Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Unisys & Dell To Make New Voting System
About twenty million - alright, slight exaggeration, but a whole bunch of people sent the story about Microsoft, Dell and Unisys to build a new voting system. Microsoft will do the software, Dell the hardware, and Unisys will assemble the systems.
MIT and Caltech have already announced plans
m l
to develop a voting machine:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2000/voting.ht
Personally, I trust MIT and Caltech much more
than I trust Microsoft and Unisys.
--- even the safest course is fraught with peril
heh thats all we need, ms to screw it up, dell to charge a fortune for the screwup and unisys to patent the screwup after everyone has been using it for many years
I think we have to insist that any voting system implemented be Open Source, and specifically GPL, so no one can go and put backdoors in it without someone being able to find them. Furthermore, I think we can make it stick, to-wit: Proprietary software must be paid for, right? Which would make it an unfunded mandate, and thus unconstitutional.
Folks, get on the phone to your congresscritter, write letters, whatever, but we can, and have to, stop this right now before it spreads. I'm not going to stand for spending several million dollars of MY MONEY to develop something that has already been developed and is out there for the asking... something I will never trust unless it is open source, and neither should anyone else.
Once more into the breach, dear friends, and we can stop Gates' final attempt to take over the world, and have it for ourselves, and set it (ahem) FREE.
--
If you want to end war and stuff, you've gotta sing LOUD.
-Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"
Does this mean that if we have Back Orifice, we get as many votes as we want?
[click][click][click]...
"What are you doing?"
"Making damn sure Jello Biafra wins this one."
Silverlock
This past election was the second election I voted in and the first presidential election. I voted in Ocean County, NJ.
They use computers there.
They don't run windows. They don't run Linux. They don't run BSD, or any other general computer OS. They are dedicated voting machines with dedicated hardware and software built in to the microcontroler. Much like your VCR is a computer, but it only does one thing. Your Microwave oven has a computer in it, but it doesn't run Linux or a MS OS either.
The layout they used on this machine was simple. A bunch of buttons (similar to the kind under the plastic panel on your microwave, not the kind of buttons on your keyboard) under a paper overlay under a protective clear plastic sheet. There were probably hundreds of buttons, but only a few are ever used at a time, depending on the requirements of the individual election. Oh yes and there are LED lights next to each button, which holes in the paper so the proper LEDs could shine through.. There was also a keyboard (laid out alphabeticly) to enter write-in votes. This whole setup was perhaps 3'x3' or 4'x4' and took up the front "wall" of the voting booth.
I don't know how the machine OUTPUTS votes, (hard drive, print out, network, etc.) but everything I saw looked fairly straight forward, simple and easy to me. I didn't hear about anyone getting confused in my community. there were PLENTY of elderly voters and I was standing in line at the polling station for a while. The only confusion was over what lines to stand in (there were seperate lines to check your voter ID card and lines for the voting machine, in addition to splitting up lines by first letters of last names for check-in.)
Now, here's my take on how something like this should be designed:
The modularity of the paper overlay is a good idea and can be retained. Either that, or use expensive touch screens. Either is fine, and if cost is not an issue, I believe that touch screens would PROBABLY be a better plan since paper can (concievably) shift or slide. The important part here is that the layout (since either can be dynamic from election to election) needs to be CARFULY considered for each election.
The OS:
- Should NOT be Linux.
- Should NOT be BSD.
- Should NOT be Solaris
- Should not be Windows.
It should NOT HAVE an "OS" in the traditional sence of the term at all! It should have a simple "dumb interface" like a VCR, digital watch, phone, microwave, etc. When is the last time your Microwave "crashed"? If it's EVER happened, I'm sure it's happened less to you than any general computing OS you've ever used. Linux has crashed on me, Windows has crashed on me, Macs have crashed on me. My VCR? Hardware has failed (motors) but the software end of it has to my knowlege never failed.
Also, as to open source... this is a more touchy subject. I do agree that the code (probably C. the Elevator Principal applies perfectly to this situation.) does need to be audited make the source redily available. But I don't see any particular reason that it can't be developed by a private party / company/ whatever.
Several other people brought up concerns about "What if" people obtained the source code, edited it to their liking and installed it on the voting machines. Well, this isn't a problem with dedicated hardware/software on a microcontroler. When is the last time you heard of someone changine the software on their VCR? And without opening the thing up and breaking out the solder gun? And with people (Election officials) that don't want them to do this standing around watching to make sure they don't do this? In any concievable situation where this would be insecure, ANY method (pencil and paper for example) would be insecure due to the amount of corruption it would require. If anything, this might make coruption a little more dificult to pull off since it would require someone with in depth technical know-how AND would almost certainly take a conspiricy rather than a lone nut to rig votes.
Now for the other end of the equation. I believe (due to the companies mentioned) that they want to use a PC type of archetecture. I don't see why. It's insecure, unstable, and too generalized for the task at hand. Life support machines don't run Windows. Missle Guidance Systems don't run BSD. Power Plants don't Run MacOS. Why should this?
Now, I understand that this being /. and all, that one is expected to bash Microsoft.
I think this is lame.
Do I like Microsoft? Not particularly. Do I think they are evil? Only their business practices. But their software is the best thing out there for the home user. For the software I want to run, they and Apple are the only game in town. My web sites, however all run under Red Hat. I wouldn't DREAM of running any kind of site that recieved decent amounts of traffic under NT. However, why is Linux a good choice for VOTING MACHINES? Pick the right tool for the job people. PCs in general simply aren't cut out to going something like this. There's a reason it's called "general computing" because these machines have to be Jacks of all trades. The trade off is that they don't realy master any of those trades. They crash, they're often slower than a dedicated machine for the same task, etc.
Computers are not nessisarily bad for voting. In fact I encourage the use of computers. However, don't use general computers. Don't do this half assed. Don't try to shoe horn in the wrong tool for the job. Use a dedicated hardware/software solution.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Will they show us the freaking source? I think the point was exemplified by the battleship dead in the water, but I fear it may not have been taken to heart. Voting should be a completely transparent process with the sole exception of what goes on in the booth. I don't trust MicroSoft to even count right at this point. I want to make damn sure that nobody is going to work out a buffer overrun and move a few votes here and a few votes there and rig a close one. This needs to audited rigorously, and the source sounds like something that ought to be available at the least under the FOIA, and if the government can't get that right from MicroSoft, we shouldn't be using the software.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
OK, a co-worker of mine were talking on the way back from lunch about a month ago on how to make an "electronic voting system" work. Let me first say that I'm Canadian and as FFFish's post states, our hand counted, hand marked ballots scale very well for 30 million, and I see no reason why it wouldn't scale well for 300 million. Whatever. Here's our idea.
:)
The problems with a pure electronic system come with recounting, either due to a close vote, or to questions of tampering, is that there's no true way to do a physical recount. But regular ballots take "too long" to count.
Why not create a hybrid system. Each person comes to their polling station, is checked off a list and is given a "voting card", perhaps like a punchcard, but with no holes. They go back to the voting machine, close the door (or whatever), and insert their blank card into the machine. they vote via touch screen, and the result is printed on the card, which they (perhaps only as a symbolic gesture), insert their card into a box. When the elections end, you use the computers to tally the votes, but have the paper votes available if you need a true recount.
Now of course, all of this is meaningless unless the Americans can standardize their voting procedure. If one county has electronic voting and another punch card or another X'ed by hand, you're back in the same boat.
One thing FFFish may be wrong on is that it "Can't happen in Canada". Sure it can. Effectively, Bush and Gore tied within counting error. The same could happen in our system. Fortunately minority "tied" governments could exist in Canada without causing constitutional gridlock... (Just parlimentary gridlock, after a few weeks of which the government would collapse and we'd get to hold another election!
At any rate, I hope you guys can sort this all out by 2004.
Basically, he says they are a dangerous thing ...
The comforts you demanded are now mandatory -- Jello Biafra
--
The comfort you demanded is now mandatory - Jello Biafra
Be the first city council in your state to buy the all new Microsoft George voting machine! Features include:
- Microsoft's famous quality control and Dell's famous low prices.
- Rigorously tested by Mindcraft, Inc.
- Tasteful blue screen provides privacy between voters.
- Uses a special release of Borland's InterBase db server to keep track of the votes.
- Auxiliary USB port with no documented function.
- Coin operated version available by special order.
- Framed Certificate of Authentication, signed by Katherine Harris.
- Recommended by Jeb Bush and the RNC!
Testimonials:--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
OK, everyone knows that the only things that Microsoft makes well are joysticks and mice. So they should be doing the hardware. Dell ships computers with Linux preinstalled, so maybe they should be doing the software instead. As for Unisys, people who say "Democracy" and "Unisys" in the same sentence should be shot. Wait, did I just...damn....
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
This is so cool!
I need to go refresh my collection of rootkits.
I'll show George W. Bush that he's not the only one who can rig an election.
--Shoeboy
Well, here's my letter...before I fire it off, anything obviously wrong or stupid?
Dear sir,
I am a software engineer employed in New York state. This morning, I
read on Reuters a report that Unisys Corp., Dell Computer Corp., and
Microsoft Corp., are teaming up to develop an electronic voting system.
Dell Computer Corp. is the number two PC manufacturer in the United States,
and Microsoft produces the de facto standard computer operating system
software, "Windows", used worldwide, and is currently in hot water with the
DOJ. I suggest that proprietary computer and software companies which
have large shares, if not monopolies, in their sector, may not be the
best entities to entrust with inventing a secure, fair, open, and
accountable electronic voting system.
In my opinion, both professional and personal, such a system is best
developed under a Free Software/Open Source model. I refer you to
descriptions of Free Software,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, and Open Source,
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html.
Loosely, Free/Open-Source software is distributed under a license
which guarantees the freedom of people to obtain and inspect the source
code of such software. I believe only with this freedom of inspection
can we ever trust that software does what its originators claims it does.
Obviously this would be of utmost importance in an electronic voting
system. Furthermore, Free/Open-Source software has the additional
benefit of allowing many people to verify that the software is free of
bugs and performs as expected. This has the side effect of producing
software which is frequently more reliable and robust than software which
is developed behind proprietary curtains. Much of the infrastructure of
the internet is based on such Free/Open-Source software. Recently the
operating system Linux, also developed under this model, has been
receiving a good amount of attention and accolades.
Lastly I would like to point out that such a Free/Open-Source software
system for electronic voting already exists: FREE, "Free Referenda and
Elections Electronically": http://www.thecouch.org/free/. I am sure
there are other such Free/Open-Source projects.
As a professional, the practical benefits of Free/Open-Source software
are apparent to me. But as a citizen, I believe the social and ethical
benefits to state operated systems are paramount, and I could never
entirely trust with my vote, software whose source code I, or a trusted
party, cannot inspect. I kindly suggest that research into electronic
voting systems explore Free/Open-Source software possibilities.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
To elucidate on this point a bit further, Canada's system *works.* We might not like the results (and who does? Inevitably, a politician is elected. Seems a rather unfair consequence, really.), but it works.
Voting centres are set up most anywhere that there's adequate floor space: generally, gymnasiums and halls. A greeter asks to see your voter registration card, and then directs you to the appropriate tables; a wholly unnecessary step, because the tables are clearly marked with a pair of letters that indicate what range of names ("Aa"rdvark to "Bo"gart, etc) they're taking.
Being Canadian, you line up nice and neatly, and patiently await your turn to vote. Pushing ahead in the line, or making catcalls at a particularly slow voter, would be un-Canadian, and we'd all have to scowl at you and possibly mutter under our breath.
Once you get to your voting table, you're greeted by at least two, and perhaps three, volunteers. They're from opposing parties, to keep each other honest.
One of them takes your voter registration card and scratches your name from the master list. The other waits until that process is complete, and then tears a voter card from a booklet. You're then instructed, using the same words you heard given the previous voter, on how to clearly and properly mark the card. The volunteer pre-folds the card and hands it to you.
A short cardboard booth is set up at the end of the table. You can see over it, but no one can actually see what you're marking down. It's a little discomfiting; seems to me that last time, our booths completely hid us from sight.
The voting ballot has a black background. 1.25cm (that's half-inch, in obsolete terms) white strips line the page. In each strip, printed large, is the name of the candidate and their party affiliation. Directly beside the white strip, to the right, is a white circle.
The names are in alphabetical order, last name first, first name last. You place a mark across from the candidate you want to elect. Because each region elects only a single Member of Parliment, you only mark off one circle.
You fold the card, and fold over the retaining flap, so that the card doesn't flop over. You hand the card to the volunteer, who makes sure that the flap is secure, and then drops it into the vote box as you watch. I believe there's every chance that the volunteer asks if you marked off one, and only one, candidate.
And away you go, happy to have participated in a futile ceremony that will surely see no real changes made to the social, political or economic fabric of the country. No, I'm not bitter. Not at all.
After the polls close, the volunteers dump the votes out on the table and begin counting them. There's a paid overseer with a big bullwhip that makes sure they do the job quickly and correctly. Quite possibly, there are plenty of party representatives watching over the vote-counting process.
There are no pregnant, well-hung, dimpled chads. There's either a clear mark in one circle, or there's an invalid ballot. The count goes quickly. All the ballots go into a lockbox, for safeguarding.
I suspect that only the Australians have a better system, and that only because it seems that their elections office is self-supporting, because it does such a fine job that it contracts itself out to provincial, municipal, union and other votes.
The American system, on the other hand, is appallingly asinine.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"It looks like you are trying to rig the election, do you need help?"