Slashdot Mirror
Avi Rubin's Thoughts On e-Voting
nazarijo writes "Avi Rubin, a well regarded Johns Hopkins computer science professor and leading critic of e-voting, has written an account of his experience as an election judge on super tuesday. Maryland was experimenting with e-Voting machines. Rubin puts it this way, 'this was one of the most incredible days in my life.' He wrote his experiences immediately after the day was over, capturing his perspective on the subject. A very interesting read."
He was a election judge in Baltimore County, MD. Near the end of his story, Avi writes "My biggest fear is that super Tuesday will be viewed as a big success."
And here's what the local media had to say the next day:
Elections Officials Say Electronic Voting Successful
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
(I'm not normally a Karma whore, but the site looks like its normally a low-usage site)
My experience as an Election Judge in Baltimore County
by Avi Rubin
It is now 10:30 pm, and I have been up since 5 a.m. this morning. Today, I served as an election judge in the primary election, and I am writing down my experience now, despite being extremely tired, as everything is fresh in my mind, and this was one of the most incredible days in my life.
I first became embroiled in the current national debate on evoting security when Dan Wallach of Rice University and I, along with Computer Scientist Yoshi Kohno and my Ph.D. student Adam Stubblefield released a report analyzing the software in Diebold's Accuvote voting machines.
Although there were four of us on the project, perhaps because I was the most senior of the group, the report became widely associate with me, and people began referring to it as the "Hopkins report" or even in some cases the "Rubin report". I became the target of much criticism from Maryland and Georgia election officials who were deeply committeed to these machines, and of course, of the vendor. The biggest criticism that I received was that I am an academic scientist and that academics do not "know siccum" about elections, as Doug Lewis from the Election Center put very eloquently.
While I dispute many of the claims that computer scientists working on e-voting security analysis are deficient in their knowledge of elections, I realized that there was only one way to stifle this criticism, and at the same time to perform a civic duty. I volunteered to become an election judge in Baltimore County. The first step was to get signed up. I filled out a form at a local grocery store and waited for a call from the Baltimore County Board of Elections. The call never came. So, I called up the board and spoke with the head of elections and found out that there was a mandatory training session a couple of days later. I got on to the list for the training, and I attended. There, I learned that my entire county would be voting with Diebold Accuvote TS machines, the very one that we had analyzed in our report. It was an eery feeling as I trained for 2 hours on every aspect of using the machine and teaching others how to use them. Afterwards, I received a certificate signed by the board of elections and became a qualified judge. I was supposed to receive a phone call within a few days assigning me to a precinct, but I did not. So, I called up the board of elections and spoke with the same woman, who assigned me to a precinct at a church in Timonium, MD, about 15 minutes from my house.
I reported to my precinct at 5:45 a.m. this morning. Introductions began, and I immediately realized that it would not be a normal day. There are two head judges, one from each party. There were also seven other judges. The head judges were Marie (R) and Jim (D). Both of them mentioned that they read about me in the paper that morning, and were pretty cold towards me. It turns out that the Baltimore Sun ran a story today about my being an election judge. In there, I'm quoted as saying that the other judges in my training were in the "grandparent category" with respect to their age. My colleagues for the day, who were in that category as well, did not appreciate the barb and were ready to spar with me.
There are three types of judges besides the head judges. There are four book judges, one from each party with A-K and one from each party with L-Z. There is one judge assigned to provisional ballots, and a couple of unit judges charged with assigning voters to particular machines. I was the L-Z democrat book judge, along with Andy, a grandfather of many, a staunch Republican, and a fellow I grew very fond of as the day went on. To my left were Anne, the Republican judge married to Andy, and Sandy. Actually, there were two Sandys. One began as a unit judge, but early on switched with the other Sandy to be the democratic book judge on A-K. Bill was the provisional judge, and he is m
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
It was a "primary" election - voters were deciding who should run as the Democrat and Republican candidates in the November election. Only Republicans vote for the Republican Party candidate and only Democrats vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
Interesting (and worrying) article.
Here in Ireland, there is a major stink being made over the government's plans to introduce e-voting machines in the next election. They will replace *all* paper ballots everywhere in the country.
Some interesting related reading:
Experts warn about timing of e-voting
Pressure group outlines concerns about electronic voting
What worries me most about e-voting is the fact there is no paper trail. There has been talk here of altering the machines so that they also produce a printout of the vote made by an individual, but the government is resisting it citing expense.
I would rather the old reliable and transparent paper ballot system rather than the closed and opaque e-voting machines.
Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
It's done so that in states with closed primaries you can only vote in the primary of the party that you are registered for.
In my state (NY) there are also laws that prohibit you from changing parties right before a primary election just to change who you can vote for. When I originally registered to vote I didn't choose a party -- then I joined the Democratic party. I got a letter saying I wouldn't be able to vote in the primaries for that year -- I'd have to wait until the next year after the general election.
If you don't like the idea of your party preference being on the rolls you just don't register for one. In my state there is a specific box on the form that says "Do not enroll in a party" -- there's also a separate box for the "Independence Party". If you don't want it to be on the rolls you just check off the "Do not enroll" box -- it's that simple.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The primary elections are designed to narrow candidates in a specific party down. Therefore, if you're a Democrat you should receive a Democrat ballot and if you're a Republican you should receive a Republican ballot. Some areas have you register as a particular party, most just ask you what ballot you want when you vote.
Note that since this isn't necessarily kept in any databases, you can request whichever ballot you want. One strategy that some people try sometimes (although it rarely works with national candidateS) is to request the "wrong" ballot and vote someone "bad" as the primary winner, so their candidate will have an easier time in his campaign.
The word is YOU'RE. Remember it.
I've noticed this pathetic usage creep into more and more postings both here and elsewhere. It is not correct and if I were in charge of hiring you wouldn't get the job no matter how qualified you were.
Yes, I'm a spelling Nazi and no, I don't care what you think. Either learn to spell or go back to elementary school.
It's mostly because of the primary system, to prevent one party mucking with the other's primaries. In the situation where there is an uncontested candidate in party A's primary and a strong and weak candidate in party B's, voters from party A need to be prevented from showing up and voting in the B primary to make sure the weak candidate wins.
This could be fixed better by having the parties administer their own primaries, but that would be expensive.
Because then you would have democrats flooding the republican primary vote with votes for the crappiest republican candidate, and republicans flooding the democrat primary vote with votes for the crappiest democrat candidate. Its a freaking primary election, not a general election.
Yes, but the "Independence Party" is not the same as "Independent Voter". The Independence Party actually exists, and claims to be the third largest party in NY.
Back in high school, in our government studies class we decided to form out own political action committee, "Slack-PAC"... only we enver got around to doing it.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Only Republicans vote for the Republican Party candidate and only Democrats vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
In some states.
Other states may hold what are known as "open" primaries -- possibly, depending on state law, at the discretion of the party holding the primary --, in which voters are allowed to vote in the party's primary regardless of their registration.
This year, Wisconsin's Democratic primary was open to all voters, and it was the votes of Republicans and independents voting in the Democrat primary that gave Senator Edwards of North Carolina a much closer second place in Wisconsin than in most other states. This edge by Edwards among non-Democrats was argued by his campaign to be evidence that he would fare better against Bush in the General Election than would Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
To select a presidential candidate we have two elections. The first is called a primary and it's where we choose one candidate from each party (Democrat and Republican) to run for president. Then we have the "real" election where we choose between those 2 candidates. The election happens on the same day every year (Nov 4) [we only elect presidents every 4 years though]. Primary elections on the other hand are done at different dates in every state, but all occur around this time of year (the bulk of them seem to happen in late Feb to early March).
Since the purpose of the primary is to select the candidate for president for each party (ideally) you want to limit the people choosing between all the potential Democrat candidates to people likely to select a democrat in the final election, and people choosing the Republican candidate to likely republican voters. If you didn't do this then you would have Republicans going to the polls and picking the weakest Democrat candidate in order to try to insure that their candidate can win come November.
The party does decide. A combination of superdelegates (party officials, party members who are currently in office in various positions, retired party members, etc) and pledged delegates (with the Democrats these are assigned to each candidate based on how much of the vote they took -- the Republicans give the winner of each state all of them if I'm not mistaken) will vote on the nominee for the Democratic ticket.
With all that in mind I can't understand those states that have "open" primaries. Why should somebody who isn't even a member of my party get to decide who is going to run for us?
As for why the party gets the state to run the elections to assign the pledged delegates who else should run it? Should it be a private election with no accountability? I don't see what the problem here is.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If X party has organized (For most states this means to have gotten enough signatures) then that party can issue a primary ballot.
If the party on an individuals voting registration is holding a primary, that person is allowed - as a member of that party - to vote in said primary election. If that individual opted to not list a party membership, then the only dis-advantage of this condition is that said individual may not be part of the primary election process.
Individuals whom do not choose a party membership can still influence whom is on the ballot through signature drives. Most states have a registered voter threshold after which a petitioned candidate will be listed on the final ballot. Finally, if an individual's preferred candidate still did not make the cut, there is a form to write in your candidate's choice.
Please, if I've missed anything huge, I apologize.
Executive military adventures abroad are not a 20th Century phenomenon.
Thomas Jefferson sent an expedition to the Barbary States... Tyler and Polk messed around in Mexico prior to the Mexican War and tested the border with Canada... Grant-Wilson had a military presence in China... the examples go on and on.
You see larger engagements today because the US's role as an "imperial" power has grown since the 1900's.
The actual meaning of "War" is a specific thing, with specific responsibilities. The Congress has walked hand-in-hand with the Executive branch to allow larger and larger military engagements without a declaration of War. The congress regularly authorizes the "use of force" without going to the level of a formal "Declaration of War"
The growth of the Executive Branch has everything to do with the strengthening of national political parties. Things like the direct election of Senators, the professional civil service and income tax are all responsible for that.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Toronto used them in the last several local elections, and I was a scrutineer (election judge) on the first.
The ballots are a large card, with a table of jobs and cantidates printed on them. The voter colors in the sharft of a broad arrow betwen cantidate and the position.
The cards are carrid in a folder to the recorder, who puts them face-down in the reader, which reads and totals them, and feeds them face-down into a box. The box is kept, for manual and electronic recounts.
At the end of the day, a printout is made for each scrutineer, another for the records and then the results are sent by cell phone to the master polling station.
By the time I got back to the cantidate's office, the results were on TV, by polling station, and they matched my printout.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
- They hand me a piece of paper and a pen.
- I fill in the bubble, next to my candidate
- I put the ballot into the computerized machine, that keeps my paper ballot
- If I filled out the bubble in-correctly, it beeps at me, and spits the ballot back
- Assuming I didn't do anything wrong, then I can see the electronic "number of votes:" counter go up by one
- I return the pen
- I get a red "I voted" sticker
What's wrong with that? Why does every vote have to be cast directly into a computer?? I like the ballot reader method.The laws on that vary from state to state. In Ohio, where I voted yesterday, it's seperate "ballots" (we were using Diebold systems, too). In other states, it's all the same ballot.
There is no 'i' in team, but there is in fiasco...
Write your CongressCritters!
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, hump its leg.
If you are worried about the insecurity of e-voting, and you are wondering what to do, join EFF. They are working hard to educate the public and our politicians on this subject.
Test 1 2 3 4
Do you know the reason why the U.S. did not go with a proportional style of choosing rep's.... I'm also curious why state legislatures no longer select their Senators.
Fortunately, these are related questions.
Remember that after the American Revolution, the American Colonies -- now States -- organized themselves under the Articles of Confederation. The reason that we still refer to the administrative subdivisions of the U.S. as "States" is that each considered itself, at the time, as a sovereign Nation-state -- tantamount to a separate country.
It was only in the face of a great deal of resistance -- resistance that was only placated by the "Bill of Rights" as the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are known, and notably the 9th and 10th Amendments that restricted the rights of the Federal government -- that the U.S. Constitution and its Federal system was accepted by the several States. Even then, in 1814, in 1828, and in 1861 the various States considered it within their rights to secede from the Federal government and go there own way. While neither the Hartford Convention nor the Nullification Crisis actually resulted in secession, 1861 saw the Southern States leave the Union until forcibly repatriated in the U.S. Civil War.
So proportional representation across state boundaries would simply not have been conceivable to most of the Founders, and acceptable to even fewer. Proportional representation might have been acceptable within a state, but much as the several States were jealous and wary of the Federal power, counties within the States were often desirous to maintain direct representation in the state legislature -- as they do to this day in each State. This was even more feasible then, given the relative smallness of the electorate, it being limited to property-holding white males over 21 years of age.
But it was to protect the interests of the States -- especially the less populous States -- that the Constitution created a two House legislature, one -- the House of Representatives -- with seats apportioned by population (knowledgeable readers will whisper "3/5ths Compromise" at this point), and one -- the Senate -- with two seats per state, regardless of a State's population. To further protect the interests of (even the small) States, votes for President were apportioned to the States according to the sum of their seats in the House and Senate, resulting in even the smallest States having three votes in the Electoral College.
Now, before I'm accused of rambling, here's the answer to your second question: yet another protection of State interests was to have state legislatures select a State's Senators: the Senators, under this plan, can almost be though of as diplomats, or better, plenipotentiaries sent by each State to the Federal government, deputized to negotiate as agents of their respective state legislatures.
But after the Civil War, the notion that the States were sovereign nations only voluntarily submitting to a Federal government was a dead letter, disproven by the slaughter at Gettysburg and in the torching of Atlanta. Furthermore, the period after the Civil War saw the opening of the Middle West (California had already been settled) and the knitting together of the country by the railroads, the common time zones that the railroads used to synchronize their timetables, and the rapidly growing industry that both built and prospered because of the railroads.
As the country became more closely knit by technology and the greater commerce that that technology fostered, further growth became increasingly dependent on regularizing certain things across state lines and across the country as a whole; these included standard weights and measure, the afore-mentioned time zones -- and especially laws regulating commerce. This was accomplished in a number of ways, but notably through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution; the upshot was to further weaken the 10th Amendment, which reserved to the
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
*******
I wanted to share my voting experience with you in order to assist you in providing even better service for the voters.
This morning I voted using the new Diebold voting machines. I had several unnerving experiences.
First of all, as I touched the NEXT buttons the screens didn't seem to want to move to the next screen. It took several tries to get the screen to go to the next section. However, the more disturbing issue was when I voted NO on prop 56 the vote registered as YES. I kept trying to touch the NO vote and it wouldn't change my selection back to NO. I had to call over a poll volenteer who helped me cancel my ballot, reset my voter card and try again on a different machine.
On this new machine I was able to vote although it also seemed to have difficulty with the NEXT button. I then validated that my votes were registered correctly and tried to confirm my ballot. The confirm ballot button would not register my touches. I could hear a double chirp sound when I touched the confirm ballot button but it would not actually confirm. I had to call over the polling worker for a 2nd time. When she touched the screen it did confirm my vote.
I must say that during all of this I ended up asking if I could have a paper ballot. When the machine voted YES after I touched NO I no longer felt confident that my vote was being registered correctly. Proposition 56 in particular is vastly important as a YES vote would allow our government to raise our taxes with only a simple majority instead of a 2/3 vote. To have the machine accidentally change my vote from NO to YES is really disturbing. I'm glad I noticed it before I confirmed my incorrect vote.
Thank you for looking into these issues. My polling place was [deleted for my privacy]
******
The response from the California Registrar of voters was this:
Please contact San Deigo County.
That was it. Why would the California Registrar of Voters send me to my County government? Arn't they responsible for the voting machines? Overall I didn't walk away with a good feeling that my votes would be accuratly counted. I'm sure it all worked out, but had I not been paying attention I would have missed that my NO vote became a YES vote.
We had another issue with the GUI. With a paper ballot the layout of the sample ballot you get in the mail exactly matches the layout of the punch card ballot. With the voting machines the layout of the screens did not match the layout of the sample ballot. You had to be very careful that the proposition you were looking at in your sample ballot was the one you thought you were voting for with the voting machine.
The last issue we had in San Diego county was that there were several polling places that were unable to accept votes because when the voting machines were turned on they showed a Windows ME startup screen and nothing else. The polling volenteers decided (and properly I think) that rather than them trying to start the proper program they would redirect people to other polling sites that had working machines. Several people were unable to get to this last minute alternate site and were unable to vote.
So that's what happened in San Diego yesterday. I expect it was fairly typical of the experience across the country.