Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
paper trail to keep tabs on the system replacing paper voting seems a tad pointless. Maybe waiting would be better.
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.
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
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.
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?
It's not clear that any voting method should ever be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Any system can be tampered with.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
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.
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.
/. terms: Remember when Lessig said, "Why won't they fight?" This is the same apathy on a broader scale with the same consequenses.
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
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.
Blogging because I can...
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
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.