Slashdot Mirror
Computer Problems Already Affecting Florida Voters
TAGmclaren writes "The Sun-Sentinel is reporting on computer glitches already affecting the election in - you guessed it - Florida. Of the 14 early voting sites that opened in Broward County on Monday morning, 9 were reporting problems. In Orlando County, the touch screens crashed. More generally, SFgate.com is keeping track of all voting issues across the country - including lawsuits and other ballot problems." Update: 10/19 03:38 GMT by T : Thanks to reader Dale J. Russell for pointing out that "there is no Orlando County. The city of Orlando, Florida resides in Orange County."
Orlando is in Orange county.
Was that I was watching the local news (Washington, DC) and they were discussing electronic voting machines and some of the concerns surrounding them. Then, the reporter ends his report basically blowing the concerns off and saying it was just people were afraid of computers raising a fuss. What? It seems to me that the more people know about computers and know about the systems, the more concerned they are. It's not people afraid of computers and to be dismissed like that simply blows my mind.
The problem from the article has to do with the poll workers being able to connect to a database housing registration lists. While it might slow things down, it's not really a significant problem. The paper lists always seem to work fine and didn't slow things down much, not sure why they can't use those. Plus you could verify the signature on the spot.
What?
In Orlando County, the touch screens crashed.
Well, at least we know the red and green phosphors are safe!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1098121671320_93530871/?hub=World
"And in Orange County, voting ground to a halt after the touch-screen voting system crashed for about 10 minutes.
A senior deputy elections supervisor could not explain the brief outage, but speculated a faulty Internet connection may have been to blame."
Yeeeehaw! Let the games begin.
A bit of self fufilling prophecy. We've had 4 years to sit around wringing our hands and worrying, of course we're gonna have problems.
And we'll have the inevitable lawsuits, recounts and when someones declared the winner, the losers will yell about how it was stolen.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"Of the 14 early voting sites that opened in Broward County on Monday morning, 9 were reporting problems."
Upon contacting their support center, the issue was resolved shortly after the operators were instructed to turn the power ON.
I am trying to think of what the arguments will be...
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Is it me or does anyone else find it hard to believe that all of the so called voting irregularities suddenly started in 2000?
I realize that it's popular these days to point out that these irregularities contributed to the last election outcome, but isn't also somewhat obvious that those same irregularities (or similar ones) have existed since the dawn of voting itself, I mean those punch machines of yore were around quite a while before 2000.
If we are complaining about them now, mabye we should have started when Jimmy Carter was elected. When are we going to stop the madness and realize that the only ones profiting here are lawyers not people. There isn't and will never be a perfect system for everyone.
This makes me seriously concerned for a number of reasons.
First, these computer problems were blamed on the Internet connection used to access the registered-voter database. No voting system, even if it uses a VPN, should be connected to the Internet. If remote data is necessary, do it over a telephone connection. That's worked for credit card companies for many, many years.
Second, the article references the general apathy of workers running the poll stations. It seems that democracy may end in this country, or at least in Florida, from this more than from any of our elected leaders.
Third, and most speculatively, what happens if a more serious error occurs on Election Day and a large portion of ballots get lost? Four years ago, we could go back and read hanging chads. What will the courts decide this year if an entire state's ballots go missing?
By all accounts, this election could be more dangerous to the future of the nation than 2000.
It's not the touch screen crashing that is the problem. It's what happens underneath that is the big concern.
These systems have been made so complex and closed source that there is no audit trail.
I get these images of a huge casino with electronic slot machines - whoever put them in did so with a view to making profit out of them. If you're the end user, you have no idea what they're doing under that screen - but you can be well assured you can't take them at face value. So if casino machines can statistically determine when or if they should pay out depending on the bank balance of the casino, what the heck are these voting machines doing?
In Australia we mark numbers on sheets of watermarked paper.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Ummm....
The founding fathers were also concerned that every region had a say in the running of the country. This means that a citizen living in a sparsely populated part of the country such as Utah has more voting power in the House Of Representatives than a citizen in a densely populated state like New Jersey.
I think you mean Senate, Not the House.
You could assign senators by state population the way the house works, but then the senate would keep expanding.
And here the founding fathers gave set the Senators at two per state to specifically insure that the large states could not overule the smaller states. They were worried about the "Tyrany of the Majority". Thats why every state has the same number of votes in the senate and why the House is assigned by population.
And next time write something yourself instead of copying it off of some website whos facts are wrong.
http://mindprod.com/election.html
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
From the article:
"All 14 of the branch offices had problems with the database connection. Many of the sites had numerous voters lined up to cast their ballots.
A work-around was created by calling in each voter's name to the main Election's Office in Fort Lauderdale. Two office workers were assigned to each phone, Salas said, for a slowed verification process. The workers would plug into the database, and verify that the voter in one of the branch sites was indeed registered to vote."
Incredible that something was so poorly validated and still made it into the field. My precinct gets voter validation printed out from Motor Voter records. The DMV uses a pretty solid, fully computerized system (IBM) that has worked well for more than five years. Total time to verify I am registered? About a minute. I never wait (and I live in a densely urbanized area), step with up to the lever voting machine and my vote is recorded and verifiable.
How did places like FL fall for this sham? Being a beta user for software that was released before it was ready is one thing when it is a text document, but for VOTING? Jeezoz H. Keerist.
I've also done work in a Federal government office with purchasing power. I can see how cluster f$%^s like this can happen, because there is no ultimate responsibility and accountability for incompetence. If the sales pitch looks good and the vendor "demonstrates" the reliability of the product, no public "servant" will be held accountable. The vendor also likely got paid upon delivery and there is no recourse for going after them. The vendor, rather than getting blacklisted by the contracting office, will get to explain what when wrong and why it was God's Will or somebody else's fault.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Before anyone says that e-voting is needed because the United States presidential elections are too big to process and count manually using pen and paper, please don't forget about the recent 2004 European Parliament election, when 343,657,800 people were eligible to vote, the second-largest democratic electorate in the world after India. It was the biggest transnational direct election in history and ten new member states elected MEPs for the very first time. With total turnout 45.5% it means 156,364,299 people have voted, 48% more than in the 2000 US presidential election.
What I mean is that we all talk about e-voting essentially taking it for granted. But has anyone ever answered what is wrong with pen and paper? Is e-voting better because it is high tech? Because it is supposedly faster? Is it? Even if it is, does it justify much less transparency and security? Could anything justify any unreliability in the very process of election, the most essential fundament of democracy?
Was there anything wrong in June 13, 2004, when 156 million people voting with pen and paper elected 732 Members of the European Parliament to represents 450 million citizens? I quote those numbers to menonstrate that simple pen and paper can scale enormously. I don't think that Americans are less skilled than Europeans and cannot count paper ballots in an election on much lower scale such as the US presidential election.
These are all very important questions to answer before we start to talk about improvements to the e-voting status quo. The first question we need to ask is not "how" but "why."
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Efficient? By which you mean faster? Cheaper? Is it cheaper and faster? Even if it is, does it justify the lack of reliability? Does it justify the lack of transparency? Could anything justify it?
We are talking about democracy. The transparency and reliability of democratic election is something infinitely more important than any kind of efficiency could ever be, for without transparent and reliable election there can be no democracy.
Besides, what exactly is inefficient in using pen and paper? Please read my other post before you reply.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Do you know about the recent estimates that 27,000 votes will be lost by highly predictable computer errors in mostly black precincts?
--
make install -not war
You might get your mind blown back the other way after watching the 13 minutes of John Stewart (_The Daily Show_) on Crossfire. He calls "Conservative" Tucker Carlson a dick without increasing his sneer, while Carlson's token "Liberal" opposite just bobbles his head while included in the same condemnation. These mediadroids are thinking only about working within the conventional wisdom from their corporate producers, not even whether an intelligent, real person is denouncing their lies and deranged harm to America, right in their faces, on camera. They are purely formal apparatchiks; the content is irrelevant to their buzzword sniffers. Viewers of any intelligence at all can only be appalled.
--
make install -not war
I'm posting this message from a Florida Voting machine. Browsing under IE is great! Had to download and install flash plugin for a few sites, though. I have no idea why all these posters are saying this electronic voting system is insecure. Everytime these popup windows appear telling me they need to confirm my credit card information, the numbers are displayed as asterisks (*) when I type it in. This voting machine seems plenty secure to me.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The machines aren't too fancy -- certainly not fancy enough to run bloatware like Windows. However, they follow a simple low-tech protocol that works and shut down if tampered with. And, as with all things India, they cost $200 a pop, compared to $3000 per machines in the U.S.
The U.S. election authorities can learn a lot from India's last election. Read all about it here.
Buggy as compared to the chads?
.MDB files. Election Day hasn't even arrived yet and already people have been busy introducing systematic error into the pool of registered voters. Even if the 2004 election involves pretty blinking lights, and is the most precise ever, it will undoubtedly be a less accurate measurement of the desires of the electorate than the election we had in 2000. This is what Stalin meant when he said that those who cast the votes decide nothing, and those who count the votes determine everything.
What are you talking about? The punch card system proved itself to be a very accurate method of vote counting, even under the extreme condition of a tie- to a precision of several hundred votes. Much attention was paid to the relatively few cards that had chads hanging, but the vast majority of the cards were quite unambiguous in their representation of the voter's intent. Unfortunately they occurred in equal numbers for both candidates. The entire system was at least as auditable as any vote counting system can possibly be.
People don't understand the difference between precision and accuracy. Precision means that, given a measurable X, your measurements are sharply defined. But that is not the same as accuracy- which implies that the measurements actually reflect the true value of X, and not the influences of other sources of systematic error- like air resistance, or the thermal expansion of the ruler you're using, or the political affiliation of the manufacturer of your measuring equipment. A measurement is only accurate if sources of systematic error have been minimized. Sources of random error- like hanging chads- merely degrade precision.
The outcry for computerized voting that followed the 2000 election- to "bring our elections into the 21st century" and similar nonsense- was most unfortunate. We are making the transition from an accurate but slightly imprecise system to a new system that promises only extreme precision with no guarantees of accuracy. What is worse, we are about to trade susceptibility to random error for something far worse- susceptibility to systematic error- which is fundamentally different from a human perspective since it introduces a huge motive for people to screw with the accuracy of the electoral process.
The 2000 election had its share of systematic error. There was that butterfly ballot, which confused both Gore and Bush voters alike, but had the effect of transforming Bush votes into Bush votes and Gore votes into Buchanan votes. There was the Florida felon purge, which knocked thousands of blacks but only dozens of Cubans off the rolls. The 2000 election is still bitterly disputed, but very few people still complain about the hanging chads, which were sources of random error with relatively nonpartisan effects. The sources of systematic error had a much more corrosive effect- they cast doubt on the very legitimacy of the outcome, since they gave the election the appearance of having been stolen.
I have no doubt that we have an ultraprecise election ahead of us- computers are good at being deterministic, after all- but as far as accuracy goes- we'll see. There are many who would love to insert some systematic error into those Access
I think I agree with the gist of your post, and I also agree with the gist of the GP's post; you both make good points.
I would just like to go off on a tangent here for a moment and address a commonly repeated fallacy regarding communism and democracy.
Communism and democracy have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
Democracy is a political system, and Communism is an economic system. They are not mutually exclusive or even related, at least not in a causal way.
Unfortunately, during the Truman years, the USA was greatly concerned about rising Soviet influence over the "Third World". I'm using this term in its original (cold war) context: those nations which did not belong to the capitalist west but were not allied with the Soviets, either. The term Third World as used today is mostly pejorative and I favor its retirement, but I digress.
Anyway, throughout the cold war, much effort was made to slander communism as a system. It was therefore decried as being authoritarian in nature, but this was deliberate propaganda. A socialist "welfare" state is not authoritarian by definition, it just so happened that the USSR was.
Communism is a system (which probably can never truly exist, but that's a seperate matter) in which the workers own the means of production. It says nothing whatsoever about authoritarian rule, and doesn't require it -- in fact, Marx in his utopian viewpoint saw a large government as being antithetical to the communist ideal and hoped (unrealistically) that after the worker's revolution the leader of the movement would assume a temporary "benign" dictatorship. To place in this in American terms, it was his hope that a man like George Washington -- heroic and respected -- would be the one to lead the revolution, and then voluntarily step down once the necessary infrastructure were in place. Of course, as has often been noted by American historians, this quality is uncommon and George Washington is one of the few political leaders in history who could have been king but chose not to be in favor of the system.
Anyway, to get back to the point, socialism, the interim economic system which Marx theorized would "bridge" capitalism and communism, does not mandate a dictatorship. Many socialist states (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) are in fact very libertarian in nature. They pay very high taxes and have an extremely high standard of living -- Norway's is the highest in the world, in fact.
Similarly, there are many authoritarian capitalist states. Singapore is an example I frequently use, but it is hardly the only one. The People's Republic of China is increasingly becoming market capitalist -- very little of its communist infrastructure remains -- and yet it remains authoritarian. The US, in its campaign to secure access to Latin American resources, installed a number of capitalist governments that amounted to little more than dictatorships (in some cases against the wishes of the majority, as measured by socialist candidates elected).
Now, while I am politically left leaning, I am socially libertarian -- by this I mean that freedom from oppression and censorship is very important to me. The idea that socialism (and communism, which probably can never exist) is by necessity an authoritarian system is 1950s era propaganda. The USSR was undeniably authoritarian, but this was a result of the decisions of its leaders (especially after Lenin), not a result of its economic system. I do not deny that the rise of soviet-style authoritarian communism was a bad thing for pretty much anyone concerned.
However, I think that now that the cold war is over, and we can look back in a more objective way, we should try not to present communism and democracy as opposites, because they in fact have nothing to do with each other. Civil liberties are perhaps encouraged by a free market, because a free market functions better with little government intervention, but civil liberties are by no means guaranteed by one. Consider the PRC
I'm confused by this flip flop mantra that republicans keep chanting. Surely changing your position on an issue in the face of new evidence is a "Good Thing". It implies an open mind and critical thinking, whereas sticking doggedly to a position that has since been shown to be wrong is just stupid.
For example, on the Iraq war vote, Kerry voted for the war on the basis of the evidence made available by Bush. We now know that the evidence for war was wrong, incomplete and selectively chosen by a broken system. If you believed the evidence that was presented at the time then voting for war was the only option (as it happens I didn't believe the evidence, but that is a freedom a popularly elected official doesn't really have if he wants to be re-elected). In the light of new evidence it appears that the case for war was not based in fact, but speculation (if you're feeling generous towards Bush), or greed (if you're being less generous). Faced with the new information I would be deeply concerned if someone did not change their point of view. It is a deeply valid thing to do.
Making a decision on the best available information is a good thing. Making a decision on ideological grounds and the selecting evidence to support your position is not a good thing.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine