Abstract
The voting technologies in common use today each have distinct strengths and weaknesses. These technologies cannot be evaluated in isolation, but must be evaluated as parts of a larger social and legal system, as demonstrated by a discussion of the problems with the voting technologies in wide use today, the Australian ballot, including punched card and optical mark-sense ballots, and direct recording voting machines, including mechanical lever machines. Alternate models for canvassing and remote voting further complicate the evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Miller, W. R. Harrison County Methods: Election Fraud in Late 19thCentury Texas.Locus: Regional and Local History 72 (Spring 1995) 111–128;http://history.smsu.edu/wrmiller/Populism/texts/Harrisoncounty_methods.htm
See, for example, the collection of 19th century ballots on the web at http://www.cs.utowa.edu/jones/voting/pictures/
Voting Machines, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, 1910.
Saltman, R. Section 3.3 ofAccuracy,Integrity,and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying.National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 500–158, August 1988;http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm
Saltman, R. Oral testimony before e the Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 107thCongress, Washington DC, May 22, 2001. USGPO Serial No. 107–20.
Saltman, R. Section 3.4 ofAccuracy,Integrity,and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying.
Fischer, E.A. Table 1 ofVoting Technologies in the United States: Overview and Issues for Congress.Congressional Research Service RL30773, March 2001;http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Risk/rsk-55.cfm
Jones, D.W.Chad - From Waste Product to Headline, January 2002;http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/Jones/cards/chad.html
Jones, D.W.Counting Mark-Sense Ballots - Relating Technology,the Law and Common Sense, January 2002;http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/jones/voting/optical/
Section 3.2 ofPerformance and Test Standards for Punchcard,Marksense and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, Federal Election Commission, US Government Printing Office, January 1990; Section 3.2.1 of the April 2002 retains the 1 in 107requirement with some elaboration;http://www.fec.gov/pages/vssfinal/vss.html
This data is a composite of data gleaned from theMiami-Herald Knight-Ridder USA-Todayaudit of ballots from the 2000 general election in Florida, combined with the official election returns from the Division of Elections of the Florida Dept. of State.
Section 2.3.2 ofPerformance and Test Standards for Punchcard,Marksense and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems, January 1990.
Final Report of the California Internet Voting Task Force, California Secretary of State, January 2000, on the net at:http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/ivote/
Jones, D.W. Trustworthy Systems on Untrusted Machines, presented at the Georgia Tech Workshop on the Future of Voting Technology in a Networked Environment, Atlanta, June 4–5, 2002; on the web at:http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/jones/voting/atlanta/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jones, D.W. (2003). The Evaluation of Voting Technology. In: Gritzalis, D.A. (eds) Secure Electronic Voting. Advances in Information Security, vol 7. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0239-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0239-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-4981-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-0239-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive