Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACM on E-Voting

Posted by michael on from the nobody's-listening dept.

dadop writes "ACM's position is that while computer-based e-voting systems have the potential to improve the electoral process, such systems must embody careful engineering, strong safeguards, and rigorous testing in both their design and operation [something they don't do right now!]. Press release is here."

3 of 9 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks Due to CMU by reporter · · Score: 3, Informative
    That the ACM is entering the picture for e-voting is good news. Too many Americans lack the knowledge to understand the science of electronic voting, and e-voting machines without paper trails almost became the principal voting system in several states. Computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University and other top universities stepped into the picture and signed a petition demanding a paper trail on all machines.

    Now that the ACM has also entered the picture, we can be sure that future e-voting machines will be reliable.

    What I cannot understand is how the Pentagon can approve electronic voting by Internet without any paper trail for soldiers stationed overseas.

    1. Re:Thanks Due to CMU by Flexagon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Too many Americans lack the knowledge to understand the science of electronic voting... Computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University and other top universities stepped into the picture and signed a petition demanding a paper trail on all machines.

      Unfortunately, that was not enough. Much of that effort didn't even make the mainstream press initially, and certainly little positive action resulted... until the poorly designed voting machines actually failed, with no paper trail to recover with. And even when they did, many of the county officials in my state (CA) continued to claim that there were no major problems. It took the state official to show some spine by enforcing reasonable minimum requirements, and his actions were still strongly fought by the county officials. That is the price we pay for insufficient voter knowledge. Much of the initial press measured voting machine effectiveness almost entirely in terms of convenience.

      What I cannot understand is how the Pentagon can approve electronic voting by Internet without any paper trail for soldiers stationed overseas.

      I am not the least bit surprised, though I am disgusted.

  2. CACM lead story by dilger · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The problems and potentials of voting systems" is the lead story of this month's Communications of the ACM. Unfortunately, the content is not available online unless you are an ACM Portal subscriber or have access through a library. I've read a couple of the articles since my copy of CACM arrived earlier today, and it is very important stuff indeed.

    Here's a short excerpt from one article, "Small vote manipulations can swing elections":

    [Considering the 2000 Florida election,] an adversary capable of changing one vote per voting machine could have swung 25 electoral votes from Bush to Gore. This would have made the final electoral college totals 246 votes for Bush versus 291 votes for Gore, rather than the actual 271 votes for Bush versus 266 votes for Gore. Thus, an adversary with the ability to manipulate one vote per machine could have changed the outcome of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election.

    In my mind, ACM should be trying a lot harder to get the information in this issue of CACM into the public eye. Not only the article I've excerpted, but all of them.

    cbd.