|

 
|
| | Name : | Jordi Puiggali | Organization : | Scytl Secure Electronic Voting | Post Date : | 9/9/2005 |
| Comment : | Selecting a voter-verifiability solution
Among all the voter-verifiability solutions, perhaps the best-known consists in attaching
a printer to every DRE. The printer is used to produce a physical record of the vote
(i.e., a paper ballot) after the voter has selected the desired voting options in the DRE.
The voter can then visually check that the printed options match those she has just
selected on the DRE, and the paper record can be later used in a parallel recount
independent from the electronic record given by the DRE.
Adding a printer to the DRE represents an obvious and (at least in theory) simple
solution to the voter-verifiability issue. Still, as any other method, adding a printer to the
DRE presents both advantages and drawbacks. On the one hand, printers and physical
paper ballots have the capability to generate confidence and also offer the possibility of
an independent parallel recount. On the other hand, this method shows poor usability,
is not accessible for blind and visually impaired voters, and is prone to mechanical
problems and high maintenance costs.
In any case, regardless of the balance between the advantages and drawbacks of
printers, it is important to note that there are other types of voter-verifiability solutions.
This article does not intend to judge printers as a voter-verifiability solution but rather to
provide a comprehensive list of factors that should be taken in consideration when
comparing and rating different voter-verifiability solutions. The article also presents a
new and alternative voter-verifiability solution that is not based on printed paper ballots.
Comparisons of the different voter-verifiability solutions should be based on a set of
objective criteria. We propose the following list of 13 factors, classified in three basic
categories (security, usability and implementability): | |
|
|