dimacs electronic voting may 26, 2004 copyright © 2004 michael i. shamos theory v. practice in...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
221 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting
Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D.Co-Director, Institute for eCommerce
Carnegie Mellon University
![Page 2: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Voting System Certification
• Before voting equipment can be used or “offered for sale” in a state, it must be certified by the state
• Certification procedures differ among the states• Most require examination by a statutory panel of
examiners• I was an examiner for
– Pennsylvania (1980-2000)– Texas (1987-2000)– West Virginia (1982)– Delaware (1989)– Nevada (1995)
• Examined ~100 different voting systems
![Page 3: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Outline
• Voting history• Voting administration• General voting model• Vulnerabilities• Important problems
![Page 4: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
History of Voting• Ancient: clash of spears, division by groups, wooden tickets (tabellæ), balls in urns• “ballot” from Italian ballotta, meaning “little ball”• American colonies: voting aloud to public official• Early 1800s: Handwritten paper ballots• 1857: Australia introduces secret paper ballot• 1888: Australian ballot introduced in U.S. (KY, MA)• 1892: Mechanical lever machine to
“protect mechanically the voter from rascaldom”• 1960s: Punched cards• 1970s: Optical scan• 1978: Direct-recording electronic systems• 2000: Internet voting in primaries
![Page 5: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Paper Ballots• Original paper ballots were handwritten. Easy to
identify voter!
• Australian ballot (U.S., 1888)SOURCE: DOUGLAS W. JONES
![Page 6: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Paper Ballots
1/27/192510/29/1864
![Page 7: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
New York Times, April 4, 1855
BALLOT BOXES DESTROYED
INJURIES IN RIOTS
MORE BALLOTS CAST THANNAMES ON THE POLL LIST
![Page 8: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Voting Irregularities
“The ballots shall first be counted, and, if the number of ballots exceeds the number of persons who voted … the ballots shall be placed back into the box, and one of the inspectors shall publicly draw out and destroy unopened as many ballots as are equal to such excess.” F.S. §102.061
“If two or more ballots are found folded together to present the appearance of a single ballot … if, upon comparison of the … appearance of such ballots, a majority of the inspectors are of the opinion that the ballots were voted by one person, such ballots shall be destroyed.” F.S. §102.061
![Page 9: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
New York Times, January 12, 1925
![Page 10: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Voting is an Ill-Conditioned Problem
• Consider a two-candidate election with n voters• Let e (error) be the fraction of votes that can be
counted incorrectly without changing the result• Let p be the fraction of voters who prefer candidate A• As n grows and p 0.5, we must have e < 1/n to
obtain the correct result• But e does not decrease as n increases
![Page 11: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Florida Vote Totals8:00 a.m. Nov. 15, 2000
SOURCE: CNN.COM
MARGIN WAS 300 OUT OF 5,820,684 VOTES = 1 IN 20,000
FEC STANDARDS ALLOW AN ERROR OF~1 IN 2000 BALLOTS
![Page 12: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
What’s the Chance of a Repeat?
• Assume we draw 6 million samples with equal probability of choosing A or B (voters are truly indifferent)
• What is the probability margin(x) that | A – B | < x?
1225/
0
2/22)(
xt dtexmargin
• (1225 is the standard deviation of the binomial distribution with n = 6,000,000, p = 0.5)
• margin(300) > 19%!• margin(16) > 1%• Final Bush-Gore margin was 537; margin(537) > 33%!
![Page 13: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Voting Administration in the U.S.• Voting in the U.S. is conducted by the states
– 50 states + DC + territories– Supervised by Secretaries of State through “elections bureau”– Process delegated to counties, supervised by county clerk
• 3141 counties in the U.S.• ~170,000 precincts (wards, etc.), about 54/county• 205M eligible voters; 150M registered voters;
105M actual voters; 1M poll workers • Federal government has only limited constitutional power over
voting procedures– Certain “Federal offices,” e.g. U.S. Senator– Constitutional rights, e.g. “equal protection”– Can’t conduct elections
![Page 14: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
U.S. Voting Methods 2000-2004
• Punched-card (32%)• Optical scan (28%)• Lever (16%)• DRE (12%)• Paper (1%)• Indeterminate: (11%)
Card
Optical
Lever
DRE
Indet
Paper
PUNCHEDCARD
OPTICAL
LEVER
DRE
?
2000
PAPER
• Optical scan (34%)• DRE (31%)• Lever (14%)• Punched-card (14%)• Paper (1%)• Indeterminate: (6%)
DRE
CARD
OPTICAL
LEVER
?
2004
![Page 15: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
The Voting Process
VOTER
REGISTRATIONAUTHORITY
ELECTIONAUTHORITY
18. TABULATEVOTES
1. PRESENTCREDENTIALS
2. RECEIVETOKEN A
CERTIFYINGAUTHORITYVENDOR
3. SUBMIT DEVICEAND SOFTWARE
4. CERTIFY DEVICEAND SOFTWARE
VOTING DEVICE
5. FURNISH DEVICETO COUNTY
6. FURNISHSOFTWARE
SETUPSLATE
7. “BALLOTPROGRAMMING”
PRESENTSLATE 8. LOAD
ELECTIONDATA
POLLAUTHORITY
ELECTIONDAY
9. TURN ONDEVICE
10. PRESENTTOKEN A
11. RECEIVEVOTING
TOKEN B
12. PRESENTVOTING
TOKEN B
13. PRESENTSLATE
14. CAPTURECHOICES CAPTURE
VOTE15. PROVIDE
VERIFICATION
RECORDVOTE
16. STOREVOTES
TABULATIONDEVICE
17. TRANSMIT VOTES
19. TRANSMIT TOTALS
WINNERS
20. CERTIFYRESULTS
![Page 18: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Counting Punched Cards
SOURCE: LOS ANGELES COUNTY
![Page 19: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Vulnerabilities in the Process
• Registration– Authentication of credentials
– Registration of dead voters, voters who have moved, etc.
• Registered voter tokens– Forgery
– Transferability
• Voting System Vendors– No requirements
– No accountability
– Tendency to hide behind trade secret claims to conceal defects
– What’s in the software?
![Page 20: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Vulnerabilities II
• Certification– Role of “Independent Testing Authorities”– Federal Election Commission standards– Lack of meaningful state certification (usually check only for
conformance to state law)– Lack of meaningful code review, source or object
• Distribution and storage of machines– Vendor modifications and maintenance– Insider modifications and maintenance– Intruder access
![Page 21: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Vulnerabilities III
• Distribution and storage of software– Lack of central distribution– Presence of central distribution– Vendor, insider, intruder modification– Testing procedures
• Ballot (slate) programming– Error– Delegation to vendor– Control over ballot programming (memory packs, etc.)– Connection between candidate names and voting positions
![Page 22: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Vulnerabilities IV
• Polling place procedures– Poll worker training– Testing procedures, verification of slate– Error recovery, irregularities, power failure– Voter education
• Voting– Connection between registration token and vote? (Privacy)– Multiple voting– Tampering with machines, stuffing, alteration of ballots– Choice capture, confusion, early completion, fleeing voter– Verification– Vote storage, redundancy, ballot images
![Page 23: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Vulnerabilities V
• Transmission and tabulation of votes– How do they get to the tabulation device?– Authentication and accounting for memory packs– Avoiding multiple counting
• Post-election procedures– Testing– Impound, custody over software, slate programming– Canvass– Retally– Recount
![Page 24: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
FEC Standards
• Focus on mechanical reliability, not security• Example: Volume I Standard 6.4.2.,
“Protection Against Malicious Software”:• “Voting systems shall deploy protection against the
many forms of threats to which they may be exposed such as file and macro viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and logic bombs. Vendors shall develop and document the procedures to be followed to ensure that such protection is maintained in a current status.”
![Page 25: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Complications
• Ballot complexity, e.g. 135 candidates• Straight-party voting• Ballot (slate) rotation• Split precincts• Vote-for-many• Language• Write-in votes• Spoiled, invalid, damaged, defaced ballots• Open ballot
– W.V. Constitution “In all elections by the people, the mode of voting shall be by ballot; but the voter shall be left free to vote by either open, sealed or secret ballot, as he may elect.”
![Page 26: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Complications
• Absentee voting• Early voting• Challenged voters• Disabled access, e.g. audio ballots• Huge variety of state-imposed requirements
![Page 27: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
What’s an Audit Trail?
• Two types:– A. Record of voting system events, e.g. opening of polls– B. Record of ballot images
• In Maryland, a voting system must be “be capable of creating a paper record of all votes cast in order that an audit trail is available in the event of a recount.” Md. Election Law § 9-102(c)(1)(vi)
• This is done by storing complete ballot images in randomized order
![Page 28: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
What’s a Recount?
• Purpose: “verify” that the original tabulation was correct
• Three kinds of recounts:– A. Physical ballots exist: Count them again.– B. Computer records exist: Tabulate them again.– C. No physical ballots or computer records exist
(e.g. lever machines): Read the counters again
![Page 29: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Desirable Voting System Characteristics
• Secret• Accurate• Eligible voters• Vote once only• Tamper-proof• Reliable• Auditable• No vote-buying
(receipt-free)
• Verifiable• Non-coercible• Transparent
MOST STATESREQUIRE
NO STATES REQUIRE(except coercion is a crime)
![Page 30: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Role of Cryptography in Voting
• Profound• BUT:• To be adopted, protocols must deal with ALL
vulnerabilities, not just theoretically convenient ones• Transparency problem: not enough people understand
cryptography or the claims made for it• Requires reliance on a small community of experts• Naming problem: few politicians will vote for
“homomorphic” anything
![Page 31: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Absentee Voting
• Of the 105 million registered voters, ~ 5 million are
unable to vote on Election Day because of inability to
comply with absentee voting requirements
• Almost 5% of the electorate wants to vote but can’t
• Bush-Gore was decided by a margin of 0.01% in
Florida, 1/500 of the non-voting absentee population
• The biggest problem in voting is not tampering or
paper trails, but how to include the absentees
![Page 32: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
QA&
![Page 33: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Voting Law Environment
• U.S. Constitution• Federal law• State constitutions• State law• State administrative regulations• Local practices
![Page 34: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Constitutional Review
• Presidential elections: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” U.S. Const. Art II, §1
• “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. Art II, §1
• Tuesday after the first Monday in November 3 U.S. §1.• If no winner on election day, “the electors may be appointed on a
subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” 3 U.S. §2.
![Page 35: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Federal Election Comission
• Role of the FEC in voting in the United States
• None!• The FEC
• enforces campaign financing laws• assists states with voter registration
![Page 36: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Functions of a Voting System
1. Present candidates and issues to the voter (HCI)
2. Capture the voter’s preferences (HCI)
3. Transport preferences to counting location
4. Add up the vote totals (tabulation)
5. Publish the vote totals (reporting)
6. Provide audit mechanisms
But: vote must be secret
![Page 37: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Paper (1.7%)
• Ridiculous!– Requires manual counting– Easy fraud– Ballot stuffing– Invalidation
SOURCE: TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY
XOVERVOTE CANCELSVOTE FOR MAYOR
![Page 38: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Mark Sense, Optical Scan (24.6%)
TIMINGMARKS
START OFBALLOT
![Page 39: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Mark-Sense, Optical Scan (24.6%)
• Scanning methods– Visible light– Infrared
• Issues:– Dark/light marks– Some scanners require
carbon-based ink – Voter intent may not be
captured by machine
• Machine does not see what the human sees
![Page 40: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Direct-Recording Electronic (7.7%)
SOURCE: SHOUP VOTING SOLUTIONS
![Page 41: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Direct-Recording Electronic (7.7%)
SOURCE: SHOUP VOTING SOLUTIONS
![Page 42: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Punched-Card Problems
• Can’t see whom you’re voting for• Registration of card in ballot frame• Must use stylus: no positive feedback on punch• Hanging chad: chad that is partially attached to the
card– How may corners?– Hanging chad causes count to differ every time
• Dimple: chad that is completely attached but shows evidence of an attempt to punch– Dimple can turn into a vote on multiple readings
![Page 43: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Buchanan Vote by County (Florida, 2000)
GRAPH COURTESY OF
PROF. GREG ADAMSCARNEGIE MELLON
&PROF. CHRIS FASTNOW
CHATHAM COLLEGE
SOURCE: PROF. GREG ADAMS
Broward (Fort Lauderdale)
Miami-Dade
Hillsborough (Tampa)
Pinellas (St. Petersburg-Clearwater)
Orange (Orlando)
LINEAR FIT WITHOUT PALM BEACH, BROWARD, MIAMI-DADE
(PURPLE ANNOTATIONS ADDED)
![Page 44: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Election Contest
• The certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office ... or by any taxpayer, respectively.
• The grounds for contesting an election under this section are: ... .
– (c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election. …
– (e) Any other cause or allegation which, if sustained, would show that a person other than the successful candidate was the person duly nominated or elected to the office in question or that the outcome of the election on a question submitted by referendum was contrary to the result declared by the canvassing board or election board.”F.S. §102.168.
• Successful challenge results in a “judgment of ouster.”
![Page 45: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Recounts in Florida
• If a candidate is defeated by 1/2% or less, the board responsible for certifying the results ... shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office. F.S. §102.166(3)(c). Or: candidate may protest to county canvassing board
• “If there is a discrepancy which could affect the outcome of an election, the canvassing board may recount the ballots on the automatic tabulating equipment.” F.S. §102.166(3)(c).
• “The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount.”F.S. §102.166(4)(c).
• “Each duplicate ballot shall be compared with the original ballot to ensure the correctness of the duplicate.” F.S. §101.5615.
![Page 46: DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING MAY 26, 2004 COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Theory v. Practice in Electronic Voting Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Co-Director,](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d375503460f94a0f331/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
DIMACS ELECTRONIC VOTING
MAY 26, 2004
COPYRIGHT © 2004 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS
Manual Recount
• “If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
– (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;
– (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or – (c) Manually recount all ballots.” F.S. §102.166(5)
• “Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:
– (a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots.
– (b) If a counting team is unable to determine a voter's intent in casting a ballot, the ballot shall be presented to the county canvassing board for it to determine the voter's intent.” F.S. §102.166(7)