Slashdot Mirror


Building a Better Voting Machine

edmicman writes "Wired News has an interesting article about what would make the perfect voting machine: 'With election season upon us, Wired News spoke with two of the top computer scientists in the field, UC Berkeley's David Wagner and Princeton's Ed Felten, and came up with a wish list of features we would include in a voting machine, if we were asked to create one. These recommendations can't guarantee clean results on their own. Voting machines, no matter how secure, are no remedy for poor election procedures and ill-conceived election laws. So our system would include thorough auditing and verification capabilities and require faithful adherence to good election practices, as wells as topnotch usability and security features.'"

4 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Open source & peer review by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Interesting
    require all electronic voting machines to be open source, and invite all software developers around the world to peer review the code. When that majoriy agrees that a system is secure, then it's ready for use.

    ... and when it's pronounced secure etc. - burn it to a ROM and disable any access to it which doesn't require at least a crowbar.

    After the vote, have the machine print out the total.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  2. Open Voting Consortium by AaronW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those who are interested in seeing a proper voting system put together, check out the Open Voting Consortium. They have a free, open-source voting platform that addresses all of the concerns. It has a verifiable paper trail as well as support for blind users and multiple languages.

    I personally have donated money to this organization and believe they are doing the right thing in addressing the current mess we have now.

    Their paper trail has a really nice feature in that it also prints a bar code for a quick machine recount of the ballots as well as a human readable output.

    -Aaron

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  3. David Chaum's Method by John.P.Jones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the end of the article they mention David Chaum's method of voter verifiable elections. I first saw this several years ago in graduate school (I believe I was reviewing an earlier version of the paper for a conference). It is a gloriously beautiful protocol, far beyond what I ever hope to see implemented in my lifetime. :( I suggest you take a look, I will look at the version referenced in the article again tonight as the exposition is considerably clearer than the version of the work I read (dumbed down a bit for a mass audience).

  4. Re:Open source & peer review by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every time this comes up, I propose the same idea, but each time it gets a little more fleshed out.
    0. The voter completes whatever identification/registration/whatever steps required before being allowed into the actual voting room where...

    1. The voter receives a numbered (in an OCR friendly font, see below) blank ballot and is directed to the voting booth. The number indicates both the voting location and the sequence that the cards are issued. If ballots run out, voters are asked to wait while more are printed and delivered.
    2. The voter inserts the ballot into the electronic voting machine until a green light comes on. Diagrams illustrate the right way to do this, a notch in one corner prevents the voter from continuing until he/she figures this step out. Red light if they fail to do it wrong (labelled "WRONG" for the colorblind, buzzer for the blind though they will probably have someone load the ballot for them) to prevent them from trying to jam it in harder.
    3. The machine displays the ballot in the selected font size or reads the ballot to the blind user.
    3a. Each race is displayed separately with the candidates below it in a column. (or "For" and "Against" for appropriate referendums, etc.)
    3b. The user selects a candidate using up and down buttons, then presses the "Vote" button to select that.
    3c. Their choice is now highlighted on the screen (and read to them).
    3d. The user presses the "Next" button to move to the next race. Or presses the "Finished Voting" to indicate that they will will not vote in the remaining races. Loop to 3a until there are no more races or the user presses Finished Voting.
    4. A list of races and the selected candidates appears, the user can move up or down and see each race (have it read to them) and if they wish to change their mind, they can press the "Vote" button to return to that race and change their vote (See 3). User presses "Finished Voting" again to indicate that they are done (5 second delay required to prevent accidentially bouncing the button).

    Easy enough right? Now...
    5. The ballot card is fed through the machine's printer and printed in rows, with each row containing one race. Columns are the name of the race, the selection for that race, and a pattern designed for optical recognition. Each option has a unique code consisting of the code for that race plus a code for the candidate (to prevent misaligned scans) as well as codes for "no vote" and "write-in".
    6. Voter fills in any write-in positions.
    7. Voter reads the ballot card, and if there is a mistake, the voter presents the ballot to the site overseers who
    7a. Record the ballot number as destroyed and then
    7b. Destroy the ballot and issue a new one. Go back to 2.
    8. Voter places ballot in ballot box and goes home, proud to have done his civic duty.

    Lather, rinse, repeat for thousands of voters. The numbered ballots tell us two things: 1) Are there any missing ballot boxes and 2) are there any extra ballot boxes.

    8a. At the end of the day, the election observers record the lowest numbered unused ballot and destroy the remainder.
    9. Ballot boxes are delivered to a counting station.
    10. Ballots are dumped out, stacked up with the notches aligned, and each stack is counted in total
    11. The counted stack is then fed through an optical sorter set to sort the possible options for the first race into bins, one bin per candidate, one bin for all write-ins, one bin for no-votes.
    11a. Run each candidate's bin individually through the counting machine.
    11ai. Election observers spot check stacks by flipping like a flipbook and watching to see if the optical pattern being counted changes.
    11b. Count write-ins by hand
    11c. Run the no-vote stack through the counting machine....
    11d. and make sure the votes add up.
    12. Report the total to the next higher up official.

    Lather, rinse, repeat for all of the stacks.

    Why is this superior? First off, let's look at the actual counting: The counting machine doesn't k

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.