Slashdot Mirror


House To Vote On Paper Trail and OSS Voting Bill

Spamicles writes "A vote is imminent for the bill that is a direct response to problems in the 2006 elections. This legislation would create a paper trail for elections, require a manual audit of every federal election, and open the source code of voting software in certain circumstances. The bill currently has 216 co-sponsors and is expected to be brought to the floor of the House and passed any day."

17 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. I'm Canadian by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm Canadian, and currently we use pen and paper ballots counted by hand. I'm not going to say our voting process is problem free, but it seems to have a lot less problems then what exists in the US system. Seems to me like fighting for OSS and paper trails in the voting process is the wrong battle, and that you should be fighting to go back to paper, hand counted votes. It's a lot more transparent to the voters that things are being messed with. With software and computers thrown into the mix, most voters have no idea how to verify that the voting is done in a reliable manner.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:I'm Canadian by john83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The United States has almost 10 times the population of Canada. Pen & paper / hand counting is neither desirable nor reasonable. You could have 10 times the number of people counting the vote. Just a thought.
      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    2. Re:I'm Canadian by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Counting votes is not a serial process. It can be highly parallelized. The fact that you have 10 times as many people also means you have 10 times as many people to count them. Even India uses paper ballots, and if they can do it with their population, I'm sure the US can handle it too.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:I'm Canadian by zstlaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may be due to less money involved in Canadian elections. Checking opensecrets.org I see:

      2000 US Presidential election - $528.9 million dollars
      2004 US Presidential election - $880.5 million dollars

      Predictions for 2008 say the final two candidates will need over 500 million to be competitive . That is a lot of money... And where there is money there is potential graft, embezzlement, and lots and lots of power.

      Checking http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/laws.html I see:

      2004 Canadian elections - ~93.5 million Canadian
      2006 Canadian elections - ~100 million Canadian

      The difference is that Canada seems to limit how much the political parties can spend rather than how much people can give. So If a party spends a lot of money on one candidate for office then there is less money for other candidates from the same party. Thus there appears to be less money in all Canadian elections than there is in the US presidential election.

      Also Canada has many parties so "winning" an election may not give an absolute majority there may still be coalitions of parties able to wrest control and that gives the minorities more power to bargain with and leads to more review of the winning parties laws. Compare that to the "winner take all" system that in the US. Many laws are proposed and voted on without senators being allowed to review the full body of the law. They just know if their pork projects were included and they are told by the leadership which way to vote if they want their pet projects to get in the next time...

      USA political system needs a fix. One fix would be to pass many smaller bills instead of monolithic bills with many riders attached. But that means less pet projects to make constituents happy. It is a vicious cycle currently where the US parties are both striving to break the bank as fast as possible so they get the most for themselves.

    4. Re:I'm Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Parent is correct. As an added benefit, manipulation of vote counts (i.e. rigging an election) becomes more difficult with distributed vote tabulation because getting cooperation among a large group of tabulators becomes difficult.

  2. Re:Regardless of political affiliation... by xappax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh yeah, and we could use some actual candidates to vote for.

    Not that I'm complaining about the bill, but the idea that my vote for either Corporate Tool A or Corporate Tool B will now be recorded accurately isn't quite enough to make me celebrate the return of American democracy :)

  3. Re:Regardless of political affiliation... by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if we could just get mandatory picture IDs for voting, we'd eliminate nearly all of the election rigging.

    And make sure those pesky homeless don't try to vote.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  4. Wow. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some Congresscritters and/or their staff must be reading Slashdot. These are all things that more than one of us has suggested.

    Now just one more thing, guys: make the entire system run on Linux or other F/OSS operating system. That will eliminate the use of viruses targeted at the easily-cracked Windows operating system from the McDonald's of operating system vendors (Microsoft).

  5. Can't vote but.... by quoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've seen a number of sensible bills which seemed like a shoe-in, only to be held up, and eventually dropped. I'll believe it when I see it.

    On the other hand, if it DOES make it through, then it will go some way to restoring my faith in the US political system. Not just because of the mechanism required by this bill, but the fact that the politicians actually passed it.

  6. "Good Intentions" by ejoe · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't doubt that the original author of this bill was well intentioned (there was so much to fix about HAVA, after all), but this bill is not the answer, and it's _not_ good. We don't want computers enshrined as the method of resolving or counting votes. The Canadian (and the Europeans, e.g., the Swiss) have it right. Paper ballots that are manually marked that _anyone_ can verify are the right approach. Slashdot is what got me involved in this issue originally, and it's thanks to the skepticism of computer professionals that we know how bad these systems are.

    This bill is being called the "Patriot Act of Elections"...be sure to get all the facts before you decide it's a good thing, and I'm sure you'll decide it isn't. Here are two great resources to start with:

    http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

    http://www.bradblog.com/

    (and in particular on the Brad Blog, check out Ellen Thiesen's analysis of problems with this and the Senate bill currently being worked on)

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4678

  7. Other things in the bill by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other things in the bill:

    Prohibition of wireless networks for use in voting systems
    Prohibition of voting systems connected to the Internet
    Excludes the use of COTS hardware and software (what about embedded OSes?)

    See the full HR-811 bill.

  8. Re:Regardless of political affiliation... by ronadams · · Score: 5, Informative
    As someone who co-founded a homeless outreach group, I can tell you that, at least by Ohio law:
    1. They can use the address of a homeless shelter they are staying at as their legal address, provided they follow the shelter's sign-in rules, which vary from shelter to shelter.
    2. They can get a picture ID for $10, if they have a social security card (which they can get for free.
    3. There are organizations that will help homeless people who are interested do all of these things, even to the point of fronting the fee for the picture ID, which they often must have for some treatment programs anyway (especially those that involve paid-for housing).
    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  9. media picked candidates by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The mass media controllers hand pick the candidates *they* want you to focus on,and yes I'll even label it a conspiracy and interference of a sort in the political process. Merely by increasing news coverage and declaring such and such candidate a "front runner" it becomes their self fulfilling prophecy. Words have meaning and advertising/brainwashing works to a great extent, notice how they describe candidates other than their version of the top runners.

        We always have a lot of candidates, just a very few get the bulk of the press.

        The current Republican party disconnect with Ron Paul is a clear example, he has a lot of grassroots support, yet very little national coverage and what he does get is artfully spun negative propaganda, whereas their globalist darlings like giuliani and now fred thompson get the bulk of the positive press. This is on purpose and this controlling the voters mindset is a long running "feature" of having our media controlled by a few people at the top. Their hand picked examples get the bulk of the news, so they turn around and can say "candidates x and y are the front runners, look how much news and interest there is!" Well, duh... These are artificially manufactured "top runner" candidates.

      Want to change things, use the net and embarrass the mass media on their own news blogs and follow through no matter what once you actually get to the voting stage. Dump that lesser of the top two evils "vendor lockin" they always push, it's just plain harmful and results in the political situation you see today and what you have seen over the past generations.

    1. Re:media picked candidates by Elemenope · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's not very 'closet' about his Libertarianism. He was the '88 presidential candidate for the LP, and has almost unwaveringly voted consistently in Congress with guidelines best described as Libertarian. However, I have to disagree with your wider thesis. Reaction polling by CNN following the Republican debates named R. Paul the clear winner on many metrics; however, the pundits didn't even mention him when discussing who they thought 'won' the debates, with their comments uniformly gravitating towards the 'front-runners'. Much more attention and coverage was paid towards Giuliani's response to R. Paul's comments on terrorism than was paid to R. Paul's actual comments. And so forth.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  10. Re:Regardless of political affiliation... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Im with you on the free but it takes more than 10 minutes now and why should 10 minuted or half an hour make a difference? should voting not have more of a commitment then say the dmv?

    Problem is that since Election Day is not a holiday in the USA, taking an hour out of the day to vote can be nearly impossible if your boss is a prick. And job security is something that matters a great deal to the working poor (as it means nearly as much to the working non-poor). Further, bosses in jobs worked by the working poor tend to be more aware of the greater leverage they have over their workers, and are in this specific way more likely to be pricks. Not to mention the fact that in such jobs, bosses and workers have different political interests (due to different economic class) and consequently wildly divergent political affiliations, and so there is no earthy reason why such a boss would want to make it easier for their employees to vote.

    As a result, in those communities that are enlightened enough to have polling hours extend significantly past the workday hours, those who must vote after work must vote along with everyone else in the same situation; polling lines swell precisely at the times that people leave work, and remain long from that time until polls close. People not so restricted in their schedule can easily vote during the day, enjoying a miniscule cost in time compared to their working compatriots.

    It is not a question of commitment; it is a question of actual discrepancy in the degree of hardship, risk, and cost necessary to cast what is an equally-weighted vote. A vote that is equal in value should also be equal in cost. More numerous and strategicaly located polling places would make it easier to achieve equal cost by reducing line length and thus making it easier to justify work-leave to go vote (as time spent would be a great deal less), or barring that, relieve the after-work vote rush so that the person unlucky enough to have to work all day can vote with approximately as much ease as a person not so burdened.

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  11. EFF write up on this bill by ukemike · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation has written an analysis of this bill that is very useful, quick to read, and well... correct.

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005308.php

    I have been following the issue of election theft and computerized voting very closely for years, and I say that this bill is our best hope of fixing the elections system. It isn't perfect but compared to what we have now it is an incredible improvement. I'm also not claiming that this will fix any of the other ills of our political system, but this is a critical element to saving our democracy. PLEASE PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE call or write your representative and beg, plead, implore them to support this bill.

    http://www.house.gov/writerep/

    What does it do?
    Requires voter verified paper ballots. The physical paper ballot is the official legal record of the vote instead of some bits in a Windoze PC.

    Requires manual audits of 3-10% of randomly selected precincts. This is by far the most important part of the bill because this is the tool that can be used to detect fraud. Note, audits are currently extremely uncommon even in the cases of recounts or close elections. In many cases audits are impossible because the data needed is lost in the electronic counting process.

    Would require release of source code of some portions of the voting software to certain people. Okay obviously this is a compromise between opening the source, trade secret concerns, and the practical fact that MS isn't gonna release the source to Windows or Access, which many of these systems are based upon. Still if Slashdot readers don't get that this is a step in the right direction then no one will.

    --
    -- QED
  12. Re:Regardless of political affiliation... by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They can use the address of a homeless shelter they are staying at as their legal address, provided they follow the shelter's sign-in rules, which vary from shelter to shelter. That's what Karl Rove's buddies used to disqualify loads of voters. They send out proof-of-address letters to all registered voters. Those that come back as non-recieved get challenged and purged from the rolls.
    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.