Slashdot Mirror
E-Voting Done Right - In Australia
tehanu writes "After all the furor over e-voting in America, Wired News has an article about e-voting done right in Australia. An important factor is that all of the software is open-source. The company responsible actually seems to have given consideration to the integrity of the democratic process, too - from the lead engineer: 'Why on earth should (voters) have to trust me -- someone with a vested interest in the project's success? A voter-verified audit trail is the only way to 'prove' the system's integrity to the vast majority of electors, who after all, own the democracy.' They also have scathing words for Diebold: 'The only possible motive I can see for disabling some of the security mechanisms and features in their system is to be able to rig elections. It is, at best, bad programming; at worst, the system has been designed to rig an election.' In general they are 'gob-smacked' by the whole situation with electronic voting machines in the US right now."
Don't kid yourself: open source is nice, but it doesn't guarantee a fault-proof or secure voting system (suppose somebody installs wrong or malicious software on one of the machines?). The only way to do that is to provide voting receipts which can be counted independently, by hand -- and that does not exclude closed-source solutions.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
E-voting is not secure because there is really no way to truly check someone's identity. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!, there are tools like openssl and gpg to give people certificates or keys that can prove they are who say they are when they are online to vote. I like to vote while knocking the bottom out of my toilet withmy wireless laptop. I believe keys and/or certs are the best way to go. Take it from me, I have been in the security part of the IT world for 6.5 years now.
Now that's what I call engineering ethics, letting people know the truth about what you're doing. Fine, maybe a computer should at least keep the software code to themselves (patent it so no one else could use it, I do believe in some intellectual property rights), but Diebold should have at least let us see the code so we can tell them how holey it is.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Isn't the voting system run by the state? Shouldn't the source code be available by the Freedom of Information Act or something?
"If a voting system precludes any notion of a meaningful recount, is cloaked in secrecy and controlled by individuals with conflicts of interest, why would anyone buy it?," Quinn said. "At the very least give citizens the right to choose whether they want to use paper ballots ... thus allowing each elector to be personally satisfied as to the integrity of the process in which they are participating."
That just makes... sense.
The company responsible (namely Software Improvements) is clearly pushing to pick up a contract for machine development in the U.S., and saying All The Right Things (tm) to get it.
Don't blame them really, Diebold left themselves wide open - should be easy pickins.
---
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
so his comments don't apply here. An electronic system in the US that statisfies the owners of the democracy in the US needs to staisfy the Republican party and its big money supporters. The Diebold system is perfect for this and hence is the choice in the US. Why bother how people vote when you can control how the votes are counted? So long as the difference between the opinion polls and exit polls and the official "results" aren't too large you can get away with stealing elections for as long as you want.
development.lombardi.com
We have an incredibly secure infrastructure already in place that could easily handle e-voting. We can already buy stamps from ATM machines... I find it hard to believe that someone could write an app to be deployed on all the systems to handle an election. And as far as the constiuents that don't have an exsiting ATM card, I'm going to guess that its going to be a lot easier and cheaper to just issue them ATM-voter cards then to create/install e-voting needs for those without computers.
"If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit." - Mitch Hedberg
a robust, fully secure, fully anonymous, standardized (across states, counties, whateveer your contry might have) would be a great step towards a true democracy instead of a, oh damnit my mind went blank and lost the word... a democracy that uses such machinations as an electoral college, as the U.S. uses. I would assume that the electoral college is in place simply because it would have been too hard to count millions of votes by hand. computers can count and sort easily. get rid of the middleman who may or may not (though historically does as the votes say) elect the correct person.
isn't it like saying the techniques to print money should be open source and available to the public because we want to know if our money is printed right? Whether it is open source or not is irrelevant. Obviously the government should have access to the source from the vendor (just like the government owns the designs to all the military aircraft it gives boeing or lockheed to build). Good software is software engineered properly. Whether it is open or not is irrelevant
did you forget to take your meds?
Election Systems and Software, the other major electronic voting company, is also, coincidentally, run by a big Repub' contributor. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has a stake in that company. Can you imagine that? A sitting senator with financial interests in a company responsible for counting votes? Unbelievable.
Sort of makes me think about how incredibly brazen Halliburton's role is in Iraq now. These people don't even attempt to maintain the illusion of impartiality. So, see, you're right -- this Australian company's ideas about the proper way to ensure confidence, they just don't apply. As long as our Repubs can fly under the radar, they don't care whether it's right or not.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Nobody says open source is better because it's open source. It has to be open source because is MUST be open source by principle.
Get that in your damn head. Every citizen (who cares) should have the right to get a deep insight into how his vote is eletronically processed. If you're not allowed to know how your vote is processed you have no democrazy.
... the fact that you can read "the" source code doesn't guarantee that's the version of the software -- or even the software itself -- actually being run on the machine. Is there some audit procedure for the compile/link/install process?
licet differant, aequabitur
How is posting an article pointing out that our elections might be rigged anti-American? Surely they wouldn't point out the flaw in order to perpetuate it.
Aside from the double-meaning of my title (e.g. SI = metric system, something the US is also adverse to adopting), I see a couple obstacles facing the Aussie company if they want to break into the US market.
1) Imagine the outcry from Americans when they learn they're contracting a foreign company to handle their voting system. Oddly enough they won't have cared that Diebold's being all secretive and evasive about their own flaws while SI is open and honest and better suited to uphold the fair democratic system the US claims to cherish. To them I'd say ditch the NIH (not invented here) syndrome--if it works better than what you have, either make a competing product that's truly better or shut up about it.
2) Diebold will use MS' tactics, calling SI's system "un-American". Again, double meaning, but this time I mean because it's open source.
3) Watch Diebold play points 1 and 2 to the hilt, calling on its political ties to ensure SI never gets a foothold in the US. In so doing they pull a two-fer, by simultaneously kicking out a leg from under the democratic underpinnings of the US, as well as another leg from the "capitalist" system the US also claims to be, e.g. where companies compete based on the merits of the product and marketing, without political interference.
Incidentally, the Australian system requires you by law to vote. Maybe that's something the US ought to consider importing too. Argue if you want about being free to NOT vote, but voting is a duty, not just a right, and you should be compelled to do it. Just like you are to report to training if you get drafted, or filing a tax return--you're not free to refuse either of those without legal consequences, right?
What's sad about my writing this is that I have no influence in US politics, being a Canadian, but I seem to have more interest in your politics than the majority of voting Americans, who don't even bother to go to the polls.
This really isn't a problem if all projects are mandated to be open source.
Frankly, for the verification and transparancy of election systems process NOT to be open seems like a "kick me" sign for trouble.
Until now, the voting system and how votes were tabulated and kept were open. You could see the machines, the process and review it all.
The new electronic systems just presenent you with a total in essence, with no real transparancy in the system.
If this is the result of reform, I'd much rather pay 10X's as much per election, and go to scantron forms for the entire country.
Transparancy and open-ness is a REQUIREMENT for voting systems. Perhaps there are other ways to accomplish this without opensource software, but I doubt it.
Cheers,
Greg
That would be because there's not much to be pro about in america these days.
Here speaks someone who sounds like he has never been out of America.
You take most of the good things about America completely for granted, and that is because things are so stable, you don't realise just how lucky you are.
So speaks someone who is not American, and who knows how bad things can get.
Count your blessings, but first I suggest you figure out what they are.
I realise that I am assuming you are American or Canadian, or perhaps even to a lesser extent European, but my experience shows that those with their bum in the butter are typically the first to forget about the existence of butter. When was the last time you thought about the air that you breathe?
I can moan about Americans with the best of them, but I won't let that blind me to just what they have achieved, and the good parts of their life and system.
Moan about the cons, but do yourself a favour and remember the pros.
---
Could someone explain to me why you can't just write an X on a bit of paper with a pencil, put it in a sealed box, and count up the totals at the end like we do here in the UK?
I just don't see why you need to use any more technology. What is the point?
I'm not one for playing the mindless patriotism card, but I really do feel that (for the Americans out there) it is our duty to do something about this.
Mindless patriots support the government, while real patriots support the people, and challenge the government to do what's right for everyone. The implementation Diebold has come up with is not good for any of us, and is not right.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Any technology introduced to improve the act of voting cannot make the act of counting less transparent or democracy suffers.
It is apparent that Diebold's systems (not to mention Diebold's paranoia for secrecy) render the act of counting less accountable and less transparent. Ergo, democracy suffers.
If used in a close election - where exit polling and other secondary measurements are unable to confirm the results of the counting - the wrong person might actually get elected President of the United States of America.
With no sense of responsibility to the coutry at large, this illegitimate President might launch a series of Napoleonic wars to to compensate for his own feelings of inadequacy.
I digress into fantasy... the little blue ones I washed down with all those adult beverages must be kicking in.
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
It always amazes me that 10% of the population can't follow any instruction more complex than waiting in line. You can hand them a paper ballot, you can even have a little PICTURE of how they should fill in their vote, and what happens?
They will circle the candidate's name, mark all the candidates they DON'T want, write a poorly spelled version of the candidates name somewhere on the ballot, or goodness knows what else. Seriously, how do these people manage to get through the day?
Overall, I would say the ATM-style voting machine, printing out a human-readable ballot is the ideal combination of transparency and ease-of-use.
The preferential system is also used in the Australian senate, where there are no boundaries within states. Here we see minority parties (Greens, Democrats, independents) getting seats and so having a say in politics. This is why the senate is so important in Australia, as a house of review. In my opinion, the preferential system works well for multiple parties, despite its complexity.
At least with a paper audit trail there can be physical evidence of vote disposal. A group in a room behind closed doors might manage to dispose of a handful, or even in an open-forum if they're good magicians.
Disposing of hundreds / thousands / tends of thousands of paper votes is a bit trickier if you don't want to be discovered.
Paper is good because we have centuries of experience in knowing how to secure a paper audit trail. Experience that probably shouldn't be thrown out (baby with the bathwater) just to implement some new cool digital voting technology.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
- Unfortunately, the idea is completely unrealistic today.
Seeing that the idea turned out to be completely unworkable when Plato himself tried to implement his system on Sicily, I dare say the idea was totally unrealistic right from the start.- Personally I think that the state should be ruled by a group of philosophers (in Plato's terminology), basically by scientists and other specialists (engineers, generals for Defence Ministry, etc.). The emphasis should be made on the consensus-based decision-making, but voting should still be an option. These rulers should be well-educated and raised to be honest. The selection should be done in an objective and transparent way.
First of all, scientists and specialists are not the impartial and unprejudiced uber-folk they are cracked up to be. For better and worse, they are human too, with all of the foibles and idiosyncrasies characteristic of humans whatever their specialist status. If you knew a fair number of them or if you knew anything about scientific history you would know this. (For an enjoyable read on the subject, cf. e.g., Steven Jay Gould's Bligh's Bounty and In A Jumbled Drawer in Bully For Brontosaurus or Thomas Kuhn's -- I think -- musings on paradigm shifts in science.) Sometimes they are perhaps 'better' than non-specialists, but sometimes they are decidedly 'worse' and sometimes they are just plain 'awful'. And as for their upbringing. I doubt there are very many people who were brought up to be dishonest; they may end up that way in the end, but do you really think that they were raised that way? And how are you going to ensure that a suitable upbringing is being applied anyway? By some 'Gattaca-like' analysis and selection coupled with some Spartan-like mandatory boarding schools for future leaders?Further, selecting them in an 'objective and transparent way' -- how? And by whom? By voters? In an election? Or do you perchance know of a better way to select/elect people? Maybe you think you do, after all, democracy has many flaws. So far, however, it has turned out to have the least flaws; to quote Winston Churchill: It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Finally, let us imagine a hypothetical case in a society in ruled by your 'philosophers'. Let us imagine that we have a curvy road on which 100 fatal accidents occur every year. According to the appropriate road accident experts straightening the road would bring the death rate down to 50. We assume that they are right. Straightening the road would mean draining a swamp where the road would go. In the swamp lives a certain species of frog. Our frog experts inform us that this frog does not live anywhere else and that draining the swamp would render this particular kind of frog extinct. We assume that they are right. So now your society is faced with a choice: either let 50 people/year die or let the frog go extinct. We assume no other solutions are possible. How would your 'philosophers' solve this question? Consensus is out of the question as no compromise solution is possible. In other words, they would have to vote on the issue. Let me now suggest to you that we are already really close to doing what you suggest: we are already electing 'experts' but they are experts at choosing one thing over another rather than at the scientific reasons supporting that choice. Oh, and we prefer to call them 'politicians'.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
OK.. I'll start by saying that maybe it is you who need to broaden your horizons a bit and get your news from sources other than Fox News (whose Chairman and CEO was the media director for the George HW Bush campaign in 1988 and the creator and executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show) and heavily Republican-leaning talk radio. You yourself state that johnkerry.com isn't exactly un-biased (sic). Do you think Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are? I am not a Democrat, so that's not why I'm saying this. I'm saying it because the very facts you sarcastically say we shouldn't let get in our way don't support your position.
Take a peek at this. It's a presentation of the results of the recount. It starts by repeating that Bush won the official certified result by 537 votes (Bush 2,912,790; Gore 2,912,253). It then shows what would have happened in 5 different possible recount scenarios.
First, if Gore's request for recounts of four specific counties had been granted, he would have still lost, though by a smaller margin-- 225 votes (Bush 2,913,351; Gore 2,913,126).
The second scenario presented is if the Supreme Court had not stopped the partial recounts already underway in Florida. Again, Gore loses, by a margin very slightly smaller than the certified result-- 493 votes (Bush 2,916,559; Gore 2,916,066).
So far, two "Bush wins" results, both coming from what Democrats were seeking (Gore's request for a recount of 4 specific counties, plus completion of the partial recounts already in progress). Looks like Bush would win in any conceivable scenario, right? Let's continue.
First, they could have used "the most liberal methods they could, counting anything that even remotely looked like a vote for Gore" (as you put it), but they didn't. They did do one recount using a similar but fair standard, accepting any dimpled punch card or any mark on an optical scan ballot that indicated a candidate choice, whether it was Gore or Bush. The result? Gore won (so much for "In every recount they did Bush still won), by a very narrow margin of 107 votes (Gore 2,924,695; Bush 2,924,588). But if that were the only Gore victory, your argument, while wrong on some details, would still have a foundation of truth. Let's continue.
Given that very loose standard, one could fairly ask for a recount with a very rigid standard. For example, one could ask for a recount where only fully-punched ballot cards and correctly marked optical scan ballots are accepted, again, independent of the candidate chosen. Who'd win that one? Bush? Nope. I'll give you one more guess...
'Dja get it right? Let's check. Here's the result of the recount using that very rigid standard: Gore by 115 (Gore 2,915,245; Bush 2,915,130).
Hmmm... looks like your "recounting anything that even remotely looked like a vote for Gore" has been debunked by those inconvenient facts you mentioned, as has "In every recount they did Bush still won."
There is one more reasonable standard that could be applied to a recount: one could simply let each county's own standard apply to disputed ballots from that county. Recounting under those conditions yielded President Gore too, by a margin of 171 votes (Gore 2,917,847; Bush 2,918,676).
It's ironic that Gor
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
The representative is supposed to represent ALL of those in his electoral district, whether or not they did vote. Or even *could* vote (minors fr example).
Good point, however I still believe that if you can vote then you should. It is one thing to rail at the government when you are disenfranchised, however it is quite another to have the opportunity to actually have a say and waste it.
Voting is not a right it is a responsibility. It is, for a lot of people, the only way to get a say in what the government does. If you voluntarily abdicate that responsibility then you have to wear the cost.
The best thing about the Australian electrocal system is compulsary voting. This elimnates many of the problems that can occur when you only have about 30% of the eligable population voting.
In australia (and the rest of the world) we are extremely sensitive to the american political decisions, especially those relating to foreign trade and policy.
The concept of a closed source system, developed by people who openly pledge to "deliver votes to the president" (you don't need references, it's all over the /. front page), can covertly apply patches and allegedly have back-doors, seems pure insanity to me.
Just my AU$0.02...
Q.
Insert Signature Here