eVoteSystemCertificationintheUSA.pptVIP

Federal vs. State Started the move towards eVote systems in the US Old-fashioned manual punch card systems (Votomatic) Often used in counties with low income, that had no money to buy new equipment “hanging chads” – holes not fully punched through Confusing paper ballot design ?Uncertainty about voter intentions National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), in effect since 1994 No federal funding Voting systems tested by “Independent Testing Authorities (ITA)” using 1990?Federal Election Commission?Voting System Standards (VSS) Slightly updated in 2002 (before HAVA passing) NASED reviews ITA report and certifies a system as “meeting federal standards” Conflict of Interest: ITAs are commercial companies; Vendors selects, and pays directly to the ITAs ? ITAs have no interest in negative reports Almost all systems used in US elections were NASED/ITA certified, yet the certification failed to prevent disasters like Florida 2000, or find the errors found in CA TTBR (see below) Passed in October 2002 Objective: Modernize US election technology to avoid situations like Florida 2000 in the future, through Creation of the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), which would Establish uniform election system standards and create a new, more efficient federal certification system And… 3.9 billion dollars in federal funding for states to buy new technology, guided by the EAC HAVA requires the EAC to develop new voting systems standards by January 1, 2004 These standards help states select technology to upgrade their election systems (using the federal funding) by January 1, 2006 BUT: Appointment of EAC commissioners delayed by almost 10 months BUT: only US$ 2 million (of the US$ 30 million planned 2003 EAC budget for testing and RD) was provided ? No guidelines in 2003 In 2004, of US$ 50 million budgeted for testing, research and development of standards, only US$ 1.2 million were paid out ? No standards / certification in 2004 BUT: in 2004, US$ 1300 mil