← Back to Archives

Some comments and corrections to "Clarity on 'Software independence' in voting systems"

elections

(If you're a regular reader, this will probably be boring... so skip it.)

The Election Technology Blog recently wrote a post entitled, "Clarity on 'Software independence' in voting systems" (presumably authored by Chris Backert who I had the pleasure of meeting at EVT'07). Since comments are closed there, I'll post some comments and a couple corrections here... below the fold.

UPDATE [2007-09-24T13:50:36]: Chris has posted some more thoughts and all I can say is that I'm glad there are people like him keeping such a close watch on things over there.

Follow up:

Software Independence (SI) is definitely not an easy-to-grasp black-white type of requirement or definition, but it does seem to encapsulate some of the problematic features of paperless voting systems. Here are some comments and corrections to add to the ETB post:

  • There's a "Ron Rivest" missing in the quoted description of the paper that introduced SI.

  • From the post:

    Further, a voting system that relies on software to function, even to record votes is still software independent.

    Maybe this is a typo? The way I read the proposal and the instantiation of the SI proposal in the VVSG II is that the software can't be a critical piece of the voting system... that is, there must be an alternative way to record and count votes if the software fails catastrophically. And I think the ETB post goes there in the next sentence when it says, "So software independent voting systems may require software to function but essentially needs an alternate method for verification and tabulation."

  • The ETB post goes on to say:

    However, the Innovation Class is a pretty half-assed attempt at doing something extremely important, but largely outside of the scope of what the TGDC is tasked with.

    While I can't agree with the adjective "half-assed" I do share the general sentiment here with the ETB post's author. The mechanism that the innovation class is attempting to set up is a needed mechanism... it would be folly to conclude that the VVSG II without such a mechanism will be able to contemplate and accommodate the universe of future voting technologies. I'm not so sure it's outside the scope of the TGDC's charge... that is, they are attempting to make the VVSG II into a set of guidelines that will last (not be obsolete by 2011 when they will likely go into effect) and have some of the dynamicism that we rely on in other information technology standard-setting contexts that don't suffer from the inertia and other complications of the voting arena.

    However, and I've only just started to review the last draft of the VVSG II for ACCURATE's comments, I'm a bit mystified as to how the innovation class will work in practice. Obviously, new systems will require new requirements and tests, etc., but who's going to do that? If the TGDC is going to disappear after the VVSG II are adopted in 2009, who is going to implement requests to add new voting technologies as classes to the VVSG II under the innovation class mechanism? That doesn't seem to be specified. Will the EAC contract that out in lieu of using the expertise at NIST that has developed the quite-amazing VVSG II?

  • Finally, the post says:

    the Help America Vote Act makes punchcard and lever voting machines illegal.

    This is a common misconception about HAVA. HAVA doesn't make punchcard and lever machines illegal (if it does, show me where). Under Title I, HAVA encourages their replacement by authorizing federal funds to be paid to states for this purpose. A jurisdiction can revert back to one of these technologies without breaking the law, but would probably have to pay back any HAVA monies they accepted under Title I.