RE: [election-services] FYI: BREAKING: NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE RECOMMENDSSCRAPPING TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING SYSTEMS!

["Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>]

The mechanism I have proposed before is that the DRE equipment should link
to counting equipment from another manufacturer. It is the counting
equipment that provides the feedback to the user. In this way, an error in
either the DRE or counting equipment is immediately detectable. The DRE
should also keep a count so that this can be compared to the counting
equipment count at the end of the day. I suspect that this two-stage process
(provisional vote and confirmation) may need a slight change to the 440
message. Since this could be key to promotion of EML in the USA, perhaps we
should check this and describe the scenario in detail. I will try to have a
look at it.

This seems to get round the "software independence" aspect. Of course, the
multi-manufacturer approach relies on open standards for the interface ...

Any views? Especially from our two NIST observers?

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall [mailto:jhall@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU]
> Sent: 30 November 2006 02:40
> To: OASIS EML TC
> Cc: Patrick Gannon
> Subject: Re: [election-services] FYI: BREAKING: NATIONAL STANDARDS
> INSTITUTE RECOMMENDSSCRAPPING TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING SYSTEMS!
>
>
>
> On 11/29/06, David RR Webber <david@drrw.info> wrote:
> >
> > Kudos to NIST on making this assessment,
>
> Actually, what NIST is recommending is "Software Independence":
>
> http://vote.nist.gov/meeting20061204.htm
> http://vote.nist.gov/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf
>
> Which, if adopted, would mean that paperless DREsof which
> touchscreens are a subsetwill not be certifiable by the EAC when the
> 2007 VVSG come into effect in Dec. 2009. -Joe
>
> --
> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> PhD Student, UC Berkeley, School of Information
> <http://josephhall.org/>