Few Super Tuesday e-voting problems reported
100429
No widespread problems with electronic voting systems have turned up after Super Tuesday presidential primary voting in 24 states, but e-voting critics say the lack of such reports doesn't mean the voting was ultimately secure.
200399
Long lines, a shortage of poll workers and unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots could delay vote counts in the biggest-ever Super Tuesday in American politics Â a day in which nearly half the nation will cast ballots.
562285
Electronic voting in the US. The saga continues. Here is an interesting comparision with a Venezuelan referendum. &quot;80% of Americans could correctly name the first President Bush&#39;s pet dog Millie, but only
293757
The touch-screen voting machines used in 15 Florida counties appear to work smoothly during the state's primary election Tuesday.
166632
Odd, I don&#39;t recall registering as a Republican ... : Looks like the e-voting machines used in Tuesday&#39;s election weren&#39;t as problem-free as their manufacturers would have us beleive.
755066
No one landed a knockout blow on Super Tuesday, so the Clinton and Obama fight continues
732787
Access cards needed for Diebold Systems e-voting hardware were not initially available in Montgomery County, Md., on Tuesday morning. The result: Primary Day voters had to use improvised paper ballots or give up entirely.
201342
While most experts appear to agree that electronic voting has real problems, few argue that they could completely undermine the November election.
691877
Election observers have reported few instances of fraud, a key concern as officials begin tallying results.
439676
For all the attention focused on the Super Tuesday primaries, some delegate-rich states will still be left after Feb 5. Some of the bigger ones:
102543
Many states are facing legal challenges over possible voting problems Nov. 2. A look at some of developments over the weekend:
242058
Elections officials throughout the region reported potentially record-breaking voter turnout today, and said despite the crowds, they are experiencing only minor problems with voting machines and electronic voter check-in systems.
672373
After a series of tests on e-voting machines, a U.S. government auditor still doesn&#39;t know what contributed to 18,000 unmarked ballots in a Florida congressional race in 2006.The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) checked the firmware and the ballot display and ran calibration tests on a sample of Election Systems &amp; Software (ES&amp;S) iVotronic e-voting machines, the agency said in a report released Friday. Those tests, combined with others done by the GAO and state of Florida, &quot;have significantly reduced the possibility that the iVotronic [machines] were the cause of the undervote,&quot; said the report, authored by Nabajyoti Barkakati, acting chief technologist for the GAO&#39;s applied research and methods division.The GAO believes the ES&amp;S machines have been adequately tested, the report says. &quot;Given the complex interaction of people, processes, and technology that must work effectively together to achieve a successful election,&quot; other factors, including intentional undervotes or ballot interaction problems, may have caused the undervote, the GAO said.Democratic candidate Christine Jennings lost by 369 votes in the 2006 13th Congressional District race, but more than 18,000 people who cast votes in other district races failed to have votes recorded in the congressional race. About 4,000 more votes were recorded in the Sarasota County Southern District Hospital Board election than in the House race.Jennings is again running for the congressional seat this year.The GAO report &quot;leaves most of the major questions unanswered,&quot; said the Verified Voting Foundation, an advocacy group critical of e-voting machines. The GAO report didn&#39;t address potential problems with touch-screen sensitivity and low batteries, or reports of undervotes in other races, the foundation said in its own report , based on a leaked copy of the GAO report.&quot;The GAO report leaves us with almost as many questions as before, and the most important one -- what caused the ... undervote problem -- is left unanswered,&quot; the foundation report says. &quot;The nature of the complex voting system in question, and the difficulty in auditing such a system, may mean such questions will remain indefinitely, but it is clear that more can and should be done to resolve the outstanding issues.&quot;The foundation suggested auditors could conduct more tests, including tests of touch-screen sensitivity and a check for software bugs beyond the GAO&#39;s check that the software matched versions certified by Florida.&quot;As someone who&#39;s interested in what happened in this election, my questions aren&#39;t answered,&quot; said David Dill, the foundation&#39;s founder and a computer science professor at Stanford University. &quot;I don&#39;t think we&#39;re going to get any idea about what happened in that election without a lot more investigation.&quot;The GAO report &quot;cannot be interpreted as a clean bill of health for the machines,&quot; Dill added. &quot;They did three little tests ... out of a spectrum of a lot of things, and they aren&#39;t the most important things to look at,&quot; he said.ES&amp;S, in a statement, said the GAO report shows its machines &quot;performed well&quot; in the election. GAO&#39;s findings echo studies by Florida State University and the Florida Department of State, both saying there was &quot;no evidence&quot; of ES&amp;S machine malfunction, the company said. &quot;The collective findings of these and other tests demonstrate that Sarasota County&#39;s voting system performed exactly as it was designed to function,&quot; the company said.The Election Technology Council, a trade group representing ES&amp;S and three other e-voting vendors, said the report suggests that a paper ballot to accompany the e-voting machines wouldn&#39;t necessarily solve problems. The Verified Voting Foundation and other groups have pushed for printouts to be used with e-voting machines.Elections include people, processes and technology, said David Beirne, the council&#39;s executive director. &quot;Paper is not a magic bullet,&quot; he said. &quot;It can provide an additional layer of verification for the voter, but it alone is not going to satisfy all of the stakeholders, which is why it is important to look at all of the circumstances surrounding an election to determine its overall performance.&quot;The GAO report shows the need for assurance tools that verify the operation of the e-voting machines&#39; software, Beirne added.
661208
Many states are facing legal challenges over possible voting problems Nov. 2. A look at some of the developments Sunday:
297788
With a recount of the Nov. 2 election results almost complete in Ohio, officials said Tuesday their electronic voting systems worked as promised, despite alleged problems with some machines.
487183
So-called "paper audit trails" are unlikely to solve accuracy problems associated with electronic voting and would in fact introduce another potential problem to the mix, according to a report issued Tuesday. But even some critics of current e-voting tech are discounting the ITIF's take on the matter.
15566
A Denver-based e-voting testing laboratory and experts from three universities have been hired by the state of Ohio to undertake independent evaluations of the states&#39; e-voting hardware, software, and processes. The move is aimed at finding and fixing potential problems before the 2008 presidential election.The work is being done under a $1.7 million contract awarded earlier this summer by the state to get an in-depth picture of how the e-voting system is working. Since the 2000 presidential election,&#160;critics of e-voting systems have voiced concerns&#160;about the accuracy, integrity, and security of e-voting results and have pushed for tougher means of ensuring that every vote cast is properly counted.Ohio has faced e-voting problems in several elections in which electronic machines were used, including a&#160;May 2006 primary election,&#160;when a host of accuracy problems were reported.The evaluation process was announced by newly elected Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner after she took office in January. Chris Nance, Ohio&#39;s assistant secretary of state, said Tuesday that the review will test a representative sample of the 40,000 e-voting machines and systems used in Ohio&#39;s 88 counties to determine what changes and improvements need to be made. &quot;This is a risk assessment&quot; being done to identify potential vulnerabilities in the related systems, Nance said.After a competitive hiring process this summer, Ohio tapped Denver-based SysTest Labs to conduct the evaluation. SysTest Labs is accredited by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for e-voting system certification and testing.In a first for Ohio, and perhaps the nation, three computer security researchers from three major universities -- Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California, Santa Barbara -- are also conducting independent evaluations of the state&#39;s e-voting systems. Those reviews will be submitted along with the ones being done by SysTest Labs.Having evaluations from various sources &quot;creates this range of feedback,&quot; said Nance.The e-voting hardware in the state is primarily from Omaha-based Election Systems &amp; Software and Allen, Texas-based Premier Election Solutions, formerly known as Diebold Election Systems. Two counties use machines from Austin-based Hart InterCivic.Brian Phillips, president of SysTest Labs, said that the testing processes began Sept. 24 and will be completed by Nov. 30. The performance testing covers hardware and election management software, as well as the polling place devices and the central counting applications that tally all the votes, he said.The company is conducting configuration management testing to ensure that the e-voting system hardware and software matches the specifications of the certified systems allowed in elections across Ohio, he said. Also being reviewed are systems that prevent any changes or updates in the hardware or software without the approval of election officials.Final reports from the reviews will be delivered Dec. 14 to Brunner&#39;s office. Those reports will then be evaluated by the governor and legislature for any action that may be needed, Nance said.&quot;It is certainly the intention... for any secretary of state... to put in place a set of policies and procedures&quot; to ensure that every vote is properly counted, Nance said. &quot;The American electorate has seen that there are issues related to electronic voting. We would not have spent $1.7 million for this study if we felt we were on a fool&#39;s errand. It is our responsibility to put together our very best effort to do that.&quot;&quot;Is this a perfect plan? Is this the perfect approach? I don&#39;t think there is anything that is a perfect plan or approach. This is our best plan.&quot;Computerworld is an InfoWorld affiliate.