Cathal Mc Ginley wrote:

I've also scribbled up a draft of the letter giving an IFSO perspective to the e-voting system. http://homepage.eircom.net/~cathalmcginley/e-voting/draft-letter.html

I think it's worth emphasising that if this new system comes in, the election process will be in the control of a pair of private companies who are not even indigenous to Ireland. Also, I feel politicians don't realise that they will lose all practical ability to properly be part of the process -- especially when it comes to concerns.

For example, I would say in the last sentence of the first paragraph:

"To that end, I would like to raise some serious concerns which stem from the fact that the software used for the system will remain wholly in the control of private, foreign companies, and, therefore, secret, hidden from the general public."

I echo Aiden's suggestion of removing the '!' at the end of the sentence after you quote Mr. Lessig. Understatement works better there.

Perhaps you might put after "...a backwards step in terms of democracy, and it is natural that people are opposed to it." the following:

"Consider that with the current system every citizen, including your own election agent, has the opportunity and right to scrutinise and contest the manner in which votes are being counted. With the proposed electronic system, this will not be possible and any nagging doubts will never be confirmed, because the implementation of the process is closed to all citizens and independent organisations."

Replacing "including your own election agent" with "including election agents" may be a better notion, though I prefer highlighting the politician's own election prospects.

I'm concerned that the paragraph that covers anonymity of voters isn't correct. With the proposed system, the marking of the voter on the register will still be on paper, and the voter will enter the booth as anonymously as they do in the current system. We run the risk of invalidating the whole of the letter[1] if we are seen to be spreading FUD. Anonymity *is* at risk with the proposed system, as the ICTE has detailed very well in its submission with the Commission on Electronic Voting, but in a manner different to how you describe and which requires some social engineering as well as computing know-how to pull off.

The following two paragraphs are very strong, though.

The section on the counting software is also strong.

I would add to the point about the audit the following: "The source code for the computer programs used in June's forthcoming election will not be handed over to the Department of the Environment until after September. How is the department, or any of the consulting companies it uses, to know for certain that the code it will receive then was the code used in June? Just a few lines of code can make the difference to an election and only the writers of the code, if even them, will know."

Lastly, can I suggest that we cast more doubt on a candidate's confidence in the proposed system. Just before the last paragraph we could add:

"Elections are often won and lost by a handful of votes. Previously, as more recounts were called, ballots were more thoroughly scrutinised and the counting process more vigourously examined by agents of the candidates and the public. With the proposed system, a few lines of code could 'slip in' -- by accident or deliberately -- which would effectively change the result of an election if even only by a handful of votes. Because the programming code of the software is not available to all for scrutiny, because it was a 'close-run election anyway', no one would ever know that the wrong person was put onto the seat by dint of software failure or sabotage."

Dramatic, maybe, but I genuinely think that politicians understand the drama of electoral mishap better than the arguments based on bit-inversion errors and how non-random the storage of the ballots actually is.

I particularly like that last sentence: "Irish democracy is important; we must not allow it to be treated as a trade secret."

Good work, Cathal, thanks.

Éibhear

[1] It was reported a few days ago on the mailing list of the Irish Citizens for Trustworthy E-voting that Minister Cullen is now referring to the group as anti-globalisation anarchists, and "McGaley's crowd". He gives them no credit and believes them to be disruptive for the sake of it. Adding fuel to his fire by opposing the proposed system with arguments that aren't water-tight would be regressive, in my opinion.