[NCLUG] Perspective on election processes Risks Digest 21.13

[Matt Rosing]

>For all of you who believe that Open Source software is the
>complete answer to better election procedures, I suggest you
>read Risks Digest 21.13 at

That was interesting, thanks for the pointer. The conclusion is that
there is *no* secure vote tabulation method. Anything with paper in it
is inaccurate and easily corrupted. Electronic systems can be
inaccurate due to sw errors, and be corrupted by hackers. Neumann also
said that the best way to eliminate the errors and limit corruption is
to use open source code.

I don't think open software is the complete answer but it could be
part of it. And I suspect that something could be built that is more
accurate than the vote-o-matic machines and still inexpensive.  Even
if it's as simple as the voter votes using a screen and a mouse, the
computer prints out a copy of the vote, the voter checks the printout,
and then hands in the printed ballot to be later scanned to tally the
votes.  It's sort of odd but it would leave a paper copy that could be
recounted by hand, would be more accurate compared to marking ballots
by hand, and would be difficult to corrupt.

Matt