Hart InterCivic Announces VERITY – The Next Generation of Trust

Hart InterCivic, a national leading provider of election management and voting systems, today announced VERITY - next business generation voting system that allows any method of paper and electronic voting to be conducted on a solid proven system, modernized and efficient while ensuring accuracy, accessibility and auditability. Verity is added to the existing product lines of Hart and the company will continue to offer the Hart voting system currently in use throughout the United States

Will present the Hart eScan VERITY A / T (count scanner City) Election to the conference center in San Antonio, TX on August 17-19 and a prototype of a new machine direct electronic record voting (DRE).

"HAVA-funded systems of today have given many lessons learned in terms of security, usability, operability and cost of ownership. Hart responded by incorporating various market entry in order to improve our solution in areas most vital for the actors of the elections, "said Derek Hutson, president of Hart InterCivic."While other vendors offer" common "systems designed up to 5 years, Verity is the most proven, cost effective and advanced in the industry."

Verity is composed of:

james_nicoll: At the risk of sounding like a luddite

With a system based on paper, it is trivial for independent observers to verify that the box is empty when the polling station opened, voters are checked against an existing list, each voter gets the correct number of ballots, and the ballot box is sealed at the polling station and not re-open until the counting station. There is a known weakness in the creation of the voting list, but the system is transparent. Yes, and I observed the counting of a ballot box, and if someone with a light hand to discuss ballot, I had never noticed, even if a person trained in the Magic could. And it's just a silly example.We are always finding ways to forge new and wonderful marks on paper, as evidenced by the constant game of cat and mouse between the counterfeiters and the designers of the currency. A) The possibility of such slight of hand is limited to ballot the fraudster is able to physically interact with. During the counting at a polling station, no one (tellers, tellers, anyone) is allowed to visit more than one table, until all the numbers are done. This means that for every magician performed, they can affect up to a few hundred votes.Conducted a similar pirate would be able to affect a large number of ballots at the same time. B) Any person with basic skills may be more of a scanner that will catch most fraud (not the vote swapping you mention above, but most other types of fraud) simply by adding the counted ballots and then adding the registered voters who voted. You would need at least one course in programming to start well with an electronic scanner. C) If you have never done accounting for an organization mainly on cash, you know you never count the money again.You could have two bills stuck together, accidentally jumping from 47 to 49 and run # 48, or just make a small error multiplication (ie $ 5 x 43 = / = 210 $). You the number of times, then you have someone else's account, then you compare it to what you should have. If it does not, then you count again and find where the error occurred in. The same can be done with paper ballots. With a computer system, you get a charge. Period. There is no way to verify that the courts again to attach the ID of voters to the polls, which gets rid of anonymous voting. D) spoiled ballots are easy to create and identify with the paper.Harder, a computer system (radio buttons, check boxes not Ticky!). And yes, number of ballots.

Electronic voting system

Secure electronic voting

Evaluation of Electronic Voting, Requirements and Evaluation Procedures to Support Responsible Election Authorities

Asking the right questions about electronic voting

Information Security, Practice and Experience, 6th International Conference, ISPEC 2010, Seoul, Korea, May 12-13, 2010, Proceedings