We’ve come to a point in human history where faith in the democratic process has reached all-time lows, especially here in the United States. At Follow My Vote, we believe there is still hope for humanity in this regard.

Ever since we inked our patent pending designs back in 2014, we’ve had aspirations to bring our designs to life, enabling citizen’s throughout the world to cast their votes with integrity on Election Day. However, taking on such a massive endeavor comes with it’s own set of challenges.

We have learned and accomplished a tremendous amount at Follow My Vote over the years, while trying to bring our vision to life. Throughout this time period, we’ve seen various new voting systems come and go, all claiming to be better than the last. However, when analyzing these systems we’ve detected issues that need to be addressed before being implemented on a mass scale. Despite these issues, some of these solutions are actually gaining traction, which is also concerning to us at Follow My Vote.

We’ve seen widespread infighting in the voting space over the years, mainly between those that are all for adopting modern technology where possible to improve the political process for everyone involved vs those that don’t. We have technology providers developing and testing solutions, while university researchers speak out against their efforts and shine light on the vulnerabilities that exist with these solutions. There has been so much back and forth over the years and a lot of misinformation being thrown around that, as a result, it’s almost as if the majority of people have become convinced that technology cannot save us. We simply disagree.

With this in mind, we are releasing this IP today, as a gift to humanity, in hopes to restart the conversation when it comes to question: “Can ‘We the People’ figure out a way to securely conduct verifiable elections online?”

Let’s be real. If you could vote conveniently from your smartphone on Election Day and be reassured by the world-wide technological community at large that your vote was cast as intended and counted as cast, wouldn’t you? That’s what we are really striving for at Follow My Vote.

From Follow My Vote’s perspective we’ve already designed the voting system that, once developed, will have the upmost integrity in existence. Just keep in mind, it’s going to take us some time to bring it to life.

In the meantime, we encourage you to closely review our patent application as published on Google Patents and get involved in the conversation.

Upon review of our patent application, we’d like to immediately draw your attention to the figures or drawings, Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1, as shown below, is simply a list of key components that exist within our voting system design.

Figure 2, as shown below, showcases our (once patent-pending / now open-source) anonymous voting key registration protocol, which enables someone to have their identity verified for voter eligibility and subsequently be granted access to their eligible election contests in an anonymous way so that, when they cast their votes, they will be able to literally follow their vote(s) into the blockchain-based ballot box and confirm with their own eyes that their vote was cast as intended and counted as cast.

In short, the above figure is the secret sauce with respect to our invention.

Also keep in mind that this powerful protocol could be leveraged outside of the voting space/use case. Another way to interpret the way in which this protocol works is that, based on the identifying information submitted, this person is authorized to do [fill in the blank] anonymously. So, in other words, it could allow someone to submit an identification submission and have a public key anonymously registered to them, which grants them access to something they otherwise wouldn’t have access to, but we digress.

At this point, we’d like to turn your attention to the patent application’s claim language, as it has changed quite a bit over the years, due to shifting from a system and method patent application filing, to simply a method patent application filing. The updated language also more closely reflects the process outlined in Figure 2 above.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS – FINAL

The invention claimed is:

1-29. (Cancelled)

While reviewing the patent application, please also take note of and credit the inventor’s of this paradigm shifting innovation that has the real potential to uplift humanity: Adam Ernest (CEO @ Follow My Vote), Nathaniel Hourt (CTO @ Follow My Vote), and Daniel Larimer (CTO @ Block.one).

As a final note with respect to our patent application’s content, we want to be clear that the way in which we’ve described how public key cryptography is leveraged within our system was intentional, although it is a bit atypical of those that have filed for and received cryptography related patents in the past.

To clarify, we specifically refer to signing transactions with a public key throughout our patent application’s content vs a private key. Here’s an explanation from Follow My Vote’s CTO, Nathan Hourt, as to why:

“With regards to the usage of the phraseology “the XYZ transaction is signed with the Voter Public Key,” and similar expressions within the patent application language, this is admittedly an unusual expression of the concept, and this stems in part from the fact that this particular cryptosystem is atypical among asymmetric (or public-key) cryptosystems, and also in part from the way our patent application endeavors to describe the technical processes in high-level, informative language but does not sacrifice accuracy to do so.

First, it is important to examine the unusual properties of the cryptosystem used in our system (and virtually all blockchain systems), namely ECDSA, and distinguish it from most asymmetric cryptosystems (take RSA as an illustrative example). In both ECDSA and RSA, a signature is generated by plugging the message and the private key into a formula, and out of that formula comes the signature. However, the verification process is quite different: in RSA, verification is done by plugging the public key and the signature into a formula, and out of that formula comes the message; however, in ECDSA (our cryptosystem), verification works by plugging in the message and the signature into a formula, and out of that formula comes the public key. This is a critical distinction: RSA and many other asymmetric cryptosystems cannot determine the signer’s identity from the message and signature, they determine the message from the signature and the signer’s identity, but ECDSA determines the signer’s identity from the message and the signature. In light of this, it begins to come clear how the package of the message and the signature could be described as being “signed with the public key” — the public key didn’t do any signing, but the signing embedded it into the message! The message and signature, by nature of the math, come with the public key — it’s just part of the package.

To clarify this meaning, consider a paper contract with a wet-ink signature. We could say “the contract was signed with a pen,” and this would be technically correct, but not particularly informative. We could also say “the contract was signed with the man’s name,” which is also technically correct, but offers a better description of the information conveyed by the signature. In the same way, the patent application says “the transaction signed with the public key,” it is not implied that the public key is the pen that created the signature, but rather that the public key is the information conveyed by the signature. If the patent application said “the transaction signed with the private key,” this would be similar to saying “the contract signed with the pen,” which is technically accurate, but less informative. In the same way as the pen attaches the contractor’s name to the document, the private key attaches the public key to the transaction. It is more informative, then, to say that the message is signed with the public key because this is the useful and relevant information conveyed by the signing, rather than to say that it was signed with the private key, which is not conveyed by the signature but was merely the tool used to make it.

The patent application attempts to clarify how this phrasing is intended in paragraph 0007 by saying “the public key […] signs the transaction, the private key is [used] to authorize the signing” — the public key is the information borne by the signature, but the private key is necessary to authorize one to attach that information to the transaction. It is important to be clear that the public key is the information borne by the signature, as the voter registration process described in FIG. 2 and paragraph 0019 demonstrates that the public key is what is registered to vote, and therefore a transaction with voting decisions must be signed, as per paragraph 0005, with the voter’s public key in order to be recognized as valid. This works because although the private key is necessary to attach the public key to the transaction, the public key is the only information which, like a contractor’s signed name, can be recognized as endorsing the transaction to have effect.

The intended meaning is that the public key is conveyed with the signature, and due to the mechanics of the cryptography, only one who holds the corresponding private key possesses the tool uniquely capable of conveying that particular public key, therefore the message signed with the public key must have come from one who holds the private key, and because the private key is never transmitted, it is extremely difficult for anyone to have the private key except the one who created it, giving the system and its users confidence that the transaction properly signed with a registered public key has the force and effect of the one who registered that public key, even though their specific identity can no longer be recovered.” – Nathaniel Hourt

What does all this mean for Follow My Vote and the voting industry at large?

Follow My Vote has always intended to publish our software as open-source; and, filing a utility patent application for our intellectual property was a strategic move from a defensive perspective.

After speaking with our patent attorney, we’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve done all that we need to do in order to protect ourselves from being sued from practicing our own invention down the line. With this in mind, and in the spirit of the open-source movement, we feel compelled to put our money where our mouth is and abandon our patent application as it exists today.

Moving forward, anyone that wishes to leverage our ideas in their voting system designs can freely do so; and, we hope they do! In other words, what this really means to those competing in the voting space is that these individuals and organizations can now freely innovate on behalf of “We the People” without the impediment of potentially infringing on Follow My Vote’s would-be IP, so that the best ideas can percolate to the top, be tested, and implemented over time.

With our release of this IP, we’re really hoping to spark a new era of innovation in the voting space and foster collaboration between the technology vendors that exist. We also hope to encourage a new wave of potential competitors to enter the voting arena and work toward building secure online voting solutions with true integrity.

For now, we at Follow My Vote have our hands full, as we work to lay the foundation for the development of a secure open-source end-to-end verifiable blockchain-based voting system. But, rest assured that, once we have the opportunity to bring our designs to life, we pledge that we will not attempt to market our solutions for widespread use until they have been battle tested by the brightest tech minds on the planet.

At the end of the day, the world needs to know it’s not about the money for us. Follow My Vote is about solving this global issue for humanity, once and for all, before moving on to the next biggest issue humanity is facing.

We are here to serve the people, plain and simple, and encourage you to follow us on our journey (and perhaps get involved) in the days ahead.

As always, if you are interested in exploring collaboration and/or partnership opportunities, please contact us using the form below:

The post Follow My Vote Releases Patent-Pending IP As A Gift To Humanity appeared first on Follow My Vote.

A consensus has formed around the proposition that polling, especially in multi-candidate presidential races, has become inaccurate and unreliable.

This judgment, rendered by respected experts, exposes the absurdity and corruption of the recent decision by the Commission on Presidential Debates to continue using polls to determine who will be on the stage in the fall of 2016.

Jill Lepore’s excellent article in the Nov. 16 issue of The New Yorker is only the latest in a series of authoritative pieces providing evidence of how “horse-race” polling isn’t working anymore – and explaining why. Dan Balz made similar points in a Washington Post article on Nov. 7. Michael Barone, the dean of election analysts, co-founder of The Almanac of American Politics, and pollster himself for nine years, made the case against polling on Nov. 11 in the Wall Street Journal. He also quoted his American Enterprise Institute colleague, Karlyn Bowman, saying that this may be “the end of polling as we know it.”

The New York Times has run several pieces on the subject, including an op-ed in June by Cliff Zukin, a Rutgers scholar who is past president of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.

Dr. Zukin concluded:

“We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago… In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may not even know when we’re off base.”

The evidence abounds. It includes the Israeli and British elections and, on Nov. 3, the Kentucky governor’s race. The polls had the Democrat winning, but the Republican won in what was practically a landslide, 53% to 44%.

The reasons for the declining accuracy of polls are now well known:

• sharply falling response rates by voters called for their opinions,
• the difficulty and expense involved in reaching people who have abandoned land lines for cell phones (a law bans auto-dialing to mobile phones),
• and the near-impossibility of adjusting results to achieve the proper weighting of demographic groups and to determine which of the respondents will actually show up to vote.

As a result, Gallup, the premier U.S. polling organization, announced recently that it would not poll for the primaries this year and might not poll for the general election either.

But the main problem with polling is the uses to which it is being put – especially making it the main criterion for admission to debates. Lepore quotes Scott Keeter, director of survey research for Pew: “I don’t think polling is really up to the task of deciding the field for the headliner debate.”

Read more at: ivn.us

The post Polls Are Ineffective, So Why Do We Trust Them? appeared first on Follow My Vote.

“To us, part of fixing the process means the ability to independently audit an election. Without transparency, there is absolutely no definitive way that people can verify that their votes have been accurately recorded and stored, and that the results of the election have not been tampered with.” – Adam Ernest, CEO

Those who count the votes in an election are the ones who hold the power. At Follow My Vote, we are offering a decentralized election solution with transparent and mathematically proven results. Anyone who is curious to see the numbers, can and should be able to verify them. Lest we end up with another legal battle, like that in Kansas, just to see voting machine tapes.

How are we offering this secure e-voting technology? Well, look no further than blockchain technology and elliptic curve cryptography.

“We’re using this technology to allow people to audit not only their own vote, but an entire election. It’s very powerful for voters to be able to follow their vote and engage in the political process from anywhere using any device. Many people are dissatisfied with the political environment, and our software will help to increase voter turnout, especially among the younger generations.” – Adam Ernest, CEO

For anyone who reads our blog and knows what we are attempting to do, you know that we face an uphill battle. We love to see our voting technology in the press, as it shines more light on our message. To those who are on board with our voting revolution, we ask for your continued support. There are still many folks that say online voting will never be secure. To the naysayers, we ask – why not give it a try first? In 2016, Follow My Vote will be hosting a parallel presidential election. Together, let’s show the world that decentralized, verifiable e-voting is finally here to stay.

About the author: Tyler Molihan is a Marketing Intern at Follow My Vote. He hopes to increase awareness about the benefits of online voting systems.

The post Voting Technology In the Press: Follow My Vote Featured on IVN appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Pedro Cortes, endorsed this move in a recent article, citing the cost savings and accessibility that online registration will provide eligible voters. He cites a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts in Arizona, which saw a decrease from 83 cents in processing a paper ballot, to 3 cents per online registration. A remarkable cost savings.

Those cost savings will be realized in each of Pennsylvania’s 67 county voter registration offices. Cost savings, though, are not the only benefit to counties. They can also expect greater efficiency in processing applications, leading to more accurate voter rolls.

Online voter registration will also eliminate the possibility of handwritten registrations being incorrectly filled out, or simply illegible. By registering online, a voter’s information will be processed and stored immediately at their county office.

So far, the move to allow online voter registration in Pennsylvania has resulted in a massive number of newly registered voters. According to an article from CBS Philadelphia, more than 10,000 eligible voters have signed up through the new system.

It seems that the cost savings, accessibility and transparency of allowing online voter registration will amount to a smashing success for the state. Keep up the good work, Pennsylvania!

Source: The Scranton Times-Tribune, CBS Philadelphia

About the author: Tyler Molihan is a Marketing Intern at Follow My Vote. He hopes to increase awareness about the benefits of online voting systems.

The post Birthplace of American Democracy Approves Online Voter Registration appeared first on Follow My Vote.

The Event

The event consisted of lunch and a panel discussion about challenges with current voting machines. Several experts were in attendance to give their opinions on current risks, and possible solutions.  The experts in attendance were:

Pam Fessler, the moderator (correspondent, NPR National Desk)

Edgardo Cortes (Commissioner of Elections, Virginia Department of Elections)

Neal Kelley (Registrar of Voters, Orange County, California)

Doug Lewis (Former Executive Director, Election Center)

Lawrence Norden (​Deputy Director of the Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice)

Christopher Famighetti (Voting Rights Researcher, Brennan Center for Justice)

The recently released Brennan Center for Justice report exposed how outdated and incompetent voting machines are, all over the country.  With this in mind, we believe that we are actively building the only long-term solution to address the pending crisis (an end-to-end verifiable online voting system) and attended the event with high hopes that the experts and attendees would be willing to have a productive discussion about online voting.

Discussing the WinVote Voting Machines

One of the main topics of discussion surrounded the fact that the state of Virginia has been using easily hackable WinVote electronic voting machines for several election cycles and only recently decertified them statewide. It was only once the security vulnerabilities were detected that the machines became decertified, alluding to the need to improve the voting system certification process. Someone from the crowd then asked why we don’t go back to simply using paper ballots and nothing else. Edgardo Cortes responded saying paper ballots are not scalable or cheap.

Follow My Vote Speaks Up

When it came time for questions, Nathan Hourt, Follow My Vote CTO, introduced himself and Follow My Vote. He informed the panelists that we are developing an end-to-end verifiable online voting system to address security vulnerabilities, as well as scale-ability and verifiability issues, with current voting machines. Being that we are developing the technology that has the potential to solve this crisis, Nathan then posed the question:

What is being done legislatively to allow for online voting?

Lawrence Norden was the first to respond. He said that the technology isn’t there yet, as far as he is aware. He continued, saying that until the tech is demonstrated, legislators won’t spend time on this issue.

Quite quickly, Doug Lewis grabbed the mic and followed up saying – and the second part of that answer is that it is a political issue. People who are currently in office right now were elected by the systems that are currently in place today. If we were to introduce new types of voting systems, it has the potential to jeopardize their ability to get re-elected.

Did you know that there are 79 members of the United States Congress that have been in office for at least 20 years? And a total of 227 members of Congress have served for over 12 years? These are the people Doug was talking about. Both Republicans and Democrats care about getting re-elected and an honest online voting system could mess with their system. They can’t risk that.

The moderator then deflected to Neal Kelley and asked if he has gotten any demand for online voting in California, as he is the Registrar of Voters for Orange County, California (which is the 3rd largest county in the state and the 6th largest county in the U.S.). He said no, he had not received any requests and that he would pass on the question altogether. The only other elected official on the panel, Edgardo Cortes – Commissioner of Elections in Virginia, also chose to pass on the question.

The fact is that everyone in the voting machine industry wants to make more sales. And the best way to do that is pushing for new and updated voting machines via government officials and getting the public fired up about the issue at hand, which begs the question: what is the real reason for bringing this panel to the people? why now?

If people can vote from the comfort of their own home, on their own device, it virtually eliminates the current voting machine market. This industry, which is a multi-billion dollar industry, then becomes obsolete. Voting machines are meant to be replaced every 10 to 12 years, which was confirmed by the panel. People at home already update their devices regularly, even several times a year. People don’t wait 10 years to update their phone or computer software.

This is why we suggest that we allow citizens to use their own devices to vote. Doing this will drastically reduce and may even eliminate the need for electronic voting machines and paper ballots. Systems like Follow My Vote’s voting platform allows people to securely vote from their own device, which is likely to be less than a year or two old.

We have options. We can choose to use new cost effective technology and utilize online voting or we can buy more voting machines with money our government doesn’t have and expect another event just like this in 10 years. Let’s call it America’s Voting Technology Crisis: Preparing for 2026 and Beyond.

On another note, several members of Verified Voting participated in the creation of the Brennan Center’s Voting Machine’s at Risk Report. Pam Smith, Executive Director, Warren Stewart, Communications Director, and Susan Greenhalgh, Elections Specialist all contributed to the report. We thought this was interesting due to the fact Verified Voting is against online voting. They currently produce content that attempts to discredit the security and accuracy of online voting systems. In hindsight, we now know why we got the answers and responses we did.

After we asked our question, a lawyer stood up and asked how long it will be before we have verifiable hardware. Doug Lewis responded with a joke saying – by then you’ll have hair as white as mine! Everyone laughed. Then the lawyer said – “So, what you are saying is, we will never have verifiable elections in the U.S.?”

There was complete silence.

(Due to the nature of our system, users can verify their vote on different devices, thus making sure their vote is counted correctly and mitigating the need for verifiable hardware.)

If you believe online voting is the solution, join our movement today!

We are happy to report that the recording of this panel is now available and we have included it below. We ask our question at 1:01:55.

About the author: Will Long is the Marketing Manager of Follow My Vote.

The post What We Learned At The Brennan Center For Justice Event: America’s Voting Technology Crisis appeared first on Follow My Vote.

The Brennan Center for Justice recently released a report on the status of current voting machines in the US. The results do not look good. A total of 43 states will use outdated voting machines in 2016 that are at least 10 years old. See this graphic created by NPR using the stats from the report.

Outdated voting machines are a recipe for disaster. Breakdowns are becoming more of a regular occurrence. And good luck finding any spare parts for one of these antiquated machines.  Some of the machines still use memory cards that can only hold 250 megabytes of data, which is very low by today’s standards.

Another troubling issue with these outdated voting machines is the cost of replacement. The reality is, these machines should all be replaced. But what happens when a a county can’t afford to purchase new ones? They have to make due with the ones they have, however bad they may be. The NPR article quoted an election director about becoming an expert with cans of compressed air for the purpose of clearing debris and junk that could have jammed these outdated voting machines. What ends up happening is poor counties are getting stuck with the worst machines, while wealthier counties are able purchase new ones. This creates a very different voting experience depending on where you have to vote.

And you probably have heard of this one:

Problems such as vote flipping — that’s when a voter presses one candidate’s name only to have the opponent’s name light up. It happens when the glue on touch screen machines gets old and erodes. Norden said everything’s coming to a head at once because almost every state bought new computerized voting equipment right after the disputed 2000 election, using $2 billion in federal aid. But he says now there’s neither the money nor the same sense of urgency.

In conclusion, we say this is a big indicator that we need online voting in America. Online Voting can be extremely cost effective, a participation enhancer, and a more transparent voting solution. But guess what? Online voting is illegal in many US states. This is why you should join our movement today. #OnlineVoting #Finally

Source: NPR

About the author: Will Long is the Marketing Manager of Follow My Vote.

The post Outdated Voting Machines Featured On NPR appeared first on Follow My Vote.

If your still not convinced, here are a few more reasons you should support secure mobile voting and join our supporters list.

1. Provably honest elections are necessary.

We believe that all elections should be provably honest. Essentially this means that any participant in the election should be able to prove that the election is honest. It also means that participants or voters can prove that the election is broken or rigged. Specifically, the point of error can be exposed and proved. Currently in the US we rely on public oversight to keep elections honest. Paper ballots are hard to keep track of and to prove our point we posted hundreds of examples of election fraud on our social media accounts. Last year we ran a campaign called the “reasons campaign”, which included several hundred reasons to support mobile voting. Currently we cannot prove that our election are honest. With the mobile voting and the right technology however, we can prove that our elections are fair and honest. This alone is a fantastic reason to support mobile voting.

2. We can restore faith in the democratic process.

If we can reach the point of provably honest elections we can begin to restore faith in the democratic process. People don’t vote because they just don’t care or they don’t believe their vote will make a difference. While there will always be a percentage of the population that is apathetic towards politics and elections, we can still change the minds of those who don’t think their vote counts. If you can prove that your own vote was counted along side every other citizens, you can make a pretty strong case for your vote making a difference. For a democracy to work we must all have faith in the democratic process.

3. Follow My Vote’s voting technology makes mobile voting extremely secure.

But isn’t internet voting susceptible to fraud and hacking? Why should I support mobile voting? There have been cases of mobile voting systems getting hacked, we are  very aware of these instances. We are also aware that our technology is cutting edge and that blockchain technology provides more than enough security measures for mobile voting. We use the same technology as Bitcoin and BitShares. Both of which have high volumes of financial transaction that have yet to be hacked. (this excludes centralized exchanges, which forgo the power and protection decentralization provides) We must also look at the current security measures. Recently many “secure” voting machines have been found to be easily hack-able. Most of them have bee decertified as is the case with the recent WinVote incident.  Support mobile voting so that we can have more secure voting in the US and around the world.

4. Reduced cost.

In some parts of the country a ballot can cost upwards of $10 per citizen or registered voter. Combine that cost factor with a registered voting population of 6 million people for example, and now you have a $60 million election. (This can be the cost of an election for just ONE city or district) Elections cost a lot of money. Support mobile voting with us and we will reduce the cost of elections, saving tax dollars that can be re-purposed for building infrastructure and creating jobs.

5. Environmentally friendly process.

Not only does mobile voting save money but it also saves trees. One fact that people don’t know is that election registrars actually have to print ballots for all the possible citizens registered to vote. This means that when we have had poor voter turnouts we have wasted a good chunk of our tax dollars on paper ballots the were never used. This occurs every election in one degree or another. Help us be good stewards of this planet we call home.  Support secure mobile voting today!

About the author: Will Long is the Marketing Manager of Follow My Vote. He believes everyone should support mobile voting, as it is the only sure fire way elections can be truly honest and fair.

The post Why You Should Support Secure Mobile Voting And Provably Honest Elections. appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Ensuring that elections are fair and equitable is fundamental to democracy — yet easier said than done, as MIT students discovered this fall in a new class, co-listed as 6.S897 and 17.S952 (Elections and Voting Technology).

Taught jointly by Charles Stewart III, the Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science, and Ronald Rivest, the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), the class explored challenges embedded in election systems from both the technical and the political science perspective — providing students with new insights into the complexities of a system many thought they understood.

“I had this idea we could fix voting so easily by using electronic voting machines, but to learn there are huge security concerns was really interesting for me,” said Megan Goldberg, a PhD student in political science whose research focuses on political behavior.

“You come from the technical side and think you can just throw some standard piece of cryptography at the problem, and then you start to understand all the constraints,” said Ben Kraft ’15, a mathematics major. For example, votes need to be kept secret while being tracked in such a way that no one can vote twice; the system must be easy to use; and the technology must be robust enough that it will not fail on election day. “You add all of these things together and [the problem] becomes more interesting,” Kraft said.

Voting Technology Project

The fall class was an outgrowth of Stewart and Rivest’s long collaboration on the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, a research and policymaking initiative that emerged following the 2000 presidential election, which was plagued by charges that ballot and voting machine errors had upset results. The class covered many of the challenges presented by modern election systems — from the fairness of redistricting to the readability of ballots to the security of electronic voting.

Guest lecturers added depth by sharing their expertise on a wide variety of topics. For example, Philip B. Stark, chair of the Department of Statistics at the University of California at Berkeley, discussed machine auditing of vote tallies; Dan Wallach, professor of computer science at Rice University, spoke about the design of a new voting system, StarVote, to be used in Travis County, Texas; ballot designer Dana Chisnell explored issues related to usability; and David Jefferson, security researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, discussed the risks of voting over the Internet.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

The post Poly Sci Professor and EECS Team Up to Provide Voting Technology Class appeared first on Follow My Vote.