A test for open source voting system in MD in the offing. About time!

[Stevepol]

Here's a test of one idea about vote counting. Sounds like it might work as a way of insuring the vote is fairly counted. It's at least worth testing.




"Scantegrity II is a new open-source voting system with both conventional paper and cryptographic audit trails. First, each voter marks a traditional paper ballot, which reveals a secret confirmation code for each ballot selection. Second, the voter scans the marked ballot at the polling station. Third, after polls close, each voter has the option to verify online using her confirmation codes that her vote was recorded and tallied as cast. The verification process does not reveal how the voter voted."

Here's the link which also contains some links:

https://scantegrity.org/blog/2009/02/09/collaboration-with-takoma-park-and-an-open-workshop/

[RC]

1. Voting and vote counting must use the KISS method.

Wherever computers are used the chance of election fraud increases.
The voter should know by the time they leave the voting place that their vote and ballot was excepted. It is a little late to go home and find out you or who knows who, messed up your ballot. Each and every one of these Rube Goldberg schemes to keep the vote honest introduces more chances for election fraud.

In North Dakota:
The polling place ID's you.
Gives you a paper ballot
You vote
You put your ballot into a optical scanner. If you messed up the ballot. It will spit it back out, giving you a chance to try again. You will be given a new ballot so you can try again.
You know before you leave the voting place that your votes have been counted. That is the way it should be. After you leave the voting place, it is too late.

[Bill Bored]

8. You are half right.

"You know before you leave the voting place that your votes have been counted."

I don't see how this is possible with an optical scanner. Can you observe the operations performed by the software, or even how the ballot is mapped to the scanner's election database?

"That is the way it should be. After you leave the voting place, it is too late."

I agree with this part!:toast:

[Wilms]

2. So?

Even if this open software is the greatest thing since DREs, how am I to know the machine being used has the open source software loaded.

A convoluted mass of technology has no place in a democracy insuring process.

All this Open Source talk is a distraction. Count the ballots, or use a lever machine.

[tbyg52]

4. Absolutely! nt

[galloglas]

3. "The Bleeding"

As in "Hand Count The Bleeding Ballots!!"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. verify online?

And who owns the website?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. this will be a very teeny tiny test - Takoma Pk only had about 900 voters turn out

in their last municipal election in 2007.
http://www.takoma.com/archives/pdfs/2007/1207pdfs/tp1207/TKP_MN_120107_00_00_017_c.pdf

But they could fill in some of their turnout with non citizen voters,
which is approved in their city charter.

[Bill Bored]

7. Fair Vote is behind this test though. Look into that, will ya?

Meanwhile, Scantegrity is not just about open source.

It's interesting and it needs to be dealt with one way or another. Either it does what it claims to do and its proponents are doing a lousy job of explaining it; or it doesn't do what it claims to do; or it does but it can be rigged to do something else!

Until we know, I don't think it should be embraced or condemned.

What needs to be considered is how the system can be rigged, and if it can, how the voters would know, and if they knew, what remedies, if any, would be available? For there to be remedies, lawyers would have to understand how it works! Good luck with THAT!:banghead: