Slashdot Mirror
All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit
according to an announcement made by activist Bernie Ellis at the premier of David Earnhardt's film "Uncounted [The Movie]" all fifty states could be receiving subpoenas in the National Clean Election lawsuit. The documentary film, like the lawsuit, takes a look at the issue of voting machine failure and the need for a solid paper trail. "The lawsuit is aimed at prohibiting the use of all types of vote counting machines, and requiring hand-counting of all primary and general election ballots in full view of the public. The lawsuit has raised significant constitutional questions challenging the generally accepted practices of state election officials of relying on "black box" voting machines to record and count the votes at each polling station, and allow tallying of votes by election officials outside the view of the general public."
Simply vote, it prints your ballot, and you slip it in a box. You can verify your ballot was printed correctly, and they could have options to let you destroy your ballot if not, and reprint (or fill it out by hand)...
Or would that be too sensible?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
You can have electronic voting that doesn't suck.
It just has to have a paper trail, not reveal to outsiders who you voted for, and, y'know, not be backed with Microsoft Access.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
It doesn't matter how the vote is made, it matters who counts the votes. We've already seen that dubious vote counters had ignored and thrown out ballots in a previous documentary.
That tag would fit very appropriately on this story. It's really hard to see anything other than complete incompetency in anyone who thinks that a black box e-voting machine is a good idea. There was an article related to this topic the other day, and someone posited the question "...what happens to my vote when I press that button?" The short answer is you can't. That's why I hope this lawsuit is successful. I think it has a real shot, as people are upset election practices. With the phone-jammings, hanging chads, etc. that Americans have endured the last two times around, transparency is on everybody's wishlist... at least for those who don't stand to benefit from electioneering and lucrative contracts that is.
I got a catholic block.
I have no problem with the idea of electronic voting machines but they should povide a paper trail and the source code for the machines should be made open for public inspection so that the public can be sure that when they vote for John Q. Public that the vote is recorded correctly.
Let's face it. WHO can verify the voting of open voting machines? We can. We, computers savvy people who understand computers and who can test, probe and verify the mechanisms behind the machines. Joe Average cannot.
Joe Average can look at a vote, see the cross and verify that yes, whoever casted this vote voted for the person or party where the X is. That's the difference.
Yes, of course we trust us. But can we be trusted? Hey, of course we can, I know that, you know that but essentially, it's the same situation we have with closed source voting machines: An outsider does not know whether we, computer people, are to be trusted. Like we, as outsiders, stand in front of the makers of voting machines and question their trustworthyness, so will non-tech people stand in front of us and question ours.
The only way to have elections that cannot be questioned by anyone is to create a system that everyone can verify if they want to. And the only system is simply one that everyone can "read". So it's paper or nothing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have handlers doing things like slightly damage ballots, so that they get invalidated... yeah, 1/1000, enough to swing a close election.
Computers count better than people do, otherwise, you would see calls for people to manually tally your bank balance...
This is my sig.
Sorry, I didn't make it clear - that's why it prints out the readable hard copies; those are used for the tally, not some internal copy on the system.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Or the paper and pen method... why introduce unnecessary mechanization? Occam's razor applies very well to voting. Simplicity is best.
I got a catholic block.
Maybe we could call in the UN to monitor the next round of elections?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
The sick fascination with immediate results is what is causing this issue to begin with. Election results do not need to be available immediately. Taking a day or a week for counting is perfectly fine. For some reason though we need to have live coverage as the polls close to find out who wins. It really doesn't matter all that much.
Hey, if we're going to do e-voting, and you can't deny it forever, why not just have everyone vote one a week from their PCs on the actual issues and skip the (politicians) middle man?
In the question and answer period following the screening, an Iraq veteran said he had pledged to protect his country "from all enemies foreign and domestic" and viewed the issues of voting machines as a domestic threat to voters across the country.
It's very nice to hear of a soldier truly understanding the role of patriotism and protection in America these days. Well done, Sir.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
I suggest you calm down a bit. Anybody can file a lawsuit like this, we'll have to wait and see if it's thrown out of court or not. Who knows, it might spur some legislation
Taking in my experiences in voting in the midwest, which have universally been 'scanotron' sheets, there are at least some states with a verifiable paper record that can be recounted by hand if determined necessary.
One problem with all this 'hand count' stuff is that even hand counting has an error rate - often a higher one than the scanotrons. At least as long as you make the voting rules for a valid ballot be one scannable by the machine*. Sure, a few will probably be kicked out - but it's much easier to deal with a couple hundred ballots to count by hand than a million or more.
On another tack, I'd much prefer the wacko extremists be filing lawsuits rather than the alternatives many wacko extremists select - such as building bombs.
*IE you place in the rules 'An X through the bubble doesn't count. A partially filled bubble doesn't count(showing a sample with maybe 1/3 the bubble filled in), a circled bubble doesn't count. A completely filled bubble counts.' Same rules as for ACT, SATS, and other such college tests.
I don't read AC A human right
After all, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist (or even a dim witted 3rd grader) to remember all of the "vote wrangling" that went on when various "human" counting systems were employed in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, etc over the last few general elections.
Because of course, a HUMAN would NEVER have any agenda at all when it comes to vote counting......
Oh wait........
Hanging Chad's anyone?
And note, this applies to BOTH sides equally, so if you desire to blame the "mean ole conservatives" or the "damn looney liberals",.....Don't.
We have fill in the dots, and turn the ballot into the box, which presumably checks for errors, before beeping and accepting the ballot for storage. Count them as many times as needed, either by machine or hand.
Seems to me to work rather well.
I'm perfectly happy with the way voting works in Oregon.
You get your ballot in the mail, and fill in the little bubbles with a pencil or pen, just like the standardized tests we're all familiar with. You fold it up and seal it in a "secrecy envelope" which does not have any personally identifying marks. Then you seal that in another envelope which has your name, mailing address, and a barcode on it; this envelope must be signed. You can either mail it, or drop it off in a secure ballot box somewhere (such as at a public library). You can do this at your convenience, it doesn't have to be on election day.
As ballots are received, they're scanned, unopened, and the signature is compared to what the state has on file from your voter registration. If the signature doesn't match, they'll contact you. If they receive two ballots from the same person, they'll contact you. If you don't receive your ballot, they'll send you another one with a different color outer envelope, so if they receive two, they know to discard the original one.
Finally, on election night, the outer envelopes are opened and the inner envelopes are mixed together, then the inner envelopes are opened and counted. It's done by machine, but could be done by hand just as well (it'd just take longer). They get the results very quickly.
Everything is done in the presence of observers from different political parties and members of the public (I haven't volunteered for this yet, but I think I'll look into it next year). All the machines involved are tested with a known quantity of sample ballots to make sure they're working properly. If somebody tried to rig the election, people would see it. Recounts are not a problem.
The only problem with our system is that it doesn't prevent vote buying, because someone could watch you fill out your ballot, seal it, sign the envelope, and drop it in the mail, then pay you for voting the way they wanted. But so far this hasn't been an issue, and in general, most Oregonians won't stand for that sort of thing. We'd much rather accept that risk in exchange for the convenience of being able to vote how we want when we want, without trying to get to a polling place on election day.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Two advantages. It scales easily, and it is auditable. Braille ballots for the blind, and help for the handicapped. Everything original paper, with the right to be reviewed and recounted.
This is really sooo simple folks. Everyone, especially the election folks, should be on-board with these types of demands. It's really not that difficult to do what the "Fair Elections" people want, unless you really ARE trying to manipulate the elections.
1) Demand that Diebold and all of the other voting machine folks print a receipt for every voter. This wouldn't be any more difficult than printing a receipt at the supermarket. You get to look at it, you put it into the basket on the way out. The paper becomes the "official" ballot always, the machine is just there to give quick results.
2) All the vote counting is redone at a central location, and EVERYONE can watch on the cable access channel or over streamed video. Want to watch 96 hours of vote counting from front to back? Sure, knock yourself out. The video feeds are provided the the cable franchise holders in every city to present on their networks on the usually blank city council channel. For those without a cable franchise for the city, you can simply lookup the video feeds on the internet.
The foot dragging on this issue is really starting to make me believe that the elections ARE being manipulated. All the horse-pucky form Diebold and the like about "too hard to make a printed tally".... Yeah, sure... And it's also too hard for cash machines and cash registers to print a receipt and verify that I've got funds before you give me cash...
As far as ballot counting, the infrastructure to let everyone watch is already there.
We just need to keep pushing until this gets done. I'm getting really tired of the 50.01% vs. 49.99% vote manipulation that's passing for "legal and fair" elections in this country. Making things look "close" is really the smoothest form of manipulation, I don't think anyone would believe the old Soviet style manipulation where the votes are always 98% for the party, but shaving just enough to make it 51-49 would be almost believable.
This really does need to get done NOW. No more fooling around, OSS voting machine code, printed receipt, video feeds of the counting and no more voter supression!
The problem is that bits can vanish without a trace - heck, nobody is sure they were there in the first place.
Atoms, however, are hard to dispose of - yes a paper trail gets counted too, but it's much harder to deny the physical reality.
A voter can verify his correct paper ballot went into a locked box, and observers can make sure the locked boxes are transported and the contents counted. If there is a question, it can be repeated with closer inspection.
When I touch the "vote!" box on a screen, I have no idea what happened next, and verification is difficult.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
1. Bad hand writing. 2. If it is done by your hand, then it is easier to forge. If it is done by computer, they can use special inks, paper, and maybe a confirmation bar code. 3. The electronic machine could do a 'pre count', so that while the official count is not till next day, you get something to report tonight. 4. The machine can also save a record of things like how many people voted in each district, providing another double check to prevent voter fraud. And it could even double check what district you are SUPPOSED to be in, and if you are in the wrong district tell you the proper place to go to. 5. Environmentally better as printed ballots can use less paper and ink. 6. A well done machine can remind you to vote for all things voted on, possibly explaining a 3 paragraph refererdum without wasting lots of paper and ink, or time for those that don't need the explanation.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Unless Sangamon is the only sane county (well, we know every politician in Cook county is crooked; see our present Governor linving in Chicago despite the Illinois Constitutional mandate that he live in Springfield, and the previous governor living in PRISON) in Illinois, this lawsuit has no merit here.
The last two elections I voted on a touch screen, and was presented with a paper audit trail that I presented to the election judge, who put it in a ballot box.
Not every state has Diebold crap.
And it wouldn't matter if the machine used Access as a database (or even Excel. Since there's a paper trail you can always retabulate the results, by hand if need be.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The machine generated ballots can be used for initial counting estimates counted by machines. That will satisfy Americans' urgent need to instantly know who won after they each cast their vote. Those counts should not be legally binding. The ballots should be counted by hand for the officially binding count. In the event that there's any substantial differences, the state should automatically open a formal investigation into vote rigging. Which would deter that kind of rigging, so it would rarely be tried, and the investigations rarely begun.
There's no reason the official count can't take a few days to complete, even doublechecked by multiple counts. That kind of human responsibility for the counting is entirely consistent with the democracy we're populating with the votes.
--
make install -not war
Where I live, they use paper ballots with optical scanners. It's amazing how many of these get rejected and require them to be re-filled out because someone accidentally voted for the wrong candidate and thought they could just "cross it out" or somethign stupid like that.
The nice thing about printing the vote is that you get the electronic tally right away, so the world can know a "tentative" result by that evening, while a full count could take all night, or or maybe even a few days to certify.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Oklahoma has been using the same electronic voting machines for about 20 years. When you vote, you get a paper ballot (or more than one, depending on the election). You use a sharpie to draw a line that completes an arrow pointing to your choice. You yourself take it to the scanner and slip it in (face down, face up, doesn't matter, and ballots are coded on the side so the machine can orient itself and tell what ballot it's looking at). The ballot then goes into a storage box beneath the scanner.
When polls close, the machines each print out a tape listing the various vote totals, the numbers of rejected ballots, etc. The ballot storage boxes beneath the scanners are removed and sealed, then stored in case a recount is necessary.
These machines offer a fast vote tally, and a paper trail if there's a problem.
Plus, Oklahoma has a centralized voting administration, so the machines are used statewide, and they're used for local elections as well. So it's completely uniform from county to county.
In '52, huge computer called Univac changed election night.It is the story of how Univac predicted that Eisenhower would win by a landslide, and CBS news wouldn't report the results because they didn't believe in the machine, nor that Eisenhower would win by a landslide. I found the piece fascinating, and think it kind of pertains to now, over half a century later. History does indeed repeat itself, although I doubt it ever EXACTLY repeats itself.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I'm not sure the loss of security and reliability is worth the gain in speed.
With the Oval Office up for grabs, why not be sure we've elected the jerk correctly? A few days' wait isn't going to kill anyone.
I don't think candidates should be allowed to concede an election. An election isn't over until all the votes are counted and certified. period. If the candidate concedes before then, that should nullify the election as the voters were not choosing from the actual candidates. They were instead choosing between one person who wanted the job and another person who wanted to distract voters in some fashion.
I don't know...
man, I feel like mold.
Except that this lawsuit is to outlaw ALL counting machines. Hand counting is expensive and less accurate, yet that is what these people insist on, nothing less. States are willing to change their systems if you work with them. Just don't be religiously dogmatic, refusing all compromises. Unwillingness to budge on hand counting only guarantees you a protracted and expensive fight.
I personally see nothing wrong with counting machines. Yet some of you act like Herman Hollerith was the instigator of a massive shadow conspiracy. The requirements for valid voting are few: 1) recountability; 2) certification; and 3) transparency. The off-the-shelf Diebold machines won't pass muster, but most of the tried and true optical and punch systems will.
Oh, and next time don't wait until two months before the primaries start. Sheesh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I saw Hacking America. They tried to get copies of the official paper tapes from several elections and met a lot of problems and frustration getting it. In one case everything they requested under a FOIA request was found to be thrown in the garbage and they retrieved it all.
The problem I noticed watching this is the low brain power being exhibited by a lot of election officials and the like. Handling this stuff, electronic or not, is seriously complex work to keep track of that much material in that many places/warehouses and it's not being managed by people, at least in some areas, and likely the areas most in conflict, who have the skills to really deal wtih this. I don't know the solution, but think having smarter people at all levels of this process is required. Oh yeah, and counting software that can't be fooled by modifying a text file that is open to any user of the PC it's on. Come on, don't layer it on Windows, write your own damned voting OS to make it a touch harder to crack.
What we need to do is eliminate the electoral college and just go with the popular vote. Imagine a country where the voice of the people actually counted for something.
The electoral college is designed to punish candidates who appeal to a limited geographic region.
The only time the electoral college system makes any real difference is when the popular vote is close - then the number of states you won ends up making a difference.
The 2000 election is a good example. Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5% - but Bush carried 9 more states, which earned him 5 more EC votes than Gore.
Is this a good system? I think so. It doesn't ignore "the voice of the people" - you elect the electors, and the system forces candidates to represent the entire country instead of just the East.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Of course you will have these machine printed ballots print all the vote selections in clearly readable text. But in addition to that, also include a copy of all the votes in bar code, along with a secure checksum. Before putting the ballot into the box, scan it on a verification machine. This machine performs optical character reading (OCR) of the text. It compares that to the bar code, and generates a checksum to compare as well. If anything is inconsistent, it reports an error so that vote can be done over. It should also put a red stamp on it. If the ballot is OK, it records an UN-official tally, sending that to a central site over a secure channel, for a master UN-official tally. The UN-official tally can be given to the media for public release right after all the polls close. They would be able to report 100% within seconds of closing (and get back to regular TV programming). In the mean time, the process to count the ballots officially begins. The ballots are shipped in their locked boxes to the central facility under armed guard, where they are counted again by machine scan. The ballots must be kept for the duration of the longest term of office voted in that election. They can be hand counted if ever needed.
Voters will also receive a receipt that prints the time and location of their vote, which ballot printing machine they used, and which vote scanning machine they used. That information plus the vote itself is then securely checksumed and that is printed numerically and in bar code. Every receipt is totally unique. The same info is on each ballot and is to be recorded during the official vote. The list of counted votes (using the same checksum as the receipt) shall be copied to a central computer that can be queried by receipt number to confirm that a vote was counted. The receipt shall NOT contain the actual votes.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A printed ballot could have a barcode and be read by machine.
This give you automatic vote counting AND a full paper trail.
To keep the system in check, randomly chosen cards could be hand verified after the election to make sure the barcodes are correctly printed.
Maybe I should go out and patent this, just in case common sense breaks out somewhere.
No sig today...
If you're talking about the 2000 election, Gore was the one who contested it. It would make no sense for Bush to contest since he was ahead at the time. Now, It was announced that Gore took the state based on exit polling an hour before voting closed due to time zone issues. Apparently, MSNBCNNBCBS doesn't have a map or something. But that was not the tally from the actual polls.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
why does everything have to be so complicated? In Australia we get the candidate names on a piece of paper with big boxes next to each name. We simply write numbers 1-whatever indicating our preferences. If you're too stupid to work that out each party also hands out "how to vote" cards. The votes are counted by hand at the end of the election.
Since you don't have a preferential system in USA it should be even easier, all you need to do is tick a box. Even the voters of Florida should be able to handle that one.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
The request by Bush for the US Supreme Court to intervene was over whether Gore's requests were lawful. It followed Gore's request for a recount, Gore's cherry picking of counties, and Gore's Florida Supreme Court lawsuit to essencially change recount procedures as defined by Florida law.
Not to mention that the actual problems with the election couldn't possibly have been addressed by simply counting again: Some people were alleged to have been denied the ability to vote through last-minute changes to less convenient polling places and others claimed to have been confused by the ballot and having voted for a candidate they did not intend to. I believe there were also claims that sheriffs departments were actively preventing people from reaching polling places. I don't remember if they followed up with lawsuits or charges of their own.
None of those issues would have resulted in a single ballot which could turn up in the recount.
In the matter of recount requests, though, at no point did Bush look at Florida and say, "well it was close so let's count it out." For the simple reason that he won Florida. And then he won the first recount.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!