[E-voting] Summary of meeting

[Adrian Colley]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:58:43AM +0000, Fergal Daly wrote:
> It wasn't until I wrote up the description of how the current machines could
> have VVAT added to them that I realised what a terrible system it would be.
> I think that optical scan (either computer printed ballot and no DRE or hand
> marked with a ballot checker available to voters) is the only system that
> addresses all of these without badness. For example any DRE+VVAT system will
> suffer from the paper doesn't match data problem which will naturally damage
> the reputation of the system whether it was accidental or deliberate.

For another thing, a discrepancy (between electronic and paper records)
in a DRE+VVAT solution is likely to be explained away by the system
vendor as not their fault, i.e. the result of some carelessness by
voting-machine supervisors.  Until yesterday I didn't think that would
sound like a credible reason for ignoring the discrepancy, but now it's
clear that the Department is all too willing to tolerate discrepancies
without any formal reconciliation, so long as there's a
reasonable-sounding explanation for them.

> I think in future it is important to have a complete description of what we
> consider an acceptable solution. Until you have this written down, you
> cannot refute the point made by Mr R. I know we have tried to avoid
> advocating a particular system but I think this is a weakness in our
> position that needs to be fixed.

I think you're right.  My personal criterion of "optical-scan, or some
other VVAT that's just as good" has finally spiralled in on optical-scan
itself.

>                                  I don't think I'll have time to do this
> (new job, new country!) but I think it needs to be done,

Hey, congratulations!

 --Adrian.

-- 
GPG 0x43D3AD19 17D2 CA6E A18E 1177 A361  C14C 29DB BA4B 43D3 AD19
http://user-aecolley.jini.org/