[EM] Open Voting Consortium for e-voting?
Ken Johnson
kjinnovation at earthlink.net
Fri Apr 2 21:52:01 PST 2004
>Message: 1
>To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
>From: Ernest Prabhakar <drernie at mac.com>
>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:26:22 -0800
>
>...
>
> In the consortium's system, a voter approaches a touchscreen and fills
>out a form, which is promptly printed out as an official legal ballot.
>The voter can cast his vote or review choices before the ballot is
>printed out with the voter's choices checked off. The voter then places
>the ballot in a private envelope and places it in a ballot box.
>
> That approach is in sharp contrast to most of the electronic voting
>machines now in use. Most of today's voting machines use proprietary
>source code and machines--and leave no paper trail, making it difficult
>to audit counted votes. ...
>
>
>
I'm all for paper ballots, but what good are they if you don't actually
use them to verify the electronic tally? Following is a message relating
to this topic that I posted recently at
http://verifiedvoting.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=198 . (Note: Netscape
is unable to access this site, but IE works.)
Paper ballots present a conundrum: You may never know whether the
machine count is valid unless the paper ballots are manually counted,
but you can't justify a full recount unless there is sufficient cause to
doubt the machine count. The solution to this problem is to mandate a
"statistical recount" as part of routine election certification
processes. Each paper ballot would have a piece of information
associating it with its associated computer database record from which
the machine count is generated. A small, random sampling of paper
ballots is manually inspected and compared to the corresponding data
records to confirm that the ballots are correctly represented in the
database. Similarly, a small, random sampling of data records is
selected and compared to the corresponding paper ballots to ensure that
no "virtual ballot stuffing" has occurred. A very small sampling, e.g.
1000 out of a total of 10,000,000 ballots, would typically be sufficient
to validate the machine count with 99.99% confidence. (A conventional
full, manual recount may actually be LESS certain than this sample-based
recount because of counting errors.) This process would make it possible
to routinely validate election results beyond reasonable doubt without
doing a full recount and without having to validate all of the detailed
mechanisms and processes (e.g. software) by which the information on the
paper ballots is transferred to the database.
Ken Johnson
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list