Slashdot Mirror
US Paperless Voting Bill Advances
A couple of weeks back we discussed the effort to require voting paper trails in US federal elections. Now WhiteBoxVoter writes: "Democrats and Republicans in the US House of Representatives agreed today on a compromise that will push through a bill banning paperless voting machines and requiring a voter-verified paper record for every vote in the country, after government sanctioned hackers showed how they could break into all three of the top voting systems used in California." The NYTimes reported on Thursday that even if it passes the House, voting-machine reform that would take effect before the 2008 elections may die in the Senate.
the world cannot come up with a good fail-proof electronic voting system.
We need to learn from the successful all-electronic voting system from the world's largest democracy India.
I hate to see some many trees being cut down in the name of democracy to create those paper ballots.
Because, for some reason, politicians (not only in the USA) seem to be opposed to verifiable, reliable voting methods.
Well, yeah, because if they allow the technology to mature, then no longer will one candidate be able to waste tax payer money by suing for another vote count. One click of the mouse and voila, there is your recount. Want another? *click*
Bearded Dragon
Print one thing and record another.
Why should you having a piece of paper saying you voted some way mean anything? Last election the exit polls indicated a result significantly different than what was declared official.
I find it odd that our country spends the GDP of some small countries in campaign spending, and yet there is one small change that I think would revolutionize the way people vote: make Voting Day a holiday. Yes, just like the 4th of July, all companies close, school is out at all levels (elementary, middle/high school, and college.) Make kids realize that this is something important. I think anybody would be hard pressed to argue that celebrating the 4th of July is more important historically or iconically than voting.
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
Why don't the Open Source communities in America try to join forces and develop an open voting systems specification (software, hardware and communications protocols), one that is completely open and free to use and implement, and which the individual states can produce themselves (or at least have local companies do it) if they so choose?
Basic demands for any electronic voting system is that it is open, safe and that the results are verifiable. That means that the voting set-up/definitions as well as the machine output and logs must be in plain text (signed to prevent/detect tampering of course) and be made publicly available for all to verify. Not to forget the paper trail.
Ultimately, any voter should be able to plug in a USB drive, and get a complete dump/snapshot of the voting machines software - source and binaries, logs and it's latest hardware certificates.
I'm divided on two levels.
The first level is whether to respond to you earnestly or snarkily, as it seems that while you are somewhat flamebaiting, the ideas you are expressing are not exactly uncommon amongst the Slashdot crowd. Would it do to point out merely that many (probably most) of the monsters in humanity's history (and their many apologists) were earnest students of politics, history, art, sociology, science, and world history? Or does it bear mentioning that education and intelligence of a superior caliber is nearly universally consummate with superior arrogance and ambition? Or the further obvious fact that studying those things does not free a person from the grip of a desire to self-aggrandize or seek to support their own interests at the public expense?
The second level is my ambivalence regarding the underlying point. I'd sure like to believe that smart and well-educated people make overall better decisions in the public sphere. Certainly it is true that stupid and ignorant people make spectacularly bad decisions in that same sphere. On the other hand, the democratic model outright assumes that people, smart or stupid, will vote their interests and not their beliefs (and one might add that interests and beliefs ought to match in equivalent proportion to intelligence); if people don't do that then many of the underlying assumptions that validate elections and public politics are vacated. It is in the general domain of smart people to assume that being smart is superior in all conditions, much in the same vein that rich people assume that being wealthy is a superior condition to all others. And equally fallacious, for pretty much the same reasons.
Personally I find your brand of cynicism offensive, and for my part have met enough educated people to pray that academically inclined folk never ever wield disproportionate power to their numbers. They are the ones who are ruled by ideology to the exclusion of reality, and with overweening senses of self-adulation seek to save the 'dirty masses' from their ignorance and conditions. I am not impressed. Surely there are other ways of viewing the world that are equally destructive, and those I would also never wish to possess power wielded in excess of the numbers of people who possess them; this is why democracy is the worst system except all the others, and the one I'd rather try to get to work rather than spew pointless invective upon it.
Interestingly, with occasional recent counter-examples I will admit, stupid people tend to choose people smarter than themselves to represent them.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
What do you do with half-filled circles and stray marks? What if they fill in Bush but write in Gore?
That is the big problem with paper ballots - they can be incorrectly filled out.
I'm for a hybrid approach - GUI for ballot validation, secure voter-verified paper audit trail for counting...
If they're making "little more than minimum wage" then their self-interest is to keep things the way they are. Raising the minimum means some of 'em will lose their jobs. People all over will choose to make a little less money in exchange for a smaller chance of making zero money.
Just because you have shallow economics skills doesn't mean that the people currently at the bottom don't understand the fundamental problem.
Minimum Wage Hikers like to pull out the "rising tide raises all boats" phrase that is also used by supply-siders to justify lowering taxation. But the problem is that a minimum wage increase isn't a rising tide. It's a boat-lift on a large number of small boats, which in a fixed volume of water means the tide itself actually lowers.
The supply-siders are also a bit shallow in their understanding, though. It's not the taxes, per se, that constrict the wealth generating power of the economy, but inefficient central spending. Inflation is just another kind of tax.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!