Can Current Technology Insure Fair Elections

[Scuba]

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/can-current-technology-insure-fair-elections/


<snip>

Posters who claim that technology can never guarantee that our elections will be honest are missing the overall by focusing on only one factor in the equation. They claim that any system can be hacked (which is true) – but they leave it at that. They fail to consider that technology, used in conjunction with low-tech hand-counts, provides a more secure voting system than hand-counts alone.

Current voting systems are designed to be hacked. We need systems that are designed to work. It’s that simple. Data redundancy, auditable processes, open source code, non-proprietary systems, expert design (not r/w hacks), voters can confirm their own vote. What’s wrong with that? Let experts check the code and agree that it would work. As expert Steve Spoonamore has said: you just need to make sure that 1+1=2. It’s not rocket science. If voters have the ability to check their vote after it has been transmitted to a tabulator and find a mistake, they can report it. It is a citizen auditable process. It’s just common sense.

We are the voters. We own the hardware. We own the software. We check our votes. This way we have the best of both worlds: A HYBRID system of hand-counted ballot summaries posted for viewing at the precinct as well as on the Internet. Each ballot contains an anonymous voter code. Privacy is not an issue; the voters can check their votes online. It is self-auditing, built-in system. The key is data redundancy and transparency– and that is why an Open Source/Internet system can provide a solution. The HAVA non-proprietary voting machines and central tabulators are just the opposite: the software is proprietary. Non-proprietary hardware and software developed by experts would be far superior to the junk that is being forced down their throats by right-wing corporations with the blessing of Congress.

Steve Spoonamore is allowed to analyze Diebold ATM software, but prohibited from looking at Diebold’s voting machine code. Spoonamore says that each voter should be allowed to check their vote electronically on the County Web site. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. He agrees with my contention that Open Source is a must. He calls it “freeware”. Same thing.

<end snip>


<img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" />

[ladjf]

1. The state of the technology isn't the problem. It's the secure supervision

of the technology. At too many points, the systems are allowed to be accessed by untrustworthy people.