Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Fights to Keep E-voting
crystalattice writes "Apparently Maryland election officials never have computer problems. That's why they're fighting so hard to keep their Diebold e-voting machines. Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher received nothing but bad attitudes, dodges, and excuses when he attempted to discuss the issue with the state elections administration and Diebold." From the article: "I asked the state's elections administrator, Linda Lamone, whether Maryland wasn't just a bit too quick to adopt electronic voting. Doesn't the computer at your desk ever freeze up on you? 'No,' she replied. Never? 'No.' But surely people in your office have had that experience? 'No.' (Maybe we've found the solution to Maryland's voting problem: Everybody head on down to Linda Lamone's office, where the machines work 100 percent of the time.)"
Or maybe the people making these calls are the kind of people who form conclusions and then look for evidence.
Oh, e-Voting! It uses computers, so it must be better!
When beliefs held this way are challenged, the response is hostility, not a rational defence of said beliefs.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
open source is not the answer here. open source only gives you transparency as far as what the author wrote, not what is actually running on the machine.
paper ballots are what are needed. simply to use, proven methodology. count in the open, or under video tape, and only send in the results.
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
But "open source" voting systems are just as useless as proprietary ones without a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail.
In fact, given the choice of 1.) open source voting systems, and 2.) a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail, you'd be foolish not to pick 2.) every time.
Now if we could have both, fantastic. However, you'll probably go a LOT further arguing for a paper trail in ALL instances than trying to unseat traditional enterprise and commercial vendors in any market.
This is probably the number-one reason why electronic voting machines aren't ready for the real world, probably never will be. People understand and can work with paper; no fancy training necessary.
What will happen if people who were trained can't make it on election day (sickness, car accident, etc.)?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I am worried about the possibility of mallicious actions, I could care less if a few machines lock up and people have to wait a bit to vote. And I don't believe the machines will spontaneously make accidental mistakes that lose people's votes. I worry only about humans, whether they be programmers or elections officials purposefully rigging the system.
Thus I don't care if her machine locks up or not. Stupid question that shouldn't have been asked as it sidetracks the issue.
So in other words, electronic voting and Diebold are always evil, except when Democrats support it?
I get it now.
Also, I call total bullshit on this. These machines are either bad, or not. You can't have it both ways. I'm surprised at how many are now coming up with justifications to still vilify only the Republicans in this process, regardless of whether they want - or want to get rid of - e-voting.
(By the way, I'm not a Republican, didn't vote for Bush, etc.)
Sadly, I think the tech-savvy readers are the majority of people thinking this whole thing is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, there's not enough of us with deep pockets and loud enough voices to stop this potential train wreck in time.
I would like to extend a thanks to Marc Fisher for being an actual reporter.
Let's start dragging these guys over hot coals, there's absolutely no practical reason unless you're trying to rig an election (in my opinion) to switch to e-voting.
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Do you think these officials are outrigh lying and conspiring to subvert the democractic process for a few meager bucks. Most of the subversives in charge of the Maryland voting system recieve no monies, but instead the kudos and respect from their superiors. In time, they may also get a slice of the power for their efforts, and will then be free to stamp on a few faces.
Did the communist revolutionaries get paid? No, they did what they did because they belived what they were doing was right. Just as absolutist Republician party members believe what they are doing by rigging elections is also right, because it helps the "godly and patriotic" stay in power. These people don't believe in democracy or freedom or rights. They believe whatever they want to and have only contempt for those who disagree.
So don't follow the money trail. It won't be that simple, because these people are working on different rules. Their kickbacks will only come after it's too late to expose them.
May the Maths Be with you!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
-9999999999, Fact contrary to the Slashdot Hive Mind line.
For the record, as of 2:30P CT, this is the only +5 moderated post in this story.
Why is it unsurprising that in a group that traditionally lambasts e-voting as essentially a Republican conspiracy to steal elections at every turn would take every opportunity to moderate up the first post justifying *not* getting rid of e-voting when the Republican governor actually wants to go back to all paper ballots?
If this were a Democratic governor wanting to get rid of e-voting and Republicans fighting it, ask yourself: would a post like the parent really be modded up? Think about that and give yourself an honest answer.
Ssssh, don't tell anyone. That might pop their conspiracy theory in which Diebold is trying to steal elections for the Republicans.
I also don't see the relevance in saying, "Current trends indicate Democrats across the country are set to turn out in large numbers, which would hurt the governor's chances for reelection. So he has called into question the election process." Is it a bad thing to demand a fair, accurate count? If this same Republican was pushing insecure Diebold machines, wouldn't you be questioning whether his cronies has arranged to exploit them for the purpose of compromising the vote count?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm not really interested in which party the presence or absence of e-voting would hurt. I am just primarily interested in the voting process being fair. But:
You claim that what we're seeing here is an unpopular incumbent trying to discourage people from voting at all by waiting until the last minute and then trying to raise questions about the voting process.
So why not just do what the Washington Post reporter suggested and the allegedly unpopular governor appears to be now advocating, and switch to paper ballots for the election? Why can't they do this? Why would this be bad for anybody? How would this benefit the incumbent governor over anyone else?
No, I do get it.
If the tables were turned here (e.g., Democratic governor fighting to remote e-voting and Republicans fighting to keep it), would you still be justifying keeping Diebold e-voting in Maryland in the same way you just did?
You're quick to defend non-Republicans, because, like many, you want to believe that Republicans' only motivation is illegitimately securing power at all costs and with any dirty tricks possible, and coming up with all kinds of justifications that support that view (like trying to keep working class communities away from the polls, creating fear about the process (which helps only the Republican governor how?), etc.) Well, I have news for you: the Democrats have done, and do, the same things.
(And again, lest the normal commenters who respond to my posts forget, I am not a Republican and voted at least 2:1 Democratic to anything else in the last two elections.)
1. The election officials don't believe that they can re-gear the process in time for the general election, which is only 6 weeks away. I certainly don't think they can pull it off, given their record so far.
So.. In the event that it turns out that all the voting machines are controlled by Red China, they have no backup? Even though the backup would be red pencils, some ballots and cardboard boxes with some security tape thrown in for good measure?
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I don't think he was slandering the party. He was calling out the extremist wing of the party that unfortunately has hijacked the party. No one is suggesting that all Republicans are corrupt, election-rigging holy rollers, but the ones that are doing this crap are.
Also, we aren't talking about corruption in any other party because the Republican party is the one in power here, and they're the ones pulling this shit. Are there corrupt Democrats? Of course. Have some Democrats done nasty things to subvert free and fair elections? Yes. That doesn't mean we have to be "fair and balanced" and bring up what the Democrats did 30 years ago every time we talk about what the Republicans are doing now. What the Democrats do or did has no bearing at all on the fact that what the Republicans are doing now is wrong.
Yes, corruption is rife in government. That does not mean we have to acknowledge every corrupt act by every government official in every party to discuss it. We identify corrupt practices and complain about them individually. Painting the whole government as necessarily corrupt just gives everyone the idea that corruption is just fine because "everyone is doing it." The fact of the matter is that the Republicans are in power, and their corruption is hurting the country more than anyone else's because of that fact.
Would you be defending this situation in the exact same manner as you just did if it the Republican and Democratic tables in this situation were turned?
I will opine that you would indeed not be, and that there are many who would be quick to defend anyone who is non-Republican, and vilify Republicans in any part of this process, even if it conflicts with their other beliefs (e.g., that electronic voting is bad in general).
If electronic voting is so horrible, and indeed, if there really are active conspiracies within Diebold and within the e-voting process that would allow Republicans to steal elections under the radar, it should be no problem for the governor to hold onto power, right?
Even if every single assertion and assumption you make is true, I highly doubt that you, or any others reading it that find themselves rationalizing this in their minds, would be so quick to make this rationalizing argument that is implicitly in favor of Diebold, paperless e-voting if the Republican and Democratic places were switched in this instance.
"1. The election officials don't believe that they can re-gear the process in time for the general election, which is only 6 weeks away. I certainly don't think they can pull it off, given their record so far."
...
I'm sick of this _crap_ argument. This discussion isn't new since the primaries. This discussion has been going on (in one form or another, and in one state or another) since well before the 2004 election. All we've gotten is "we don't have time to fix this before... (the primaries|the general|the frickin' dog-catcher election), please don't (call for a fix|release vulnerability information|undermine voter confidence)." The system has to have a way to incorporate improvements, and we can't keep putting it off because of an election in the offing.
"2. The Democratic leadership is convinced that Republican Gov. Erlich is trying to suppress the vote in this majority Democratic state by raising fears about the process."
Yup, and if they don't do it this way, they'll find another way to suppress turnout.
Methods used have included:
- "Felon" purges
- Late polling location changes
- False notices of polling location changes
- Threatening phone calls ("You'd better hope you have no (warrants|traffic tickets|outstanding child support payments) if you intend to vote.
- Private investigators videotaping black voters entering / leaving the polls
- Caging lists (send registered mail to address of record of residents of minority communities, challenge the right to vote of any whose mail came back. This regularly catches many members of the armed forces and students)
All of which are far more effective at suppressing turnout than "undermining confidence." Further, these methods can be directed at your opposition more reliably, so that you don't kill your own turnout as well.
The public _should_ have fears about the process. If anybody is causing suppression through this mechanism, it's the people that are fighting to keep an untrustable process in place. This is a circular argument. If Erlich is calling for paper, and the Dems accede to the request, then Erlich's call has resulted in a more trustable system, and thus hasn't suppressed turnout. If, on the other hand, the Dems oppose paper, they allow Erlich to keep calling the process untrustable (because it is) and thus suppress turnout by the mechanism you describe.
If Erlich is calling the process untrustworthy because he wants to suppress the vote (rather than fix the problem), then by refusing to fix the process, the Dems are achieving Erlich's goal for him.
"They have good reason to believe this, as he has consistently fought efforts to make it easier for people to vote. Yesterday he urged everyone to use absentee ballots, yet last year he fought efforts to make it easier for people to use those ballots. He also vetoed a bill to allow early voting, which is popular in working districts (mostly Democratic) because some people have trouble getting to the polls on Election Day. When the legislature overrode his veto, he fought the law in court and won."
A history of voter suppression that focusses particularly on the working class... So?...
"So as much as I hate and distrust the machines (I'm applying for an absentee ballot myself)"
Jeez. I always get a kick out of people who say "I don't trust the machines, so I'm going to (get an absentee ballot|insist on a provisional ballot)." Chain-of-custody (and privacy in many jurisdictions) is _worse_ and the process is probably more manipulable with an absentee than with the machines. Provisionals are highly unlikely to get counted in the first place.
Ditching e-voting at this stage would require Ms. Lamone to effectively admit either failure or error on her part (or that of her staff [same thing]). It's a shame people like this cannot understand that short-term failure is an integral part of long-term success. Find out what doesn't work, fix it, and move on...
"If you want to succeed, double your failure rate." - Thomas J. Watson (Founder of IBM)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
It's not money that's being tossed around here. It's power.
I wouldn't be so quick to put your finger on either money or power. Sometimes people just react to authority without thinking for themselves. Look at the Millgram Experiment. Otherwise normal people can do things that are beyond reason when they are given prior instructions from some authority figure.
The problem with bureaucrats (just like everyone else) is often a much more insidious a form of corruption. They actually might believe what they are doing is reasonable, even when it can clearly be shown to be overly complicated, expensive and vulnerable to being compromised compared to simpler methods. And there reasoning could be as simple as 'that's what I was told'. We all do it. We are told something that is untrue and in restrospect completely unreasonable, problem here is that they really do want to make elections run more smoothly and be easier on the old ladies that end up running the polling stations. And they have been told by diebold and the like that the rest of us are merely luddites and our concerns are unwarranted. Which has a ring of truth to it.
It is going to take more authority figures to come out and say electronic voting has some fundamental flaws when there isn't a paper trail and a paper backup. And the economics of electronic voting should only be considered if you take into account the need for both of those things.
I think if Michael Dell or Steve Jobs or somebody that had some authority, in some people's minds, were to come out and say what thousands of other well respected people have already said then maybe the message could get through. But there are many trade shows, many voting machine industry symposiums, many flashy ads and pointed sales pitches to get past for the people that run elections for a living.
So yes it is a type of corruption, but not the money in a paper bag kind. It is just hard to convince someone of something was they have been told over and over again to believe otherwise.
Some people probably do think about making it harder for people to vote and easier to rig elections. But they are not the problem, it is the people that follow them or listen to them that need to have their minds changed with reason.
You're right, I was referring to what the other post was saying, not the article. In the Maryland case, the Democrats are at fault, and are rightly being called out for it. The point still remains that when someone complains about what a particular party is doing, that doesn't automatically mean they think what the other party is doing is right, and it also doesn't mean you need to bring up what the other party is doing, because it's irrelevant.
The Maryland case may be Democratic officials deciding that vote rigging is okay because the Republicans have been getting away with it elsewhere. If that's the case, then that would illustrate how dangerous that sort of thinking is. The other guy doing something wrong does not make it right to do that thing yourself.
To say the obvious: If there is fraud with computer voting, no-one will know, that is the whole point. Therefore there won't be any 'computer problems'.
You know, I've noticed that's what republicans tend to say every time this comes up. The simple fact is that some republicans (note that the GP also explicitly limited his comment to a subset of republicans) felt that it was appropriate to steal the election. Twice. But what's actually more of a concern to me is that their party almost unanimously supported them after they succeeded in stealing it. Right after the 2000 election, pretty much any republican you talked to would spew the party line about how the democrats were just bitter because they lost, and that if people can't properly punch their cards, they don't deserve to have their votes counted.
Of course, what REALLY went on in Florida was a double-header between a firm being paid to compile a list of those who are not permitted to vote, and being explicitly told not to check it for validity, when the people on the list are almost all from predominantly black neighborhoods; and also that for one predominantly black district using the scantron-type forms, the scanner was set to silently accept and discard mismarked forms, instead of rejecting them for correcting, as it was in a nearby district predominantly filled with white voters. Apparently, in Florida, only white voters have the right to correct their ballot if mismarked.
Every time this is brought up, someone tries to distract the conversation from the actual issue, corruption. They try to demonize the victims, saying it must be their fault.
Every time someone does that, they lose another little piece of their soul. How much is left of yours? He just mentioned it in passing as a negative example, and you chose to examine that portion of his comment rather than the meat of it. While it does illustrate the principle you discussed, we need to get that information out into the wild so that it can be examined critically. There has not been a president so in need of impeachment, well, probably ever.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I hate DMCA as much as the next Slashdotter, and the Democrats who've been supporting the telcos and fighting Net Neutrality deserve to be thrown out too.
But let's not pretend there's "enough blame to go around". There has never been a congress as corrupt as the Republicans who've been in control since 1994 and there's never been an administration as foul as the Bush Junta. We heard this kind of bullshit after Jack Abramoff was found to have purchased the votes of scores of Republican congressmen and senators. "Well, the Democrats took $500 from Jack Abramoff, so that shows they're just as corrupt as Bob Ney who took over a million dollars and actually SOLD HIS EFFING VOTE to the highest bidder." It's a red herring and complete crap. Even if the Democrats did take money they haven't had anything to sell to the generous donors like Abramoff who have purchased the Republican Party and Bush Presidency.
Let's not forget that since 2000 the Democratic Party has exactly ZERO power in Washington. They've been completely shut out of the legislative process by rules changes and the "K Street Project." 3 million-plus Americans have gone from "getting by" to outright poverty since Bush and Co. took over. 40 million Americans-plus don't have health insurance of any kind since Bush and Co. took over. And the war, tax cuts only for people who make more than $250k, this shiny new security apparatus and the "rebuilding" of Afghanistan and Iraq are all being put on the USA Credit Card so my kids and grandkids can pay it off while eating macaroni and cheese. How do you think they're paying for those secret prisons, wiretaps, and data mining? You think black hoods and stun guns are free?
If there is anything in government that you don't like since 2000, you can bet that no Democrat has had anything to do with it. Not that they're such fantastic leaders, but there is nothing about the last 6 years you can pin on them. Nothing. And I know Republicans hate to hear this, but the guy who was supposed to be protecting the American Homeland on September 11, 2001 was George W. Bush. No other. NOT Bill Clinton. Say it again until it sinks in. It was a Republican President who told the National Security Advisor a year before 9/11 after being told Osama bin Laden should be a top priority "OK, you've covered your butt." It was the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that said our soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy when they marched into Baghdad (this is absolutely true. spend a few minutes with Google to see for yourself) and it was a Republican Vice President (the guy with the evil, baby's-blood-drinking sneer) who said"The war in Iraq will be over in weeks rather than years.
I could go on (and I probably will, soon), but the next person who tells me "oh, there's plenty of blame to be spread around the two parties) is going to get my size 11 Hush Puppy right up his crack. Now, "alizard" if that is your real name, why don't you go dunk your head? That BS isn't going to play around here any more.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well said. You're posting annonymously so unfortunately you will probably not be read by most of the people here.
It's unfortunate that so many people are so focused on what the latest democrat and republican scandals are that they don't see that they're really getting fucked from both sides. Neither party gives a flying fuck about "average Joe" in America. They care about power and money.
Because both parties have proven to be beyond contempt, I've decided I will never vote for another republican or democrat again. Sure, it narrows my choices a lot but at least I can sleep at night.
It's true that we get the government we deserve.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
Just remember that the majority of things you and I don't like coming out of the Beltway were voted into law with the help of Democrats. You know, people like your friend, Joe Lieberman. Remember the bankruptcy bill?
I'll just say that if the Democrats are so powerless, why does the entertainment industry think their votes are worth buying? You need to call Disney and tell them they're wasting their money when they give it to Senator Clinton.
Ever heard of the Democratic Leadership Council? Did you know that it has accepted funding from the Bradley, Olin, and Smith-Richardson Foundations. . . i.e. the same people who fund the rest of the right-wing noise machine?
How about the the Democratic Party's brave stand against torture. . . listen to them roar. [sound of crickets chirping] OK, how about Pelosi's brave defense of Bush against what Chavez said about him? At least that actually happened.
I vote Democratic these days and I'll contribute and work for the occasional progressive Democrat. But respect our elected Democrats in Washington? You've got to be kidding.
Perhaps after Lamonting a few more DLC types, the rest will suddenly act like people worthy of respect.
As for your shoe, I suggest you pull it out of your mouth before figuring out what to do with it. Perhaps it might fit up your ass?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Due to the bi-partisan support of Diebold (nationwide, very partisan in each area), I would have to say they learned the fundamental lesson of American politics: Find out who you need to bribe and pay the hell out of them. Then advertise that any oposition is only party politics.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Nonsense. Computers do make mistakes. Hardware can go buggy because of temperature issues, a bad batch of silicon, or thousands of other reasons. I'm not sure where you get the idea that computers are flawless and work perfectly from.
... and then they built the supercollider.
This whole "slashdot is a Democratic-biased conspiracy against republicans" is about as stupid as posts that contain the word "AmeriKKKa." There are plenty of Republicans and conservatives on slashdot. But instead of engaging in debate, you prefer partisan politics.
... and then they built the supercollider.