The real voting software debate breaks out

This mornings email brings some interesting links from Dave Farber's list related to new developments in the voting software world.

John Schwartz of the New York Times covers a report by Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins University which is highly critical of Diebold Election Systems voting software.

Mr. Richardson of Diebold said the company's voting-machine source code, the basis of its computer program, had been certified by an independent testing group. Outsiders might want more access, he said, but "we don't feel it's necessary to turn it over to everyone who asks to see it, because it is proprietary."

Voting is a fullfillment stage of democracy and can not be subject to 'proprietary' requirements. Voting (and any software used to enable that activity) must be open, easy to follow and audit. If we allow a company to maintain a closed system here, then we are saying that a corporations right to profits outweigh the publics need for an open democratic process.