Yes folks, another issues with electronic voting systems.
The law Schultz is going to break is one that says she has to rejigger the County’s voting machines to warn people they’ve failed to vote for someone, that is anyone at all, in a race, a common voter practice. Schultz is afraid if she “fixes” the machines, under certain circumstances they could forget all the preceding votes they’d recorded. She said Thursday she’s already made them do it in tests.”If (the voting machine company) didn’t find that, what else didn’t they find?” Schultz asked. She’s not the only one asking it. Over half of Illinois counties use the same machines as McHenry County and Clerks have been trying to get the Elections Board to fix the “Fix” for several months. So far their complaints have been either rejected or ignored.
The research community has already defined a way to bound some issues like the previous one. USACM comments on VVSG, USACM comments on STS, and of course NIST white paper: discussion on VVSG claim and discuss about Software Independent Voting devices , where the citizen can directly check their vote and where the software in between cannot compromise the election since the vote has been proven. Unfortunately reality is pretty much different, on my understanding only a voting system design by David Chaum , called ScanTegrity and used in the last Maryland elections has been implemented respecting the Software Independent paradigm. My research group and I, during extra time, are trying to investigate scantegrity voting system (if we will obtain the upgraded sources) checking out the implementation of the Software Independent paradigm and trying to evaluate the security of the system.