Debian GNU/Linux Used in Electronic Voting Trials

RoweM writes "The Australian Capital Terrority will use a Debian-based, GPL'd electronic voting system in elections this October. See this article, and the vendor's press release. Note, this is not Internet voting, but an electronic vote registration and counting system--you still have to go to the polling booth :)."

Comments

apt rules.

[Malachite]

booth:~# apt-get install harrybrowne
Reading Politician Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following politicians will be REMOVED:
georgewbush dickcheney
The following NEW politiciams will be installed:
harrybrowne artolivier
0 politicians upgraded, 2 newly installed, 2 to remove and 538 not upgraded.
Need to get 2/2 politicians. After unpacking 0 will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]y
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org stable/libertarian harrybrowne 3.04-6.1 [520kB]
Fetched 520kB in 4m26s (1953B/s)
Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org stable/libertarian artolivier 2.43-5.2 [450kB]
Fetched 450 kB in 3m52s (1985B/s)
(Reading database ... 539 politicians currently installed.)
Impeaching georgewbush ...
Impeaching dickcheney ...
Selecting previously deselected package harrybrowne.
Unpacking harrybrowne (from .../harrybrowne_3.04-6.1_i386.deb) ...
Selecting previously deselected package artolivier.
Unpacking artolivier (from .../artolivier_2.53-5.2_i386.deb) ...
(Reading database ... 538 politicians currently installed.)
Inaugurating harrybrowne (3.04-6.1) ...
Inaugurating artolivier (2.53-5.2) ...
booth:~#

Not open source?

[stevenj]

Before everyone celebrates, I should point out that the articles and press release give no firm indication that the actual voting software will be free software.

There are lots of warm and fuzzy words about open source, but the only thing the article says explicitly will be GPL'ed is the OS ("platform"):

The only platform that provided robustness and voter confidence was GNU Debian Linux, with all source code released under the General Public License (GPL).

The press release refers to "ACT's Hare-Clark electoral system" and says only:

The need for high voter confidence in the system is clear. In responding to the tender Software Improvements and its subcontractors were able to cite extensive experience in the field of high integrity software. The Software Improvements solution detailed an innovative approach to meeting the many expectations the community has of this type of system.

Thanks as usual to Slashdot's editors for their insightful commentary.

Almost essential for ACT elections!

[throx]

For those in the US who are used to the idea of voting for just one person, and not even having to vote - this is a very different situation:

First, all Australians MUST vote in an election. If you do not vote then you will be fined, or put in prison. This means the voter turnout and load on the system tends to be much higher.

Second, ACT elections allow you to vote preferentially. This means you not only select the first person you want, but order all the candidates in the order you'd prefer them in power. This prevents the problem in the US of Nader stealing votes from Gore (all Nader's preferences would go to Gore) and so instead of the most popular person winning, the LEAST UNPOPULAR one wins. This is a significant improvement.

Third, the system used to actually count the votes in the ACT is hellishly complex and only really understood by statisticians. I find it quite bizzare, but it seems to work.

Fourth, the ACT tends to have dozens of candidates for the positions. Partys with names like "Surprise Party" and "Party Party Party" are running and even get quite a few votes.

Fifth, less than half a million people live in the ACT so the system can really be quite inexpensive and small. The ACT itself is only a few dozen miles across so the whole logistics are incredibly differnt to the USA.

So, to summarize, the ACT elections are very different from US elections. Consider all the facts before you make a generalization about whether this would be good for all of Australia, or even the USA.

Re:Almost essential for ACT elections!

[CyberKnet]

Let me pick apart your (uninformed and unresearched) reply. Let me first state my qualifications. I lived in australia till I was just over 18. Thus, I voted there. I live in the USA, and pay a great deal of attention during the elections and voting periods.

Let me also start off by saying I have NEVER seen a more unorganised election than the last presidential election, where people waited so long to find out who their new leader was. So you just arguing that the USA system is superior is not going to cut it with me. So lets start this, shall we?

Well, that's stupid. People who don't have an opinion shouldn't have to vote. If you are just going to pick one because you don't have an opinion, you are helping no one. Those who have a strong opinion one way or another are going to vote and those who don't, well they'll just let things go.
Let me clarify (having lived there). You CAN "donkey" vote. Its still anonymous, and entries incorrectly marked (all ones), or using ticks and crosses etc etc will invalidate your vote. You *can* (in essence) vote for "nobody". HOWEVER, given that everyone HAS to vote, you have a whole lot more people who actually CARE about what it is they are voting about. Vastly more people have informed opinions, and smarter decsions (on the whole) are made.

This is also stupid. I hated Al Gore and Bush(the Environmentalist vs. the Asshole) but I really didn't want Nader in Power. Who am I going to choose. Probably the one who would do the least damage and I wouldn't even touch the one who would do the most damage or had an ideal against mine.
This is *not* a two party system, as such. There are MUCH more than two candidates! Stop thinking so US-Centric when you are talking about another countries voting system!!!

If normal people can't count it, it's too complex and too easily corrupted.
Bullshit. In 90% of situations, only number 1 and 2 votes are counted. The average of the populace can understand it, and even if they cant, there is STILL the news. Remember Decision2000? Why in the hell would you assume there wasnt soemthing like that there?

No system is perfect. I firmly believe that; so I am not saying the system in australia is better. But aimlessly saying "That's stupid" is HARDLY going to convince anyone. Not having researched your point of view or your source of information, or even the persons you were replying to is a bad move. I lived there for 18 years. I know quite a bit about the system used there, and personally, I never had a problem understanding it. I always thought the outcome was fair in most cases. In a lot of ways, it quite similarly represents the model used in the USA, but in quite substantial ways, it differs. I like those differences. You might not. But that doesnt give me the right to call your system stupid, or you the right to call mine stupid.

Please sit in the corner and catch your breath before posting about subjects you dont anything about...

---

If you don't like the candidates

[VFVTHUNTER]

apt-get new_candidates