ACM Eyes Policy Position on Electronic Voting

while(true) writes "The ACM is preparing to take a policy position on electronic voting in government elections. It has a poll page up to get feedback from it's members and where they also explain their proposed position. The proposed position calls for a paper trail to ensure a physical record of the vote. Go there and place your vote if you are a member. The ACM Public Policy Committee could be a valuable ally in many questions that are dear to Slashdot readers in the US. They have already spoken out on issues such as the DMCA, DRM, and private policing of P2P networks."

Comments

Heh,

[Grant29]

If they can't trust electronic voting, how will they trust thier online poll?

--
Only 5 Gmail invitations left

Re:Heh,

[endx7]

Well, you haven't voted to get that changed, now have you?

Re:Heh,

[Lord Omlette]

You have to pay to get an ACM account, so they can verify that it's one vote per account per poll.

We can't verify that they can verify, but you would think a gathering of professional computer geeks could do it better than slashdot.

No technical evaluation

[vigyanik]

Being the technology organization that ACM is, I expected it to offer a in-depth technical insight as to why exactly the current technologies were insufficient, theoretically what kind of technology was required end-to-end to make electronic voting trustable, etc. Instead all they say is "current technology suck so we need a paper trail". Not very scientific, eh?

Re:No technical evaluation

[skaffen42]

Actually, I think they did the right thing. They allowed their members, who are technology professionnals, to make thier opinions known. This is like complaining that the people running the voting booths doesn't tell you why you should not vote for a particulat candidate.

Why have an opinion poll if you are going to bias it from the beginning?

Re:No technical evaluation

[lurker412]

Goodness, have you even bothered to look at their site?

The site has links to sites that both favor and oppose paper trails. It then asks its members to state whether they favor or oppose hard copy records.

The current results are running 94% for hard copy--85% strongly in favor, 9% in favor. The ACM will speak with a louder voice based on these results (if the voting trend continues) than they would if only the ACM Public Policy Committee gave its views.

If you want science, you might consider reading the Communications of the ACM some time. I think you will find it quite a bit more rigorous than what you are used to here on /.

Re:No technical evaluation

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness, have you even bothered to look at their site?

You're new around here, aren't you?

E-Voting Quality Control

[Dozix007]

E-Voting will not be trusted for quite a while. There are difficulties with authentication, and spoofing. I am glad to here ACM is trying to do something about it, as opposed to other companies just trying to scream out "I am better Uncle Sam, give me funding !", can anyone else guess why this project isn't opensource yet. Possibly because money talks more than common sense ?

Re:E-Voting Quality Control

[hyperlinx]

Some of the quality control has already been done if only we'd examine others who've been trying this. An open source version is being used, and the interest there was for the same reason we had: a close election that had a separation of only a few votes. Check out
http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.htm

Re:E-Voting Quality Control

[platypibri]

can anyone else guess why this project isn't opensource yet. Possibly because money talks more than common sense ?

It's simple, they are afraid the Geek Nation will skew the vote in favor of the Geek Vote and they don't know enough about this geek stuff to know the difference.

I think....

Re:E-Voting Quality Control

[j1m 5n0w]

E-Voting will not be trusted for quite a while.

It's not clear that E-voting should ever be trusted under any circumstance (unless there's a paper audit trail so the election results can be independently verified). The potential for tampering on the part of whoever tallies the vote is too high.

Analogy: E-voting is like having a paper election, and giving all the ballots to one person. That person goes into a locked room, counts the ballots, and then shreds them. He comes out of the room and tells everyone what the tally was.

-jim

Re:E-Voting Quality Control

[aardvarkjoe]

It's not clear that E-voting should ever be trusted under any circumstance... The potential for tampering on the part of whoever tallies the vote is too high.

It's not clear that any voting method should ever be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Any system can be tampered with.

Re:E-Voting Quality Control

[j1m 5n0w]

It's not clear that any voting method should ever be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Any system can be tampered with.

A system where a third party can independently verify the tally is much more trustworthy than one in which everyone is required to trust the tally. There will always be opportunities for fraud, but that doesn't mean we should make massive election fraud easy and undetectable.

Besides, even if Diebold (or other E-voting terminal manufacturer) doesn't manipulate elections, the possibility that they could casts a shadow of doubt over the whole democratic process.

-jim

Re:E-Voting Quality Control

[Artifakt]

"even if Diebold (or other E-voting terminal manufacturer) doesn't manipulate elections, the possibility that they could casts a shadow of doubt over the whole democratic process."

For example, some candidate wins a close election by a tie-breaking procedure. Assume for the sake of arguement that his party doesn't cheat (or at least not more than the the opposition), and the final result is 'fair'. What happens when the new elected official hits a rough spot, and slips in the polls? A lot of the people who don't like him much that week will convert their mental doubts about the process to certainty that the process was crooked. Now maybe the official did something unpopular, but in agreement with his party platform and in no way illegal, to provoke the drop in the polls. But the public won't stay focused on that for long, they will start demanding new investigations of the "improprieties", so instead of demanding the laws or the system be changed, to end deficit spending, for example, the public at large will focus on the particular person, i.e. by demanding impeachment.

Not trusting the election system means the public will focus its concern on the winners of close elections, and the drawback is this takes focus away from noticing signs of possible corruption where the candidate won by a landslide. There's a certain presumption is saying "If he didn't cheat in the election, _as easy as it is_, we can quit watching him", which ignores that many elections are not close enough to need to cheat.

Having a...

[Gorffy]

paper trail to keep tabs on the system replacing paper voting seems a tad pointless. Maybe waiting would be better.

Re:Having a...

[irokitt]

Rather than mile-high stacks of punch cards, a paper trail in this case would be a briefcase full of spreadsheets, one for each district. Not nearly as cumbersome, and certainly an easier way to keep the system trustworthy.

Re:Having a...

[SagSaw]

Actually, there still are advantages.

First, it will help avoid improperly compleated ballots (i.e. accidental over-votes and undervotes). It also makes it easier those who can't read english, are blind, or have other disabilities to vote.

Secondly, it makes counting much easier. One possibility is that the electronic records are tabulated, and the paper records are made availaible for post-election audits. A second possibility is that the electronic voting machine prints a ballot which is both human and machine readable. These printed ballots are counted by machine after the election. If there needs to be a manual re-count or if an audit is desired, the ballots can still be counted by hand.

Re:Having a...

[zephyr1256]

Not at all pointless. The paper trail is not going to be used for a recount in every district. The idea is that you only recount a couple(ie, enough to have reasonable statistical confidence in the machines not checked) of random districts or machines for each vendor, to verify that the machines are accurate. This is a means of quality control. There would be no doubt or delay in these checks because of things like hanging chads, no basis for wondering what the 'intent' the voter had, because they will be printed by a machine.

Note that the possibility of this kind of quality control by election officials will give voting machine vendors more incentive to be really sure things work and are accurate and secure.

Re:Having a...

[spitzak]

Wrong. There is in fact some piece of paper for every votor. Printouts from the system are useless, since they will just repeat what the system said the vote was, and can't prove they counted it correctly.

Re:Having a...

[vsprintf]

paper trail to keep tabs on the system replacing paper voting seems a tad pointless. Maybe waiting would be better.

Exactly. E-voting is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. The whole thing is nothing more than hysteria whipped up by the media because a handful of geriatrics in Florida voted for the first time in fifty years and couldn't remember how.

I've used butterfly ballots for decades, and I never had a problem with them. You don't have to worry about the little metal ballot holder booting or crashing or reporting correctly. If there is a disputed vote, the cards can be counted manually. Like toasters, voting devices don't need to be computerized.

Re:Having a...

[vsprintf]

It also makes it easier those who can't read english

I keep seeing this argument, and it makes no sense. In this country, you can't vote unless you are a citizen (at least so far). One of the requirements for citizenship is "an ability to read, write, and speak English."

Re:Having a...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were so pointless why would all of the banks require transaction records printed for each transaction performed by ATM's, from vendors like Diebold, to back up the electronic transaction? Or why does a lottery ticket machine print in human and machine readable formats? My vote is more precious than cash. Its price has been paid in blood. I am not ready to let some fast talking gizmo marketer to proffer me anthing less than a human readable durable record of my choices. The cost of archive a few billion ballots can't be as high as the cost of a democaracy's breach of trust.

Re:Having a...

[sam1am]

That's for naturalized citizens. Their page on Citizenship explains that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen.

And even if your family CAN speak English, it doesn't mean they will at home, and you will likely learn whatever language you hear around the host as your primary (or only) language.

Not to mention that many people who can read English may be much more comfortable in another language.

Re:Having a...

[Artifakt]

Having worked as an election official, I can tell you my state produces a paper trail that includes a printout of the system state at close of polls, and yet that printout is far from useless.
The paper trail doesn't prove that the machine operators and judges didn't do some tricks, such as falsifying signatures on the rolls for people they knew weren't going to show up and then voting "for" them, but that's a trick that is risky until the polls are officially closed, and it assumes all the judges and machine operators will collude. For some other possible cheats, the paper trail is very useful.
First, the time stamp on the print out is some proof that extra votes weren't loaded into the machine before the polls were opened or after they were supposed to be closed. It records the last maintenance dates when the machine was opened as well as the election day's use, so suspicious patterns of access have a chance of being detected, and there are presumably people who will ask why a particular machine was opened three times and stayed open for 45 minutes when the record show all the maintenance required was replacing an empty paper roll.
Second, one copy, signed by all workers, is supposed to be made immediately available to the press and representitives of the parties and independant candidates, and stays at the polling place. Tampering after this time, when the votes are aggregated above precinct level, is made more difficult because it can at least be checked against those precinct counts.
But, this only works if the press or other organizations get the counts for every precinct and process those numbers themselves as the election comission does the same thing with the electronic cartridges. If the local newspapers, parties and candidates don't check much, those extra copies usually end up being taken down from the polling place door the next day and thrown in the trash.
One of the reasons election fraud is still possible is the local party offices don't get enough volunteers to observe individual polling places, and the newspapers usually feel they are doing their job if they bother to call and ask me who won, let alone be standing there in person 5 minutes before the polls close. Yes, they've frequently been willing to take my unsupported word for the numbers, if they ask at all. I've also seen reporters whose math skills were so bad they couldn't check the totals even with the calculator I loaned them.

Re:Having a...

[vsprintf]

And even if your family CAN speak English, it doesn't mean they will at home, and you will likely learn whatever language you hear around the host as your primary (or only) language.

I don't know of any requirement (except manufactured ones in California) to provide ballots in languages other than English. If a person does not have a working understanding of English, they should not be voting in this country, since they will not have an understanding of the issues and do not have a willingness to assimilate.

Not to mention that many people who can read English may be much more comfortable in another language.

I don't pay taxes to enhance the comfort level of people who might prefer voting in other languages. Sorry. Emmigrate to France, tell them you want a ballot in English, and see what happens.

Re:Having a...

[aecolley]

It records the last maintenance dates when the machine was opened as well as the election day's use, so suspicious patterns of access have a chance of being detected, and there are presumably people who will ask why a particular machine was opened three times and stayed open for 45 minutes when the record show all the maintenance required was replacing an empty paper roll.

I'm interested in why you think that (a) the computer's printout of its last maintenance date is necessarily correct, and (b) the maintenance tech didn't swap an EPROM under cover of doing the official task.

Re:Having a...

[Artifakt]

For the same reason I don't think there is a subtle conspiracy to control the vote, and there are 30,000 members of that subtle conspiracy in my state alone, and none of them ever slip up, and the news media is in on it too, and oh Ghod, it's like that movie, the Net, they're everywhere I tell you.
If the tech takes the time to undo everything needed to get at the EPROMs, that's going to pad the recorded time the case is open. Unless he adjusts the clock, the times the machine would show are consistent with a major overhaul, and not just reloading a paper roll or running normal diagnostics. For many of those tasks, the machine is normally transported to a central facility, so it would be unusual for him to do them in the field. So to cheat, he would have to change that data too. Oh, and there are multiple plastic or wire seals with individual serial numbers on the case itself, various switches, and several interior compartments, so the tech has to succesfully tamper with those. After he gets a false time recorded, he will have to change it back as well, or I start up a machine Tuesday at 7 AM and record that the time counter on the strip just now printed out for my inspection is off by an hour or so.
Assuming he has the knowledge to do all the adjustments correctly, whatwever he changes it to better agree with his recorded hours on the job, or else his boss and a third party have to be in on it too. When you pull all the maintenance data from all the machines, it gets aggregated and if any two times overlap, (which effectively says he was in 2 places at once), the information is immediately flagged and goes to an auditor. The people who check this are not the ones who use the job sheet the tech turns in to figure his hours for the week, because his job sheet includes things that happen outside the machines, such as drive times. If those people see that it supposedly took the tech three minutes or two hours to drive 15 miles between poling places, they are supposed to alert the auditor to check on the machine data too, so now the tech has to keep his hand logged records compatable with what the machine shows, AND with what his paymaster knows about the real world situation, or somebody has a fair chance to catch him.
Paymasters will often accept the tech's word for some descrepancies, i.e. the tech can call in and say he just now got to polling place X, because the traffic was heavy, and he could probably generate some slack time. But each time he does that, he gains the ability to tamper with one or two machines out of the hundred or so in his area. How many of them does he have to fix to actually change the election? Probably not just one or two, maybe more like 25 or 50. It's like any other job, you can't be the one who has odd scheduling problems all the time or it stands out.
Meanwhile I'm doing things like running one machine only during busy phases, and when it gets about an hour before close of polls, I decide to stop using that machine when 100 people have used it. The totals out of it better be 100 votes or less (remember not all voters check every box they can check, some choose to vote for just some of the available offices), and the Tech has no way of knowing which machines I may have used for this. If he's rigged just one of my machines, it may well be the one I choose not to use much. I've got other ways to spot something odd, for example I know that almost everyone voting in a presidential race is going to pick a presidential candidate, and If I see a machine where a bunch more people had an opinion on the local dog catcher race, than cared about the national race I'm likely to bring that to some people's attention. (I'm an independant - I'd mention it to people in whichever party seemed affected, but yeah, you're trusting me to mean that) What keeps people doing my job from helping the tech slide by? There are at least three people looking at these paper records immediately as they are printed, and matching various numbers to other records that are transported in locked pouche

Re:Having a...

[aecolley]

I don't agree that a tech would need a large conspiracy, or a lot of time, or magic. He/she would need detailed knowledge of how the machine works, a supply of fresh seals (genuine or counterfeit), and an excuse to get physical access to the machine. Audit logs can be suppressed or faked. It doesn't take a long time if you already have the replacement components ready.

Of course, the mondo approach is to replace the entire machine with a new one that looks the same and has the same serial number, etc. But I expect that in any realistic case, it will be cheaper and easier to replace only some components in the original machine.

I recommend Ross Anderson's Security Engineering book to anyone who thinks that serial-numbered seals are effective protection against tampering over the long term.

Re:Having a...

[PatientZero]

If a person does not have a working understanding of English, they should not be voting in this country, since they will not have an understanding of the issues and do not have a willingness to assimilate.

This is an utterly absurd generalization. I've met many people who have a hard time communicating in English yet have a surprisingly deep understanding of the issues. On the other hand I've met many native English speakers that have no clue about political issues, let alone desire to learn. Keep in mind that other countries tend to have vastly higher voter turnouts than the U.S.

I don't pay taxes to enhance the comfort level of people who might prefer voting in other languages.

I don't pay taxes to make bigots and simpletons feel comfortable either, yet that's where my taxes go. Our tax system works that way; change it or get used to it. Free speech works the same way.

Emmigrate to France, tell them you want a ballot in English, and see what happens.

French-bashing aside, why should we model ourselves after the French?

Re:Having a...

[vsprintf]

This is an utterly absurd generalization. I've met many people who have a hard time communicating in English yet have a surprisingly deep understanding of the issues.

And you would know that how? How do all these people you know who can't read or understand English gain this deep understanding of American political issues when they can't understand a candidate's speech or read the party's platform in the original language?

On the other hand I've met many native English speakers that have no clue about political issues, let alone desire to learn.

So? My opinion is the same. Anyone unwilling to meet the requirements, understand, or educate themselves on the issues should not vote, English-speaking or not. At least the English speakers meet one minimal requirement. You want to lower the bar even further?

Keep in mind that other countries tend to have vastly higher voter turnouts than the U.S.

Again, so? Those other coutries generally have ballots in a single language and don't pander to people unwilling to meet the process half way.

I don't pay taxes to make bigots and simpletons feel comfortable either, yet that's where my taxes go. Our tax system works that way; change it or get used to it. Free speech works the same way.

Apparently, that's supposed to be an insult of some sort. Well, nationalism is not the same as bigotry, so if there's a simpleton in this argument, that's apparent too. One of the requirements for citizenship is a working knowledge of English. There is no reason to provide voting materials in any other language. If you can cite a federal law requiring ballots in foreign languages, I'm always willing to be enlightened. Free speech? Hey, go for it - petition for an ammendment to the Constitution allowing illiterates to vote. I'll be working to make sure it doesn't pass.

French-bashing aside, why should we model ourselves after the French?

Is that bigotry or nationalism I hear? Our (assuming you're USian) country's systems are built upon European roots. We have already modeled ourselves after them. Other countries do not waste money pandering to voters who are unwilling to fulfill minimal requirements. Why should we - unless wasting taxpayer money somehow gives you a warm fuzzy and a pretty, gold-plastic, Mr. Non-Bigot badge? (Don't forget to accuse me of hate speech in the reply. That always works.)

Re:Having a...

[PatientZero]

[PZ] I've met many people who have a hard time communicating in English yet have a surprisingly deep understanding of the issues.

And you would know that how?

In the case of Spanish speakers, I converse with them in Spanish. In the case of some of my friends' parents, they translate for me. Many that I've met can speak English passably but still have a hard time reading it.

How do all these people you know who can't read or understand English gain this deep understanding of American political issues when they can't understand a candidate's speech or read the party's platform in the original language?

This seems like you're claiming that if you don't read something in its original language, there is no way to understand it through translation. Is this indeed your argument?

One way to learn about the issues is to talk about them within your community. In fact, I'd argue this is preferable to hearing some soundbite on TV and being "sold" a viewpoint by a PR firm.

Anyone unwilling to meet the requirements, understand, or educate themselves on the issues should not vote, English-speaking or not.

I am not aware of any requirement to be able to read English to vote, and as already pointed out there is no similar requirement to be a citizen. Therefore, you'd rather have native English speakers who don't care to learn about the issues vote and have non-English speakers who have educated themselves about the issues stay home.

Those other coutries generally have ballots in a single language and don't pander to people unwilling to meet the process half way.

And some of those other countries have ballots in five or more languages. My point is that the important thing is being informed about the issues first. If there is a significant population that would be excluded due to language, and the cost isn't prohibitive, then they should be accomodated if we truly want a democracy.

One of the requirements for citizenship is a working knowledge of English.

This is not true. Almost anyone born in the United States is a citizen (children of foreign heads of state are exempted). From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services page on Citizenship:

A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection.

Note the lack of a language requirement.

There is no reason to provide voting materials in any other language.

All citizens have the right to vote. Not all citizens speak or read English (some cannot see at all; should we eliminate braille ballots too?). How do you rectify those other than forcing everyone to learn to read English, use translators or publish ballots in multiple formats?

I'm always willing to be enlightened.

My view is that a good first step to becoming enlightened is to do things for the good of others without requiring someone to pass a law first.

Re:Having a...

[vsprintf]

In the case of Spanish speakers, I converse with them in Spanish. In the case of some of my friends' parents, they translate for me. Many that I've met can speak English passably but still have a hard time reading it.

So you're either claiming that these people really didn't meet the requirements for citizenship, or that they are natural citizens who can't read English, which I can't buy. I grew up in Southern California where Anglos are a minority. I schooled, lived, and worked with many first-generation American Latinos and none of them had any problem reading or speaking English.

This seems like you're claiming that if you don't read something in its original language, there is no way to understand it through translation. Is this indeed your argument? . . . One way to learn about the issues is to talk about them within your community.

If you cannot listen to a speech when it is given, and hear the candidate's wording, tone, inflection, and emotion, you have far less chance of determining whether that person is telling the truth. Reading or listening to any translation is just that; you get a version filtered through the translator's bias (conscious or not). Languages do not translate word for word. Discussions in a "community" where immigration reform and amnesty are the issues hardly makes one informed on all the issues.

If there is a significant population that would be excluded due to language, and the cost isn't prohibitive, then they should be accomodated if we truly want a democracy.

If the rules are being followed, there is no significant portion of citizens who would be affected by English-only ballots. Most places in this country still have English-only ballots. Define "prohibitive". Is that a few thousand or 500 billion? Where do you draw the line? Do you pay for translation, proofing, printing, and, in the case of E-voting, programming, testing, and certification if one person in the state prefers a ballot in Sanskrit? And don't include me in "we" when you talk about democracy. The founding fathers wanted a republic, and that is what we are. Tyranny of the majority is not something I want.

I am not aware of any requirement to be able to read English to vote, and as already pointed out there is no similar requirement to be a citizen. [And all the other arguments that said the same thing.]

There is such a requirement for naturalized citizens who encompass nearly all people who are qualified to vote and might prefer a different language. In a half-century, I have met many people (in several countries), and several Americans who were foreign-born, but even they were able to speak and read English. There is this little problem that ballots require you be able to read them in order to vote - at least so far. No doubt you'd prefer little pictures of the candidates and icons for the initiatives so we can give three-year-olds the vote.

should we eliminate braille ballots too?

What's that smell? Herring? There are laws that adequately address voting access for the disabled and the laws have been in place for decades. Refusing to read English is not a disability.

My view is that a good first step to becoming enlightened is to do things for the good of others without requiring someone to pass a law first.

Well, until I'm enlightened by something that makes more sense than that, I will continue to do my best to harm no one and to do unto others as I wish them to do unto me. That includes not taking others' money for some merely personal feel-good issue. If I were to emmigrate and become a citizen of another country, I certainly wouldn't be asking for a special ballot either. I think that you speak for a group of one and that I have been trolled.

Re:Having a...

[Artifakt]

I'll grant you, we should assume many techs know more about the machines than is strictly necessary for their jobs, and that this is particularly likely for a tech that is up to something. And yes, seals can be counterfitted, if the tech can get a look at the numbers sheets and some other information. However, the tech may encounter a seal placed during a spot audit or by another tech, and if his procedure isn't supposed to involve cutting that particular seal, he has to get his counterfit made to match it. He has to be there twice, once to get the number and once to install the counterfit (or he has help, or he's carrying hundreds of thousands of counterfits in various colors and six digit numbers to cover all possibilities, or he takes a set of blanks and a number stamper with him). For this reason alone, I'd argue that it takes a larger number of people or more time than I gather you think.
Most voting machines are in places such as schools, National Guard armories, and public safety buildings, and most of these keep their own records of when a tech arrives and leaves (I can't say all schools do, but I will guarentee an armory, which usually locks up the machines in its weapons vault, keeps detailed logs AND follows an ALL visitors must be accompanied rule. For most armament vaults, there are only a very limited number of persons who can enter that vault alone even among the troops, and it requires a DoD secret clearance to get on that list. Public safety buildings these days have similar policies and often a cop assigned to follow any visitor everywhere including restroom breaks. Since most of these people don't know the technical details, they won't know what to look for in many cases, but some are generally suspicious types, and will catch some of it (like a tech hand stamping a numbered seal), plus they usually log accurately, so that's another set of logs that can be checked against anything the tech stands even a remote chance of getting access to. It surprised me the first time a Federal Election Commission Judge was granted access to our armament vault log with less resistance than I would have expected for anybody outside of the chain of command, but yes, I can verify such spot checks happen, at least in states still supervised by the federal system over old problems such as the 1964 voting rights act violations.
The tech doesn't have to just tamper with a machine, he has to tamper with enough machines to affect an election. This with other people running diagnostic software the week before the election in most cases, so his actual window of opportunity is narrow, exceptionally narrow if he doesn't know which machines will be checked first this time. Keep him from accessing the list of which machines get spot checked, or which ones will be tested a week before the election and which the very last day, and he's got a lot of obstacles to overcome.
Now if other people in the election office pass on information they shouldn't, if our tech has a photographic memory or is allowed time to not just glance at some papers he shouldn't even see but photocopy them, and if multiple people don't bother to spot check just about everything every time, he can do it. I'd worry a lot more about some other things. Corporate organized, rather than local tampering with the software, machines that include LAN ports, like some of the Dibold ones do, officials changing the reported results after they have them all in in one place, or for federal elections, a largish conspiracy that concentrates on states where the race is close and there is no federal law enforcement routinely supervising the process. Any of these looks like a bigger risk.

Editorial tip

[Quinn]

In the summary (realizing it was a quote, but that's what square brackets are for in this context), you could have enlightened your audience with the actual meaning of "ACM", like so:

The [Association for Computing Machinery] is preparing to take a policy position[...]

Re:Editorial tip

[mattdm]

Yes, it'd be good to do that with all computer-related acronyms. That's very important on a non-technical web site like slashdot. Why, in just the few last day's articles, we should have seen:

• China Deploys IPv6 [Internet Protocol version Six] Network
• NVidia Releases Linux [Linus + Unix] Drivers Supporting 4K [four kilobyte -- approximately four thousand characters] Stacks
• YRO [Your Rights Online]: China Will Monitor, Censor SMS [Short Message Service] Messages
• Apple: Alpine to Release iPod [um, "Internet Pod"?] Interface in Autumn [Fall] 2004
• New Radar [Radio Detection And Ranging] Sees Through Walls
• HDTV [High Definition Television] Comes to the Mac [Macintosh]
• Dept. of Homeland Security Says to Stop Using IE [Internet Explorer]
• Daleks [not an acronym] Exterminated From New Dr. [Doctor] Who

And of course, let's not forget

• Developers: On PHP [PHP [PHP [PHP [PHP [PHP [PHP [...]: Hypertext Preprocessor]: Hypertext Preprocessor]: Hypertext Preprocessor]: Hypertext Preprocessor]: Hypertext Preprocessor]: Hypertext Preprocessor] and Scaling

Oh, how much better Slashdot would be.

Re:Editorial tip

[Anonymous Coward]

What about HURD [HIRD [HURD [HIRD [...] of Unix-Replacing Daemons] of Interfaces Representing Depth] of Unix-Replacing Daemons]

Thats cooler than dumb php

Re:Editorial tip

[aecolley]

That would be (Y PHP) Hypertext Preprocessor.
#t

Re:Take Note!

[irokitt]

*pets the troll*

The ACM has clout, considerably more than a bunch of unwashed geeks who troll slashdot all day. They're the closest thing the software industry has to a union.

The ACM isn't a bad thing to look into-if I had a regularly meeting chapter within 50 miles I'd probably attend. They're a good deal for students, getting them internships at conferences and hooking them up with lectures and talks. I hadn't even heard of a "public policy" angle to them, but I think it's a good thing.

Overwhelming support

[Anonymous Coward]

When I voted just now, they showed the current results -- nearly 85% of voters strongly agreed with the ACM's proposed position that there should be a paper trail. Wow.

Re:Overwhelming support

[Zarf]

When I voted just now, they showed the current results -- nearly 85% of voters strongly agreed with the ACM's proposed position that there should be a paper trail. Wow.

As a card-carrying member of the ACM I have to wonder if there is a paper trail for that vote you just cast ... or are we being hypocrites?

Re:Overwhelming support

[mrchaotica]

There's a difference between a website poll and a federal election.

Re:Overwhelming support

[Zarf]

That was supposed to be a joke... sorry I didn't end it with a ":)" or something.

I made a comment myself that said essentially that the systems which run democracy must be reviewable by the electorate ... essentially I feel all voting systems should be Open Source. I'll be sending a nice letter on the machinizations of democracy being openly reviewable and a matter of public record to the ACM Policy office in DC:

ACM Public Policy Office
1100 17th Street, NW
Suite 507
Washington, DC 20036-4632
Tel: (202) 659-9711
Fax: (202) 667-1066
usacm_dc at acm.org

Judging from the past...

[iamdrscience]

They've already spoken out against the DMCA, DRM and private policing of P2P networks, eh? I guess that shows how little their opinion matters then, doesn't it.

I'm far more interested in what the EFF's official stance is, considering they're the ones with the real legal and lobbying power (miniscule as it may be when compared to the twin bohemoths of the MPAA and RIAA)

Re:Judging from the past...

[vsprintf]

I'm far more interested in what the EFF's official stance is . . .

Why? Do you feel the ACM is violating Diebold's right to make a profit from American elections? The ACM and EFF are really dissimilar in purpose and function. I don't see that the EFF has a dog in this fight.

Why wouldnt this work:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Ballots would be cardstock. with 'complete the line' method for marking choices. Each voter would get one blank vote card. The vote card would NOT have their name, voter number, or any identifiable information on it. The cards *should* each have a unique 'serial number' for accountability, plus some preprinted mark identifying what 'election' it was for.

2. Voters can either complete the card by hand, or use an electronic terminal (which can be closed or open source, doesnt matter), which they would insert, and the terminal would compelte the lines for them, and give them back the card. This terminal would neither record or count any selections. All it would do is complete the paper card.

3. Immediately after either completing the card by hand or using the terminal to complete it (and having the opporunity to verify what the terminal printed), the voter would step to a tally machine (which would be immediately adjacent to the terminals and hand-filling our area, to avoid any possibility for anyone other than the voter to see or confirm what they have marked on their vote card) and inser the card on the tally machine. The design of both the 'vote card', and the tally machine would be required to be fully open, documented, and auditable by any concerned party.
No closed-source software, nothing hidden or proprietary. Vendors wishing to provide the 'terminals' for filling out the vote cards, would be required to supply tally machines for the cards as well, and they would be required to supply 'extra' tally machines, to allow for both redundancy, as well as for the voters not using the terminals. (Im thinking something like 5 tally machines for every 4 terminals)

The tally machine would

Since when does insightfull mean not to think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper trails are for authentication, which can be done by spot checks.

Voting machines still allow easier voting and faster and more accurate counting, without the needs for lots of volunteers.

Re:Take Note!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

*pets the troll*

Thanks, haven't trolled in a bit, I'm out of form.

I chock this up to one more well-meaning group preaching to the chior. Makes us all feel good, but in the end, doesn't mean a lot. I amy be wrong.

bad idea

[spacerodent]

As "hard" as some people seem to think punch card ballots are can you imagine the complaints if they put them on a computer? Also even if they have rock solid security there will be claims and disputes about how the results were "hacked" and the average sheeple will believe them rather than admit they lost. If they switch to evoting now florida will seem par for the course.

Canada

[pipingguy]

I voted last week and it was of those lame-o paper things where we had to mark an "X".

It seems to me that this format is pretty old and should be coolified with the latest technology.

Re:Canada

[greyhoundofdeath]

I voted too, but you know what? It worked. And there was a paper trail for the half-dozen or so recounts that have been called for. It was close but we were able to get things sorted out without getting the Supreme Court involved. My only problem is that they gave me a pencil to mark my ballot which might explain why my guy didn't get in :( Why fix what isn't broken? You can probably tell where my ACM vote is going!

Re:Canada

[pipingguy]

You should probably visit CanadaComment.com.

My poll comments

[ln -sf head ass]

The republic is too important to leave in the hands of easily manipulated bits. A paper fallback record is the bare minimum of prudence when introducing computers into the process of electing our leaders. Without it, there can be no confidence of legitimacy of any future government, especially given the high-profile politicking of senior executives of voting machine companies.

electronic voting isn't the problem

[mx.2000]

I really wonder why people are so furious about paper trails.

Remember the ghastly voting issues in Florida 2000?

Well, they actually had paper trails, and it didn't change a thing. As it turned out, the courts ruled the recount illegal.

It seems that legal deficiencies of the US voting system are a much bigger problem than missing paper trails.

Don't forget that paper trails aren't immune to counterfeiting in any way. It's probably very easy to print a lot of paper trails with a standard PC and very little extra equipment.

It can't be that difficult built an electronic voting system, that is about as secure as the normal paper voting.

On the other hand, I don't really get why voting machines are so sought after in the first place. Here (in Austria) all vote counting is done by hand, in the local communities, with members of every party in the voting committee.
You only need a few people for a single day, and counting is insanely fast.
Since they start counting when the vote is still going', they have about 50% of the votes counted by the time the vote ends (usually 5 pm). At 5:10 pm, the first estimates are aired on TV, at 8:00 pm about 80-90% of the votes are counted and at 10 pm the Bundesministerium für Inneres announces the final results.

Re:electronic voting isn't the problem

[vsprintf]

Well, they actually had paper trails, and it didn't change a thing. As it turned out, the courts ruled the recount illegal.

The recount was ruled illegal because it was a selective (partial) recount and not completed within the limits allowed by Florida law. There have been thousands of recounts nationwide. Many places require an automatic recount if the margin of victory is small. Let's not extrapolate the whole from one apparently misunderstood incident.

eVoting: a solution in search of a problem?

[coaxial]

I can't help but think eVoting is a solution in search of a problem. Well not exactly, but it's overkill. The taxpayers are expected to shell out for expensive machines, that don't always work, and when they do work, aren't verifiably to be acurate.

Compare this to Canada. They used paper ballots with big boxes next to the canidates' names. You place a mark in the box, and your vote is cast. After the polls close, they dump out the ballot box in front of anyone interested, and a representive from each party examines each ballot and tallys the votes. When ever vote has been counted and everyone's tally agrees, they call in the count is official. They place a phone call, and they go home.

Simple. Cheap. Transparent. Effective.

We could learn alot from our neighbors to the north.

Re:eVoting: a solution in search of a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble in America would be that you would have to wait until everyone agrees on the count. We would still have people counting ballots in Florida today if that were the case. Canadians might be a tad bit less disagreeable.

Re:eVoting: a solution in search of a problem?

[coaxial]

The trouble in America would be that you would have to wait until everyone agrees on the count. We would still have people counting ballots in Florida today if that were the case.

It doesn't matter how you count them. Gore won.

hey...

[ShadowRage]

why not try to make evoting just an interface to already used methods, like punch cards. no, seriously, that way we dont get those crap about hanging chads again, and the elderly can have a touch screen which would be simple to select the candidates, out comes the card, and into the ballot box it goes.

it can be that simple, and I'd rather have punch cards than electronic storage, since electronic storage can be corrupted, or changed. one hard drive failure in one voting machine or system could lead to a panic, punch cards may be old and simple, but they work! so, why not just combine the best of both worlds?

US voting can be complicated

[dwheeler]

It's true that if a vote has only one issue, hand counts aren't really that hard to do. Canada does them all the time, and it works well for them.

But in the U.S., most ballots are much more complicated. We (in the US) have a tradition of wanting the citizenry to speak out/vote directly on a number of different issues, and having seperate local and state elections. It's a pain to setup a poll, and a pain go to a poll, so a voting decision is actually more complicated for US citizenry than a non-US citizen might think. A vote might involve federal election (a President, House member, and a Senator), state election (a state senator / representative / governor), local election (county/town board, mayor, school board, sheriff, judges). It probably also involves multiple bond decisions ("shall the state take out a loan of $X to do Y"), and proposals to change the state constitution in various ways. When I go to a poll, I'd be shocked if there were fewer than 4 choices, and there are usually many, many more.

As a U.S. citizen, I'm used to it, and even like it -- it allows me to participate more directly in various decisions than citizens of some other democracies. And the multi-tiered approach to democracy is deeply embedded in how U.S. politics works. But the more complicated ballots, along with the sheer number of people in the U.S., make it the purely manual approach more painful. It's still possible, of course, but some sort of automation is desirable.

Untrustworthy automation is a terrible idea, of course. Hopefully various organizations like the ACM and Verified Voting will change the system so that we can actually have confidence that our votes are being fairly counted.

Oh, and the problem in the 2000 election wasn't that recounts are illegal. Recounts happen occasionally in the U.S., they're even required in certain cases. As I understand it, the problem was that recount rules are supposed to be consistent and clear before the election, and Florida's setup was revealed to be an absolute travesty. Of course, these unauditable electron-only voting machines have exactly the same problem; there's no consistent and clear way to do a real recount, because there's nothing that can be independently recounted. Instead of creating a recount travesty, they need to make real recounts possible. And a computer-printed (and human-verified) paper vote would eliminate the nasty problems in the Florida 2000 election, where it was incredibly difficult to figure out the voter's intent from a card with multiple hanging chads (with more hanging chads created through handling!).

Re:US voting can be complicated

[Hektor_Troy]

Well, it also happens from time to time, that we here in Denmark get/have to vote for more than one thing at a time, for instance, the last election we had, we voted for city council, county council (sorta) and parliment.

Seeing how we have 11 parties represented in parliment alone, and each of those parties usually have 10+ candidates on average, that's 110+ choices to choose from - just from the parliment vote.

County and city elections are a bit less crowded, but I think the ballots I was handed were probably ~1 meter in length - think about that for a minute ...

At this particular election, we were given three balots, each roughly the same length. That's probably 3 meters of paper, for one election.

Why would it be soooooooooooooooooooooooooo difficult to give people more than one ballot? Affraid they might drop one, and forget to vote in that election? Well, if that's your problem, then you might just have a voting population, who are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Yes, I've seen one of your ballots (punch-type). They don't really impress me. You cram EVERYTHING onto a single piece of paper that is way too small, they seem really errorprone (pregnant chads anyone?), not to mention, that it's quite easy to punch a hole for the wrong part, like putting two holes in the president part, but none in the constitutional part.

Of course, this benifits the beaurocrats, who probably gets paid to count votes, the people who maintain the machines needed, the manufacturers, etc, etc, etc ...

One paper ballot for every election. If you have twenty things up for election, then hand out 20 fucking pieces of paper!

Yes, electronic voting systems, like the one hosted at http://openvotingconsortium.org/ would make things a lot easier. It has everything needed; paper trail (which is both human readable AND has a barcode line), it can read out the ballot etc ... my only complaint about this one is the same as the one above. WAY too much info in WAY to little room.

Florida ... Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

They got away with it the last time ,,,,
Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310 /S00211 .htm

Will they be able to do it again this time?
New 'Hiccup' for Florida Voters
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,638 37,00.ht ml

Judge rules for media on Florida voter list
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/fl orida. elections/

UN watchdogs have been requested

[charnov]

I looked on Drudge Report and it seems a couple of Representitives have requested UN oversight in the next election. It's Drudge, so who knows how accurate it is, but it would be wild to have UN observers validating the election. Personally, I think the elections should last a week and for an independent (publicly funded) group make sure every single eligible person votes. Or better yet, cast your vote on your tax form...heh.

It *is* open source already

[RussP]

"Can anyone else guess why this project isn't opensource yet."

Check out GVI, the Graphical Voter Interface.

Delphi

[Jan-Pascal]

This is almost a "Delphi study". A Delphi study is
actually when you ask a number of professionals in a certain field about their opinion, or expectations, about a number of topics. Then you process the results, show the results to the same group of professionals, and ask their opinion again.

Something like that.

Open source is not enough

[Jan-Pascal]

Opening the source isn't enough. How do I check that the code running on the machine I place my vote on is compiled from the source code I checked? And how can I check the _compiler_?

Actually, I don't really care about the software and all. Just print a paper ballot that goes in a box, and have the local representatives of the political parties, or anyone else interested, recount the paper ballots if they feel like it. That's all that's needed.

Re:Open source is not enough

[Zarf]

How do they know to recount? When do they recount? Perhaps the software tells them something that they feel means they should recount? Perhaps they recount every election?

I think Open Source is important ... and that the source is a matter of public record ... along with the procedures used to determine when the paper ballot trail needs to be used. It is incomplete to say that just a paper trail is enough. Paper trails can be tampered with too.

we don't need a government

[flechette_indigo]

I think that you people miss the point of electronic voting:
The government is simply the conventional city/state/nation/world-wide power-coordinating structure (or so the theory of democracy goes).
With electronic voting WE DON'T NEED THAT STRUCTURE ANYMORE.
Voting is a means to coordinated action. Electronic voting is a means of voting conveniently, without the need of government provided voting/power-coordinating services.
With electronic voting we don't need a government.
ANY kind of coordinated action is powerful. If we coordinated 10% of ourselves today in even something as mundane as our spending-habits a power would be realised that would cause the so-called national governments to pale into IRRELAVENCY.
It's just a matter of convincing a few hundred million people to cooporate.

Re:we don't need a government

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a matter of convincing a few hundred million people to cooporate.

Ever tried to get five people to agree on where to go for lunch?

Getting them to agree is politics. Carrying out the agreement is government.

Re:we don't need a government

[RenaissanceGeek]

And just who do you think does the convincing?

That's right! The government! (in the form of law-enforcement personell, mostly.)

The problem is, although it is relatively easy to get a concensus when dealing with an issue in the abstract (personX, conditionY, amountZ, etc.), the vast majority of people have very little trouble justifying to themselves making an exception for themselves.

So, you have to implement personal costs to counter the personal rewards that ignoring the community's best interests (or, at least, communal decisions) can bring.

So, for those who contemplate vandalism, public endangerment, and theft; we have public-service, fines, and incarceration.

Remember to keep the implementation of an idea seperate from the idea itself: just because government as we practice it today is wasteful and stifling doesn't mean that it HAS to be.

Get involved and FIX IT!

Aside: I was always intrigued by the Soviet Russian system of two legislative bodies: one only passed legislation, and one only repealed it. The idea of a whole house of representatives elected expressly for the purpose of culling bad legislation from the code of law seemed to have promise.

I want the paper.

[PotatoHead]

Having the machines provide an interface to more easily cast the vote has advantages for the blind, old and handicapped, and this is a good thing. For most of us, the paper method works just fine.

I love tech, but if there is one aspect of live that deserves the luddite treatment, this is it. Why?

Trust is one of the pillars of democracy. Participation is another.

The transient nature of electronic bits combined with our inability to actually see them move and change breaks the chain of trust we need to be assured our system actually works. We can see paper move, we can know the persons who perform the tally. With bits, we simply have to hope the machine does what its creator says. Given our history, we are fools to place our trust into such a system. Concentrations of power have always proven bad, why would this be any different.

The rush to speed the process is counter to the goal of participation and political discourse over the issues. Voting is not supposed to be quick. Voting takes time because it takes time to make the hard decisions. Since these decisions largely affect all of us, we should be taking the time to make them correctly. Coolness factor aside, the current push to modernize voting actually marginalizes the process. This is not healthy.

Early in life, I saw the political process as being messy and time consuming. I did not always vote. Having gotten a bit older and wiser (thanks GW for getting me involved!) I see now the true value of the process.

The last 4 years have shown me the result of hasty decisions made with broken trust and I don't want to experience any more.

On a side note, why doesn't Kerry push this HARD! I don't get it. Somebody please explain this to me. Seriously. why not?

GW has motivated me to stay involved and perform my civic duty. Not everyone agrees, but there are an awful lot of people who do. Why be lazy? Isn't this stuff important to you? To put this in /. terms: Remember when Lessig said, "Why won't they fight?" This is the same apathy on a broader scale with the same consequenses.

I am going to perform my civic duty. My state, Oregon, has a mail in ballot system with its own problems. Still I call and write letters and tell people how electronic bits really work. I mailed a copy of "Black Box Voting" to my representitive along with a call to action on reforming the process.

You folks living in the swing states should get off your duff and do the same because it directly affects you!

Good results take hard work. This means casting your vote with due consideration over the issues, preferably with your peers prior to the vote. Some of us have to tally the votes cast, make sure you are one of them. Work hard to build trust with others doing the same. Ask to watch the process --it is public, afterall. Somebody said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilence". (ok, so I need to work at spelling --civics first!)

Ask your peers and representitives to see the process and show their trust with an open voting process. If they argue it's too much work, let them know there are plenty of unemployed and senior citizens willing and able to get that work done. If they don't understand the trust issue, talk about the machine and their inability to know what happens inside the wires.

We need to close the circle of trust. The last election and its 4 year result should motivate a large enough percentage of us to make this a non-issue. The fact that it hasn't disturbs me. Do we really not give a fuck? Maybe we do need a bit more punishment and loss of freedom to make the point perfectly clear.

I get it now, will you before it's too late to live long enough to see the damage undone?

Fucking do something.

Better Yet

[Simple-Simmian]

Cast paper ballots the day after tax day.

Re:Better Yet

[hazem]

That would be great! People seem pretty bitter around April 16th, and I imagine there would be a lot more turn-out, especially for candidates who promise (for what that's really worth) to lower taxes and cut waste.

Of course it makes perfect sense that elections are more than half a year after tax day, with plenty of holidays to dull memories before the next tax day. Happy dumb people are easy to hoodwink.

I heard recently that the IRS spends somewhere between $0.40 and $0.50 for each $1.00 they collect. I'll bet Citibank has a better ratio than that, and they don't have the option of sending armed IRS agents to your house to collect!

Back to the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

For those excited about electronic voting (positive or otherwise), or those excited about the prospect of looking for bugs in JSP java code... used in an actual voting proces!

Have a look at the source (Dutch site, code under "klik hier", english code/javadoc) of the voting platform used in the Netherlands for internet voting by out of country nationals during the last european elections. Its GPL, share and enjoy.

Nothing says "internet voting != secure" as a piece of proof of concept code that could have put for cowboyneal in the european pairlment ;-)

Easily

[roystgnr]

If they can't trust electronic voting, how will they trust thier online poll?

Easily: they're the ones running it.

If you let me personally set up every computer counting votes, I would trust electronic voting too. Unfortunately this probably isn't a solution to our election problems, since other people don't seem to trust me as much as I do.

[OT] For the trillionth time...

[JessLeah]

The possessive of "it" is "its", not "it's."

Geeks used to pride themselves on being pedantic. What the hell happened?

Re:Take Note!

[red floyd]

No, it's not preaching to the choir. The ACM ranks up there with the IEEE. They *do* have a lobby in DC, and the poll is to see what their members think said lobby should do.

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

[pangian]

Incidentally... the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), which in the range of computer-related professional organizations is on the more issue-activist end of the spectrum, has been quite active on voting technology. Check out the organization's e-voting working group.

Also, the CRSP testimony to the Election Assistance Commission is worth a read.

Modest proposal #32767

[aecolley]

I have an idea. Why not adapt the ballots to the needs of the humans who cast votes, and design the voting/counting machines to cope with the ballots? You know, instead of adapting ballots to the needs of the machines and asking the humans to cope with it? ACM has a CHI [human-computer interaction] SIG, but voting system vendors don't seem to have heard the term.

My reply: mildly disagree

[Kopretinka]

Comment: If physical records are mandatorily kept and a process is established whereby recounts are requested for the physical records, I expect every election to be challenged and recounted, ending up being worse than the status quo (adding the first electronic step) and driving the public opinion against the usefulness of such electronical systems. I'd rather see great redundancy in where the results are sent electronically and independent automatic (fast) counts for the potential of electronic voting to be realized.

Voting on a hyperlink

[ricksmith]

My main complaint with the ACM's proposed policy statement is that it includes hyperlinks to statements by organizations both in favor and opposed to the policy.

The whole point of presenting a statement is to control what you're saying. You can't do that if you're linking to what others say. Presumably the links were included to indicate what 'responsible' organizations were saying both in favor of and in opposition to the policy.

What if one of the organizations rearranges their web site and the URL moves? What if the organization changes its statement to include bogus facts that most ACM members would disagree with?

The ACM should not have included the external URLs in their statement. There are more reliable ways of getting the desired result.