Slashdot Mirror
ACM Eyes Policy Position on Electronic Voting
while(true) writes "The ACM is preparing to take a policy position on electronic voting in government elections. It has a poll page up to get feedback from it's members and where they also explain their proposed position. The proposed position calls for a paper trail to ensure a physical record of the vote. Go there and place your vote if you are a member. The ACM Public Policy Committee could be a valuable ally in many questions that are dear to Slashdot readers in the US. They have already spoken out on issues such as the DMCA, DRM, and private policing of P2P networks."
If they can't trust electronic voting, how will they trust thier online poll?
--
Only 5 Gmail invitations left
E-Voting will not be trusted for quite a while. There are difficulties with authentication, and spoofing. I am glad to here ACM is trying to do something about it, as opposed to other companies just trying to scream out "I am better Uncle Sam, give me funding !", can anyone else guess why this project isn't opensource yet. Possibly because money talks more than common sense ?
In the summary (realizing it was a quote, but that's what square brackets are for in this context), you could have enlightened your audience with the actual meaning of "ACM", like so:
The [Association for Computing Machinery] is preparing to take a policy position[...]
#19845
*pets the troll*
The ACM has clout, considerably more than a bunch of unwashed geeks who troll slashdot all day. They're the closest thing the software industry has to a union.
The ACM isn't a bad thing to look into-if I had a regularly meeting chapter within 50 miles I'd probably attend. They're a good deal for students, getting them internships at conferences and hooking them up with lectures and talks. I hadn't even heard of a "public policy" angle to them, but I think it's a good thing.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
When I voted just now, they showed the current results -- nearly 85% of voters strongly agreed with the ACM's proposed position that there should be a paper trail. Wow.
They've already spoken out against the DMCA, DRM and private policing of P2P networks, eh? I guess that shows how little their opinion matters then, doesn't it.
I'm far more interested in what the EFF's official stance is, considering they're the ones with the real legal and lobbying power (miniscule as it may be when compared to the twin bohemoths of the MPAA and RIAA)
Actually, I think they did the right thing. They allowed their members, who are technology professionnals, to make thier opinions known. This is like complaining that the people running the voting booths doesn't tell you why you should not vote for a particulat candidate.
Why have an opinion poll if you are going to bias it from the beginning?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Paper trails are for authentication, which can be done by spot checks.
Voting machines still allow easier voting and faster and more accurate counting, without the needs for lots of volunteers.
I voted last week and it was of those lame-o paper things where we had to mark an "X".
It seems to me that this format is pretty old and should be coolified with the latest technology.
I can't help but think eVoting is a solution in search of a problem. Well not exactly, but it's overkill. The taxpayers are expected to shell out for expensive machines, that don't always work, and when they do work, aren't verifiably to be acurate.
Compare this to Canada. They used paper ballots with big boxes next to the canidates' names. You place a mark in the box, and your vote is cast. After the polls close, they dump out the ballot box in front of anyone interested, and a representive from each party examines each ballot and tallys the votes. When ever vote has been counted and everyone's tally agrees, they call in the count is official. They place a phone call, and they go home.
Simple. Cheap. Transparent. Effective.
We could learn alot from our neighbors to the north.
The site has links to sites that both favor and oppose paper trails. It then asks its members to state whether they favor or oppose hard copy records.
The current results are running 94% for hard copy--85% strongly in favor, 9% in favor. The ACM will speak with a louder voice based on these results (if the voting trend continues) than they would if only the ACM Public Policy Committee gave its views.
If you want science, you might consider reading the Communications of the ACM some time. I think you will find it quite a bit more rigorous than what you are used to here on /.
This is almost a "Delphi study". A Delphi study is
actually when you ask a number of professionals in a certain field about their opinion, or expectations, about a number of topics. Then you process the results, show the results to the same group of professionals, and ask their opinion again.
Something like that.