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.'"

Comments

Open the damn source.

[grub]

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.

Re:Open the damn source.

[Jeremi]

In my thinking this should mean the source code should be opened to the public to ensure continued trust in the system.

Looking at the source code would be interesting, but it shouldn't give you any confidence in the system. Even in the (practically unattainable) ideal case, where the code is thoroughly analyzed by all the experts and they all agree the code is correct... there is still no proof that the code everybody looked at is the code that will actually be running on the voting machines. Even if you stand over the Diebold employees and watch them compile the source code and install the resulting binary on the machine, you still don't know if that code is what will be running on the machine during the election.

The point is, having access to the (alleged) source code is no guarantee of accuracy. The only reliable guarantee of accuracy is having the system print out a paper receipt that the voter hand-verifies and turns in at the poll. Once you have that, the vote can be recounted by hand, if necessary, and any inaccuracies will be detected. Without that, no electronic system will ever be trustworthy.

Re:Open the damn source.

[SpaceLifeForm]

The source code should be open for another reason.

Auditors couldn't examine eight machines in various counties because they failed to boot up when turned on. Another 12 machines were in the Diebold plant in McKinney, Texas, being repaired.

Make them 'broke' so they can't be audited.
Ship them out of state so they can't be audited.

A great method to cover up a fixed election.

Re:Open the damn source.

[Anonymous Coward]

The lowtech solution is often the better one. Rather than ask how we can make the process more high-tech, we should ask how we can improve it, whether or not it is hightech

No thanks

[jbardell]

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.

Why is it....

[instantkarma1]

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?!?!?!?

"Power Assist" voting

[nehril]

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.

Re:solving a non-problem

[stewball]

Actually, if you look at who wants more registration and who wants to make Election Day a national holiday (or, hell, moving it to a weekend day), it's pretty clear that the left wants more participation and easier voting, and the right wants more restrictions on registration and harder voting.

The reasons are pretty straightforward -- people who are well off and have high-end salaried jobs are more likely to be able to get past registration barriers and to take time off from their weekday jobs (which are salaried, not hourly) to vote. By comparison, the less well-off are typically less educated and less likely to be able to take time to vote without a financial hit.

Now, the interesting thing about all of this analysis is that it's kind of backwards, because, IIRC, the more education and (to a point) income someone has, the less likely they are to vote conservative, and vice versa. There's a distinct lack of class consciousness in America, probably because the right has been really good at playing to the emotions and non-economic beliefs of the lower economic classes, while really pursuing agendas destructive of their actual economic interests.
----------------