A Computer World article reminds us how much more there is to go to achieve verifiable, evidence based elections: A hackable election? 5 things to know about e-voting <read>
Voting results are “ripe for manipulation,” [Security Researcher Joe] Kiniry added.
Hacking an election would be more of a social and political challenge than a technical one, he said. “You’d have a medium-sized conspiracy in order to achieve such a goal.”
While most states have auditable voting systems, only about half the states conduct post-election audits, added Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting.
“That leaves a lot of gaps for confirming that election outcomes were correct,” she said. “In such a contentious election year, well, let’s just say it’s never a good thing to be unable to demonstrate to the public’s satisfaction that votes were counted correctly, whether in a small contest or large.”…
Twenty-three states used DREs without paper trails in the 2008 U.S. election, and 17 used them in 2012, compared to 15 states this year, according to information from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and Verified Voting.
Let us not forget that even states, like Connecticut, with post-election audits have a long way to go in making the audits sufficient to assure that election results are correct or confidence that incorrect results would be reversed.
