Slashdot Mirror
California Panel Recommends Dumping Diebold
sdw3u writes "Wired reports that a voting panel urged California officials to stop using a voting machine made by Diebold Election Systems, and recommends that the state consider filing civil and criminal charges against the company." There's also an AP story. We covered the hearing yesterday, with Diebold admitting that their machines had numerous problems.
Although I believe the lititgation will fall flat on its face
This is the problem: you've got a system that is rotting away, where people have to drive/walk/take the bus to a designated voting station, register, and use a computer to vote. If you're going to have electronic voting, just throw a secure link online and let people vote through a web interface. Banks are pretty damn secure; why aren't these systems set up the same way as online banking? Sure you'll have criminals trying to break into systems to steal money, and you'll have the same criminals trying to break into voting systems to rig elections, but the bottom line is that if you are going to develop a system that's electronic, follow a system that is alread working: the online banking model.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
After the last disasterous presidential election in Florida would you trust your government to a system that can be hacked this easily? Not me.
Only took numerous voting irregularities and complete admission of guilt. Glad to see our swift democracy in action.
The latest version of Diebold's GEMS software that was certified in California is 117.17; the audit revealed that counties were using other versions, such as 117.20, 117.22, 117.23, 118.18, and 118.18.02. The audit also revealed that three counties -- Los Angeles, Trinity and Lassen -- were using software versions that had not been approved for use at the federal level.
...did the voting machine screw up the vote to get rid of the voting machines that were screwing up?
Perhaps I'm just a cynic of the first order, but why on earth would they be less-than-forthcoming if they didn't have some sort of adjenda of their own? You would think that, as a large business, they'd be as forthcoming as possible to put the voters (and the investigatigators) minds at ease with the new technology. Of course, if you were hiding something.....
Fudging elections is not a new concept. This is just a new twist on it. /tinfoil hat on
Chris Knight is my hero.
Did the voting panel use paper ballots or Diebold machines in their decision to dump Diebold?
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
To more applause and laughter, one shareholder asked if Apple would put its innovation to work and make a voting machine for the state of California.
"We have no plans to do that," said a laughing Jobs. "Hopefully they won't base it on Windows when they do make one."
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Just before I was finishing up High School a couple of years ago, this guy that came into my past job worked for Diebold and some how or another we ended up talking about computers. It later on worked out to where he was going to try to get me an interview when I was almost ready to graduate. By the time that hit they ended up laying off a bunch of people at Diebold in his department. (ATM/Surveilance systems) After a few months of phone tag and other run-around I finally gave up and looked for another job. That was before all of this pain with the voting machines. All I have to say, is thank god I didn't get that job. It would have been doing surveilance system work, so I wouldn't feel any pressure from this issue directly, but I wouldn't want the reputation of having worked for a company that fails like this. It's interesting how the bad things in life, can be blessings in disguise sometimes.
while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
No voting is foolproof. Take your pick of problems.
Would you rather have Computer errors, damaged punch card ballots, broken voting machines, bad optical scanners, or good old fashioned human error?
Nice to see these scumbags get the type of press coverage they deserve. Sometimes they get it right out there in Cali!
Crushing my karma one post at a time.
The Halloween installment of This Modern World from 2003 mentions this frightening topic. In case anyone here didn't see it, here's the link.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Indeed a filter could conceivably be on crack. The filter is really an army of one-handed, blind monkeys. They get crack on Fridays and beer on Sundays. It helps them stay motivated.
It's just unfortunate that so much (of our) money had to be spent before it became obvious to the point that something had to be done about it. What I found truly shocking was the way that Diebold admitted yesterday that thousands of voters had been disenfranchised as a result of their practices, and didn't seem to treat it as a big deal. Now we have an employee complaining that the state is being "too confrontational" and they should be "working together to fix the problems" Fundamental disconnect here, methinks. If you pay a commercial organization good money to deliver a system, which they get to keep proprietary, it's up to them to fix it. If the system design and software is to be open to inspection, then we can talk about "working together"
The Diebold disaster is typical of what happens when a massive IT project is rushed forward on hard deadlines under heavy customer pressure. Testing and planning get cut back to meet the "marketing" requirements, and funny, it just doesn't work right. In the end, the project gets scrapped, and a lot of money is flushed down the toilet.
The five person voting panel voted 57 to 3.14 in favour of getting rid of the Diebold machines...
What is the impact of this on psyche of general public who is either not very informed about the technical nitty-gritties or the reasons of failures, and onto the voters on the whole?
Its further rather amazing to know a nation so well versed in technology has failed getting something right, that the world's largest democracy - India, got right (they are undergoing elections present using electronic voting machines)
Also with different counties using different versions (as reported earlier), I wonder what happened to the usual quality assurance checks that would normally be in place for such a critical application....
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Why not stick some of the terms in the grave yard so dead people can vote too.
Who says banks are secure?
Fight Spammers!
Phones of brokers are ringing off the hook: SELL!!!SELL!!
Seriously, glad i don't own any Diebold at all!
Banks, ecommerce, website authentication... it's used every day; it's certainly secure enough for democracy.
The only other arguments against voting over the net is that, (1) it's defacto gerrymandering because poor people don't have computers and tend to vote for democratic candidates over Republicans; and (2) There's no independently audit-able paper trail. I'm sure (2) could be solved with some thought.
This is why you set up stations at public libraries and other government funded institutions open to the public. You can vote in public, or you can vote for home
~dijjnn
By forcing people to actually invest the time to drive out, register, and vote you make sure that people actually care who they're voting for.
Lots of people don't care about politics. They don't watch the news, they don't keep track of current events, and they certianly don't give a crap about what some politican's stance is on (for example) software patents or trade regulations with China. These people are simply not informed enough to make a good judgement about whom to vote for, which is OK because voting is too much of a hassle for them anyway.
Online voting is just going to encourage a bunch of one-issue wackos to vote for whatever politicans promises to (Legalize Pot | Raise the Minimum Wage to $10 | Invade Canada), instead of limiting the likely voter pool to people who actually follow politics and have half a clue about what the hell is going on in the world.
One.. voter verification: the overwhelming majority of voters must present picture ID and face to face with a pollster at their DESISGNATED district for voting.
Two, DDOS and many other types/styles of web attacks, which dont need to break security can easily be driected at say the midwestern states, or the liberal states... rendering their sum vote count down, thus allowing the other states a greater showing.
Three, hard break security, with a physical seperation from any public network, it becomes much more difficult for hackers and RICH politcal powers to corrupt the system. With even polling sites seperated by hard breaks it becomes a decentralized and distributed system that is much more difficult to compromise even if a few nodes are compromised.
Four, anonymity, passwords, and human ID. While we currently have mail-in voting, it is a small portion of our voting poulace, and still reuires a signature far more of a proof that it was cast by said person. With online voting, we would have difficulties verifying voters across disparete hardware, as well as their passwords can be much more easily compromised than a signature for a mail-in. anonymity should only extend as far as the VOTE, not the proof of the existance of the voter.
finaly... id like to say this idea isnt without merit... there are existing security solutions that are very powerfull... i would suggest using them in a CLOSED network entirely physicaly seperete from any public network, with the nodes also seperated.
just my thirty three cents worth
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
I can see in a yet-to-be (never-to-be) printed "Running a Business Handbook", under the chapter "Learn from their mistakes" an entire section titled "How to Die, Boldly"
I think it's important to realize that the focus of this problem are personnel who installed uncertified software, and not the electronic voting machines themselves.
As a pollworker in Georgia, which was the first state to use electronic voting equipment statewide, I can say unequivocally that electronic voting machines have made our precinct's elections run more smoothly. Many people who vote in my precinct comment about how much easier they think the new machines are to use than the old punch ballots.
Not only that, but electronic voting is actually more tamper-proof then paper voting, since you can't stuff a wad of pre-punched paper cards into an electronic voting machine. In addition, the voting machines are tightly controlled on election day, and the only way to gain "supervisor," or root, access to these machines is to use a special access card that isn't even taken out of its container until after the polls have been closed, and even then it's used under the supervision of at least 3 people. And even if the ballots were somehow tampered with that that time, you can still see the total number of ballots counted in 3 different places on the voting machines, and those numbers all have to be the same as the paper record of the number of voters that have received ballots that day. Personally, I think it's a very secure system.
Of course, in this scenario in California, if Diebold were using uncertified releases of its software on election machines, that is unforgivable. I don't disagree with the decision to kick Diebold out of these counties based on their irresponsible actions, but that doesn't degrade the validity of electronic voting as a whole.
- Proofs of Sturgeon's Law Delivered Daily -
It causes cancer.
> What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Micro-auditing is possible if you check your account after voting to make sure the vote you placed was the vote you wanted. Each user can remember who they voted for, and they could easily call out if their account was violated in any way. Any database can tally up votes if they are micro-audited internally, and cross-referenced. Very standard secure database design will always be able to print a receipt. They could mail you a receipt too.
>Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand?
Mechanical voting systems are a thing of the past. I really believe that society is ready for online voting.
> Why the heck do we need touchscreen voting?
I'm with you on this one. To me, it's wasteful and really difficult for people to use. What if the person has Parkinson's and touches the wrong button? Better let people use their own systems, and provide systems for those who need them.
> Why are the companies so afraid of putting an auditable paper trail in it?
I agree. Paper is just as important as anything, and the Diebold systems should have printed receipts, and master files that could be audited. Any online system could be printed at a micro-level. Bottom line: you'll know if your vote was compromised. Plus, with online voting, you'll have more control over your vote after it's created, and that truly counts for something. Imagine a nice record of your voting history? That would seriously rock.
The fear is that some people think that allowing users access to their vote history would compromise the secrecy involved in voting, and cause problems, but I truly think that with all the right people involved in such a project, one system could be created that was truly for the people and by the people.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Careful how you say that, we still don't know the full impact of E-Voting the India elections, why don't we ask how e-voting went in India one month after the election, like ourselves?
As far as quality assurance goes? Heh, nobody likes to test anymore these days do they?
...in bed
Every time the subject of electronic voting comes up, you hear people saying that polling stations themselves are part of the problem, or that we should be able to vote from the convenience of home or office.
I disagree. Vehemently.
Voting is somewhat of a ritual in many countries, especially the US. People will gladly talk about their politics, but ask them who they voted for and you usually get the cold shoulder. It's a private matter. You'd have better luck asking them how their bowels are doing. The polls themselves are nice and curtained or secluded, so no one can see. People bring their kids and let them watch, even let them do the final act of pressing the lever or button. There aren't many companies that aren't willing to let their people take a long lunch in order to go vote, and those that don't are not looked upon highly.
When it is your civic duty to periodically go to your official polling station, when you have to go to a specific place that you probably never go for any other reason, where you're around a large spectrum of people of all types that you might not otherwise be exposed to, and go specifically to cast your vote... it means a little more than simply hitting a website and picking the guy who you'd like to have lead.
The percentage of people who vote is truly sad, but it's not a good idea to fix it by making it TOO easy to vote. There must be at least a minimum of effort involved - a place to go, as long as it's reasonably easy to get to. The same place as all your neighbors. When you have to make an event of it, it tends to focus you more on what you're doing, and I've found that people become far less extreme in their politics when faced with this fact.
If you could vote from home, you'd put less thought into it. It would be one step closer to a news site poll, except THIS poll would make our final official selections. People wouldn't take it seriously enough. More people would vote, but the quality of those votes would not carry the same weight.
If the Primaries had been run over the web, I'm willing to bet Dean would have outdone his competition. But people were at an event, a political ritual, and that sobered them into making a more mature choice (though I think there were better people they could have chosen).
Voting should be readily available to the masses. It should be quick, efficient, and as infallible as we can safely make it. But it should also be an official civic act not taken lightly, and deffinitely never done from home.
All technical questions of security and validation aside, the concept of a quick and easy home solution for choosing our national leaders is not a good idea.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
What they don't get is that, is that if the code was not posted publically, the public wouldn't know about the security holes, but it would have been known to the people at the Bush campaign who arranged for Bush to be elected this time.
Fight Spammers!
because Diebold is a leading producer of banking ATMs.
From here:
Diebold controls roughly two-thirds of the North American ATM market, and trails only rival NCR (NYSE: NCR) in global sales.
This is not my sig.
Make's you wonder what's in the code.
FYI, the EVM's in India have been used for a while now, though this was indeed the first general election where they were used nation-wide.
The current reports have not mentioned anything changed from the (now) usual process of the use of EVM's, hence it is unlikely at the outset, for anything major to go wrong.
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Would it be useful to have UN observers to ensure free and fair elections?
Virtually serving coffee
Here in Florida we are getting Diebold voting machines. Right now the democrats in the state are fighting to have ticket printers installed on the machines so there will be a paper trail of votes. Governor Bush and the republicans are completely against this for some reason. I'm worried that the coming presidential election is going to make the last fiasco look like a minor glitch. I'm seriously concerned that my vote isn't going to be counted properly.
/. has covered numerous examples of how Diebold has a less than stellar record when it comes to their honesty, impartiality, and a willingness to pursue auditability and quality control in their machines. Here in Ohio, a protsest march was held regarding Diebold's practices at a shareholder meeting.
I heard an interview on NPR today where the chief of marketing participated in the on air talk-show (InfOhio after 9) review of this protest and Diebold's activities with regard to electronic voting. He basically said California's Voting Laws were so complex and constantly changing that they were not upset at having to leave the CA e-voting machine market.
Sounds like the pot calling the Kettle Black to me.
Diebold's CEO and President Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio (which makes me angry to have them here in my state) to Bush in November, donated to the Bush campaign and worked to organize re-election effrts to do the same. Since this time he has publicy apoligized for his public support of the Bush campaign (one would guess because of the obvious suspicions of impartiality and conflict-of-interest, wether founded or not) and vowed to keep out in the future. IMO, the damadge of his public display of support has already been done. He hasn't asked for the money back. I don't think its unreasonable to hope that the CEO and President of a company hawking a product that manages/administers/records voting would treat voting what it is, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY. He and his company are not trustworthy to me.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
> they don't have enough conviction to overcome the miniscule amount of inconvenience involved
Okay, you be black for a second. Imagine you have to go to the police station to vote. The trouble involved in voting is actually quite a bit more than a miniscule amount of inconvenience, for some. For some people, the very aspect of voting for some white fool in a suit who will likely screw you anyway, makes the whole system bogus.
With an online voting system, anyone could run for government, because they could freely advertise on the system without having to pay any money. Users could make smart choices based on information present, and therefore a wider use of democracy becomes possible.
The high costs associated with running for office are only due to the costs of mingling with the people. Let's face it, if policy is all the office is about anyway, why not just let policy makers strive for change in their underwear at home? I mean, really... do they need to spend $5mil travelling all over the freaking world, riding in limos and soaking up the cash with big expensive dinners and giant wardrobes?
Online voting would make the whole system more honest.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Simple solution: outsource the democracy to India. They can do the electronic voting at lower cost and with higher reliability than anybody else can.
Actually, a new, large techno-literate state like India can only be a good thing because it will give us better ideas about how to deal with this kind of problems (why buy American voting machines? Indian ones will do!)
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
Individual clicks 'Yes'
I hope the election people in Ohio take notice of this. One of yesterday's articles said Ohio was considering the same machine that was causing trouble in California. I sure don't want to see the same mess here, especially after that comment the Diebold CEO made a while back about delivering Ohio's votes to Bush.
> Election wardens at each polling place are allowed to enter the booth to assist physically-challenged voters
Let me just say that anyone I've known with Parkinson's (and that's at least three people) have all become quite angry when anyone tries to help them. That doesn't stop them from spilling milk all over the floor, but it gives them the dignaty to clean it up after.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
And if you read my other posts, you'll see I'm experienced in the matter.
/. colleagues think the USofAn electoral system is already rigged.
Yes, we need electronic voting machines, because they have the potential to be much more secure than paper trail.
Some of our
"I (and others) have said it before and I'll say it again. What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?" It's not auditable. An entire "paper virtual" voting district can be created, and millions of votes added. If you trust paper a lot, a lot of phony paper will show up. Besides, as I have already told, no-one wants to count it, no-one wants to recount it (or else in the USofA people would have a recount in the last presidential election -- it did not happen, and will not happen).
"Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand?" Now, you have a point. The ideal is that all the software in the machines be public, publicly auditable, every single part of it.
"Why are the companies so afraid of putting an auditable paper trail in it?" dunno about afraid, but here, the (semi-)auditable paper trail added problems, costs, and no security. real auditable paper trail, meaning a carton-thick ticket containing a written form of your vote [so you can see it] and an OCR'able or barcode representation of it [so it can be separated automatically to be recounted] is just too expensive.
And if it's not automatically separatable/countable it's just not worthy because people do not want to count/recount votes.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Actually, India has had major problems with their system. Go back a few days and you can find a /. article on it. India has also had a long history of voting irregularities not covered by that article (search on voter hijacking).
Anyway, nice try.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
The algorithm for emulating dangling chads must have a glitch.
Table-ized A.I.
Diebold obviously is aware (as we all are) of the security problems with its voting machines but has chosen to stonewall them in a wild rush to get Diebold voting systems installed as widely as possible. The integrity of our entire national election process is at stake here and it is the foundation of our government and its constitution. Diebold is just as dangerous to our country as any group of wild-eyed moslem fanatics and they deserve the same treatment...the sooner the better. I would start by transporting the entire Diebold executive committee to some of those tropical confines at Guantanomo Bay.
that's a good point, but the part your missing is that sally house wife is too scared of her husband to lie to him, because if she votes against his candidate and he finds out in any way, she'll get the beating of a lifetime...
I agree that it's more likely that one person would vote for themselves in a booth-like situation, but then again most of the people voting aren't thinking for themselves anyway...
I think people should be allowed to vote online, and to the people that think it should take some effort, what's more important, getting more people to vote, or making sure the people that do vote are the people that don't need medicare right now?
The real fraud is in the registration of voters, not in the counting of votes. That's the way it's always been.
Of course, the down sides are the expense of the technology, and the current issues with software security. But, just like with any new technology, it should eventually get better, and more secure, even if it is never 100% bullet-proof.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
It was only the DOD that was considering an internet enabled voting setup, that only for overseas use, and they gave up the idea as stupid. From what I've read, the Diebold type machines are essentially connected by SneakerNet-- carry flash memory cards from polling terminal to central counting machine.
Never underestimate the bandwidth and throughput of a stationwagon full of mag tape.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
This person doesn't understand shit about how elections work, why they need to be anonymous and how they are broken. It just isn't a simple technical problem. Stuff like this shouldn't be moderated up, it just spreads ignorance.
Serious question, I'd honestly like to know why everyone is so hell-bent on using voting machines, electronic or paper-punching or whatever. What for? Here in Germany you get a big piece of paper with a list of the candidates/parties and you just draw an "X" beside your choice, then fold the paper and drop it in a box. Yes, the results are most likely (I've never been there) entered into a computer when they are counted, but this way there's a really good paper trail for everything. And we need neither video-streaming voting XP media centers, nor funny mechanical card punch machines that confuse voters.
Please note, this is not meant as a flame to you Americans - I would *really* like to know why you need these machines.
or even leave the check box system in check, and require to 'Write' the name of the individual checked. This would ease counting and provide a backup in case of discrepancies.
Please Check the Canditate of your choice AND write their name in the box provided
NOTE: Write means anything in which the user can do to spell out their Canditates name (pencil, type, speak, sign language, etc
I was listening to the news on my public radio station a few months ago and they were covering the electronic voting controversy. I was initially excited and impressed because I hadn't seen any mainstream coverge. But that didn't last long because they were very dismissive of complaints and painted them as luddite anti-technology fears. They said that it was true that machines had had problems but they amounted to having to reset the counting devices. They said no votes were lost. This was AFTER the Diebold memos were leaked. They should have known better. People have lost votes. There have been races which were won by margins smaller than the number of lost votes. There have been negative vote tallies. And most of all Diebold has monitored elections illegally and used uncertified software which was changed at the last minute.
NPR/PRI/Marketplace: Where are you now? Will you admit you were wrong and correct your story?
You know what, we made fun of California because we thought they didn't take their Democracy seriously by electing an action movie star, but apparently they take it a lot more seriously than we realize. I have to admit, Arnold is doing a lot better than I thought he would; hell, if I lived in California, I'd vote for him for re-election (even though I'm a Democrat). And the way they're treating this Diebold issue is very much to be applauded. I live in Maryland and we recently had big problems with electronic polling machines, but our politicians didn't really do anything about it. Bravo to California for standing up for its citizens rights to vote.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Some random congressperson was quoted as saying
"The security used in this is freely downloadable on the internet making it insecure!"
or something to that effect.
So what we have net here is a rejection of defective Diebold machines but an embracing of the security through proprietary obscurity.
Look for Diebold to fix, recertify and dominant.
Naw.
They let Chad make the decision. He wasn't doing anything anyway, just hanging around, dangling his opinions. Some of the women on the panel thought his dimples were cute . . .
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Are you sure? Do you have a source?
The reason why I ask is because the National Association of State Election Directors has an Updated List of NASED Certified Systems. According to the Updated NASED List of Qualified Voting Systems (12/05/03 - Current), the following Diebold voting systems qualify:
Further, the Federal Election Commission has a FAQ About The National Voluntary Voting System Standards. The FAQ indicates that to meet the standards, an election system must satisfy either "FEC's voting system standards" *OR* pass tests "by independent testing authorities (ITAs) designated by the National Association of State Election Directors." Thus, the Diebold systems approved by NASED should satisfy the voluntary voting systems requirements for federal elections.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I have several bank accounts. I can open as many as I want. But by law, I am entitled to only one vote.
But I have a stronger objection. Each month, my bank sends me a printed statement on their letterhead. I reconcile this against my own records. If there is a problem, I bitch at the bank about it, and if the bank disagrees, I take my *PAPER TRAIL* and talk to a court about it. The *PAPER TRAIL* is the previous bank statement that I agree with, plus the deposit slips that I get when I make deposits at the bank.
When I buy stock, the broker mails me a confirmation of the trade, and that's my *PAPER TRAIL* in case the broker disputes my story about what I bought. Those confirms, and the monthly statements, are evidence. They've got a bunch of mysterious cross-references on them too, so if my bank/broker turns out to be a total lying scum-bag, I could probably chase down the counter-parties.
Show me a system where there is a *PAPER TRAIL* and I'm interested. But there is a huge catch-22 here: I want proof that my vote was counted, but I want it to be impossible for my employer to fire me if I didn't vote Republican, or my union to excommunicate me if I didn't vote Democratic. If I want to flash my bank statement around, that's no harm to you, but a lot of people get very nervous about their neighbors selling their votes (it raises a big moral agent problem).
Lastly, bank accounts and any kind of financial accounts work on a dispute-and-hold basis. If one party disputes a transaction, everybody holds up until there's a friendly resolution or, failing that, a court steps in. This works fine with bank accounts, but it gets ugly in presidential elections.
The thing is that electronic voting doesn't have to be done poorly. It can be done in a way that is open, transparent, verifiable and has some notable advatages over paper voting (such as granting the blind and minority language speakers a truly secret vote.) It just isn't being done that way... except perhaps for the OVC voting projest dicussed recently.
"Diebold". SCO should have chosen that name, if you ask me. Well, maybe Diegreedy would be better, but too long.
Table-ized A.I.
Largely, the non-slashdot concerns about e-voting seem to center around unintentional inaccuracies, like those mentioned in the FA. In other words, the worst problem typically mentioned is about errors causing disenfrachisement or delays in voting. While I don't want to discount these problems, they are fixable, either by a paper backup system or timely software or hardware repairs, likely getting better and better as the machines become more widely used.
Personally, my real concern is about intentional vote fixing by the makers of the machines. I know this has been talked about at great length on /. and elsewhere, but I think it needs more attention in the real world.
I know I'm naive, but the thought that somebody would try to steal the election infuriates me. There is no pit deep and black enough for someone so unpatriotic and dishonest. We must fight to protect one of the greatest experiments in personal freedom in the history of humanity.
Please, take the time to write your CongressCritters about e-voting in the House and Senate.
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, hump its leg.
How can they fuck this up so bad? It would seem like a prefect example of bring together tried and true technologies and using them in a new manner. I don't see where any new technology would would be deveoloped for this.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I dunno about the USofA, but here it's a constitutional right of every citizen. You are being a simplist, because the hardest part of such system is to dissociate the vote from the voter while still preserving the bond. maybe there is some cryptographic way of doing this (I can check if my vote is there with a private key, but no-one else can know who I voted for).
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Uh, you do realize "Governor Bush" is the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush's brother, right? I will assume you are either not from the US, trolling or a real idiot.
Just proof positive that "I am the King of %s" is way '133t3r than you are!!!!
"This doesn't solve the problems," said Tab Iredale, a Diebold developer.
No, but "If you will not set a good example, you will serve as a terrible warning."
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Legally elected? No. Try again.
I don't need to present ID when I register, and I don't need to present ID when I vote by absentee ballot.
I also don't need to present ID when I vote. I do have to sign my name on the precinct list, but I don't have to prove that I live in the precinct.
I've heard that that some state elections in the US are now running 50% absentee ballot. The opportunities for fraud amaze me.
Cracking of the encryption on the computers
There's no need to crack the encryption, when it's so easy to just break into the whole computer. Instead of just trying to make a billion copies of itself and giving back doors to spammers and DDOS vandals, why couldn't a worm install a transparent proxying web server (along with all the fake encryption keys necessary to make everything appear to the user to be appropriately signed) and then perform a man-in-the-middle attack on your vote? The false vote can then be sent out your modem to the voting server in an ultra-secure encrypted message, while the real vote never makes it past your monitor.
... is going to die not-so-bold?
The Erogenous Zone
Remember standardized tests in school. Why not have a touch screen to vote, then when all done, have the computer print out a bubble form pre-filled with the voters choices (and even a copy clearly marked reciept for the voter to take home). Voter can have the ease of use from the computer interface, and peace of mind of the bubble paper ballot. The the bubble paper ballot goes in the box. The computer can have a unoffical vote tally, the paper bubble ballot count will be the official vote tally. Hey, if it passes muster for our education system.....
If possible, give a unique code on each recipt copy of the ballot. have all ballots posted on the intranet (those without internet can use the library), indexed/sorted by that unique code, so each voter knows their vote was counted.
For the truly paraniod, there can be a reader add each voting location to test the paper bubble ballot pringted before casting it into the box.
Another thing, there should be an oval to be filled in a column next to each voters signature. That oval gets filled in with each signature. At the end of that day, a scanner runs down that column on each page and counts the number of voters, this needs to be compared to the number of ballots present.
I honestly do not understand the drive to electronic voting. It seems to be based on the belief that "more people would vote if it was easier".
Nonsense. More people would vote if it was democratic.
Give us a more democratic way of tallying the votes, not a less reliable way of collecting them. Give us a system where voting for the man we want to win won't benefit the man we want to lose (is it really right that votes for Nader helped Bush last time and probably will again this year?). Give us a system that's based on the choice of the people and not on the choice of an unaccountable "electoral college".
Give us all that and I don't care if we have to vote by dropping a white or black pebble into an urn, I'll do it. Till then, what's the fucking point?
> Wow. Apparenty this is *no* link between a user's slashdot ID and his or her ability to post a relevant or on-topic comment. =P
Why do people insist on bashing my ultra-cool UID? Please, my UID has nothing to do with my sentiments. It's *you* who have gone off-topic.
Never judge a book by its cover. I am fully capable of posting on-topic and relevant statements, and I can back up anything I say with accurate data. And I'm even willing to debate things with anyone, including you.
> Black people are afraid to vote because some polling booths are located in police stations? WTF?
Racial profiling is a really old trick of the establishment to scare certain races away from the polls, because they would most certainly vote out the corporation-friendly candidates. It's pretty standard first-year university curriculum, actually. Maybe you should look into it. That's why, in Canada, we have laws against that kind of thing.
> Letting anyone/everyone run for office via the internet will clean up politics? WTF?
Sure it will. Anonymity is increased dramatically if you do not have to be present at a voting booth in order to vote. It's better for the environment, too, because not everyone is driving to the pollbooths. Because the people in power tend to influence where booths will be in any giving riding, they can put them in places that will not attract certain types of people. Criminals won't go to the police station, but some criminals are only criminals because they can't afford to live. Blacks are less criminal than whites; but they are harrassed more by the police. (that was my point)
> any candidate is already able to advertise and campaign via the internet for relatively little cost.
You missed the point. If it was all on one server, and systemized so that it didn't favour anyone, add a Google search to it, and you've got one hell of a democratic system.
> Are you suggesting that online voting web-sites should support pop-ups with candidate ads?
No. I don't believe in browser intersitials; I run Mozilla with popups surpressed. What I meant was that candidates could post relevant information about their platform to a central site. It's fair, no?
> And how exactly does "online voting" reduce the need of policy makers to "spend $5mil travelling all over the freaking world, riding in limos and soaking up the cash with big expensive dinners and giant wardrobes"?
Okay since I have to connect *all* the dots for you: Because it's hard to justify spending $5mil campaigning when your rivals spend nothing, because they don't have to if the online voting system was designed correctly. Each party tries to bankrupt the other party and everyone loses a vast sum of money when that happens. The current elections system is archaic and full of dishonesty. Let's pry that money back and put it to good use.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
> ummm, wouldn't I already *be* there!?
No. You racist scumbag, you would be at church, or studying for finals, or raising your family, or working hard to make a living.
> Your entire post is without merit... whether or not someone votes on line makes no difference as to who is running. You are a fuck-tard.
Photard, your entire existence is without merit, but thanks to democracy, you have just as many rights as I. And I'd still fight for your rights to post AC flamebaits like this, and miss all the points on Slashdot, until you die from old age.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Of course, none of this has the gee whiz, gosh golly technology crap that this crowd loves so much, but it works well, is inexpensive, and the process can be easily adapted for in situ voting as well. So why the hell do you need touch screens when Scantron works just as well AND you can get lazy voters to vote by mail, too?
That is all.
make these jokes go away. And while you are at it, can you send the Florida election people to hell for making all these jokes possible?
Damn pregnant chads...
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
Sorry, but this reads like a load of crap.
There must be at least a minimum of effort involved - a place to go, as long as it's reasonably easy to get to. The same place as all your neighbors. When you have to make an event of it, it tends to focus you more on what you're doing, and I've found that people become far less extreme in their politics when faced with this fact.
Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? I would assume the opposite-- people are more likely to polarize in their politics when surrounded by neighbors. This is why there are restrictions on campaign materials within a certain radius of the polling places, as neighbors are constantly trying to influence fellow citizens as they prepare to vote.
Tell me-- Why do you think people would be any less thoughtful about their votes from the comfort and security of their own home? Do you think that people who shuffle off to the local Red Cross, high school basketball court, or car dealership in the snow and have a few moments in a booth surrounded by other voters are somehow in a better frame of mind to make important and thoughtful decisions than someone who can take all the time they want, surrounded by reference materials, who can take as much time as they need to read and understand various initiatives and/or measures, and perhaps even refer to arguments pro and against?
When you have to make an event of it, it tends to focus you more on what you're doing, and I've found that people become far less extreme in their politics when faced with this fact
First of all-- your premise that "extreme" politics is a bad thing is flawed. Who's to decide what's "extreme"? You?! Your "mainstream" may be my "extreme"! Secondly, making voting more inconvenient than necessary does precisely the opposite of what you're suggesting-- it does not make people focus on what they're doing, it distracts them from focusing.
Voting is somewhat of a ritual in many countries, especially the US. People will gladly talk about their politics, but ask them who they voted for and you usually get the cold shoulder. It's a private matter. You'd have better luck asking them how their bowels are doing. The polls themselves are nice and curtained or secluded, so no one can see. People bring their kids and let them watch, even let them do the final act of pressing the lever or button. There aren't many companies that aren't willing to let their people take a long lunch in order to go vote, and those that don't are not looked upon highly.
You've just described the perfect argument for home voting. No hastily-pulled curtains, no worrying about seclusion or privacy. No worry about whether your boss wants you in 10 minutes. Done on your own time, when your kids are doing other things safely at home.
Paying taxes is a civic duty too. Do you advocate going to some central place to ritualize and "make an event" of paying your taxes? Would that help you concentrate? Hell no. Home electronic filing is one of the major improvements for doing taxes for many people.
This is ridiculous. Voting is difficult for many people, especially those who must work multiple jobs to stay afloat, those with lots of kids-- in general those without the time and opportunity to make a big "event" out of it. If the point of voting is for them to choose their government or governmental laws and policies, then it should be as SIMPLE as possible for them to do it. *Artificially* creating barriers to expressing their vote simply to ritualize or ceremonialize it is a form of disenfranchisement for many people, IMO. Voting is too important to this republic to make pomp and circumstance an priority over ascertaining the will of the people.
If California, or whatever state you happen to live in, concludes that Diebold electionic voting systems are crap, and yet they are implemented anyway, what are you going to do about it?
I'll venture a guess: absolutely nothing. Even if these systems are shown to be demonstrably anti-democratic, the American people will accept them. Supporters of whichever party these benefit -- apparently Republicans -- will embrace them and disregard objections as the ramblings of loony conspiracy theorists. But whatever the case, neither the media nor the American public will truly care, certainly not enough to do anything about it.
This is sad, because I believe this is something that we should be literally up in arms about.
Nothing wrong with online voting history, just don't index it by your name.
Vote for whoever you want. The machine should confirm it onscreen, then print out a ticket with a random number on the top and your vote on the bottom. The number should be unique but should not be a function of your name.
See? Easy as pie. Now assume it's a very close race and there's a recount. You don't have to trust a bunch of recounters to look at dangling paper pieces; everyone grab your stub and go to votingrecount.gov and punch in their ticket number. (At home or at a library, etc.) You should see your vote there. If not, report to the polling location and request a re-vote.
(This assumes people are capable of holding onto a piece of paper for a week. This may be an unwarranted assumption.)
If e-voting resulted in President CowboyNeal.
> Then you just knock out the stations in areas where your opposition has a substantial majority of the popular vote.
And then you get arrested, because the NSA can track any DDOS attacks without much trouble. Oh, now if you could get your rivals to do it, they would hang themselves and you could point at them saying how evil they are (and mop up all the votes). That happened in Ontario recently when the Liberals used a Buffy quote against themselves, suggesting a Tory (PC) said it; somebody called Dalton McGuinty a kitten eater. Then, in a Wag the Dog scene from hell, Dalton posed with a cute little kitten, and won the election. But the Liberals planned the whole thing.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
After hearing from someone who helped build an *electronic* voting system, I do not support *online* voting. There are a few, really difficult to solve problems with online voting, the biggest of these is the secrecy of the ballot. How do you stop others (friends, spouse etc.) from checking on somone to "make sure they vote right"? As long as you cannot guarantee the physical security of the polling place (somoene's lounge room), you cannot guarantee the secrecy of the ballot. In the Russian elections, all sorts of city services (such as restaurant permits) were available if you "paid" in postal votes for Vladimir Putin, we'd be exposing ourselves to similar temptation for corruption.
As for electronic voting, I firmly believe that open electronic systems can be just as secure as paper systems. The benefits are that electronic votes are easier to count and less prone to qualitative interpretation (is the chad hanging or not?), but yeah, the primary benefit is cost. We don't need electronic voting, but it is more convenenient.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
And perhaps most import, online voting does not guarantee the anonymity of the voter and allows people to vote on behalf - or rather than - other voters. Specifically, you'll have situations where the head of household is standing over the rest of the family as they cast their votes, or even doing it for them without their permission. "I know you're busy so I voted for XXXX for you. If you were going to vote for anyone else I'd have to punish you." This issue would be even worse in locales without American-style conscientiousness, with local bosses or party officials exercising complete control over the process. In fact they could prevent or preempt people from going to polling stations and casting their real vote to ensure results, and no one would be the wiser.
So there's no question about it. Polling stations that verify identity and ensure anonymous voting in the booth are essential. Online voting, even of the optional variety, wouldn't improve turnout, it would increase disenfrancisement. If you want to improve turnout, extend the voting period to more than a day (a week seems good, 24/7). And make exit polls illegal while you're at it.
This does not exclude electronic voting machines. I think a simple modified ATM with privacy curtain and polling monitors outside would be ideal. You could go in, slide in your voting card, get your picture taken for verification, possibly sign or thumbprint for, cast your vote, recieve a printed receipt that you verify your choices and deposit to leave a paper trail, and then leave.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
> The number should be unique but should not be a function of your name.
Easy as Pi:
$top = md5($UID + rnd(1,100) + microtime());
$bot = md5($UID + rnd(1000,10000) + microtime());
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
First of all, the governor of our state is Jeb Bush, not George W Bush. Not the same person, although they are brothers--both sons of the former President Bush.
Secondly, when I was referring to "democrats" and "republicans" I was referring to the currently elected members of those parties in the state of Florida. If you know of any elected member of either party in Florida that isn't polarized on the issue in the way I stated, it's news to me. Also, I wasn't attempting to insinuate anything--the implications are there, but it's not my fault that the whole thing appears so shady.
Maybe you can explain to us why having a paper trail would be such a bad idea.
As someone else mentioned, I should be upset that this isn't being covered at all by the local news (as far as I know.) He/she most likely lives in FL as well because he's correct about that. I only heard about it because I was listening to NPR in the car when they happened to be talking to someone from Diebold, one of the state reps, and a couple other people about the issue.
The guy from Diebold actually came off pretty well. When asked about installing printers for a paper trail his reponse was basically that printers weren't part of the spec that they were provided when they designed the system. He added that they would gladly install printers if asked to do so.
So let me get this straight: A company deploys thousands of machines that run Win2K. These machines are then used intensively in mission-critical operations (elections). A noticeable proportion of said machines either crash or misbehave. And the result is...
Is it thousand of people saying 'Well, duh!' and shaking their head?
Alas, gentle reader, this is the real world. The actual result was SHOCK! HORROR! DISBELIEF!
What's wrong with these people? They deploy thousand of Win2k systems and then they are shocked (shocked!) that 10% of them crash and burn? When will these people get a grip?
In other news, BoldSmell, the perfume division of Diebold based in Paris (Texas, natch), has introduced a new fragrance named Eau de Raw Meat, targetting the burgeonning demographics of lion tamers, zoo keepers and African reserve veterinaries. Some initial reports about early customers being attacked and devored by usually tame carnivorous animals have been dismissed as "overreaction".
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
It is not a new idea, but it seems like the best-suited ones for the jobs are clearly not the corrupt, power hungry politicians able to run for the position.
Any citizen, chosen at random, might well make a better candidate than those who can head up the political machines required to get elected.
"Congratulations, you have been chosen to be the next President of the United States. The secret service will arive sometime today."
Also give out random cash prizes to make sure that those who would not normally aspire to hold office will show up at the polls.
Give "Government of the People" a new credibility.
It would save us all a lot of grief, and I do not see how it could be fundamentally much worse, unless the beaurocracy had the ability to keep thus-selected leaders under their thumbs.
I hope this helps,
Imagine you have to go to the police station to vote.
Because, of course, the folks that might hesitate to walk into the local police station are the most wired. America's ghettos are covered by DSL. Actually, the folks most abused by our justice system are least likely to have a home computer and access to the internet. Guess online voting doesn't solve that problem.
With an online voting system, anyone could run for government, because they could freely advertise on the system without having to pay any money.
What???? Huh?? It looks like english but your words do not make ANY sense. Have the candidates advertise on the polling system? I go to vote, and I get a pop-up saying 'Kerry kicks puppies. Bush loves puppies. Vote Bush.'
I like the idea that campaign signs and the lot are kept at least some distance from the actual polls. I like voting in a space free of advertising.
Have the candidates advertise ON the actual POLLING SYSTEM? To make the system more HONEST?? It costs so much to run for office because the candidates MINGLE??? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It costs so much to run for office because of the costs of TELEVISION AD TIME! Campaings cost so much because candidates want to reach people without actually mingling with them.
How about this--you, candidate. Put your pants on, go outside, and actually get to know the people you want to vote for you. And you, lazy ass citizen. Put your pants on, go outside, and just f'in vote.
Is that so hard?
Would you rather have Computer errors, damaged punch card ballots, broken voting machines, bad optical scanners, or good old fashioned human error?
I'll take good old fashioned voter error so I want scratch tickets. Thanks to state lotteries and product marketing lotteries, just about everyone knows how to use scratch tickets. All you need is a coin and a lockbox with slot.
The area under the scratch would have a bar code so the tickets can be stacked and scanned. AND you have a paper trail built into the process. No dimpled, pregnant, etc chads.
There would be two types of scratch tickets:
Standard: The label of the choice above the scratch area. pick your candidate or Yes/No on issue and scratch that selection, then drop your ticket in the box
Random- position/ballot issue is to the left on the line and a number of unlabelled choice scratch areas to the right. The candidates or Y/N choices are randomly printed on the ballot before the scratch material is applied.
Pick one by method or random. This addition of randomness would shake up our voting system.
Upon entering the voting station, the voter has a choice of picking a standard or random scratch ballot.
Of course, they would be clearly marked as "STANDARD VOTING BALLOT" or "RANDOM VOTING BALLOT"
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Putting pressure on the press is something that I feel is incredibly important on this and every issue (The $700 Million is my favorite). Without forcing our message out to the mainstream press, we're just preaching to the choir here. I mean, what are free long-distance cell phone minutes for?
... 4 ... #, 1 ... 7, 1
Here are the numbers, followed by the extensions required to reach the comment line. For extensions not listed, you have to ask the human to leave a comment.
ABCNews - 818-460-7477
CBSNews - 212-975-4321
CNN - 404-827-0234
FoxNews - 888-369-4762
MSNBC - 201-583-5000
NBCNews - 201-583-5222
Unleash the slash-hordes.
- the user interface was different than the punch cards we'd used for so long; that meant confusion, especially since there was no way to "train" on the new equipment before casting the actual vote(!),
- there was no physical record of the vote
- being that there was no physical record changing the vote count would be simple.
- there was no "receipt" showing me my vote so I knew I voted correctly.
I did not get into the hacking issues, since these were not the brightest people; which was another problem in itself. They responded that they did indeed have a record of each vote -- on a central machine controlled by a lady who had a running tally of votes and could print a vote audit trail for each machine. But each machine depended on that central one to hold its votes and there was no corroborrating (I can't spell) record from each machine. I asked what would happen if the central computer failed. I don't rememeber the precise details but it was clear that there was one backup and if it was also lost, all was lost. What is a recount? Re-print the vote total you just printed. There is no way to recount the counted votes. They thought this was a feature ("no need to recount") instead of a flaw ("no way to recount").Then I told them I was responsible for databases. At different times I have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of credit card settlements daily and explained how our failsafe measures failed to the extent a days worth of customers (say, half a million US dollars, without including AMEX) were doubled and, due to an API error, the fix resulted in a triple billing. Wheee. Our systems had much more checks and balances, backups and audit trails than there silly voting system and yet one days transactions went wildly wrong (we somehow avoided the news, though our problem involved the same processor as Walmart's in their recent fiasco). How would they retract double/triple counted votes? Replace lost votes?
The good people at my polling place had received the warm fuzzies from the people promoting inaccountable electronic voting; they didn't like hearing my input. But why would we treat our money as more precious than the foundation of our republican democracy?
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Prior to putting one of these in service I would expect a voting board, to set up two polling places a real one, using current technology and a test one. The test one would have to be inaccessible to the public, until after you vote at the real one. Then as people leave, ask them if they would help test new technology in voting. Explain that the ballot will not count, and that the names they see on the inside are factious. Then when they go in, ask them to mark down what names they vote for on a piece of paper and audit the results.
You would be even advised to video their interaction with the machine, for full auditing purposes.
Since in my last posts (the ones that appear in my slashdot page) I mentioned a dozen times: "people don't want to count votes by hand, don't want to recount votes by hand, and it's not that safe because you can sneak in a lot of pre-printed ballots at any time, or sneak out a lot of your opponent's ballots"
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
The excuse is that asking for ID "intimidates" minorities, and thereby violates their civil rights, but the real reason is that it makes it easier for non-citizens and dead people to vote. We rank slightly behind Chicago in our voter turnout from cemetaries.
Of course, I would be much more upset about illegals and dead people voting if I thought that voting could change anything. I still vote; I just feel like Sisyphus when I do it.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Google: diebold bush deliver votes
*** 'The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."'
*** 'In mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio.'
*** 'Diebold's CEO, Wally O'Dell, is a proud pioneer (read: he donated more than $100,000 to the GOP's reelection bid) who has publicly announced he "is committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."'
*** 'I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".'
*** 'If Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell has his way, Diebold will receive a contract to supply touch screen electronic voting machines for much of the state. None of these Diebold machines will provide a paper receipt of the vote.
Diebold, located in North Canton, Ohio, does its primary business in ATM and ticket-vending machines. Critics of Diebold point out that virtually every other machine the company makes provides a paper trail to verify the machine's calculations. Oddly, only the voting machines lack this essential function.'
How is that, "adequately be explained by incompetence"???
ha, nice one!
The State is the *last* place citizens should look toward to fix problems relating to their rights. Had people acted and thought this way in the mid-late 1700's, we would likely still be a British colony - at the least, we wouldn't be the country we are today (though with our current situation in the world, maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing?)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
TIme to Sue the Bastards
In any case, does anybody know what the chances of a class action suit are? I figure that $10K for each disenfranchised voter might give Diebold pause. Can you also get punitive damages in a class action lawsuit?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Word goes around the factory: anyone who "knows what's good for him" needs to take their ballot to their union foreman, vote the union's slate, and seal and sign it right there. Oh, it's never that obvious, and nobody comes right out and says it, but the whispers go around, nudge nudge, wink wink, and a lot of people get the message.
Absentee voting is still necessary, but it must not be the default or, even worse, only choice.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Contact the election officials and ask about attending any public test. Whack the machine with a sledgehammer. As you are being fitted for handcuffs, explain that they have failed the test, as paper ballots can still be read after the "lockbox" has been whacked with a sledgehammer.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Secret ballot voting is a novel right. Electronic voting gets you one step closer to "aggregating" voting records in zip codes and then "special case" subpoenas of your voting record. Someday in addition to GMail, Google will provide GVote, ad words tied to your voting record cross-pollenated with your shopping history on Froogle.google.com. Some things shouldn't be electronic. Cash, for instance. Votes. Airplane tickets^W^W^Wooops.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I Agree. This is very important, because unless this makes national news, California will be the only state dumping Diebold.
I would give you mod points if I had any.
Implement Condorcet voting, and there won't be a need to "switch votes" because your preference was already registered.
Constitutionally Correct
The move follows the refusal of the provider of the new system to allow the commission examine the confidential "source code" without an assurance of substantial compensation should details of the computer programme fall into the hands of competitors.
This is hilarious - you'd think they invented water or something. Do they really think it's that difficult to add 1 to an existing number when an on-screen button is pressed?
...as they already have a long-term commitment to privacy (just as you don't see information on your taxes divulged by the IRS).
The president should ask the census bureau to establish an informal "guide the president" website where everybody can vote on the same legislation that he is considering. That way, the president can see the mood of the nation.
As the system becomes more trustworthy, we can amend the constitution to add the census-bureau controlled up-or-down vote to the formal legislative process. This way, we can change our republic to be both a direct and a representative democracy.
The software should be open, and local states/municipalities should be able to either outsource their polling activities to the Census Bureau for a fee, or implement their own voting systems (which must meet the Census Bureau's quality standards).
What we as a nation are currently asking is that we have an electronic voting system entirely up and 100% operational immediately. This will never work - we need a nationwide "beta test" phase.
That's how it should be done. Probably won't be, though.
As I said before, the paper trail does not add any security, except if you are able to invest a really huge amount of money to make it work.
:-)
To add security, you would have to bind each vote to its voter (and you don't want to do that -- in my country, you can't do that). Today, in our system, you bind a mean of 2500 votes to its voters, by tallying them in one box. This is acceptable.
How could you make paper trail secure? bigger, thicker paper (imagine 2500 carton-paper, ISO A6 size, ballots) and the paraphernalia to get them, authenticate them, print them, barcode or OCR-able-print them, authenticate the printing, the poll worker signing it, or the party officials, so you know the cards in the box (huge, huge box) are (a) automatically countable/recountable, (b) manually countable/recountable, (c) verified as "official", (d) difficult to counterfeit, (e) cryptographically signed, (f) non-traceable to each voter.
Man, this is HARD. I've seen in someplace something like "a receipt in which some pixels are printed in the receipt, some are printed in the paper ballot, and they must match or not match... bla bla bla". In two words: ex-pensive
Easier way: open, public-software electronic voting machine, well protected, distributed system of responsabilities to test and authenticate everything, honest politicians (ops, not gonna happen), checked-by-society and by political parties (better if you have many of those instead of Conservative Party and More Conservative Party).
OT: I always laugh my a** off when I watch CPAN or CNN or even Fox News (heaven forbid!), because when some politician is shown, the subtitle says John Jones - D - MA, with just one letter to the party!!! Our parties here are known by their abbreviations (PT, PMDB, PFL), and in the lets-have-fifty-parties time we had, some of them had 6 letter abbrevs! hehehe.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
This seems to happen time and time again:
Idiot leaders: Lets do it like this
Expert Geeks: NOOO ANYTHING BUT THAT
Idiot leaders: Yes! do it like this!
Expert Geeks: This is very very stupid and will go very wrong.
BANG: the space shuttle blows up, the nuclear reactor goes critical, the virus gets released, the entire network goes down, the power dies, the system cant be updated without costing millions, the software crashes, false positives and negatives happen, the security is by-passed etc.
Expert Geeks: See! we fucking told you idiots!
Anyone care to add some examples here?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
International observers *are* going to be monitoring a few counties in Florida this year.
People don't like nut jobs(aka wacko religious freaks). It'll be a nice day when you christians, muslims, & other idiot groups like zionists, unite and wipe each other out(your wet dream of armageddon). Of course, if you drag me down with you in your sick scenario, expect me to be shooting at all of you fucking turds.
I believe they have to issue you one.
Since the state legislature is more interested in the 3G's, god guns and gambling than serious issues.
> I don't see how this will be "more fair."
When a few people gain %20 support, without spending a dime, then it would prove my point that in a true democracy, everyone should have a right to represent. Eventually someone could win without having spent any money at all. If I want to run for office in Canada, I would need about $50k to win any riding, minimum. But what if signs were abolished? What if telemarketing was abolished? What if one central site was the only legal method for campaigning? I'll tell you; democracy.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
> That way there's always the possibility of being harassed/jailed/murdered if my current political party ever goes out of style. Oh, and a nice way of my employer/union leader to blackmail me too.
The day a political party murders voters, is the day that voting is obsolete and we should all just pick up guns and defend our forts from other forts. Take off the tinfoil hat, sirrah. Maybe this happens in the States, but in Canada, even our totally corrupt Liberal Party government would never kill anyone for votes. They might bankrupt them, but kill? Never. CBC would pick up on it and that would be the end of the party.
I've seen some really horrible things at poll stations around the world, and I think it would be better if voting in Canada and elsewhere followed the online banking model. Stations could exist for those without computers, but most high schools and universities could also open their computer labs on e-day, thus furthering the protection of anonymity.
The whole infrastructure is already plugged into the net anyway, so if something bad is going to happen it already has. Plug the holes, arrest criminals and keep on trucking, I say.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Just use the old fashioned machines and clean out the paper trays so they work?
> absentee ballot
Our absentee ballots are proxy ballots, where someone has to cast your vote for you. Even then, it's hardly a solution to current voting, because your piece of paper could be simply tossed out along the way to the poll.
At least with the online banking model, if you vote, you have a receipt and you know that your vote was counted.
> Okay, so some people live on a bench in the bus terminal. Bet even they can get a voter reg card
Most homeless people do not have proof of citizenship, so it'd be damn hard for them to vote. Plus you need to live somewhere to vote, as your place of residence can't be a park bench or bus stop. Otherwise, the parties would give homeless people a buck for their absentee ballot.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
> There is a bit more at stake when selecting (for example) the leader of the free world than when pouring a glass of milk.
Tell that to someone with a disability! They'd still do it themselves and suffer the consequences. It's not a bad thing either, because it's their right as free citizens to vote however they wish, IMHO.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
If I can vote in the privacy of my home on the net do I have to remove all political signs and stickers within 500 feet? Then that would give me the right to pull up all my neighbor's signs. This would have been great when David Duke was running for governor.... -g-
If I had mod points, I would give them to you.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
The problem, from my Ayn-Randian viewpoint, is that your single vote counts the same, regardless of whether you made a shload of money and paid millions of dollars in taxes, or if you did nothing and decided to draw welfare instead of getting off your ass and getting a job. Who contributed more to society? And therefore, who should be having more say in how the country is run?
Finally, let's shoot down your next argument, which will be that I'm only saying this because it would benefit me. It wouldn't. Because of deductions for home mortgage interest, deductions for dependents, tax credits for children, and deductions for charitable contributions, I will pay less than $1000 in taxes on my 1040 this year. (I'm ignoring the Social Security pyramid scheme.) Therefore, my vote would probably not count as much in a new system based on the very idea I'm promulgating. And there we are, back to the idea that the people willing to forgo their own personal gain for the betterment of society in general are the very ones who should be determining which way society goes.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
> Your boss calls you in. He asks you to produce your voting reciept.
Fixing elections is a federal crime, and forcing someone to vote your way, or even asking for their voter receipt would be grounds for criminal invesigation, and wrongful dismissal. So essentially, you'd get a big fat settlement and your boss would be fired. So what's wrong with that?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
It appears that Diebold is doing a fine job of letting everyone know exactly who they are and what their *real* intentions are.
...and I'm a conservative! :)
They are nothing but a bunch of criminals and liars that are doing a piss poor job of working to take control of our national elections systems and trying to keep it secret and/or unbiased.
These idiots spend more on lawyers and Public Relations experts than they do on programmers. I hope they rot in hell...
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Diebold sells these things in huge volume, for huge amounts of money. How complicated can the hardware be? How complicated can the software be? From a purely technical perspective, none of it is complicated. Why is it then, there have been so many problems with these machines? Why is it voting doesn't have a definable, immutable audit trail like so many accounting systems do? Answer: Because the big $$$ 'crats need to be able to steal the elections, it's important for it to stay non-auditable, mutable, and inaccurate. Clearly, the application isn't that difficult from a hardware or software perspective.
I'll start worrying when "W" gets elected to a 3rd term.
Being a geek AND an introvert, I appreciate the chance to get out of the house every four years.
And does the card tie your vote to your identity? Seems like that'd be a super way to make sure the party in power remains in power - simply track down and intimidate/beat/threaten/kill a bunch of those who opposed you in the last "election".
No, the process was designed specifically to protect identity of the voter... Thats how we finally got the PRI party out of power in 2000, after they had been the ruling party for 70-something years.
The process goes like this:
1.- After your 18th birthday, you can go to a voter registration place (usually at city hall in small towns, or several places in big cities), with your birth certificate. They register your info, take a pic and take a fingerprint.
2.- Your info makes it into the voters register, and your card is mailed back to the registration place. A notification is mailed to your home stating that you can pick up the card at said place... You get the card after your face is verified.
3.- You can start using this card to get beer, go into nightclubs, cash checks, and other adult activities.
4.- Election day comes. You (a responsible citycen) go into the voting place (usually the same place where you picked up your card).
5.- An electoral volunteer worker checks your face against your card, checks your thumb (see point 8 later) and checks this data against the national voters registry. If everything checks out, you are given paper ballots for each election taking place (usually president, deputys, federal and local congresses take place at the same time).
6.- You take said paper ballots to a privacy booth, use a special crayon thats there to cross the party logos that youre voting for. Afterwards, before leaving the booth, you fold each ballot twice (it wont fit the slot in the box if you dont fold it twice).
7.- You leave the booth and place each ballot into the sealed box with the corresponding color.
8.- Before you can leave, a special chemical is smeared in your thumb, which instantly turns a dark brown... This is not paint, but a chemical that reacts to oxygen and to human skin, the color fades in a few days, but ensures that you cannot vote twice in the same election day.
9.- You check the election preliminar results that night, feeling confident that your vote counts and that this is now a modern democracy (despite our decidedly old-fashioned politicians).
No sig for the moment.
Next time I get pulled over by a cop or go to court, I'll just say, "You're just setting a tone of confrontation at a time we should be working together to address **insert issue here** ." Yeah, that's the ticket. Maybe my wife, Morgan Fairchild (whom I've slept with), will buy that, but I doubt anyone else will. I don't understand how you weasel out of compliance with a contract, by stating you need to address issues with it. There is no issue. You agreed and then didn't comply. It's so simple a child understands (sometimes with a smack to the butt).
Just not by the 'way online banking works' OBVIOUSLY!
1st. Software should be open sourced so it could be audited.
2nd. Along with your Electoral Card, you would be given an anonymous voter number, known only to you. This number is explicitly not linked to your electoral record number.
You use that number as login for voting and auditing your vote.
KISS
NO SIG
A twelve member panel put the choice to a vote:
All in favor
of scrapping Diebold: 5
All against: 43,563,481,278
Obviously the new machine is the best choice!!!
I completely agree to the irregularities, the security problems and the violence incidents that have been reported in the past in indian elections. However, all these problems existed *before* the EVM's were in use, and *none* of these problems are related to either the technology, or the electronic machines itself...so it just goes on to show they have something americans don't !
http://efil.blogspot.com/
It looks like the grandparent's information is coming from this article (or a related one) from December about the audit that uncovered the version problem. This document indicates that version 1.18.18 was certified in November, a month after the October elections in question in the article. Even your document dates to two months after the election.
Nah... In November, when the CEO of Diebold gets elected as president, California will be ordered to reinstate their Diebold machines, and everyone in the news media will take every opportunity to say how great the new Diebold machines are.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
> Why must they be so stubborn!?
Stubbornness empowers, and that can be uplifting to someone with a disability.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.