Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Panel [not NIST] Rejects Paper Trail For E-Voting

Posted by Zonk on from the democracy-costs-too-much dept.

emil10001 writes "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected a proposal suggesting that electronic voting have a paper trail. The draft recommendation was developed by NIST scientists, who called out electronic voting machines as being 'impossible' to secure." From the article: "Committee member Brit Williams, who opposed the measure, said, 'You are talking about basically a reinstallation of the entire voting system hardware.' The proposal failed to obtain the 8 of 15 votes needed to pass. Five states — Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina — use machines without a paper record exclusively. Eleven states and the District either use them in some jurisdictions or allow voters to chose whether to use them or some other voting system." So ... accountability in voting will be a joke for the foreseeable future because it costs too much?
Update: 12/11 03:20 GMT by KD : Correction: It was not NIST that rejected NIST's recommendations, it was a federal panel chartered by Congress, the Technical Guidelines Development Committee.

6 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Things have changed in two days by DavidinAla · · Score: 5, Informative

    That news article was from two days ago. Check out what happened since then: http://www.techliberation.com/archives/041383.php

    1. Re:Things have changed in two days by chrisb33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmm... what's the relationship of that article to the original article and this one from a few days ago? What exactly are they recommending/rejecting?

    2. Re:Things have changed in two days by grantus · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Hmm... what's the relationship of that article to the original article and this one from a few days ago? What exactly are they recommending/rejecting?"

      The committee essentially reversed itself the next day. The second proposal was worded differently, making it clear that only future e-voting machines would be required to have independent audit mechanisms. The second version also addressed some concerns about accessibility of disabled people to the paper trail mechanisms.

      So, in short, the story posted on slashdot is old and no longer valid.

      Grant

      --
      Grant Gross, Washington reporter, IDG News Service
  2. Story is out of date! by Philom · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story is badly out of date. The panel voted again the next day and reached a compromise that will require future electronic voting machines to have paper trails. See:

    http://news.com.com/Panel+changes+course%2C+approv es+e-voting+checks/2100-1028_3-6140956.html
    http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1095

  3. Parent is insightful (or at least funny). by darkonc · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's a parody of how some votes seemed to just 'disappear' in some all-electronic jurisdictions.

    This is one of those situations where knee-jerk moderating doesn't quite work.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  4. Re:It shouldn't only be about cost. by Kookus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd rather be ignorant on a subject then a complete asshole like you.