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.
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.
One big stumbling block to wide-spread acceptance for online voting is the possiblity for disrupting an election by launching a DDOS attack against the voting servers.
Want to skew the results? Attack the servers most likely to be used by a people of a particular political persuation.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Given that Ahhhnold became the Governator because of (in part) the shitty budget of California, it's always possible that Diebold has a bigger legal fund. :P
Actually, if they can prove (and it could be very easy to do so) that Diebold knew about the problems with their machines, then it's practically an open and shut case. Sooo... anyone want to help California out on this? No, no, a nice orderly line please. You'll all have a chance to help.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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?
That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that we don't need electronic voting systems. At best they are a political ploy to score cheap points for looking like we are "doing something" about the mess in Florida. At worst (if you are a tinfoil hat wearer) it's a giant conspiracy to rig our electoral system.
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? Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand? Why the heck do we need touchscreen voting? Why are the companies so afraid of putting an auditable paper trail in it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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
It's official, we're lazy bastards. If people aren't voting because they have to "drive/walk/take the bus" then it's a good thing they aren't voting, because if they don't have enough conviction to overcome the miniscule amount of inconvenience involved it's really doubtful they have much of a clue about what is going on around the world.
Voting shouldn't be tough, but it should at least require a small amount of effort.
Casual Games/Downloads
Like Bush trying to block the absentee ballots from Democratic leaning counties? Or the fake mobs of Republican congressional staffers bussed down from DC?
It's a double-edged sword and I suggest you stay away from it. Both of them acted in the most ruthless manner possible. What else would you expect?
Posted as AC due to the liberals on /.
So you don't have the guts to risk a little karma to stand up for what you think is right? It's only karma for goodness sake. Do you think I'm going to go home and cry if this post gets modded down by a Republican?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Perhaps you could have online voting as a supplement, like absentee ballots, but not a replacement.
+++ ATH0 +++
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 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 -
You don't have to be sure of individual cases. You just have to know in which direction citizens of the immediate areas surrounding the polling stations are most likely to vote. This is easily accomplished through polling. Then you just knock out the stations in areas where your opposition has a substantial majority of the popular vote.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
If you have a state or region that is more conservative than a neighboring state or region, you attack the servers that serves that voting district. You will cause the loss of votes in your favor, but you'll cause more votes to be lost that would have favored your opponent.
Another method would be to attack the infrastructure that supports a particular voting district (Obviously, you'd want to attack those districts that lean more heavily toward your opponents).
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
You're right, we need paper ballots. That's what everyone is saying who actually thinks about the issue. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use touch screen voting machines. The benefits are that they create very clearly marked paper ballots, with no room for misinterpretation, unlike the current punch systems or color-in-the-circle-with-number-2-pencil ballots.
The systems shouldn't be completely electronic, but should be a two-machine system, where the first machine is touch screen and easily used by the population that creates a paper ballot and a second machine that takes the generated paper ballot, reads it and tallies the totals. This is the type of system that the Open Voting Consortium (and probably others) are working on creating.
So, basically, I'm saying that you should clarify your statement to say we don't need *entirely electronic* voting systems, but we should still look for systems, including electronic ones, that are easy to use and less prone to error, which includes touch screen voting booths.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
As for a record of your voting history. I'm fairly sure it's illigal for anyone other then you to access that information (and if it isn't it should be), so if its important to you then just do it yourself.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to give up my anonymous ballot just so I can vote online from home. The anonymous ballot is one of the most important features of our voting system. And if you are too lazy to go down to the polling place once a year (or request an absentee ballot) then you probably don't need to be voting anyway.
Mechanical voting systems are a thing of the past. I really believe that society is ready for online voting.
Why? They work just fine and any poll worker with an hour of training can understand how they work. They are virtually impossible to sabotage without being detected. And they leave a paper trail.
Imagine a nice record of your voting history? That would seriously rock.
Umm??? WTF??? No it would not rock. Do I want my voting record retained forever? That's a great idea. 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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Based on what? Is there any precedent for an open-ended extension of the voting period? Let's go to our favorite recent election and our favorite state. Many people in Florida were not allowed to vote after being mistakenly added to a list of felons.
What happened after this and the many, many other issues with that election were exposed? One thing that didn't happen, the polls didn't re-open.
There are cases where polls were left open later than the established hour in cases of technical issues, but why would you think hours would be "extended until such time that everyone who wants to vote is allowed to"? If the DDoS last through the night, do you expect polls to be open the next day?
The issues with online voting are not insurmountable, but they are formidable.
With online banking, I want my bank to know who I am every step of the way. With online voting, the system needs to know who I am to confirm I am eligible to vote and have not voted already, but should not know who I am to compromise the privacy of my vote.
With online banking, if an error occurs, I can clear it up with my bank later. If takes days to supply documentation and sort out an issue, so be it. With an election, once the polls close, they are closed. Something happens and my vote doesn't get cast, I'm SOL.
Also, I don't have the right to bank. If there are less bank branches or fewer tellers because the bank wants to route more business to their web site, so be it. If I don't have a computer or access to the internet, I may not be able to bank, but sure as shit I better be able to vote. So we're looking at administrating and regulating and _paying_for_ two parallel polling systems.
If you complain about people not voting, I would argue that it is almost compulsory to support initiatives to establish online voting.
Can you offer some support for that statement? How does online voting help folks who don't have access to a computer or the internet? Or do you propose voting should be restricted to computer-owners? How do you justify the expense of two voting systems, one online and one at polling stations?
I am certainly not a technophobe, luddite, or anachronist, and I certainly think everyone who can, should vote. Heck, even if you don't know what going on and pick randomly. Or straight party-line. Or hate all the candidates and write in Stimpson J Cat. Just f'in vote.
It sickens me the turnout of registered voters in the US of A is as low as it is. But at the same time, it is really such a crime against humanity that once in a while we might have to get out of our cars and step away from the keyboard and be a member of the community for a few moments?
Yeah, it would be nice to be able to vote online. But it so low on the priority list as to be invisible. And to be on topic of the article for a moment, who do you think will be selling these online voting systems? The same crooks selling the broken, uncertified touch-screen systems. And who will be buying and running these online voting systems? The same idiots who let polls open hours late and disenfranchise random voters by taking their names off the registry.
I just don't see online voting as a great advance for the republic.
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.
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.
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