[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one disabilities concern
Ed, The system I'm envisioning here I believe transforms access to voting. Here's why. Today (in the US) they are polling station-centric. We know that critically restricts access - and in some areas its deliberate - they only put one or two machines at the station for 1,000's of voters. Now - given that instead of proprietary vendor solutions we have an open framework and process. Now any vendor can implement to the spec's and get their voting system approved for use. Some examples would be - cell phone companies, broadband TV companies, local libraries, ISP's, and banks. This is what the (Alternate) slide is attempting to convey (I just gave one media - without showing remote printing options, etc, for other devices). With this level of access we enter a new age of citizenry involvement in the political decision process. And because we know we have a trusted process - we can be vigilant to ensure that it works and that abuses are minimized. That builds public trust and familiarity. Right now public trust is in the lavatory - since it is widely assumed the eVoting systems have manipulated the election results here in the USA - and each voter has no way of knowing how their vote was actually counted. And this is because there is no formal definition of what constitutes a trusted voting process. Instead vendors are hawking proprietary systems that use technology gimmicks like cyptography and special coding systems to offer a chirade of legitimacy that cannot be verified - especially as few accept open source requirements (even with open source - it is still possible to cheat - by embedding the rogue routines as part of the OS libraries or firmware). Worldwide this also has huge considerations. The US is spending $400+ billion to bring democracy to Iraq. And we just saw what happened in Ukraine recently. Then there are countries like Zimbabwe where voter intimidation are the norm. With so much at stake we cannot assume that people will not spend significant sums to cheat. Therefore only by having a secure process can we ensure trust - so that the process itself - as best we can make it - is self-defending - as we see with other systems today like banking and so on. Having trusted voting systems available worldwide provides the means to safeguard citizens from the abuses and excesses we see today. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Dodds" <dodds@conmergence.com> To: "'Paul Spencer'" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>; "'David Webber (XML)'" <david@drrw.info>; <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:12 AM Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one disabilities concern FWIW: The discussion I've seen in the disabilities community has been over the import of the paper receipt. What doesn't seem to be brought up is that a lot of polling places aren't accessible -- and even when they are, there isn't enough accessible transportation to get those with disabilities to the polls. While I praise the ideal of universally accessible polling places my cynicism says they and the paper ballot issue are currently (functionallly) being used as a red herring issue put out by those who don't want the disabilities community to seriously consider UUID voting by the net, phone, fax, ATM, IM, email, set top box, what have you -- and as a result -- FWD are currently unable to vote and would be for the foreseeable future -- if the transportation issue isn't met -- and there is no political will to do so -- because folks with disabilities can't vote for it. (Anyone want to ride on my vicious cycle? :-)) Ed Dodds >I think paper is a red herring to placate a few Luddites. Far more important is the issue of intimidation, which applies to many systems including postal votes. To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/election-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]