With all the talk lately about e-voting, one thing that continually gets mixed up is exactly what the fight is over. Those who are fighting to keep the existing machines like to claim that those who want a verifiable paper trail are fighting against progress - trying to go backwards away from electronic voting to a paper world. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. Those who want the verifiable paper receipt aren't against electronic voting at all. They just understand the technology enough to realize that the current system isn't particularly secure or reliable and they want to make it better. Once you start going down that trail, however, you need to come up with a system that really is more secure and reliable, and that's where some researchers are putting a lot of attention these days. They're trying to go beyond just adding a verifiable paper ballot, to using systems to make sure that you can check after-the-fact, to guarantee that your vote really was properly counted. Most of the article focuses on David Chaum's system, which tends to bring out very strong opinions in people (too often focused on Chaum, himself, rather than the system). The argument against such systems is that they're either too complex or too expensive (or both), but no one ever said democracy was supposed to be cheap.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Meet The Dedicated Fan Who Makes Your Broken PC Games Work
- FBI Bungles Malware Attempt As Courts Begin To Question Its Legality
- Crowdfunded Prize For Open Source Jailbreaking iOS7 To Improve Accessibility
- Advisory Panel Offers Suggestions To Strengthen US Cybersecurity, But Is The Government Capable Of Change?
- ACLU Calls For Ban On Nonlethal Weapons In Schools After Tased Student Ends Up In Coma