Voting Machines Banned by Dutch Minister

5heep writes "Dutch Government Renewal Minister Atzo Nicolai has banned the use of one type of computer voting machine in national elections next month. The turnabout came after a group called We Don't Trust Voting Computers protested the vulnerability of electronic voting to fraud or manipulation. The reason for this ban is the radio signals emitted by the machines which can be used to peek at a voters' choice from several dozen meters away."

Comments

Better late than never, I guess...

[truedfx]

According to my local newspaper, these voting machines have been used in the last two elections.

Give me something I can Count!

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

Paper ballots... you can count them... You can check them, you can verify them.
Computer Ballots don't leave the average Joe with any sense that they can be verified.
Too much potential for problems with Electronic voting from a voter perception perspective.
I like putting my little X on the ballot.

Re:Give me something I can Count!

[quigonn]

The only justification (at least in the Netherlands and Germany) for voting computers is cost reduction - adding a voter-verifiable paper trail would completely totally destroy this "advantage" (which is very questionable, anyway).

But, in fact, there is no reason to reduce cost in this process. Cost shouldn't matter here, since secret, equal, free elections are a crucial process within democratic systems. Besides that, the pen and paper method is the most simple method you have, everybody understands it. In fact it's so simple, everyone can audit the whole process. Contrary to that, audits of computer-based systems can only be done by a few experts (and a complete audit goes from a security audit of the software down to as far as checking the hardware for possible modifications).

Re:In a related story ...

[esme]

Seriously, why is voting any different from these other very important uses of computers?

Voting is different for a number of reasons:

• Voting is done in secret, with the only way of knowing the results being the voting machines. And the makers of electronic voting machines are against the only decent way of double-checking them (voter-verifiable paper trail).
• Voting is only done a few times a year, rather than continuously, year-round.
• Voting is administered by the people who have the largest incentive and opportunity to cheat.
• And most importantly, unlike the other examples you list (banking, trading, flight control), electronic voting machines have not been shown to be more reliable and accurate than humans.

This last point is a little fuzzy, because I'm sure electronic voting machines are better than poorly-designed punch-card ballots, and maybe some other flawed mechanisms. But the best system available right now is optical-scan paper ballots that can easily be hand-audited and hand-recounted. They are easy to use, require only a very circumscribed use of technology, and can easily be verified by people if there are any problems or a very close result.

Doesn't it make more sense to fix the problem rather than ban the machines?

Sure -- I don't think anyone is saying we should never use computers for voting. Fix the problems, and then use them for voting. Advocates of electronic voting seem to be saying we should do it the other way around, which is insane.

The current round of voting machines are insultingly under-engineered, considering the problems I listed above. There are many types of threats to the integrity of voting machines, and Diebold et. al. aren't interested in addressing them. They're more interested in shutting down debate and research about them, in fact, which is very worrying to me.

-Esme