Steve’s Techdirt Profile

steve03

About Steve




Steve’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 5th, 2009 @ 12:05pm

    Another view

    Dr. Chaum has been working with using cryptology in the voting industry for many years. Although some of you have found fault with David's solution for various reasons, the great news is that a voting jurisdiction has taken the lead to try something new. Rather then retreat to “Is it certified?” or “how many other jurisdiction are using it?”, Maryland should be congratulated that it has the guts to try something new.

    Open source is an element for future voting systems. But it requires a mechanism in place to ensure that the open source code reviewed is exactly the same code that is on the devices.

    Selling votes is very very easy. I request an absentee ballet to be sent to me at home. In the evening I go to the Do Drop Inn and hold up my ballot. Let the auction begin. At work my boss calls me in to his office. Steve we have to let some people go soon. But if you let me help fill out your ballet, I may find a way to keep you on the payroll. Of course this never ever happens!!!

    Much of the source for the voting disenfranchisement is the result of a Catch 22 design of the 2002 and 2005 Election Assistance Commission Voluntary Voting Guidelines. The testing requirements were created to certify existing (or near term) technologies. Virtually no room in the requirements to create and innovate with technologies that come on line over the past 5 years.

    The good news is the 2007 Voluntary Voting Guidelines ( http://www.eac.gov/vvsg ) does include a new classification named Innovative. The guidelines will become more dynamic and can be changed to accommodate new technologies and ideas.

    Of course you are free to complain or you could dive in and create new ways of moving the voting industry forward.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it