Slashdot Mirror
Hardly Anyone Cares About Computer Voting Problems
Avidwriter writes "It's a sad thought that Roblimo explores in a NewsForge article about computer voting fraud and how you'd think all honest politicians would be working to make sure computerized voting systems are open source, and why open source wouldn't hurt well-run voting machine companies' profits. Not that most people care, since they don't even bother to vote, right?"
Not that most people care, since they don't even bother to vote, right?
Most people don't even bother to click the link to read the article; you think they'd actually get up, leave the house, drive to the voting center, and push some buttons to vote? That's way too much effort involved.
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
Security through Obscurity works as a temporary stopgap. It doesn't last long, but it does keep a system secure for a short time until someone discovers the security hole.
Voting takes place once every two years in the US (different for other countries). And it only takes place on one day. Security through obscurity can hold that long.
On the other hand, divulging the source code to the system beforehand (otherwise, what's the point to having the system being Open Source) makes it that much easier for evil-doers to find the holes in the system. Keep in mind that these fraudsters aren't going to fix the hole and "turn it back over to the community". They will have plenty of time to find the exploits and they will exploit it on election day.
Yes, in general Security through Obscurity is a bad idea, but in one-off systems like electronic voting, it is the best method of keeping the system secure short of armed guards and video cameras.
Its sad that the same people who scream for open source voting and open source this and that are the same people who bemoan the cheaters once quake 1 and quake 2 source was made public (though not open source) .
You would think that voting machines you would want simple and private code with high encription.
I remember seeing a study mentioned on the news about problems with computer voting, but I don't see it mentioned in this story.
Potential for fraud is a good thing in the eyes of sufficiently corrupt politicians. If it were completely impregnable, then those with the inclination wouldn't be able to fix elections. As much as I love throwing technology at a problem to try and solve it, I really don't think that eliminating a paper trail is *really* a good idea when we talk about electing such powerful people.
How about instead of changing the way we cast our ballot, let's focus on changing the ballot? Plurality voting is about the worst voting system there is. Of course, if we went with Condorcet, third-party politicians might actually get elected.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Open Source can't hurt, but
you'd -still- have to be sure
that -all- the executables
were made from the final source,
that everybody has access to,
for the eVoting Boxes.
Then, you have to insure that
no changes are made just before
the machines are used... etc.
Voting, on the other hand, is a much simpler problem, and the problems with fraud are much better documented and understood. Those that control the rules can control the voting -- but that's a problem with paper ballots as well as electronic. In this case, the risks of opening the code are outweighed by the risks of not opening the code.
My point exactly.
Give each person a randomly unique number when they turn up to vote. Have them enter the number with their votes, check that it's valid, and record both.
After the election, make all the votes available. Everyone can check the totals, and anyone who made a note of their number can check that their vote was recorded correctly. If there's any vote tampering going on, everyone who's vote got tamperd with will KNOW, not just suspect, that the election was rigged.
My full rant on the topic is at href="http://zcat.wired.net.nz/evote/
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
You either
1. Go to jail for short stay or
2. Pay a fine
In practice you don't even have to pay the fine. Almost any excuse is enough to get you out of the fine. In fact, I know people who have tried to 'do the right thing' and pay the fine, and been refused!
The fine notice may simply be a way of checking that you're alive, at the same address etc. Gets people's attention better than a survey.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
Yeah, the duty of the government is to protect the rights and well being of its citizens but it's also up to the citizens to protect each other.
Being required to vote is in the best interest of everyone in the country and it's a small price to pay. You can't tell me that you're life is so significant and hectic that you cannot accommodate casting your vote? Give me a break.
I truly believe that if you don't vote (or in an Australian citizen's case cast a blank ballot) you have no place to criticize politics or the actions of politicians until you do so.
Just my $0.02.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
" If you want to talk about requiring things of your subjects for the common good of all, then you're talking about communism"
So a criminal justice system is commie plot now is it?
Seriously as members of a community we are expected to contribute to that community as well as take away, other wise the community collapses. Voting is your way of saying this is the person/group I want leading the community. If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
I think you're being unrealistic. Instead, I side with Scott Adams' comment on the importance of your vote: The value of your vote is actually negative if its influence on the outcome is outweighed by the time and effort spent casting it.
Throw in the fact that you can be a conscientious citizen, get yourself well informed on all the candidates and issues, and have your vote negated by some ninety-five year old lady who is voting for Al Gore because he wore the best tie... can you blame us for getting cynical?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Have you ever tried to explain "source" to a politician? I have. Let me tell you. Just getting them over that hurdle is tough enough. Most of them are lawyers, and for some reason lawyers tend not to care much about tech. Sure there are exceptions, but I can't help but get the impression that most lawyers would still be using quills and ink if they could get away with it.
So. When you go to policitians with this issue and say "The system should be Open Source so someone can perform a security audit" what they hear is "Our special interest group has an opinion about how the system should work". Really. I don't see any way around this problem either. We could sit around and wait for the public school system run by these politicians to produce lawyers who aren't computer and science illiterate, except of course that by now most of the politicians are products of that very same system!
I see a positive feedback loop here, which like all positive feedback loops tends to create instability. Now... how many politicians have the background to understand that analogy?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
gantrep obviously hasn't thought this through. Paying taxes to pay for roads and education is also a commie plot (according to his view). As is 911. Stupid government attempting to help people help others.
If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
I'm not so sure about this one. I use to think this, but have now modified my view somewhat. While holding that view, I couldn't see how I could complain about a government who I helped vote to power. IE, only those who did not vote for the ruling party can complain (or vice versa). Also, people I know in politics would also tell me that "I can't complain if I don't directly do something about it". IE Unless I'm attending peace marches, writing letters to papers, signing surveys, or even stand for government I shouldn't be complaining about it. Locally, it makes more sense. If I care about the dog droppings in my local park (I do), then why aren't I picking them up myself, or writing letters telling the pollies to do something, or even attempting to be voted in on a "no dogs" policy.
My modified view is something like "Everyone can complain, but the more someone does about something, the more they care about it". IE, listen to complaints of people who make a lot of effort regarding fixing the problem (Voting is an effort). If they can't even be bothered to vote, then I may not think their complaint is worth listening too.
Paper ballots provide an audit trail, but the ballot boxes themselves can (and have) been tampered with.
The only useful purpose served by an electronic system is a "quick tally", and possibly less chance of a spoiled ballot, although butterfly-ballot like errors can be set up on a touchscreen as easily as on paper.
Providing a count at the polling place, by a multi-partisan local group (each candidate should be able to produce someone to go to each polling place) reduces the chance of fraud dramatically. Make the hand count the official tally, and the electronic count used only for quick totals.
For a little more accountability, apply modern cryptography to tie paper ballots to their electronic counterparts for cross-checking if required. Make a recount and cross-check mandatory for narrow spreads or manual/electronic dissagreements.
Demand voter-verified, locally counted paper ballots.
Numbered Ballot Papers. I wonder why they didn't think of that before.
Oh, I remember. The greatest advance in democracy since, well democracy really ,SECRET BALLOTS.
I have enough nightmares about electronic voting already. You go into the polling station at 08.30am and they tick your name off against the roll. At 8.32am a vote is cast for Candidate X (as certified by the audit trail in the system.) Guess who voted for whom.
Just because your vote is just one in millions, a drop in the ocean, you fail to recognize this: Without the drops, there can be no ocean!
And the flavour of all the drops, is what makes the ocean. Now, the politicians ARE representing you. This is what leaders you get when you're cynical, care-free, repress your feelings and do nothing. Do you want it to get better or worse, it's your choice. At least, you COULD have said that you've done the best you could, but now you can't say that!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
> The only canidate that made any sence was the Green Party canidate. As the Green Party is still treated like the lunitic fring by the media, the chance of one of their canidates rising above statistical noise is almost zero.
So you didn't vote for them, because it would have been a wasted vote - but then you wasted your vote anyway?
In the 1992 UK general election, there was a poll conducted by a national newspaper that revealed that 60% of the population would have seriously considered voting for the Liberal Democrats (the third party in the UK, typically gets 10-20% of the vote) if they thought they had a chance of winning.
If even people who think the green party candidate 'makes sense' refuse to vote for them because they won't win, there's little chance they'll ever be perceived as anything but a lunatic fringe...