Panel: E-voting vulnerable

TalkBack 17 of 35:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

The more complex the system...

...the more bugs there will be. This is a large part of the argument of why short ballots (few offices and/or propositions decided at any one time) work better than long ones. This makes it crucial for states with relatively complicated voting systems (like California, for instance) to carefully audit *all* voting procedures and equipment (including software) to maximize accuracy, while retaining confidentiality. Inspecting source code and creating procedures for insuring that the softare installed is what officials think is installed are part of that, but it's also important to give equal attention to mechanical equipment, human-monitored portions of the process, etc.

Might also help to eliminate direct elections for offices that receive little or no attention from either the news media or the general public (do you really care who the county clerk is?), thus simplifying the ballot and reducing the need for computers and mechanical counters, but that's probably an argument for another day.

Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 10/08/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Using NIC Teaming to Achieve High Availability on Linux Platforms Dell Network interface card (NIC) teaming is one method for providing high ... Download Now