FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W306090830> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W306090830 abstract "BACKGROUND Nearly one-third of American voters--over 50 million people--live in districts that will use electronic voting (e-voting) terminals to elect the next president (New Study, 2004). In contrast, less than half that number cast an electronic ballot in 2000. This huge increase in e-voting has been embraced by the disability rights community, as these systems could make it possible for many disabled Americans to cast their ballots in secret, without the assistance of another person. However, widespread reports of voting terminal failures (see, e.g., Novak, 2004), and growing concern about the of these machines security (Kohno et al, 2003; Trusted agent, 2004; Risk assessment, 2003), are fueling fierce debate over how to ensure the integrity of our elections. The particular concern about direct recording electronic (DRE) voting terminals is that they can provide no real audit, and their capacity for a recount is essentially nonexistent. If the integrity of a race is called into question, election officials have no recourse but to trust the machine. An important part of this discussion, therefore, has focused on whether and when to equip direct recording electronic (DRE) voting terminals with a voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) (Mercuri, 2002). A VVPAT solves this problem by adding a second record of each vote. Upon completing his/her selections, a voter is presented with a summary both on screen and on a paper printout. If the two records match, both are retained by the machine in the event of a recount. If they do not match, the voter can alert an election official that the machine is malfunctioning. The nation's leading security experts (Resolution, 2004) and a growing popular movement champion the VVPAT, although it is by no means the possible solution. As a result, America is rethinking electronic voting. Seven states now have directives or laws requiring VVPAT, and 14 others have introduced similar legislation (Election reform, 2004). Federal legislators are considering reforms that would mandate a VVPAT for DREs (see, e.g., Holt, 2003). In some election jurisdictions, officials have deferred multi-million dollar DRE purchases (Garvin, 2003) while others are upgrading to non-DRE voting systems. The prospect of complications or delay in DRE deployment has alarmed some members of the disability rights community. That alarm has been fueled by two myths: 1) that VVPAT-enabled DREs do not exist and 2) that DREs can provide voting to people with disabilities. For example, the American Association for People with Disabilities' (AAPD) website states, Touch screen voting systems that provide a [VVPAT] do not exist, have not been tested in the real world, and are not certified (AAPD policy, 2003). Further, a lawsuit filed on behalf of AAPD and others claims that only DRE systems, when properly equipped, are and enable voters who are disabled to vote independently, unassisted and in secret (AAPD v. Shelley, 2004). If taken at face value, these statements imply that the push toward verifiable elections must pull us away from elections. But elections with verifiable results are not an impossibility. In fact, currently available technology can accomplish both objectives. Accessible, auditable, federally qualified machines are available for purchase today, and more are scheduled for release in the coming months. Further, non-DRE methods of voting are also available and in development. OPTIONS FOR AUDITABLE AND ACCESSIBLE VOTING Before discussing accessible voting options, it is important to note the limitations of that term in this context. There are currently no federal standards that set performance levels for accessibility, and the most anecdotal studies have been conducted. However, all of the following technologies attempt to serve disabled voters by some combination of audio interfaces, high-contrast displays, adjustability for wheelchair users, sip/puff interfaces, and other accessibility features. …" @default.
• W306090830 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W306090830 creator A5038177015 @default.
• W306090830 date "2004-12-01" @default.
• W306090830 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W306090830 title "Accessibility and Auditability in Electronic Voting" @default.
• W306090830 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W306090830 type Work @default.
• W306090830 sameAs 306090830 @default.
• W306090830 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W306090830 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W306090830 hasAuthorship W306090830A5038177015 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C117763746 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C121955636 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C2777094542 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C2780612046 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C38652104 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C520049643 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C80958533 @default.
• W306090830 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C108827166 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C117763746 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C121955636 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C144133560 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C17744445 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C199521495 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C199539241 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C2777094542 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C2780612046 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C38652104 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C41008148 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C520049643 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C80958533 @default.
• W306090830 hasConceptScore W306090830C94625758 @default.
• W306090830 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W306090830 hasLocation W3060908301 @default.
• W306090830 hasOpenAccess W306090830 @default.
• W306090830 hasPrimaryLocation W3060908301 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W1516587101 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W1529323116 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W1583442386 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W178767203 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W1982248575 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2037326879 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2067370864 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2072230267 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2199547037 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W255858321 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2761719324 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2763162113 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2764087922 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2766738226 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W3041384429 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W3170765835 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W40770970 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W43710303 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2604757026 @default.
• W306090830 hasRelatedWork W2907171716 @default.
• W306090830 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W306090830 isParatext "false" @default.
• W306090830 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W306090830 magId "306090830" @default.
• W306090830 workType "article" @default.