VSSC Winter Meeting 2/4-5/2015 IEEE VSSC/1622 General Meeting February 4-5, 2015 Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk County of Los Angeles

VSSC Winter Meeting 2/4-5/2015

IEEE VSSC/1622 General Meeting

February 4-5, 2015Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

County of Los Angeles


VSSC/1622 Meeting Call to Order

• Welcome and goals for the meeting• Agenda overview• VSSC/1622 status report• VSSC/1622 challenges for 2015


Welcome to Our Attendees!


Thank You

• A big thank you to Kenneth Bennett and colleagues who have helped to bring this event together

• Thank you to our host, Dean Logan• Thank you to our speakers, Doug Chapin and

Matt Masterson • And all others present and presenting


Goals for this Meeting

• Keep things informal, not dwell on procedureIEEE-eze, give everyone a chance to talk

• Work for the greater good of elections, not necessarily what is good for IEEE VSSC

• Let not the pursuit of perfection by thy enemy that keepeth me from green pastures of the pretty good

• Learn from our colleagues, especially those here for the 1st time– Put ourselves in the shoes of state and local election officials and

manufacturers• Strive to understand better where the VSSC best fits into the

election landscape


Agenda – Wednesday, February 48:05 am VSSC/1622 MEETING CALL TO ORDER

Agenda and goals for the meeting VSSC/1622 overview and status

John Wack

8:30 am Opening Remarks – Day 1

Introduction Welcome to LA County Remarks by Doug Chapin, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, followed by

discussion as time permits

Kenneth BennettDean Logan

9:30 am Opening Business

IEEE call for patents Roll call Approval of 2014 VSSC/1622 meeting minutes

John Wack

10 am BREAK 10:15 am 1622.2 Election Results Reporting Draft Standard Update

Brief refresher on IEEE standards development process 1622.2 overview 1622.2 balloting results Summary of comments received Next steps

Sarah Whitt John Wack

12 pm LUNCH 1:15 pm Roll Call 1:20 pm Electronic Pollbooks Standard PAR Discussion

Formation of Standards Study Group PAR discussion on scope of standard Vote to approve PAR

Jay BaggaJohn Dziurlaj

2:30 pm BREAK 2:45 pm Remarks by Matt Masterson, EAC Commissioner, followed by discussion and/or

commencement of the next session as time permits

4 pm ADJOURN – Day 1 4:10 pm Tour of LA County Election Operations Kenneth Bennett 6 pm DINNER SOCIAL (For Those Interested)

Restaurant location and details to be announcedKenneth Bennett


Agenda – Thursday, February 5 8:05 am VSSC/1622 MEETING CALL TO ORDER

Roll call Agenda overview VSSC officer election results

John WackArthur KellerLisa Garcia

8:15 am 1622.4 Election Data Modeling Update Kenneth

Bennett 10 am BREAK 10:15 am

1622-3 Event Logging Standard Review of PAR, model, and schema Next steps

James Long

11 am Discussion on VSSC current and future strategies 12 pm LUNCH 1:15 pm Roll Call 1:20 pm 1622-6 Voting Methods Mathematical Models Update Lauren Massa-

Lochridge 2:30 pm BREAK 2:45 pm Wrap-up Kenneth

BennettJohn Wack

3 pm ADJOURN – Day 2 6 pm CLOSING DINNER SOCIAL (For Those Interested)



VSSC/1622 Committee Overview

IEEE Computer

Society

VSSC/1622

1622.2 1622.4 1622.6

Other committees

e.g., LANMAN/802

…


VSSC == 1622

• VSSC = Voting System Standards Committee• 1622 = A number assigned to us by IEEE, stands for VSSC• P1622 was a working group under a now retired sponsoring

committee, resumed in 2010 under the IEEE Standards Activities Board (SAB)

• IEEE SAB approved the VSSC sponsoring committee in 2014 to provide guidance and oversight to its voting-related standards working groups

• We are under the IEEE Computer Society, thus our fully qualified name is C/VSSC

• Our working groups are named 1622.X


Guiding Principles• Aim to improve the specification, implementation, testing, and

use of voting systems• Show no bias towards/against any interest group or political

party• Focus on the equipment and not on items beyond our control

such as election procedures• Involve election officials and manufacturers and other subject

matter experts• Base standards on existing formats as appropriate and work

towards harmonization• Focus on first creating models and definitions • Strive for greater interoperability among classes of devices


VSSC Structure – Membership

• Officers– John Wack, chair– Linda Harley, vice-chair– Secretary, TBD

• Executive Committee (ExCom)– Officers– Chairs of working groups

• Membership– Grandfathered from those in P1622 who desired membership – Others who attended 2/3rds of initial meeting – Current number of voting members: 25


VSSC Working Groups and Chairs

VSSCJohn Wack, Chair

1622.2Election Results

Reporting

Sarah Whitt

1622.4Election Data

Modeling

Kenneth Bennett

1622.5 - Inactive

Election System Usability & Accessibility

Linda Harley

1622.6Voting Methods

Mathematical Models

Lauren Massa-Lochridge

1622-3Event Logging

John Wack

1622.1 – PAR OnlyVoter Registration DB


VSSC/1622 2014 Status Report• A good initial year…• 1622.2 – 1st round balloting and public review

– Outstanding interactions with EOs, vendors, others• 1622.4 – active, developing models• 1622.5 – did not meet• 1622.6 – PAR approved, 1st meeting held 1/28/2014• P1622 – waiting for drafting of initial standard• External recognition of 1622, including:

– IEEE Computer Magazine article– Charles Stewart, MIT, testimony to Congress– Electionline, Election Academy postings– Ohio uses 1622.2 format for 2014 general election


VSSC/1622 Challenges for 2015

• 1622.2:– Resolve comments, create updated version– Create worked examples, e.g., using Delaware– Work with other parties to promote, use the standard

• Follow-on guide to promote standard IDs?• Complete standard for event logging• Draft standard for electronic pollbooks• Comprehensive data model and glossary for 1622.4?• Guideline from 1622.6?• Adapt to a changing standards environment, determine

where VSSC is relevant, and adapt


Opening Remarks

• Introduction – Kenneth Bennett• Welcome to LA County – Dean Logan• Remarks by Doug Chapin


Welcome to LA County

Dean LoganRegistrar-Recorder/County Clerk, LA County


Discussion


Remarks by Doug Chapin

Doug ChapinHumphrey School of Public Affairs


Discussion


Opening Business

• IEEE call for Patents• Roll call• Approval of 2014 VSSC/1622 meeting minutes

25 March 2008 (updated January 2012)

Participants, Patents, and Duty to InformAll participants in this meeting have certain obligations under the IEEE-SA Patent Policy.

Participants [Note: Quoted text excerpted from IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws subclause 6.2]:

“Shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of each “holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware” if the claims are owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents

“Personal awareness” means that the participant “is personally aware that the holder may have a potential Essential Patent Claim,” even if the participant is not personally aware of the specific patents or patent claims

“Should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed)” of the identity of “any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims” (that is, third parties that are not affiliated with the participant, with the participant’s employer, or with anyone else that the participant is from or otherwise represents)

The above does not apply if the patent claim is already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance that applies to the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group

Early identification of holders of potential Essential Patent Claims is strongly encouraged

No duty to perform a patent search

IEEE Mandatory Slide #1


Patent Related Links

All participants should be familiar with their obligations under the IEEE-SA Policies & Procedures for standards development.Patent Policy is stated in these sources:

IEEE-SA Standards Boards Bylawshttp://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-

7.html#6

IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manualhttp://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/

sect6.html#6.3

Material about the patent policy is available at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/materials.html


If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee Administrator at [email protected] or visit http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/index.html

This slide set is available at https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.ppt


Call for Potentially Essential Patents

If anyone in this meeting is personally aware of the holder of any patent claims that are potentially essential to implementation of the proposed standard(s) under consideration by this group and that are not already the subject of an Accepted Letter of Assurance:

Either speak up now or Provide the chair of this group with the identity of the

holder(s) of any and all such claims as soon as possible or Cause an LOA to be submitted



Other Guidelines for IEEE WG Meetings

All IEEE-SA standards meetings shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws.

Don’t discuss the interpretation, validity, or essentiality of patents/patent claims.

Don’t discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions. Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims, of different technical

approaches may be discussed in standards development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus

Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation of customers, or division of sales markets.

Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation. Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object.

--------------------------------------------------------------- See IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 5.3.10 and “Promoting Competition and Innovation:

What You Need to Know about the IEEE Standards Association's Antitrust and Competition Policy” for more details.



VSSC/1622 2014 Minutes Approval

• Motion and second needed to approve minutes from February 2014 meeting

• Minutes were posted at

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1622/meeting-2014-02-GTRI.html





Morning Break

Meeting resumes at 10:15 am PST - 1:15 pm EST


Election Results Reporting

VSSC

1622.2 1622.4 1622.6

P1622


1622.2 Election Results Reporting

• Sarah Whitt, Wisconsin, Chair• John Wack, NIST, editor

• First, some brief summaries:– IEEE standards development process– 1622.2 draft standard

• 1622.2 balloting results and status• Comments received• Next steps


IEEE Standards Development ProcessIEEE standards are classified as:• Standards: documents with mandatory requirements.1 • Recommended practices: documents in which procedures and

positions preferred by the IEEE are presented. • Guides: documents in which alternative approaches to good

practice are suggested but no clear-cut recommendations are made.

• Trial-Use documents: publications in effect for not more than two years. They can be any of the categories of standards publications listed above.

1 Mandatory requirements are generally characterized by use of the verb "shall," whereas recommended practices normally use the word "should"

• All require a PAR


Steps within VSSC

• Idea for a standards activity is presented to the VSSC Chair

• VSSC Chair appoints a Standards Study Group (SSG) to draft the PAR

• SSG approves draft PAR, submits PAR to VSSC• VSSC approves draft PAR, submits it for consideration

approval to IEEE


Steps after IEEE Approval

• VSSC Chair appoints WG Chair• WG has first organizational meeting, elects

other officers, those in attendance become members of WG

• WG Chair appoints standard editor• The WG and editor draft the standard


Steps after WG Drafts Standard

• WG votes to release draft standard for public review3

• WG with VSSC approval submits draft standard for Sponsor Ballot (IEEE’s review process)

• IEEE Ballot Pool (IEEE members who agreed review) votes to approve or request changes to draft standard– WG needs to respond to every comment– WG does not need to make all changes requested– The WG needs to provide a technical rationale for rejecting a

comment• WG may revise draft standard and repeat above process (this is

where the 1622.2 draft is currently)3 VSSC has special permission from IEEE SA to release drafts and publish standards to the public at no charge


Steps after Passing Sponsor Ballot

• Draft standard undergoes reviews:– Draft is submitted for IEEE review– WG Chair responds to any comments.– IEEE approves draft standard and publishes it

• WG disbands or becomes inactive, unless it has another PAR to work on

• WG becomes active if need to revise standard


1622.2 ERR Standard


1622.2 ERR Standard

• Started effort in 2012 to provide ENR only; grew in scope to include – More detailed results– Pre-election information– District – precinct mapping– Same schema used for 3 use cases

• Pre-election data• Aggregated election night results• Highly detailed certified/archive results


Basic Requirements – Pre-election

• For reporting jurisdiction, show mapping of– Precincts/Splits/Combined to jurisdiction– Districts to precinct types– Equipment assigned to precincts and usage– Contests to districts– Candidates to contests


Basic Requirements - ENR

• Aggregated contest results, no additional detail if not desired

• Addition of further details as desired, e.g.,– Overvotes/Undervotes– Counts tagged by equipment type and usage– Ballot counts per precinct and per contest


Basic Requirements – Archive

• Reporting to all precinct and specific device levels

• Counts tagged by – Equipment type– Equipment usage– Manner of voting, e.g, Absentee, In-person

• Ballot counts, also similarly tagged


Schema Generation

• 1622.2 is based on an UML data model that contains all elements and attributes

• Conveys information of the XML schema, but in a format-independent way

• Schema is generated directly from the model with very few modifications

• Tooling is MagicDraw UML


ERR Data Model


Some issues

• There is a continuum between ENR and archive that will hopefully accommodate future, more detailed ENR scenarios

• The flexibility needed to accommodate many reporting scenarios means that the schema could also be misused– This is probably okay– Nonsensical usage will become evident quickly


1622.2 Draft Review

• The 1622.2 draft was reviewed by IEEE members and the general public

• The IEEE review period went from 12/2/2014 to 1/1/2015– Vote was 17 in favor, 2 opposed, 1 abstain

• Met 75% response rate requirement• Met 75% approval rate requirement

– 58 comments, including 4 must-be-satisfied• Extended Comment Period through 1/15/2015

– 6 sets of comments


Comments Breakdown

• Total comments: 171– General: 41– Technical: 64– Editorial: 66

• Most comments are do-able, many of the technical comments are more editorial in nature

• More complete examples of usage would probably have reduced the number of comments


Some Technical Comments

• Making enumerations modifiable, allowing some local usage fields

• Making IDs repeatable, with a type enumeration, e.g., FIPs, OCD-ID, etc.

• Making addresses and names less structured, more flexible

• Handling multiple languages for items such as ballot text

• Accommodate international usage if relatively easy


Next Steps• Respond to all comments

– Meetings with reviewers in some cases– Will propose resolutions at a future 1622.2 WG meeting

• Resubmit for IEEE Sponsor Ballot and public review– 10 day voting period for IEEE members, could be extended for public review– Comments allowed only based on changes

• RevCom (IEEE SA standards Review Committee)– Submittal deadline 4/25/2015 for 6/5/2015 meeting– RevCom sometimes requires edits in review process

• Production and publication– IEEE 1622.2™-2015 Standard for Election Results Reporting Data

Interchange Format published summer 2015 (assuming approved by RevCom on 6/5/2015)


Creating a Worked Example

• More worked examples are needed to promote adoption of the standard

• Perhaps model a large area with multiple types of districts, include precinct-level results, report on contest counts ballots broken down by various types of ballots and machine type

• Suggestion was made to create worked example using entire state of Delaware


Lunch

Meeting resumes at 1:15 pm PST - 4:15 pm EST


E-Pollbooks

VSSC

1622.2 1622.4 1622.61622.X

E-Pollbooks

P1622


A Standard for E-PollBooks Electronic Interchange Format

• Jay Bagga, Indiana VSTOP• John Dziurlaj, Ohio SoS


Some IEEE Procedure, First

According to our Policies and Procedures:1. Chair needs to convene a Standards Study Group

(it will consist of those present)2. SSG studies, makes recommendation on a PAR

back to VSSC (we will do this during this session)3. VSSC votes on SSG recommendation (since the

SSG == VSSC, this is a formality)4. If approved, PAR is sent to IEEE for approval


A Pollbook for the 21st century

– The Promise• Easier and Faster• More Accurate• Integrates well with VRDBs• Handles data updates well

– Vote Centers


E-Pollbooks are becoming more popular

• Used in jurisdictions in thirty states• Various requirements

– No federal certification– 5 states require certification: Connecticut, Indiana,

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia– Ten states have statutes that explicitly authorize

the use of e-poll books: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas


Some Resources

• National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)

• State of Indiana • State of Wisconsin

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-pollbooks.aspx



http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/4059.htm

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/memo/20/electronic_poll_book_research_recommendations__17865.pdf




Data Standard

• More than just a replacement for pen and paper

• Interfaces with many different systems– VRDBs– EMSs


High Level Modeling

• Identify the external entities (scope)• Identify supported processes (use-cases)• Identify data flows• Elaborate subprocesses as required (top-

down)


High Level Modeling (Example)


Data Modeling (Example)


End Product

• A data model (UML)• Data Interchange Format

– XML– JSON– Others?


PAR - ScopeScope:This standard defines a UML data model and a corresponding data interchange format, e.g., XML, for information created and processed by electronic pollbooks. The model associates individuals with corresponding polling place(s) and ballot style(s). It includes information such as voters’ names and addresses, political party affiliation, eligibility, and other status and audit information that can be analyzed so as to show aspects of how an election was conducted. It includes structures necessary to record that a voter has participated in an election and information necessary for issuance of a ballot to a voter. The model also includes structures to facilitate data exchanges between electronic pollbooks and voter registration databases, and data between interconnected electronic pollbooks.

The scope does not include operational or security requirements for electronic pollbooks, other than digital signatures .


PAR - PurposePurpose:This standard defines the data elements and attributes outlined in the scope and how the data is associated with other election data. It facilitates the import and export, in a common format, of the data outlined in the scope to support interoperability of an electronic pollbook with voting devices use in polling places and with voter registration databases.

Need for the Project:Electronic pollbooks are used increasingly at polling places to check-in voters, determine their appropriate ballot style, and record their participation in elections. Electronic pollbook interoperability with other voting devices and voter registration databases is required or desired by U.S. states. Interoperability is dependent on a common understanding of the data elements and attributes processed by electronic pollbooks and a common interchange format for the data elements.


PAR – Stakeholders

Stakeholders for this Standard:• Voters, • election equipment and software developers, • federally certified voting equipment testing labs, • state and local election officials, • election poll workers, • election observers and analysts, • the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, • and the general public.


Discussion

• Discussion period on the PAR• The assembled SSG may then vote on the PAR• If approved, VSSC by fiat also approves the

PAR


Afternoon Break



Remarks by Matt Masterson

Matt MastersonCommissioner, Election Assistance Commission


Discussion


Wednesday Feb 4 Wrap-Up

• These slides will be created during the meeting


Adjourn

• Resume tomorrow 8:00 am PST - 11:00 am EST• Tour of LA County Election Operations begins

at 4:10 pm PST• Dinner for those interested – meet in

Doubletree Hotel Lobby at 6 pm


VSSC/1622 Meeting Call to Order

• Roll call• Agenda overview• VSSC officer election results


Agenda – Thursday, February 5 8:05 am VSSC/1622 MEETING CALL TO ORDER

Roll call Agenda overview VSSC officer election results

John WackArthur KellerLisa Garcia

8:15 am 1622.4 Election Data Modeling Update Kenneth

Bennett 10 am BREAK 10:15 am

1622-3 Event Logging Standard Review of PAR, model, and schema Next steps

James Long

11 am Discussion on VSSC current and future strategies 12 pm LUNCH 1:15 pm Roll Call 1:20 pm 1622-6 Voting Methods Mathematical Models Update Lauren Massa-

Lochridge 2:30 pm BREAK 2:45 pm Wrap-up Kenneth

BennettJohn Wack

3 pm ADJOURN – Day 2 6 pm CLOSING DINNER SOCIAL (For Those Interested)



VSSC Officer Elections

• Positions open:– Chair (currently John Wack)– Vice-chair (currently Linda Harley)– Secretary (currently vacant)– Treasurer (not necessary)– Standards Coordinator (currently Arthur Keller)


Election Data Modeling

VSSC

1622.2 1622.4 1622.6

P1622


Election Data Modeling – 1622.4

• Kenneth Bennett, Chair, LA County


Why model elections?


Goals of Working Group• Comprehensive, high

level model of processes and data

• Framework for more detailed interoperability standards

• Election glossary

• Educational tools


What did we do?

• Established the working environment

• Conducted literature review

• Began modeling election business processes


Working Environment

• Modeling methodology– Business Modeling with UML (Eriksson & Penker)– UML & Data Modeling (David Hay)

• Modeling tools– MagicDraw– Explore open source tools or formats?

• IEEE collaboration tools– Central Desktop– Join.me


Literature Review• Public search of

published materials

• Formal modeling was scarce

• Models found were focused on data objects


Modeling Gap

Data Domain Model

State, Activity & Data Flows Diagrams

Business Process Narratives

Business Process Models


Process Models – Tier 1






Process Interactions


Process Details

<<Info>>Contests

and Candidates

<<Info>>Random

Alpha Draw

<<Rule>>Rotation <<System>>

Ballot Layout

<<Physical>>Ballot Proofs

<<Info>>Ballot

Definition File

Lay Out Ballots


Process Interaction Details

<<System>>Ballot Layout

<<Info>>Ballot

Definition File

<<Info>>Ballot

Definition File

<<System>>Tabulation

Load Ballots in Voting Devices

Lay Out Ballots

<<System>>Device

Manager

Tally Ballots


Next Steps• Drill down into process

details• Develop high-level data

model• Develop elections

glossary• Calibrate models to

existing works• Final document (tell the

story)


Morning Break

Meeting resumes at 10:15 am PST - 1:15 pm EST


Event Logging

VSSC

1622.2 1622.4 1622.6

P1622


1622-3 Event Logging Update

• Working group is P1622, which will be retired post completion of this standard

• 1622-3 PAR and overview – John Wack, James Long

• 1622-3 model and schema – John Wack• Discussion


VSSC Current and Future Strategies

• What is the current strategy being followed by the VSSC for producing standards and guidelines?

• How has the election landscape changed since 2014?

• Does the VSSC need to do things differently as a result?


Lunch



Voting Methods Mathematical Models

VSSC

1622.2 1622.4 1622.6

P1622


Voting Methods Mathematical ModelsWorking Group

IEEE-SA VSSC

(C/VSSC/1622.6/VM-WG)

VM-WG Chair: Lauren Massa-Lochridge

VM-WG Committee Chair: Philip B. Stark


Agenda

VM-WG Introduction

Project Definition, Scope, Need, Purpose

Road Map

Road Map Q & A

Conclude


Introduction VM-WG producing the IEEE-SA 1622.6 Standard

Project Authorization Request (PAR) for 1622.6 was approved by IEEE-SA Standards Board (SASB) in fall 2014.

Completed required Kick-off meeting.

Producing 1622.6 IEEE-SA Standard: Recommended Practice for Voting Methods Mathematical Models

Standard contains reasonable feasible coverage of voting methods where counting, tabulation or mathematical evaluation occurs.

Only official government-entity run elections administration systems of U.S. & democracies.

NOT system implementation! Producing Mathematical Models.


IntroductionIEEE-SA Standard “Recommended Practice” designation (IEEE-SA

STANDARDS BOARD OPERATIONS MANUAL)

Standard elements as non-mandatory, voluntary guidelines.

No “shall clauses”, instead 'should', 'may', or 'can' clauses.

http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html#6.4.7

6.4.7 Shall, should, may, and can

The word shall indicates mandatory requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the standard and from which no deviation is permitted (shall equals is required to).

The word should indicates that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily required (should equals is recommended that).

The word may is used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the standard (may equals is permitted to).

The word can is used for statements of possibility and capability, whether material, physical, or causal (can equals is able to).


Well Formed Balanced Group

– Elections officials domain experts

– Global research community, covering subject areas:

• Voting methods and social choice theory, auditability, verifiability, security, information privacy, reportability, in-use elections administration domain knowledge

– Equipment, software, systems manufacturers / services domain experts

– Civic organizations, media, public affairs domain experts

– Experienced VSSC members and new VM-WG members

Introduction


•At least 28 expected engaged members, Producers (24) & Observers (4)

•6/28 elections officials domain experts

•10/28 Global research community, covering subject areas:

– Voting methods and social choice theory, auditability, verifiability, security & information privacy, in-use domain knowledge, as producers of the mathematical models

•8/28 equipment, software, systems manufacturers / services domain experts

•4/28 orgs. and public affairs domain experts

• 16 attendees existing VSSC members, 14 voting, 3 observer

• 12 attendees are new to any VSSC or VSSC WG engagement

Introduction


Introduction IEEE-SA VSSC Sponsoring Committee IEEE Computer Society/VSSC/1622-6/VM-WG

Sponsor, Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary (-Treasurer)

Subject Area Committees Verifiability Security & Information Privacy Auditability & Risk Management Reportability, Traceability & logging Are there other areas? Some areas may intersect...


VM-WG Subject Area Committees:

Philip B. Stark, Prof., Chair Dept. of Statistics UC Berkeley

is Chair of VM-WG Auditability & Risk Management Committee

Anticipate forming additional subject area or task force committees:

Verifiability, Security & Information Privacy, Reportability, Traceability & logging...Other Areas?

supporting deliberation at depth in certain subject areas, regional, or certain tasks

efficient and effective

Introduction


ProjectApproved Fall 2014 by IEEE-SA. Clauses of Project Authorization Request (PAR)

Scope clause:

This standard defines voting methods mathematical models that formally and precisely define voting methods. Voting methods are methods of casting, tabulating, mathematical evaluation, or counting votes, to determine the outcome of elections. Examples of voting methods include but are not limited to plurality voting, plurality with runoff, ranked choice, approval voting, straight-party voting, and multi-party endorsement.

Elaboration:

Definitions of voting methods that are currently in-use usually reside in a 'plain language algorithm definition' as legal art, i.e. legislation, which is inherently imprecise for some important uses. Interpretative plain language definitions based upon existing legislative art also exist in Requests For Proposals (RFPs) by elections officials to systems and software manufacturers, and other elections administration documents where specifications of voting methods for counts and tally may occur.

In contrast, a mathematical model with a unique designator is a precise definition which can be referenced without ambiguity, used, reused, and understood across the field by a variety of stakeholders including legislators, elections officials, analysts, systems and software manufacturers, and for testing and certification.


Project

Purpose Clause: The purpose of the Standard for Voting Methods Mathematical Models is to facilitate elections integrity through a common and precise definition of voting methods as mathematical models.

This standard defines voting methods selected for mathematical modeling that government operated Departments of Elections, Elections Officials or jurisdictions of U.S. Elections and democracies have currently in use or plan to use or may reasonably be expected to implement a voting method in their elections administration going forward during the life cycle of the standard (minimum 10 yrs.).

Need Clause: Because each voting method is unambiguously defined as a mathematical model its specification, characterization and properties are precisely known in support of accurate and reliable analysis of elections data. Precisely known mathematical characterization of systems components enables robust and correct voting systems and facilitates their development, analysis, and testing.


ProjectNo complete compendium of mathematical models of voting methods of this type exists.

In-use implies currently applicable legislation or elections officials specification, or as realized in systems that run elections now.

Reference models or formula definitions exist in various contexts including glossary definitions, RFPs by elections administration to systems and software manufacturers and systems documentation, and also research works on social choice theory and voting theory.

Examples of research topic areas where mathematical definitions of voting methods are presented include research into vote power, voting system criteria*, verifiable voting systems, auditable voting systems, security, privacy. Models presented in research publications largely focus on voting system criteria and vote power analysis, and are often meta models , or higher level and more general models of the actual in-use voting methods, and therefore do not serve the same purpose that the product of this working group may.

This working group 's scope does not include defining new voting system criteria nor voting system metrics for use in evaluation and comparison of voting methods, nor systems implementation of voting methods. Innovation of entirely new voting methods, promotion of voting methods, are also outside of our scope. UI/UX & ballot design also out of scope.


Road Map

Use Cases For Models:

+ Mathematical models facilitate, support or enable use cases.

+ Mathematical models are not standards for the use cases.

+ Mathematical models developed with consideration of the

'itability' or 'iability' of the different use cases:

auditability, capacity planning, testing & reportability, verifiability, information security and privacy, reportability, traceability & logging... are there others? Certifiability?


Road MapUse Cases cont.:

+ Forms of mathematical models are determined by this WG.

+ There may be multiple forms of model per voting method, e.g., as appropriate to use case(s) or other

factors

+ Potential other factors: categorization, structural e.g. hierachy?, lattice? partial ordering?,

granularity of models ...

Collect and assess plain language/legal art definitions:

+ Voting methods in-use in elections administration,

legislative / legal art definitions, RFP definitions, others?

Deliberate and draft Mathematical Models

Iterate through steps as needed


Road Map Quarterly speakers series Newsletter & Articles (Un)Conference (summer 2015?) Draft Standard Document Time Frame: VM-WG is approved to operate

through 2018, but anticipate 1st draft by within 2016


Road Map Q&A


ConcludeFind links about VSSC at http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1622/index.html

About VM-WG 1622.6 and the other VSSC WG's at:

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1622/work-in-progress.html

VM-WG 1622.6 Sponsor & Chair of the VSSC is John P. Wack of NIST:

[email protected] / [email protected]

VM-WG Chair: [email protected] / [email protected]

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1622/index.html

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1622/index.html

mailto:[email protected]




Closing Remarks

• Where/when is next meeting


Adjourn

• VSSC Officers meeting at 3:15 pm in Room TBD

• Dinner for those interested – meet in Doubletree Hotel lobby at 6 pm

• Restaurant TBD

Documents

VSSC Winter Meeting 2/4-5/2015 IEEE VSSC/1622 General Meeting February 4-5, 2015 Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk County of Los Angeles