Voting Security Amendment

[Jon Seattle]

Voting Security Amendment

In order to clarify the operations and rules for operating software used to hold RA elections, the following will be added to article 2 of the constitution:

The Scientific Council may deputize one or more citizens to provide software, hosting services, and operations support for the election of the RA. These deputies will:

1. Be bound by contract not to release data, either detailed votes or aggregate figures, nor to comment on election results to any person other than a member of Scientific Council or a designated election deputy until the polls close and results are certified.


2. Provide unidentified detailed votes as well as aggregate figures on a daily basis to the members of the Scientific Council so they may monitor the availability and accuracy of the voting software.


3. Insure that software used in the election implements the rules for eligibility, voting, and counting votes as described in the constitution.


4. Maintain server and application security, providing privileged access only to the SC members or their designates.


5. Build into software, where possible, the ability for citizens to check that their votes are correctly registered, and maintain a complete time-stamped record of every transaction that results in a vote being cast.


6. Provide copies of all software source code to the SC for review, and on request, provide detailed explanations on the operation of that software.


7. On request by the SC, provide unencumbered root user access to servers, including software, database, and log files to SC members or their designates.


None of these restrictions will be taken to restrict any deputy’s civil rights, including the right to equal suffrage, the right to hold and execute the duties of elected public office, or the right to free speech apart from the specific agreement described by this amendment.

[Jon Seattle]

I should add that this bill is technical feasible and far more secure than the one presented by NuCARE. I would also support the addition of Beathan's suggestion that votes (without voter identification) be released after an election, but with one small modification. The voting records should be presented in random order so observers will not be able to reconstruct the identity of voters by watching the voting terminals.

Jonathan A. Smith
Software Architect, IT
Northwestern University

[Beathan]

I'm good with this proposal, too, although I would want my vote sunshine language added.

With regard to the "random order", I don't think we should go for full randomness. There is information with regard to the time in the election cycle when votes happened. For instance, it would be meaningful to me if I could see that all the tactical NuCARE votes happened at the same time and soon after a NuCARE Party meeting at which NuCARE tactics were discussed. Therefore, rather than full random sorting, I would prefer to have random sorting within, but not between, voting days.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

Yes, I see your point. I could go with that.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I'm good with this proposal, too, although I would want my vote sunshine language added.

With regard to the "random order", I don't think we should go for full randomness. There is information with regard to the time in the election cycle when votes happened. For instance, it would be meaningful to me if I could see that all the tactical NuCARE votes happened at the same time and soon after a NuCARE Party meeting at which NuCARE tactics were discussed. Therefore, rather than full random sorting, I would prefer to have random sorting within, but not between, voting days.

Beathan

Hmmm. In the real world would you support data being presented hour by hour so that one party could assess the impact of another party's "get out the vote" calling program? If not, then Jon's suggestion about randomization of the data is probably most appropriate. I'm certainly inclined to lean in that direction especially as we have so few citizens that it would be fairly simple to guess which vote was whose if the data were not fully randomized.

Cindy

[Beathan]

Cindy --

Yes, in the real world, I would be perfectly OK with an hour-by-hour voting record. In fact, in the real world, because we have anonymous ballots cast by people whose credentials are separately verified such that they don't appear on the ballot, we do have real time data and can and do analyse the opponents "get-out-the-vote" efforts. Frankly, I like this feature of RL.

Beathan

[Cindy Ecksol]

Cindy --

Yes, in the real world, I would be perfectly OK with an hour-by-hour voting record. In fact, in the real world, because we have anonymous ballots cast by people whose credentials are separately verified such that they don't appear on the ballot, we do have real time data and can and do analyse the opponents "get-out-the-vote" efforts. Frankly, I like this feature of RL.

Beathan

Wow, where do you live in RL??? I'm not sure I want to be there!! Until electronic voting machines came along that kind of data was not available, and even though theoretically it ought to be available now, if it were ever suggested that someone was looking at it I think there would be a scream so loud you'd hear it in the Supreme Court chambers!!!

Cindy

[Beathan]

Cindy --

Any good exit poll can do it for the press. In fact, my experience talking with poll workers is that a good half of them (the half that is not senile or braindead) have a good rough working knowledge of this information on a poll-place by polling place basis. Also, the data is available and was available even before electronic voting --- although it was not made available during the actual vote for obvious reasons. However, in legal challenges to the vote and even in recounts, the information is available for scrutiny -- and this is a good thing. While I think that we have to be careful while the polls are open, we can't have too much scrutiny after the fact.

Beathan

[Cindy Ecksol]

Cindy --

Any good exit poll can do it for the press. Also, the data is available and was available even before electronic voting --- although it was not made available during the actual vote for obvious reasons. However, in legal challenges to the vote and even in recounts, the information is available for scrutiny -- and this is a good thing. While I think that we have to be careful while the polls are open, we can't have too much scrutiny after the fact.

Beathan

Well, exit polls are a whole different thing than real election data, and although I have philosophical objections to news organizations using that data and often (especially in the case of a national election) changing the outcome of the vote, it certainly is not unconstitutional. At least they don't call winners based on that data before all the polls are closed any more. But if you think people really tell the truth on exit polls, I've got this beautiful bridge in a VERY nice sim I'd like to show you..... There was actually a state called incorrectly in the primary race on Tuesday night, and in the end it wasn't really close.

In any case, I still would be much happier if the published CDS voting data were randomized rather than sequenced in any way. There is too much potential for misuse of sequenced data.

Cindy

[Beathan]

Cindy --

Which state was called inaccurately? The only one I recall was Missouri, which was very close -- and which is (for some reason) an incredibly hard state to predict or interpret. As Sen Claire McCaskill said after the final results were in -- it is crzy to try to call Missouri before the end of the night. The Clintonistas should have remembered that before declaring victory.

With regard to exit polls -- of course people lie and of course they are unreliable within bounds. However, a good exit poll can be very, very use and quite accurate.

Finally, before this last election controversy, I would have no problem compromising with you on this issue. However, the current -- I think "scandal" overstates it -- the current issue with the last CDS election is not one that we can fully inquire into unless we have non-randomized data. I am willing to recognize the need for anonymity, and am willing to accept Jon's compromise and randomize on a day-by-day basis. That should be more than sufficient to preserve anonymity while also allowing preservation and exploration of meaningful election data. I really want nothing more than is available to most political science departments after an election.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

Lets make the following changes:

In order to clarify the operations and rules for operating software used to hold RA elections, the following will be added to article I section 2 of the constitution

This just corrects the position in the constitution, I got that wrong in the earlier draft. After the paragraph beginning “None of these” insert:

After the voting, but before certification, the voting data, including individual votes with the voter identification information redacted, shall be publicly available to all citizens and shall be posted, as a historical document, on the CDS Wiki. In order to protect voters from being identified, votes cast on any particular day will appear in random order.

This information should be in a form that can be used by citizens and factions to analyze the history of voting over time and in detail such that citizens and factions can discover (1) voting trends during an election (2) the "natural coalitions" of parties that share support among voters, (3) whether factions primarily enjoy support as a primary party or as a support or secondary party, and (4) whether there were voting improprieties or confusion that should be considered by the SC prior to certification of the result.

(Thanks much to Beathan for the above text.)

[Justice Soothsayer]

Just a couple of items to add my L$.02:

* In my RL state, voter lists are posted outside the polling place, and are updated a couple of times during the course of the day. It is therefore possible to determine the effectiveness of get-out-the-vote efforts, and late in the day GOTV teams only have to call upon those who haven't yet voted.

* I do think, especially given our small numbers, that any individual vote data which is released should be randomized, and not just day by day, because it is just too easy to identify individual voters.

* It probably goes without saying, but the SC should not appoint as an electoral deputy any person whose name appears on the ballot.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Just a couple of items to add my L$.02:

* In my RL state, voter lists are posted outside the polling place, and are updated a couple of times during the course of the day. It is therefore possible to determine the effectiveness of get-out-the-vote efforts, and late in the day GOTV teams only have to call upon those who haven't yet voted.

* I do think, especially given our small numbers, that any individual vote data which is released should be randomized, and not just day by day, because it is just too easy to identify individual voters.

* It probably goes without saying, but the SC should not appoint as an electoral deputy any person whose name appears on the ballot.

I am perfectly ok with posting the names of those who have voted/not voted, but not the "running totals" or any other data that would indicate how those people voted. And I agree with Justice on the randomization and the appointment of the electoral deputy.

I'll also comment that I see no need to run these changes as constitutional amendments. If the constitution already gives the SC the authority to administer elections, the SC administers according to rules (laws) passed by the RA. Putting procedural stuff like this into the constitution is just not necessary. Between Prin's bill and Jon's there's a lot of good stuff, but perhaps we can come up with a version that takes the best of both (as discussed and amended to date) and creates a law that can be passed by the RA rather than a constitutional amendment that may need to be revised at a later date. It's much easier to pass or revise a law than it is a constitutional amendment.

Cindy

[Jon Seattle]

If the constitution already gives the SC the authority to administer elections, the SC administers according to rules (laws) passed by the RA.

This is not true. All the authority for the election is provided by the constitution and it is held according to procedures established by the SC. No non-amendment can dictate guidelines to the SC. This must be an amendment.

[Cindy Ecksol]

If the constitution already gives the SC the authority to administer elections, the SC administers according to rules (laws) passed by the RA.

This is not true. All the authority for the election is provided by the constitution and it is held according to procedures established by the SC. No non-amendment can dictate guidelines to the SC. This must be an amendment.

Sounds like there's a difference of opinion, so the SC should probably rule on this before we go forward.

Cindy