Secure Elections Are Too Much Work

by on December 5, 2006 · 10 comments

I knew it couldn’t be that easy. The TGDC rejected NIST’s proposal (which I discussed on Friday) to decertify paperless e-voting machines after they couldn’t get the 8 votes they needed to approve it:

Committee member Brit Williams, a computer scientist who has conducted certification evaluations of Georgia’s paperless electronic voting system, opposed the measure. “You are talking about basically a reinstallation of the entire voting system hardware,” he said.

Mike Masnick points out how ridiculous this is:

Why yes. Yes we are. That’s because the entire voting system hardware is totally screwed up. So, to be more specific, we’re talking about stopping an e-voting program that has serious problems and has raised plenty of legitimate questions about just how fair and accurate our elections are. That seems like a perfectly valid reason that shouldn’t be tossed aside just because it’ll be a lot of work. We also thought that democracy itself was supposed to be hard work, but apparently some of those on the Technical Guidelines Committee disagree.

SHARE: 10 comments

About Tim Lee

Timothy B. Lee (Contributor, 2004-2009) is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is currently a PhD student and a member of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. He contributes regularly to a variety of online publications, including Ars Technica, Techdirt, Cato @ Liberty, and The Angry Blog. He has been a Mac bigot since 1984, a Unix, vi, and Perl bigot since 1998, and a sworn enemy of HTML-formatted email for as long as certain companies have thought that was a good idea. You can reach him by email at leex1008@umn.edu.

Read more articles by Tim Lee.

  • http://mcgath.blogspot.com Gary McGath

    The Technical Guidelines Committee is answerable to the incumbents. Do you think they’d want fair elections?

    But the NIST report specifically declares decertification of existing systems to be outside of its scope. As you said earlier, the existing machines might be “grandfathered.” So it wouldn’t even require replacing any existing hardware. It would just prevent more untrustable systems from being installed.

  • http://mcgath.blogspot.com Gary McGath

    The Technical Guidelines Committee is answerable to the incumbents. Do you think they’d want fair elections?

    But the NIST report specifically declares decertification of existing systems to be outside of its scope. As you said earlier, the existing machines might be “grandfathered.” So it wouldn’t even require replacing any existing hardware. It would just prevent more untrustable systems from being installed.

  • http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch

    I have been trying to point out to folk from time to time, that if proprietary e-voting becomes entrenched as the state’s preferred electoral mechanism, that the only alternatives are as follows: 1) Revolution 2) Ad hoc paper-vote 3) Ad hoc p2p e-vote

    The first is extremely expensive. The second relies upon cooperation by the state and an ambulatorily motivated electorate. The third is a fricking doddle in comparison.

    cf http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78

  • http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch

    I have been trying to point out to folk from time to time, that if proprietary e-voting becomes entrenched as the state’s preferred electoral mechanism, that the only alternatives are as follows:
    1) Revolution
    2) Ad hoc paper-vote
    3) Ad hoc p2p e-vote

    The first is extremely expensive. The second relies upon cooperation by the state and an ambulatorily motivated electorate. The third is a fricking doddle in comparison.

    cf http://blogs.zdnet.com/digitalID/?p=78

  • Ned Ulbricht

    Latest news…

    From US ACM Policy Blog TGDC Reverses Course, Finishes Meeting (5 Dec 2005):

    As I suggested in yesterday’s post the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) did revisit the software independent proposal during today’s session. It was the first item, and by unanimous consent a revised resolution was approved requiring that the next generation of voting machines approved under the next Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). The revisions, as best as I can tell, were meant to address two main concerns from yesterday’s session.

    Anne Broache, CNET, confirms this news under the headline “Panel changes course, approves e-voting checks”. (Hat tip Jim Horning.)

    And Michael Hickins, internetnews.com, reporting under the headline “Election Officials Adopt Compromise on Standards”, adds that:

    According to persons familiar with the situation, Rivest spent the evening lobbying members of the TGDC and crafted compromise language that was passed unanimously this morning.

    So a cheer for Ron Rivest.

  • Ned Ulbricht

    Latest news…


    From US ACM Policy Blog TGDC Reverses Course, Finishes Meeting (5 Dec 2005):

    As I suggested in yesterday’s post the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) did revisit the software independent proposal during today’s session. It was the first item, and by unanimous consent a revised resolution was approved requiring that the next generation of voting machines approved under the next Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). The revisions, as best as I can tell, were meant to address two main concerns from yesterday’s session.


    Anne Broache, CNET, confirms this news under the headline “Panel changes course, approves e-voting checks”. (Hat tip Jim Horning.)


    And Michael Hickins, internetnews.com, reporting under the headline “Election Officials Adopt Compromise on Standards”, adds that:

    According to persons familiar with the situation, Rivest spent the evening lobbying members of the TGDC and crafted compromise language that was passed unanimously this morning.



    So a cheer for Ron Rivest.

  • http://mcgath.blogspot.com Gary McGath

    Today the panel approved a more watered-down recommendation, which would apply the software independence requirement only to new machines. I don’t know whether “new machines” means new units or new models.

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601754&subSection=Breaking+News

  • http://mcgath.blogspot.com Gary McGath

    Today the panel approved a more watered-down recommendation, which would apply the software independence requirement only to new machines. I don’t know whether “new machines” means new units or new models.

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle…

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Those of us prone to cynicism about democracy never find any shortage of reasons to be cynical! The powers that be just keep proving to us time after time that it’s largely just a facade. The truth is, they are not concerned about how this might undermine the legitimacy of the elected government because the “elected government” is simply too well-protected by a myriad number of laws ranging from the districting system to the limit on the size of the House of Representatives to McCain-Feingold.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    Those of us prone to cynicism about democracy never find any shortage of reasons to be cynical! The powers that be just keep proving to us time after time that it’s largely just a facade. The truth is, they are not concerned about how this might undermine the legitimacy of the elected government because the “elected government” is simply too well-protected by a myriad number of laws ranging from the districting system to the limit on the size of the House of Representatives to McCain-Feingold.

Previous post:

Next post: