representation and electoral systems - American Political Science ...

12
poorly developed security controls, incorrect system configurations, inadequate testing,
and poor overall security management.
State and local governments’ responses to GAO surveys regarding the 2004
national elections revealed they did not always ensure that important life cycle and
security management practices were employed for their respective electronic voting
systems. In particular, responses indicated the most current standards were not always
adopted and applied, security management practices and controls were employed to
varying degrees, and certain types of system testing were not commonly performed.
Furthermore, the responses reveal the governments did not consistently monitory the
performance of their systems.
These problems are complicated by other conditions such as the distribution of
responsibilities among various organizations and funding opportunities and constraints.
Given the diffused and decentralized allocation of voting systems roles and
responsibilities across all levels of government, addressing these challenges will require
the combined efforts of all levels of government under the leadership of the Election
Assistance Commission (EAC). To assist EAC in executing its leadership role, GAO has
offered recommendations aimed at better planning the ongoing and future activities
relative to, for example, system standards and information sharing. EAC agreed with the
recommendations, but reported its ability to effectively execute its role is constrained by
a lack of adequate resources.
MILITARY AND OVERSEAS CITIZENS VOTING
The United States Government Accountability Office has published GAO-07-774,
a free report entitled Elections: Action Plans Needed to Fully Address Challenges in
Electronic Absentee Voting Initiatives for Military and Overseas Citizens. The
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act protects the rights of military
personnel, their dependents, and overseas citizens to vote by absentee ballot.
Congress in 2004 required the U.S. Department of Defense to develop an Internetbased
absentee voting demonstration project and required the Election Assistance
Commission, which reviews election procedures, to develop guidelines for the
Department’s project. Congress in 2006 required the Department to report by May 15,
2007, on plans for expanding its use of electronic voting technologies and required the
U.S. Government Accountability Office to assess efforts by (1) by the Department to
facilitate electronic absentee voting, and (2) the Commission to develop Internet voting
guidelines and the Department to develop plans to expand its use of electronic voting
technologies.
The Office found (1) the Department had developed several initiatives, but some
exhibited weaknesses or had low participation rates that might hinder their effectiveness,
(2) the Election Assistance Commission has not developed the guidelines for the
Department’s use, and (3) the Department was developing, but had not completed plans
for expanding the future use of electronic voting technologies.
FAIR VOTE
Fair Vote (6930 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park, MD 20912, tel: 301-270-4616
www.fairvote.org) has published four issues of its FairVote Policy Perspective in recent
months: (1) “Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reform for Allocating Electoral College Votes”