Verified Voting controversy
Sep. 18th, 2020 09:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mtbcFor the previous general election I mentioned how verifiability matters in voting, how disappointed I have been that the US does far worse than it could in conducting elections with clear integrity. I have therefore directed support to the Verified Voting Foundation but, admittedly nearly a year after it happened, I was recently told of how Dr Richard DeMillo and Dr Philip Stark publicly resigned from the board after the foundation appeared to condone untrustworthy paper trails from machines used in Georgia.
Needless to say, this gives me pause. Unfortunately, despite time having passed since the controversy, I have not yet found some clear resolution of the matter: I cannot easily tell if the foundation has genuinely engaged with the criticism, is presently what it once seemed or, if not, which else might be.
Update: I applied for a job with VotingWorks but that was back in February so I presume that they quietly declined. Because they offer risk-limiting audits, I ought to have checked what they promise about the benefits of such, given that election security also entails asking how one knows that the audit trail matches electors' votes.
Needless to say, this gives me pause. Unfortunately, despite time having passed since the controversy, I have not yet found some clear resolution of the matter: I cannot easily tell if the foundation has genuinely engaged with the criticism, is presently what it once seemed or, if not, which else might be.
Update: I applied for a job with VotingWorks but that was back in February so I presume that they quietly declined. Because they offer risk-limiting audits, I ought to have checked what they promise about the benefits of such, given that election security also entails asking how one knows that the audit trail matches electors' votes.
