Slashdot Mirror
More E-Voting SNAFUs
tassii writes "Looks like Diebold is in yet more trouble. In this article from Wired.com, an audit of the Diebold E-Voting machines revealed that the company installed uncertified software in all 17 counties that use its electronic voting equipment. While 14 counties used software that had been qualified by federal authorities but not certified by state authorities, three counties, including Los Angeles, used software that had never been certified by the state or qualified by federal authorities for use in any election. And in this article, Wired.com is reporting that at least five convicted felons secured management positions at a Diebold, including one who served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that 'involved a high degree of sophistication and planning.'"
from the article: "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote," Shelley said. "Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter."
In my thinking this should mean the source code should be opened to the public to ensure continued trust in the system. "Trust us, we're the government" doesn't carry any weight these days.
Trolling is a art,
Sometimes the most advanced and easiest way of doing something isn't the best. I'll take pen+paper sign-in and handle-pull voting machines, thank you very much.
I got a +5, Troll
After all, anytime people don't like the outcome in an election they just claim the whole thing was 'tipped' or 'stolen' anyway. Does anybody honestly believe that introducing Internet into the equation will change things?
"But if we find that there are gross discrepancies and violations, I am prepared to go down that road," he warned. "Of course, nothing could be as gross as the thought of CmdrTaco having sex." is embedded in the text
So what exactly is the problem with the way the rest of the civilized world does elections? (i.e. pen and paper and counting by hand)
It works, it has a paper-trail, any idiot understands the ballots, there are no hanging chads, and the entire voting system is entirely political and not commercia... oh, I see.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That we hear about this from Wired, as opposed to CNN? MSNBC? New York Times? Washington Post? Fox News? (well, the last is a rheotical question).
My point is, what does it take for the mainstream press to pick up on this?!?!?!?
Four more years of Bush...
Will somebody do something about these bastards?
That one guy may as well be there to secure the system (granted, he in that case did a shitty job so far) but aas far as I'm concerned in dubio pro reo is still valid.
Since the current government is committed to increasing efficiency wherever possible, the following plan will be pursued:
1) Get 75,000 WinCE-based Diebold machines built (and paid for!)
2) Send them to India and have lower-cost labour do the "voting"
Makes stealing elections MUCH more cost-effective!
Think about it, it is just a bunch of Yahoos that want to secure their status in power, and to that they need to subvert checks and balances, subvert the will of the people, etc, etc.
There is no reason to trust Diebold, for that matter. It is a corporation that has been contracted to change the way we vote, and the way we are counted.
Finding work in the private sector?!
. . why slashdot( and particularly michael )has been posting SO many stories regarding these voting machines within the last year.
Yes, it's technology, so in that sense it may be of interest to nerds, but why front page stories about every single minor event that occurs WRT e-voting several times per week ?
Walden O'Dell, head of Diebold Election Systems, wrote a letter to Republican contributors in August that said "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."
Maybe there really was much basis for his confidence ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Of course, if the conspiracy-theorists are correct and the company is a front for the RNC to control election results, or the company is in the business of selling results to the highest bidder, you'll be risking your life. Techno-warfare for the protection of our democracy.
The often suggested idea that we return to paper ballots misses an aspect of US elections that would make such thing difficult, namely the complexity of our elections. Although the national offices get most of the attention, ballots may include 20-100 other things to vote on. Everything from state representatives down to obscure changes in county and city charters that most don't even take the time to read.
These ballots have always been tedious to count by hand. Perhaps we could outsource the hand-counting to some third world country.
Woverly Harris Gooch, IV CTO American Fire and Bomb, LLC
What's the big deal? These guys sound like everyday, ordinary CEOs to me.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
From page 2 of the article:
"Shelley acknowledged responsibility for the failure of his own office to track what systems were in place and said changes would be made. He said he hoped the statewide review wouldn't result in the decertification of Diebold systems or the systems of other vendors."
The state board of elections did NOT audit these machines BEFORE THE ELECTION and KNOWING that Diebold installed uncertified software in past elections. Shelley also does not want the machines decertified. How can you decertify what you did not certify to begin with? And if Diebold REALLY IS in violation of their agreement (as Shelley claims) they should be cut out of the process IMMEDIATELY because they're NOT CERITIFED But...they're not... Why? (Because, just maybe this is a political witch-hunt? Naaaahhh..)
Lastly, Diebold says the "felon computer programmer" was released when Diebold acquired the company. Which means he never WORKED for Diebold. so there's no need to do a background check on him.
Planting cash machine weaknesses (or more likely: profiting from accidental weakness which they get to know about) allows them to obtain quicker and more anonymous rewards than tampering with elections would.
An obviously fake high-stakes election might lead to a thorough investigation, which might not only land the politician that profitted from it in hot water, but also his minions at Thiefold.
However, nobody would make as much fuss about cash machines that occasionnally spit out too much if the right cheat-code is punched.
Polls are much more efficient. For example, Howard Dean is the democratic nominee and nobody had to waste their time voting, electronic or not.
"Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding. Unless proposition 304 passes; and we all pray it will."
-Kent Brockman
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
It's good that this is being reported on Wired, but now that the situation has escalated to a company actually clearly violating federal election laws (uncertified software), employing former felons in information sensitive positions, and meeting each and every one of the tests to show method, motive and opportunity to commit election fraud, why isn't this making the front page of the NY Times and Post the same day? Why isn't CNN already reporting on this? Where's USA today? Where's Peter Jennings?
Who is John Cabal?
"The vendor may not understand that we run elections in the state."
roflmao.
seriously, you just can't make this stuff up.
The point of the acquisition of media, or the concentration of media power, is to influence the electorate.
And no greater influence can be held over the electorate than replacing them outright with programmable machines.
So basically what you are asking for is to have the same people who aspire to control the electorate to call attention to their efforts at achieving even greater control over the electorate.
It's just not going to happen.
They see where America is going. They see the exodus of jobs going overseas that is to come (what we've seen to date is nothing), and they realize that the result will inevitably be the electorate veering hard to the left. And since they can take all their capital with them overseas that would be fine, except for one thing: the U.S. military.
They can't simply cede America to a reactionary leftist because there's no telling what kind of retribution would be exacted.
So they do this instead.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
You can't handle the truth!
exactly. A car may have power-assisted brakes and steering, but the power systems are not required to be operational. they are nice to have and make life easier, but if they cut out you can rely on your own muscle to continue functioning in an emergency.
So sure, go to electronic voting for fast initial tallies, clearer voter instructions etc, but definitely have your human-readable paper ballots as backups and for spot-checks.
the stakes are so high in certain elections that fraud attempts are already commonplace and guaranteed.
Bush is going to win overwhemingly in the 2004 election anyway even most hardcore Dems agree on that.No "conspiracy" neccessary.
The electronic voting machines are all over.We have them as a result of the close race in Florida in 2000 and the losers challenge to that election.
Confidence in our traditioal election methods was shaken so "e-voting" was offered as a fix by politicians and government workers.Despite some of what you may read here the issue is one of security and accountability of "E-voting" and NOT a partisan political issue.
Votes were never meant to be pure virtual. Use a touchscreen to help a voter make their paper ballots, but always print a paper ballot and drop it into the ballot box. It's okay to have machines count those paper ballots, but what we learned in Florida 2000 is that the paper ballot must be clearly human readable too. That way, manual recounters don't have any ballots where the voter's intent is questionable, and voters can read their ballot on the way to the box, and if it doesn't say what they want it to say they can hand tear it up and try again.
The major reason being given for using electronic voting is a federal requirement that all voting locations must allow voting by people with handicaps.
I don't remember what the reasons are why the present methods are not acceptable. I am aware that anyone who has trouble voting can get help from an election official. I don't know what is so hard about whispering with someone for a minute who can mark the paper.
THE next election will be done by diebold, and the election after that will be by a bunch of angry americans with rifles. the revolution is comming my frends, this is the beginning, bush lost the last election, and he is still our president, now it will be easyer to hide the next election resuts and put whoever you want in power next. im not advocating to own a gun, because they will get rid of those people first but at least make sure you know how to use one. because if you have any sense and dignity, you will need to in the next ten years.
Jack Hitt did a story on Diebold for This American Life a few weeks back. It's a good listen and neatly sums up all the problems with untrusted computerized voting. I know WE know what the issues are, but it's refreshing to see this out in the public eye.
A description of the show and a realaudio stream (yeah yeah, I know) is available here.
Triv
Both insightful and informative.
It's interesting and disappointing to note how these stories are not picked up by the mainstream media.
Or at least, not yet.
All it's going to take is enough public sentiment against Diebold to change this situation... and this can only happen if msnbc, cbsnews, washpost, foxnews, latimes, et al pick this up.
I wonder what they're doing in the cash machine world that hasn't yet come to light?
Because only by voting can you prevent the second hitler from being elected?
Now I've invoked Godwin's law, let this thread die.
what's wrong with a paper ballot. Canada does just fine with write ins.
read any issue of 2600 and think about e-voting, then go have a heart-to-heart with your elected representatives, especially if they are democratic as the democrats intend to involve from-home e-voting in the upcoming democratic primaries.
.016 years, or perhaps a modest six days. consider that humans need to sleep, and you have eighteen days. count breaks, errors, and certain numbers having to count the same switch at the same time to verify it, and you have a multiply of that, perhaps exceeding a month. now pay them all or otherwise convince them to spend all their time for one month counting microscopic switches. now consider that you will have to either print and provide for them on paper, or have them record on paper, the status of the switches to be verified. now accomodate the 1,000,000 vote-counters. you already have all the materials you need to have done the ballot by classic ballot means and also at the very least quadrupled the expenses. i urge you to ditch the computer junk and ask people to turn out to the booths, instead.'
'governor, this is a simple 64mbyte ram module. there are sixty-four million groups of eight switches in here. if you count each of these groups one per second, it would take you over two years. now consider that each little individual switch of on and off has to be verified. one switch per second, this would take you sixteen years, and would total more seconds than there are american citizens, almost twice as many. and this, just to count one storage device, dozens of which would be required to actually do the job of recording indexes, names, addresses, signatures and social security numbers, and other data that are collected in current ballots in order to ensure fair elections. there would have to be more storage, as well, to keep logs of all the electronic transactions required in order make sure the processes were secure and retractable, for the purpose of tracking down any offenders. now this task of sixteen years to count every switch in this chip has been multiplied by dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands. you may find enough volunteers to reduce the time required, but now reduce the volunteers, in the case of just 1,000 such citizens, by the requirement of ability to run an electron-scanning microscope and to work steadily at the task for as many as sixteen years. now find 10,000 electron-scanning microscope-operating humans who can work without stopping to eat, sleep, or drink for a year and a half and you're approaching the end of your problem. now find 1,000,000 such citizens and the work has been reduced to
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I have heard somewhere that this guy is into hardcore crack!
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
He's not a manager, he is a domain expert.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
I can't fault them for folks already in place at Global Election Systems (GES) when they acquired the company at the beginning of 2002. Nor do I believe that folks with a criminal history should be barred from IT careers. Someone with expertise in large scale fraud could be very helpful, if not invaluable, in finding exploits in systems you're trying to secure.
However, a development and management staff comprised of numerous folks with experience in stock fraud, money laundering, smuggling, cracking and grand larceny certainly calls into question the legitimacy of the projects they've worked on. The Diebold spokesdrone said that a few of them left at the time of acquisition, but did not say if any remained working at Diebold.
My own opinion is that Diebold itself is a criminal enterprise whose thin facade of trustworthiness has been torn down to expose the company's true character.
This calls into question not only Diebold's election systems, but all of their products including their ubiquitous ATM machines. Who knows how many of those have been cracked or if there's an ongoing fraudulent scheme (beyond ATM withdrawl fees) by Diebold to defraud Joe and Jane Citizen of their hard-earned cash.
Based on Diebold's behaviour, I don't think that that sounds terribly crazy.
I thought the point of media was that they could tell us what's going on in the world. If it's really the other way around, what good are they?
Since most of the post have been pointing out that Diebold made Republican contributions, let me balance that with what happened here in Virginia. Several voting machines "hung" (they run Windows, what do you expect). Despite the fact that it is explicitly illegal to remove voting machines from the polling place during the election, the hung machines were taken to the vendors shop. Since there was no audit trail, all the votes in those machines would be lost other wise. At the shop, the machines were "reset" while supposedly preserving the vote totals. Yeah right. Since the Democrats won, the Repulicans are filing suit over these voting irregularities.
What really made me mad was the attitude of the election supervisors I talked to months before the election. I explained the problem with voting machines with no audit trail, and trade secret software (they were proudly displaying the new machines at a fair). They explained how my fears were based on ignorance and fear of change. These machines were *computerized*, and therefore had to be better than the old way. They didn't see what good a paper trail would do, since they could print out the totals at any time. What if the machine malfunctions, or the secret code counts every third Dem vote as Rep (or vice versa)? "What are you, some kind of conspiracy nut? These machines are *computerized*. Computers are unbiased and don't make those kind of human errors." Sigh.
Im actually relieved, i was scared that people could actually be that stupid, incompetent and negligent. It made me feel somehow superior but also very scared and pissed off. I was mostly scared because it made me think - what if people like that were in charge of other systems - like nuclear weapons and auto-pilots etc, it made me pissed off because i thought "hey thats not fair, even i could do their jobs better than them but no, they get it." Now im relieved that they are just criminals.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Simply put, why is it that people put up with such huge jackasses in such important positions? We are talking about people who have the ability to screw over the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, and their only motivation is profit.
And people said that soylent green would never occur.
Even without the Diebold machines you will probably get 4 more years of Bush anyway. The self-sabotage of the Democratic party has already cost them the election. At one time Dean and Clark had a chance of beating Bush, but Liberman and Kerry killed that chance a long time ago with their vicious backstabbing attacks against Howard Dean. The Republicans don't even have to do anything but sit back and watch the Democratic party eat itself from the inside out. When you add that most Americans think that the capture of Saddam has made American safer and really don't care if they ever find weapons of mass destruction, the Democrats don't stand a chance.
If you're concerned about reliable voting in the US (and elsewhere) based on an open, auditable system, please go to http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/, read up on what they're doing, and volunteer to help out.
To quote from their web site:
The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the development, maintenance, and delivery of an open voting system for use in public elections.
We are currently developing free voting software to run on very inexpensive PC hardware. The OVC voting system will accommodate different languages and scoring methods, as well as voters with special needs.
We expect to be fully operational by 2005, with the certification of version 1.0 of the Open Voting software. Meanwhile, we have demonstration software under development at http://sourceforge.net/projects/evm2003, which should be ready by the end of this year.
If you want to Help make it happen, then mailto:alan@openvotingconsortium.org to send us an e-mail.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
The almighty simple way to avoid this mess, nice paper absentee ballots.
Just a reminder to check out the Diebold memos for yourself. Find some more juicy stuff and get it in the news!
Free Speech, Free Software, Free Culture
Propenents of Open Source solutions for electronic voting systems should be concerned about this. I see no mention of this at Boxer's website, so it's hard to say exactly how this might be worded. But clearly, the process of performing and verifying such a vetting could be problematic for a distributed, volunteer development effort. Would it be just the "official" maintainers who would be subject to such constraints, or would such requirements require that patches submitted by non-vetted contributors be rejected purely on those grounds? My concern is that voting software should be evaluated and put into use on technical grounds, and in the pursuit of using the best available methods, we shouldn't be placing barriers into place which preclude the selection of well-written software.
--
If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
Respected British journalist, author and lawyer Fenton Bresler died this week aged 74. Among many many other articles and books, he wrote "Who Killed John Lennon", and was probably the first person to suspect publicly that Lennon's killer, Mark David Chapman, was a brainwashed CIA stooge. And who would have authorised Lennon's murder? None other than George Bush Sr., head honcho of the Fascist criminal elite. Surprise surprise.
Now here come the "tinfoil hat" comments... shove 'em up your asses, wiseguys. Try a little reading and a little reasoning before you speak on behalf of the Fascisti.
They have - article came out shortly after the October 7th recall election in California.
Yes, this is an excellent point that seems to be lost on the zealots here. It wouldn't really matter if the source code where published in every newspaper in the world, since the people at Diebold are both incompetent and crooks. This whole "open the damn source" garbage goes back to this erroneous assumption that Open Source is inherently more secure, an assumption intelligent people understand to be a fallacy. Certainly Open Source allows many people to look at the code and find the bugs, but Diebold is a business and is under no obligation to change anything., especially when their current program works fine for their Republican masters.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Why not make some e-voting software that is open source. Run it on linux, or one of the BSDs. Instead of whining for Diebold to open the source (they won't) try making your own. I'm not a good enough programmer, but I'm sure someone here is.
Not a sentence!
I would say that the only gaurantee of accuracy is tht the process needs to be transparent enough for anyone to observe, understand, and validate.
I don't think the "paper receipt" concept solves anything. The counting is still done ELECTRONICALLY. If the receipt is held by the voter, there is no practical way to go back and audit the election. Sure I can give the voter a form saying WHO they voted for, but any audit would require users bringing their receipts back. Somehow, I think they as likely to end up in the trash as ATM receipts are.
The only PRACTICAL solution is to PRINT the ballot in human readable form. There would be no pure electronic count. The voter would verify their choices using the printout, NOT the screen. An incorrect ballot would be shredded and the voter could then change their selections.
Should the printed ballots utilize barcodes????
NO. People cannot read barcodes. They have no way to validate that their choice was properly registered.
You could print BOTH. But again, the voter has no way to gaurantee that the bar code matches what is printed. If the reader uses the bar code, then votes can be effectively stolen without being noticed. An "error" in the software would effectively spoil a vote since there would be no way to determine which candidate the voter actually chose.
Should the printed ballots utilize bubble arrays????
No. Again the voter cannot validate which of the bubbles is THEIR choice without a crib. An incorrect crib could be swapped in and out of a voting booth with little notice*. Strategically doing so in the stronghold of someone else's county would effectively steal votes for another party.
Should ballots be serialize?????
Yes, ballots should be serialized so that each vote is unique. In this scenario, it would be more difficult to falsify ballots if you keep track of which ballots came from where.
Should ballots be digitally signed?????
Obviously, voters will not be able to authenticate digital signatures. That would be a machine function in the case of an audit (or recount).
But digital signatures would provide additional security when paired with:
1) The unique ballot numbers.
2) Unique key codes assigned to individual voting machines.
3) A Unique random key generated externally and entered into a machine on election day. Such a procedure for each machine could be filled as part of audit material for an election.
4) A hash of the voters choices. The hash would be part of a "receipt" that voters are issued to keep with them. It would also be part of a master list of votes that are printed as part of a machines output. During an audit, the signatures could be cross checked to detect any fraud.
How should the votes be tallied??????
The votes should be tallied using Optical Character Recognition or plain old manual counting.
Printed ballots would use standardized formats to enable easier OCR. ALL machine Unreadable ballots would be hand counted by law. Since they were printed by machines, they would NOT as ambiguous.
What if ballots turn up missing?????
If ballots are missing or mangled beyond recognition, anyone casting those votes would be able to "re-vote". The receipt containing the unique codes would be proof of when and where they voted so you would not end up with double votes. This does not violate privacy since the original vote was effectively destroyed.
Should the receipts identify the voter????
No, not explicitley. The receipts would identify the time and place voted. The voters ID would be concealed in a one way hash code that produced LOTS of duplicates. In this way, you could verify that a receipt holder did cast that vote (due to statistic inprobability).
Third parties could not collect discarded receipts and use them to revote in the event of spoiled or lost ballots. An election official could not regenerate hash codes and find out who voted for whom. The system would produce too many duplicates to match any ballot directly with the voter.
Having said all this, I think the Canadiens and Europeans are right on this issue. Plain old paper and supervision probably is the best answer.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Voter apathy in many states, at least in the presidential election, can be directly attributed to the electorial college. In California during the last election, for example, I saw not a SINGLE campaign ad by a presidential candidate. Nader pressed a lot more flesh in the state, but without posters, radio ads, etc, what is the point? That the state was going to Gore was a foregone conclusion... one more vote doesn't actually count for anything.
Get rid of the electorial college, re-engage the population on the most important voting day of the year, and then replace the hanging chads. What's the point of a great front-end if the system is still broken?
The ______ Agenda
I used to be on the side of responsible gun control. In light of recent events, my views are changing.
:-(
I'm beginning the voting lever for future voting may consist of pumping another shell in the chamber.
For probably about the same cost, minus the bluster and scandal, the feds could have done what we do in western Canada -- paper ballots that you mark an "X" on.
Not electronic gadgets. Not punch cards. Plain old no-nonsense paper voting. Seriously, why complicate something more than you need to?
I can see the convenience factor, but when it's a matter of using unproven equipment, there's a bit of a problem there. And as we saw here, it's got a great tendency to come up behind you and bite you on the arse after the fact.
This is an excellent analysis of the situation. Bush benefits from any perceived threat to the United States. The Iraq card was played way too soon.
Bush needs a new "threat" sometime in the coming year. I expect to see even less air-marshalls and a further lax of security under his tenure.
Another serious terrorist attack or some other manufactured even is exactly what he needs to re-enforce his necessity in Palpatine/Hitler fashion. His lax attitude towards security indirectly contributed to 9/11. The outgoing Clinton officials warned him very strenuously that certain steps were necessary. He did NOT take them seriously (Al Franken documents this in detail).
Everything in this admistration is done from the standpoint of public relations. No serious thought is put into policy or the results of those policies. Bush even joked (jovially) about his "trifecta" that allowed him to break his promise of balanced budgets (war, recession, national emergency).
He was quite gleeful about the issue. He was happy. America was attacked, we were at war, there was a state of emergency, therefore he could do whatever he wanted. He could be the "King" that he thinks he is. He could roll over congress and pass laws that violate basic civil rights.
This man and all who surround him are enemies of freedom and democracy. He cares nothing for you and me, only the bottom line of his chronies and increasing his own power. He is the antithesis of freedom and democracy. He is planning to become the first American Emperor.
Because I have seen a great deal of studies that "prove" he won, that "prove" he lost, and that say it is impossible to determine without the courts releasing the information needed to know the exact count.
There are too many ways to estimate this, and none are 100% accurate. But what *is* 100% certain is that Bush prevented the count from being made more accurate than the original. Now, why would he do that? Because he *already* won the first count! It doesn't matter whether the recount would have gone in his favor--he chose *not* to count more accurately specifically because doing so would have reduced his chance of winning.
It's not really that suprising that he wanted to win. But it is disgusting that he cared less about the votes than he did about winning.
-Dan
Not easily, not by a longshot... the reason being simple containment.
Part 1 - As it sits, we have districts.
Contest one single vote in a district, the impact of that vote is contained to that district... and if the electoral vote caused by that district is irrelevent to the outcome, then even the contesting of every single vote in that district is irrelevent.
Get rid of that, and one single vote can hold the election hostage, since the impact of that vote is no longer contained... the Trainwreck of Retards in Florida will become a nationwide event, every election.
Part 2 - As it sits, one vote doesn't have much impact. This is both good and bad; if your district is "won" by someone you didn't vote for, then your vote is wasted. On the other hand, it's a good thing as well - dissolve the college, and you can pretty much eliminate all national voting... just install a single voting booth in NYC, Chicago, and on the California coast, and let them decide the election... because without a college, that's exactly what would happen. The same "college" that makes a less popular vote go away also *caps the impact* of a highly saturated area, an area that has no concept of anyplace else. Tell me that a NYC Hillary voter has a single clue about life in the midwest, for example... but then explain to me how the entire midwest, combined, would have a prayer of competing with NYC in electoral results. Explain to me how the entire country, combined, would have a prayer of electoral competition with NYC, Chicago, and California's coast.
So, the college can't just go away - not as a kneejerk, and not without considering the impact on the rest of the country. Or, you can get rid of the college... and all but three voting booths, because that's all that'd matter without it.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
I think electronics should just be used to make things easier and clearer. Here is how I would envision a voting system:
You come in and a touch screen given you a choice of language options. You then enter your information to confirm you are elegable to vote. The system then has you vote on everything that is of issue at the particular vote. When you're done, it shows you your choices and asks if you'd like to revise them. Once you are happy, it does two things:
1) Submits your results electronically to the central system.
2) Prints you a ticket that you then give to the poll worker, that is handled as current paper ballots are.
Now, the central electronic voting information is used to get immediate results, similar to exit polls. It will be possible ot see in realtime the election is going, and also know who won immediatly after. However, that will not be definitive. The election will not be officially declared until the paper tickets are tabulated. In the event of a discrepancy, the paper rules.
In this way we could get the ease of use and instant response of an electronic system, but not ahve to worry if it is being tampered with. If someone hacks the central system, it confuses eairly results, but doesn't change the final outcome.
The fact that we vote by states is good. We are after all a Republic. However, the method of the voting leaves something to be desired. It would be nice if there was some measure of proportional voting on the state level.
.62 * 10 = 6.2, round up for 7 electors.
.32 * 10 = 3.2. Round up for 4, since there are only three remaining, he gets the rest.
For example, I tend to vote Democrat and I live in Indiana. One could claim that my vote is wasted because Indiana virtually ALWAYS goes Republican. Even if 49% of Hoosiers vote Democratic, ALL of the Indiana votes go Republican.
I personally believe that a reform of the Electoral college is in order. Electors should be doled out proportionally. Basically the winner takes the error.
So, if you get 57% of the vote. You get AT LEAST 57% of the electors. In a state with 10 electors, you would get 6. Subsequent electors would be distributed accordingly in order of the winner.
Conveniently, Indiana has 10 electors (10 congressman), so it is an exellect example.
Joe Repub 62%
Dave Dem 32%
Green Gary 5%
Ind Ivan 1%
So Joe Repub got 62% of the Vote, he gets AT LEAST 62%.
Dave Dem got 32% of the Vote.
The system goes from "winner takes all" to "winner takes a bit more than his share". This would take emphasis off of the "Big States" like New York, Florida, Texas and California. It would return emphasis to pretty much everybody else. The election would be won by gaining points in MANY states instead of a few points in the BIG states.
It would also encourage voting by a states minority party. For example, California typically ALWAYS goes Democrat in presidential elections. This could discourage Republicans from voting.
The vote would be proportional. At the same time, it would still be a Republic and avoid the COMPLETE quagmire of nationwide recounts.
Finally, small states would NOT lose their voting clout under this plan. Small states would retain their clout or increase it. The reason is that swaying a small number of votes in a small state would swing an elector. A much larger number would be required to sway an elector in a small state.
The ultimate result is that candidates will spend less time in large battleground states and more time across the entire nation trying to pull out those critical votes that will add up to a win.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
On the countary, those who don't vote are doing a good deed. They know they haven't made an effort to figgure out who is best to rule, and leave that to those who care. What I worry about are people who vote without being concerned. I'd rather an informed person voting democrat despite all democrats being evil than an uninformed voter voting republican. (I lean to the far right as you can tell, the "evil democrat" is humor though)
In history JFK won the 1960 debate on TV but lost on radio, because on TV looks count for more than words. Do really want people who count looks higher than ideas choosing a leader who is making decisions. (forget that in this example both canidates eventially became president and just sole based on what they knew in 1960 not what latter history tells us about them)
If you are informed and vote for who you to belive the best canidate, all good. If you vote for someone based one looks or what others say, there is a problem.
I can come up with at least 4 ways to read that statement, and only one is bad. Maybe you should re-read it a few more times and see what you can come up with.
Sure one guy is a republican and supports their cause. Are you telling me democrats are never in positions of power and don't make speachs to support their cause?
There are enough democrats involved with running Diebold that they will not let fraud against the democrats. I would however be inclined to belive that they would work togather to prevent Greens and Libratarians from getting their votes registered correctly. (except that democrats vs republicans are more Crypts Vs Bloods fudes than anything of substance, so I can't see them working togather like that for long enough to pull it off)
Do you actually have to be a crook to be employed there?
They make the Enron people look like angels!
Here:
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
For the same reason that those "Most Wanted" police stories are so popular on TV; everybody loves stories about crooks!
Especially, when those crooks not only seem to "get away with it", but actually thrive!
Why do you imply that we do things any differently in Eastern Canada?
I think that your support of Cynthia McKinney speaks volumes about your ability to choose reliable leaders!
These are the lies of the lazy corporate right biased media.
Greg Palast on Cynthia McKinney Lies
BTW, Al Gore NEVER said he invented the Internet.
More Lies about Al Gore and the Internet
Oh yeah, and Jennifer Flowers is a liar. She never had an affair with Clinton. We just assumed she did because the media told us so.
Jennifer Flowers Can't keep her lies straight
For more instances of the lazy corporate right serving media, see www.dailyhowler.com
For more information on WHY the corporate media is lazy, right biased and overall DUMB, read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I am interested in putting together a panel on the subject of electronic voting, and bringing into it some elements of how technology affects [democratic] societies. I personally believe that these sytems should be made very stringintly, with exacting specifications, the strictest of controls, and great efforts made to ensure their reliability, integrity, and veracity.
I am planning to submit this as a panel topic for a conference in Manhattan, New York City (USA) for July 2004.
I am preparing a list of a few people that I have an interest in inviting for the panel, but would be interested in hearing from anyone who would be interested in appearing on such a panel. I am interested in hearing from (or about) anyone who has worked on such systems (in the US or abroad), has been involved in the policy of such systems (legislative or other branches of government, or as consultants), or has strong feelings about these systems, along with expert knowledge in voting systems and / or other "mission critical" systems and their development.
If you are interested, or know of someone, please get in touch. Note that I can not promise any transportation or funding.
Thank you,
Sam Nitzberg
sam@iamsam.com
http://www.iamsam.com
Al Franken's latest book, "Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them" is an apt description of its content and it's author. Actually check his sources and you will see that either they are not trustworthy, he misquoted them, or he pulled them out of his ass. Of course, if you point this out, you "don't get the joke" or you "have no sense of humor."
Shut up about Al Franken. Find a better non-nutjob to cite, or perhaps some primary sources instead of a proported secondary source.
Here in Oregon we have the mail in ballot. Counting happens quickly enough and the costs appear to be in line with voter expectations.
Turnout is somewhat of a problem on some issues, but the tax related elections are seeing good results. (hmmm)
Another interesting side-effect is related to the political messaging. Voters can commit to a vote anytime after they get their ballots. Maybe it's me, but I hear more political discource over a longer period of time because of this. You can't just blast your message and time it to get votes, you have to keep up the efforts.
Anyway, I am not so sure the paper really is that costly. The counting can be as distributed as is needed to get the job done and we have plenty of people. Isn't a fair system worth a bit of work? The cost issue is really a non-starter. There are always going to be plenty of retired people willing to do their part to contribute to society in a positive way. Let 'em do it! (Lots of them if we need that.) I just am not sure complexity is an issue given the ready supply of workers for the task.
Seems to me these electronic systems (obvious flaws aside) are a way to get out of the work necessary to run a democratic society. It is almost as if the spin is marginalizing voting in a bad way.
None of this is hard and it all matters more than we know. A bit of work a few times a year properly distributed is not too costly and keeps some important civics lessons in mind at the same time. Speeding the process in order to get onto bigger and better things strikes me as hasty and unwise...
One other thought along these lines. I am not sure we want elections that are too fast and easy. The current effort required to hold an election is a nice check against rapid change. Now you could argue that rapid change is what we need today, and I would agree with you. But, we must also consider the effect of too many elections. It takes time to see how the results affect society. We could end up with a political race condition of sorts with the American people suffering as a result while groups take advantage of that...
Even though I am a technical person, I reject electronic voting altogether at this point. There are too many issues with the process and its connotations for me to endorse it. I like the mail in system, but that is clearly not the way things are going to go, so...
Use the machines to assist in making a paper ballot, even grab quick stats from them to make polls easier or more timely, but that must be it. The will of the people must be recorded on media in human readable format.
Go for the simple solution, sell the civic duty to enough folks to get the work done in a timely manner and then move on to bigger and better things.
Just had another thought. We could do a lot better job of collating and publishing the relevant information for folks to read and understand via electronic means. I find it frustrating to read the voters pamplet only to learn enough to then go seek the actual language in question. The paid arguments are lame these days when anyone can comment. We should have discussion boards and public awareness of them, so people can engage the issues with greater fidelity than we do today. (I know there are problems with this, but the idea is sound.)
Re: outsourcing! That's funny as hell. We Americans have realized we don't have time to count our votes, we are too busy shopping and writing laws for the rest of you! So why not just be the good little bitches you are and count 'em up for us. In fact, you can just consider these votes yours because we are going to force the results via treaty anyway. --Right!
Blogging because I can...
I am not sure electronic is the way to go. Maybe you could post some information here to address a couple of concerns:
1) The information detailing the will of the people should be moved via a means that is human traceable and readable and durable. Paper seems ideal for this because it addresses all three issues and because it takes people to actually do the moving. Any of us can observe the process and many of the movements and all the results are there for questions later.
Once the information moves into the form of electronic bits, how can we be sure of the movements, audits, and machine credence?
2) Why take the work out of the process in the first place? We have plenty of workers who are willing to do their civic duty. Making voting fast and easy seems to be the wrong bottleneck to solve. Voting is important --important enough to do a bit of work to see it done right. Why not use the electronics to get better information to the voters and encourage more political discussion on the issues? (Would be a nice check on the media at this point which I think we need.)
What you are doing is better than Diebold for sure --make no mistake. I just don't see the point after learning what I have about the voting process in general.
Blogging because I can...
They wouldn't know how any individual voted, just what the statistics are for the polling place. This kind of information is necessary to insure things like gerymandering don't happen. Gerymandering (named after a hypothetical coiling serpent) has been used by crooked politicos to disenfranchise entire groups of people. This can happen by creating oddly shaped districts in which true majorities become minorites.
It isn't just polticians that can get voter statistics, anyone can - it is public information. This is good.
Politicians use general statisitcs to tell them where to target voter education and political ads, and where they are weak and where they are strong. I don't see a problem with this.
The information also allows a kind of check on voting irregularities. This is one of the ways the hanging-chad problem in Florida was identified. When voter statistics showed a majority of some precincts that were 90% Democratic strangely voting for Buchanan in the 2000 Presidential race, a problem was identified. This is good, too.
What is it with America's love of voting machines? They don't use them virtually anywhere else.
Haven't you bloody Americans learnt the KISS system - Keep It Simple Stupid.
This means no bloody machines, period !!! If Australia (& also virtually the rest of the democratic world) can do hand counted paper ballots, then so can the US.
The only reason they use machine systems in the US is to cut costs, but the simple fact is they arn't as good (they invalidate more votes then hand counts do, they intimidate & confuse a good percentage of voters & they increase the odds of something fucking up (murphy's law)
Look at the mess, as well as the fucked up punch card machines you have counties with lever machines, other with optical machines, toggle switch machines, push button machines & also touch screen systems too. Then there are places like Oregon where all votes are of the mail in variety (which obviously discriminates against the homeless & disorginised). The simple fact is that huge numbers of people are intimidated with this complicated mess that's one of the reasons why most Americans don't vote & why the US has about the lowest voter turnout in the OECD.
Look at all the people that are intimidated by machines & even now still refuse to use Automatic Teller Machines, & there are plenty more people like that then just the illiterate, the elderly & immigrants that have poor 2nd language skills.
Its as if the bureaucracy in the US are on purposefully trying to discourage the masses from voting.
The only way to go is to Keep It Simple Stupid. Which means aiming at the lowest common denominator & designing a system that the stupidist simpleton can understand.
Which means 'X marks the spot' / 'tick the box' hand ballots.
That means a piece of paper with the candidates listed in a columne & another columne of boxes on the side with just one box next to each candidate.
Here are a couple of examples of 'KISS' paper ballots, the 1st one is an example of an Australian preferential ballot (any Americans who support 3rd parties should be demanding that the US system be made either preferential or proportional, otherwise no 3rd parties will ever make any long term headway), the 2nd ballot is an example of an 'tick the box' ballot.
As far as counting goes the US should be doing what Australia does (& most of the rest of the developed world does similar) & hold the vote on a Saturday (I wonder how many blue collar workers in the US chose not to vote because of the incoveniance of voting on a Tuesday), using local schools as voting centres. Then leasing indoor stadiums & convention centres nationwide which are to be used as counting centres for the thousands of temp workers employed to count the votes. Each counter also has a Labour & conservative coalition scrutineer looking over his/her shoulders. You see by voting on Saturday it means there's a huge availability of temp workers to count ballots (useally teachers & other public servants after extra dosh) & party volunteers to scrutineer counting, which wouldn't be available if voting occured for some bizarre reason on a Tuesday
Sure its labour intensive, but as any UN election observer will tell you this is the best system if you want high turnouts with low rates of invalid votes & a result that's as accurate as can be, by Monday morning at the latest (actually in the vast majority of elections we know who's won by about 8pm the same night).
Also all politicians must be removed from any decision making processes as far as the running of elections are concerned, etc.
Look at the way democratic afiliated local officials OKed the hand count iin Palm Beach & then the Republican Florida SoS blocked the hand count (& she was Bush's co-campaign manager, which makes it an even worse conflict of interest). That sort
No eVoting for 2004, recommends Electoral Commission :: PublicTechnology.net :: eGovernment & public sector IT news from .. http://www.publictechnology.net/mod...article&sid= 317
Ok, so the machine is used to generate ballots... In other posts, I have indicated this is acceptable and stand by that.
I still have worries regarding subtle manupulation of the vote results; however, this can be done with paper systems as well... Your description of the process gives me some reason to learn more for sure.
Your point regarding the blind is a good one and I agree with it. In fact, I never really considered the problem from their position. I am going to take a look at the options our vote by mail system here in Oregon provides blind people. Hmmm....
Details aside, this makes good sense to consider because any measure of independance for the blind is worth working for simply because people value that enough to make the work worth the effort.
My position about the work being a part of the voting process is important. I don't want voting to be marginalized more than it already is. A balance between making things too hard with unnecessary reductions in turnouts and the "too easy" process with potentially high turnouts containing results not well thought out is something I do not see in the discussion where it should be.
Maybe I am a bit too touchy on this point, but dammit voting matters. A lot of people made significant sacrifices to make it a reality for the rest of us later on. I am not sure the majority of people today really understand that.
Thanks for giving me a reason, as asked, to explore more. I'll give it a read and some thought.
Blogging because I can...
Hank Asher founded DataBaseTechnologies (FL), which purged the FL voter rolls of 57,000 voters (majority Democrats, 95% entitled to vote). Asher apparently flew drugs through the Bahamas for Iran-Contra, which was masterminded by John Poindexter, sleazing his way back into the Bush payroll after Bush senior pardoned him for lying to Congress. Back in the 80s, these evil bastards seemed like just the seamy underbelly of a government fronted by a demented old actor. Now they're running the show!
--
make install -not war