Slashdot Mirror
Demo of Free Software Voter-Verifiable Voting
Lulu of the Lotus-Ea writes "The Open Voting Consortium (OVC) is holding a demonstration of its Free Software voting system in Santa Clara, California on April 1, 2004 (yeah, I know the date, but it's not a joke). An announcement on the OVC homepage has further details. The Sourceforge hosted EVM2003 project of the OVC has produced touchscreen and vision-impared interface voting systems that produce visually inspectable (or machine-aided audio verification) paper ballots. As well, OVC will demonstrate systems for reconcilliation and reporting of precint results, and provide handouts and a presentation explaining the virtues of a publicly inspectible system with a tamper-proof paper trail."
They will use a system called Demotek that is made by four basque companys (Ibermatica, Ikusi, Hunolt and Euskaltel), and uses a really curious way for voting, half analogic, half digital. The voter uses a normal paper for voting, but the ballot paper has a bar code that is read when it is inserted in the ballot box.
The results are available in the moment that the ballot boxes are closed. But, they are not official until the ballot papers are counted.
- It's a easy way because there are no skills necesary (it's not necesary to know using a computer). My grandmother can use it.
-It's a safe way, because there are always the ballot papers for testing if the system was ok and no one has cheat the results.
- It's a fast way for knowing the results. No more Florida like recounting needed.
Sorry for my awfull english
Marcus Ramius
Electronic voting has been used in parts of Belgium for over a decade, with little fuss or controversy.
The system is simple, robust, secure and verifiable. Each voter gets a smart card (magstripe card in the older days) when they present their papers; they take this smart card into the voting booth and insert it, much like using an ATM (and everyone knows how to do this). The voting machines use a touch screen like an ATM (in the older days, using a light pen), and let you select your candidate/party. The vote is registered to the card, which is then ejected, and inserted into a ballot box that counts the vote as the card is entered.
The ballot boxes are locked, so tampering with the cards is impossible. The card readers in the box cannot write to the cards. The voting booths are stupid, with no memory or network connections.
So what's the big deal in the US?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
'I don't think i could ever trust voting if a computer is involved to count "virtual" votes'
How about the 1860 US elections? The first to be counted by machine.
Something somewhat similar to this has been done in Louisiana for many years (for those who are unfamiliar with the state's statistics: La is known for the worst drivers, close to worst education, etc. -- almost everything is close to the worst). The voters sign an afadavid (sp?) when they enter the voting facility, and the booth number is noted. Inside the booth, there is a very simple interface with buttons next to each candidate's name, and there is a brief description of the candidate's platform. Before submitting the vote (a light is illuminated by the pressed button) the voters are asked to confirm.
Any way, back to the 5-step process:
1. Identify yourself (the afadavid as in Louisiana) -- Most states' driver's licenses have some sort of electronically readable media. That part seems easy enough -- scan the card.
2. A nice, easy format is WAY too easy to do, unless it's for Florida residents (or so it seems)
5. Not quite -- the hard copy ballots should be automatically dropped (or printed in a long strip like a cash register receipt?) within the machine, and only printed after the voter has confirmed his/her choice.
Also, there should be a database of local users at the voting points of only the local registered voters. If a scanned ID (if that is the chosen method) does not match, the voter is denied. The information of voters is kept separate from too easily attaching a name to a vote, but not ipossible in case someone somehow successfully votes twice (another reason for theinitial database check), which would invalidate the person's votes. Of course, this could be modified and expanded for many types of possible fraud detection.
If you were around when moderation first got started here, you'd know that the first implementation HAD a dedicated group of moderators. This may come as a shock to some Slashdot users, but this site used to actually be unmoderated. Then, the editors moderated. Then, a group of human selected moderators. Then an algorithm started doing it. At each 'escalation' the reasons for expanding the pool of moderators was that the job couldn't be done by the existing pool. In short, the thing's been evolving for several years and works fairly well overall. At least in the same sense that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest" (probably misquoted, but you get the point).
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Putting a cross in a big box is a good way to limit your choices to big party one vs almost identical big party two, without actually offering the possibility of real represntation. Which is probably why the big parties like it so much.
It's also interesting to note that UK voting is NOT anonymous. It is "secret" yes - which means that no-one actually watches you put down your x, but it is not anonymous. Each ballot has a serial number that is matched to your individual voting number. This is supposed to be 'to control fraud', er how? It's not like they publish lists of who everyone voted for so you can check...
I wouldn't recommend voting for any candidate with ties to a "radical" organisation, unless you don't mind the security services keeping a close eye on you. They're unlikely to win anyway given the above big party problem.
More details on ballot 'secrecy' from the electoral commission
Most people don't realise this.
We've just linked in an online demo of the voting system as it will operate in a polling station. You can go to the Open Voting Consortium web site, and click on 'web demo'. Or go straight to the ballot if you're impatient.
Please keep in mind that we're not proposing voting through web browsers, or across the internet, because of the numerous security issues. This web demo is intended to let you see what you'd see on our demo on April 1 in California, for people who can't be there.
What you'll see is a ballot formatted for a large screen (1280x1024). You fill it out, then click 'print ballot'. What would happen in a polling station is that the ballot is printed out. In the online version, you can get the ballot as a PDF, Postscript, or JPEG image.
In the stand-alone polling station you will be able to take your paper ballot to a validation station that will read your vote back to you, so that you know that the paper ballot accurately represents your vote.
You then take your ballot to the tabulation station, where a poll worker will scan the ballot and store it in a locked box, where the paper ballots are available for recounts, audits, etc.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
You say!
But Diebold has installed "fixes" without waiting for the code to be certified by the election officials (whatever that means).
Calling the code changes "fixes" is, of course, accepting Diebold's assertions of what the change was, without being able to verify it. Believe it if you will, though.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No. As custodian of the Terry LePore Fan Page, I must correct this misstatement.
Ms Lepore was technically a Democrat by virtue of checking that box on her voter registration form. Her reason for doing so was entirely non-ideological: Palm Beach County is overwhelmingly Democratic, so the best way to win elected office there is to be the Democratic nominee. Prior to her first campaign for Elections Supervisor, she was either Independent or Republican (sources conflict on this) but definitely not a "lifelong Democrat" as some stories have claimed.
In 2001 she officially switched to Independent, and is running for reelection as such this year. It's true she has claimed to prefer Gore over Bush, but plenty of registered Republicans (me, for instance) feel the same.
to admit that my opponents are as earnest and well-intentioned as I amWell... they're not! Given that one of the few publically-known topics in Cheney's energy task force was how to divvy up Iraq's oil fields... c'mon, think about it for a second. Well-intentioned?