News & Insights
We’re Making History in Real Time.
Our timely insights share informed perspectives on the rapidly evolving story of Election Technology, as it unfolds.
One Last iVoting Consideration: Blockchain
One last item for this series on iVoting that I’m adding by popular inquiry is this new bright shiny object called “Blockchain.” If you’re involved in election technology or computer science in general you’ve probably heard of Blockchain.....
Can iVoting Change the Electorate?
We produced this series of posts on Internet Voting or “iVoting” and its challenges because there is increasing interest in understanding how to innovate our election infrastructure. We concede it can be a potential and prospective advance in voting technology—a next frontier of elections for the 21st century if you will. And some even speculate this new way of exercising our civic duty and civil right could expand participation....
What Would a Realistic iVoting System Look Like?
When we last left the discussion in Part 3, we looked at the 5 big technical challenges to an adoptable, credible, and defensible iVoting system. For Part 4 we begin to consider what a new iVoting System solution could or would have to look like...
The Technical Challenges Facing iVoting
iVoting faces several technological challenges before it can begin to be implemented. Most election officials and experts in the field are hesitant or skeptical about implementing iVoting with current Internet and Web technology. Even when we view iVoting as simply returning a digital absentee ballot or the digital equivalent of voting by mail, as I explain in this installment of my series, there are still substantial innovations required....
The Challenges of iVoting Implementation
When we last left this discussion, I had laid out a basis for our interest in technologies just over the horizon or "ready next" and in particular the growing interest in smartphone voting. I am essentially carving up a technology backgrounder white paper for easy reading here. Today I help us dive in with a survey of the challenge areas to "Pajama Voting" (I love that phrase)...
Hacking Elections: Opportunity Clicking
An emerging media outlet, Who.What.Why posted an article on Monday in their Threats to Democracy section that is totally worth reading. Seriously. When people think of election theft, most assume that amounts to somebody doing something to alter how ballots are cast or counted. Apparently, we should start thinking bigger.
iVoting: The Estonia Experience Cannot Be an American Expectation …Anytime Soon
A long form look on the Estonian iVoting experience and our thoughts on why it’s not feasible here at home.
The Moose Lurking in the Room
To hec with the elephant (regardless of who you think will control Congress after election day), the real beast in the room may be a Moose -- Alaska style. Our CTO notes an article from yesterday that points out how Alaska's close U.S. senatorial race, combined with their allowing ballots to be digitally returned across the Internet, may pose the greatest threat to a derailed election we've seen yet.
But the real point John makes is that sadly, Alaskan voters may not even be aware of the risks and who in this case is watching over their ballots -- at least those returned in the inherently insecure manner of the Internet, no matter how "secure" the "experts" are claiming the process to be. If the ballot return system in Alaska were truly as secure as their vendor claims, then Banks would be using their methods, and the massive amounts of hacked customer personal information at major brands this year might have been alleviated. Have a look and give us your take.
Into the (Voting) Wild
Alaska will allow absentee voters to submit their ballot via a "secure online voting solution", aka e-mail. We're holding our breath.
Online Voting Remains Too Much of a Downside Risk
To our stakeholder community: So now comes another study about online voting. But this one, from a respectable think tank in Washington D.C., shouldn’t make election administrators worry too much. No need to brace for a legislative blunder, so long as this paper is taken seriously, as it should be. On the other hand, there doesn’t yet appear to be a replacement for your DRE machinery – for those of you still relying on them. Here's our "take."
Ms. Voting Matters' Take: "No Magic Will Bring About Online Voting"
Ms. Voting Matters would really like to wave her magic wand and allow everyone on the planet to cast their votes, securely, with their smart phones, tablets, or laptops. Really truly, I would do it if I could. But I can’t. The Internet of Voting is just not safe and secure enough now, no matter how much we all would wish it so. Let me share why.
“Digital Voting”—Don’t believe everything you think
In at recent blog post we examined David Plouffe’s recent Wall Street Journal forward-looking op-ed [paywall] and rebalanced his vision with some practical reality.
Now, let’s turn to Plouffe’s notion of “digital voting.” Honestly, that phrase is confusing and vague. We should know: it catalyzed our name change last year from Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) to Open Source Election Technology Foundation (OSET).
NYT: Smartphone Voting? TrustTheVote: No, But How About This … DIY Voter Lookup
Much as I admire everybody at the New York Times, I have to disagree with Nick Bilton on his piece Disruptions: Casting a Ballot by Smartphone. I have to say I don't blame him though, especially given the broad range of coverage of the many many kinds election dysfunction that occurred and are still occurring now during state canvassing....
Where We Stand on DC and Elsewhere
We've been answering lots of questions about the OSDV Foundation’s role in the District of Columbia's Pilot "digital vote-by-mail" project, including a recent post with a detailed account of the history leading up to the Pilot...