Leave a Reply
About TrustTheVote
TrustTheVote⢠is the flagship project of the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) supporting its mission to create new and open election technology that re-defines how America votes in a digital democracy.Contribute to OSDV
Help expand the TTV cause by contributing now. You can also volunteer, join the team, inquire about becoming an OSDV donor, or donate online to the OSDV Foundation.-
Recent Posts
Topics
accessibility audit ballots certification Commentary complexity count digital democracy digital voting disenfranchisement e-voting EAC election incident election reform election systems election technology Gregory Miller internet voting john sebes Open Source OSDV overseas voting paper ballot pito salas proprietary recount secret ballot security standards tabulator Technology testing transparency trustthevote trustworthy voting usability vote by mail voter confidence voter ID voter registration voting voting devices voting machine voting system voting technologyArchives
Categories
- Announcements
- Architecture
- Ballot Design
- Commentary
- Development methodology
- Election Adminstration Technology
- Election Information
- Election Technology Reform
- Foundation Administration
- Intellectual Property Protection
- Internet Voting
- MOVE Act
- Open Source
- Risk
- Science
- TrusttheVote / OSDV
- Uncategorized
- Voting System Technology
OSDV Tweets

Paper trails, Voter IDs, and election machines
Apr 17th, 2008 by E. John Sebes
I wanted to call attention to another fine article in the "Freedom to Tinker" blog, this one by Dan Wallach.
The issue is related to how voter registration systems should work, and whether state-issued photo ID should be required for registration and for authentication at polls. Dan explains the connection between this issue, government funding for conversion to e-scanned paper ballots, and more.
In addition, I wanted to point out that the confusion and political footbal about voter ID is one example of many reasons why it is so hard for for-profit vendors to create good e-voting products. In this case, there is a lot of confusion, differing requirments in each state, and apparently a good chance of changes in requirements at state or federal levels. It’s just one example of how hard it is to nail down a good description of a business process that one wants to partly automate with computing. Voting is like that all over. No wonder it’s so hard build a good voting system – it is hard to specify one. (Or at least hard if you follow the traditional tech product vendor model.)
In this case, though, the "business requirements" for voting systems are particularly obscured by politics. The voter ID idea is popular with some people who believe that there is a significant amount of voter fraud, specifically, a person going to the polls, claiming to be another person that didn’t turn out to vote, and using that person’s vote. In fact, that is hard to prove because of … no surprise … e-voting systems! The current technology makes it very hard to collect and publish info about who actually voted, and to detect cases where the record is that a person voted, but the person denies that — presumably they were defrauded of their vote.
And of course with no market requirement to add features and to use standard public data interchange formats, vendors have no motivation to spend on product development that isn’t required. As a result, this potentially valuable info is locked up in proprietary data formats inside closed system products.
Of course, some readers will know the recipe for fixing all that, so I won’t belabor the point.
EJS
Tags: ballots, Commentary, digital voting, e-voting, paper ballot, voter fraud, voter ID, voter registration
Posted in Uncategorized