Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wisconsin Requires Open Source, Verifiable Voting

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the honesty-is-for-sissies dept.

AdamBLang writes "Previously covered on Slashdot, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle today signed legislation that "will require the software of touch-screen voting machines used in elections to be open-source. Municipalities that use electronic voting machines are responsible for providing to the public, on request, the code used." Madison's Capital Times reports "the bill requires that if a municipality uses an electronic voting system that consists of a voting machine, the machine must generate a complete paper ballot showing all votes cast by each elector that is visually verifiable by the elector before he or she leaves the machine.""

7 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. KISS by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    [T]he machine must generate a complete paper ballot showing all votes cast by each elector that is visually verifiable by the elector before he or she leaves the machine.

    And how do we know that the prinout matches whatever counter is incremented within the computer? Being open source makes it tamper-resistent, not tamper-proof. Would it not be easier to just use a paper ballot in the first place? Then any recount could be performed against the actual ballots cast, not as a spot check against computer (glitches|fraud).

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:KISS by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . . .put your thumbprint in the corner . . .

      No.

      KFG

    2. Re:KISS by HUADPE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. One of the major tenets of democratic voting is the secret ballot. This is in and of itself a problem with electronic voting because the order of votes can be counted as well as the votes themselves. A determined individual can then match the order and time of votes to individuals as they signed in to the polling place. Non-secret ballots can allow for voter intimidation (will the new mayor fire people who voted against him?)

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    3. Re:KISS by kernelpanicked · · Score: 5, Funny

      ------ Begin PHP Signed Text -----
      ReceiptID 243524534523423454345234234
      Voted For: Kodos
      ------ Begin PHP Signatre Block -----
      (signature here)
      ------ End PHP Signatre Block -----
      ------ End PHP Signed Text -----

      I think what you're looking for is 'PGP" signed, but hen again some folks will use php for damn near anything.

      --
      Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
  2. That's great, but by LodCrappo · · Score: 5, Funny

    unfortunately you will still have to vote for either a republican, a democrat, or someone who will lose.

    --
    -Lod
  3. Uh oh! I see the next calamity approaching! by mister_llah · · Score: 5, Funny

    So instead of people who can't figure out how to punch the proper hole, now we'll have people pushing the wrong button, accidentely pushing the "Are you sure?" prompt's "OK" ....

    Oh wait, whew, Wisconsin, not Florida...

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
  4. Nonsense by bheading · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It hardly matters if it is open source. Who will compile it before it is uploaded to the machine ? Who will check that the correct software is loaded ? Who will check the guy doing the checking ?

    Automated vote counting of any kind - electronic or mechanical - makes fraud considerably easier, puts a mystery shroud around the counting process and as such is incompatible with democracy. In the UK we count all the votes in our elections within 12 hours including the odd recount. Why are Americans obsessed with diluting their democracy by using machines to do it ?