<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Major Reports on Voting Systems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/11/30/electionline-report-on-voting-systems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/11/30/electionline-report-on-voting-systems/</link>
	<description>Information, Law, and the Law of Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Info/Law &#187; No Action on Paperless Voting Machines</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/11/30/electionline-report-on-voting-systems/comment-page-1/#comment-1692</link>
		<dc:creator>Info/Law &#187; No Action on Paperless Voting Machines</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/11/30/electionline-report-on-voting-systems#comment-1692</guid>
		<description>[...] The Washington Post reports here that the policymaking panel at the National Institute of Standards and Technology has rejected the recommendations of its internal experts (noted here), voting against guidelines requiring electronic voting machines to have a software-independent audit trail.  According to the Post, five states use such paperless machines exclusively and 11 more use them in some locations. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Washington Post reports here that the policymaking panel at the National Institute of Standards and Technology has rejected the recommendations of its internal experts (noted here), voting against guidelines requiring electronic voting machines to have a software-independent audit trail.  According to the Post, five states use such paperless machines exclusively and 11 more use them in some locations. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
