EAC - Voluntary Voting System Guidelines

Name : | Dan McCrea et al.
Organization : | Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition
Post Date : | 9/30/2005
General Comments
Comment : | Machine Ethics Another area of concern we informally refer to as “Machine Ethic” without attempting to adopt any formal definition of the term. For this purpose, machine ethics refers to the obligation we reasonably put on machines to tell us when they malfunction or otherwise fail. The more we trust machines, the more important it is that we endow them with the some of the same ethical qualities we expect from people. 5.1 Supporting Authority The NRC Report states the following concern at 4-26: Human interaction with computer-based machines that may be said to embody at least rudimentary intelligence poses special problems. These may occur for poll workers or technicians employed to set up the machines, make sure they are working properly, understand indications of machine failure (and curtail their use if necessary), and transfer voting data from them to other repositories. It is common that the user attributes more intelligence to a computer than it has. It is also common that a mode error is committed—namely, the user assumes that the machine is set in one mode and takes actions appropriate to that mode, when in fact it has been set to another mode and the action produces an undesirable result. We uncovered this problem at Precinct 816, see Get It Right the First Time. One particular machine went haywire and the resulting interactions of poll workers and voting technology led to the inadvertent stuffing of the ballot box. This episode has a lot to teach the drafters of these Guidelines. The software that runs DREs have an obligation to poll workers and election administrators to clearly document its errors and alert the workers to problems that have occurred. The malfunctioning machine did alert poll workers that it was malfunctioning but all the other problems in the precinct were not disclosed by the software. Human deference to a computer generated count is not unanticipated, but software should alert election administrators about problems. The VVSG should recognize that software alerts are an essential component of a voting system and they should analyze these NRC recommendations: What is the nature of the help mechanism(s) provided by the vendor? Help mechanisms can take a variety of forms, and all may be relevant to a given situation. Vendors may provide documentation (e.g., sets of frequently asked questions) to help facilitate problem resolution, provide answers over a help line, or provide in person support at the polling place. However, consider the following: • For complex systems, documentation cannot be both comprehensive and easy to use. Furthermore, users must generally have some familiarity with the system in order to use documentation effectively. • Though help lines can be quite effective in resolving simple problems, it is often difficult for a help line specialist to diagnose and provide advice on a more complex problem, especially when the specialist cannot see the station with the problem and the poll worker must describe the problem in words. • In general, in-person assistance cannot be provided as rapidly as when help lines are used (assuming that help lines can handle peak call volumes). Also, though in-person assistance is usually the most efficacious method for problem resolution, it is also the most expensive and generally the least timely (because an individual must be dispatched to the appropriate location). • New technologies, such as chat rooms or instant messages, may provide new channels for responsive assistance. The VVSG should address these concerns. As we mentioned in our comments on the scope of the guidelines, much will depend on how well EAC fleshes out these guidelines. Software that alerts poll workers to problems immediately and identifies problems that occur during the election will improve public confidence.