[LINK] AEC faces backlash over vote counting ‘black box’

Bernard Robertson-Dunn brd at iimetro.com.au
Wed Jul 20 11:54:18 AEST 2016


AEC faces backlash over vote counting ‘black box’
George Lekakis
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/election-2016/2016/07/19/aec-backlash-vote-counting/

Computer experts are warning that close-run battles for Senate seats
might end up being decided in the courts, amid concern that the
Australian Electoral Commission’s electronic counting system could be
challenged by losing candidates.

The AEC is using a secretive software program to process preference
votes for the recently held Senate election.

The software enables Senate votes to be counted digitally after millions
of completed ballot papers were scanned into AEC computers.

However, computer experts claim that the digital counting process cannot
be fully observed by the scrutineers of candidates because the AEC
refuses to disclose the source code of the automated system.

“The AEC has every right to go out and get any proprietary software it
wants – but they should not be allowed to keep the source code secret,”
said Professor Rajeev Gore from the Australian National University.

“I doubt that the electronic counting for the Senate can be properly
scrutinised – your average party scrutineer can audit paper votes by
hand, but it’s much harder for them to understand how the electronic
count should be audited.”

Prof Gore and other computer scientists want the AEC to release the
source code so they can audit the performance of vote counting software
before and after elections.

Earlier this year, the AEC resisted a call from senators to improve its
disclosure of vote-counting software.

Prof Gore believes that the lack of transparency around the Senate count
could provide a basis for legal challenges to the results in close contests.

Three Senate seats in Western Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania
are still in doubt and have turned into photo finishes between
candidates from major and minor parties.

Transparency of the results is critical because winning candidates could
determine whether the Turnbull government will be able to advance its
legislative agenda.
AEC secretive about “Black Box” software

The AEC will soon adopt new software for processing votes in senate
elections, after entering a three-year deal in March for a Spanish
company, Scytl, to develop a counting program.

The AEC is refusing to say whether the Scytl software is related in any
way to a troubled computer program that contributed to delays in the
results of elections in Ecuador in 2014.

Barcelona-based Scytl was panned by Ecuador’s National Electoral Council
after its digital counting system experienced problems during the counts
of regional government elections.
Scytl_logo
The AEC has selected a solution from Spanish-based Scytl. Photo: Scytl

The performance of Scytl’s counting systems was also criticised by
independent election monitors from the Union of South American Nations,
who claimed that the results took more than a month to be delivered due
to unexpected processing delays.

The New Daily submitted 18 questions to the AEC about its automated
counting systems, but a spokesman refused to comment on the problems
reported about the Scytl software.

“The AEC required a bespoke Senate count solution to meet the timeline
for a 2016 federal election,” the AEC spokesman said.

“The solution, provided by Scytl Australia Pty Ltd, is owned by the AEC.”

Prof Gore noted that computer experts had identified errors in the
recent election counts in NSW and also found errors in counting programs
for ACT elections.

He said relying on automated counting could be likened to “flipping coins”.

“This is a complete black box,” he said.

“We already know that software used previously for counting elections in
NSW and the ACT had bugs, so what reassurances is the AEC giving that it
won’t happen in the counts it conducts?”
Scytl software to cost at least $1.85 million

Prof Gore said low-cost vote-counting software was available to the AEC,
but it had chosen to go with a comparatively expensive option.

The commission spokesman confirmed that the AEC was paying Scytl $1.85
million to acquire the software but would not rule out further costs.

“The solution is currently within budget,” the spokesperson said.

“Any further expenditure would be published on Austender (website) in
line with the Commonwealth procurement rules.”

The AEC engaged Scytl in March to develop new counting software to be
ready for the July 2 election.

However, the AEC indicated that it had not yet been used in the counting.

“To date the count solution has not been used for the 2016 federal
election,” the spokesman said.

Dr Vanessa Teague of the University of Melbourne said the idea of
digital vote counting had merit but that the AEC had to be careful to
ensure that official results accurately reflected voters’ choices.

Dr Teague, who has a doctorate in cryptography from Stanford University,
said the AEC could build greater public trust in automated counting by
publishing source code.

“The source code for counting votes digitally must be available to all
stakeholders and it should be independently verifiable by computer
experts,” she said.

“I think the AEC just doesn’t understand the tremendous advantages that
would come to them if they did make the source code public.

“It’s a good thing when errors are found and fixed.”

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Sydney Australia
email: brd at iimetro.com.au
web:   www.drbrd.com
web:   www.problemsfirst.com
Blog:  www.problemsfirst.com/blog




More information about the Link mailing list