April 2012

You are browsing the archive for April 2012.

International concerns with Internet voting

We note two articles this week, from Canada and Switzerland with citizen/scientists’ concerns with Internet voting.

EDR – Proponents cannot have it both ways

Proponents tout gains in turnout, but then estimate very few will use Election Day Registration (EDR) when it comes to claiming it won’t cost municipalities much and would not result in lines etc.

John Hartwell interviewed Secretary of the State Denise Merill on Stream on Conscience

Extra/missing ballots a problem in Pennsylvania, not in Connecticut

In Philadelphia its a problem to be investigated when there are several voting districts with a few more ballots than voters. In Connecticut we have no confidence that such differences would be found or considered worthy of resolution or investigation.

Basics you need to know about election integrity in fifteen minutes

Kevin O’Neill, Capitol Thinking, interviews the authors of Broken Ballots – Will Your Vote Count, Prof Doug Jones and Dr. Barbara Simons <podcast> When it comes to elections and verifiability, Doug Jones and Barbara Simons are true experts that everyone can understand.

UConn Memory Card Report: Technology 82%-93%, Officials 19%, (Outrage 0%?)

We applaud Dr. Alexander Shvartsman and his team for developing the technology to perform these innovative tests, the diligence to perform the tedious tests, and the fortitude to report the facts.

We do not applaud the lack of cooperation of officials in the audit or the lack of official compliance with memory card procedures. We are left wondering if this is the level of compliance and cooperation when officials know their efforts will be disclosed: “What is their compliance when their actions are unlikely or impossible to scrutinize?” Can you imagine such numbers from any other technology or Government function? Where is the outrage?

The Times and Internet Voting they are not a changing

Once again the New York Times ignores science and the evidence. While scientists once again, refute the Times.

Voting, alas, has unique characteristics that make internet implementations all but impossible given current technology. The big problem is that we make two demands of it that cannot be met simultaneously. We want voting to be very, very secure. And we want it to be very, very anonymous.

Could It Happen Here? Too wide to scan, would we count or copy?

Brad Blog reports ballots too wide to scan in Wisconsin. The official solution – count by hand? NO. They copied the ballots and scanned. We agree with Brad that this is unacceptable. But what would happen in Connecticut – would one of our warnings come true?

DHS Expert: Internet voting not secure

I had a front row seat last Thursday in Santa Fe, to hear Bruce McConnell from the Department of Homeland Security discuss Internet Voting.

Some people think online voting is bound to happen, though, once the kinks are worked out. But as McConnell’s comments show, those who worry a lot about cybersecurity believe that time is a long way away.