Slashdot Mirror


Flaw in Florida E-Voting Machines

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like there are more problems with the new e-voting machines. How will they ever be ready in time for the November elections?"

20 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Democracy? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How will they ever be ready in time for the November elections?

    By silencing anyone who talks about the flaws, of course! Do what I'm gonna do, bet money on bush being reelected. That way, if he is, at least it wasn't a total disaster.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:Democracy? by malus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can testify. My dad is a senior reporter with a local NBC affiliate, and I've clued him in to quite a few stories about our current voting machines.

      His assignment editor, and more troubling, the News Director [Hi, Forrest!] have routinely ignored the story. If the story isn't about The Spiderman burglar, or some Old Lady being ripped off by a roofing company, this 'news' channel doesn't want anything to do with it.

    2. Re:Democracy? by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "How will they ever be ready in time for the November elections?"

      Uh, they are ready...to steal the election for the Republicans this Fall. Its pretty obvious Jeb Bush wants to make sure there is no doubt Florida goes to his brother this time around, so he is dead set against making sure all the new electronic voting machines in his state are verifiable.

      The Bush administration has a really strong, or actually overwhelming, incentive to make sure they win. They have to white wash the investigation of who really authorized the use of torture in Iraq. All indications are that it was George W. Bush, General Myers, Rumsfeld and his deputy for military intelligence Steve Cambone under the top secret Copper Green program. They might have got away with it for Al Qaeda since they are in a legal gray area and may not be under Geneva protections but authorizing torture in Iraq was a war crime under the Geneva conventions and the U.S. laws that enforce the Geneva rules. Its pretty obvious now it wasn't just a bunch of out of control reserve privates doing it on their own.

      If the Democrats were to win the White House or Congress and were to really pursue the investigation, which I'm not sure they would, you could see impeachment and senior members of the Bush administration and the military on trial for war crimes. If the Republicans win they can try to stop the blame and the damage at General Sanchez, and if they continue to control both houses of Congress, and they keep their party members in line they will probably succeed. I wager they are already engaged in massive paper shredding and deletion of top secret documents, especially after the leak of the Pentagon and DOJ memo's last week where it became clear the White House was trying, in vain, to establish a legal basis for the use of torture.

      If you saw Ashcroft's testimony before Congress last week, a rare event, it became pretty clear the Bush administration has decided they are at war and they can do pretty much anything they please, and unfortunately the "War on Terror" is unlikely to ever end.

      --
      @de_machina
  2. E-Voting safe ever? by CptChipJew · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "These are minor technical hiccups that happen," said Hood spokeswoman Nicole DeLara. "No votes are lost, or could be lost"

    Didn't they let some hackers lose on that Diebold machine and find 30k fake votes changed in a matter of minutes? Honestly, I don't think they're ready for this, if they ever will be. My grandfather can't even operate his DVD player.

    In the gubernatorial election here in Cali (when Arnold got elected), they replaced the chad system with essentially the same design, but instead of punching holes, it left a really dark ink mark on the circle, which seems a lot safer to me. And this thing really flooded the ink, i touched it to my thumb just for fun and it left a pool in my fingertip. To me it really seems like a smart and simple alternative.

    Though of course I expect some replies on the contrary :D

    --
    Vonal Declosion
    1. Re:E-Voting safe ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you lack the basic intelligence to figure out how to put an X next to your candidates name, correctly, an argument can be made you lack something basic needed to pick a candidate in the first place. I'm not entirely sure you should have to make voting so completely fool proof so that a chimpanzee could successfully vote if they were locked in a booth with an electronic voting machine for a few minutes and banged on it.

      The one exception is I think at least one electronic voting machine, with paper trail, should be at each poll to allow the disabled to vote without assistance.

      "Which makes it very easy to- count the vote"

      Making it "easy" to count the vote doesn't count for anything if it also makes it "easy" to rig the vote. I really like the fact that paper ballots allow a lot of little old ladies and gents to be involved in the process and make sure its on the up and up. You switch to computers and there is no one that can keep an eye on things except hackers.

  3. How will they? by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How will they ever be ready in time for the November elections?"

    That's asking the wrong question! it's "How will the voters handle this?". Well, most will ignore it. They'll vote, and votes will be miscounted. Then someone will become president (exactly who doesn't matter). Then there'll be a small investigation into the voting failure, perhaps a story or two on slashdot, and then the country will keep on using them.

    People just aren't interested in a system that works any more. If they have something to complain about and go "oh did you hear the voting in florida was rigged!" it gives them 10 minutes of conversation around the watercooler, then they go ahead with their lives.

    Scuse the cynicism, but I suspect it's the most likely outcome

  4. Definitely a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The worst flaw in those voting machines is that they always offer such a poor selection. I hope they get that fixed in time.

  5. Minor technical hiccup, indeed by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The machines, made by Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Neb., fail to provide a consistent electronic "event log" of voting activity when asked to reproduce what happened during the election, state officials said.
    Emphasis mine.

    Considering that an electronic voting system is specifically designed to record and report voting activity, I'd say that a failure to do so consistently is more than a "minor technical hiccup" (as indicated by a spokeswoman for the secretary of state). An intermittent failure of a primary function is worse than an outright failure, as any programmer can tell you. Consider an intermittent failure of the brake system in your car....

    In a strange way, I almost welcome all this attention focused on electronic voting systems. After all, the companies building them are pretty much doing what most other software companies do: Throw it all together as quickly as possible and let marketing and sales push it out the door. These are simply "average" software products coming under greater scrutiny. Maybe by pushing better quality here, we can force improved quality in other products (great leap of the imagination, I know).

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  6. Re:How ready do they need to be? by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a working alternative.

    It's called pen and paper.

    It works. It leaves a paper trail for later recounts.

    It can be observed by everyone who is interested in the whole process, from printing the ballots to handing out the ballots, from getting the ballots back and counting them, from sealing the voting box to bringing it at the central voting office for recount, thus minimizing the possibility of rigging the election.

    It keeps the single vote anonymous while at the same moment make every vote count. It keeps the voting and counting process at a speed a human eye can watch it and thus it's the most secure thing against voting fraud.

    There is nothing wrong with voting per paper and pen. People not able to handle paper and pen have to get special support with all the other voting systems too. And you can easily design a voting machine that just pens the right point on the ballot for them. It's as complicated than a stancing machine with levers, a touchscreen or a device for people who can't see or read the ballot (noting wrong with Braille script on the voting ballot at all).

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  7. Voter Purge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    What scares me about all of this is that four years after the last election, it is still not common knowledge that Florida purged thousands of people from the electoral role illegally. This was admitted by Choicepoint in a special congressional hearing. Why Jeb Bush is still Governor in Florida I'll never know. (Notice that I'm saying nothing about the hanging chads business, that's a different kettle fish altogether).

    What really amazes me though is that it's happening again and no-one is doing a thing! Why in god's name doesnt the media in your country do it's job? I'm absolutely amazed that you're allowing this to happen again.

  8. Re:Why is this so hard?! by Frogbert · · Score: 5, Funny

    int main(void)
    {
    int candidate1 = 0;
    int candidate2 = 0;
    ing tmpCan = 0;
    while(electionon == true)
    {
    cout << "Press the red button for candidate1" << endl;
    cout << "Press the blue button for candidate2" << endl;
    cin >> tmpCan;
    if( if tmpCan == RED)
    {
    candidate1++;
    }
    else
    {
    candidate2++;
    }
    }
    cout >> "Candidate1 got " >> candidate1 >> " votes" >> endl;
    cout >> "Candidate2 got " >> candidate2 >> " votes" >> endl;
    return 0;
    }

    Obviously not THAT simple, but come on.

  9. Falls asleep.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Funny

    "These are minor technical hiccups that happen," said Hood spokeswoman Nicole DeLara. "No votes are lost, or could be lost."

    They said it couldnt happen..

    "She's the fastest voting machine in the fleet"

    But as the electronic voting system made her maiden election..

    [Insert dramatic music]

    "ACCESS DATABASE CORRUPTION - RIGHT A HEAD"

    Disaster struck..

    "Full reverse transactions on the data base! Switch to MySQL!"

    "Its too late, we cant migrate in time!"

    "But these machines.. they cant fail, they are un-breakable!"

    [Music gets more dramatic]

    "Captin! we have lost 12 states, this system had only enough redundancy for 14."

    "What are you saying sir!?"

    "Captin, im saying that if we loose 3 more megabytes of data.. then this election will be null"


    [Music gets even more dramatic crescendo fff]

    "Jack! Jack! there are only enough paper ballots for half the population of Texas!"

    "You take one, your vote is more important! I was only going to throw it away on a 3rd candidate anyway"


    Coming soon, from the directors of Florida 2000, Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Diebold, Microsoft.

    [Music reaches climax]

    ELECTION: 2004
    They said it couldnt happen.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  10. In related news... by mko · · Score: 5, Informative
    Voting machines are "cheap and untrustworthy" compared to slot machines.

    Gambling on Voting (NY Times Op-Ed today)

    I don't understand this run on machines anyway, don't paper ballots scale perfectly? Counting votes can be arbitrarily parallelized after all.

  11. Re:Why is this so hard?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have a nasty assumption that if it's not RED then it's always BLUE.

  12. I just voted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the EU parliament. I went in, took a paper ballot, showed my voting card, recieved a small envelope, went behind the screen, used the pen there to check the box across my candidate on the ballot, put the ballot in the envelope, handed voting card and ballot in. Done.

    How the fuck could e-voting make this any faster/simpler? After all, counting the votes is a highly parallelizable task, so the fact that you have 10x or even 100x as many voters shouldn't matter in the least.

    All in all it took me ten minutes. No more, no less.

  13. Source Code by lff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess it is too much to hope that the source code is publicly available, but really shouldn't it be?
    lff

  14. Re:More shenanigans by Radon+Knight · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Get over it, Al Gore lost. :-)

    You know, what pissed me off more about the last elections more than anything else was the whole attention to shut down debate over the process. I mean, here we had a seriously close election whose results turned on exactly who won in Florida, and the entire push was to settle the matter as quickly as possible rather than as accurately as possible.

    What was up with the entire "debate" over what kind of chad counted as a valid vote? If it was detached from 3 corners, it counted, but not if it was only detached from 2 corners, even if it was clearly the only candidate punched on the ticket?

    More seriously, the decision was made by a Supreme Court containing individuals who - in any other court in the country would have had to abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Some of the Justices were nominateed by G.W.B.'s father, for Pete's sake.) Why wasn't there more attention given to that failure of the process?

    And, so, what I hate about the soundbite expression "Get over it, Al Gore lost" (although you did indicate that it was a joke - granted) was that it stopped debate and forced the result through.

  15. E-vote is no good by elpapacito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if many like machines, because they relieve us of the burden of doing manual work, the relatively few ones
    that -actually know- how machines really work would rather work manually then let a machine decide the outcome
    of an election. I certainly do and I'm no luddite, on the contrary I call myself a computer geek ;)

    The facts are simple and important: computers can count very quickly, but they can be instructed to MIS-count exactly
    as fast
    . Computers can even be instructed to turn your YES into a NO and your NO into a YES. It requires only a click
    to turn 10 million votes from one candidate to another, regardless of what some self-declared "security expert" say about
    the security of well maintained and programmed computers.

    Hand counting of paper votes cannot as easily be corrupted. While with just one click you can tell computers to do anything
    but you can't corrupt a thousand people without having some of them understand that corruption in voting process is against
    democracry ; some will refuse to be corrupted, others will go to media and denounce the corruption..maybe nothing happens
    and the election is rigged...but some people still know and can still talk, and paper votes remain to be counted a dozen
    times if necessary (with and expecially without the help of a counting machine)

    It is also important to check that each and every voter is given his/her voting rights. One can't just trust computers
    to tell if a voter still have his/her rights or have lost it. With a simple click one could trick a computer into reporting
    that 10000 ex-inmates are still in prison, or that 100000 people are alive and should have voted, while in reality they're
    DEAD so they shouldn't be counted as voters to begin with.

    Here is an example with CASH MONEY. Do you like your dollar bills ? Do you like to hold your money in your hands, knowing that your
    money isn't going anywhere unless YOU decide to do something with it ? Indeed it's only a piece of paper, but a very
    important one. Imagine a world in which paper or metal money doesn't exist anymore ..would you trust banks/govts/corporations
    to have all your money in their hands, stored as numbers in their computers ? What if a black-hat hacker attacks their computers ?
    What if some corrupted individual working at a bank steals money from their computers, or simply -delete- your money from your
    account because he doesn't like you ? Why do you think that banks are still using PAPER to keep their records ?

    Fire can destroy paper money, you could lose it, anything could happen...so why do we keep money on paper with holograms
    and other forms of expensive protection ? Because one could falsify money, one could destroy it accidentally..but you can't
    destroy all the paper money with one click, you can't falsify all the money with one click, you can't take money away from
    population hands with one click without kick-starting a bloody revolution.

    Now back to vote : your vote is not money, but for some people it is more much more important then money. Why ? Because your
    vote will direct trillions of dollars and a lot of power to some hands, because your vote will elect a politician, giving
    him/her power to WAGE WAR in your name, to decide were tax money is going to be spent, to decide if a law needs to be changed
    for better or worse.

    Still want your vote and your voting rights to be counted or decided by a stupid computer ? I don't want humans to be taken
    away from the voting process in the name of "progress" or in the name of "savings". It's stupid, it's dangerous.

  16. Re:3 movies and 34 books say: CORRUPTION. by back_pages · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ya know, I followed your link, and the first blurb I read was the fact that on 9/10, George W. Bush was at a meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother. Seriously, WTF. bin Laden's family has publicly disowned him. What kind of moron does that website take me to be? Ted Kaczynski was turned in by his brother, surely we should put them both in jail, huh?

    I read a little bit further and it seems that the site is mildly informative, but still falls to the same pits of idiocy that always keep me from supporting the Democratic party. That pit is the belief that I'm some uneducated moron eager to be stuffed full with half-assed propaganda.

    Micheal Moore is a crackpot - I don't care what he has to say. Maybe he's right - but he's still a crackpot. He invalidates his message with his angle. He is the Democrat's Jerry Falwell. Falwell insists the world is 4000 years old, Moore insists that America is the great white satan. Pick your poison.

    The Democratic party will be in serious trouble over the next couple of years, I think. They aren't winning votes as much as they're picking up the votes that the Republicans lose. I'll be voting against Bush (ie for Kerry) rather than honestly choosing Kerry for president. I only hope that McCain will run in 2008 - that is the guy I want as a leader. The Democratic party really needs to work at winning votes from people who aren't swayed by radical tripe that Moore spits out - and realize that Moore just reinforces the Loser's Party mindset. That is to say that Micheal Moore is the epitome of preaching to the choir. Anyone who gives him any credit couldn't possibly be lost to the Republican party, meanwhile anyone with any sense sees him for what he is. When I read some "informative" stuff about the corruption in the Bush administration - and I'm sure there is a lot of it - I always find this half-assed conspiracy shit that belongs on some schizophrenic's homepage, and if that's how the party tries to win votes, God help them.

    And yeah, I know that these websites don't reflect the Democratic Party officially, but (to beat a dead horse) where is the leadership? Can't anybody publish a legitimate site without the propaganda targeted at highschool dropouts to provide some information? Micheal Moore is not information. Gossip columns about Bush meeting with people who openly and publicly disown Osama bin Laden is not information. John Stewart is roughly 1200% more effective at getting Kerry into the White House than ANYTHING I've seen the Democrats do in the last 18 months.

    Oh well, off-topic rant disengage!

  17. Re:3 movies and 34 books say: CORRUPTION. by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "They'd have me believe that Bush is a completely incompetent moron who (disengage rational thought) is the mastermind behind the most nefarious and profitable corruption in world history. They continuously point to the glaring, embarrassing international goofs the White House makes while (disengage rational thought) the Bush administration is pulling off the most successful power grab in American history."

    Not saying its true but what you describe is quite plausible. George W. is not one of the brightest President's we've had. He has always been a C student at best. His academic credentials, Yale and Harvard MBA are more thanks to his families power and connections than his intellectual ability. He joked recently in a commencement speech about being a C student and how far he'd gone, well most C students don't have his family connections.

    Though George W. isn't very bright he does have extremely bright people pulling the strings for him which is why what you say isn't possible is. Karl Rove is the brains in the White House, he is extremely bright and ruthless. Dick Cheney is the neferious and somewhat paranoid one. It is, according to Woodward his job to think of every possible bad thing that could happen and make sure the Bush administration plans for it.

    Cheney did rewrite the rules for contracting when he was defense secretary and reopened the revolving door where you work in government, where you give lucrative contracts to big companies, and then make millions when you retire from the government and go to work for the same company as he did with Halliburton. Dick Cheney was the mastermind who hollowed out the military and made it completely dependent on contractors for basic things like cooks, and then his company Halliburton has been getting all those contracts.

    If you don't think the Republican party is massively corrupt you should have watched the passage of the Medicare "reform" bill. Billy Tauzin (R) rammed it through Congress and last I heard was going to work for the drug lobby who are going to get a windfall profit from it. The Medicare administrator was drawing up the cost estimates for it at the same time he was negotiating his own private sector job with the companies who were going to make out like bandits when it passed. He had the permission of the White House to job shop though it was massively corrupt to allow it. The administrator then intentionally underestimated the cost of the bill by something like a hundred billion dollars because if the real price tag had been known it never would have passed. He also threatend his subordinates who threatened to reveal the real cost before the bill passed. The Bush administration had to put out the correct numbers right after the bill had passed to everyone's dismay. That guy cost taxpayers a hundred billion dollars in exchange for a sweet multimillion dollar career/payoff. Even then the bill barely passed, lobbyists for the drug and healthcare industry were circling like sharks in the lobby of the Capitol while the debate was going on openly bribing and intimidating Congressmen to get it passed. The payoff to the drug industry was hundreds of billions in tax dollars to pay for drugs and the Medicare administration is precluded by law from negotiating fair prices. The drug companies can charge as much as they think they can get away with.

    Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are almost as corrupt as the Republican's, they just send their pork in different places, but for you to stick your head in the sand and pretend like the Bush administration isn't massively corrupt is naive.

    Its also basically true that the Bush administration is making one foreign relations gaffe after another. I'm pretty sure the U.S. has never been more hated and feared around the world than it is today. International polls certainly suggest this. Why is that a contradiction to the fact that the Republican's are also in the midst of one of the biggest domestic power grabs ever at home. American's seem to be a lot more gullible than most people around the world so they are falling for the Bush Administration BS while most of the rest of the world isn't.

    --
    @de_machina