AE presents itself as a bold alternative to the two-party system. “Pick a person, not a party,” they say. All you have to do is be a registered voter, and sign up on their website at AmericansElect.org. Then you will be eligible to vote ONLINE for any of the qualified candidates in their primary competition.
Up to this point, the project seems to have some promise as a democratic reform. Any registered voter can participate, no matter what party affiliation, or no party affiliation. Candidates can self-select, or be drafted, and don’t need any campaign contributions to be considered by the voters. Best of all, from my point of view, they are going to use Internet voting.
Unfortunately, the process is far from flawless. As first reported in Rick Hasen’s Election Law blog, the AE vote will NOT BE A SECRET VOTE. According to AE, “Each vote is tied to name. Necessary so we can audit the convention afterwards. This is not a secret vote (like the general election is).”
What are they thinking? Does AE have a public relations Death Wish? Let me try to put this problem in context.
Internet voting is being used all over the world. In Europe, Estonia, Switzerland, and Norway use it. In India, the state of Gujarat uses it (and in a recent election had over 77% turnout). Based on the several successful online votes in Canadian cities, Elections Canada, the agency that runs national elections, has requested that the government make Internet voting its official voting technology. In the USA, Hawaii, Kings County Washington, and West Virginia have used it. Both France and Mexico City are planning to use Internet voting for their overseas voters.
Each of these systems was set up by teams of professional technicians who knew what they were doing, and did it well. No security breaches or hackers changed any votes, or violated the privacy of any voters. These systems were set up to allow voters to log on, have their eligibility verified, and then vote on the secure servers which held the voting website. Separate modules verify the voter’s registration, and keep the record of the vote. Thus, no voter’s privacy is compromised. Also, since there are no records kept of a voter’s name and how he or she voted, no one can prove to a potential vote buyer how he or she voted.
AE declines to use this well tested Internet voting technology. Instead, they use a process that dredges up some of the worst election practices ever used. They reject the principle of voter privacy, and they will keep both an electronic and a paper copy of the voter’s name and vote together. Indeed, these records will be shared with the auditing company they have hired. Untold numbers of people will read these names and votes.
Worse still, I have been told that AE will mail out paper copies of name and vote together to each voter, so that he or she can see how his or her vote was recorded. If so, what a handy receipt this will be for a vote seller to show a vote buyer!
Haven’t the Ackermans ever heard of the “Australian Ballot”? This was once a major reform of election practices in the US. Now AE is going to ignore this reform and thereby invite a resurrection of the very corrupt practices the reform was meant to stop.
AE has a lot of promise as a democratic reform. But once people, who are eager for more democracy, see what they are getting into, who will want to support such stupidity?
There is still time to correct this misguided slipping into the worst of America’s past, when voters had no privacy and votes were bought and sold. True Internet voting is being done around the world. Even the vote for the Oscars in 2013 will be true Internet voting! Hey, AE – lets get with it!
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Twitter: wjkno1
Author of Internet Voting Now!
On Kindle and in paper
For my discussion with Joshua Levine about AE potential PR problems, see this
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Rebuttal to David Jefferson’s Brief against Internet Voting
As Professor Hasen shows in his forthcoming book, Voting Wars, conflict over the way we conduct elections in the US is increasing. One of the areas of disagreement is whether or not the US should employ Internet voting as a means of conducting elections. Professor Hasen offers a statement against that move by the highly respected computer scientist Dr. David Jefferson. With all due respect, I offer another view.
Voting, of course, is a very serious matter. It is an essential, albeit not sufficient, requirement for democracy. Voting is one of the principle ways by which the people of a nation are empowered to have a voice in their own destinies. The process of voting, that is, the means by which a vote is conducted, must be one that commands the trust of the voters, or the results will not be legitimate. Illegitimate governments can only cause political unhappiness, and possibly political unrest and turmoil. Hence, the right to cast a vote is meaningless unless the means by which the vote is counted is trustworthy.
Dr. Jefferson alleges that Internet voting is untrustworthy, and therefore should not be used in US elections. Yet, we live in a time when the cultural and economic momentum around the world is pushing towards ever greater use of electronic technology. This is not just for social or entertainment uses. Professor of e-business and computer science at the Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Michael Shamos, who has both a Ph.D. in computer science and a law degree, observers that electronic information is replacing paper-based information throughout international law. [1]
Electronic signatures are regarded in law as just as valid and binding as hand written signatures on paper. In fact, he says, electronic records are now preferred as evidence in courts all over the world. If there is a contract dispute, emails may be used as evidence to show how a party understood the paper contract. In cases where a bank customer offers an ATM paper receipt as proof of a transaction, courts routinely rely instead on the bank’s electronic records as the definitive source of proof. Even claims to have a winning lottery ticket can be disproven by the lottery administrator’s electronic records of both where and when the ticket was sold, and the winning number. In all these cases, where electronic records are shown to have been well-maintained, they are given preference over paper, which is regarded as far easier to modify or fake.
Dr. Jefferson’s position is that despite all the movement towards a 21st Century e-world, the means by which we conduct our elections must stay rooted in the tried and true tradition of the 18th Century. That is, trek to the polling place, mark a piece of paper, deposit it in a box, and return home hoping your piece of paper will be counted as cast.
One fact that Dr. Jefferson over-looks is the long history of voting fraud committed within our paper-based system of voting over the past 200 years. Another fact he conveniently over-looks is that all over the world, where Internet voting trials have been conducted, there have been no proven instances of voting fraud. Allegations or suspicions may exist, but no charges of fraud, or even of significant error, have been accredited in any Internet voting trial conducted in this century. (RE the DC fiasco, see below.)[2]
The first trials of Internet voting were conducted in the year 2000. The Republican Party conducted a straw poll in Alaska. The Democratic Party held a primary vote in Arizona. And, the Department of Defense conducted a small online vote for overseas military personnel, who were enabled to vote in their state, local, and federal elections on their own PCs. Other nations were inspired by these pioneering US trials. Now, Elections Canada, the agency that manages national elections in that country, has requested the House of Commons to allow Internet voting for all its national elections. Numerous municipal elections have been conducted online in Canada, without any security or technical problems. A recent EAC report notes that the Swiss have held at least 36 online elections over the past several years. Internet voting trials have been done in India, France, Spain, Norway, New South Wales, and other countries. No instances of voter fraud have been shown. Tarvi Martens, who designed the Estonia Internet voting system, says it’s “more secure than Internet banking” http://t.co/Jh6Onyd
Here, then, are numerous FACTS about actual instances of successful Internet voting trials. There are many more such facts. For example, West Virginia allowed its overseas military personnel, from a few select counties, to vote online in the 2010 election. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant was so pleased with the initial trial that she asked the state legislature to expand the number of participating counties, which it promptly did.
Take a second look at Dr. Jefferson’s brief against Internet voting. See any facts in support of his claims of incurable insecurity? Does he cite even one instance of an Internet election gone wrong? How about one time when voter privacy was violated? Answer: no, not one.
Instead, he recites a litany of scary stories about what he says COULD happen. For example, “Zeus [botnets] exemplifies what could just as easily happen if online voting becomes widespread.” Or, “Anyone from a disaffected misfit individual to a national intelligence agency can remotely attack an online election …” “Anyone,” really?
Here’s a frightening thought: “Eventually someone, perhaps a partisan political operative or a foreign intelligence agency, will deploy a similar botnet to infect thousands of voters’ computers and modify their votes invisibly as they are being transmitted.”
That’s a really scary story, but has it been done in any actual Internet voting trials? Well, no – but Dr. Jefferson is certain that it COULD be done. How can he be so sure? Answer, “computer and network security experts are virtually unanimous in pointing out that online voting is an exceedingly dangerous threat to the integrity of U.S. elections.” But wait, if there is such unanimity, then why are Internet voting trials increasing world wide? Have all those systems been set up without first consulting “computer and network security experts”? Or have all those election officials gone against this unanimity, just foolishly hoping for the best? Has Natalie Tennant, her staff and advisors, and the West Virginia legislature, and its staff and advisors, all proclaimed “to heck with the experts! Let’s just do it!” Have all the responsible Swiss and Canadian officials been just as reckless?
Dr. Jefferson declares that an attacking bad guy “can probably automate that attack to allow thousands of phony votes to be recorded.” Upon what experiments, trials, or other experience does Dr. Jefferson base his probability statement? Does he have any facts, or is it just a fearful “feeling”?
The issue here is whether the United States should use electronic technology in all areas of life, but the one upon which we take the most national pride – our democracy. Moving to Internet voting is a big step, and it should not be taken without a thorough national debate. But such a debate ought to be conducted on the basis of fact and counter-fact. It should not be conducted on the basis of unsubstantiated scary stories, which conjure up such terrifying prospects that the mind shutters, and shuts itself off to all the contrary facts.
1. Dr. Shamos’s Ph.D. in computer science is from Yale University. He also teaches classes on electronic voting technology security. An elections law and patent law expert, he is licensed to practice law before the United States Supreme Court, as well as numerous federal and state courts. For 20 years, from 1980-2000, he was Pennsylvania‘s official examiner of electronic voting systems. See Shamos’s resume at,
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/people/faculty/mshamos/resshort.htm His arguments are in a paper presented to the National Institute of Standards and Technology at,
http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/paper_v_electronic_records.pdf
2. The DC hacking occurred in a practice run, not an actual vote. The hacking revealed that the system had been incompetently set up by amateur technicians. For more on this see http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Twitter: wjkno1
Voting, of course, is a very serious matter. It is an essential, albeit not sufficient, requirement for democracy. Voting is one of the principle ways by which the people of a nation are empowered to have a voice in their own destinies. The process of voting, that is, the means by which a vote is conducted, must be one that commands the trust of the voters, or the results will not be legitimate. Illegitimate governments can only cause political unhappiness, and possibly political unrest and turmoil. Hence, the right to cast a vote is meaningless unless the means by which the vote is counted is trustworthy.
Dr. Jefferson alleges that Internet voting is untrustworthy, and therefore should not be used in US elections. Yet, we live in a time when the cultural and economic momentum around the world is pushing towards ever greater use of electronic technology. This is not just for social or entertainment uses. Professor of e-business and computer science at the Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Michael Shamos, who has both a Ph.D. in computer science and a law degree, observers that electronic information is replacing paper-based information throughout international law. [1]
Electronic signatures are regarded in law as just as valid and binding as hand written signatures on paper. In fact, he says, electronic records are now preferred as evidence in courts all over the world. If there is a contract dispute, emails may be used as evidence to show how a party understood the paper contract. In cases where a bank customer offers an ATM paper receipt as proof of a transaction, courts routinely rely instead on the bank’s electronic records as the definitive source of proof. Even claims to have a winning lottery ticket can be disproven by the lottery administrator’s electronic records of both where and when the ticket was sold, and the winning number. In all these cases, where electronic records are shown to have been well-maintained, they are given preference over paper, which is regarded as far easier to modify or fake.
Dr. Jefferson’s position is that despite all the movement towards a 21st Century e-world, the means by which we conduct our elections must stay rooted in the tried and true tradition of the 18th Century. That is, trek to the polling place, mark a piece of paper, deposit it in a box, and return home hoping your piece of paper will be counted as cast.
One fact that Dr. Jefferson over-looks is the long history of voting fraud committed within our paper-based system of voting over the past 200 years. Another fact he conveniently over-looks is that all over the world, where Internet voting trials have been conducted, there have been no proven instances of voting fraud. Allegations or suspicions may exist, but no charges of fraud, or even of significant error, have been accredited in any Internet voting trial conducted in this century. (RE the DC fiasco, see below.)[2]
The first trials of Internet voting were conducted in the year 2000. The Republican Party conducted a straw poll in Alaska. The Democratic Party held a primary vote in Arizona. And, the Department of Defense conducted a small online vote for overseas military personnel, who were enabled to vote in their state, local, and federal elections on their own PCs. Other nations were inspired by these pioneering US trials. Now, Elections Canada, the agency that manages national elections in that country, has requested the House of Commons to allow Internet voting for all its national elections. Numerous municipal elections have been conducted online in Canada, without any security or technical problems. A recent EAC report notes that the Swiss have held at least 36 online elections over the past several years. Internet voting trials have been done in India, France, Spain, Norway, New South Wales, and other countries. No instances of voter fraud have been shown. Tarvi Martens, who designed the Estonia Internet voting system, says it’s “more secure than Internet banking” http://t.co/Jh6Onyd
Here, then, are numerous FACTS about actual instances of successful Internet voting trials. There are many more such facts. For example, West Virginia allowed its overseas military personnel, from a few select counties, to vote online in the 2010 election. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant was so pleased with the initial trial that she asked the state legislature to expand the number of participating counties, which it promptly did.
Take a second look at Dr. Jefferson’s brief against Internet voting. See any facts in support of his claims of incurable insecurity? Does he cite even one instance of an Internet election gone wrong? How about one time when voter privacy was violated? Answer: no, not one.
Instead, he recites a litany of scary stories about what he says COULD happen. For example, “Zeus [botnets] exemplifies what could just as easily happen if online voting becomes widespread.” Or, “Anyone from a disaffected misfit individual to a national intelligence agency can remotely attack an online election …” “Anyone,” really?
Here’s a frightening thought: “Eventually someone, perhaps a partisan political operative or a foreign intelligence agency, will deploy a similar botnet to infect thousands of voters’ computers and modify their votes invisibly as they are being transmitted.”
That’s a really scary story, but has it been done in any actual Internet voting trials? Well, no – but Dr. Jefferson is certain that it COULD be done. How can he be so sure? Answer, “computer and network security experts are virtually unanimous in pointing out that online voting is an exceedingly dangerous threat to the integrity of U.S. elections.” But wait, if there is such unanimity, then why are Internet voting trials increasing world wide? Have all those systems been set up without first consulting “computer and network security experts”? Or have all those election officials gone against this unanimity, just foolishly hoping for the best? Has Natalie Tennant, her staff and advisors, and the West Virginia legislature, and its staff and advisors, all proclaimed “to heck with the experts! Let’s just do it!” Have all the responsible Swiss and Canadian officials been just as reckless?
Dr. Jefferson declares that an attacking bad guy “can probably automate that attack to allow thousands of phony votes to be recorded.” Upon what experiments, trials, or other experience does Dr. Jefferson base his probability statement? Does he have any facts, or is it just a fearful “feeling”?
The issue here is whether the United States should use electronic technology in all areas of life, but the one upon which we take the most national pride – our democracy. Moving to Internet voting is a big step, and it should not be taken without a thorough national debate. But such a debate ought to be conducted on the basis of fact and counter-fact. It should not be conducted on the basis of unsubstantiated scary stories, which conjure up such terrifying prospects that the mind shutters, and shuts itself off to all the contrary facts.
1. Dr. Shamos’s Ph.D. in computer science is from Yale University. He also teaches classes on electronic voting technology security. An elections law and patent law expert, he is licensed to practice law before the United States Supreme Court, as well as numerous federal and state courts. For 20 years, from 1980-2000, he was Pennsylvania‘s official examiner of electronic voting systems. See Shamos’s resume at,
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/people/faculty/mshamos/resshort.htm His arguments are in a paper presented to the National Institute of Standards and Technology at,
http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/paper_v_electronic_records.pdf
2. The DC hacking occurred in a practice run, not an actual vote. The hacking revealed that the system had been incompetently set up by amateur technicians. For more on this see http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Twitter: wjkno1
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Internet Voting Now! Out in Paper!
Good News!
My book, Internet Voting Now!, is available in paper on Amazon at, http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011
In Chapters One and Five I recount the history of Internet voting in the US. I also present the history of thought about Internet voting in this country. I analyze the so-called “SERVE Security Report” for its scientific qualities. (Of course, there aren’t any.)
Reviews of the Kindle edition are at http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now But there are no reviews yet on the paper edition – who will be the first?
Description:
Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA. Not only is it convenient and green, but security has been proven manageable by e-commerce. Security scares are dispelled by speaking Reason to Fear. The little known Original Intentions of our Constitution’s Framers for presidential elections are explained. How poorly US practices live up to those original intentions is shown next. Readers will be surprised to see how Internet voting, rightly organized, can fulfill those original intentions better than the two-party system is currently doing. This Internet voting system can both neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections, and empower the American voter as never before. The Conclusion provides suggestions for action.
My book, Internet Voting Now!, is available in paper on Amazon at, http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011
In Chapters One and Five I recount the history of Internet voting in the US. I also present the history of thought about Internet voting in this country. I analyze the so-called “SERVE Security Report” for its scientific qualities. (Of course, there aren’t any.)
Reviews of the Kindle edition are at http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now But there are no reviews yet on the paper edition – who will be the first?
Description:
Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA. Not only is it convenient and green, but security has been proven manageable by e-commerce. Security scares are dispelled by speaking Reason to Fear. The little known Original Intentions of our Constitution’s Framers for presidential elections are explained. How poorly US practices live up to those original intentions is shown next. Readers will be surprised to see how Internet voting, rightly organized, can fulfill those original intentions better than the two-party system is currently doing. This Internet voting system can both neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections, and empower the American voter as never before. The Conclusion provides suggestions for action.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Why Independents Should Demand Internet Voting
What is an “Independent”? Lots of people are asking that question these days. Are Independents conservative or liberal? Are they closet Dems or closet Repubs? Are they more focused on public finance issues that on social issues? Are they moderates, or centrists? Is there such a thing as a political center in the US?
One empirical element shared by Independent identifiers is that they don’t identify with either of the two major political parties, which currently dominate US elections and government. In this sense, Independents are not only alienated from the political system, they are excluded from it. They are not just passively unrepresented in our “representative government,” they are deliberately ignored by our elected representatives. That is, of course, until those elected officials need their votes in the next two-party system election.
Thanks to modern electronic technology, this need not be.
Imagine this: You are watching candidates debate online or on TV. After each debate you log on to your state’s secure voting website, using your own PC, cell phone, or other electronic device. Your voter registration is checked, and then the voting window comes up. You enter your rating of each debater’s performance, from 0-9.
Suppose further that entry to the debates is open to everyone who wants to be considered by the voters, and that all candidates are eliminated through a series of such debates. Qualification for candidacy can be as it is now in states like California; i.e., fulfill the signature requirements, pay a filing fee, and you are on the ballot and in the debates.
In this scenario, it is the political parties that are excluded from the candidate selection and election process. Suppose there are a dozen candidates for an office. Two one hour debates can be held per evening. In three evenings all twelve can be heard, considered, and voted on by the electorate. The next week a final debate can be held between the top two, so that the candidate is supported by a majority of the voters.
Here is an election process that can be used for all local, state, and federal offices, with only minor changes in state laws. No constitutional amendment is required. Ballot access is 100% nonpartisan – an Independent’s Heaven, right here on Earth. Because no self-serving political party will control the process, the locus of power will move to where it should be in a democracy – to the center of voter preferences.
This picture can become reality by demanding that your state government, state Secretary of State, and local election officials implement an Internet voting system organized along the lines I have suggested. In consideration for their sacrifices and service, you can also demand Internet voting for your state’s overseas military personnel. (For more on that, and the opposition to it, see my post on Natalie Tennant here, and cited on Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog, at http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49 Also see the new ‘tough love’ review of my book, Internet Voting Now! At http://is.gd/Sc5vch )
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Face Book: http://tinyurl.com/BillonFB
Twitter: wjkno1
Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD
Friday, August 5, 2011
Natalie E. Tennant: Internet Voting Profile in Courage
Natalie E. Tennant is a lady politician with more guts than any man in the same office in other states; that is, Secretary of State.
She takes seriously the long standing policy of the League of Women Voters in her state, West Virginia. That policy includes this, "Election laws should serve the voter with maximum convenience, simplicity, clarity, and impartiality" (at, http://www.lwvwv.org/)
Tennant applies this principle by providing Internet voting for WV's overseas military voters. Doesn't giving overseas military personnel a secure and convenient means to vote sound like a common sense way to pay them back for their service? If you think so, you may be surprised to here just how uncommon this is.
With rare exception, the growth of Internet voting in the United States is being stunted by special interests. These interests first emerged in 2004.
In 2004 the Department of Defense (DoD), and its sub-agency the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), had an Internet voting system all set up for overseas voters to use in the up coming state and federal elections. The system was ready to handle 100,000 voters, from the half dozen states that volunteered for the trial. Using their own PC, overseas voters could log on to a secure website, and after their registration is checked, vote online. DoD and FVAP officials were so confident that their system was able to mitigate all security threats that they invited 10 outside experts to come and inspect the system, known as the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE. At least four of the 10 were known anti-Internet voting computer scientists.
FVAP personnel took the whole team on the first of several planned visits. After only the second visit, the four got together in private and wrote a scathing criticism full of speculative “coulds” and “possibles,” but short on facts and science. The entire election, they alleged, among other things, could be controlled by some undetectable hacker. (They forgot to mention that the system had an intrusion detection capability.) Then they went to the New York Times with their “report,” without any peer review or opportunity for FVAP to attach a response.
The Times, and other major newspapers, played up the story with so much sensation (a hacker could elect the president!) that Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, felt compelled to order a halt to the program. Thereafter, this report, its authors, and a small cadre of well-funded activists have led the way in discouraging FVAP, or any state government, from further attempts at Internet voting trials. They now have a full time staff that follows the legislative process in Congress and each of the 50 states. Whenever they see an Internet voting bill introduced into a committee, they go into action to stop it. They buttonhole committee members, pull out their well-worn report, spout off all the “coulds” and “possibles,” without any science to back up their claims, and then remind the elected officials of how they killed SERVE in 2004, using their access to the New York Times and other newspapers.
Most elected officials buckle under this pressure. They cannot afford the costs of publicity that would be required to fight the activists in the media. As they know well, the best way to get reelected is to avoid controversy, and push off the Internet voting proposals “for further study.” As a result, in 2010 over 30 states electronically sent blank ballots to their voters who were in the military and overseas, but they avoided using systems based on the SERVE model. These states required that voted ballots be returned by fax, email, or snail mail – anything but real Internet voting on an official website. Indeed, even now, in 2011, FVAP is offering states up to $16M for electronic ballot delivery systems; but not for systems based on the SERVE model. To get financial aid, the systems must use ballots returned by fax, email, or snail mail.
Despite the threats of anti-Internet voting activists, in 2010 West Virgina enacted a trial of true Internet voting for its overseas members of the military, who were eligible to vote in one of the several volunteer counties. As with SERVE, overseas West Virginians in the military could use their own PC to log on to the state’s secure website, and after their registration is confirmed, cast their vote online. The program was supported in the legislative process, developed, and implemented by WV Secretary of State, Natalie E. Tennant.
Just as in the military, a Secretary of State, or any public official, deserves praise whenever they show courage under fire. Tennant showed this courage when she went ahead with her Internet voting trial for overseas military voters. As she stated on the WV SOS website,
“The members of our military are putting their lives on the line every day … I thought it was extremely important to make sure they had secure access to an online ballot. We had to make sure their voice was heard.”
The system was first used in the state’s primaries. Voter response was quite positive. Tennant reported that of all the satisfaction survey respondents, “we received no negative feedback of the pilot program.”
While other methods of absentee voting saw return rates of about 40 percent, the Internet voting ballot return rate was over twice that. Tennant was so impressed that, in her report to the state legislature, she asked them to allow additional counties to participate in the 2010 General Election, which they did.
Tennant made her final report to the WV legislature on 1/19/2011. This report included the statistics on the use of Internet voting in the general election. For example, in the counties where Internet voting was offered, of all the voters who requested that their absentee ballots be delivered electronically, 76% voted on the secure website. In the counties using standard mail as the absentee ballot transmission method, 58% of the requested ballots were returned. Clearly, there was a higher rate of participation with Internet voting.
Most of the voters who used Internet voting in the primary also used it in the general election, indicating a high degree of satisfaction. Indeed, of those who took the satisfaction survey, 100% rated the system’s ease of use as “simple” or “somewhat simple.”
Tennant reported that to date, “no significant deficiencies or concerns have been identified with the West Virginia online voting pilot.” Unfortunately, because of all the media attention to the fiasco in Washington DC’s Internet voting trial (which was set up by Oliver and Hardy, and then hacked by yet another comedian), Tennant did not recommend on her own authority that Internet voting should be used in all of West Virginia’s counties. She suggested instead that a study group be convened to decide the matter.
Tennant is in the lead on other election reforms. For example, she is overseeing WV’s experiment with the public financing of campaigns for election to some state court judgeships.
Tennant made a try for the West Virginia governorship in the first half of 2011, but lost in the Democratic primary; perhaps her courage under fire was not given sufficient profile.
************
UPDATE
Tennant advocates for more Internet voting in the US at, “Making the Case for Online Voting.”
*************
Suggested Readings
On the DC fiasco:
http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010
On the Security of WV’s Internet Voting System:
FAQ, at http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/voter-information-center/Documents/FAQ%20WVUSOV.pdf
Tennant addresses the technical aspects of how the state handled security issues in two papers.
1. Tennant’s NIST Position paper of June 9, 2010
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf (Written after the primary vote, and before the general election; with her request for an extension of the program to other counties)
2. West Virginia's SOS report on the Online Voting Pilot Project 1/19/2011
http://www.sos.wv.gov/news/topics/elections-candidates/Pages/SecretaryofStateReleasesLegislativeReportOnOnlineVotingPilotProject.aspx
Also see:
Pew Center Reports
Internet voting for military, overseas voters debuts in West Virginia
Clerks and secretary of state pleased with first use
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=59033
Pew Report on Military Voting Reform
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=62365
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD
She takes seriously the long standing policy of the League of Women Voters in her state, West Virginia. That policy includes this, "Election laws should serve the voter with maximum convenience, simplicity, clarity, and impartiality" (at, http://www.lwvwv.org/)
Tennant applies this principle by providing Internet voting for WV's overseas military voters. Doesn't giving overseas military personnel a secure and convenient means to vote sound like a common sense way to pay them back for their service? If you think so, you may be surprised to here just how uncommon this is.
With rare exception, the growth of Internet voting in the United States is being stunted by special interests. These interests first emerged in 2004.
In 2004 the Department of Defense (DoD), and its sub-agency the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), had an Internet voting system all set up for overseas voters to use in the up coming state and federal elections. The system was ready to handle 100,000 voters, from the half dozen states that volunteered for the trial. Using their own PC, overseas voters could log on to a secure website, and after their registration is checked, vote online. DoD and FVAP officials were so confident that their system was able to mitigate all security threats that they invited 10 outside experts to come and inspect the system, known as the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE. At least four of the 10 were known anti-Internet voting computer scientists.
FVAP personnel took the whole team on the first of several planned visits. After only the second visit, the four got together in private and wrote a scathing criticism full of speculative “coulds” and “possibles,” but short on facts and science. The entire election, they alleged, among other things, could be controlled by some undetectable hacker. (They forgot to mention that the system had an intrusion detection capability.) Then they went to the New York Times with their “report,” without any peer review or opportunity for FVAP to attach a response.
The Times, and other major newspapers, played up the story with so much sensation (a hacker could elect the president!) that Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, felt compelled to order a halt to the program. Thereafter, this report, its authors, and a small cadre of well-funded activists have led the way in discouraging FVAP, or any state government, from further attempts at Internet voting trials. They now have a full time staff that follows the legislative process in Congress and each of the 50 states. Whenever they see an Internet voting bill introduced into a committee, they go into action to stop it. They buttonhole committee members, pull out their well-worn report, spout off all the “coulds” and “possibles,” without any science to back up their claims, and then remind the elected officials of how they killed SERVE in 2004, using their access to the New York Times and other newspapers.
Most elected officials buckle under this pressure. They cannot afford the costs of publicity that would be required to fight the activists in the media. As they know well, the best way to get reelected is to avoid controversy, and push off the Internet voting proposals “for further study.” As a result, in 2010 over 30 states electronically sent blank ballots to their voters who were in the military and overseas, but they avoided using systems based on the SERVE model. These states required that voted ballots be returned by fax, email, or snail mail – anything but real Internet voting on an official website. Indeed, even now, in 2011, FVAP is offering states up to $16M for electronic ballot delivery systems; but not for systems based on the SERVE model. To get financial aid, the systems must use ballots returned by fax, email, or snail mail.
Despite the threats of anti-Internet voting activists, in 2010 West Virgina enacted a trial of true Internet voting for its overseas members of the military, who were eligible to vote in one of the several volunteer counties. As with SERVE, overseas West Virginians in the military could use their own PC to log on to the state’s secure website, and after their registration is confirmed, cast their vote online. The program was supported in the legislative process, developed, and implemented by WV Secretary of State, Natalie E. Tennant.
Just as in the military, a Secretary of State, or any public official, deserves praise whenever they show courage under fire. Tennant showed this courage when she went ahead with her Internet voting trial for overseas military voters. As she stated on the WV SOS website,
“The members of our military are putting their lives on the line every day … I thought it was extremely important to make sure they had secure access to an online ballot. We had to make sure their voice was heard.”
The system was first used in the state’s primaries. Voter response was quite positive. Tennant reported that of all the satisfaction survey respondents, “we received no negative feedback of the pilot program.”
While other methods of absentee voting saw return rates of about 40 percent, the Internet voting ballot return rate was over twice that. Tennant was so impressed that, in her report to the state legislature, she asked them to allow additional counties to participate in the 2010 General Election, which they did.
Tennant made her final report to the WV legislature on 1/19/2011. This report included the statistics on the use of Internet voting in the general election. For example, in the counties where Internet voting was offered, of all the voters who requested that their absentee ballots be delivered electronically, 76% voted on the secure website. In the counties using standard mail as the absentee ballot transmission method, 58% of the requested ballots were returned. Clearly, there was a higher rate of participation with Internet voting.
Most of the voters who used Internet voting in the primary also used it in the general election, indicating a high degree of satisfaction. Indeed, of those who took the satisfaction survey, 100% rated the system’s ease of use as “simple” or “somewhat simple.”
Tennant reported that to date, “no significant deficiencies or concerns have been identified with the West Virginia online voting pilot.” Unfortunately, because of all the media attention to the fiasco in Washington DC’s Internet voting trial (which was set up by Oliver and Hardy, and then hacked by yet another comedian), Tennant did not recommend on her own authority that Internet voting should be used in all of West Virginia’s counties. She suggested instead that a study group be convened to decide the matter.
Tennant is in the lead on other election reforms. For example, she is overseeing WV’s experiment with the public financing of campaigns for election to some state court judgeships.
Tennant made a try for the West Virginia governorship in the first half of 2011, but lost in the Democratic primary; perhaps her courage under fire was not given sufficient profile.
************
UPDATE
Tennant advocates for more Internet voting in the US at, “Making the Case for Online Voting.”
*************
Suggested Readings
On the DC fiasco:
http://tinyurl.com/DCin2010
On the Security of WV’s Internet Voting System:
FAQ, at http://www.sos.wv.gov/elections/voter-information-center/Documents/FAQ%20WVUSOV.pdf
Tennant addresses the technical aspects of how the state handled security issues in two papers.
1. Tennant’s NIST Position paper of June 9, 2010
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf (Written after the primary vote, and before the general election; with her request for an extension of the program to other counties)
2. West Virginia's SOS report on the Online Voting Pilot Project 1/19/2011
http://www.sos.wv.gov/news/topics/elections-candidates/Pages/SecretaryofStateReleasesLegislativeReportOnOnlineVotingPilotProject.aspx
Also see:
Pew Center Reports
Internet voting for military, overseas voters debuts in West Virginia
Clerks and secretary of state pleased with first use
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=59033
Pew Report on Military Voting Reform
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=62365
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Twitter: wjkno1
You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD
Saturday, April 16, 2011
INTERNET VOTING NOW! The Kindle Edition Available
My New Book is Now on Kindle - Internet Voting Now! Here’s How. Here’s Why - So We can Kiss Citizens United Goodbye!
Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA. Not only is it convenient and green, but security has been proven manageable by e-commerce. Security scares are discussed, and dispelled by speaking Reason to Fear. Most importantly, rightly organized, Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections. Now is the time for progressives to plan on how to turn this massive change in the process of voting to our advantage. This book shows precisely how that can be done.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA. Not only is it convenient and green, but security has been proven manageable by e-commerce. Security scares are discussed, and dispelled by speaking Reason to Fear. Most importantly, rightly organized, Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections. Now is the time for progressives to plan on how to turn this massive change in the process of voting to our advantage. This book shows precisely how that can be done.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Does the DC Fiasco Damn Internet Voting?
This year the DC Board of Elections had a great idea. DC had a bad reputation for sending absentee ballots out to its voters in the military so late that the poor voter didn’t have time to mail the thing back before the end of the election. (The Pew Center chided DC for this in their 2009 study “No Time to Vote.”)
So DC hired some programmers who said they could set up an Internet voting system. This would enable the overseas voter to request an absentee ballot, vote it, and return it – all in just a few minutes. No more wasted time, or uncertainty about whether your ballot arrived in time or got counted.
But what DC officials apparently did not know is that the guys they hired are long-time anti-Internet voting advocates. After getting the contract, instead of boasting about their success, they posted an apology to their fellow anti-Internet voting groups. You can see this at http://www.trustthevote.org/dc-pilot-project-facts-vs-fictions-osdv-viewpoint
Greg Miller posted the apology. You can see him and John Sebes taking part in a panel sponsored by the anti-Internet voting Overseas Voting Foundation, at
http://www.youtube.com/user/OverseasVote#p/c/71DC2AFC2F476CBB/0/Ne0qiIsvqf8
Lo and Behold, within 36 hours from the time the DC system went online for testing, a “white hat hacker,” Alex Halderman, University of Michigan computer science prof, lead his class on a real adventure. They hacked the system. In it they found personal voter info, including names, PINs, and passwords. They changed all the votes that had been made, to favor their candidate. They set up the system so that all future votes would favor their candidate. Then they left a calling card: they installed the UM football fight song. The system was supposed to have an intruder detection and alarm function, but it did not work. DC officials only learned about the hack after receiving complaints about the song.
Of course all the anti-Internet voting extremists have had a field day with this event. Brad’s Blog and Verified Voting, for example, are full of triumphal proclamations about the complete and utter failure of Internet voting.
Not only did DC officials hire the guys who built this system, but after it was hacked they invited Halderman and a couple of professional anti-Internet voting extremists to appear before them. After giving Halderman time to crow, one of them submissively asked him if Internet voting could ever be done securely. Yes folks, she asked the fox how to protect the hen house! (See it at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaR7n5PI_aE ) Of course, he sagely informed her that it cannot be done.
However, at the same time, West Virginia has had terrific success with its professionally built Internet voting system. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant was so happy with the results of that system in this year’s primaries that she requested the state legislature to expand the program to include more overseas voters. (See http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=81145 )
Tennant reports that the Internet voting participation was twice that of the mail-in voting participation, and that “we received no negative feedback of the pilot program.” (See
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf )
The legislature studied the security issues and performance, and granted Tennant’s request.
Not only that, but at least eight European nations and several provinces in Canada have been conducting Internet voting trials for years without any problems. (See Electronic Elections, Hall and Alvarez, page 71.)
So, what is to be learned from the DC fiasco? First, given the degree of competence shown by DC officials, perhaps their bid for statehood should be put off a bit longer. Second, never hire anti-Internet voting extremists to set up your Internet voting system. Like one wag on Slashdot suggested, this system appears to have been “designed to fail… just to make the [anti-Internet voting] idea shine.” (See comment by “Cylix” at, http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/09/1750214/DC-Internet-Voting-Trial-Attacked-2-Different-Ways#topcomment )
A third lesson is to look at all the facts about Internet voting successes, and not just this one example of all around incompetence (if not designer sabotage).
So DC hired some programmers who said they could set up an Internet voting system. This would enable the overseas voter to request an absentee ballot, vote it, and return it – all in just a few minutes. No more wasted time, or uncertainty about whether your ballot arrived in time or got counted.
But what DC officials apparently did not know is that the guys they hired are long-time anti-Internet voting advocates. After getting the contract, instead of boasting about their success, they posted an apology to their fellow anti-Internet voting groups. You can see this at http://www.trustthevote.org/dc-pilot-project-facts-vs-fictions-osdv-viewpoint
Greg Miller posted the apology. You can see him and John Sebes taking part in a panel sponsored by the anti-Internet voting Overseas Voting Foundation, at
http://www.youtube.com/user/OverseasVote#p/c/71DC2AFC2F476CBB/0/Ne0qiIsvqf8
Lo and Behold, within 36 hours from the time the DC system went online for testing, a “white hat hacker,” Alex Halderman, University of Michigan computer science prof, lead his class on a real adventure. They hacked the system. In it they found personal voter info, including names, PINs, and passwords. They changed all the votes that had been made, to favor their candidate. They set up the system so that all future votes would favor their candidate. Then they left a calling card: they installed the UM football fight song. The system was supposed to have an intruder detection and alarm function, but it did not work. DC officials only learned about the hack after receiving complaints about the song.
Of course all the anti-Internet voting extremists have had a field day with this event. Brad’s Blog and Verified Voting, for example, are full of triumphal proclamations about the complete and utter failure of Internet voting.
Not only did DC officials hire the guys who built this system, but after it was hacked they invited Halderman and a couple of professional anti-Internet voting extremists to appear before them. After giving Halderman time to crow, one of them submissively asked him if Internet voting could ever be done securely. Yes folks, she asked the fox how to protect the hen house! (See it at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaR7n5PI_aE ) Of course, he sagely informed her that it cannot be done.
However, at the same time, West Virginia has had terrific success with its professionally built Internet voting system. Secretary of State Natalie Tennant was so happy with the results of that system in this year’s primaries that she requested the state legislature to expand the program to include more overseas voters. (See http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=81145 )
Tennant reports that the Internet voting participation was twice that of the mail-in voting participation, and that “we received no negative feedback of the pilot program.” (See
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/UOCAVA/2010/PositionPapers/ZICKAFOOSE_WestVirginiaUOCAVA.pdf )
The legislature studied the security issues and performance, and granted Tennant’s request.
Not only that, but at least eight European nations and several provinces in Canada have been conducting Internet voting trials for years without any problems. (See Electronic Elections, Hall and Alvarez, page 71.)
So, what is to be learned from the DC fiasco? First, given the degree of competence shown by DC officials, perhaps their bid for statehood should be put off a bit longer. Second, never hire anti-Internet voting extremists to set up your Internet voting system. Like one wag on Slashdot suggested, this system appears to have been “designed to fail… just to make the [anti-Internet voting] idea shine.” (See comment by “Cylix” at, http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/10/09/1750214/DC-Internet-Voting-Trial-Attacked-2-Different-Ways#topcomment )
A third lesson is to look at all the facts about Internet voting successes, and not just this one example of all around incompetence (if not designer sabotage).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)