Slashdot Mirror
New Closed Source Voting Systems Malfunction
LowellPorter writes "Miami-Dade and Broward counties are having voting problems. After the 2000 election problems, new voting methods were installed including touch screen technology. Some times the problems were with workers not showing up, poor training, or mechanical problems. It doesn't look like they cleaned up the system there." Not all of the problems mentioned in the article are due to the new proprietary voting machines, but many of them are.
How hard is it to make a voting machine that works? All it does is count votes, it's not like it does rocket science!
Would any of these problems be solved with an open source solution? Do these problems have anything at all to do with the fact that the solution is closed source? Is the fact that these systems are closed source ironic, or telling in any way?
Your headline is about as biased as "Microsoft User Commits Murder"
1. The article doesn't tell us that the software is proprietary. Nor does it tell us that most of the problems are due to the use of closed software. Anyone wondering if Slashdot is an example of journalism or just a bunch of poseurs-for-hire tossing words around need look no further.
2. So anyway, why would we expect open source to work any better?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Have you *ever* seen v1 of a system work flawlessly? It's so immature to toss the word "proprietary" in here, as if to insinuate that being open-source would fix anything. There's tons of open-source programs in v1 status with bugs. Anybody see any news headlines when Mozilla 1.0 came out and there were bugs in it? No? End of story.
What's your damage, Heather?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The biggest problem with these machines is that unlike most software it appeals to an extremely small market AND one where there are very low margins. It is hard to attract top software talent to write good code for these machines. Given the scenerio above, open source actually does make sense because it is the only way you'll be able to get solid talent for nothing!
Would any of these problems be solved with an open source solution? Do these problems have anything at all to do with the fact that the solution is closed source? Is the fact that these systems are closed source ironic, or telling in any way?
Yes, yes, and yes, it is telling.
Openness is absolutely critical to fair and free elections, and that applies to the technology as much as it does the people. Who knows what is being done with the data being collected, or how it is being massaged. Is every electronic vote counted? Do we know that the results being reported are accurate, or whether or not a systemic flaw (or deliberate alteration) in the software is causing every Nth republican or democratic vote to be dropped? No, we don't know this, because the software's source code is unavailable for public review, much less peer review.
There are all kinds of Microsoft apologists (not saying you are one, but the vast majority of posts taking a tone similiar to yours are, as evidenced by their posting histories) quick to point out that having untrained election officials has nothing to do with the closed source nature of the software, yet eagerly glossing over the profoundly obvious fact that if the election software is closed source, no amount of training can insure that the software is unbiased and the election results fair.
So the point is relevant, even if it does rub the closed source advocates and Microsoft zealots the wrong way.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Wouldn't it be easier to create a system that allows people to vote using a touch screen system, then instead of trying to save the data (which could easily be corrupted or lost,) simply print the ballot. It could print two copies, one for the person to take home as a personal voting record and one that they put in the polling box. The ballot that is given to the state could even be encoded so that it cannot be read without a computer in order to maintain privacy, while the copy the person keeps could be in plain english, spanish, or whatever language, so that they can confirm who they voted for. I think this would be a reasonable option that would be easier to setup (maybe.) If anything goes wrong with the machine, send them to another machine and start fresh.
In response to the many responses criticising the headline for sugesting these problems are due to the system being propietary, you should read the link to the previous slashdot article. These machines have been used before and there were many problems. The manufacturer basically said "we guarantee they work, but we won't tell you how they work and if you try to figure it out you're gonna regret it." the system was broken and people wanted an open review of the system. That review was denied and now it is obvious that it is still broken. Therefore, the fact that the system is proprietary is very relevant to the discussion.
Where I vote in Minnesota they use a paper ballot that is machine read. And, the machine returns your ballot if it is invalid (unreadable mark, voted for too many candidates.) Plus, in case of a machine failure, the ballots can be hand-counted. So the problem is not so much that there's a machine involved, just that it's a poorly designed one.
Likewise, open source software would not help the machines in Florida. The problems with most closed source products arise from the fact that they were poorly designed, not whether they're open or closed source. Windows suffers from chronic security problems because it was never really designed to be a truly secure system. Furthermore, Microsoft has, until very recently, been more interested in adding features than improving security.
bance.net
Being Canadian, I had the same initial reaction as you, but you don't understand the U.S. voting system. Voting in the U.S. is like filling out a tax form... it just goes on forever and ever. You have to vote for everything at once - local, state, etc., and there seem to be "sub votes" within them. Not to mention, they elect their judges and senate.
... all of a sudden I feel like I should go and get all my money out of the bank!
I know what you're feeling though - in Canada we use a pencil and a piece of paper. There are, say, 5 local candidates, each with a little box beside their name and you vote for one of those five by putting an 'X' in the box. However, we don't vote separately for the leader of the country, since we have a parliamentary system. Plus, our senate and judges are appointed by elected officials.
It does make sense though, with such low minimum wages, that the U.S. could afford to just hire people off the street to hand count ballots.
As for storing them electronically, that's a bad idea. Most people would not (and should not) accept various decaying charges on a vast bank of capacitors (I'm speaking of DRAM, of course), or magnetic deviations on a disk as proof of someone's vote. There really needs to be physical evidence that a real person can see and verify, or else the system can too easily be corrupted.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
why anyone would *believe* the results tabulated
by software that was immune to public audit gathered
from complex and bug-prone devices operated by a
secret mechanism is beyond my comprehension.
given the history of democratic elections around the
world and in the united states itself, it seems
more than apparent that such devices, if they
continue in use, will inevitably result in massive
electoral fraud.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
This would never work. When another close race came, there would be people screaming that their vote was wrong. Some people vote one way when they think it is not close and would vote another way if they knew it were going to be close. This would just be just like the old people in Florida who claimed the butterfly ballot was too confusing.