[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:27:07 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
>  Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:02:44 -0400
> 
>>From: Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
>>Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines
> 
> 
>>Federal certification?  The many horror stories tell us either:
>>    Equipment is failing that has never been "certified" or
>>    The certifiers are signing off without bothering to look
>>seriously for the many defects in the offered systems,
> 
> 
> The second scenario is true, and there are loopholes in the standards
> which allow systems to be certified despite not meeting the standards.
> 
> 
>>Thus the certification process needs overhauling.
> 
> 
> Yes, but certifying voting systems is a fundamentally flawed concept
> anyway, because if the software is changed at all, then it is not
> certified any longer and many states require that only certified
> software is used. This makes it legally impossible to do security and
> bug fixes because it can take a year (or perhaps more, but a really
> long time) to get a new voting system software federally certified.
> Smart State Election Officials are beginning to see that federal
> certification is not a good idea, but many states would have to get
> the legislatures to change state statutes to no longer require federal
> certification of their voting machines.

I accept that what has passed as certification is demonstrated as 
fundamentally flawed.

However, there is need for someone other than the producer to verify 
quality of what is produced.
      Bug fixes, etc., do not deserve a free pass, though expedited 
processing of them makes sense.
      And open source can ensure both better quality programming and 
quicker finding of most bugs.
> 
> The state with one of the best, most economical voting system is
> Oklahoma who programmed their own paper ballot voting system rather
> than buying one from a vendor so OK uses standard optical scanners to
> count their paper ballots.  I would think that this means that OK
> could possibly have an open source voting system.  I heard that OK
> decided to forgo taking Help America Vote Act funds for a new voting
> system.

I doubt that what they have would be usable everywhere, but they might 
be able to offer some useful guidance.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Kathy
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.