Site Meter

Flaws in the Election Assistance Commission

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Hi Danielle, a few comments:

    First, the Board of Advisers seems to have, at most, nebulous input into the VVSG development. Most of that was done by NIST and the TGDC (which arguably could use more technologist expertise as well).

    Second, you are slightly mixing up two strains of expert commentary on the VVSG. One strain (championed by the AEI/Brookings comment to the VVSG) argues that innovation should be the main value in reconciling some of the draft requirements and that the draft hinders innovation too much.

    Another strain (notable in our ACCURATE comments on the VVSG; Rubin and Wallach are the directors of ACCURATE) argues that the elements criticized by others as hindering innovation are exactly the kind of medicine needed to help shore up the sorry state of electronic voting. We explain how important these elements will be in ensuring quality election technologies but we also point out areas where we feel more drafting is needed (the innovation class and incident reporting and feedback).

    Finally, the image above was actually taken by me. I released it on Wikipedia under a Creative Commons Attribution license… I’d appreciate correcting the link above to read “Image by Joebeone, from Wikicommons, under a CC-BY-2.5 license”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image