An examination of vote verification technologies: Findings and experiences from the Maryland study

EVT 2006 - 2006 USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages

  Sherman, Alan T ^a   Gangopadhyay, Aryya ^a   Holden, Stephen H ^a   Karabatis, George ^a   Gunes Koru, A ^a   Law, Chris M ^a   Norris, Donald F ^a   Pinkston, John ^a   Sears, Andrew ^a   Zhang, Dongsong ^a  

^a Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer system security; Diebold AccuvoteTS; Diebold VVPAT; Direct Recording Equipment (DRE); Electronic voting systems; Information assurance; Maryland State Board of Elections; MIT Selker VVAATT; Parallel testing; Scytl Pnyx.DRE; Vote verification technology; VoteHere Sentinel

Indexed keywords

AUDIO SYSTEMS; INTERFACE STATES; TOUCH SCREENS; VOTING MACHINES;

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; ELECTION AUDITING; FULLY INTEGRATED; INTER-DISCIPLINARY STUDIES; PARALLEL TESTING; STANDARD INTERFACE; TECHNICAL REVIEWS; VERIFICATION SYSTEMS;

ELECTRONIC VOTING;

EID: 84870167090     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Beiler, David. (1989a). A Short in the Ballot Box. Campaigns & Elections. 10(2), 39-41.
2. Beiler, David. (1989b). Shortfall in the Sunshine State. Campaigns & Elections. 10(2), 40.
3. Brunvard, Erik, John Carter, Alan Dechert, David L. Dill, Kathy Dopp, Gensh C Gopalakrishnan, David Hanscom, Michael Jones, Arthur Lee, Jay Lepreau, Kent Seamons, Peter Shirley, Barbara Simons, Association for Computing Machinery, Pamela Smith, and Phillip Windley. (2004). Response to 'American Attitudes about Electronic Voting' Survey and Advice for Utah's Voting Equipment Selection. Memo. Retreived from UtahCountVotes.org/Voting_systems.pdf on 11/2/2005.
4. Burmester, Mike and Emmanouil Magkos. (2003). Towards Secure and Practical E-Elections in the New Era. In Dimitris Grizalis (Ed.). Secure Electronic Voting. (p. 63-76). Boston: Kluwer.
5. Cal Tech/MIT. (2001). Cal Tech/MIT Voting Technology Report: What is, What could be, Fast Facts. Retrieved from www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/july01/fa st_facts.pdf on 11/3/2005.
6. Cranor, Lorrie Faith. (2003). In Search of the Perfect Voting Technology: No Easy Answers. In Dimitris Gritzalis (Ed.). Secure Electronic Voting. (p. 17-30). Boston: Kluwer.
7. Dale, Markus. (2005). Static analysis of the VoteHere VHTi reference implementation source code using Flawfinder and RATS. CMSC-691 Information Assurance Project Report, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (December 28, 2005), 14 pages.
8. Election Assistance Commission. (2005). About the EAC. Retrieved from http://www.eac.gov/about.asp?format=none.
9. Election Data Services Press Release from 2/12/04 called New Study Shows 50 Million Voters will use Electronic Voting Systems, 32 Million Still with Punch Cards in 2004. Retrieved 1/10/06 from www.electiondataservices.com.
10. Green, R., and J. Adler, Threat analysis, VoteHere (2003), unpublished manuscript, 24 pages. http://www.votehere.net/downloads.php
11. Hall, Thad E. and R. Michael Alvarez. (2004). American Attitudes about Electronic Voting: Results of a National Survey. Salt Lake City, UT: Center for Public Policy & Administration.
12. Hanging Bytes, Pregnant Bits. (2002). The Economist Technology Quarterly. 364(8291), 8.
13. Herrnson, Paul S., Benjamin B. Bederson, Bongshin Lee, Peter L. Francia, Robert M. Sherman, Frederick G. Conrad, Michael Traugott, and Richard G. Niemi. (2005). Early Appraisals of Electronic Voting. Social Science Computer Review. 23(3), 274-292.
14. Herrnson, Paul S., Benjamin B. Bederson, Charles D. Hadley, Richard G. Niemi, Michael J. Hanmer (with staff assistance). 2006. The Usability of Four Vote Verification Systems: A Study Conducted for the Maryland State Board of Elections. College Park: Center for American Citizenship and Politics, University of Maryland College Park. Accessed 6/2/06. Available online at www.elections.state.md.us/citizens/voting_syste ms/MarylandReport2-15-06.pdf
15. Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (HR 2239 in the 108th Congress, HR 550 in the 109th Congress).
16. Kurlantzick, Joshua. (2004). 2000, the sequel: in theory, the Help America Vote Act was Congress' attempt to prevent the catastrophes of the last election from happening again; in fact, it may have made things even worse. American Prospect. 15 (10), 22-5.
17. Lamport, L., R. Shostak, and M. Pease. (1982). The Byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming, Languages, and Systems. 4 (3): 382-401.
18. Los Angeles County, CA Register/Recorder. 2004. DVD of Video of Voting on VVPAT in Las Vegas, NV, 2004 General Election.
19. Machlis, Sharon. (2004). Public, Security Experts' E-Voting Views Differ Sharply: Experts Worry More about Errors in E-Voting than Does the Public. Computerworld. 2004 (August 6), unknown. Retrieved from www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814, 95094,00.html on 11/2/2005.
20. Maryland State Board of Elections. 2006. Description of roles of the SBE and the Local Boards of Elections. Email communication, January, 2006.
21. Neff, Andrew C., Practical high certainty intent verification for encrypted votes, technical document (October 14, 2004), unpublished manuscript, 24 pages.
22. Donald F. Norris, PI, Andrew Sears, and Charles Nicholas, CoPIs. Anne V. Roland, Ed. Aryya Gangopadhyay, Stephen H. Holden, George Karabatis, A. Gunes Koru, Chris M. Law, John Pinkston, Andrew Sears, Alan T. Sherman, and Dongsong Zhang (2006). A Study of Vote Verification Technologies. Part I: Technical Study, Prepared for the Maryland State Board of Elections, February 2006. 68 pages. Accessed 3/28/06. Available online at http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/
23. Donald F. Norris, PI, Andrew Sears, and Charles Nicholas, CoPIs. Anne V. Roland, Ed. Aryya Gangopadhyay, Stephen H. Holden, George Karabatis, A. Gunes Koru, Chris M. Law, John Pinkston, Andrew Sears, Alan T. Sherman, and Dongsong Zhang (2006). A Study of Vote Verification Technologies. Part I: Technical Study Appendices, Prepared for the Maryland State Board of Elections, February 2006. 75 pages. Accessed 3/28/06. Available online at http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/documents/VoteVeri ficationAppendiceswebversion.pdf
24. Norris, Donald F (2006). Maryland registered voters' opinions about voting and voting technology. Prepared for the Maryland State Board of Elections, February 2006. 31 pages. Accessed 3/28/06. Available online at http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/documents/VoterOpi nionsReport-FINAL_000.pdf
25. Pynchon, Susan. (2005). Diebold touch screens don't meet disability requirements (FL). News-journalonline.com, June 28 2005. Accessed 9/8/2005 Available online at: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.p hp?id=6072
26. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998, for procurement of electronic and information technology (Authority: 29 U.S.C. §794d.). Available online at www.section508.gov
27. Rubin, Aviel D., Dan S. Wallach, Dan Boneh, Michael D. Byrne, Drew Dean, David L. Dill, Douglas W. Jones, Peter G. Neumann, Deidre Mulligan and David A. Wagner. (2005). A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, and Transparent Elections (ACCURATE): A Research Proposal for an NSF CyberTrust Center.
28. Selker, Ted. (2004). Fixing the Vote. Scientific American, 291, 90-97.
29. Selker, Ted. (2005). A Day of Poll Watching Reno/Sparks Nevada, User Experience Magazine, spring 2005.
30. Wang, Tova Andrea. (2004). Understanding the Debate over Electronic Voting Machines. New York: The Century Foundation.