Slashdot Mirror


CA Secretary of State Bans Diebold Machines

Etcetera writes "The CA Secretary of State has just announced that they're pulling the plug on the use of Diebold voting machines (thank you KNSD) as a result of the flaws that came up where they were used during March's elections. More background on the issue (not updated yet) from the Secretary of State's perspective is available here."

23 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. DIebold may actually face criminal charges by dotslasher_sri · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to wired

    http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,63191,00. ht ml

    1. Re:DIebold may actually face criminal charges by Triskele · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm surprised there has been so little reaction like this in the US. Over here in England, gerrymandering or interfering with the ballot is a very serious offence comparable to treason. Given how seriously you lot take your 'democracy' I'm surprised you don't jump on Diebold from a very great height leaving nothing but a few jailed execs and bankrupt investors.

      We fined Dame Shirley Porter 30m for rigging the sale of council houses in her constituency to Tory rather than Labour buyers.

      We still hand count things cos we're a quaint backwards country but I'd rather that than trust a machine who's owners I don't trust.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  2. I don't understand electronic voting. by guru+zim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be easier just to build some sort of error checking device for paper ballots, and have that at the polls when you submit your ballot? There's got to be a better way to fix the problems with paper ballot voting than moving it to computers.

    1. Re:I don't understand electronic voting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The basic problem here is that, in 2000, the public was shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that if you ask a person to "choose one", there is about a three percent chance that he or she will attempt to make an invalid choice, such as two candidates (overvote), or 1/10 of a candidate (unintentional "undervote"). Sometimes this is a mechanical problem (e.g., hanging chads) and sometimes it's just a combination of poor directions and voter stupidity.

      Prompt ballot scanning can prevent some overvote problems. If two ovals are obviously marked, or two chads are obviously punched, then the ballot can be rejected, and the voter can have a do-over. (Prompt scanning is common for optical ballots, and rare for punchcard ballots.)

      But this does not solve all problems. For optically scanned ballots, a voter can make a faint mark that is apparent to a human but not readable to the machine. Or a voter can make a circle around an oval that the machine disregards. (The "fill-in-the-arrow" style largely avoids this problem.) For punchcard ballots, a chad can be incomplely punched due to some defect in the card, the stylus, or the voters.

      Electronic voting machines and lever voting machines prevent these problems. With these, it is not only impossible to cast an invalid vote. It is also impossible for anyone to look back at the evidence and say, "Well, it looks like the voter meant to pull this lever / touch the screen here, but didn't try hard enough."

      Of course, certain voting errors cannot be prevented by any scheme. If the voter indicates a different choice than he or she intended, and then does not check the results, then the wrong vote is cast.

      I would guess that (on average) voters have this kind of core logic fault at least a few percent of the time. People tend to vote in a hurry, and many do not take it very seriously. This is inherently uncorrectable.

      Of course this has nothing to do with the basis for this particular decision regarding Diebold. The stated basis of this decision was the set of serious problems experienced in getting their machines operational. Unstated, but probably about as important, was the fact that Diebold has been demonized by every liberal and semi-liberal mouthpiece in the country for the last two years. No other voting machine manufacturer is going to be held to the same level of scrutiny as Diebold at the moment. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing...

    2. Re:I don't understand electronic voting. by bm_luethke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "The basic problem here is that, in 2000, the public was shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that if you ask a person to "choose one", there is about a three percent chance that he or she will attempt to make an invalid choice, such as two candidates (overvote), or 1/10 of a candidate (unintentional "undervote")."

      Can't say I was particularly shocked at this - sorta expected it. If I think about my (and most likely our) field of expertiese look at e-mail worms/viruses. Wow, how can someone be so stupid to open said attachemnt. Given that the overwhelmingly do, how can we expect them to vote correctly. Then take into consideration 9as the parent notes) mechanical failures and what do you expect?

      And no, I do not intend this as "funny". Just think about the level of stupidity that has someone opening a "I love you" attachment (or even "I'm a virus" which people where I worked opened) and ask how you would design a fool-proof voting mechanism for them. Especially given that there is a certain amount of error from even competant people that you can not avoid.

      And I will agree with the parent that this doesn't exclude Diebold from being incompetant.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  3. Now if only the rest of the states follow suit by ProgressiveCynic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We may actually have an election, just like a real democracy!

    --

    Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!

  4. Finally... by lindec · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Myself and my family are from Napa, CA (one of the cities that had some serious problems with Diebold), and I can't explain how frustrating it is to not be sure if your vote was counted properly or not. For democracy to work, you must have faith in the security and validity of the elections. Diebold has seriously undermined this, especially in my hometown. The jokes and grumblings have been raging, not to mention the rumors of the end of our Registrar of Voters' career. Although "no harm, no foul" has been claimed, confidence has been undermined, which IMHO, is one of the most important aspects of a good democracy.

    1. Re:Finally... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Myself and my family are from Napa, CA (one of the cities that had some serious problems with Diebold), and I can't explain how frustrating it is to not be sure if your vote was counted properly or not. For democracy to work, you must have faith in the security and validity of the elections.

      Well said. This is a subtle but critical point and it goes straight over most people's heads. "Our county didn't have any problems!"

      A common rule of legal ethics states that the appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. It creates unaddressable concerns about impartiality and undermines faith in a process that depends on it. Voting is the same way. The appearance of voter disenfranchisement is voter disenfranchisement. It deprives us of our rights as citizens to know for certain that our votes are being counted, which is what disenfranchisement is. Perfectly reasonable voter concerns about touchscreen voting have not been alleviated, nor can they be alleviated. So you voted touchscreen? How do you really know? You really don't, and what's more, you really can't. Worst of all, in some counties, it turns out you really didn't.

      Thomas Jefferson said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I bet wasn't even considering pretty flashing lights as a threat to the republic.

  5. Re:I think i speak for us all..... by cliffy2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The last time we had a geek uprising of this size, Quantum Leap had just been cancelled! ...ha... ha... yikes. *ducks*

  6. Re:Possible Ramifications? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    No it wasn't. It's my understanding that Schwarzeneggar won by a large enough margin that the votes which were thrown out were irrelevant to the outcome. Similarly, if outstanding absentee votes are less than the margin of victory, they are discarded. The outrage is that the mistake *could have been important* and changed the outcome, not that it did, or was large enough to possibly have done that.

    --
    "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

    - Seneca
  7. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was only Diebold's machines that were banned, not black-box voting machines in general.

    Diebold will spin off its voting machine division, and it'll be bought out by some other manufacturer like Sequoia or AccuPoll. You'll see these machines again. They'll just have another name on them.

  8. Re:Please let Maryland be next! by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    True Geek, right here.

    In PDF, and a Google HTML version

    --
    "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

    - Seneca
  9. I used one of these in March by Rupan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live in San Diego and was one of the guinea pigs in the last vote. Although there was no "start" button, the machines had all the hallmarks of Windows... the buttons and navigation system, the data entry fields, everything. The interface was basic, just a few colors, radio buttons, and text boxes (much like one of those demo machines with IE in full-screen mode). There was a card reader/writer on the side that you stuck your card into. They were actually quite large too, perhaps twice the size of a standard laptop and looked to be quite heavy.

    The part that really scared me was that you just put your card in the machine and take it out when you're done. There is no physical change on the card itself to indicate that anything was written to it. It is one of those smart-card type things, not the magstripe kind. There should be, at a minimum, a changed color on the outside when data is written, and in a perfect world there would be some sort of e-ink or lcd on it that displayed your choices when you took it out.

    Based on all this, how am I supposed to know that my vote was cast? Even if the data was written to the card and there was a vote cast, how am I to know that the data written to the card is the same data I entered? Why is there no paper receipt? I really hope these machines are premanently banned. They really do scare me.

    --
    Ads? What ads?
    1. Re:I used one of these in March by guru+zim · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used one as well.

      I was in a hurry, as I was voting before heading off to work. After I finished voting, I was walking to the table to hand the card back when my cell phone vibrated. I walked outside with my phone to take the call, away from the other voters... with the card still in my hand.

      Ok, so that would have just meant that ~I~ didn't get to vote... which would have been bad, but not the end of the world. That's not the interesting bit though! What I later heard was that there is only one card per voting machine. Had I not returned the card, that machine would have been out of order for the rest of that election. I can't confirm this to be true, but if it is, that's really scary!

      I think any third rate magician wouldn't have a problem substituting a card of their choice for the community card in this system.

      Actually, come to think of it, you could swap the card out in private right at the booth.

      I wonder how long it would take for someone to come up with a pirate card for this (assuming tha the machines ever see the light of day again)? A read-only card that would cast the same set of votes over and over again...

    2. Re:I used one of these in March by sgifford · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's an interesting point, but the paper ballots are counted in public by public officials following rules created by your state legislature. For elections in Michigan, anybody who wants can observe the election procedure, and can complain if they think it's done poorly; I'd imagine you could do something similar to monitor a vote recount.

      The difference here is that the electronic ballots are tallied in secret by secret software written by a private company, with no observation allowed.

      For electronic voting to work, it's going to need to use completely open software, where many experts can verify that it will work properly. Since so many people have an interest in the system working perfectly, there will be lots of people reviewing the code, and I think that very few serious bugs would be there for long.

      verifiedvoting.org is advocating this same position. I'm not sure if they're actually writing software.

  10. Why did they get rid of Diebold machines? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I seriously don't get what the big idea is. Most people I've spoken to agree that the Diebold machines are almost as reliable as the system that the slashdot polls are run on, and we all know that slashdot polls are top-notch scientific polls!

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  11. Re:I think i speak for us all..... by Monkelectric · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I know you are being funny -- but I have a very serious theory. We all know its possible to design secure and tamper evident voting machines -- its probably not even that hard. We know about the gaff where the president of diebold who promised to deliver the votes to Bush... we know the republican shenanigans in florida won the presidential election.

    What if the insecure voting machines aren't the result of incompetent programmers -- what if they've been made insecure on purpose so they are easy to manipulate. You can't tell me right now some republican hitman doesn't have a machine and isn't figuring out how to walk into a polling station and cast 5,000 votes at once. After all, this is the most important job in the world we're talking about here.

    And if anyone ever finds out -- theres no paper trail, no audit, no log, no way to know what really went on, and it was done on purpose by a company whose president swore to deliver electoral votes to bush.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  12. From an Election Geek by wizstan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am fulltime techie for a California election office, and one who fully supports the measures taken today. I attended all three days of hearings the last couple of weeks, felt like i had fallen into watergate.

    There were many conspiracy nuts there, however as one who is closer to the situation I can tell you that it is a lot simpler than that. It is a story that most people in the high tech industry have seen played out many times.

    Diebold bought a company a couple of years ago that was on the verge of bankruptcy. This company (Global election Systems) was a typical high tech startup, they spent a tiny bit on engineering a product, a little more on making it LOOK good, a little more on sneaking it past certification, a little on marketing it to election officials, and a LOT on trying to sell investors. And then the Vancouver stock market scandal hit. And took some of the founders to jail.

    Diebold released that the product stank, but also that the timeline for getting a better product certified would cost them big in the marketplace.
    So they shuffled the unfinished, untested, uncertified, glamourous new product with the kludgy, limited, but certified old product. Always answering a question by referring to the product that would give the best answer. It was an elaborate shell game of trying to misdirect the responsible agencies until they could finish the new product. And in an old high tech story, product delays left them high and dry, with all of their marketing lies exposed. The engineers just could not keep up with the marketing peoples card tricks.

    They will almost certainly be prosecuted, and almost certainly will be out tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in California alone, just in false claim lawsuits.

    All of this was almost a given on March 2nd, when their untested tech crashed and burned on them.

    The bigger news is that it looks like most of the other Counties that used an Electronic Voting System in March will opt to NOT use one in November, as the requirements to use the DRE voting systems are so onerous as to be impossible in this day of tight budgets and tight deadlines.

    For a very good, balanced, view of this from the election officials point of view look at:

    http://www.electionline.org/site/docs/pdf/EB7_ne w. pdf

  13. RTFDecertification notice! by CaptainCheese · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, I'm afraid you are incorrect. I think you'll find the Diebold Accuvote-TSx is completely decertified throughout the State of California, with immediate effect.

    http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/dec er t.pdf

    This only affects 4 counties, as the others use earlier models or other companies machines. but then the slashdot article didn't say "eVoting banned in CA" did it?

    --
    -- .sigs are a waste of data...turn them off...
  14. Re:I think i speak for us all..... by mrdogi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    we know the republican shenanigans in florida won the presidential election.

    I am getting so tired of reading this. As I understand it, Gore shot himself in the foot. If he had asked for a recount for the whole state, he would have won. Instead he decided he only wanted a recount of the counties where he thought he should have won, but didn't. Ironically, those counties Bush would hve won anyway.

    I could be wrong on some of those details, but that is how I remeber the whole thing.

  15. Re:You don't: Re:I think i speak for us all..... by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not just one massive replacement machine you need for voting. It's incremental improvement over paper voting.

    [a] Design a machine which helps voters to tick a voting card. Uses whatever touchscreen display is fashionable this month, and spits out a card with that box ticked.
    - If it fails, voters can tick the box by hand.
    - If it misvotes, voters can bin it and ask for another card
    - It can be verified as the voter takes the printed card and sees the tick in the right box

    [b] Design a machine which takes poll cards and sorts them into piles, depending on which candidate is ticked (plus an "invalid selection" pile)
    - If it fails, the cards can be sorted by hand.
    - It can't misvote because it has no knowledge of which box represents which candidate.
    - It can and should be verified by people flicking through the sorted piles of cards to confirm they're all for the same candidate.

    [c] Design a machine which can count how many cards are in a stack (similar to banknote counting machines)
    - If it fails, the number of cards can be counted by hand.
    - It can't misvote because it has no knowledge of which candidate's cards are being counted at any one time
    - It can and should be verified by people randomly selecting piles of cards to count by hand, as many as they can manage, and checking the accuracy of their answers against the counting machines.

    How hard can it be? Why do people insist on votes being recorded electronically? Why do people insist on votes being sent by modem, rather than announced by the returning officer? Why do people trust machines to count their votes, when it's trivial to do so with a hall full of volunteers? It's not even much faster to use a computer, especially not when the machines are untrustworthy and the result can't be announced until the lawsuits subside.

  16. PAPER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Well I get a Paper Receipt for my $0.99 Slurpie
    at 7-11,
    why can't I get a Paper Receipt when I am voting
    for THE LEADER OF THE USA ?!?!

    Is that Too gosh darn much to ask for in a Democracy?

  17. Re:I think i speak for us all..... by Monkelectric · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I am getting so tired of reading this. As I understand it,

    Well, it was the shenanigans BEFORE the election that really hurt Gore. Katherine Harris, the florida election comissioner took pains to rig the election *before* anyone knew that florida would choose the president. One of the strangest things they did -- they wanted to remove felons from the voting roles (illegal), but there was no way to do this for some reason. So they took the list of felons, and deleted EVERYONE who shared a birthday with any of them -- some 40,000 people.

    Other strange things -- the counties that did have electronic voting machines (some did), in white counties, the machine wouldn't allow you to form an incorrect ballot, it would warn you and ask you to recast the ballot. In black counties, the SAME machines accepted the ballot and threw it away letting the person think they were voting.

    That's just the begining of the weird antics in florida -- the problem is it demonstrates an unwillingness to play fair in the democratic process

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley