[EM] Electronic Voting Bill of Rights?

Ernest Prabhakar drernie at mac.com
Fri Nov 14 14:20:15 PST 2003

On Nov 14, 2003, at 1:55 PM, David GLAUDE wrote:
> I think that before any electronic system get introduced, you need to 
> carefull set the goal and define what democratic election are.

I actually think that this is an excellent point.    We may disagree 
about how easy a technical solution is, but I think we agree that we 
need to explicitly state what the requirements are.

Has anyone put together an "Electronic Voting Bill of Rights" to 
specify what criteria should be required of electronic voting systems?  
If not, I think it would be awesome if electorama could draft and 
ratify something like that.   Touch-screen voting seems to be a hot 
issue, and it might generate some good publicity.

I'm sure many people here have their pet list, but I haven't seen 
anything systematic.  Mine would include things like:


1.  MUST enable potential recounts

2.  MUST be developed in an open process, allowing external 

3.  MUST allow me to verify that my vote was entered and counted 

4.  MUST NOT allow other people to verify that I voted a particular way



-- Ernie P.

>> Of course, in other countries I imagine it would be quite different.  
>> But I think the more important question is whether we can reach 
>> consensus about -what- information should be available to -whom-.
> My vote should only be known by me (that is the principle of a 
> secret). I don't even trust the computer in front of me. ;-) (many ATM 
> machine have a "web"-cam for security reason. How long until voting 
> machine have one?
> Then my vote exactly as I made it should be available (mixed and 
> shaked with other) to the counting team... counted with whitness from 
> each party. Then after the count, keeped securely for potential 
> recount.
> I think that before any electronic system get introduced, you need to 
> carefull set the goal and define what democratic election are.
> My definition is:
> 1) The vote should be secret.
> 2) The election result should be under citizen control (not expert 
> control) [Where expert are the computer scientist for the state or 
> from the vendor or ...]
> If a system exclude 99.9% of the population that must trust the other 
> 0.1% able or capable to understand the system, then we have a problem.
> I had the plan to present a list of computer scientist durring the 
> election. Then if our list get absolute majority... who will trust the 
> result of the election.
> > If we can agree on that social question, the technical problems 
> should > be simple to resolve.
> Trust me it is NOT SIMPLE at all.
> Securing a system from the user might be easy.
> Securing a system from the creator/operator of it (and hacker) is way 
> much more difficult.
> Making such a system transparent as election should be without 
> compromising the secrecy of the vote make it even more difficult.
> David GLAUDE

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list