Have you seen Australia's open-source code voting machine system?

[IndyOp]

EVACS < http://www.elections.act.gov.au/EVACS.html >

Just scroll down to see:

Source code

EVACS was written using Linux open source software to ensure appropriate transparency.

* Source code for the software (zipped file in 'tar.gz' format - 127 kb)
* * Patch for correcting a minor error in the original software (text file - 1 kb)
* Source code for the casual vacancy module (zip file - 38 kb)


Australia -> :applause:

[kenny blankenship]

1. No, because I live in America, where elections are privatized

and balloting software for public elections is 'proprietary'--that is to say, private property, about which I, as a non-owner, have no right to know. Even if I licensed the proprietary balloting software and paid in cash I would still have no right to know about its inner workings --according to American laws.

[endarkenment]

2. I don't care how open it is why do I need it?

Each voting station in my precinct costs about $50, and that is being way generous. We can have 40 or so people voting concurrently. Every vote has a paper ballot that is fed into an opscan tabulator (which I admit can be tampered). If the ballot is no good you find out when you feed it in. If there is suspected fraud with the scanner, we can count the ballots by hand. I need an expensive piece of high tech crap, one per voting station because....?

[Amaryllis]

3. You need open source code in your scanner, which currently uses

trade secret software programmed by private corporations with highly partisan political and financial conflicts of interest and you have no way to verify that your vote is counted as you intended it to be.

[endarkenment]

4. That I agree with.

However there is a rather easy method to catch fraud: statistical sampling to audit random precincts by hand counting them. This should be mandatory for all elections.

[IndyOp]

5. If you have open source code, you are less likely to find

fraud when you do the random audits. If we are going to work for a 'secure' system then we can/should attend to all of the issues.

[Amaryllis]

6. YOu got that right. Ridiculous we are asked to "trust them."

[BrightKnight]

7. ISO type standards are needed for the entire voting process.

An international standards organization like ISO or IEEE should define minimum standards for the entire voting process. THis might be an effective tool for leveraging proper election in the US and elsewhere.

[Jim Lane]

8. One set of proposed standards

The Association of Information Technology Professionals (in the U.S.) proposed a set of nine standards:

1. Public access to the related software to permit independent inspection and confidence in its accuracy.

2. Independent testing, including random spot checks similar to existing Nevada provisions for slot machine testing.

3. Meticulous, constantly updated standards for machines.

4. Scrutiny of manufacturers to ensure their independence from parties and candidates.

5. An independent testing lab with an arms-length relationship with the manufacturers it polices, and open to inquiries from the public

6. A mechanism for immediate election day inspection of suspected defective machines.

7. A mechanism for voter review of paper copies of ballots prior to casting a vote, and preservation of those ballots for any required recounts.

8. An alternative voting mechanism for those who refuse to trust the machines.

9. Provision for random but thorough election day parallel testing of voting machines.

From: http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evoteside.htm
Also see the accompanying explanatory article: http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evote.htm