Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ohio Opts to Put Touch Screen Voting on Hold

Posted by timothy on from the sheep-and-wolves-confer dept.

Dachannien writes "The AP reports that Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell is asking the Feds for an extension of the deadline for installing touch-screen voting machines at polling places for the 2004 election, citing numerous security concerns. The problems discovered in a review of 57 areas of concern include such gems as "software that permits votes to be counted more than once" and "unauthorized poll workers or others could gain access to hardware that could allow them to perform supervisory tasks, such as closing the polls.""

32 comments

  1. About time... by Ianoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Finally they're getting the message about poorly written voting software. In an critical areas like this proper software engineering techniques should be applied lavishly. It seems Diebold in particular has forgotten how to write secure software, or more likely never knew. For example, why couldn't a voting machine do what airplanes do, and have several separate machines processing the same input data, with software written by several different organisations?

    1. Re:About time... by innerlimit · · Score: 1

      It is possible to have eletronic voting! It's been done before and without that many troubles.

      I, for one, have never had to vote using plain old paper.

      --
      The Awful Truth
    2. Re:About time... by StenD · · Score: 1

      You'd still have to trust the original input device, and the software on it. Frankly, even if that device was entirely Open Source, I still wouldn't trust it to provide an accurate electronic transmission of the data. It will take a lot to pursuade me that any system which does not produce a physical, human-readable ballot for counting will be secure.

  2. Go Ohio! by HMA2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Woohoo! That's my state!

    BTW did we ever figure out why a freaking peice of paper and a pencil is no good?

    Paper and Pencil:
    Auditable: Yes
    Easy to verify: Yes
    Hard to counterfiet: Yes
    Fast Tallycounts: No
    Time in use: Predates recorded history (almost)

    Electronic voting:
    Audiable: depends
    Easy to verify: depends
    hard to counterfiet: no
    Fast Tallycounts: Yes
    Time in use: A couple of years

    I don't understand what the insane rush to e-voting is all about. (not flamebait) I suspect it has something to do with the hissyfit that certian elements of the political spectrum threw when GWB "stole" the election.

    1. Re:Go Ohio! by sfjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand what the insane rush to e-voting is all about. (not flamebait) I suspect it has something to do with the hissyfit that certian elements of the political spectrum threw when GWB "stole" the election.

      Having concerns about minorities being removed from the registration lists is hardly a "hissy fit".

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    2. Re:Go Ohio! by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Counting votes require quite a bit of manpower and are expensive. E-voting could be auditable, verifiable, hard to counterfeit, accurate, and with a fast, cheap tally.

      Of course, in a bit of bait-and-switch, the e-voting machines have been none of the above except for fast, which doesn't help unless they are also accurate. Somehow, I doubt the people elected want total verifiability. Once in a position of power, it becomes almost trivial to fake a vote... Or at least bump your numbers by a few hundred dead people.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    3. Re:Go Ohio! by llefler · · Score: 2, Informative
      There have been issues with paper votes too. Mis-counts, "lost" ballots, and a growing demand to have election tallies faster.

      There is also no reason why such an important part of our political system can't move forward to newer technologies. When appropriate.

      One thing I question is why use touch screen voting? What is wrong with this solution? Votes are cast on a piece of paper, just take a marker and fill in the appropriate bubble. Only one machine is required per location. So you have a fast count, and can always verify the acuracy by counting the paper ballots. And it's cost efficient too.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    4. Re:Go Ohio! by StenD · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There have been issues with paper votes too. Mis-counts, "lost" ballots, and a growing demand to have election tallies faster.
      True, but with paper ballots there's something to recount if there's an allegation of a mis-count. Electronic ballots can be "lost" as well, and speed should not come at the cost of accuracy.
      One thing I question is why use touch screen voting? What is wrong with this solution? Votes are cast on a piece of paper, just take a marker and fill in the appropriate bubble. Only one machine is required per location. So you have a fast count, and can always verify the acuracy by counting the paper ballots. And it's cost efficient too.
      A device like that can catch overvoting, but not undervoting due to a partially filled in bubble. I think an electronic voting device which printed a filled in bubble ballot would be the ideal. The device would be able to display the ballot in the language of the voter's choice (within reason), and ensure that only valid ballots were printed, reducing spoiled ballots. The printed ballot would still be human readable (in English and the selected alternate language), permitting the voter to verify their vote, and allowing for a manual recount if necessary. I would even go as far as to suggest that once the voter confirmed on the device that the printed ballot was correct, the initial tally could be electronic, with the paper ballots only used for recounts and cross-checking of the electronic tally.
    5. Re:Go Ohio! by HMA2000 · · Score: 1

      Certianly you are correct; but it seems to me there was a GREAT deal of sensationalism going on in the months that followed nov 2000.

      It's funny, mostly the people whine that the government never moves fast enough, in this case it seems they moved a bit too fast.

    6. Re:Go Ohio! by sfjoe · · Score: 1



      Sensationalism from the corporate media?
      I'm shocked, shocked I say.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    7. Re:Go Ohio! by killbill! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please someone enlighten me and tell me why paper is wrong!

      Europeans countries all use paper vote (one paper sheet per candidate / option), and you know what?

      One hour after poll stations close, 90% of the ballots have already been counted. Two hours after, 95% have been counted.
      While polling stations typically close at 6 or 7pm, almost-final results are announced at the 8 or 9 o' clock news.

      All were hand-counted. And I'm not speaking or Luxemburg, I'm speaking of 60 to 80 million people nations like the UK, France or Germany.

      Indeed the US has 3 times as many ballots to count. But it also has 3 times as many people to count them.

      Now, optical-scanning devices would sure help cut those two hours to 10 minutes. But anything more than that is a/ unneeded b/ unreliable and c/ costly.

    8. Re:Go Ohio! by xmlmaster · · Score: 1

      I have _never_ voted in an election that had fewer than twelve separate issues on the ballot, and it's not unheard of for as many as fifty. Can you imagine giving people fifty different pieces of paper to vote on?

      My understanding of European democracy is that voters simply choose a box for the party they're voting for, and then go home.

      Here (on the West Coast) you have a huge number of offices to vote on, from Governor to Dogcatcher. As well as all of the Issues that got placed on the ballot by initiative petition and levies or bond issues by local government bodies.

    9. Re:Go Ohio! by killbill! · · Score: 1

      Then simply use a sheet with several "bubbles" to fill and read them with that optical scanning device.

      Fast, reliable, and painless.
      (set up rules to select what counts as a "filled". Darkness-based for instance. No more pregnant chads again please !)

    10. Re:Go Ohio! by Brightest+Light · · Score: 1
      Then simply use a sheet with several "bubbles" to fill and read them with that optical scanning device.

      Unfortunately, some people have a very difficult time grasping concepts such as "fill in the bubbles completely" or "punch the "chad" all the way out" which leads to more drama &etc. As I recall, this was part of the whole election debacle in Florida.

    11. Re:Go Ohio! by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      This is where you should use electronic voting machines to print the bubbles. If you're paranoid, you could then carry that to an old-style station and compare to make sure it was right.

      The right answer is not necessarily an either-or.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Go Ohio! by MichiganDan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the secret paper ballot was an invention of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Prior to that voting usually took place by a show of hands, a division (the ayes to one side, the nays to the other), or by voice vote. In some Swiss canton elections, it still works this way (or so I am told). The English and Welsh elections do run on paper ballots that look like they're hot off the photocopier. They give you a little golf pencil and you put an X next to the candidate you want to select. Rocket science! Paper works best when ballow boxes can all be secure and accounted for -- but at least this is an open source method of security, and one that's completely open to public scrutiny. Of course, this is manipulable -- Texas is still missing ballot box 13 from the 1956 Senate election -- but it's much more transparent.

  3. Now if only my state would clue in by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I live in the People's Republic of Maryland, and they are bulling ahead despite the fact that THEIR OWN STUDY said it was insecure.

    Basic response: "We're confident that the problems will be fixed in time."

    Keep in mind this is one of the only 2 states that have implemented UCITA. Why? "Virginia has implemented it, so we need to implement it to stay competitive."

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Now if only my state would clue in by redaphid · · Score: 1

      In Maryland check http://www.truevotemd.org We are a group of concerned citizens who are pressuring the state to adopt a verified paper audit trail.

      --
      RedAphid
  4. Physical Security by BrynM · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:
    "These software enhancements will be implemented in all touch screen units deployed within Ohio and the process-related questions are addressed in the Diebold Election Systems training manuals," Radke said.
    Why is everyone assuming that software is the only problem. It would seem to me that physical security is just as important. Blackwell points it out, but even most /.ers ignore it. The machines need locking cases. All media needs to be locked up tight. Transportation of these devices is, at least to me, the second weakest link in the security chain (Wireless networking is the top and is to me another physical security issue). During transportation, there is little supervision and scheduled arrival times can be fudged. Just imagine, a laptop with drive image and a power source for the target box are all you would really need. Take a snap of the drive and then see how you could manipulate the software via the wireless connection or even figure out how to fake your own connection. Sure it won't work for the current election, but the next one...

    The problem is: physical security takes money and genuine work by the vendor. Software, as we all know, can be made to "seem" to work rather easily.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  5. The by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The score so far is:
    california SOS requires verifiable voting
    Louisiana SOS wants to replace all their ES&S machines, not sure with what yet.
    Nevada SOS has called for a public forum to determine if the public wants verifiable voting, he doesn't think its essential for security but recognizes it may have value for public confidence.
    New York Assembly passes bill requiring verified voting. Companion bill is awaiting a vote in the NY senate

    Russ Holts bill is now up to 84 sponsors some republican. But it's stuck in a committee chaired by Rep Nye (Ohio--- AKA Diebold) so its unlikely to pass in advance of strong public support. On the bright side, the NY times is now covering this not as a technical issue but as a political issue: Krugman has two columns dedicated to it, and the candidate Kucinich put it on his congressional web site. So its moving into the mainstream at least. Hopefully it can not become tainted as partisan.

    Also relevant:
    NY City's Council (? not sure what they call it) passed a resolution calling for the senate to pass the bill and the Elections's manager supports it too. I should note that the population of NY City comparable in size to many small states so this is no small endorsement.

    So the tide is slowly turning.

    The GAO, and the Library of congress have both said the problems are formidable and FEC regulations are not yet up to date.

    Marylands SIAC report is an interesting case. The govenor redacted about 80% of it so we dont know exactly what was said. We do know that the Elections officials said the problems are all fixed now, thank you. To which the response from Rubin, the John hopkins researcher that anaylsed the diebold code said: "If they are all fixed then you should release the report", and the Election official had to respond: "oh that would be giving a roadmap to how to break in". What the fuck is going on! are these people blind zealots or retards?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I should note that the population of NY City comparable in size to many small states so this is no small endorsement.

      Minor nit:
      Informative post, but I happen to have an unhealthy obsession with population stats.
      NYC's population is actually larger any small or medium state. To be exact, there are 39 states with fewer people than NYC.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  6. Informative: Mod Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go Ohio

  7. and then there's Diebold CEO Walden ODell... by frankie · · Score: 1

    ...who said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year". Not a good thing to hear from the guy in charge of making the voting machines.

  8. Problem solved! by moquist · · Score: 1

    Why is there all this fuss about finding a good vendor for electronic voting? The problem has already been solved in open source - we should use Slashdot polls. CowboyNeal for president, anyone?

  9. nitty nit nit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster said "comparable" not "greater than". Technically the population of any state could be "compared" NY city. Though in the colloquial use of the term the poster no doubt meant the populationas in the ball park of the population of NY city. But "greater" was not implied.

  10. Wisconsin State Elections Board by bmasel · · Score: 1

    For some reason we never get mentioned in the articles on touchscreen voting, perhaps because we were too far ahead of the curve.

    In January, 2002 the State Elections Board approved two closed source touch screen voting systems, the ES&S Votronic DRE and the GBS Accu-Touch EBS 100 DRE.

    This spring I raised the system integrity issues with the Board, and in April they revoked the certifications.

    --
    Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
    1. Re:Wisconsin State Elections Board by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Hi, I collect documentation on this sort of thing. Could you point me to an article or priimary source on this. What did you tell the board and how did you tell them. What did you do to get access (public comment periods?) Elaborate!

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. How New Mexico does it by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    In new mexico our secretary of state has a generous definition fo chain of custordy. the people who drive the machines to the polling places leave them abandoned and go have a beer. The only reason they got caught was they had a traffic accident that over turned the truck and destroyed the machines. I'm not making this up. Google for it, I think it was in the albuqueque tribune.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  12. Why is this so difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my county I fill out a card either by drawing lines through an area or filling in dots. I take that card from the booth to a scanner, feed it in and it's read. They hand me a "I Voted Today" sticker and I leave.

    What is so hard about a touch screen system that when finished prints a human readable reciept that has a barcode or some other machine readable marks. The voter takes it, feeds into a reader, the reader marks it as read and he leaves with his reciept or record of his vote?

    That's more than I'm getting today. The last time I voted the card got sucked up by the reader and I never saw it again.

    Cost can't be a factor, the "reciept" or vote paper could be cheep cash register paper for all the reader cares.

    The vote "proof" is in the printout, they can keep a copy, I could get one too. Why is this so difficult?

  13. Demo... by Android23 · · Score: 1

    And to celebrate this little ban, Tower City in Cleveland is offering demonstrations of the Diebold e-voting machine.

    --
    -=Android=- Chew's Eye Shop http://www.chewseyeshop.com
  14. High Tech Solution by Zw5 · · Score: 1

    Sometimes a high tech solution isn't the best solution.

    3dinfo@maficstudios.com