[Cialug] voting think tank comment

Fri Sep 2 10:45:31 CDT 2005

Its an interesting thought.  I was thinking something like that about a
year ago, but its a tough choice to make -deciding between the projects
that are paying the bills and the righteous ones that might very well
lead you to starvation.

I wish you the best of luck, and maybe I'll be able to lend a hand when
things get slow in Jan..

I try to stay away from the Kennedy's...  :) 

On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 10:31, Tom Poe wrote:
> Dave J. Hala Jr. offered the following on 09/02/2005 08:56 AM:
> > There's been a lot of talk about open source voting. We all know that
> > open source and printing a receipt for a voting machine is a no
> > brainer.  I think the real issue is getting the voting  machine
> > certified.
> > 
> > The hard part of that is that there are many large players like Diebold
> > out there that have been greasing politicians... Like a I said, a paper
> > receipt is a no-brainer, but getting it done drags you through the
> > tangled mess of our "Great Democracy".
> > 
> > Even if you had the perfect open source, prints a receipt, works
> > flawlessly voting machine, you'd be hard pressed to get it in service
> > unless your dad was a senator, your uncle was vice president or you're
> > an escort that partied with a Kennedy last night. 
> > 
> > Just my thoughts...
> > 
> > :) Dave
> > 
> > On Fri, 2005-09-02 at 08:39, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > 
> >>It depends on how accurate and tamper-proof you need it to be.
> >>
> >>A while back there was thread on one of
> >>securityfocus mailing lists on this topic.
> >>
> >>Some of the problems/issues were:
> >>  One of the biggest issues was that if
> >>  you have 1 machine running a program that
> >>  just displays the ballot and keeps a count
> >>  of the votes, there is no paper trail to
> >>  verify the results.  There are many scenarios
> >>  where a verifiable paper trail is needed.
> >>
> >>  The software needs to be open source for
> >>  several reasons, including ensuring that
> >>  the software developers didn't add in any
> >>  mechanisms for altering the vote count.
> >>
> >>  There needs to be a process in place to verify just prior
> >>  to voting that neither the hardware nor software has
> >>  been compromised.
> >>
> >>  You'll need at least a UPS and possibly a generator.
> >>
> >>  How will you handle a hardware failure?
> >>
> >>  Physical security:
> >>   If you have more than one machine in the set up, then
> >>   you have introduced a network connection which brings
> >>   the possibility of the vote being compromised.
> >>
> >>   How is the actual vote recorded? Via touch screen?
> >>   You don't want a voter alone in a booth with your
> >>   voting machine, a mouse, and keyboard.
> >>
> >>
> >>-Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Tom Poe wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi, All:  Over at:
> >>>http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/discus.cgi
> >>>if you click on the link for Think Tank, there's a huge international 
> >>>discussion going on about voting, electronic and paper, stuff.
> >>>
> >>>The question is, can there be a simple computer program that displays 
> >>>the ballot, records the vote, and prints out the raw data for up to 1000 
> >>>votes in a precinct.  The other requirement is it prints out a ballot to 
> >>>serve as a paper ballot record.  That's the scope.  The idea is to put a 
> >>>computer in a precinct, and conduct the vote for up to 1000 people.  No 
> >>>network connection, internet connection, just the computer performing 
> >>>those tasks.  Maybe there has to be two computers.  One for generating a 
> >>>ballot.  And, one to receive the vote count.  Seems like it should only 
> >>>be one computer to me.
> >>>
> >>>Anyone have a quick fix on what would be needed?  We don't want to go 
> >>>beyond what it takes to do more.  Oh, and it has to be GPL, not 
> >>>proprietary.  For all I know, there's a calculator in Engineering that 
> >>>already does that.  Is it GPL'd?  :)
> >>>Tom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Cialug mailing list
> >>>Cialug at cialug.org
> >>>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Cialug mailing list
> >>Cialug at cialug.org
> >>http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
> Dave:  You're right on target with this.  Certification needs to be 
> something that is independently performed, but satisfies the present 
> laws and regulations.  I suspect that the state will eventually take on 
> that responsibility within the state, rather than rely on a federal, 
> centralized certification procedure.  However, if we develop an open 
> source program, print the ballot, and use the ballot as the official 
> count, rather than the computer, we have something that is closer to 
> protecting our right to vote.
> 
> Unavoidable, being dragged through the tangled mess of our great 
> democracy.  But, we leave that to others.  It's a "here's the option, 
> take it or leave it approach" and let the powers that be stew in their 
> juices kind of thinking.  San Diego did something similar with their 
> mayoral runoff election, and the pot is boiling out there.  They didn't 
> use open source, so the amount of leverage achieved was less than it 
> could have been.  We can correct that little flaw, and the next time, 
> all hell just might break loose, and we have avoided the tangled mess issue.
> 
> You partied with a Kennedy last night?  :)
> Tom
-- 

Open Source Information Systems, Inc. (OSIS)
Dave J. Hala Jr., President <dave at osis.us>
641.485.1606