Slashdot Mirror


EFF Sues NC Election Board

Kludge writes "The EFF is suing the NC elections board. The board certified several voting machine manufacturers although none of the manufacturers would comply with the state law (passed unanimously) that the machine code be kept in escrow."

24 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. democracy? no... by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will this stop my dead cat from voting 43 times in the election again?... I know it has rights but it keeps voting republican...

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
  2. "even though", not "because" by Shelled · · Score: 4, Informative

    The board certified several voting machine manufacturers even though none of the manufacturers would comply with the state law (passed unanimously) that the machine code be kept in escrow. Not because.

    1. Re:"even though", not "because" by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful
      [T]he board felt they needed these new machines enough to override state law.


      Where does this board get the authority (or the stones) to "override" state law?

      -Peter
    2. Re:"even though", not "because" by brianosaurus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Duh. The same place every criminal gets the authority (and stones) to override laws. They just do it, and hope they don't get caught.

      Oops. Busted!

      --
      blog
    3. Re:"even though", not "because" by megabunny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole voting machine issue is so lame.

      We just had municipal elections here in British Columbia and I used a 'voting machine'. You mark off your votes on a letter size piece of paper by darkening the circles. Then you feed it face down into a scanner, which deposits the page in the ballot box after tallying it.

      Election results are available quickly from the machine.

      Hand recounts are perfectly possible because of the hard copy record.

      What is so difficult about requiring hard copy records? Votes are worth one sheet of paper.

      Chuck

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  3. I'd like to see this taken farther by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting



    The EFF is worried about e-voting based on the likely possibility of vote manipulations. Those in power of the election boards have an incredible amount of power in abusing the democratic process.

    I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.

    Votes are manipulated in more ways than just electronically:

    1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression. The primary goal of campaign finance reform is to give the authoritarian political parties great power over non-authoritarian parties. What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically. Even if you want to give money to a third party, they can't do much with it and you can't give as much as you want.

    2. The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations. If our federal government ran beneath their constitutional boundaries, no amount of bribery or donations would make one difference. Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment.

    3. The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights.

    4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.

    5. Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets. Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies.

    6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.

    7. Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand the power of government. Voters rarely hear that voting is wrong and that the process setting up the vote is a collusion between the authoritarian parties.

    I hope that the EFF can see how short they come when they prosecute only the voting machines, rather than the voting system.

    Do what I do. Don't vote for any candidate -- write yourself in for every position.

    1. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite.

      That's election fraud, not democracy.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      think democracy, in this case, is open about to whom the favors are being given. The problem with vote rigging, especially electronic, is that it hides that favoritism.

      Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official. 49% of the people may decide they don't want to give up those rights and powers, but they're considered "wrong." The elected official in a democracy holds office for a certain period of time and has no reason to follow through with what the voters initially wanted, and the voters can not remember what they wanted so many years ago.

      This is the flaw with voting and the power of the free market. In a free market you can change your mind constantly, and the market will provide for what you want. Democracy only lets you change your mind once every 4 years or so, and you can never fix past errors in judgement, as they are now law.

    3. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.
      Karl? Is that you?

      "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried." - Winston Churchill

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by Rydia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, you're comparing an economic system with a governmental system? Wha? What would a free-market government look like? Who would issue currency? How could you enforce rapidly-changing laws? How could you do all the wonderfully unprofitable things that governments do, like funding education? Competition isn't going to help students in any aspect other than their pocketbook, since it'll be a race down to the bottom to try to provide the most cheap, bare-bones system posible. And how would you regulate trade? The closest I can come up with is a greek system of city-states, but even those had civic governments. I just don't see how you can compare free-market capitalism and democracy as political systems.

      Oh, and you can fix past errors in judgment. Laws can be repealed (even amendments!) and courts can find laws unconstitutional, even if they were found consitutional before, if "society's understanding of the facts have been fundamentally altered." To paraphrase Justice O'Connor.

    5. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official. 49% of the people may decide they don't want to give up those rights and powers, but they're considered "wrong."
      No, they're considered "losers".
      This is the flaw with voting and the power of the free market. In a free market you can change your mind constantly, and the market will provide for what you want.
      What is a free market? Anarchy? I'm not ready to subscribe to your newsletter.
      Democracy only lets you change your mind once every 4 years or so, and you can never fix past errors in judgement, as they are now law.
      This is utter nonsense. Democracy is not defined by 4 year terms of office (even in American democracy, with some offices from 2 to 6 years), and in America we abolish old laws all the time. Even if the executive or legislative approves of a law, we have the courts to review them. The most obvious federal examples are the repeal of the Volstead act and Roe vs. Wade.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Who would issue currency?

      Actually, in Hong Kong most currency is issued by three private banks, each with their own design. The govt issues coins and one low-denomination bill. The banks do have to be licenced, and have sufficient assets to cover their cash.

  4. How Is This Possible? by quanticle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article, it seems like the elections commission certified all voting machine manufacturers despite the fact that none of them were in compliance with the law. How was the elections commission allowed to do this? Wouldn't the logical solution have been to certify none of the voting machine manufacturers until they came into compliance with the law?

    Am I missing something here (e.g. time limit)?

    --
    We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    1. Re:How Is This Possible? by D.A.+Zollinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people are not logical. As an example, math is logical, and the majority of people suck at math. But I digress...

      I believe what you are missing is politics. The director of the elections comission wanted to show to his superiors that he is doing something useful and tangible. Was the director/members aware of the state law? I am sure they were. Do they have the power to force vendors to open their code? Not really. All they can do is tell the vendors, "We're not going to certify you until we can review your code."

      My guess is that they were put under pressure to get some sort of electronic voting system in place for the 2006 elections, and instead of doing what would be right for the people (follow the law, protect the voters, etc), they did what would be better for someone else's political career ("See what wonderful things we are doing with state money?" and "No more antiquated voting methods for our citizens!").

      I'm glad the EFF called them to task on this one.

      --
      I haven't lost my mind!
      It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
  5. MUCH more important than voting machines... by DogDude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right now, the Libertarian Party is also suing the NC State Election Board because the Election Board is only allowing residents to register as "Democrat", "Republican", or "Independent". More importantly, they're also suing because NC has taken all alternative parties off of all ballots. I can't even vote for a Libertarian or Green or Reform Party candidate in the state of NC. The gizmo they use to count the ballots is just red herring. That debate is fabricated to keep people's wheels spinning about relatively unimportant things, while the big problems are being ignored. The real problem lies in the fact that choice has been removed from the process. Now, citizens get to vote for Bad or Worse, with both sides (Bad and Worse) colluding to keep the status quo.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  6. Re:cool by jeremy111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think the issues is with who "won" the last two elections, but weather our choice in elected officials in the future will be determined by some unknown black box of voting. Think FICO credit scores and how that was made to be understood by the majority. Also, consider every application that you have ever updated. Did that update occur just because? NO, it did not. There was something not right and the update "fixed" the issue. DieBold, et all, need to make their money; but electing my leaders, their way, is not the way. If you want to do business with my elections, make it TRANSPARENT. If you cannot make you money that way, make it some where else.

  7. No Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the guys explanation as to why he was certifying them, it was because none of them were prepared to meet the escrow requirement that he certified them.

    If one of them had broken ranks and put their code in Escrow, he would have certified just that one.

    My gast was totally flabbered by the explanation, and you don't like to say such things, but I recall Diebold and the American association for the blind, suddenly demanding electronic voting, while at the same time getting a new $17 million equipment centre as if by magic....

  8. Interesting change of pace by ThatGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an interesting change of pace. Not too long ago, big interests would spend a lot of money buying voters and pressuring them to vote their way.

    Now they just cut out the middleman! Why mess with voters when you can just mess with a couple of voting machines?

    Genius!

    --
    What are you eating? isItVeg?.
  9. Re:open e-voter by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why don't you? If you've got a "good" idea, why not make some profit? :-)

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  10. Not to worry by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are no problems with electronic voting machince, except maybe for this minor glitch.

  11. Re:cool by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with GW. I do agree that he did win as you say but that is not the point at all. The point is that as a citizen I have or should have a right to know how the ballot process works and it should be auditable. These things are not possible if the voteing machine is a black box and nobody but those who built it know what goes on inside. I don't know about but I am not sure I want to put my faith in some company who made a voteing box to conduct a fair election. These types of things are part of public life and their workings should be public domain. Its the same situation with the breathalizer and redlight camera trials going on around the country. If I am to be convicted of a crime based on some machine's results, I have a right to know how it works so that I could question the system's accuracy in court. Equipment that plays a roll in our democracy should be Open for all to see and understand if interested.
      Government is supposed to be TRANSPARENT in a republic like ours. This is why you can watch congress on CSPAN, sit in on a trial, speak at your town meeting etc. The very fact that we allow all these things shows as a society we value this transparency. We should not allow it to be taken from us through the use of magic black boxes everywhere that nobody can talk about what they do or how they work because some company has a patent or won't release their soure or whatever. Any and ALL equipment used in our governing process should be Open Source pure and simple no exceptions this nation was built on transparency lets have some. In fact this really should be a Constitutional Amendment!

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  12. Shocked North Carolinian by smelroy · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a North Carolinian I was a little shocked to see the EFF was suing the state elections board. Then I read why. Why does the elections board think they can just ignore the law? I am all for having electronic voting and I imagine that it will help out the process considerably but we certainly shouldn't add more risk for fraud and error. Voting accuracy should be priority #1.

    --
    Switching to Linux can be an adventure!
  13. I live in NC by 77Punker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The election commission does whatever it wants. Their only interest is to make sure only the big two parties stand a chance at any election. My state is the hardest state to get a party onto the ballot, and because of this there's only two choices on any state or federal level ballot in NC.

  14. Perhaps it is just a stupid flavor of humility by Analogy+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I am frankly more than fed up with folks reveling in their ignorance as if its noble. If people think they or others are intelligent that is a sin? Only God is intelligent...thus "Intelligent Design".

    As a Christian and a scientist I am of the opinion that "Intelligent Design" is bad science and bad theology.

    As for the "poser intellectualts"...there are idiots and assholes at every point of the compass and everywhere on the spectrum from left to right.

    I think what most people are frustrated with is the complete absence of dialog and debate. I personally think that the likes of Karl Rove and his Democratic counterparts have done this. It seems nobody has the time for a real debate any more. We see our President in front of a banner with the "on message" catch phrase of the week. We hear some hand wringing wimp from the democratic side whining...

    So, getting back to the topic of the article, TRANSPARENCY is the key. I agree the President should ability to receive candid input from whoever he wants it from....but if Enron execs ghost wrote our energy policy (as is likely the case) the voting public deserves to know and make an informed decision. The news media is so busy reporting on each other that they can't be counted on for that....but there is still hope unless our voting machines can't be relied upon as unbiased (not to claim they were ever perfect), it is that much easier for the cynical and power hungry to ignore the frustrated voter...and in turn it is easier for the frustrated voter to tune out.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.