Slashdot Mirror
The State of Electronic Voting in Georgia
An anonymous reader writes "The AJC is reporting on the current state of electronic voting in Georgia. The article discusses both sides of the debate and mentions Bev Harris and her work at Black Box Voting. Is touch screen voting the best solution available or is a conspiracy afoot?"
When there's a choice between conspiracy or no conspiracy, always go with conspiracy. If it's true, you'll be right and prepared to overthrow the government. If you're wrong, oh well, no big deal, at least there wasn't a conspiracy.
here
Some profs doubt the reliability of the proposed voting equipment (!)
I believe there has to be some secure way of implementing touchscreens. Just because we use technology it doesn't mean we have to be stepping into unknown territory. Someone needs to sit down and think up a better way of counting votes but still have it be electronic. Some of you may cringe at the thought of your vote being counted as a bit but I cringe at the thought of a human counting votes in his head.
I've yet to hear a cogent statement of the problem that electronic voting will fix.
Many of the statements sound similar to the first comments about office automation. Computing was introduced into the office "just because", without a lot of thought going into which procedures should be automated vs. eliminated entirely vs. left alone.
A paper ballot (be it punch card, pencil fill in, or what have you) can't crash, is a permanent record (yeah yeah, they can be destroyed, but so can anything made up of atoms. I'll drop a stack of paper from 5' and you drop a touch screen from 5', we'll see which one survives), and can't be easily intercepted or altered without evidence of tampering.
What problem are electronic voting advocates trying to solve?
We need transparency in the voting process if we are going to move to electronic voting. The current proposed system is simply unacceptable. Bev Harris is doing a wonderful job bringing attention to this train-wreck waiting to happen.
Currently, we have companies making the voting software which is not transparant, which have ties to political parties (from the top of the company, no less), and to top it off apparently can't design a decent, reliable application to save their very lives.
As I said before, THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE
I'm not worried about germs or anything... but seeing a bunch of finger-print crud on one place on the screen when you're about to place your vote might have some impact, not even considering the basic security concerns.
What's wrong with paper & pencil? Countries all over the world count those in remarkably small ammounts of time - do we HAVE to have an instant ballot in exchange for a loss of a paper trail and many layers of security concerns? This part is already redundant... but it NEEDS to be redundantly said to as many people as possible.
Ryan Fenton
The _State_ of Electronic Voting in Georgia. It says it right there, duh... ;)
A touch screen voting booth that lets voters select the canidates they want.
After the voter casts their vote the booth prints out a ballot that's a machine readable.
The voter checks to make sure that the canidates they selected are recorded on the ballot and feeds it into a optical reader. It's this machine that actually records the voter's vote.
The touch screen machines and the optical reader should be produced by two seprate companies and operate on different networks and they should both keep a tally. If the two systems ever get out of synch we will automatically know that a problem has occured. If such cases we can fall back on the paper ballet. Since it was laser printed it will avoid all the problems Florida judges had with hanging chads and strange marks left by stupid voters.
This way not only do we get the benifit of a machine count but a paper trail to boot.
Our country is doing quite well as it is, so why do we need this "voting" business? That sort of thing can only harm our unity and national security
well, the obvious argument for it is that its just the next step in the natural evolution of the voting process. oh, woops, cant say "evolution" in georgia.
Please note the USA flag just to the right of the post.
If you have images off, it's not going to take more than 5 seconds to figure out which Georgia we're talking about.
This is truly horrible... apparently Florida has decided that since it is not possible to do a recount for electronic voting machines, it is not necessary to attempt anything of the sort. Realize that the next election might be hacked, support Rush Holt's Voter Confidence bill, and don't forget to get the Diebold memos from the SCDC.
Free Speech, Free Software, Free Culture
And I actually helped the local district preview the new touch screen machines at my college. The damn things are frightening - they don't look well built and the lack of a paper trail is scary. There is some murmur down here that Max Cleland lost his race (despite giving three limbs for his nation) because of "voting irregularities."
I hope the Republicans don't use these machines to pull a fast one - if we find out after the fact, we won't get to change Presidents, as happened in 2000.
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Funny, because when I keep hearing this crap on the radio about 'Coup in Georgia's Government' and stuff, I keep thinking those hill-billies have ransacked Atlanta. Yes, I'm British and even I associate Georgia with the US. Heck, that Georgia place in the CIS probably didn't even exist before 1989?
No. The prevailing Superpower gets to be the default context. Think "GMT" and the British Empire before us (us, meaning US).
Don't mod this as funny.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
For an international reader the state of eletronic voting in Georgia [the country] is so interesting as in Georgia [the US state], that's why is good to clarify. Both have the same importance level.
Its a joke, when the whole election fiasco was going on you had dozens of old people being paraded out onto national TV telling everyone how stupid they are. They couldnt figure out the ballot and thought they might have voted for the wrong person.
The "old" people I know were offended by the media getting these idiots and making them all look ignorant.
But you are right, the ballot wasnt confusing (I was in FL at the time) and election workers will help out.
One of the best arguments in the article is this:
"What we do know is that every condition needed for fraud did exist. The question is not whether it has happened. The question is whether it can happen."
Granted, there's no perfect security. But electronic voting companies seem to have a problem at least making an attempt to fix any possible vulnerabilities. When the Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate, the lone dissenter (Russ Feingold of WI) said that it's not whether or not people have abused the law... it's that the potential exists. Sometimes it's really hard to teach someone the value of security until they've been victimized/directly affected by it. The problem, unfortunately, is proving that it happened.
With regard to Cox's response on a paper trail:
"It really adds nothing to the system, [and] the people who think it will don't understand the history of voter fraud we've had with paper."
Personally, I don't think removing one potential of fraud and replacing it with another really solves any problem. And suppose something does go wrong (massive failure, serious bug, fraud)? Is there anything to fall back on? And at least if you want to fix the elections, it makes it a bit more difficult.
I spoke to Rep. Lewis about this issue at one of his "Meet and Greet" sessions several months ago. Contacting your representative *does* have an impact.
The whole point of electronic voting is to get around the recount mess. The election officials don't want to wind up on TV like they did in Florida in 2000. So they devise a system that can't be recounted. They get the people that sells it to clam it is perfect, why would anybody need to recount?
They will not wind up on TV and the same people who have faked votes over history (LBJ in Texas, Daily in Chicago, etc.) can keep doing their thing. There is a long history of vote fraud in the USA. Those in charge just don't want it to wind up on TV and embarrassing themselfs.
Supposedly there have been a lot of "patches" installed right before election day here in Georgia. There is no source code overview that I can tell. They keep telling us the machines are perfect, but they don't tell you what deficiencies are being "patched" with all these "patches."
As far as I'm concerned, these "patches" are "patching" the election results, not the voting equipment.
I have a blog about the issue in Canada: Paper Vote Canada.
I made a post about this in the SCDC livejournal community, which I'll quote here:
Q: So why do people want electronic voting? What are the perceived benefits?
A: Electronic voting is largely popular because of the perception that it will fix problems like those experienced in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The Help America Vote Act made tons and tons of federal money available for voting technology, and companies like Diebold rushed into production with shoddy products in order to capture marketshare.
Of course, the irony is that with paperless (read: un-auditable) machines, there is both an increased risk of vote-counting problems (as the Diebold e-mail archive demonstrates) and NO MECHANISM to recount the votes. In other words, if another Florida happens, we'll basically just have to flip a coin.
One of the most important arguments in favor of electronic voting machines is that they will enable the disabled to vote unassisted. For instance, DRE's can tell blind people the options through headphones. This is a noble goal, and it is a valid reason to want to have electronic voting machines. The thing is, why is it not sufficient to make an electronic ballot-printing machine, which then could be verified by a blind person using a simple barcode scanner, or which could be printed with raised letters? Why must the voting be completely electronic (i.e. Direct Recording Electronic)? Is it right to say that just because a blind person may not be able to verify a printed paper ballot on their own, that nobody else should be allowed to verify their votes either? There are certainly ways that ballots could be designed that would allow blind people to verify their votes without assistance, but even if this were impossible, that wouldn't be a good reason to eliminate paper ballots, it is merely an argument for machines that aid in filling out and verifying the ballots.
Finally, there are the arguments that electronic voting allows us to tally votes cheaper and quicker. My response is that we should take the time and money to get our elections right. Also, DRE's aren't more efficient at tallying our votes if they don't record our votes at all.
Unless we can build an electronic voting system that can meet these specifications before the 2004 election, I have little confidence in any vote cast using DRE's, and I recommend at least a temporary return to old-fashioned hand-written and hand-counted paper ballots.
Free Speech, Free Software, Free Culture
- Florida ballots in the 2000 election supposedly confused some people. The electronic system (assuming no version upgrades) would have a more standardized format that didn't have to worry about getting all the issues and candidates on one ballot card.
- Some dorks cast weird ballots with more than one choice, etc. These cause arguments over how they are supposed to be counted. By making a system that won't allow you to vote improperly you decrease the issues in a recount. Of course, by eliminating the ballot altogehter they have trashed any audit or recount to begin with.
- I would say most people out there are not computer experts. As a 30 year old programmer, I don't think I have ever used a punch card except to vote. It's not something you would normally do so it is understandable that people might not know to align the card properly and clear the chads. Many people don't realize that you have to completely erase the pencil mark if you chose the wrong one. I'm sure there are other minor technicalities I'm forgetting. Since the electronic system has the ability to confirm your choices, it might save some people's votes from being cast incorrectly.
- Americans with Disability Act compliance - while I don't think any of the voting machines support it yet, it is possible to add braille or audible prompts to them. Even still, the Diebold Voting machines used in Georgia have probably a 20 point backlit type that is easier for people with poor vision to read.
- It's also easy to change the language on the system to accomodate a lot more languages besides English and Spanish. While candidate names don't usually need translation, referendums are usually a paragraph or two that you read and vote yes or no to.
Those are some of the issues I've heard the systems are supposed to solve, however, I think the cure is worse than the disease in this case.On a similar note, our university tried to implement an online voting system for their student federation. It did fail (the excuse given was that there was "too great a demand"), but it would have greatly increased voter turn out. Many of our co-operative education students (or students on internships as US institutions may refer to them) are often not on campus, or maybe even in the city to be able to vote. Yet they pay fees to the college or university, and those fees pay the salaries of the student federation executives. Needless to say, the lineups at peak times are often rediculous, and online voting would abolish that issue for the most part (online queueing may be necessary depending on the resources available). They should be given an appropriate venue to vote, without having to strain or mess up their schedule.
Online voting systems are possible, and will eventually be developed. They will make a world of difference in promoting a truly democratic society. Electronic voting systems have huge potential benefits, and should be pursued.
"Is touch screen voting the best solution available or is a conspiracy afoot?"
What sort of stupid question is that? Next up on Slashdot! Clothing! Does it cure cancer, or will it cause the downfall of civilization as we know it?
Correct voting answer - it fixes some serious problems with current systems, introduces some potentially serious problems, and is being pushed not as part of an Evil Conspiracy, but by well-meaning but niave people who seek a technological panacea despite not really understanding the concepts involved. It's cargo cult security - "these systems are secure, and they're electronic, so lets if we need security, we just need to make everything electronic!". Morons.
Stop posting about electronic voting in the US every other day. We're geeks, not philosophy or politics majors, and often not even american. A couple of those a year I can stand, but every fucking week you have 2-3 articles about electronic voting systems.
... mainly "I don't trust electronic voting", which is reasonable, but uninformative.
Amen to that.
I'm concerned about this issue -- it's a hot button for me -- but damn, the responses cover a very limited range, over and over
-kgj
-kgj
Florida's enlightened judiciary has found a Catch-22 way out of a state congressman's lawsuit to require auditable paper trails in voting machines there.
--
make install -not war
Read this article from the NYT.
There are many on slashdot who won't even register for nyt. Just read this and it will make you privacy panaroids cringe.
"This is a complicated business. Each party's databank has the name of every one of the 168 million or so registered voters in the country, cross-indexed with phone numbers, addresses, voting history, income range and so on -- up to as many as several hundred points of data on each voter. The information has been acquired from state voter-registration rolls, census reports, consumer data-mining companies and direct marketing vendors. The parties have also amassed detailed information about the political and social beliefs that you might have shared with canvassers who have phoned or knocked on the door over the past few years. While specifics vary, a typical voter profile like my own, for instance, would show my age, address, phone numbers; which elections I've voted in over the past 10 or 15 years and whether I've ever voted on an absentee ballot; and my e-mail address. It would include my New Jersey party registration (Democrat), whether I've ever made a political donation (none that I recall), my approximate income, my ethnicity, my marital status and the number of children living in my house. Thanks to the ready availability of subscriber lists, mortgage data and product warranty information, the parties might use records of the newspapers I read (this one), the computer I work on (a Macintosh), the men's-wear catalogs I receive (Brooks Brothers, Land's End) and the loan-to-value ratio of my home."
And you guys spew vitriol over website registrations? That's the least of your worries...
If there was a coup in Georgia's gov't, it would be ousting the Hillbillies FROM Atlanta. Atlanta and Savannah are about the only progressive areas of Georgia.
Of course, by the same token, most people here, in Georgia, where I am unfortunate enough to live, are too uneducated to hack a voting machine, so democracy is pretty much safe here.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Is touch screen voting the best solution available or is a conspiracy afoot?
This totally misses the point. The point is not whether voter fraud has been committed, the point is that there's no way to tell if it was or wasn't.
Diebold's system is completely proprietary; we can't examine it to see if there are any "loopholes" or not, and we can't check its security. We can't go back and audit to make sure nothing funny happened. Adding icing to the cake, the Diebold leadership is openly pro-Republican.
To summarize; by adopting Diebold's system here in GA, we've privatized the election by giving complete control over it to a private corporation that's biased in favor of a particular outcome. To say it smells fishy would be an understatement of monumental proportions.
Instead of focusing on whether fraud occurred or not, we need to be demanding an election system that is auditable and verifiable to the people. Open elections are key to democracy; Diebold's system is anything but open.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
The reason voting should always have a paper trail is because no one can make changes to 100,000 pieces of paper in three hundred different locations without some major difficulty. It would require massive manpower and a lot of time. Changing 100,000 lines in a database can be accomplished by one person in less than five minutes.
I don't trust anyone that governs me to sit the right way on a toilet seat, much less control an easily tampered file that keeps them in power.
(Apologies to Rowan Atkinson.)
I am an election judge for the upcoming primary in MD, and we had to take a class on our new electronic voting machines, made by Diebold. Unlike the system described in the article, the ballots themselves are not encoded with the ballots, simply the party of the person voting. If your card has bits set the certain way, your ballot will pop-up for which ever party is encoded on the card. The only problems are when the card operator punches in the wrong party, then I would have to go over to the machine and cancel the ballot.
The only problems with the system that I can see are human. If you work with another election judge and, for instance, encode the wrong cards repeatedly for the other party and don't cancel the ballots, but submit them, then you can tamper the vote. The same thing could happen with a paper system, but admittedly it is harder and slower to cast lots of fake ballots.
In the end, it's up to the election judges and the local board of elections to make sure every vote counts, just as it would be with a paper system.
Two places which have details on arguments against the current state-of-the-art of electronic voting are verifiedvoting.org and Electronic Frontier Foundation.
yes.
Touch screen voting is the best solution as long as votes are recorded in an auditable manner (paper record), but there is a conspiracy afoot to prevent autiting of the voting process and to eliminate any possibility of investigation if it is beleived that the process was corrupted in any way.
If they can't sort it out, I'd rather they required the old-fasioned, manually recorded, paper ballot. I see no reason for the results to be tabulated on that evening after the vote took place (except for possibly increased advertising revenues for the networks, but BOO fscking HOO!).
Read, L
It can sound zealot, but I mean it. How can you accept a voting booth if you can't count the votes. Same in the code. If you can't see the code, it the source isn't open for every citizen to look at it, how can it be call democracy?
DON'T PANIC
As a Georgia resident I found much to dispute about the 2002 votes. For one, most polls had ex-gov. Barnes out in front of now-gov. Purdue by several percentage points just prior to the election. Ex-Senator Clelland was a tougher call because President Bush came down to personally stump for him on several occasions but the race was still deemed close just before the election. I thought is was *very* suspect after several reports emerged of long lines and electronic voting machine problems in areas known to be democrat-friendly. Normally I vote Republican, but no system failure should allow vote manipulation as easily as the patching situation could have in the last election.
P.S.: For additional confusion, Kathy Cox is the state school superintendent that tried to get the word "evolution" removed from public schools while Cathy Cox is the Secretary of State who is trying to get the electronic voting machines in place.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Unfortunately, after a fruitless argument with a Democrat Virginia election official at the Fairfax Fair in October, I suspect the problem is massive ignorance. He assured me condescendingly that he could get a printout of local Vote totals any time he wanted, so what was the point of a paper trail.
Unfortunately, such massive ignorance leaves the system open to abuse by unscrupulous individuals of either party.
I have called my representatives in Washington demanding auditable voting (all Republican - Virginia likes to vote Dems locally and Reps nationally). Since the Republicans are in power at the moment, they are key to getting some kind of auditability requirement passed nationally. Notice that a Republican I voted for, Ken Cuccinelli, is trying to address the E-voting disaster in Virginia.
Strict conservatives believe that it is the responsibility of the State Government to address such problems, and that the Federal Government should stay out of it. This does not mean that conservatives want unaudited voting - in fact they blame the Federal mandate following the 2000 debacle for causing the current problem.
While I really appreciate the work Bev and many others have done to bring this to the public's attention, I know in my heart it is not the fastest solution.
An act of civil disobediance is needed by MANY people across the US. Simply disseminate via internet simple instructions for how to adjust the votes on various types of electronic machines, and use them to cast an enourmous amount of votes for the least likely canidate in every single election. If this happened in even a few cases around the country the news and governement would have no choice but to take electronic tampering completely seriously. If it happened thousands of times in the next election I think Diebold, et al, would most likely backpedal to an open source and completely transparent system so fast it'd set their boardroom carpets afire.
Would I myself chance jail in order to commit an act of civil disobediance which could forever ensure the future of voting is fair and trustworthy for ordinary citizens? Just show me the simple instructions on how to get the job done...
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
I actually have the same exact question. Now, I consider myself a quasi-decent programmer, and I could probably write a program in about 5 minutes, that can tally votes from people and will have 0 bugs in it. It'll take a little longer to make it flexible to more than just vote for one candidate, most votes wins (such as vote for 5 of 7 judges). Now I understand that the touchscreen program is most likely rather complex but isn't this just an I/O interface? Why are there even bugs in software that's supposed to log if you picked option a, b, c, etc. and count how many picked each option?
I would love to be enlightened as to why this is. Another somewhat-related question. I know of a school district near me that licenses software for about $50,000 a year (US$ for you international people) to keep track of students grades/test scores/keep this information confidential. Now I'm sure the software must have some added functionality, but how is it that software that can be easily written by a first year undergraduate student (I could definitely do basic data-base information, querying/searching/basic encryption last year), can cost so much and people will pay for it?
The first line says most of the story:
The other part of the story is that the software produces a paper ballot that can be read by both the voters and by machine.
The ballot-producing machine itself can be touch screen - or something else for use by physically impaired voters.
The system is a) inexpensive, b) voter verifiable, c) adaptable to the needs of voters with physical impairments and d) open source.
- Since when has there been a country called "Grenwich"?
What a great counter to my point! If my point was that Greenwich was a country...alas, it was not. The point was that by the 1880's Britain was undoubtedly the reigning world superpower. France tried to resist Greenwich, England as the world's Prime Meridian in favor of its own Paris, but in the end capitulated (a theme to be repeated quite often in the next 120+ years).- GMT is
... an internationally decided standard.
*Snicker* International. *Snicker*- GMT seemed a good choice (the size of the British Empire had something to do with it, I'm sure, but that still doesn't make your comment the slightest bit relevent).
Yeah. They picked it because of the scientific discovery that there is a longitudinal ridge that passes through the village of Greenwich and makes a really good marker to count revolutions on an otherwise roundish planet. That it was the choice of Britain, the reigning world superpower, definitely had no relevance. (By the way, thanks for helping me make my point.)-
Of course, we could also get into the America!=USA debate, but I'd rather not bother.
Why not, then? After all I didn't bring it up, but when has that stopped you before? Here's my answer to US != America: Without the US there would not be an America, North nor especially South or Central. This would be Europe 2, or, New England and New Spain. Heard of the Monroe Doctrine? The position that the US took -- Europe, stay out of America's affairs and we'll stay out of yours -- created America as a separate entity from Europe (follow the link, it is interesting to note that though the doctrine was Monroe's the enforcement was carried out by the British Navy for the first 100 years; interesting). So, while US != America, America - US = Null.Thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting gifts for you right through that door, bye!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Where have you been?
The CEO of Diebold promises to deliver his state to George Bush in 2004.
Another voting machine company is a front for the
CIA.
And none of the machines by anybody can be audited, despite the fact that every other financial industry machine made by the same companies is auditable.
You think?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Here in Ireland, as I mentioned last time this subject came up, we are due to be subjected to country-wide electronic voting. This will happen for the upcoming Presidential and European Parliament elections.
The suggestions made by the parent poster, re: a paper audit trail/receipts is exactly what the opposition political parties and campaigners are asking for. It's essential for an e-voting system. Not only can you manually count from actual ballot boxes in case of close result, suspiscion of tampering or soft record fault, but it is vital to have random voting locations chosen for manual audit.
Here in Ireland we have Proportional Representation with Single Transferable Vote. (PR-STV) I won't explain in-depth, but it is a complicated system (to count at least) whereby we vote our preferences. Candidates are eliminated in an iterative process (lowest acheivers first) whilst those reaching a (3rd/4th/5th = no. of seats + one) of the total vote (reaching the quota) are voted in. BOTH these types iterations mean extra votes are redistributed (the next preference the voter made) - those who reach the quota have extra votes they don't need redistributed.
It's one of the fairest democratic systems around - but don't tell me electronic voting isn't needed when general election results can be final sometimes only after a week or more! (imagine a recount in a constituency with 12+ iterations (counts))
But I want a e-voting system I CAN TRUST!!!
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Not only could we count these now - but any historical dispute arising up to 2500 years later as to the result of an election would be easily settled - pot shards from 500BC and earlier have been found, and with a bit of care we could even stretch the traceability to 35,000 years (the oldest known ceramics date from around this age).
OK - people have to mark their own pot shard, and it relies on the probity of the counting officials, but it's still a damn sight better than relying on dodgy software and potentially biased private vote counting.
Besides, the thought of the Supreme Court being deluged with shards of pottery in case of dispute is a nice image.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
...occurred last week!
I hope that none of the technologists / scientists and "hax0rs" are tainted by this dubious code being available.
Afterall, if there is ANYTHING questionable about the UPCOMING Nov. 2004 election, it's not which canditate was voted for - it's WHO to blame for HACKING things.
The solution will be a simple signature on some ambiguous bill (Patriot ][ anyone?) that will make ALL REVERSE ENGINEERING / DISASSEMBLY / and other potentially controversial in-the-name-of-science acts ILLEGAL without government approval.
Afterall, if the government is the entity in question, they can easily secure their position
"over" the people by knocking down any non-gov't sanctioned research activity.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
A new technology.
The scientists don't want it and think it's unsafe. From my readings of major scientific magazines and journals, e-voting as it is being implemented in the US is raising major alarm bells.
People well-versed in computer technology think it's dangerous and unsafe.
Management (ie. the electoral officials) want it.
Companies (who will profit from it) want it.
Basically those who are usually the most gung-ho about new technology and most technologically literate think the idea needs careful thinking and the technology is flawed. Those who are the most technologically illiterate and those who stand to make money out of it are all for it. This is a case of management over-riding the concerns of the engineers who are waving red flags going "Danger, danger".
I see a disaster in the making here.
Oh well, it will all come out in the wash when lawsuits from losing candidates start. Or we have another Florida, except this time as another poster pointed out as there is no audit trail, we'll have to flip a coin to see who is President. Or I guess redo the entire election.
Wouldn't it be rather fun, if all the conspiracy nuts got together with all the hackers and gave ALL the votes in an election to the politicians who wants to introduce a paper trail in elections? If no such politician can be found, just make them all blank votes/write-in for 'Ficus'.
...
I mean, the other politicians can't really cry foul, because they said themselves "paper trails aren't nescesary" and in effect "we trust the effectiveness of the system"
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
I have worked on the diebold systems (in texas performed various testing and diagnostics on the units) during our testing process there were so many different steps we had to use to diagnose any problems with the units and had to catagorize very carefully all the unit's odometer readings (yes each unit stores the amount of times it has been used) along with the hardware's condition and to make sure all the hardware worked, as far as security all of the units are perfectly capable of working in standalone mode and if no power source is available then you can have them run on battery mode (not sure how long but it is a 50 pound unit of which most is that damn lithium ion battery, a pain to pick up :) ).
And even at the end of the testing process they are closed and sealed with a tamper-proof seal, and if it is tampered with they are not used. Though I am not at liberty to say what kind of medium they use to store the results or anything related to the internals of the physical unit I can tell you that they are very hard to tamper with and if you do it IS noticeable even for the untrained eye.
Interestingly, the entire US still relies on a very basic and analog[ue] method of chosing 6 numbers for LOTTO (Lottery) numbers.
/. a few months back, but I can't seem to find it now].
Digital technology that can determine 6 random numbers has existed for over 30 years now - So why then, do we still use such a blantantly ANALOG method of determining who will receive Millions of US dollars every week?!
The answer is simple - those devices are believeable. Ironically, if Diebold and Mrs. Harris^H^H^H^H^H^H Cox really think that unauditable digital voting machines are "the only best solution" they are sorely mistaken.
With something as significant as electing the MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD at stake, why choose an unauditable digital medium? If every night the LOTTO displayed 6 random digits on the screen, people wouldn't buy it! Why should we buy what these machines say about our[US here] Democratic Republic?!?!?
The city governments that put ELECTORAL power in these machines are exponentially mistaken.
Diebold claims that NO OTHER VOTING SOLUTION IS AVAILABLE...
Now, while I can't find the link, a superior method for e-voting machine auditing does exist. It consists of a digital voting machine that provides a perforated ticket than can be separated in two. One half can be deposited into a voting box, and the other can kept by the recipient as verification.
Can someone please post a link to that article? [I saw it here on
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.