Slashdot Mirror
CNN Reports on Diebold
An Anonymous Reader writes "CNN has finally picked up the story about concerns about Diebold voting machines. It's about time this made it into the mainstream media." If you're interested, here are a couple
of related
stories.
explanation as to why there is no paper audit trail? Since that is the clearest, easiest, most obvious sore point, the first element to raise big, flappin' red flags with the most lay of lay-persons, what official explanation has Diebold come up with as to why there is no paper audit trail?
What are the problems with the current system of a piece of paper and an X? How would this new system overcome them? Most importantly, what extra problems would this new system cause? These are all questions that should be answered before any public money is spent on changing the way people can vote.
Video Game cheats, hints a
Civil Disobedience is a great example of how democracy should work.
A law made by "the people" is made to represent the best interest of "the people" in general. It should be fair and in proportion, and that should be the basis for obedience to that law. Making theft illegal is in everone's best interests, because it should protect your posessions.
When a law is out of proportion, unjust, or in any other case plain wrong, it is no longer in the best interest of the people in general, and thus should be void. "The people" ignore (break) the law, because they in general do not agree with it.
The ability for the public to act this way should prevent government agents from making laws for their own benefit (corruption). The public has a means of protecting their public interest.
If the voting system is corrupted, it's in the publics best interest to expose this. I'm not aware of who leaked the memos in the first place, but linking to material available on the web should not be punished IMHO.
I think it's utterly wrong to place responsibility of the counting of votes in the hands of a commercial enterprise, not if they don't give full and in-depth insight in the process, and allow auditing at every level at any time. Not because I'm an open source zealot or "liberal", but because I trust a commercial enterprise as far as I can throw them, and that's not very far...
David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold Election Systems Inc., one of the larger voting machine makers, said "the fact of the matter is, there's empirical data to show that not only is electronic voting secure and accurate, but voters embrace it and enjoy the experience of voting that way."
This is the point where a bad reporter starts typing up the story, and a good reporter starts asking about smartcards reporting -16,000 votes. At least the AP is looking at the right story now, so hopefully eventually the right person will be looking at it.
Why not just stick with the old punch-card method?
I'm wondering if all of those dangling/hanging chads were caused by equipment that had seen better days. Think about how many years those machines served us well. No one here is a stranger to the fact that equipment wears out and gets old. On the other hand, the voter also has a responsibility to make sure that the card is punched to the best of their ability. If your choice isn't legible and it's by no fault of the machine (noted by the individual at that moment) that vote should be discounted.
With touch screens, you're just complicating it. That just my opinion though...
Machines will never be appropriate for something this simple - and I say that in a cost effective paradigm.
The only way to be sure that a machine isn't fucking up or being abused is to print an audit trail..... which would use paper so any cost effectiveness goes out the window. Not even counting the cost of expensive machines etc.
The other reason to oppose this is to stop voting from moving anywhere outside of the polling booth (which is where the logic of electronic voting leads) -- because that will just lead to massive fraud, hacking, vote buying, and husbands standing over their wives and children during voting time to make sure they vote for "the party" (which shall remain unnamed).
it doesn't stand up;
technologically (security).
economically (it's madness)
or democratically (it has sinister implications, vulnerabilities and adds nothing other than a contempt for the average voters understanding of how ballots work)
So, from a gnu/linux and general tech lover, fuck off technology we don't need you here.
This paragraph annoys me the most though,
They embrace it huh? They enjoyed the experience? What empirical data, the one he pulled out of his ass? That's something he'd probably enjoy. Interesting how CNN headlines the last section with "Critics Mistaken"
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
This article doesn't have anything to do with the previous Diebold evilness...
This article is more about the general problems with touchscreen voting in general.
I think touchscreen voting is a good thing!
Yes, it will be less secure. Yes, it makes everybody nervous note to have things on pen and paper... However, you can say that about everything that is now done electronically! Heck, it just paid all my monthly bills online this am. My granddad would never trust "these new fangled machines" to send/accept his money.
There will be problems with new machines... it's good we are talking about them now. Hell, I just hope that this is another step toward online voting. Woah... talk about security problems then.
Davak
Apparently, the poster didn't actually read the article... It doesn't mention the Diebold memos about how easy it is to modify results. The article gives the reader the idea that those opposed to electronic voting machine are all technophobes that don't 'get' how great these new machines are.
In my opinion, this article does nothing to help. Not that it matters. My state managed to count its votes correctly back in 2000, and they agreed with the majority of the nation. Touchscreens aren't what Florida needs. They need better-trained officials, and apparently a better graphic designers... And better voters, judging by their electoral votes back in 2000... Just kidding.
Man, I love computers. But they sure are a pain in the butt.
Both the print and online editions of Newsweek have an article about the systems as well.
Computer Scientists are usually:
"Use a computer to do it. Its 3 million times faster, can read your mind and do your ironing!"
And the non geeks respond:
"Nah, its too hard, expensive, dangerous and unreliable."
Whereas in this case it seems we can't disuade them from using it.
I wonder how long it would take to label these electronic voting systems as a joke if one were allowed a circumspect examination. Of course you won't be able to get anywhere near them because the developer company will claim security when the only real security is being completely open about it.
according to this site, 80 percent of american votes are cast by machines built by one of two corporations (Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems -- both described as 'Republican'). Although this concentation does not directly preclude democracy, it does certainly make it rather vulnerable.
Official explanation? You make it seem as if Americans were robbed of Robotic Al Gore on a shoddy recount or something. The Powers that be would never lie, they believe in God so there you atheistic terrorist. And if that doesn't work, we could always send in the army to take over the oilwells in your backyard. SUV driving, gas guzzling, Al Qaeda following, non-bible reading oxycondone abuser. That was so unAmerican of you... Paper trail... *scoffs
MoFscker
We are a Constitutional Republic NOT a "democracy".
I don't want to live under the tyranny of the whims of "the people" voting on every little thing that they know nothing about.
If everyone if so concerned about verifibility of the election results, then give them what they want. This seems so obvious to me...
Use a machine (e.g. a touchscreen based computer) to generate a paper ballot. This paper ballot should both contain a human readable printout of what you (the voter) just voted for, as well as a mag-stripe encoding of the same. Use the same basic technology as used in the airline industry - human readable on the front, machine readable on the back. These printed, mag-stripe coded ballots are then given to the kind people at the balloting place where it is deposited into a locked steel box for counting later. No electronic counting on-premesis. No "internet connections". Just consistent, countable, checkable, permanent and persistent results.
The results are electronically counted thanks to the mag-stripe encoding. If someone or some organization wishes to contest the count results, there is the printed version on the front of each card to give an actual, unmistakable account of that vote.
The ballot generating machines would be there strictly to generate a "valid" ballot. Valid in this sense meaning checking that someone isn't exceeding the number of votes per race allowed (e.g. not voting for more than 1 person for the presidential election). The machine would also generate a "review" screen before the ballot is actually printed to allow the voter to make sure that all their votes were properly tabulated.
The whole point of this mindless exercise is to produce consistent, unmistakable results, right? No more "hanging chads" or partial punch-thru's, right? No more presidential election decisions by the Supreme Court, right?
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
You hit the nail on the head. This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of elections. But consider what 'open' means in this context.
The entire process of casting and tallying votes should be open, so that every voter knows what happens in each step of the process, or that he at least can be sure that other people are keeping a proper eye on the process on his behalf. Only then will the majority of the voters have faith in the accuracy of the results of the election, even if they do not necessarily agree with the outcome. This is a key aspect in any functioning democracy.
The system of paper-based ballots is very open, in the sense that the ordinary voters can understand the process. They can also understand that the counting is fair, and that every person involved is watched by at least one other person. In most democratic countries, voting offices are staffed by representatives from every party taking part in the election.
Those who think open-source software will make electronic voting open, think again. Electronic voting is way too complicated for ordinary folks to understand. Grandma isn't going to inspect the source code. Which trustworthy person can do this for her, and inspect everything without oversights? "Of course electronic voting is safe, grandma, you can inspect the source code yourself! Oh, well you can take my word for it being safe... no... no, I have not inspected all 100.000 lines of this code, not for every single machine that was used in the election! But I am sure someone has... oh, no I can't be sure that they didn't overlook something.".
No, open-source electronic voting does not make for open elections.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I mean... if you BANK online, what's so bad about voting online? Seriously.
If I bank online with a trojaned computer, and the trojan user electronically transfers money from my account, the bank has a record of where that money went which they and I can see (and investigate) at any time, and which will be investigated as soon as I notice a discrepancy in my balance or review my next bank statement.
If I vote online with a trojaned computer, then the trojan just has to get inbetween me and the voting server once, and if it does so, it's succeeded. I can't check my individual vote against the county tallies; nor will I be receiving a printed statement of my vote in the mail shortly afterward. There's no sure way to discover "Hey, someone screwed up my vote!", and no easy way to trace any discovery to the perpetrator afterward.
And needless to say, there will be lots of trojaned computers. How many internet-sweeping worms and email trojans do we get on the average year? Probably enough to throw a lot of elections.
not the story.
CNN didn't mention the leaked internal memos, the cease and desist letters, or the refusal to remove them from the internet.
Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
From the CNN article:
The complaints about lever machines in the early 1900's did not come from mechanical engineers. Instead, they came from groups of people who did not understand these "confounded contraptions". The election officials could, or could allow anyone to, examine the insides and workings of these machines. There was no secrecy about it.
Ironically, the complaints about punch cards have, in part, come true. This is why we are doing this rush to computer voting in the first place, because the punch card system in Florida (and as it turns out, elsewhere, too) showed the faults in the system. But despite the flaws in punch card systems, there was no secrecy; they could be examined and the flaws could be seen and understood.
Both systems above were not only "open systems", but also had various audit trails incorporated. While not perfect, punch cards could be manually counted if machine counts were suspect. The flaw with Diebold and other electronic voting systems isn't that they are electronic, nor is it even that they might be connect to, or through, the internet. Instead, the flaw is that unlike their predecessors, these systems are closed, and have no audit trails.
Unlike past systems, where the concerns were raised by people that didn't know much about the technology they were based on, the issues being raised about electronic voting systems are being raised by people who fully understand this technology, the flaws that are inherint in the technology itself, and the methodologies needed to compensate for such flaws, and ensure reliable and correct operation despite such flawed technology. All the voting systems have flaws, and they always will. What sets the past systems apart from what vendors are trying to push on us today is that those past systems were known to be flawed to a certain degree, and they could be examined to verify that. What vendors of electronic machines are asking us to believe is that their systems are absolutely perfect and that no one ever needs to "look inside" to verify anything, and that no audit trails, and no recounts, will be needed.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Yes, but the design of those lever machines is available to election officials, and can be examined carefully prior to every election. Is Diebold willing to offer those assurances to election officians? Say, open sourcing everything and allowing officials to take it apart and reassemble it before the election?
The HAV act (help amerca vote), created a land rush by mandating a minumum number of touchscreen voting machines by 2004. The stalking horse provision in the bill is that blind people cant use most voting systems without assistance, and people in wheel chairs have difficulties as well. Noble motivation yes, but the cure is worse than the problem.
This land rush was led by diebold with a first-to-market system. they acheived this by using off the shelf components and OS and DB. THe system has not proven reliable or safe. I wont regurgitaete the accusationsof fraud, except to mention that any time elections differ by 6 sigma from poll results someting reeks. Unfortunatley other companies ESS and Sequoia tried to keep pace. the ESS systems at least have the benefit of actually failing to boot so often that florida has abandoned them! THe Sequoia system is the best of the lot but still has its own flaw. At least the sequoia people, when pushed, seem to be trying to respond to the demand for voter verified balloting.
The good news is that After pressure by california's santa clara county (19 million dollar
contract), Sequoia voting system has agrees to implement (at no cost) a
voter verified, recountable, paper ballot in addition to the touch
screen systems.
(see here )
Already the House of representatives has a bill pending ( The Voter
Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003) that will require
all touch screen voting systems to be voter verifiable.
(see here )
Indeed the entire country of brazil, which has 400,000 electronic
voting machines has decide to replace them with voter verifiable
systems.
(see here )
A 95 page caltech and MIT study surveying many years of voting reports
that among all voting methods, the method with the single largest
average error rate is electronic voting, which is senate and
gubenatorial elections has almost TWICE the error rate of optical scan voting. This means that by enfranchising blind people we disenfranchise far more people. a bad trade.
(see here page 21 )
Indeed reality is much worse since that's just an average, since
electronic voting errors tend to be both non-random and clustered in
catastrophic events.
For example, Bernalio county in Albuquerque reported 48,000 voters went to the polls
but only 36,000 votes were registered on Sequoia voting systems.
(see here )
Similarly, many votes were lost in the latest election in florida
counties using Sequoia voting systems. Janet reno is investigating
cases where heavily democratic counties registered ZERO votes for any
democrat. Sequoia systems has presented Los Alamos FALSE information
of Seqouia systems. For example, they claimed it did not run on
windows OS. In fact WinEDS their database collection system is based
upon microsoft OS, and uses a Microsoft-based SQL DB, and the password for
this system is "password" (really!).
(see here )
You can in fact obtain this very minute on CD rom a program which will
break into any diebolds MS ACCESS based database and change results then erase all log
entries of the intrusion. It's easy to imagine that SQL can nbe attacted too either by security hoiles or user admin mistakes in the table grants.
Sequoia's Glowing reviews in florida, santa
clara and Lousianna counties are somewhat marred by the fact that the
Luosianna county agent who reviews them highly is now under indictment
for a payoff from seqouia, like wise the santa clara and florida
registrar have both been (publicly) paid off by the
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In reading all these comments on touch screen voting I've never seen the issue that bothers me most raised.
There is a constant refrain that any system can be hacked. Sure any voting system can be compromised but the how is all important. It you're going to stuff ballot boxes you need to have a bunch of people do it and they have too have physical access to the boxes. How many boxes can one person stuff, 1? 10? Many more opportunities to catch them in the act. In a computerized system one person can hack the whole election creating any results that that one person may want. This is IMHO a totally different magnitude of issue.
This sort of problem also favors the incumbent wildly, who has all the access to any part of the system they may want.
Just because any system can be hacked doesn't make all hacks the same. Some are worse than others and some favors one person or group more than others
You say: "They can also understand that the counting is fair, and that every person involved is watched by at least one other person. In most democratic countries, voting offices are staffed by representatives from every party taking part in the election."
This is why Open Source Electronic Voting would be safer, because even though your Grandma and even you would not be able to check all the 100,000 lines of code it still would be available for the different political parties to check themselves and THEY have a good incentive to make sure the system is fair, or at least not biased against them, with the opposite party making sure it isn't biased against them... resulting in a system that isn't biased against anyone; i.e. a fair system.
Also note that I said safer instead of safe because you have to account for human error and the like, but it still would be a step forward to what is used today.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
What are our other options here? If I go into my polling place on election day and see Diebold Electronic Voting Machines can I demand another voting method? Should I plan on voting absentee? Seriously, is there a way to refuse to use those damned machines and still participate in the election?
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
I think it's along the lines of "it's too hard"