Ireland Rejects E-Voting for Upcoming Elections

colmmacc writes "Following months of lobbying by groups such as Irish Citizens for Trustworthy Evoting and a damning and comprehensive report by Ireland's Commission on Electronic Voting, the Irish Minister for the Environment has bowed to pressure and conceded that the system has not been proven safe and has decided not to use Evoting for the forthcoming elections on June 11th.. This is a very welcome move following 6 months of indignation on the part of the Minister and refusals to meet with concerned groups."

Comments

Open Source?

[mfh]

> the Irish Minister for the Environment has bowed to pressure and conceded that the system has not been proven safe

Well, until an Open Source Evoting system is available, and the kinks are flushed out, many closed source systems will keep trying to get this contract or that contract. The simple fact is, they should all be designing Internet voting using the Online Banking Model, and keeping the source code open so that it can be truly stress-tested and understood.

Re:Open Source?

[Nuclear Elephant]

the Irish Minister for the Environment has bowed to pressure and conceded that the system has not been proven safe

Unless the system ate somebody or gave someone herpes I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that it isn't safe. Perhaps he was looking for the word "reliable" ?

Re:Open Source?

[TopShelf]

It should be noted that the commission didn't find any particular flaw that prevented them from recommending the system, but rather they felt they didn't have time to properly vet it:

The Commission has identified and acknowledged the benefits of electronic voting and the fact that the selected system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences. It emphasises that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the present system will not work, but on the desirability of allowing time for further testing and quality assurance. The Commission makes detailed and valuable recommendations for the conduct of this further testing.

Re:Open Source?

[mcx101]

keeping the source code open so that it can be truly stress-tested and understood.

Even Micro$oft provides source code to government users for security review. Other proprietary developers can do the same; it's not an advantage to use open source in this case.

Re:Open Source?

[mindbooger]

Online banking is decidedly _not_ anonymous, by design. Entirely different solution.

Re:Open Source?

[Albanach]

So are we going to see some concerted work on an open source alternative.

After all gnu.free's website says:

On the 25th October 2002 The FREE e-democracy Project (who supported and organised GNU.FREE's development) formally stopped production and support of the GNU.FREE Internet voting system.

Governments indicate they'd like a secure e-voting system. If the open source movement can't deliver one, we can bet a private closed source company will.

Re:Open Source?

[lollipop17]

Yeah, I saw the story also on rte where I get most of my irish news anyway (cos they don't have nasty registration and such) but decided to post the link as they have to link to related earlier stories on the subject that might prove useful.

This was my favorite part of the story: "The Fine Gael Spokesman on the Environment, Bernard Allen, claimed Minister Cullen had tampered with the very essence of democracy and had wasted taxpayers' money.
Mr Cullen rejected the claims but said today had not been a great day for him. "

Re:Open Source?

[strictnein]

ocular herpes?

Re:Open Source?

[modecx]

No, Open Source's advantage in this case is so WE, and EVERYONE ESLE can understand who has pissed in the pool.

Not to sound paranoid, but I'm not entirely trusting of *my* government to make sure everything is kosher. Shit, I'm sure some (government) people would rather have it very un-kosher if they had the choice.

Re:Open Source?

[Nuclear Elephant]

What kind of sex are you having?

Re:Open Source?

[siriuskase]

Not only must a voting system be secure, it must alwo be trustworthy. I don't see how any closed system would be subject to the verification required for the level of trust required. A closed system works only when the "secrets" are held by a completely trustworthy group of insiders.

Re:Open Source?

[Woogiemonger]

So are we going to see some concerted work on an open source alternative.

This doesn't sound like it's such an insurmountable open source project really. I mean, if you want to put your name on a project limited by only the sky, this seems like it. I mean, as far as the security design, that will take a security expert or two, but aside from that, isn't it a whole lot of busywork that amateur open-source programmers can probably handle? Is there a promising open-source eVoting project in development anywhere?

Re:Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not flamebait, just my POV... I have several problems with "free" "e-democracy" and "GNU":

The concept of "free" means one thing to Open Source people (a minority) and another to the general public. Saying "free" brings to mind the concept of "you get what you pay for." I'd suggest using terms like "public" or "audited" to give more of an impression of security and verifiability.

The US has made democracy a 4-letter word for me. They've invaded a few too many countries in the name of "democracy" and now I equate the concept with American imperialism. I'd suggest sticking to the term e-voting to keep it neutral and not open to abuse by politicians. I'd also suggest releasing all information in multiple languages at all times (at least the official UN languages). English-only systems can also be equated to US imperialism.

GNU is too much of a political organization. They are behind the Open Source movement. They contain people such as RMS who has strong views against certain organizations. A public e-voting system must be spear-headed by international, technically-oriented people who have no interest other than making an excellent e-voting system. I like Open Source, but I won't trust an e-voting system from an organization (private or not) that has other agendas.

Re:Open Source?

[lynx_user_abroad]

No, Open Source's advantage in this case is so WE, and EVERYONE ESLE can understand who has pissed in the pool.

You are deceiving yourself if you think access to the source mitigates this problem.

Imagine: You go into a voting booth and face an e-vote machine. You have personally examined all the sources for this machine and, based on your perfect understanding of all things software, and the extensive amount of time you spent going over the 300+ source files (when you should have been paying attention to the issues) you have concluded that this one piece of software (unlike all others) actually is bug free.

How exactly do you go about convincing yourself that the "Version 11.225b(build 1107 CERTIFIED)" printed in the bottom righthand corner came from the printf statement you recall reading on line 465 of assure.c and not from some PRINT "Version 11.225b(build 1107 CERTIFIED)" statement in the BASIC program some technician loaded onto the machine while you weren't looking?

I suppose you could ask the machine. "Are you lying?"

"No, Dave. I am a HAL 9000. No HAL 9000 has ever lied or distorted information...

Re:Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't waste your time. If he had any critical thinking skills he wouldn't be posting links to moveon.org asking people to not, um, move on. Nope, it's just another slashbot who's learned everything he knows about information security from RMS:
Open Source = Secure
Closed Source = Not Secure

Re:Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Im shocked e-voting has gotten as far as it has. If anybody had bothered to ask honest tech consultants about the viability of electronic voting years ago (or even today), they would adamantly say it wasnt ready for prime time, even in the near future. The risks are too great, and the ability to secure the information is too low.

Instead of having voting in one state borked (like Florida 2000), imagine having a small program, written by one person, introduced into their network, and changing every vote (or at least a statistically significant amount).

With that kind of ability, Bush might actually win a second term; and we cant have that.

Re:Open Source?

[monkeydo]

It really, really, really, really, doesn't matter one whit whether or not the e-voting system is open or not. The "secrets" (i.e., what software is actually loaded on the machines) will always need to be held by some trusted group. The degree to which this group is tursted determinies how much influence they can have. In the paper ballot world, we mitigate risks by partition access that individuals have to ballots into small districts. In the e-voting world there will always be some group that has way to much access for their trust level. That's why e-voting will always be less secure than paper voting.

Re:Open Source?

[modecx]

No, absolutely, you've got a good point.

I'm not a programmer (was a CS student at one point, but that was another world ago). I have no interest in programming, and I personally don't have the skillset. Therefore, I have no personal interest in examining the code on such a voting machine. However I do know that there are people out there who are interested thusly, and I would have to trust that thier examination was thorough, and I would also have to trust their honesty.

The thing is, I would trust such a person more than I would trust the government. These individuals are more accountable; they've got their professional reputations at stake in a world wide arena--whereas a contractor for the government is hidden behind layers and layers of bureaucracy and red tape, and no individual would be accountable.

I use Linux, and a ton of programs that run on top of it. I haven't a clue what makes it work deep down inside, and I know that even if I were interested in it's innerworking that I would have to spend untold hours trying to get the gist of it, or even to find a single line of problematic code. Regardless, I trust in the work many hundreds of people (but I trust in the many hundreds of people watching intently over thier shoulders more).

Re:Open Source?

[Razor Blades are Not]

You're missing his point.

Say that you can trust the open source community to expose any flaws in the voting system... It doesn't matter if you can't trust the government to actually deploy that software when it says that it does.

That's his point.

The only way to ensure that a vote was cast at all, let alone correctly, is to have some sort of physical redundancy. Something that can be counted by a bunch of humans.

Re:Open Source?

[lynx_user_abroad]

No, absolutely, you've got a good point.

Thanks. I know I do. But I'm afraid you may have missed it.

Even if we could be certain the source is good, there's no good/simple way for even the best of us to match the sources as reviewed to the binaries as installed.

If I were trying to rig an election using boxes like this, I'd set up two teams. The first team would upload the sources to SourceForge, go over every line of code with a fine tooth comb, invite public scrutiny, do full background checks on everyone with write access to the source tree, offer a cash bounty for every bug found, etc. In short, do everything in my power to insure there are no possible exploits in the source. Because I'd want the public to have full confidence that the software isn't rigged.

Then my second team would be assigned to create a rigged binary that looks exactly like the open source one from the outside. Same menus, same version string, same file size. Heck I might go so far as to rig /usr/bin/md5sum so it reports the same thing for the rigged one as for the real one, just in case some poll worker somewhere bothers to check.

And as a result, you (and thousands of other not-clinically-paranoid) people will cast their vote on my rigged e-vote box, completely confident that the box will faithfully record their vote.

Re:Open Source?

[demachina]

"be designing Internet voting using the Online Banking Model"

Excepting for the obvious fact that online banking is predicated on rigorous identification of the user while the most basic tenet of voting is rigorous defense of the anonymity of the user. This is the fatal, pretty much unfixable, flaw in using the Internet to vote.

Not having anonymity when you vote is all well and good in a kind and benevolent society. But as soon as the people in power can instill a little fear in the minds of voters that Big Brother might know how you vote and if you vote the wrong way you will pay for it, one way or another, you have crossed over in to dictatorship in one easy step.

That is why its immensely scary to hear the Department of Defense continually raise the concept of online voting for soldiers, soldiers who are already in a dictatorial system and can easily be intimidated in to voting to keep the Secretary of Defense and the President, their bosses, in power if they aren't assured of anonymity when they vote,

On the whole subject of voting being a luddite is the only rational course:

- Check in at desk manned by little old ladies and gents representing all interested parties
- Get a piece of paper
- Mark paper with a pen in a private booth
- shove paper in a box
- the box is guarded by little old ladies representing all interested parties
- Contents are counted by little old ladies representing all interested parties

Re:Open Source?

[frisket]

That may be what they published, but I think we are all very capable of reading between the lines.

This reminds me of the famous finding of a UK tribunal that "the Minister had misdirected himself".

Re:Open Source?

[modecx]

No, I understood your point fully, however I see alot of negative hand waving and chicken little synrome.

What the heck do you suggest? You're obviously the security expert, and l33t h4xx0r 3x7r0d1|/|4r3. Do we allow an obviosly oorly designed (and non-peer-reviewed) system do a very important task? Or do we just throw our arms up and say "I give up", then kill ourselves? Or....?

I say that it IS possible to know when something in a WELL DESIGNED system is awry. (not just software, I'm talking a system--be it hardware, software, networking, redudancy, and constant checking by people--as a whole) The problems you point out about an open system are equally as possible in a closed system. Hell, these same problems exist in paper ballot voting (can you trust the poll people and the counters, etc. etc..)

Do I have any idea about how to design such a system? Yeah, I have a few (mostly common sense thigns), but I can't see the forest and the trees; that's going to take quite a few brilliant and motivated people.

As a designer of a system like this, there's a few hypothetical questions I'd have to ask myself: Can I account for every single possible contingency? No. Obviously, to err is human; thus every creation of ours is possibly flawed. Can I do the best that I can to ensure that few . Absolutely. Did I do the best I could?

It's the answer to the last question that would let me sleep at night. Should the designers of many of these voting systems be sleeping well?

Re:Open Source?

[lynx_user_abroad]

...do we just throw our arms up and say "I give up"

No. that's a non-answer. Instead, we should be looking for an answer, but only settle for a correct one, and try to choose a good one from that set.

...these same problems exist in paper ballot voting (can you trust the poll people and the counters, etc. etc..)

I consider "common paper ballot voting systems" to be superior to e-voting systems precisely because the protocol (which is what you may have been referring to above when you talked about the "system") explicitly assumes that we cannot trust the poll people, counters, etc. and therefore does not trust them.

In "common paper ballot voting systems" I don't have to trust that the box is empty before the voting begins. I can ask to see for myself that the box is empty.

I don't have to trust that no one is adding ballots to the box secretly; the box remains in plain sight at all times. I don't have to trust that the ballot I submit correctly records my preference; I can see it with my own eyes. I don't have to trust the poll workers to count the votes correctly; I can challenge their count and even count them myself, if it becomes a point of contention.

And none of the above is dependent on my being a security expert, a l33t h4xx0r or a 3x7r0d1|/|4r3. whatever that is. Which means even Joe Sixpack can assist in guaranteeing the fair results of the election.

As a designer of a system like this, there's a few hypothetical questions I'd have to ask myself: Can I account for every single possible contingency?...Did I do the best I could?

Those are the correct questions (IMHO) to be asking, but you need to understand that the people who have an interest in promoting these systems likely aren't asking these same questions. They are more likely to asking questions like "will my boss fire me for not rigging the system as he demanded?", "how will I get health insurance for my family if I'm blacklisted out of the industry?" and "what if those darn slashdotters succeed and my candidate can't remain in power, protecting me?".

Re:Open Source?

[lynx_user_abroad]

Oh, dear me! Please forgive. I neglected to answer your question...

What the heck do you suggest?

If anyone can develop an e-vote system which is workably reliable, acceptably inexpensive, adequately protective of privacy and secrecy, and not obviously inappropriate, I'd be willing to accept it. Even if the software is not open. Even if the software is never reviewed. Even if the hardware is a sealed black box which self destructs if anyone tries to open it. Even if the coders are convicted felons, or the owners of the company which makes it are on record as "comitted to delivering the vote" for a particular party.

My demands are simple, and therefore hopefully easy to meet:

The system must produce evidence (e.g. a paper ballot) of voter intent which is tamper evident and tamper resistant. Testimony is NOT an acceptable alternative, no matter how much the source of the testimony is claimed to be trustable.

The system must allow the voter to confirm or deny that the evidence correctly indicates his preference before the ballot is comitted (e.g. placed into a box).

These are not difficult requirements to meet. Pen and paper suffice. Why anyone would want (or be willing to tolerate paying taxes to fund) a system relying on code inspectors, background checks, expensive hardware, well-trained poll workers, reliable electrical power, wireless links, etc. is beyond me.

Re:Open Source?

[dglaude]

You can read...
* Richard Stallman on Free Software and Free Software.
* Free Software Foundation France on Free Software and Free Software
... to understand that Free Software or Open Source is not the solution to the lack of democraty when you introduce Electronic Voting.
Please remember that 99% of the citizen-elector can not read code and that the 1% left can not verify what code is running the day of the election.

Re:Open Source?

[dglaude]

The free e-Democracy project was stopped when the author found out that having Free Software or not for electronic election is not the issue.

He found out he better fight bad e-Voting by design than to try to fix a solution searching for a problem. Now he started a resolution promoting e-Voting with VVAT (Voter Verified Audit Trail).

IQ(Irelander) > IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence, at last!

Re:IQ(Irelander) > IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

Guinness. Budweiser. That's not enough evidence for 'ya?

E-voting

[JosKarith]

There is an absolute fortune waiting for the first company that can produce a reliable and secure e-voting system. So why do we see so many shoddy solutions that show their shortcomings the moment they go live?
The technology is there. It just needs someone to say "Right, let's stop pissing about and actually make something that people can have a bit of faith in."

Re:E-voting

[banana fiend]

I have to disagree with this

It's not just a case of "stop pissing about" - you have to develop a system that is
1)Unbelievably simple to use
2)COMPLETELY secure
3)Leaves a completely correct and permanent trail for recounting
4)Relatively cheap to roll out

Never mind that paper voting has never been all 3 above, a voting system has to be extremely good to be accepted by people who know the only true power we have over our government is our ability to vote for or against them.

Systems with that kind of quality are NEVER easy to implement. Ask anybody who develops OS's used in Nuclear Power Plants. Or people who have to go through QA for mobile phone system control software

Re:E-voting

[JosKarith]

>1)Unbelievably simple to use
A UI consisting of a simple form displayed on a touchscreen, with a confirm/deny when a choice is made. Not too hard.
2)COMPLETELY secure
Physical security. No connection to other devices/internet. Stored data encrypted with a _different key_ for each machine so that if one is stolen the whole system isn't compromised.
3)Leaves a completely correct and permanent trail for recounting
Okay, this is the potential toughie. One possible solution is for an internally stored secondary backup device - hell it might even be a paper printout. Either that or a receipt of voting given to each voter though there might be fun and games collecting those for a recount ;>
4)Relatively cheap to roll out
Have you seen governmental budget figures recently? Cheap is not an issue.
Actually the biggest hurdle is that of voter authentification - without a universal ID system then checking would be...problematic to say the least.
But that's a whole new can of worms I'm not going into here.

Re:E-voting

[siriuskase]

The more "security" features are incorporated, the less secure I feel. I used the butterfly system for decades, I felt secure. It's hard to move or remove a hole. The collating process is understandable. And, if necessary, the punch cards can be read with the human eye.

Any algorithm that requires a phd in encryption science to understand will be unverifiable by the typical voter. If the mechanics of the system are not transparent, we will be handing over the cornerstone of our political system to an unelectable group, not chosen for their honesty. I know that encrpytion geeks are probably the most trustworthy people in the world, but even they have a price and a political bias. I'd rather see a simple system made simpler. I'd rather see public money spent on studying the biases of the butterfly and other simple sytems rather than development of whizzy new sytems that can't be explained with concepts understood by most qualified voters.

It doesn't matter how fair it is if the system requires faith in unknown technology and the people behind it.. If the ballot is badly organized, reorganize it. Fix only the problem, why replace the whole system?

Re:E-voting

[perelgut]

The reason you don't see "Right, let's stop pissing about and actually make something..." is two-fold.

First, there's the highly public nature of this beast - it has to be perfect and yet all forces combine to try and force it out at the earliest opportunity. And missing the earliest date is treated as a sign of systemic failure. In this case from Ireland, nobody says there are problems, just that there isn't enough evidence to convince the reviewers to a suitable degree of confidence that there won't be problems.

Second, the liabilities in this sort of product probably exceed anything you might imagine. I doubt that the profitability comes anywhere near the liability.

You'd be better off trying to come up with an e-voting system that is secure, unspoofable and that allows people to select their "Idol" or to vote someone "off the island".

Re:E-voting

[CrimsonAvenger]

The technology may be there. But has anyone bothered to specify a complete, consistent set of requirements? Reliable, secure, and permanent records aren't requirements, they're just a wishlist. Provide details.

Re:E-voting

[Anonymous Coward]

without a universal ID system then checking would be...problematic to say the least.

Just about all countries have a universal ID system: the passport. And in most of those countries, if you're eligible to vote you're also entitled to a passport.

Don't want to use your passport number of voting? Fine. They can create a new set of numbers for voting only. You can get that number from the passport office. They've already got all the procedures in place to make relatively sure you are who you say you are, and you don't get more than one ID at a time, so it won't be too much trouble to have them issue a special ID for voting.

Fear your voting ID will be used for other things? Those countries who might do that already abuse their social security numbers, so the voting ID will be left alone.

Re:E-voting

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell is this Insightful?? Fucking dumb.

No system is COMPLETELY secure. DUH!@

The data can ALWAYS be manipulated SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE.

Computer security often encompasses physical security, and Voting Should Remain Physical!

Re:E-voting

[Pxtl]

Receipt is risky. If you give a person a receipt, then their spouse can beat them for voting for the wrong person. Better would be to write a generated "confirmation" number for each party and the user can jot down the number they actually voted for. The dummy confirmation numbers are actually the true number of a previous voter, so when the confirmation numbers and votes become public (to allow personal auditing) then a "fake" number that one gave to their spouse/boss/otherwise oppressor will appear as a valid vote. The only trick would be the possibility of recieving multiple of the same confirmation numbers.

Thus, if anyone notes that their personal (true) number does not match with the number in the database, they can push for a recount. Yes, they have no proof, but if enough people complained then a paper recount could be called. Proof, after all, is risky - it damages the anonymity of the vote process. By allowing the user to create false proof, we let them conceal their vote, but confirm, personally, that their vote was registered.

The system also prints out a ballot that goes into a conventional box, for the recount system. The user gets to watch this happen, and may physically place the paper ballot into the box themselves. Thus, we gain the advantages of the traditional system: allowance for the paper trail.

Great for Ireland...

[slashrogue]

Too bad for the US. I can't be the only one that feels that, come November, we will have a president that once again did not get a majority vote.

Re:Great for Ireland...

[Asterisk]

We've never had a president who didn't recieve a majority of the vote...

Re:Great for Ireland...

[goldspider]

Disclaimer: Getting offtopic, I know.

Depends on what 'vote' you're talking about, popular or electoral.

While it's true no American president was ever elected with a minority of the electoral vote, there have been several, including George W. Bush, who have won the election without winning the popular vote.

Mrs Doyle...

[bendelo]

You'll have some e-voting... are you sure you don't want any? Aw go on, you'll have some.
Go on go on go on go on go on go on go on go on GO ON!

Re:Mrs Doyle...

[aaronmcdaid]

> You'll have some e-voting ... Go on go on go on go on go on

E-voting? That would be an ecumenical matter, your grace.

Good news

[FAT_VIRGIN]

Hopefully we'll see this happen here in the United States, too. Given the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the current administration, however, it does not look likely.

Re:Good news

[HuckleCom]

How about the lack of intelligence in florida?

interesting

[spangineer]

Pennsylvania's primary was just a few days ago, so I was thinking about this issue. I'm a college student at Penn State (30,000+ undergrads) and on day of the primary, I heard that about 100 people voted. Meanwhile, when we had elections earlier this year for student government, a much greater percentage of the student body voted (though not a majority). The difference? To vote in the student election, we simply had to log on to the internet to vote. For the "real" election, we had to go a central building on campus.

I don't mean to say that convenience was the only consideration, because many students (myself included) used absentee ballots, but realistically, I think it's clear that many more students would vote if they were able to vote online. Online voting would probably greatly increase voter turnout throughout the U.S., simply because people wouldn't have to be late for work or skip lunch or whatever to head down to the polling place.

Obviously, security is a major issue, but it's not like voter fraud is impossible under our current system. Realistically, if done properly, I think online voting would probably do more good for our elections than anything.

Re:interesting

[YankeeInExile]

Is it not possible that many students were still registered at their principal domicile, and went home to vote (or voted absentee if the travel was onerous)?

While I re-registered with my student address - so I could participate in elections that actually matter (Local) - many MANY students in the dorms voted at their permanent addresses.

Re:interesting

[MindStalker]

Yes, but in the US voting is supposed to be anonymous. Meaning you could have the most controlling evil demended spouce in the world, and go vote for X and tell them that you voted for Y. With internet voting they can sit down with you and force you to vote for X. Of course this would be true of labor orginizations, many clubs, any any group that someone might belong to that would influence presure weither it be physical or mential pressure to vote the way they wanted.

Re:interesting

[The Wicked Priest]

There's an easier way to make it so that people have time to vote, without the insecurity of online voting: Make election day a national holiday. It should be.

Not that I'd count on increased turnout, even then. For that, we need more inspiring candidates in the races.

Re:interesting

[siriuskase]

But not valid, this same flaw exists with the absentee system.

Re:interesting

[siriuskase]

Students can easily vote at both places.

MU students voted more than once, survey finds

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a college student at Penn State (30,000+ undergrads) and on day of the primary, I heard that about 100 people voted.

And why is that bad? Considering that PSU will take anyone with a pulse, they would have voted for Specter anyway.

Re:interesting

[Paulrothrock]

My little bro voted via absentee ballot, and he goes to Penn State. Very, very few of the people who go to Penn State actually are registered there.

Re:interesting

[Paulrothrock]

Considering that PSU will take anyone with a pulse...

Hey! No they won't!

Wait, yeah they will. Heh. *has flashback of econ 020 in the forum, screams*

Re:interesting

[sampson7]

"Not that I'd count on increased turnout, even then. For that, we need more inspiring candidates in the races."

And if we want more inspiring candidates, we need increased voter turnout.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Re:interesting

[k8er]

Those are valid points. I would worry that election results would be swayed by special interest groups. On the other hand, I dare anyone to try to strong arm me into voting their way. It would be war. In a less open society (less access to the press, less freedom of speech, no private gun ownership) I would be paranoid, but then I wouldn't have faith that my vote actually got counted anyway.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, polls open at 6am and close at 7pm. Very, very few people actually NEED to be late to work to vote. And, what's wrong with eating a sandwich on the way to or from the polling place?

I don't want them voting if someone thinks it is too inconvenient to get to the polling place to take the time to vote. If they don't take their right to vote seriously enough to be willing to "suffer" a bit of inconvenience, I am glad they don't vote!

Re:interesting

[Dr. Evil]

What if an organization gave you $5.

Re:interesting

[demachina]

"To vote in the student election, we simply had to log on to the internet to vote."

Did a geek, with long hair and a beard, always wears T shirts, win student body President?

Re:interesting

[The Wicked Priest]

Actually I don't follow your logic on that one.

Re:interesting

[donnz]

...or hold it on a Saturday. That's what happens in NZ and turnout is generally around 85%. Registration is mandatory, voting is not.

Re:interesting

[k8er]

I place a much higher value on democracy than that. At least $100 :) Seriously, I might have a price, but it wouldn't be cheap. I'm willing to spend money for causes that I believe in. I can see where that might be a problem in general. Aren't there already election fraud laws that deal with buying votes? I would want to see it outlawed if not before such a system is implemented.

Look and Learn

[Anonymous Coward]

if its not safe for them (perhaps indeed the whole concept is flawed), what makes you think its safe for YOU ?

its a shame people have been convinced by institutions that somehow pressing a button on an electronic machine constitutes voting in a democracy, "yeah you did vote honestly, you can trust us"

A shame

[mcx101]

We only just got the evoting system in Ireland and used it in the last election. It seems a shame to scrap it now. It's much faster and surely more accurate than counting by hand.

Maybe all the lobbyists are the same people who lost their jobs as ballot counters ;-)

Re:A shame

[DrMindWarp]

We only just got the evoting system in Ireland and used it in the last election. It seems a shame to scrap it now. It's much faster and surely more accurate than counting by hand

The system was only piloted in a few areas during the last election and even those pilots were flawed.

You should read the report before making any comments about the accuracy of the count. If the Commission don't think it is accurate, how can you suggest it is ?

Without VVAT there is no known accuracy.

Re:A shame

[bscanl]

Electionic voting was introduced on a trial basis in 2 constituencies in the last election. The system has been flagged for review because of serious concerns regarding the testing and implementation of the system. The review also calls for a full independent review of the full voting system in Ireland (the commission had a limited terms of reference), and this will probably include a full review of VVAT - E-voting without a VVAT is ultimately flawed.

As "colmmacc" said elsewhere - We didn't have to trust the government before, why should we now? A VVAT would negate such concerns, while retaining the speed of electronic counts.

Re:A shame

[mcx101]

The system was only piloted in a few areas during the last election and even those pilots were flawed.

It was piloted in my constituency.

You should read the report before making any comments about the accuracy of the count. If the Commission don't think it is accurate, how can you suggest it is ?

Are you just trolling? Why don't you RTFA. That's not what they said at all:

On the basis of its review of expert reports, submissions received and other relevant information to date, the Commission finds that it is not in a position to recommend with the requisite degree of confidence the use of the chosen system at elections in Ireland in June 2004. The Commission wishes to emphasise that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the system will not work, but on the finding that it has not been proven at this time to the satisfaction of the Commission that it will work.

They just haven't had enough time to do rigorous testing in time for the next elections, but they do think it's accurate from what they've seen so far.

Re:A shame

[bscanl]

The commission haven't had the time nor remit to do a full test of the system to declare it "safe" to use. This is why they call for a full review of the electoral system, and drop very heavy hints that using a VVAT would be important to the success of an e-voting system.

I think that a full review, including the end-to-end testing that they called for, would include a review of whether VVAT should be used, and that the system that is in place currently will not be passed by an independent commission.

Re:A shame

[DrMindWarp]

but they do think it's accurate from what they've seen so far.

Really? So what do you make of this quote from the report;

"as the software version proposed for use at the forthcoming elections is not as yet finalised it is impossible for anyone to certify its accuracy"

Rather at odds with your claims for accuracy isn't it ?

Re:A shame

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT YHL HAND

Re:A shame

[CrimsonAvenger]

Are you just trolling? Why don't you RTFA. That's not what they said at all: On the basis of its review of expert reports, submissions received and other relevant information to date, the Commission finds that it is not in a position to recommend with the requisite degree of confidence the use of the chosen system at elections in Ireland in June 2004. The Commission wishes to emphasise that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the system will not work, but on the finding that it has not been proven at this time to the satisfaction of the Commission that it will work. They just haven't had enough time to do rigorous testing in time for the next elections, but they do think it's accurate from what they've seen so far.

perhaps you should read more carefully. They did NOT say that it was accurate, as far as they could see. They said that they don't know enough to know one way or the other. In other words, might be accurate, might not, but we're not sure either way.

Re:A shame

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT YHL HAND

Re:A shame

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT YHL HAND!

Re:A shame

[nbagnall]

From the Report

• as the software version proposed for use at the forthcoming elections is not as yet finalised, it is impossible for anyone to certify its accuracy;
• the issues set out above in relation to the testing of the system make it impossible to determine its accuracy in the context of this report;
• certain of the tests performed at the request of the Commission identified an error in the count software which could lead to incorrect distributions of surpluses; there is a possibility that further testing will uncover further software errors;
• while eliminating the possibility of certain types of inadvertent voter error, the chosen system introduces the possibility of new types of error in the use by electors of the voting machine, particularly in the context of a number of simultaneous polls;
• there is a possibility of interference with the voting machine, ballot module and hardened PC:
  • in particular, experts retained by the Commission found it very easy to bypass electronic security measures and gain complete control of the "hardened" PC, overwrite the software, and thereby in theory to gain complete control over the count in a given constituency,
  • the examinations carried out by the Commission's experts suggests that these "hardened" PCs are the weakest link in the security of the proposed system and it is significant that there appears to have been no systematic testing and certification of the "hardening" of the PCs notwithstanding their susceptibility to either inadvertent error or deliberate manipulation by those with access to them;
• the system allows the inadvertent use of outdated versions of the software, as well as the overwriting of the software with replacement software;

Accurate from what they've seen so far?

Woohoo! Yes!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

This is great, I wrote a couple of articles in the newspapers about it myself here... Thank god is all I can say. I have nothing against modernisation of voting systems, but there has to be some kind of accountability, and the government was going ahead without either a paper trail or a poll...

Hopefully we'll see a little more open source code too...

That is the way the Constitution works

[Anonymous Coward]

"Too bad for the US. I can't be the only one that feels that, come November, we will have a president that once again did not get a majority vote."

This has nothing at all to do with e-voting or anything like this. The reason this can happen is the Constitution, and the electoral college system. The majority vote in the US in the Presidential election has never mattered. If you want to change this, work to get rid of the Electoral College system.

Re:That is the way the Constitution works

[I confirm I'm not a]

Even without an electoral college system it's possible: in Britain during the 1979-1997 Conservative administration there was at least one election (1992?) in which the Conservatives won with a minority of the votes, but a majority of constituencies.

I'm in favour of some (don't know which) form of proportional representation for this very reason.

Re:That is the way the Constitution works

[moviepig.com]

...come November, we [again may] have a president that...did not get a majority vote.

[...because] of the Electoral College system.

The electoral college is the well-meant Constitutional equivalent of "No state left behind". Unfortunately, it amplifies the consequences of larger-scale election fraud that (we're told) eVoting threatens to enable.

Re:That is the way the Constitution works

[CrimsonAvenger]

"Too bad for the US. I can't be the only one that feels that, come November, we will have a president that once again did not get a majority vote."

Presidents who didn't get a majority of the popular vote:

George W Bush (2000) {debatable, depending on your beliefs about the diverse recounts, including the ones that didn't make the news)

William J Clinton (1996)

William J Clinton (1992)

Gerald Ford (unelected) (our only president who was never elected to either presidency or vice-presidency)

Richard M Nixon (1968)

Woodrow Wilson (1912)

Grover Cleveland (1892)

Benjamin Harrison (1888) (not only did Harrison have less than a majority of the popular vote, he had considerably fewer popular votes than his opponent, Grover Cleveland)

Abraham Lincoln (1860)

I got bored of removing pop-unders when I got to Lincoln, and stopped looking. As can be seen, more than a few (at least 8 of 43) presidents did not win the popular vote. Some of our best presidents (Lincoln is widely considered to be in the top 2), as well as some of our worst (Richard Nixon comes to mind), as well as some eminently forgettable presidents (Grover Cleveland, the only president to serve two non-sequential terms) were so elected. The Republic managed to survive quite nicely, thank you.

Re:That is the way the Constitution works

[CrimsonAvenger]

The electoral college is the well-meant Constitutional equivalent of "No state left behind".

The Electoral College was meant to make sure that the President was elected by the States, as opposed to by the People. Quite deliberately, I might add. Remember that "United States" was a plural back then, and did not become singular till 1865.

It also served the useful purpose of convincing the smaller states to ratify the Constitution, without which this would all be moot. Smaller states had a quite reasonable fear that a popularly elected president would allow Virginia and New York to effectively control the country (yes, once upon a time, Virginia was an IMPORTANT state)

Re:That is the way the Constitution works

[DavidTC]

You start out good, nitpicker, but you are incorrect. You are correct when you're talking about people who didn't get the majority popular vote, but not when you talk about 'winning' the poopular vote...all you need to win the popular vote is a plurality, not a majority. (And the same with the electorial vote, in fact.)

To win a majority you'd need to get >50 of the votes, to win a plurality you'd just need to get more than anyone else.

While I don't know where you got your list, and how people got on it, it is incorrect for how you're using it..President Clinton, at least, did win the popular and electorial votes, because he got more votes than anyone else. However, he didn't win some hypothetical majority vote, getting about 6 million more votes his first election and 8 million more votes the second election to the next runner up, while in his first election Perot got 20 million votes, and in the second he got 8 million. Thus leaving Clinton with something like 45% of the vote the first election and 49% the second...both of which handily beat the Republican's vote totals, but were not a majority.

The fact peopel confuse majority with plurality does not alter the fact that very few elections in the US have had differing popular and electorial votes.

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

In mother Russia, IQ(USian) > IQ(Irelander) ?

Paper trail

[aaronmcdaid]

AFAIK, the proposed electronic voting system in Ireland was going to have a paper trail. The voter would be given a printout which would be put in a ballot box and used for recounts.

As an Irish person myself, I should have found out for sure what the situation was! Can someone confirm or deny this?

All I know for sure is that they weren't considering Diebold. The system was called Nedap or something.

Either way though, I'm against any electronic voting.

Re:Paper trail

[DrMindWarp]

AFAIK, the proposed electronic voting system in Ireland was going to have a paper trail. The voter would be given a printout which would be put in a ballot box and used for recounts.

Wrong! How can you be so badly misinformed ?

Check out the ICTE for all you need to know.

Re:Paper trail

[FlashBac]

AFAIK there was not going to be a paper trail. I think this is essentially why this failed.
Honestly, with a paper trail I would not have too many problems with e voting.
BUT, I want to give the code to some hard ass independent formal methods/Z/VDM/all-that-scary-stuff boys and girls before I am happy using it.
There are plenty of good guys around in Irish Universities.

Re:Paper trail

[Anonymous Coward]

No there was to be no paper trail. See the Irish Citizens FOR Trustworthy E-voting (ICTE) site at the top of the article for details. Lack of voter verifiable audit trail was a key concern.

links - ICTE http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
my own evoting comments http://www.10thmonth.net/movabletype//archives/cat _evoting.html

Regards
Dermot
http://www.10thmonth.net/moveab letype/

Re:Paper trail

[aaronmcdaid]

You're right.
I was just about to correct my earlier post by posting a link to this document from the Irish Labour party.
Sorry everyone! Mod grandparent down.

Re:Paper trail

[bscanl]

The electronic voting system as proposed contained no such paper trail. This is precisely what the ICTE were campaigning for. There is nothing wrong with an electronic voting system without a VVAT (paper trail).

Re:Paper trail

[bscanl]

Correction - There is nothing wrong with an electronic voting system WITH VVAT. :)

Re:Paper trail

[https]

You're mistaken, I'm afraid: if the system had had a VVAT, it would probably have more acceptable to the commission, but probably not entirely so since end-to-end testing was not performed.

Re:Paper trail

[JaredOfEuropa]

The system was called Nedap or something.

Nedap is a Dutch company, that provides voting machines for the Dutch elections as well. By the way, these do not provide a paper trail, at least not the version used in the Netherlands.

Electronic voting has recently come under attack in the Netherlands as well. A number of parties say there is not enough accountability and auditing possible with this system. Funny how it's the left-wing parties questioning e-voting; you'd think they were the ones with a lot of trust in their government and the ability of that government to shape our society.

Re:Paper trail

[ectoraige]

As another Irish person, please find out, and complain loudly! :)

First off, The system was called Nedap/Powervote, Nedap is a company based in the Netherlands.

Secondly, there was not going to be any paper trail, and this was one of the main reasons for objections. Most of the objectors agreed in principle with the concept of electronic voting, but not the Nedap implementation.

There are obstacles to having a paper trail due to the quirks of our system of voting, which I'll try to explain.

In Ireland, we use a particular method of proportional representation (PR) known as Proportional Representation through the Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV), and we use this in a multi-candidate election.

What this means is that the voter marks his preference 1,2,3 etc, and more than one candidate can be elected per voting area.

A quota of votes establishes how many votes a candidate requires to be elected.

When a candidate is elected, the excess (no. of votes over the quota) is transferred to other candidates in another round of voting, according to the next preferences indicated on the ballot.

Now in Ireland, we do this by taking a random sample of those votes, and distributing those next preferences proportionally. This causes a problem with using a paper trail, as you cannot guarantee that the random sample you pick in your manual count is the same random sample chosen by the computer.

This also means that your vote may not actually be counted as such - you second preference may only be counted in the statistical sense.

Ideally, you would count each vote in each round of voting - however, with Irish elections often going to 7/8 rounds of voting, it was considered too time consuming to do this in general elections. It's a close enough compromise, and means we can usually get the results within 24 hours or so.

E-voting offered an opportunity to change this, and to count each and every transfer. However, the government screwed up, and ruled this out, effectively ruling out an independent paper trail.

Incidentally, €40 million was spent so far by the Irish government, and this is the best they could come up with.

Is there any reason you are against e-voting in principle? Given that you admit to not being aware of the situation, I'm guessing this is not a considered viewpoint, one which you should consider.

Re:Paper trail

[dglaude]

The "perfect transfert" argument does not make paper trail impossible.
It is rather easy to sort all the vote=preference of a constituancy. It is equaly easy to sort the paper trail. Once this is done, it is very easy to compare the vote in 1234th position and compare it with paper trail in 1234th position. If you always get a match after a few sample test like that, you can trust the recorded electronic version of the vote.
Once the vote database is OK, it is easy to independantly verify who is to be elected.

Re:Paper trail

[ectoraige]

It's not that easy when you have tens of thousands of ballots.

Note that you shouldn't be able to identify the order in which votes were cast, so each vote should have a unique random serial on it - making the manual sort even more time consuming.

I agree with you though, it can be done. The main point however is that e-voting offers an opportunity to eliminate this randomness by counting all the next preference votes and distributing them fractionally. That for me is the main advantage which e-voting offers. Remember, the randomness is only there in the first place to make the manual count easier.

Incidentally, I was just looking over the request for tender from 2000, and noted that they anticipated a larger trial for the 2004 elections, and that a decision on full implemention would be taken at the end of 2004. Kind of implies they were trying to implement it before even *they* thought they should.

Re:Paper trail

[dglaude]

You do not need to create a unique random serial number on the paper audit trail. The preference expressed by the elector is already a rather good number that can be used as a sorting key.

Sorting the ballot by first preference is already the first step in any election with STV electoral system (what is used in Ireland). You just have to continue like that.

I would like to see how frequently does the removal of randomness change the result of the election before signing for a black box on a single argument.

In the cancelled attempt to do eVoting for European Election, the removal of the randomness was not even part of the plan.

You should rather look at Voter Verified Audit Trail and... quote: "Take a look at Fergal Daly and John Lambe's pages describing how VVAT might work in Ireland."

Re:Paper trail

[ectoraige]

Neither Fergal or John deal with the random distribution of transfers. Both make the assumption that 'pure' PR-STV will be imlemented - something that the Nedap system isn't doing at the moment.

I take your point about the serial number though. Once you can verify that the numbers of each permutation match up, there isn't a need to uniquely identify any ballot.

Re:Paper trail

[aaronmcdaid]

> Is there any reason you are against e-voting in principle? Given that you admit to not being aware of the situation, I'm guessing this is not a considered viewpoint, one which you should consider.

I've always been interested in voting systems, and understand the STV system well. And I've followed the electronic voting debate for some time and am convinced it can never be implemented to my satisfaction. It'd make it easier for someone to rig an election, but even if all Irish politicians were uncorruptible (!), there's always the fact that computers are just as unreliable as the people who build and program them.

And anyway, I like the excitement of results taking days to count ;-)

I just didn't know the exact details of what was being proposed in Ireland (I live Northern Ireland now so don't get to see much news for the Republic of Ireland).

Anyway, I'm 3 or 4 days late with this reply, have a good Bank Holiday (I'm one of the few in work today)

Give me a break

[Jack Wagner]

We can send a friggin space shuttle to outer space and back but we can't make a secure e-voting machine???? How hard is that????

Well, at least we've got the "free porn on the Internet" technology all worked out.

Re:Give me a break

[corporate_ai]

Actually, we can send a friggin' space shuttle to outer space. It's the getting it back part we seem to have an issue with. But that's a whole other issue.

Re:Give me a break

[aecolley]

Hmm, I think Jack has just hit on the magic formula to boost turnout. Now we just need a technology to clean the voting machines between "uses".

Re:Give me a break

[LaCosaNostradamus]

A space shuttle represents money already stolen. A voting machine represents how money will be stolen. Since future theft of money is always a highly contentious topic, hence these electronic/computerized voting machines are configured to let the debate happen between the two parties of thieves. Thus, they are not secure machines; security will just squelch the debate and allow voting, and giving the voter the franchise was never popular among the thieves.

Alternate System

[cyber_rigger]

The candidates have a soccer game.

The side with the most fans left standing wins.

Re:Alternate System

[JosKarith]

Nah - Cage Match
With chainsaws.
Would sort out the men from the boys.

Re:Alternate System

[Lurkingrue]

Nah -- Hurling would be more appropriate. And bloody.

I can't be the only one wondering...

[The Wicked Priest]

Why are elections under the jurisdiction of the Minsiter for the Environment?

Re:I can't be the only one wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

His full title is "Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government" - elections in Ireland have always fallen under the remit of Environment.

It's more of an interior ministry than an environment (in the sense of "green" issues) ministry.

Re:I can't be the only one wondering...

[CiaranC]

His full Departmental title is Minister for the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government. The upcoming elections are actually local government elections, but this Ministry has all elections & referendums as one of its responsibilities.

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/wvNavView /w wdElections?OpenDocument&Lang=en

Re:I can't be the only one wondering...

[ectoraige]

Why are elections under the jurisdiction of the Minsiter for the Environment?

The full title of his department is "The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government."

Re:I can't be the only one wondering...

[dicey]

Because the full name of the dept. he heads is the Dept. of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - the whole voting thing falls under the "Local Government" part of the dept - see http://www.environ.ie/doei/doeihome.nsf?Open

Surely not

[91degrees]

The wishes of the people does not come before the need to reduce the cost of running elections!

Victory!!!

[Pablo El Vagabundo]

I emailed the minister about this ages ago. I wanted a paper trail for this new e-voting system he was introducing. Some of the Irish ministers are great an will email you personnally.

Dear ould Martin, however, got a lackey to email me a ref number. That was the last I heard.

Serves him right!! This is a good thing for e-voting. Maybe they will address the concerns and implement a safe,secure system (that allows us to spoil our votes).

Pablo El Vagabyundo

Solution in search of a problem?

[YankeeInExile]

I still assert that for the most part e-voting is a solution in search of a problem.

While there were serious discrepancies in Florida in the US 2000 Presidential Election[1], the solution to that problem is to go to a fundamentally simpler system, not one wrought with complexity.

Everyone agrees that election systems have to be accurate, tamper-proof, easy to use for both voters and polling-place officials, accessible to all voters (including the blind), and auditable. Those requirements are tough to meet, but an additional requirement is the killer: anonymity. A recorded ballot cannot be traced back to an individual voter, nor can a voter be able to use a ballot to obtain payment for a vote. Says David Dill, a Stanford computer scientist: "Unlike almost any other application, voting systems must discard critical information."

1: Do not think for one minute they were partisan - I think it was just luck of the draw that Gore lost - and had the results been the opposite, we would have heard precisely the same level of whining from the Republican camp that we heard from the Democrats.

Re:Solution in search of a problem?

[siriuskase]

I still agree. The problem with the Florida ballot is in how they organized the names. The butterfly ballot had been around for decades, I'm sure most of these people were not tripped up by that.

Punching holes in a card then mechanically collating them is old technolgy, understandable by anyone who cares. And if the need arises, the card can be read without equipment.

Making a total change in technology when not necessary leads to less confidence, not more.

voter turnout

[John_Sauter]

Online voting would probably greatly increase voter turnout throughout the U.S., simply because people wouldn't have to be late for work or skip lunch or whatever to head down to the polling place.

I am not so sure that greater voter turnout would improve our government. Perhaps it is better that only those who are willing to be late for work or skip lunch vote. Perhaps that class of people do a better job of selecting our representatives.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

E-voting

[farmerj]

E-voting in Ireland has caused much controversy in the last 6 months or so. The main objection to the system proposed for use in the European and local elections are that there is no paper trail for validation. The Irish Labour Party Published a report at the end of 2003 about the proposed system to be used in Ireland and the flaws in that system. All of the Irish political parties are for e-voting in principal; the main advantage from their point of view is that the long wait through numerous rounds of counts would be eliminated during the counting process. The long manual counting procedure is due the proportional representation voting system used in Ireland.

Conflict of Interest

[DrMindWarp]

Why are elections under the jurisdiction of the Minsiter for the Environment?

Because he is in charge of election campaigns for the governing party.

That's not strictly the correct answer but it is shockingly true.

Info: See page 20 of report (Re:Open Source?)

[toesate]

The report wrote "It has not been possible for the Commission to obtain access to the full source code of the system..."

Yes, an open source solution automatically fulfil this requirement without fuss, and serve the needs to inspect, and gain electorate confident.

Re:Info: See page 20 of report (Re:Open Source?)

[jason_kitcat]

[I'm the principlal author of GNU.FREE, the Free Software Internet Voting system referred to above which we ceased development on]

While it is true that a Free Software system would fulfil the commission's requirements and I think would be more likely to be trusted, source availability does not really resolve any of the most challenging problems with e-voting.

Firstly, how do you prove that the source code verified is that being used on every computer involved in the election? Checksums will not do the job on large scales in a way which is trusted by the electorate and candidates.

An e-voting system, source-available or not, still has the challenge of proving that the voter's intention is accurately recorded on the day. Currently the only viable way of proving this is to use a paper trail... thus raising the question of why go to the expense and risk of implementing e-voting.

Given the choice between a Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) voting system and a proprietary one then I'd naturally opt for the FLOSS one... but I'd fight tooth and nail to avoid e-voting altogether first. The risks are too great considering the limited benefits.

More on this at j-dom.org

Any idea...

[condensate]

...about how many people are there (regardless of the country) that are used to electronic devices? I mean, come on, if there are lusers who cannot even put a simple hole in a piece of paper, how on earth are they supposed to e-vote??? We /.ers usually do forget that there are people that still bang the rocks together. I for one know lots of them. I think e-voting is still only feasible for a minority of people.

There is an open source voting system

[andalay]

here

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very welcome move following 6 months of indignation on the part of the Minister and refusals to meet with concerned groups.

It always amuses me to see how much more eloquently people from the UK write. Here in America it would have simply been ...6 months of being an ass on the part of the Minister...

Re:Wow...

[essreenim]

Ireland is NOT part of or in any way affiliated with the UK.

How's that?

Re:Wow...

[bscanl]

It always amuses me to see how much more eloquently people from the UK write.

Ireland is not part of the UK, and the poster of the story is from Ireland. :P

Re:Wow...

[meringuoid]

Word of advice: do not confuse the Republic of Ireland with the UK. There are people around who get very... well, indignant about that.

Now, for your penance, go and get drunk on Guinness and sing something abusive about the English.

Proof of presence and intention

[toesate]

I think two of the important requirements in any voting process is the need for proof of presence and proof of intention.

In e-voting, proof of presence could be possible/feasible.

But proof of intention in e-voting is, I think a hard nut. In a physical voting/polling booth, each voter is on their own, to make up their mind and choice, with minimal outside influence, in a so call "holy ground", making a vote untaint from intention. In e-voting, the voting act can take place anywhere, and possibly subjected to a lot of outside influences, and tainting the voter intention.

I am assuming(might be wrong) e-voting means the ability to vote from anywhere with internet access. It is not clear from the report.

Re:Proof of presence and intention

[bscanl]

E-voting in the context does NOT meant internet voting. E-voting refers to Electronic Voting, i.e. the usual booths, voting centres etc., but with an electronic terminal and count.

Internet voting is about a million times nuttier than E-voting without a VVAT, and that in itself is pretty nuts.

Re:Proof of presence and intention

[toesate]

Yes, I suspected so, as mentioned in my assumption. Thanks for confirming.

Proof of presence and intention applies more relevantly to internet voting. It is confusing how we like to use "e" to mean everything, anything.

And thanks for the Voter Verified Audit Trail (VVAT) pointer.

Re:Proof of presence and intention

[ectoraige]

You are wrong.

The 'e' component refers to 'electronic', not 'exposed to the internet', or 'easily connected to through use of TCP/IP', not even 'evidently we do not know what e stands for, but we like to think it stands for Internet'.

Just like e-mail is electronic mail.

It's an easy mistake to make, tellingly though it was a mistake also made by the Minister responsible.

He stated that he did not consider the system to be 'e-voting' as it was not connected to the internet, and suggested people were calling it that to prey on the fears of the public. I emailed the Minister advising him of his mistake, but received no response funnily.

Will some marketing fuckwit please explain how 'e' means connected to the internet?

At least tell me what the 'e' stands for?

Please?

Re:They should use Ninnle!

[andalay]

You gotta stop posting this.

E-voting

[nizo]

Luckily the Irish were given a chance to vote on this issue, with 543,490,234 against and only 38 for electronic voting.

Re:They should use Ninnle!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you have never used Ninnle Linux!

Safe Evoting

[siriuskase]

There's money to be made - if only I knew who will get the rubber glove contract.

Re:They should use Ninnle!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of the /. running joke.

1) In Soviet Russia, Ninnle posts YOU!
2) Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Ninnles!
3) Natalie Portman covered in Ninnles
4) FreeNinnle is NOT dead!
5) ???
6) PROFIT!

So why should I stop posting this?

Wrong.

[abb3w]

While it's true no American president was ever elected with a minority of the electoral vote,

[BZZT!]
"I'm sorry, thank you for playing, next contestant please..."

John Quincy Adams, 1824. Andrew Jackson had both a higher popular vote and electoral college vote, but neither had a majority. Under constitutional provisions, the top three candidates were voted on by the house; the fourth threw his support behind Adams, giving him enough for a victory. (Additional reference source)

The 1876 Hayes/Tilden election also might qualify, as an electoral commission of dubious provenance decided the fates of votes from 4 disputed states, with Hayes finally winning by a single electoral vote.

And, of course, the Florida electoral votes would have been enough to swing the 2000 election, if you want to bring those shenanigans back up....

Re:Wrong.

[0x0d0a]

So we have a 100% rate of questionable voting when it comes to father-son Presidencies?

Troll? He was on topic!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's hung over, and posting on a story about Ireland.

How more on topic can you be?

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[adesm]

Which point are you making? Seriously? Drink which tastes like someone didn't filter the mouldy turf out of the water pre-brewing. vs. Drink which tastes like someone just filtered the water thus completing the brewing process. I can't see either standpoint benefiting from that comparison.

Quick background

[aecolley]

The system proposed for use in Ireland and dismissed by the Commission's report today is the Nedap/Powervote system, variants of which are used in the Netherlands and parts of Germany. It's a kiosk-based DRE system which uses glorified memory sticks to store ballot records. It was developed in apparent ignorance of the voter-verification requirement.

Because the developers used the waterfall method, and didn't find out about the audit requirement until customer acceptance testing, they baulked at the idea of going back to the drawing board, and instead bolted on a useless printout-of-ballot-module-contents facility, and called it an audit trail.

Their salesmen are very good, and the Irish Government agreed to buy the system (total cost over 40 million euros) at the height of the Florida debacle in late 2000. Since then there have been reports, objections, and all manner of outcry from IT professionals in Ireland. Even the entire Opposition (elected politicians not belonging to the ruling coalition) opposed the system. The Government maintained a constant mantra: the system is accurate, the system is thoroughly tested, you're all a bunch of Luddites for thinking differently. Eventually the Irish Computer Society joined in, and the Minister promptly accused them of being a front for the anti-globalisation movement.

The writing then being on the wall, the Government then appointed an independent Commission to examine the system and its testing, hoping for a graceful way out of the political corner. The Commission's report, however, is rather more damning than they hoped. In my personal opinion, this has more than a little to do with the fact that noted software expert David Parnas assisted the Commission, and he's a good deal more methodical and careful than Nedap/Powervote seem to have been.

--Adrian.

Re:Quick background

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a troll. You're bashing Nedap without realizing that your reasoning is based on incorrect assumptions.

Nedap's systems have been in use for a long time. Longer than Ireland has been interested in it. And definitely a lot longer than your small mind has tried to grasp the subject.

Nedap isn't "ignorant": their first customer (the Dutch government) simply didn't require a redundant, old-fashioned paper trail. Only people who came later wanted such garbage. In other words: audits weren't a requirement before, during or after the original acceptance testing! Only now has it become an issue. Your argument sounds a lot like buying a B&W TV and then complaining that it doesn't support color.

The systems works and all the losers who didn't come up with it will just have to live with it. And that includes self-proclaimed "software experts" like, urm... what was his name again? Oh yeah, David Parnas. Never heard of him. Must be because he's extremely more careless than Nedap.

I really don't get your kind of people. First you whine about adding a stupid redundant dead tree trail, and then you complain when it does get added. What does it take to shut you people up?

Re:Quick background

[adam arndt]

Good grief! Are you a troll from Nedap venting some humiliation on this poor guy from ICTE? C'mon Roy, they won.

And deal with it : the world has moved on from ignoring the electoral process. It can't just be "electrified" now - it needs to be fully re-engineered so it will continue to scale, support PR, be frequent, cheaper.

Paper is not the way, not in its current form. Maybe with scanning, but even then, there's too much room for jiggery pokery and having two channels (e- and paper-) will only lead to the inevitable inequity and loss of faith in both.

It's time Nedap, Diebold, Sequoia and the others realised that the Internet is the way and that one of the many cryptographic communication systems which have served us since WWII will work for e-voting.

We just need to get around DDoS, strong confirmation of remote voter eligibility to vote, vulnerability of the remote voter's PC and vote selling and coercion.

This is why they got to the Moon before we got decent e-voting. However, now its time to turn to these problems and solve them : think of what the world would be like now had Bush not got in.

Re:Quick background

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, personally I trust e-voting... But not when used across the internet. There are just too many variables to be certain everything goes well.

Re:Quick background

[adam arndt]

Yeah, I begrudgingly agree. However, I'm optimistic because Internet voting is nascent. The distributed, governmentless nature of it just seems to be a good fit with democracy, don't you think?

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

The people of Ireland are called Irish.
The people of the United States of America are called Americans.

Re:They should use Ninnle!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't like Ninnle, do you!

I'll bet you run Windoze!

Luser!

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you meant:

IQ(Irish) > IQ(*)

;-)

Scantron sheets best solution so far.

[MtViewGuy]

I remember reading in the November 2003 issue of Popular Science that the best solution so far is something akin to a Scantron sheet--you need some sort of marker (pencil, pen, ink stamp, etc.) to fill in spaces on the voting ballot.

Such a ballot has the advantages of 1) a full paper trail of the ballot and 2) the ability to easily do both machine and hand counts on a stack of ballots. That way, we don't have to worry about "hanging chads" or "dimpleed chads," the big issues with punch card ballots.

Re:Father Jack...

[UdoKeir]

DRINK!
FECK!
GIRLS!
VOTE!

testing specs from www.electronicvoting.ie

[IVE0]

lots of background info available at http://www.electronicvoting.ie/english/download.ht ml
seems there are 2 levels of testing

1- does the 'box' on the day record all data correctly ?
2- does the software that later analyses that data and declares the winners work correctly ?

seems they focused mostly on the later

interesting bits...
"Given the developer's postponement of implementing referential integrity in the database....."
"..uses Access97.." _nuff said_

I may actually vote now

How To Respond With An Irish Accent

[FrankDrebin]

(for North Americans) Repeat the following words, quickly slurring them together:

whale oil beef hooked

Re:How To Respond With An Irish Accent

[Anonymous Coward]

well I b fooked.

that's funny!

Re:How To Respond With An Irish Accent

[/dev/trash]

Isn't that more of a Scottish accent?

Double passwords

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where you want to use double passwords: password A lets you vote properly, password B works exactly like A but the vote is ignored. If someone is pressuring you, you login with password B and vote their way while they watch. Later, you sneak out and vote for real with password A.

Why is Open Source any better?

[nlinecomputers]

It is still a computerized system that most users, myself included, have limited to no skills to verify. I have to trust others to tell me if it is safe or not. Others who could be bought or otherwise influenced to lie to me. Also so you build an OS system that I like. On election day how do I check out the machine? I doubt they will let me down it and examine it before I cast my vote. Ballot box tampering occurs all the time. How will this be any less prone to that?

Give me a paper and a pencil and count the ballots AT THE POLLING PLACE in full view of the public. That is the ONLY method I'll trust.

India

[civad]

Not to be trollish, but.. for all the India-talk on /. of late, I'm surprised nobody mentioned anything about the all-electronic voting for the general elections in India. ( still 2 more phases to go out of 5 phases!). We seem to have got it right w.r.t voting machines. And YES, voting day is a holiday in India, and the average turnout has been high ( 50% plus) in most parts, despite the summer heat. Temp. nearing 100 deg. F ( mid- 30 deg. C for the rest of the world)

Re: India

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're a troll. Your stupid country which doesn't even have running water in many places DEFINITELY didn't get electronic voting right (or at all), so shut the fuck up.

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

Corollary: IQ(*) > IQ(USA)

:=D

IQ(Irish Govt.) ~ IQ(US Govt.)

[zoney_ie]

Would be more accurate.

I'm sure the populations are the same both ways about e-voting. The majority don't know anything / give two hoots, a minority support their party rigging the elections and another minority love to cry out about civil liberties etc etc and kick up a fuss.

(I'm not trying to belittle that last group - but lets face it, most people worrying about things like e-voting are 'activists' - the main population are sit-on-their-arsists)

Our government are still morons for getting into this situation (just over a month before elections and they call off a plan which they plugged wholeheartedly for, affecting the entire democratic process?!) so I say they're of roughly equivalent IQ to the US govt. (Of course, our govt. didn't start a mess like the I-word)

But manual counts/recounts are FUN

[zoney_ie]

C'mon, how's e-voting going to replace the week-long entertainment that re-iterates how hilarious democracy is?

Although the NI Assembly elections are nearly more fun, throw in a good dose of sectarianism into the PR-STV system. Woohoo, get the popcorn!

(Sorry, to clarify, democracy seems to work best and is much, much, nicer than, oh, dictatorships, Soviet Russia, etc. But Irish democracy is, well, a bunch of chancers combined with a bunch of ineffectual wellwishers.)

Boy have I used up my cynicism quota for this month!

No holes in paper here

[fiannaFailMan]

The Irish paper voting system didn't / doesn't involve putting holes in paper. You mark 1, 2, 3.....n in order of preference beside whatever candidates you want to vote for. You vote for as many or as few as you like.

Details on the proposed voting machines

[c_ollier]

The proposed voting machines are made by a Dutch company, they're called Powervote/Nedap. An Irish study seems to find them rather unsatisfying...
Too bad the same machines were introduced in France last month.

Excuse me dear fellow...

[zoney_ie]

Cén sórt amadán thú in aon chor? Is cinnte nach bhfuil aon rud chliste le rá ag tusa!!!

Níl Éire laistigh den Ríocht Aontaithe faoi láthair, ach amháin an Thuaisceart.

ÉIRE GO DEO!!!

Ahem, yes, Ireland is indeed no longer part of the UK, apart from Northern Ireland of course, which remained a part of the UK after 1922. I'm guessing you're one of those few from the US who not only has eloquence problems, but also deficiencies in geographical and political knowledge.

You can always dry Guinness off a ballot

[Anonymous Coward]

Spilling Guinness on an e-voting machine would really hose things up. It's easier to squeeze the Guinness from the ballot back into your pint.

Re:cost

[markhb]

Have you seen governmental budget figures recently? Cheap is not an issue.

That depends on which government you're looking at. I don't know if you're in the USA, or which state you live in if you are, but in my state, voting systems are purchased and funded by the local town or city, and they never have huge sums of money sitting around. Most state governments don't, either, for that matter. Uncle Sam may, but he's not the one buying the machines.

Re:Father Jack...

[aecolley]

> DRINK!
> FECK!
> GIRLS!
> VOTE!

Usually we just say "HOW DID THAT GOBSHITE GET ELECTED?"

suspicious when Bush won Irish elections

[peter303]

I think they got really suspicious when the voting machines kept on electing George W Bush to office, even though he wasnt on the ballot. Some voting machines intended for Florida accidently got shipped to Dublin.

Irish guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Man.

You want to hear the shitty brainwashing ad's this particular Minister has out on the Radio.

Quote:
"E-voting is secure, easiers and simpler" - some chick who just sounds like she got out of a hot tub spouting this out.

And then, after resisting calls to dump this system for three months, in the face of the questionably technical 'experts' the government usually dredges up to rubber stamp their hair brained IT iniatives, an independant Comission effectively over-rules the Minister, citing the system as a pile of crap.

At which point, having spent fifty million Euros of taxpayers money despite being told by just about everybody in the country who has any sort of technical clue, the Minister effectively 'has' to accept the verdict.

It's a complete scandal really and the Minister should resign.

Moreover, recently another Junior Minister called Mary Hannafin, ruled out using Open Source software in the main, because she believes... or rather the 'experts' dredged up believe that it costs too much money.

Well it only took us six months to show Minister Cullen up to be completely incompetent and ill advised.

Let's see if we can get the same sort of climb down from Mary Hannafin, in five months.

Irish techies :
Optimising larting of of the non-technical in government since 1916.

Re:They should use Ninnle!

[andalay]

So why should I stop posting this?
its not as funny.

Re:They should use Ninnle!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you don't understand about Ninnle...

I don't have a clue about Beowulf clustering, but I still get the joke!

Alternative System

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Ireland an I can tell you that the government over here is pretty bad. Ineffective, unpopular and VERY corrupt. Former prime ministers buying islands and having offshore accounts sort of thing(I'm very serious)

Basically the government here is that new kind of "low taxes and more public services!!" type scam that constantly gets re-elected. Electronic voting was brought in, just to save money. No other reason.

Unfortunatly due to a COMPLETE lack of tech savvy the system will likly be a botch up. I would guess that MI6 have hacked it already. Not that I'm aanti-british republician mind. I just think that any secret service worth its salt would have looked into this by now. On top of that, thanks to the PR(Proportional Representation) voting system over here, elections would be very easy to rig. Just a few preference tweaks here could seriously alter the shape of governments.

Ultimatly I'm against the current system of electronic voting, be it closed OR open source. Paper trails are useless if no-one really suspects corruption. It only takes a swing of 1-2% to change elections in some cases.

The old system was unreliable but VERY secure from fraud, because so many people were doing the counting.

The new system is reliable but very UNSECURE, because so few people (developers, often private ones) are doing the counting.

I think a system where, as each vote was counted a number was incremented on a real time screen would be much more secure, rather than the current black box counter, which even OSS cannot avoid.

Votes would be punched by voters as usual, the taken to a counting facility. This facility would be open to the public as usual, but instead of people counting votes, the counters would place ballots under a camera, which would use recognition software to count the ballot. Perhaps the ballots could be placed on a red tabletop so the red comes through the holes or something.

The results would be incremented on a small screen, next to the counter, in REAL TIME, as well as on a big master screen. All these screens would be in constant view of the public so they could physically SEE the votes being counted. This way we keep the security of a COMPLETELY scruitinisable system, while getting the benifit of the accuracy of computers.

In other words instead of electronic voting we have votes counted electronically.

Although this system would not work well for PR voting, it would work very well for the voting methods in the UK or US.

Re:Alternative System

[aecolley]

It only takes a swing of 1-2 votes (not percent) in many cases, to affect the outcome of an election. Ireland's constitution requires a single-transferable vote procedure (and proud of it), but the current rules follow the ancient Hare process, which introduces an embarrassing amount of randomness to the counting process (and I do mean randomness).

A better system would be Newland-Britain, or Meek, or even Warren (q.v.). What I'm really getting at is that what Ireland needs is electronic counting, not necessarily electronic vote-recording.

--Adrian.

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early 1900's, the USA had some good beer. Then prohibition came along and killed off all the small brewerys, leaving just mass-produced beer. Then wars came along. During war, the men were out of the country, so the beer market leaned far in the direction of weak beers for women.

Today, the USA has watery crap beer and no real variety.

USA: worst. beer. ever.

(except for maybe some hot countries who's religons ban beer)

Irelands beer is a good deal better, but Belgium kicks everyone ass.

Our BASIC Duty

[siriuskase]

In a completely different thread, someone was moaning about the demise of Basic as a starting point for youngsters with a programming kind of bent. What if we solve his problem and your problem in one stroke by requiring evoting systems to use an interpreted language such as BASIC. Then it will be our civic duty to keep basic alive.

Re:Our BASIC Duty

[lynx_user_abroad]

I'm all for anything that can solve my problem, especially if it's done in but one stroke, but I don't think my problem (not all of them at any rate) can even be described, let alone solved, by BASIC. ;-)

It's really a difference in features and testing

[billstewart]

The real problem is that the "Change the vote to Republican if nobody's looking" feature was only tested in the US. It seems to get different results in Ireland....

California, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reuters article here

What about the possibility of Spoiled Ballots?

[paulmac84]

One of the problems with E-Voting is that it no longer gives the voter the choice to spoil their ballot. While most people will not want to spoil their ballot, doing so can be a political stand in its own right. It allows the voter to say, "I bothered to show up and vote, but I didn't want to vote for any of the tosspots on the ballot".

Remember this is the country where a childrens TV character (Dustin the Turkey) managed to do better than a major candidate in a Presedential election!

Why is it so hard?

[brucmack]

Why is it so hard to make a secure e-voting system? I mean, it's basically just a glorified counter.

The way I see it, the machines could easily be set up like this:

- All the machines are on some secure network with extremely limited outside access. This is really the hardest part of the whole arrangement. But with encryption and a physically secure central management system this can surely be made secure enough. Security technology is good enough to do just about anything else online.

- The voting machines themselves should be as simple as possible. They should be completely remote controlled from the central management system so that there need be no administrative options on the user interface, just voting.

- To provide for recounting, why not simply have the machine print out a little ticker with the person's vote and whatever identification information is needed? Then the voter can check to ensure that the vote is correct and it gets put in a box just like they do today.

Is there really anything more needed? The system can be verified by manual recount of a small percentage of the votes. Anything suspicious can be completely recounted without difficulty as well. Heck, the paper printouts could even be made machine readable to put in another layer of automation.

I guess it really depends on what e-voting is trying to improve about the process. The speed of the results? Accuracy of the count by eliminating counter bias? Increased number of voting locations? I really don't see how it can be about costs, since they've dumped so much money into the existing systems that can't possibly be less than what they paid people to do the counting.

Re:It's really a difference in features and testin

[Doctor Crocodile]

Now, if I had mod points you'd have got all of them!

Re:IQ(Irelander) IQ(USian)

[Anonymous Coward]

There's two things:

1/ Who cares? are you taking offense? why?

2/ "Americans" are people from the North+South America. "North Americans" are people from the USA, Canada, etc. A person specifically from the USA is called a "????".

Until there's a word for "Person from the USA", any understandable term is valid.

Re:It's really a difference in features and testin

[bfree]

Your onto something! Fianna Fail (the main party in government, they dwarf their coalition partners roughly 10:1) had to drop "Republican" from their name on the machines because it wouldn't fit (though the link suggests that is a lie). Guess they needed more time to check their patches.