Slashdot Mirror
Super Tuesday Not So Super For Electronic Voting
October_30th writes "It's Super Tuesday in 10 states (including California, New York and Ohio) and various reports are coming in that the equipment built by Diebold and various other manufacturers is proving more troublesome than previously anticipated."
For all the voters who will be voting for the fist time, or just aren't familiar with the terminology, 'Super Tuesday' is the first Tuesday of March when 10 or so states have their primary elections.
These elections run from January through June. This means on the first Tuesday of March, a candidate will pretty much know what his chances of winning the nomination really are.
...don't question it!!!
I hope they either fix them or go back to the paper system before the next presidential election comes up. I'd hate to see another Florida-type voting crisis get blamed on technology...
George W. Bush won the democratic primary in 7 of the 10 states
They've cracked passwords to gain access to computer servers and showed that some systems relying on Microsoft Windows lacked up-to-date security patches that should have been downloaded from the Internet.
Wait, I thought computers were only vulnerable after the patches were available...
...don't question it!!!
The people that used shoddy methods to secure their product, and then decided if nobody knows about the problems then they don't exist, produced a shoddy product that doesn't work wel ?
I am shocked
Georgia Tech student Peter Sahlstrom said he found 10 Diebold terminals sitting unprotected in the lobby of the school's student center Monday. Sahlstrom, 22, photographed the machines in their unlocked cases
This has zero to do with tech but will serve to give e-voting a bad name if one of these machines is compromised. Not good.
Early returns show Dennis Kucinich winning every state, with Al Sharpton a close second in all ten...
There won't be much of a trail to audit. And the trail that their is won't tell anyone anything other than what broke, as opposed to by how much.
Ignorance might not be bliss, but it's pretty antiseptic.
This quote from the article demonstrates the comeplete lack of attention to security that runs throughout the products:
Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked.
What's really quite disturbing is that the unreliability of these voting systems has been well covered in the mainstream press, not just the left-wing open source communist web blogs, yet the voting officials still have no clue or interest in considering the liabilities of using these systems. It just defies reason, and makes me lean ever closer to my paranoia / tinfoil hat and wonder about payola.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I wonder when they will be buying their SCO license.
No need to worry, these problems should go away by the election in November. The machines just got confused while trying to add extra Republican votes since there's no Republicans running in the Democratic primary.
During the general election, this shouldn't be a problem.
# ssh diebold.machines.gov
bush@diebold.machines.gov's password:
# gcc -o misunderestimated misunderestimated.c
#
# echo "Is our children learning?"
MoFscker
I am curious how many candidates are going to scream that the results were changed by nefarious means.
Some of the electronic voting systems have no hard copy audit trail or no open audit trail of the votes.
I really don't feel safe with some company "verifying" that the vote has not been tampered with out a proven (non electronic) audit trail.
I voted today in California and had no problem with the electronic voting machine. Then again, my presence on this site might explain that.
What is wrong with counting crosses in boxes?
Sure speed of results isn't great, but in most countries with a good transport infrastructure it might take until the next morning, counthing through the night.
As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Few members of the general public seem to have any concerns about electronic voting, but every computer professional I know thinks this is a lousy idea.
There are some things that computers are good at, and some that they aren't. Just because something is newer doesn't make it better.
It's expensive, insecure, and complicated (and thus prone to failure).
Whose idea was this anyway?
I read a similar article on BBC News a few weeks ago and went and did some more digging. Apparently the CEO of Diebold is a staunch Republican and contributed heavily to the Bush campaign. This may also be coincidence, but partisan elections in Georgia using the new systems also heavily favored Republicans. Call me a right-wing conspiracy theorist, but the current state of electronic voting scares me.
---- Just another spud server.
The biggest problem with these devices is that they remove the voter from the voting process even more. As it stands today, many people think that their vote doesn't count.
When there is no physical record of the vote, only a few bits on a card somewhere, we'll become even more removed from the process. It won't be long until no one cares anymore, and voting becomes a simple formality.
And the fact that making it verifiable is so easy makes me wonder....
Fellowship 9/11
I'm a Diebold basher as well. They've completely screwed the pooch, so to speak, on electronic voting and public trust.
However,
It's not so much the company 'Diebold' that is at fault as the small company they bought out that was doing electronic voting development. And had started the shit that has been hitting the fan.
Diebold is a lock and security company that happened to buy a terrible, untrustworthy little company for a forray into electronic voting.
For what it's worth.
RD
It is being reported that the largest problem was that Diebold, in a last minute decision, used the Howard Dean yell as a sound bit that indicated a selection had been made.
/humor
Several senior citizens were scared by the sounds and ended up casting votes in error for Al Sharpton. Al's name was horizontally accross from Kerry so expect a repeat of the Gore/Buchannan butterfly issue from Florida.
I voted today in greater Cleveland. We had punchcard ballots, which was good, since the power was flickering all afternoon.
According to this article on The Guardian there are already questions about certain e-elections. The problem, as I see it, is that allegations like these can be made but it is impossible to refute them. Once the integrity of the process comes into serious question public confidence and participation can be expected to plummet.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
This is actually a very positive thing in my opinion. Not because it could have messed up election results, but because of the shift in attitude news like this could bring if its given fair treatment.
I think most people who read Slashdot know of the multitude of problems Diabold has and the conspiracies their organization is obviously wrought with. However, this has gotten little coverage in the mainstream press.
The only way the public at large will know of the new dangers faced by electronic voting is to hear about this more on CNN, ABC, etc. and not just online. There is still a sort of prevailing mindset with a lot of people that goes, "Ooh, its a computer, of course it can count better than a human."
When I went to vote this morning (Orange County, CA), there was this 30-something having a real difficult time with the voting "tablet". He kept wanting to give up and leave, but the poll vounteer won't let him go and tried to help him. But the poll worker can't cast votes for him, and doesn't want to know who/what he wants to vote for. So it made for a very interesting scene for all.
Funny thing is that the poll worker looks like a 60+ retired volunteer trying to talk a much younger guy through on working the tablet.
I was done in just a few minutes. I think it's much faster than the old punch card ballot. Though the tablet navigation didn't quite work as I expected. For example, I was expecting it to be touchscreen, but it wasn't. Instead, you use navigation buttons on the tablet. Also, there was one item where you can vote for up to six people. Everytime you select one candidate, the cursor moves back up to the start of the list, instead of staying on who you just voted. So you have to "cursor down" all over again from the beginning.
I wonder how long the other guy took to vote.
I also noticed there are twice as many poll workers this time. I've voted at the same place for years, and it's always been the same three people. Today the same three are there, but there are three new poll workers also, for a total of six. I think they anticipated there will be problems.
What the fsck do they mean "more than anticipated"? From what I've been hearing on NPR, watching on TV, and Reading online there has been quite a bit of anticipation about how these machines would fail in, various ways, to perform the task of executing a fair and free election.
-*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
I have just successfully voted in Northwestern Ohio using the same punch ballots that I have always used and the sort of thing that caused the Florida mess. I had no hanging chads, no dimpled chads and if the need arises, it can be recounted. Go figure.
If we have to move to a new machine aqnd of course we do, I'm push for a printout and scanner reader combination. Idiot-proof (heh) touch screen that prints out a scanner read ballot that is read at the end of the day.
Honestly, what's so tough about making electronic voting machines that actually work? We can put a rover on Mars but we can't count votes. I guess it's the simple things that get you in the end.
Let's look at what's required:
1. The person must be able to select the name of the person they want to vote for. (check)
2. Now count which person received the most votes. (check)
3. Announce a winner. (check)
I think I might have a stab at the voting machine market. Excuse me while I go out to my garage and build one.
One bad monkey spoils the whole barrel.
The problem is that the two actors involved here, the public (government) and Diebold, each have two completely different aims. The public want a secure, easy to use, verifiable, non-bullshit voting system to ensure fair elections. Diebold wants to maximize shareholder value. A closed process will NEVER produce the desired result under those circumstances. Diebold will say "sure it works, trust us." Trusting them assumes they're not maximizing shareholder value: big mistake.
It would be sort of like fully privatizing mail delivery. Sure you could set it up as a viable company, if you are willing to entire A) drastically raise postage or B) cut vast swaths of rural mail delivery. When you get down to it the aims of the public are not compatible with running postal service as a completely private venture. The aims of the public are also not compatible with running elections as a completely private venture.
That would mean treating electronic election machines, no matter who produces them, as an extension of public service. Almost as a utility, perhaps. Political parties are heavily regulated as would be a utility, why not the very machines we use to vote?
I mean really, why all the fancy computers with touch screen monitors, why complicated software? Grab the vote in from a keyboard, encrypt it, save it, done.
Which doesn't address the problem with the voting machines at all.
The issue is not the fancy interface. (So changing to a keyboard would just add the problem of how you are supposed to collect votes from people who don't grok keyboards.)
The issue is: How do you KNOW the software that grabbed the vote (from the keyboard, touch screen, or what have you), encrypted it or not, and stored it in the database, ACTUALLY STORED THE VOTE THE VOTER CAST, rather than making up its own vote?
And how do you KNOW that the database ACTUALLY SAVED THE VOTES THE VOTING MACHINES FED IT and ADDED THEM UP CORRECTLY, rather than making up different values or being altered by some human intervention?
The MAIN problem with computer voting machines is that, along with hanging chads and dimpled ballots, they've eliminated any paper trail (actually checked by the voters themselves) of how each voter actually voted.
If the software is broken or corrupt, how do you do a recount? Ask it to give you the corrupted numbers a second time?
(Interestingly enough, that's EXACTLY how Diebold proposes to do a recount: Have the database print out the corrupted values as separate printed paper ballots for people to hand-count. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
With all this talk about potential election fraud, with these electronic voting machines, I was wondering whether a certain idea could work:
When you fill in your voting form you get a receipt with a record of your voting and a unique number (generated on the spot). At any time you could visit a validation web site, where you would type in the number you were given and check whether the entry matches what you have. Sure you could type in a random number and see someone else's record, but since its not tied to any personal info, it wouldn't be much of an issue. If at any time there is an inconsistency, you have proof in your hands.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I worked in the state of Kansas elections for the presidential election in 2000.
Our location had an electronic system to cast votes. As a person walked in, we wrote their name down next to a ticket number. That ticket was then placed in an envelope attached to the outside of the machine they would vote on. In case of any inconsistencies, we could bring those people back to revote (note that we hadd no way of knowing who they voted for).
The voter entered the machine and pressed the button next to the name of the person they wanted to select. It used what was essentially a large piece of paper over a touchscreen with the canidate's name.
At the end of the night, we printed out a receipt with the results from each machine. These were called in by the location manager for early (unofficial results). Every result was also electronically recorded into two (1 backup) cartriges. These two cartiges and the paper receipts were then hand carried by the location manager to the headquarters where they were analized and verified.
*note that there were steps taken before the machines were used to verify they were not hacked.
No networking to allow hacking and whatnot. The number of votes is verified and electronically verified. There was also the ability to have people re-vote if neccessary. After the election, of all the locations using these machines, I (and the location manager) heard of only 1 technical issue. A machine had failed to boot, and was replaced an hour before the polls even opened.
So my quesiton is, what the hell are these new machines doing that equipment has been able to do for a decade (or more)?
The tragic part is that this has very little, if anything, to do with Windows (although I understand much of the code is VisualBasic 6.0), and everything to do with simple crappy code. Really, I think it would be quite easy to program secure code in whatever M$ language these things use.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A quick google search for Diebold Bush will return more than 3,200 results.
o ld-money-to-bush_x.htm.
Among the most noteworthy ones are:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-05-dieb
As such, it's no suprise that Microsoft is one of the top "contributors" to the Bush war machine.
It makes sense then, that Bush's mandate for electronic voting machines (based on Microsoft technology) would follow shortly thereafter.
But I digress, a quick google search will provide much more research data than I could ever provide here.
On the bright side, Sen. Edwards (my candidate of choice) is now openly supported by Howard Dean (which is a very good thing). However, I can't help but think that it's a little too late for integrity and values.
They've been bought and sold out right out from under us. Our responsibility to our democracy is to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in November 2004.
The questions are:
Are we done discussing it?
Are we willing to do something about it?
2000 was cakewalk compared to what's going to happen this year. We've had 4 years to bitch and moan about our rights.
Talk is cheap.
Are you guys ready to defend our rights?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
What if someone manages to mess up the power supply in an area with voters for your political opponents?
Most communities already own these
Nobody wants electronic voting without a verifiable system of reciepts.
That doesn't seem like asking for a cure for aids by the end of the week.
Why aren't we seeing better voting machines or unified laws to cut down on the crappy operation of elections?
Steve
I've been listening to talk radio, and poll troubleshooters are calling in. I didn't realize it up to now, but the machines, at least in my city, are using Windows CE for the OS. Apparently a lot of the systems were booting to the desktop instead of the application (the app is on a flash memory card in the machine). I infer from the symptoms people are describing that some machines were allowed to sit unpowered and unplugged for a long period prior to the election, and the batteries ran down, erasing the script that would have executed the application when the machine was turned on. The poll workers aren't trained on what to do in this unexpected circumstance, and have to call the troubleshooters who were trained in how to get the app running. Naturally, the troubleshooters are inundated.
Perhaps the fact that we're voting on Tuesday is part of the problem. If all elections were held on a Saturday instead, then 1) Fewer people would have problems getting off from work to vote 2) There would be less traffic 3) There would be no shortage of potential polling places, as all the schools would be empty (personally, I've alway been uncomfortable with voting in somebody's garage). In short, perhaps if we voted on weekends, perhaps more people would turn out to vote, thus cheating in elections would be less effective?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
As usual, it's the physical security issues that pose bigger issues than electronic security. At my High School in San Francisco, CA, which is a polling place for all elections, including this one, voting machines are delivered to the school about two weeks before each election, and simply left in a small alcove off of a main hallway. See this for further details on this problem In short, I (or anyone else who enters the unlocked school building) have had many opportunities to simply wheel the entire kit out the door and to bring it back in some time later (this would of course violate state law, so it is left as an exercise to the reader).
Cities need to take basic physical security precautions with their voting equipment as well.
Well, sure, maybe an embedded Linux of some kind, but then Diebold would have to hire real programmers...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
What's really quite disturbing is that the unreliability of these voting systems has been well covered in the mainstream press, ... yet the voting officials still have no clue or interest in considering the liabilities of using these systems. It just defies reason,and makes me lean ever closer to my paranoia / tinfoil hat and wonder about payola.
Why are you worried about payola?
Worry about ballot boxes stuffed by corrupt election officials working for political machines.
That requires NO paranoia to be concerned about. When the enormous power of government is handed over to the winners of elections, the historical NORM is for the election process to be corrupted.
The battle is to keep it clean. The ONLY way to do that is to ASSUME it's dirty unless you can PROVE it's clean - in a way that's believable by every non-tech-savvy member of every losing faction.
When somebody can say, of an election, "Trust me, it's clean." - and you have to believe him because you can't check, it's almost CERTAINLY dirty. (The only thing that might keep it from being hacked is that the political machines haven't got their hacks finished in time.)
And when the election officials ignore mainstream press coverage about how it can be cheated and how simple it is to fix, you shouldn't be wondering if you're hearing a little alarm bell tinkling. You should be hearing air raid sirens and artillery bombardments.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hello kids, lets sing a song.
... (clicked on no)
... (clicked on no)
... (page protection fault)"
"If your happy with the current-administration, click on yes!
If your confident in Diebolds ability-to-provide-secure-voting-solutions, click on yes!
If your happy and you know it and you really want to show it, if your happy and you know it, click on yes
Lets try another!
"Bar bar black sheep have you cast your vote?
No sir, no sir, i was struck of the electoral role by a republican outsourced data-processing company called Diebold"
Well done! now lets try some rhymes!
"Humpty dumpty sat on the wall,
humpty dumpty found a software flaw.
But all the election officials' horses and all the election officials' men,
couldnt save humpty from a Diebold law-suit under the DMCA"
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Some people, such as Orthodox Jews, restrict their activities on Saturday. You might reply "tough for them", but any change that makes voting harder for a significant class of people is going to be opposed by elected office-holders from any party that draws support from Saturday-observing people. That's why this proposal won't go anywhere in the U.S.
Here's a different proposal: make Election Day a national holiday. A lot of people would also take the Monday off as well. I think that democratic elections are important enough to be a national holiday, don't you?
The UAW (United Auto Workers union) negotiated a contract where Election Day is a paid holiday for their members. Good for them.
I'm Canadian, and I didn't know what it means. Not all of the /. readers are in N. America or Britain either, so it's always helpful to post an explanation.
Forget the machines, the ballots, whatever. My voting experience scared me and I don't even have to mention electronic voting.
I arrived as a Non-partison voter. Three people manned the booths. I waited in line to get my electronic voter card, and the person in front of me was asked "what affiliation are you?" They responded "neutral". OK, so that sounds like me, I guess that's what I'll say (I didn't know to say specifically "non-partisan"). My turn comes up, I'm asked what affiliant and I say "neutral" too.
I put in my card, and of course the ballot screen is in plain view of everyone, but whatever I don't really care (yet). My choices come up, and I was dumbfounded. I didn't recognize any of the names, I couldn't make any choices or anything. I scanned the screen thoroughly -- the eballots themselves are simple but the interface obfuscates certain important things -- and finally noticed at the top that it said "Natural Party Ballot." Holy shit, they gave me the wrong ballot!
But wait a second, they gave the person in front of me the wrong ballot too, then! And sure enough, that person had already gotten themselves 3 screens deep into an electronic keyboard to try and type "Kerry" (I could see her screen, bogus) because none of the choices allowed her to.
Summary: the guy who gave me my voter cards must be a moron. Oh my god, this can't be an isolated occurrence. But wait, there's more.
I finally get my card settled and go vote. This time I recognize some of the names, but again I couldn't vote on the democratic primary. What gives? I flip open my voter booklet and on the second or third page it stated something to the effect of: "non-partisan voters can vote in 3 of the 7 party primaries, just request a ballot to do so".
So I requested the ballot. Moron #1 had no idea what I was talking about, asked me if I'd voted, I said "yes of course but" and he cut me off and said "well then you're done." No I'm not, look right here in YOUR BOOKLET, SEE? "Gee, I don't know anything about that." OK, done with you, let's try door #2.
The second guy was a little bit more intelligent but still had no idea. "But it's right here in the voter registration booklet, and the details take up this entire page, how can you guys not know what this is?" He still had no idea, but at least he had the good sense to ask person #3.
Person #3, the youngest of the three, was outside taking a cell phone call and came back in to help me. She at least was willing to consider that I and my voter pamphlet might be right. Rummage rummage rummage, shuffle shuffle, oh, the directions state he can vote a paper ballot. Moron #1 insists "we ain't got any", starts looking around. A short period of chaos ensues, the line stops moving forward. A box under Moron #1 contains something; he insists they aren't ballots. Person 2 gets the box, Person 3 opens it and whoa! Look at that, paper ballots.
But they're still uncertain, and it's freaking me out. Well, they reason, I must be allowed to fill out a paper ballot if that's what the booklet says. Huh??????? You guys don't *know*? WTF?
I fill out the paper ballot and hand it back to the 3rd person, who seemed the most intelligent and most aware of what was going on of the three. Of course, she took the ballot from me and folded it, put it in a corner and that's the last I saw of it. It didn't go into a box, it didn't go into any safe place. Who knows what its eventual fate might be.
Now listen, I understand that the electronic voting systems have vulnerabilities and problems and (for the most part) whackjob morons designing them. But you know what? After my experience today I am *really* more concerned about the process, the training, and the people.
They're volunteers, and man thank you, the world could use more of a helping hand in general. But they were soooo ignorant! Where did my paper ballot go? Was that even the right ballot to fill out? And the electronic one? WTF happened to
"The computers crashed," I was told. There were three poll monitors, all on cell phones, trying to get through to somebody - anybody - to help them reboot.
Once they got through, I couldn't hear everything that was said, but I did hear the words "OK, now I see 'Windows CE' - what should I do?" I left. I am going back now. I hope I get to vote.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
1. The person must be able to select the name of the person they want to vote for. (check)
2. Now count which person received the most votes. (check)
3. Announce a winner. (check)
You missed a step:
4. Prove the system counted the votes correctly. (Oops!)
To do this you need:
1a) The machine must make a hardcopy record of how the voter voted.
1b) The voter must be able to check that the hardcopy is accurate.
1c) The hardcopy must be preserved (along with the hardcopies of the other voters' votes), until the recount opportunities have expired.
4) When the loser says "I don't believe it!", the hardcopies must be manually counted, under the eyes of the loser's teammates, to prove that the loser really lost.
1a, 1b, 1c, and 4 are all missing from the Diebold system (along with most of the others).
Instead they have:
1d) Fiddle with the database to move votes from one candidate to another.
along with other possible problems.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
He is in the race. He is not pursuing the position actively. It means that his name is on the ballots and if people like him, they will vote for him.
This is happening because of panic. Pretty much anything can happen when policians panic. And it's not something the GOP did, either. We Democrats did it to ourselves and the nation as a whole.
Democratic politicians and media were paniced after the 2000 election, and were looking for somebody to blame. They chose the election machines. Do you remember all the news articles and politicians opining that everything would be better when upgraded to digital?
Do you remember any computer scientists being asked about it? No, of course not. Since it was about panic, nobody wanted to learn the facts.
Although, "we" computer scientists do bear partial guilt. An early feasibility study was run, and they botched it. They did mention problems and risks, but not in the summary or first paragraph.
I've written a blog posting on how current evote reform efforts aren't going far enough.
You know, that article doesn't go nearly far enough ... they don't
mention that by the end of this election season, somebody has quite
possibly been elected by a bug.
Politicians, voter-rights advocates and even some secretaries of state have acknowledged that the systems could theoretically fail
Stating the nature of the technical concerns with these machines this is profoundly misleading. Usually "theoretical" refers to something that basic principles could happen but that practically speaking is not worth considering. It sounds to me like some of these people may have got the message, but the amplitude is way too low. It reminds me of the joke where the engineer states an idea is a "crock of shit", and the news is softened at each step up the ladder until the CEO is told "It will promote growth."
Over the years I've learned that we technical folk use language which is too open to being misconstrued by nontechnical people. Important conclusions get lost in explanations and caveats.
The message we need to communicate is this:
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wouldn't it be funny if, in November, the voting machines actually worked properly and were not rigged, but the election was STILL stolen? Contrary to popular belief, the main problem in Florida was not unreliable paper voting systems, which accounted for a few hundred misplaced votes. The main killer was the erroneous exclusion of tens of thousands of blacks from the voter lists by Database Technologies (DBT). http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/ 04/voter_file/
Diebold may come out of the 2004 election smelling like roses, so nobody will care when 2008 rolls around. And the election can still be stolen in both instances, with one weapon (manipulated voter lists) in '04, and yet another (rigged machines) in '08.
Who says the neocons are dumb? Not me!
When you fill in your voting form you get a receipt with a record of your voting and a unique number (generated on the spot). At any time you could visit a validation web site, where you would type in the number you were given and check whether the entry matches what you have.
That doesn't slove the problem. The issue is not whether YOUR vote is in the database correctly. The issue is whether the difference in the TOTALS for the various candidates or proposition yea/nays, is correct.
But it DOES create another problem: Such a reciept would let you prove to someone ELSE how you voted. Which lets him buy your vote.
(It's laws against vote-buying that keep us from getting access to the raw ballot output - which we could analyze to check the accuracy of vote totaling systems (even with paper and punched-card balloting) and look for voting patterns indicative of other means of vote corruption (such as runs of identical ballots from stuffing operations).
Such suggestions as yours come from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an election, and of checking its results.
It is not to see that your vote is counted.
It is not to see that the most popular candidate wins because that's "right" or "nice".
It's to convince the LOSER that he REALLY DOESN'T HAVE SUPPORT. So he doesn't go out and start a war to overturn the election.
THAT is why republics are stable - and why corruption in voting, or even the PERCEPTION of such corruption - leads to "political instability" (a politically-correct term for riots, vigilantism, and civil war).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Folks just remember, the electronic machines are here so that you dont have a repete of the whole 2000 fiasco. See, when the electronic machines go wrong theres no way to tell, so the election won't be slowed down with pesky recounts. Even if there was question about the election, it would never get in the media because while "hanging chad" can be explained to the masses, "buffer overflow" cannot. Anyway im sure Diebold is a responsible company who wouldnt let their republican affiliation get in the way of a undetectable vote tampering.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Several groups concerned with electronic voting are recommending that people vote absentee in their voting district plans on using electronic voting machines without a voter-verifyable paper trail (VVPT). In many places, the deadline for getting an absentee primary ballot has passed, but some counties using e-voting technoloyg in CA and MD are allowing people to vote on paper (though not always at every voting station in the county--often only at one or two central polling stations).
Heck, you can always just claim that you are Amish and are religiously forbidden from voting electronically. I don't know if this is true, but I doubt the poll worker would be able to call you on it.
Where I vote, the "old" paper system used before last fall's recall of CA governor Davis was punched cards with chads (both polling place and absentee). That's almost as bad as the touch-screen systems. And the state is not requiring paper trails on the new systems until long after the presidential election (2005-2006, if I recall correctly). Strike 1.
The only good news here is that concurrently with the touch-screen roll-out, absentee ballots were changed to scannable paper forms.
Unfortunately, the voter guide arrived too late to order one using the form it came with. Strike 2.
So I drove down to the registrar's office for early voting and gave as my reason, under penalty of perjury, that I distrust the new touch-screen systems. They gave me a ballot and I voted. Since this is a 3-strike state, I'm glad it didn't get that far.
It looks like the only solution here for the time being is to request a permanent absentee ballot.
I voted on the touchscreens here in San Jose for the first time today.
It was a weird experience. I hit big yellow on-screen "button" at the end to cast my vote. The computer made a trilly beep and ejected the smart card. It was very uncomfortable not knowing whether my vote had been recorded correctly, though.
But then I thought back to my very first time voting, in 1996 in Brookline, MA. They had these big booths with little levers beneath every possible thing you could vote for (a little lever beneath each name, a little lever beneath "yes" and "no" for the initiatives). You'd pull the appropriate levers to indicate your vote. The thing is, I wasn't sure how to make sure that my ballot was cast. I surmised that just opening the ballot booth cast my vote--but I wasn't sure.
(There's a description of it under "Mechanical Lever Machines" at http://www.lwvnj.org/booth/machines.html. And, I now know for the first time that I surmised correctly.)
It turns out that those machines also lacked a paper trail. So for all of the times I've voted, I wonder how many times my votes actually counted.
At least with the computer, I'm SURE I cast it correctly. How do I know? Because the computer made a trilly beep to tell me. Somehow, that's more reassuring.
My vote may not actually be counted this time, but at least I KNOW it wasn't because of my screw up.Oh man im sorry i just cant help it:
Why did the American voter cross the road? To get some democracy
Knock Knock
-Whos there?
Vote
-Vote who?
Vote who-ever you like, it just gets piped to the republicans!
Hey bob, did you hear about the new election system?
No? how does it work?
It electionically transfers 'votes' from a politicial party's bank account to Diebolds!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This proposal gets floated so often that I can only consider it malinformation at this point--a pervasive meme which works to people's detriment.
Let's say, for sake of argument, that all 50 states have their caucuses and/or primaries at the same time. They start at the same time, end at the same time. What are we going to see from the candidates?
Well, Kerry would park himself in California for two weeks prior to the primary. Edwards would take New York. Sharpton would go for an inner-city like Baltimore, Dean would take Boston and everyone would be lobbing grenades at Kerry in a desperate attempt to keep him from getting God-knows-how-many delegates in one fell swoop.
Do you see what'd happen? The candidates would campaign only in high-population areas and would talk only about metropolitan issues. Because really, if everything all gets settled at once, it doesn't make any sense for Kerry to sit down at Gwen's Diner in Lisbon, Iowa (great food if you're ever in the neighborhood) and talk to the usual crowd of farmers, hunters and retired schoolteachers who hang out there.
These people are American citizens. They pay taxes. They get overlooked by East and West Coasters every single day of the year except for about one month every four years, when the East and West Coasters come to Iowa to ask Iowans "so, now that you've actually met $candidate, what do you think?"
If you make everyone vote all at the same time, what you're going to do is tell everyone who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area--and that's forty-eight percent of the nation--that their opinions don't count, that they're too minor to matter, and that since everything's settled all at once and fifty-two percent of the delegates are decided in the big cities, that the entire political debate will revolve around big-city concerns.
A campaign season exists to allow vigorous political debate to take place. It exists to make sure rural citizens, who have as much right to be heard as you, have a voice in political proceedings.
Not sure why, but I submitted the exact same story only with more info this morning. Oh well :) The radio station that I listen to has been reporting all day about the problems with the Diebold machines. Entire polling places were shut down in San Diego county this morning due to technical problems.
A reporter for KFI named Eric Leonard has done a series of reports on the problems that California has been having with Diebold. Ranging from legislators and state employees working for both the State and Diebold at the same time (conflict of interest anyone?) to Diebold refusing to release the raw data from the machines claiming that it's proprietary technology. My guess is that they have GPLed or OSS code in there that they don't want anyone looking at.
I'm in favor of electronic voting, but this is rediculous, handing control of one of the most important aspects of our "democratic" process over to a company that runs Windows XP on ATMs!
Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for the powers that be that maybe OSS voting technology is not such a bad thing after all.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
The absentee voter system already opens the door to bribery. I am not a resident of California, but I believe that you can register to be a permanent absentee voter in CA, for no grounds beyond you feel like it. So, if I were a CA resident and wanted to sell my vote, I would register to be a permanent absentee voter. Then, I would fill out the absentee ballot, show it to the person buying my vote, and then drop it in the mail while they watch. They get one confirmed bought vote, and I get my cash...
Therefore, bribery is equally possible under the current system. I don't even need the California law I cited, it just makes it easier to sell my vote election after election instead of having to obtain absentee voter status for each election.
What makes you think that there is no way for us to check if Diebold's machines really are clean? There are over 2 dozen security procedures built into their voting machines that cover the entire election process. These measures are easily verified by independant third parties and that can guarantee the process has not been rigged.
Easter eggs.
Example: Code to move 10% of the votes from "no" to "yes", or the D to the R, (or vice-versa), but only on election day, only in certain precincts, and only on candidates in particular ballot slots.
Code with such zingers would pass JUST FINE on the tests - and maybe get by even if you tested it with some extra machines during the election itself.
(Interestingly, though, one of the things that came to light is that these tests you speak so highly of usually aren't actually performed. Another is that, even in a state where an approval process was in place, voting machines were discovered (after the election) to have been running UNapproved versions of the software.)
So next time I suggest you don't talk about things that you clearly have no clue about.
Yo! Bucko! I've WRITTEN similar zingers myself. (Though only to play a practical joke, not to corrupt an election.) They work just FINE. And are damed hard to figure out even if you KNOW they're happening.
All of which begs the issue.
The point is not to make it accurate.
The point is to make it PROVABLE, even to a technical illiterate, that it IS accurate.
"Trust me, I'm an expert." isn't going to cut it when the issue is how Adolf Eichmann III became mayor of Chicago when he was polling 0.5% on the day before the election.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just remember if your local voting station is having technical problems (which is true for about 100% of them) dont offer your help - If you even touch the machine other than to vote you are probably commiting atleast 16 offences. Trying to diagnose the problem could be considered a federal offence, a terrorist act, and a violation of the DMCA all in one! not to mention of a violation of your local states 'visible errection in a public place' law.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Hanging chads are a lot different to crosses in boxes. In Australia we use paper and pencil in our elections and we don't have any problems.
. . . are Americans more ignorant about the American politcal system than Europeans?
Gosh, I'd love to spend some time answering this, but I have Average Joe II on TIVO and I have to finish watching it to make room for American Idol.
Oh! Gotta go get the door. It's Domino's.
I'm in Orange County, California. We are one of the many counties in CA using the electronic voting machines, except mine was actually quite spiffy. No touch screen, first off. Instead, there was a scroll wheel that you were supposed to use. Perhaps a bit more complicated to the user than a touch screen, its still easier on the program. The UI was actually quite simple. Scroll to select option, hit enter, scroll to get to next area, and repeat. It gives you a chance to review your ballot, and then you hit the big red button to submit your ballot. Easy. As for accountability, there's an easy way to do it that should be in place. Throw in a cheap laser printer into each one, and print out the ballot results. The voter checks the hard-copy to confirm, and turns that into the election center. If the ballots are ever questioned, you have a large stack of print-outs to confirm! Sure, its a cost increase, for both the printers and paper, but that should remove almost all doubt.
One of our team spoke to the minority leader of the Ohio Senate, and she is very upset that they are using extreme political pressure to get Ohio counties to use Diebold no matter what.
Mike Wertheimer, our team leader in our original test, will be on ABC news tomorrow morning and CBS news tomorrow night. Look for it.
We witness not a fallen world, but falling every day - The Call.
Hey, look at that, I made Slashdot!
I'm Peter Sahlstrom, the Georgia Tech student who took the photos. I thought there were a few things I should mention.
1) A friend of mine pointed the conspicuous pile of voting machines out to me, and although I took the photos, he made the phone calls. We contacted the voting people, the press, and campus security; we received almost no response. The voting people told us the machines were locked (apparently they were...but not to anything. The mainstream press ignored us. And Campus Security said that, although they had complained to the voting people previously, they kept leaving the machines out like that.
2) The thing that finally drew attention was an article I posted to Dave Farber's "Interesting People List", (here) and to Declan McCullough's Politech (here).
3) I've made the best photos available to anyone interested. The Associated Press has two; I've got about 13 more of the highest quality (or most relevant) photos available, if someone wants to throw some bandwidth at me.
If anyone else has questions about things, let me know.
I was going to put a sig here, but I had already submitted the message.
I have posted this before, but I am intersted in setting up a panel on Technology and Democracy, with a focus on e-voting:
:
I am interested in setting up a panel in NYC (New York, New York, USA) somewhere between July 9 and July 11.
Some topics that color my view of e-voting systems briefly follow
My concern is that any system be appropriately thought out, formally and precisely defined, using rigidly designed systems (not necessarily off-the-shelf), made to precisely and verifiably conduct voting tansactions, without being able to disclose, leak, or bleed any information that is not supposed to escape the system.
The Johns Hopkins study is an excellent reference and resource on the issues that have to be addressed.
I am personally interested in setting up a panel in New York in Mid-July (not much - just about an hour to an hour and-a-half), but at an interesting venue. I am not offering funding, but there could be some visibility.
I would welcome hearing from anyone who is doing interesting work in this area - in the US or overseas, that would be interested in participating on such a panel, to include related topics on technology-and-democracy.
I can not promise or expect to provide any funding, but there could be some visibility.
Thank you,
Sam Nitzberg
sam@iamsam.com
http://www.iamsam.com
I asked for a "paper ballot" -- an absentee ballot. Mailed in my request 2 weeks ago, sent in the vote 2 days ago, no muss, no fuss. Voting "in the comfort of my own home". Although it would have been more satisfying to complain in person. In 2006 when they add the paper receipts, I'll go back to the polls.
Clearly these electronic voting machines have serious problems. But it is also clear that electronic voting is going to happen, whether we like it or not. So what would be necessary for a reliable electronic system to include?
The most important issue seems to be a paper trail. But the machine simply printing a paper trail internally is useless, as the voter would never know if it actually reflected his/her vote. (As someone else pointed out, the machine could just display one thing on the screen while recording and printing a paper copy of something else.)
So what if the machine printed out a receipt for the voter, the voter can look at it to verify that it is correct, and then must drop the receipt in a box on the way out? Those boxes would be used for manual recounts, as well as a random sample of checks to make sure that the machines are recording the votes correctly.
Just a thought... It just seems to me that the voter must see the actual piece of paper that will be used for the recount...
The reason that a sequential transaction log would not be good is that by reviewing the voting logs or observing the machine, someone could then figure out who voted for what.
However an internal log which separated the paper into a bin after each entry would not necessarily be a bad thing (akin to the voter-verified ballot behind plexiglass mentioned elsewhere)
I've been working as a Chief Election Officer since 2001 in Fairfax County and I have worked a precinct with the new electronic voting machines as of last November.
The new machines take some getting used to but they do have their advantages.
The machines we use are WinVote machines. I can't remember the manufacturer but it is not Diebold. While I can't speak for other states and counties where voting takes place, I can speak for Fairfax county's methods.
There are a number of checks and verifications that take place before the polls open in the morning with the machines that we receive. We first have to verify that the correct machines have been sent to our princinct, as they all have serial numbers on them. The use of metal sealing bands with an imprinted number on them guarantee that we have received the voting units intact, and without tampering.
We have two types of smart cards that are used for voting. Two precinct smart cards are kept by the Chief and Assitant Chief of the princinct. Session smart cards are assigned to the precinct, one for each machine we're issued.
These smart cards are programed to only function for the election held on that particular day. Also, once the machines are initialized by the precinct smart card, the machine goes through a configuration that certifies it to our precinct and loads the appropriate ballot.
The machines are touch screen accessible, and use a form of embedded Windows XP. There is the ability to present ballots in large type for the visually impaired, as well as an audio ballot (where the computer instructs you to touch one of the four corners to make selections) for the hearing impaired. The entire unit has a battery backup like a notebook and can be detached to assist elderly and the disabled by bringing the machine to them, allowing us to satisify our mandate to provide curbside voting.
Internally, the machines have an access cover that requires a key to protect the sensitive areas of the voting unit. There is a thermal printer, which records the machine stats at the start of the day: a protected counter that shows how many votes the machine has cast in its lifetime, a session counter that identifies the number of votes on that machine for that polling session (0 at the start of the day), and the current memory counts for every candidate or issue (also 0 at the start of the day). A USB flash disk also is connected which actually stores the data. It is protected by a seal that must physically be cut before removal.
One interesting thing I learned is that when the polls are opening, the units switch on a wi-fi connection to communicate with each other. One machine is designated the master, and the others become slaves. We set which machines we have been assigned and that is set in memory until the polls close. I asked the question about security issues but was assured that the wireless link only activates for a short time when opening or closing polls and is deactivated the rest of the time.
If a voter is ready to vote, one of our Election Officers will use a session card to activate one instance of voting (a ballot). We not only instruct the voter, stand by the machine and answer any questions, but the county was nice enough to provice a video tape that loops so that people when they come in can see directly a demonstration of how the machines work.
If someone would like to start over, or decides they require the large type ballot, the session card can be used to cancel the current ballot. In this case protected and session counters do not advance.
We had one case last election day where a guy got fed up and left in disgust with the system, and we asked him if he would like to restart the ballot process. He declined and asserted that he wanted his ballot cancelled, which we did, as is his right.
Some success stories are that a few senior citizens, probably in their 80s, tried the new machines and actually were very pleased at these new "high-tech contraption
American's only vote when it matters.. like who's going to be the next American Idol.
I know you were only joking, but the funny thing is, you're actually right, and network execs have noticed. The wheels are already turning for an "American Idol"-style TV show to choose a presidential candidate. The show is called "American Candidate," and although it won't let me see the page because I'm not in the US, here's the link.
The hope is that if an election is "glammed-up" like TV shows, that voter interest will be piqued. In all seriousness, a surprising large number of people actually do vote in shows like "American Idol," and "Big Brother." If we could harness that kind of excitement and focus it on something like an election, we may just be able to restore voter interest.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.