered with, all other
      > being equal. All I have to base that opinion on is 33 years of
      > development experience.
      > >(Unrevealed source doesn't necessarily mean a malicious election
      > >can't tamper with it, either. It's just more arcane and
      > True.
      > David Aitken
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.