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.
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.
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.
Does it matter? As RIAA has proven (and SCO might yet prove) you don't need a case to win a lawsuit. You only need more money and better lawyers. However good Diebold's lawyers are I doubt they have the budget that the State of California has.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
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?
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.
Would you trust Diebold with anything after their CEO promised to deliver his state(Ohio) to Bush in 2004?
Diebold election machines are a menace. Demand paper ballots. Even punch cards are more accurate __ AND SECURE __ than electronic voting.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
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...
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.
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
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 -
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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
(and SCO might yet prove) you don't need a case to win a lawsuit. You only need more money and better lawyers.
Urk? How could SCO possibly prove that?
SCO's money : $$$
SCO's lawyers: ``
IBM's money : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
IBM's lawyers: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
IBM's lawyers: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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)
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.
The military votes which were being blocked were postdated. They were either mailed after the election (likely) or the post office screwed up. If those can be counted then why should the absentee ballots which were late? But Bush didn't want that. The story was that there was a big push for people to vote in Germany after the realization that the election was so close. There were even reports of people passing out pre-filled ballots to send in.
"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.
A while ago, some internal Diebold memos were leaked showing that their practices were (to put it mildly) very shoddy. At least one generation of machines were horribly insecure, making it trivial to untracably stuff the ballot box.
They should never have been allowed to sell their machines after this came out.
Winning a court case should be pretty easy, given the problematic design of Diebold systems. They look as though they were designed to help vote fraud (though the reality is probably that they were designed to allow Diebold to cover up software problems).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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"???
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.