Johns Hopkins gets $7.5 mil to develop verifiable voting

[Sparkly]

BALTIMORE - Armed with a $7.5 million grant from the
National Science Foundation, Johns Hopkins University is leading a new effort to improve the reliability of electronic voting machines.
Click Here

The project's goal is to design the most foolproof, transparent voting system possible, officials said Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050816/ap_on_re_us/electronic_voting;_ylt=AqCOTWxq.Qu9JUzdvUaCyous0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[sepia_steel]

1. Woo hoo!

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, until we learn more...

[Sparkly]

3. Sounds very good...

I think Avi Rubin is trustworthy.

[skylarmae]

2. FABULOUS - If only it works

and is not just another wasting of time...

[cyberpj]

4. Excellent. As is the name of the study group. nt.

[Mairead]

5. How interesting that they want to reinvent the wheel rather

than support introduction of the TruVote system developed by the late Athan Gibbs, CPA.

Could Mr Gibbs having been a Black man have anything to do with that, I wonder?

[In Truth We Trust]

6. Paper ballots NOW!!! Hand counts NOW!!! Impeachment NOW!!! nt

[flpoljunkie]

7. Alright, Avi! But the machines for 2006 will have already been purchased!

Tue Aug 16, 1:03 PM ET

The project's goal is to design the most foolproof, transparent voting system possible, officials said Monday.

"I don't think with today's technology we can have a voting system that is fully electronic that can be trusted," said Avi Rubin, a computer science professor. He will head a new Hopkins center called ACCURATE, short for A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable and Transparent Elections.

Rubin told The (Baltimore) Sun he hopes the center will provide information in time for the 2008 presidential contest, but that its research will take longer.

Rubin has been an outspoken critic of computerized voting. In 2003, he co-authored a report that found voting machines from Diebold Elections Systems were vulnerable to hackers, multiple votes and vote-switching.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. it'll work if we can SEE inside the machines

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Patsy Stone]

9. Yay! Fab.u.lous! n/t

[leesa]

10. All you need are the receipts that Diebold's ATMs routinely

print. Put 'em in a ballot box for confirmation of the electronic count. Why do we need 7.5 million spent?

[Sparkly]

11. For better accuracy and transparency, I think.

A way that ballots/receipts can't be carted off, can't be altered, can't be "lost," etc...

[FrenchieCat]

12. Good!

I believe that many at John Hopkins came out with various blistering reports against those Diebold machines since quite a while back....

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0204web/vote.html
http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf
http://avirubin.com/vote/op-ed.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5054088.html

[Sparkly]

13. Frenchie...

I just love how great you are with research!! :hi:

[Eric J in MN]

14. Why not just follow the Canadian system

of voting on paper ballots in federal elections, without spending millions?

[Sparkly]

15. I think we've had "transparency" problems with that before.

Paper degrades, or gets "lost."

There's also the matter of allowing everyone to vote (no phony felon lists) which may involve some id system, I don't know (and disallowing double voting, which did take place in 2000 on overseas military ballots, iirc).

I'm not an expert on what JH intends to develop.

[Eric J in MN]

16. There are provisional ballots and Election Day registration

to deal with the problem of people being purged from the registration lists.

In Minnesota, we have Election Day Registration.

[dkofos]

17. Paper ballot, people counting the votes = foolproof

And I will only charge 7 million

another 7.5 million wasted

:grr: :grr: