Slashdot Mirror
From the Trenches of Electronic Voting
Avi Rubin, an expert on electronic voting systems, worked as a judge in two elections in 2004, and he worked the chaotic Maryland primary election yesterday. His blog article about a day spent with Diebold voting machines gives impressions from the trenches of electronic voting. From the article: "The least pleasant part of the day was a nagging concern that something would go terribly wrong, and that we would have no way to recover. I believe that fully electronic systems, such as the precinct we had today, are too fragile. The smallest thing can lead to a disaster... I can't imagine basing the success of an election on something so fragile as these terrible, buggy machines... As far as I'm concerned, the 'tamper tape' does very little in the way of actual security... I hope that we got it right in my precinct, but I know that there is no way to know for sure. We cannot do recounts."
There is a very simple, much more inexpensive and reliable method of providing secret ballots with anonymous voting. It's called using a printed ballot. Most precincts have a few hundred people voting, it can't take that long to count X's on a page. And having been a polling officer at a local election - twice - I know of what I speak. And yeah, we use electronic machines at our polling place. I'm not sure if they are accurate or not, but we do.
The simplest answer would be for the machine to issue a slip with each ballot that is dropped into a hopper after the vote. The slip would only display the vote, not who did. And to make sure it was anonymous, the hopper could be rotated regularly to mix the slips.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of our election system is so no one knows how you voted. What you're questioning is the complete opposite of the way things are (supposed to be).
Therefore, in truth, they could in some manner confirm every voters vote with the voter themself?
See above. No, you cannot confirm with a voter how they voted. It's supposed to be a secret.
I know they're not going to do it, but wouldn't that data be available, therefore recounts are possible by confirming each voters vote with the actual voter? Example: The master record says you John Doe voted for Patty Sue, is this correct?
For the third time, NO! We DO NOT record the name of a voter with a vote. All that is recorded is a vote.
However, what Avi is saying is completely correct because even when we are told they can recount the votes cast, there is no way, currently, to verify if the votes were recorded correctly when cast. For all we know there is code somewhere which takes every fourth vote for one candidate and records it for the opposite candidate.
This is why a paper trail is absolutely, positively, 100% needed if we are going to be forced to use electronic voting machines.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Yes, in theory you could contact everyone. Why didn't they just do that in Florida? (that's mean, I'm sorry)
Without a physcial paper trail, which I hope could be verified by the voter, recounts would take a VERY long time.
Furthermore, even if you could reliably contact each person, who is to say they are going to tell you the truth? They may have voted for X, but once questioned can't remember and just say Y. That is why you have one chance to vote, no take-backs.
Finally, without a physcial, voter-verified paper trail; the software could invalidate an entire election. With the software controlling every part of the voting system, even the backup (if it is only electronic) one bug and the whole vote must be done over. With a user-verified, paper copy; even if the software screws up, it is the users fault for not checking the paper backup, and their vote is their vote.
Final note, really this time. If you give someone a reasonably simple voting mechanism, and they screw it up, that's ok. If you give them a reasonably simple, electronic voting mechanism, and it screws up, there goes the democracy.
Problem Exists Between Touch-Screen and User
:D
I was one of those 'disinfranchized' in the Maryland primary last night. Being a junior, I share the same name as my father except for the title. I heard some of the horror stories from my parents when they voted at their polling place, located just inside Baltimore City. After I got up to the judges to get my card to vote, I learned that I was 'Cancelled'. They let me do a provisional, however.
Chatting with my father, talking with a third election judge that was assisting everyone, and my own observations revealed a startling fact. Basically, the two judges manning the touch screens and the voter rosters are F-in' idiots. They had no idea how the touch screens worked. They didn't know you could scroll to see more names, so how many people were turned away, with them saying a voter wasn't in the system? My father had to point out and explain how to use the system. And he is NOT a judge, nor affiliated with the voting system other than by being a normal citizen voter. And that other judge 'politely' informed me of the other judges general intelligence as he was helping to set me up at another booth with the provisinal.
Most likely, the two geniuses knocked my name out when they were dicking around earlier, leading to my provisional ballot. Thankfully, as a Republican (in a heavily-Democratic Balt. City), this was only a primary. Having my ballot lost here wouldn't be as bad as in the general election. I'm definately worried about the general election, however.
I'm also curious as the the density of these 'voting irregularities', including the political makeup of the regions they are located. I'm not saying it's politically motivated; I'm just curious if the old addage about "Republicans have no heart, and Democrats have no brains" has any truth to it.