Slashdot Mirror
Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election
For only the second time in California history, a judge in Alameda County voided an election result and called for the election to be re-run, because the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn't be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure addressing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, and the result was a close margin. Activists went to court to demand a recount, but after the lawsuit was filed, elections officials sent voting machines back to Diebold. The court found that 96% of the necessary audit information had been erased. The judge ordered the ballot measure to be re-run in the next election.
Unfortunately, the corporations seem to win no matter what you do. Running a ballot measure is incredibly expensive. It costs a lot of money to raise public awareness of an issue and run things like get out the vote measures.
Dragging out a measure with a revote tilts things well in favor of corporations, who have the cash to sustain such an operation. Now the reformers are going to have to fundraise all over again so they can try to put forth an effort in the next election.
I'd be nice to eliminate the source of the problem, rather than have to litigate over the after-effects.
Yes, you would.
If you had read the article, you would know that the problem was not the machines.
The city did perform a dump of the data before they returned the machines to Diebold; that was the responsibility of the people in california. Diebold was clearing the machines and when told to stop they did, however only 20 of the 400+ machines had not been cleared.
From the article it was the responsibility of the place holding the vote to do the dump of the data.
Diebold was responible for clearing the machine once it was returned, which they did.
I think so far as Slashdot and EFF are concerned, the actual issue is a virtual irrelevance. Whether you're voting on a world-changing issue in the seat of national government or a proclamation to put an extra stop sign on the corner of Turkey and Buzzard streets in Bumsville Idaho, the damn things need to work correctly.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"The initiative lost again in a recount."
The judge ruled that it did not lose on a recount and that the measure is to go back on the ballot in the next election. It was found that it was impossible to do a recount because the data had been erased.
Why bother with all that when you can just look at the paper ballots that where printed when...oh wait...there AREN'T ANY!
This is a prime example of why a purely electronic record of the vote is a Bad Idea. If paper ballots had been printed, reviewed by the voter before being deposited in a secure ballot box, and retained for a recount, there would be no issue.
Against the cost of re-running a vote, those printers are starting to look pretty chap, I'd wager.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
What's the old adage? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I'm betting there was a lot more than just the results of this ballot measure stored on the machines. They get 'em back, because the clerk sends it back, they start erasing the machines because...well...it's what they do. Then they get flagged that there's this lawsuit going on, and they shouldn't start erasing them yet. Next thing you know, you go another election.
I have a much easier time believing there was a lot of stupidity on the part of a lot of people than I do believing they were able to successfully orchestrate something that would only end up forcing a re-vote anyway.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
But the problem really was the machines. Diebold's machines don't create paper trails. If there'd been a paper trail, that paper wouldn't have gone back to Diebold HQ and would not have been erased.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
We need to get rid of these electronic polling machines.
They should raise a proposition on this so that we can vote on the issue.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Most industries (finance, law, medicine, accounting...etc) would laugh at the idea of IT systems that have no audit trail. In the worst case scenario, the business could be held liable for damages (sometimes criminally) if certain controls and audit functions are not in place.
The fact that these machines were ordered, designed, and implemented without these controls shows incompetence (or corruption) at every level of the process - from voting administration, to the manufacture, sale, and installation of the equipment.
Those who allowed this to happen, should be the subject of investigation by the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, we may have to wait for another administration to do the right thing.
-ted
Why is this put to a public vote?
If the medical establishment say that something has a clinical benefit, what business is it of the public?
Should we have a referendum for every new drug?
simon
It won't do jack shit for their reputation, and that of their machines. All anyone will know is that this election had to be redone, Diebold could have prevented that, and if they'd used paper ballots, it wouldn't have had to be redone.
So, you're in favor of the equipment vendor actually having a hand in the policies and practices of running the elections themselves? This is exactly the sort of thing that people have been screaming about - too MUCH influence by the hardware vendor.
Again, shame on Diebold for not having a fscking clue how to make and sell their product.
Except, they made it just fine (it did just what it was asked to do), and they sold it just fine, too. You seem to be suggesting that they should have their own people sitting in election board offices, monitoring the ups and downs of a political process at the local level, and consulting on how the local election board should carry on with the daily activities that they are paid to conduct. Is it your perception that part of Diebold's sales cycle and contract with the entities that use their gear is that they should be on call to direct those districts/states/municipalities/counties in making election process decisions - relative to local statutes and election rules and particular events - about when and how in-machine data should be handled after the election is over? Was that part of the sale - such relatively open-ended consulting services? How many election board meetings should thousands of Diebold employees attend in order to save people from themselves? How many tinfoil-hat conspiracy nuts would then see their involvment in such proceedings to be just another case of elections being 'stolen' by whoever it is they hate that week? Can't have it both ways.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
'd be nice to eliminate the source of the problem, rather than have to litigate over the after-effects.
Agreed but it's highly illegal to take all politicians and corperate executives and kill them on pikes in public.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The focus of discussions on e-voting machines always seems to come down to the reliability and accuracy of the audits. What this ignores is the potential for the actual voting records to be altered prior to inclusion in the overall voting record.
The problem with e-voting (in my opinion) is not so much the audit trail, but the fact that e-voting adds unnecessary levels of complexity (and obfuscation and unaccountability) to the voting process. This is the result of government leaders attempting to perform vital civic services on the cheap: why pay poll workers and vote counters, when we can just use machines that do this fast and automagically?
What the use of e-voting machines invites is the ability/potential not only to count votes FASTER, but to do so behind a hardware/software interface, where much malfeasance can be conjured in code and executed on-the-fly, beyond the observational capacity of effectively the entire voting population.
Some things are better dealt with in the analog world. A true and accurate accounting of the will of the people is too important to a democracy for us to cut corners. I think it is worth the cost of paper ballots and carbon-based vote counters to effect the will of the people (however much one may or may not agree with the peoples' will).
That's my two cents on a Thursday before 11am (the time of the morning at which my brain always chugs to life).
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
It really makes one think, doesn't it? I'll quote a slashdot entry from an earlier related discussion:
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Reasonable intelligent supporters of marijuana legalization don't think it's harmless, they just think it's less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. I don't know enough say for sure that marijuana is less harmful, but I've never seen any good studies suggesting that it's more harmful. (Certainly the study you link to could have been about alcohol instead, and no one would bat an eye).
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.