Sequoia Vote Machine Can't Do Simple Arithmetic?

whoever57 writes "Ed Felten is showing a scan of the summary from a Sequoia voting machine used in New Jersey. According to the paper record, the vote tallies don't add up — the total number of Republican ballots does not match the number of votes cast in the Republican primary and the total number of Democratic ballots does not match the number of votes cast in the Democratic primary. Felten has a number of discussions about the problems facing evoting, up to and including a semi-threatening email from Sequoia itself." Update: 03/20 23:30 GMT by J : Later today, Felten added an update in which he analyzes Sequoia's explanation. He has questions, comments, and a demand.

Comments

Minor correction:

[TripMaster Monkey]

It's "Felten".

</pedant>

Re:Minor correction:

[Naughty Bob]

And an Update: Sequoia's intimidation has worked , the state won't be sending Felten a machine.

Re:Minor correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

<pedant>

It's "Felten".

</pedant> Don't forget: FraTtS Pss0TT!111! zomgTripFrostyP1ss Munky!!1

(you also forgot to tell them not to use "the" twice, but I guess that could be for another day)

Otherwise, thank you very much for your insightful and enlightening comments. You've added meaning and context to this story that was truly absent. Keep up the good work.

Count from Zero

[jibster]

Both tallies are out by 1 count. Could it be the one is counting from zero and the other from one?

On the bright side at least the error will vanish as the number of votes approaches infinity :)

Re:Count from Zero

[TripMaster Monkey]

Both tallies are out by 1 count. Could it be the one is counting from zero and the other from one?


Actually, the Republican tally was heavy one vote, while the Democratic tally was light one vote. Thus, your proposed explanation doesn't wash.

On the bright side at least the error will vanish as the number of votes approaches infinity :)

That's assuming that the error is due to the cause you postulated, which cannot be the case.

Re:Count from Zero

[DudeTheMath]

Is NJ an open primary state (like MI)? Why couldn't a Dem have voted for one of the Republicans? That "option" (counting the number of Ds and Rs) might be a tally of the party of the voter rather than a total of the votes for candidates in that party.

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because the code is doing something involving a single off-by-one error, then subtracting that from the total votes cast.

It'd be illuminating to test the machine with the order reversed, or with three candidates, and see what it does.

Re:Count from Zero

[TripMaster Monkey]

No. New jersey has a closed primary.

Re:Count from Zero

[TripMaster Monkey]

Probably because the code is doing something involving a single off-by-one error, then subtracting that from the total votes cast.

If that's the case, that's amazingly poor coding. I can code better than that.

It'd be illuminating to test the machine with the order reversed, or with three candidates, and see what it does.

That it would. It would be even more illuminating to see the damned code. It's ridiculous that we're being told we have to trust our votes to a black box.

Re:Count from Zero

[91degrees]

I suspect it's actually a data error. Dems have one too many, GOP have one too few. This is exactly the number of votes cast for Guiliani. They could have simply set him to the wrong party.

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect it's actually a data error. Dems have one too many, GOP have one too few. This is exactly the number of votes cast for Guiliani. They could have simply set him to the wrong party.

I don't think that's the problem. Looking at the scan of the printout shows Giuliani displayed in the Republican section.

Re:Count from Zero

[cbart387]

Probably because the code is doing something involving a single off-by-one error, then subtracting that from the total votes cast. If that's the case, that's amazingly poor coding. I can code better than that. Do you mean sloppy testing? No one writes perfect code and a 'off-by-one' error is easy to write. However, that kind of mistake should have been caught in tests... of course we're assuming this is not a human error.

Re:Count from Zero

[HistoricPrizm]

How does that work? Does the election official set the machine to Dem/Rep before the person enters, or does the voter choose?
If the voter chooses, can they change their mind? Could that have caused the problem?
Because I can totally see some random voter choosing Democrat, then realizing that they meant to choose Republican. If the Democrat vs. Republican counter used the first choice, but the vote counter correctly registered the actual vote, there's your error.
Still a stupid error, but not quite as serious as it could be.

Re:Count from Zero

[Ioldanach]

The republican tally is not off by 1, there's an exclamation point in the Giuliani column, as you can see by looking closely at the tiff. Don't know why this would occur though, and that should definitely be addressed. The democratic tally, added up by hand, is short 1 vote from the overall tally. Does this thing handle people who abstain? If so, how? Would their abstention show up in Personal Choice or not show up at all? If it handles abstentions without showing a line for them, then I think this tape is ok. Though they should, in the future, add a line for abstentions. Also, I really want to see a tape where the individual lines add up to MORE than the people who were supposed to have voted. (And there isn't an exclamation point being mistaken for a one.)

Re:Count from Zero

[powerlord]

Alternatively, it could be a closed primary, but with voters using the same machine.

I live in NY (still using the old level machines, which I love :) ), and consistently the people running the poles forget to switch the switch on the side of the machine to "enable" republican or democrat (depending on whose in the both last, and whose in it next). Heck, the people running the polls are usually retired, elderly, and volunteer.

The upshot is that, unless you're dedicated to voting for your party, you can often have the opportunity to vote for the Majority party in your area (or the "other" party if a minority party member went before you), unless you complain and wait a minute or two for them to fix things.

Re:Count from Zero

[Ioldanach]

Incidentally, while the article is slashdotted, the tiff is still up.

Re:Count from Zero

[mr_mischief]

There are two different ballots. You get the ballot with your party's candidates on it. If it's an open primary, you request the proper ballot and they give it to you. If it's a closed primary, you have to be a member of the party to get their primary ballot.

Re:Count from Zero

[Shakrai]

I live in NY (still using the old level machines, which I love :) ), and consistently the people running the poles forget to switch the switch on the side of the machine to "enable" republican or democrat (depending on whose in the both last, and whose in it next). Heck, the people running the polls are usually retired, elderly, and volunteer.

What county do you live in? Here in Broome County they give us colored cards (green for the Democrats, pink for the Republicans) that we had out to the voters after signing them in. The voter then gives that card to the person operating the machine who sets the primary lever accordingly before hitting the entrance button that allows them to vote.

I've been running a polling place since 2004 and I've never had that mistake happen in a Primary Election. If you've seen it happen more then once or twice you should probably inform your local Board of Elections so they can address the problem. It just isn't supposed to happen that way......

Re:Count from Zero

[tmalone]

I live in New York in a place that doesn't have computer voting, but we do have a closed primary. At my polling place, there are two machines, one Democrat and one Republican. The administrators have a list of each voter and their party affiliation. I would guess that a similar system is in place in NJ.

Re:Count from Zero

[cthulu_mt]

I can't speak for the GP but it works the same here in Saratoga county. After I signed the registration book the nice elderly lady shouted my party affiliation across the room and the fellow manning the both toggled the lever on the back of the machine.

No cards or anything. Maybe its just on account of us Upstaters being smarter.

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

colored cards (green for the Democrats, pink for the Republicans)

So... Democrats are hippies and Republicans are gay?

Re:Count from Zero

[cobaltnova]

From TFA:

New Jersey has a closed primary, so voters can cast ballots only in their own registered party.

Re:Count from Zero

[Ioldanach]

I bet the board is too cheap to buy new cards, and hasn't bought new ones for 80 years. When they bought them they were blue and red. :)

Re:Count from Zero

[powerlord]

Down in NY City.

Unfortunately, what they do down here is have us sign in, then take the cards and flip them over themselves and send us to the booth right next to the table.

I'm not sure if its just laziness on the part of the poll runners, the fact that I usually vote soon after the polls are open so they aren't awake yet, or due to the fact that there are multiple districts all scrunched into one polling place (school/church gym), but its been the same everywhere I've voted (three of the five counties in the city).

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know, arithmetic is hard.

It just goes to prove that Democrats are smarter than Republicans - it's more difficult to subtract than to add.

Hope that explains everything. :-)

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking directly at the TIF file as well. Overall it looks like a not so good scan of a bad printout.

Even so, I do not believe that is an exclamation point in the numeric column for Giuliani, I think it is a one that the printer has mangled. If you look at the "( 1 )" directly above it, or scan up and look at the "1"'s on the totals for Obama and Hillary you'll see that they are fairly mangled as well. Whether from the printer, the scanner, or a combination of both.

Sure, it could be an exclamation point, but if so why would it be in the numeric column? And why would it be an exclamation point in the first place? If it was because Giuliani dropped out then I'd expect to see several more exclamation points. I don't see any other exclamation points in the numeric column, instead I see zeros for candidates who had dropped out by the time of the vote.

Biden dropped out Jan 3. Richardson dropped out Jan 9. Thompson dropped out Jan 22. Kucinich dropped out Jan 24. Giuliani dropped Jan 30. Edwards dropped out Jan 30.

Since I don't see any reason to have an exclamation point in the numeric column I'm going to maintain that it is in fact a "1" not a "!" and that there is some discrepancy in the tally done by the voting machine.

Re:Count from Zero

[Ioldanach]

The other ones have serifs that are mangled but present. It looks like the printer mangles large chunks of horizontal stripes at a time. On all other ones I see some hint of either a top or bottom serif, and in most cases both. In this case there's too much missing for me to think its a one. I think its an error code of some sort. At the very least, I think that by its appearance we shouldn't presume its a one and therefore deduce that the sum of 60 is wrong, but should rather ask Sequoia to explain what that character is supposed to be and if not a one, what does it mean and why is it there? There should certainly not be error codes showing up in the final election results. And if there are, they should be big, bold, and at the top of the tape!

Re:Count from Zero

[GigG]

Data Point: 2008 Arkansas Open Primary.

At the time of signing in to vote you tell the poll worker which party primary you want to vote in. You can only choose one. The machine had three ballots (Dem, Repub & Green) only the one you picked can be selected.

Now let's say you picked Dem and the guy setting the switch thought you wanted Repub and you were too stupid to tell the difference and didn't correct them. The counts would be off.

Re:Count from Zero

[psydeshow]

That's funny, I live in New York and there was only one machine at my polling place. I guess in the City they just assume everyone is going to vote for a Democrat.

Seriously, the Republican candidates were there, I could have voted for McCain... so how is that closed?

Re:Count from Zero

[tmalone]

Huh, that is weird. They force you to choose here, to the point that Greens and Libertarians can't vote in the primary.
I've moved around a lot in the past few years and I'm fascinated by the differences in how each state votes. New York has these huge mechanical voting machines with levers. California just had computers. Pennsylvania had this big board with soft plastic covered flat buttons, like the buttons on some coffee vending machines. It was electronic I guess, but the board was gigantic; a sort of primitive touch screen maybe.
You also had the option during a general election to just hit one button for a party-line vote. How convenient; you don't have to consider each candidate individually. Maybe that is a more honest assessment of how much thought people put into their votes though.

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in New York, and also used the old style lever machines. At my polling place there was one machine for each district. When you signed in to vote you were given a colored piece of paper that said what party you were affiliated with, and when you got to the voting machine you handed that paper to someone who manipulated some levers on the outside of the machine to set it to whatever party you were affiliated with.

Re:Count from Zero

[Shakrai]

I can't speak for the GP but it works the same here in Saratoga county. After I signed the registration book the nice elderly lady shouted my party affiliation across the room and the fellow manning the both toggled the lever on the back of the machine.

That's odd. I was under the impression that the card requirement was actually part of the Election Law, which is generally pretty specific (sometimes to the point of absurdity) about the procedures that we have to use at the polling place. Guess I'll have to look that up when I get home later.

Maybe its just on account of us Upstaters being smarter.

Umm, I am an upstater, unless Binghamton doesn't qualify ;)

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming your voting machines work the same as the ones I encountered, a poll worker set the machine into "Democrat" or "Republican" mode before you entered.

Re:Count from Zero

[bryce4president]

If the voting machine used some sort of "stance on issues" to determine the party of the candidate I could see how they thought Guliani was a Dem, but since it should just be some field that is entered, maybe the data entry person got it mixed up :)

Re:Count from Zero

[Shakrai]

I'm not sure if its just laziness on the part of the poll runners

That's possible. I've come close to pulling out my hair during past elections trying to get the other three people in my polling place to follow proper procedure.

As a random example, we aren't supposed to sign in more then two or three voters at a time. If you sign in more of them then that you'll invariably wind up with someone standing in line at the machine who realizes that he needs to be somewhere and decides to duck out of line without voting. Since we've already signed him in this screws up our public counter and effectively costs him his vote -- we have no way of knowing that he hasn't already voted (he signed the book) when he comes back.

I stress this point to my fellow inspectors every single election, yet if I'm called away for something (usually to do an affidavit ballot) I'll come back and discover 10 people waiting behind the machine to vote, all mixed in with other people who have already voted and yet more people who can't vote (spouses who aren't registered, SOs from other districts, etc, etc) mixed in with the same mass of humanity.

The solution to these problems (IMHO) is to get more young people to volunteer to work as Elections Inspectors. I encourage people to do this whenever I have the opportunity. Call up your Board of Elections and volunteer. It requires two days a year (the Primary and the General) plus a few hours to attend a training class. Most Counties in NYS will even pay you for doing it -- here in Broome we get $10/hr or $11/hr for the supervisor.

Re:Count from Zero

[Shakrai]

When they bought them they were blue and red. :)

Actually, blue is one of the minor parties -- either the Conservative Party or the Independence Party as I recall. The colors that they use are actually spelled out in the state Election Law -- no, I'm not making that up and yes our state legislators really need a hobby ;)

Here's a random bit of political trivia: Those colors (blue for the Democrats, red for the Republicans) used to be reversed by most media outlets. The current 'scheme' started to be used in 2000 and gave rise to the notion of a red-state/blue-state divide.

Re:Count from Zero

[God'sDuck]

NJ does not have a fully closed primary -- if you are not registered for a party, you can walk in and vote for either party. You just can't "jump the aisle" if you are a registered Dem/Rep at the polling station.

And yes -- they sign you in, record your party (or the party you want to vote for if you are an independent), set the machine, and then the only options you see are for your party.

This was how I knew Obama won my district (even though he carried the state). By early evening there were no more Democrat sign-in slips because of the unexpected flood of independents. They were using blank scraps of paper. Plenty of Republican slips left...

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this thing handle people who abstain? Not yet, but the Bush administration has proposed an abstinence only program for voting, though it is still held up in Congress (pending electronic voting for legislators).

Re:Count from Zero

[yourlord]

Yet another reason to require open access to the source code of any machines used in voting. If we had access to the code, we could see for ourselves what characters could appear there and why. Instead, we have to hope they tell us, and that they don't lie about it. And if they do lie about it, we'll never be able to prove it either way. Add to that, we'd know exactly why the vote totals came out they way they did. Closed voting systems are so completely wrong. It's handing the keys of our republic to a couple of companies and hoping they don't jump at the chance to rule us through their closed code.

Re:Count from Zero

[ls -la]

Both tallies are out by 1 count. Could it be the one is counting from zero and the other from one?
Actually, the Republican tally was heavy one vote, while the Democratic tally was light one vote. Thus, your proposed explanation doesn't wash. Actually, the Dems were heavy one and the Republicans were missing a vote.

So quick to assume a republican bias, tsk tsk.

Re:Count from Zero

[noidentity]

Both tallies are out by 1 count. Could it be the one is counting from zero and the other from one?

Actually, the Republican tally was heavy one vote, while the Democratic tally was light one vote. Thus, your proposed explanation doesn't wash.

That just means the Republicans are programmers, and the Democrats are user-interface designers

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicago has the simplest system. My Teamsters local told me how I had voted. I never even left my house.

Re:Count from Zero

[Anonymous Coward]

PFFFT! Like one vote ever mattered!

Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[TripMaster Monkey]

As Felten made clear in the article, it's not the size of the discrepancy that's the issue, but the fact that it's there at all. You'd expect this sort of minor error from humans, but the machine turning out this discrepancy is a dead giveaway that something is fundamentally wrong with its inner workings. If we could examine said inner workings, we could determine the cause of this bizzare behavior, but actually knowing what is going on inside their machines is something Sequoia is bound and determined to prevent. One can't help but wonder why, given what we've just seen...

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[ScreamingCactus]

Perhaps the error was on Mr. Felton's side... what method did he use to count the votes? And no, I am not defending Sequoia. Just considering the possibility.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[bunratty]

Even if the tally was exactly right, in general you cannot prove a program correct by using only black box testing. There are simply too many possible inputs to have time to test for all but the most trivial inputs. For all we know, there's a backdoor or unintentional security vulnerability that can be used to alter election outcomes. We need to be able to examine the machine's inner workings to have any hope of verifying those are not problems with the voting machine.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[EvanED]

Perhaps the error was on Mr. Felton's side... what method did he use to count the votes?

He used the "look at the vote totals the machine printed" method.

Seriously, it has a picture of them. Did you RTFA and somehow didn't notice it, or do you like making uninformed comments? (Okay, that is a bit inflammatory. The first time I went to TFA, the pictures didn't load. But it still says in the text.)

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[StrawberryFrog]

I agree. Humans can be sound, but still off by one. calaculators are either correct or broken.

However, the size of the discrepancy is 1/60 or so. That's 1.6%, which is enough to change the outcome of some recent US elections. So is it of a significant size? Yes, it is.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[TripMaster Monkey]

RTFA. The discrepancy isn't between Felten and the voting machine...it's between the voting machine and itself. The machine generated results that were self-contradictory.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[ScreamingCactus]

When I click the link, I keep getting:
"Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later."

So no, I didn't RTFA.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[rossjudson]

The simplest explanation is that someone mistakenly selected the Republican ballot, then BEFORE voting canceled and selected the Democratic ballot. Does the machine allow "backing out" and switching to the other ballot, before voting has taken place? What does the screen say at that point?

I suppose that if this were the case, the representative of the voting machine company might have done better damage control by pointing this out.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[Chris Mattern]

Perhaps the error was on Mr. Felton's side... what method did he use to count the votes?

He used the "look at the vote totals the machine printed" method.

No, he didn't. He's saying the the vote totals the machine printed are *wrong*. Therefore he must have used some other method to count the votes to come up with a total that says the machine is wrong.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[EvanED]

The machine gives a per-person result and a total number who voted result. For the Republican primaries, the total of the former is greater than the latter.

I suppose I could have said "He used the "look at the vote totals the machine printed and add" method."

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[werfele]

Does the machine allow "backing out" and switching to the other ballot, before voting has taken place? What does the screen say at that point? I suppose that if this were the case, the representative of the voting machine company might have done better damage control by pointing this out.

If the machine did allow switching to the other ballot, that would be a significant flaw in itself, because New Jersey does not have an open primary.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[gripen40k]

I agree totally. I'm not usually a proponent of open source software or a FOSS die-hard, but I think it is absolutely preposterous not to have an open source and peer reviewed voting machine. The voting process should be absolutely transparent (aside of course for the individual's choice in candidate) so any defects can be scrutinized and corrected before the 'big day'.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[Tom]

Totally correct.

For all we know, the machines could be programmed to work perfectly, except on election day when subroutine X is used (on that day only).

But, we also know that thanks to compiler trickery, even studying the source code isn't enough.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[Fnord666]

As Felten made clear in the article, it's not the size of the discrepancy that's the issue, but the fact that it's there at all.

So what he's saying is that size doesn't matter?

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[DoctorFrog]

On the face of it, this machine took one Democratic vote and assigned it to the Republican column. Now, in this case it's two separate primary elections, and posters above have suggested possible innocent reasons for it (which still smack of incompetence, mind), but it's no stretch of the imagination to see it doing the same thing in the general election.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[theblackdeer]

Oops, you've got a typo in your sentence. Let me fix that:

"However, the size of the discrepancy is 1/60 or so. That's 1.6%, which was enough to change the outcome of some recent US elections. So is it of a significant size? Yes, it is."

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[Vornzog]

Even if the tally was exactly right, in general you cannot prove a program correct by using only black box testing. There are simply too many possible inputs to have time to test for all but the most trivial inputs. For all we know, there's a backdoor or unintentional security vulnerability that can be used to alter election outcomes. We need to be able to examine the machine's inner workings to have any hope of verifying those are not problems with the voting machine. You are not wrong. But, this article raises an interesting point - while consistency checks won't prove that there is a bug/vulnerability/backdoor, they will raise red flags in a significant number of cases that *something* isn't right.

The problem with electronic voting in general is that there are a number of places where it can go wrong. Let's assume you do get the source code, and prove that it is correct. Can you also prove that this exact version is what is installed on every voting machine, in every polling location? Checksums are nice and all, but the checksumming software could be tampered with. Can you be sure that no other software is also installed that could alter the core application at run-time? Can you be positive that the results cannot be altered after they are already entered? Hell, can you be positive that the compiler used hasn't slipped something into the executable? As it stands right now, I think the answer to these questions is, collectively, no. Somewhere, there is a piece that is going to be extremely difficult to verify in all cases. It doesn't have to be much - a 1% error in the results would have swung a couple of the last elections. Some allege that this has already happened. (Hey, you all, in the back - with the tinfoil hats. Raise your hands...)

In addition to requiring open source code, we should also have in place an extensive system of consistency checks to ensure that we catch most of the obvious ways to rig an election. If there are not the same number of ballots cast as there are people casting, that's bad. If a number of votes get invalidated (because of hanging/dimpled/pregnant chads, or what have you) that's bad. If people that can't vote (say, because they are dead), somehow manage to, that's bad. All of these things have been used as evidence of voting fraud in the past - don't throw them out just because you 'validated' some random piece of code.

One more thing. If we are going to use electronic voting (and it seems like we are), you also need to get a voter-verifiable print-out - like, you know, on paper. This way, you can be sure that if something is wrong, it'll be caught on a hand-recount, and your vote will still mean something. This is really just the ultimate consistency check, and I don't see how we are going to get around the fact that without it, there will always be a way to tamper with the results. Check out http://coloradovoter.net/ for more - or look for a group of concerned citizens closer to where you live.

As someone who would like my vote to count, I think we should ban all voting machine manufactures that don't agree to these sorts of checks. If they are trying to avoid this for any reason, I think they've got a hidden agenda. No more excuses about proprietary source code - if you want your machines to be used, you submit to a battery of external reviews and consistency checks. No exceptions.

Re:Minor discrepancy...MAJOR problem.

[monxrtr]

That's why there must minimally always be a paper receipt that is stored in the official count. If the eVoting machines tally votes in real time, they must print out a paper receipt to be inserted into another official tally machine. And the source code must be open source, independently inspected by volunteer poll workers in the hours before the machine starts real time tallies.

So 1 hour before the poll opens, pre-determined stacks of ballot receipts are fed through the machine, and the counts verified for the fictional test candidates. After the poll closes, another sealed pre-determined stack of ballot receipts is fed through the machine and again verified. And of course, the actual vote receipts are kept in the secure box. Every person will be able to see the filled in bubbles and corresponding politician name as they insert their paper receipt ballot into the counter.

No voting without paper computer printed receipts. No adding without open source code. This is basic basic code which already exists for vending machines, for SAT test scoring machines, bank currency note counter machines, black jack deck shuffling/counter machines etc. There's nothing which could even be proprietary patented.

Open source can undercut these proprietary vendors, eliminate the need for private contractors to oversee close source code, saving States and Counties millions of dollars in unnecessary election vote counting costs.

Lawyers

[Jaysyn]

Well, bring on the lawsuit from Sequoia I guess. Hopefully the ACLU & EFF will help Dr. Felten with his legal fees.

Re:Lawyers

[Miseph]

Or, you know, his colleagues from Princeton's school of law. Although I'm sure that there exists a significant overlap between those three groups.

Re:Lawyers

[Jaysyn]

Someone brought up a pretty good point in rebuttal to a similar thought of mine the day before yesterday. Princeton basically won't be able to get involved with this.

Re:Lawyers

[werfele]

Or, you know, his colleagues from Princeton's school of law. Although I'm sure that there exists a significant overlap between those three groups.

I'm pretty sure the overlap is the empty set, because Princeton doesn't have a law school.

Re:Lawyers

[Software]

Since Dr Felten is on the faculty at Princeton, perhaps Princeton could help him out with the legal fees. They could probably use some of their $10 billion endowment if necessary (yes, I know an endowment shouldn't be used for this purpose).

Re:Lawyers

[Miseph]

Good catch, I forgot about that. It always throws me off when schools that large and prestigious lack a major traditional program.

Hypocrisy

[lamarguy91]

FTA:

As you have likely read in the news media, certain New Jersey election officials have stated that they plan to send to you one or more Sequoia Advantage voting machines for analysis. I want to make you aware that if the County does so, it violates their established Sequoia licensing Agreement for use of the voting system. Sequoia has also retained counsel to stop any infringement of our intellectual properties, including any non-compliant analysis. We will also take appropriate steps to protect against any publication of Sequoia software, its behavior, reports regarding same or any other infringement of our intellectual property.

I love the double-standard here. The government wants to invade the privacy of it's citizens (discussed several times over on these very forums) and one of the typical responses is "Well, if you don't have anything to hide...".
But when an independant third party wants to verify that an important piece of hardware used in our political process can actually do the very simple math that it's required to do, the corporation who produces is has laws that it can throw in one's face to prevent verification of data. Shouldn't someone be pressing Sequoia with the "if you don't have anything to hide..." mantra?

Does anyone else here see the obvious double-standard that we've created for ourselves?

Re:Hypocrisy

[tony1343]

If a company is really trying to not allow a state to verify that their voting machines work correctly, why would any state use such voting machines? This is ridiculous. Such a company should quickly go bankrupt. Must have some fantastic lobbying to get state legislatures to use machines which aren't going to count their votes correctly.

Re:Hypocrisy

[B3ryllium]

I love that the machine is named the "Advantage".

But, then again, I'm from Canada - land of paper-based voting. :)

Re:Hypocrisy

[fpgaprogrammer]

A patented voting machine? I find it hard to believe Sequoia is responsible for any of the major advances in electronic counters of the past 60 years. What's the title of the patent:

"Method and Apparatus for Hijacking Democracy"

and they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling slashdotters...

Re:Hypocrisy

[monxrtr]

No double standard, just outright criminal fraud, including abuse of Copyright statutes. Sue the corporation for damages, including having them pay for recounts and re-votes.

This is a perfectly clear example of how Copyright is nothing but a transgression against the First Amendment rights of ordinary citizens. Bring a class action suit bankrupting Sequoia for fair use violations against every citizen in the State of New Jersey. $150,000 per citizen should be fair. Also establish a precedent against all proprietary software systems being used in elections processes; make laws requiring open source transparency for all voting machines. Sue on the basis that poll observers cannot verify the vote counts under non open source systems. Take some of the settlement/judgment money to begin a nation-wide marketing campaign hiring Patrick Stewart: "If it's not Open Source, It Suks!" on behalf of bringing every voting district in the United States into compliance with codes and statutes mandating poll worker observers (that means access to the code to any and all citizens). As it is, ballots are being *illegally* counted by secret closed source code. Slap injunctions on every silly little state and country stupid enough to purchase closed source vote counting code.

Re:Hypocrisy

[robertjw]

But when an independant third party wants to verify that an important piece of hardware used in our political process can actually do the very simple math that it's required to do, the corporation who produces is has laws that it can throw in one's face to prevent verification of data. Shouldn't someone be pressing Sequoia with the "if you don't have anything to hide..." mantra?

Yes and no. It appears that this is a contractual issue. The State of New Jersey signed licensing terms that does not allow an independent party to review the code. The state should not violate that contract.

Thing is, there is a limited market for voting machines in the US. There are only 50 states, it seems to me the states are in a pretty good position to negotiate the licensing terms. Why is it that New Jersey didn't specify in the terms that the code and hardware had to be reviewed by independent sources? This isn't an issue so much of "if you don't have anything to hide" as it is simple economics. Abide by my terms or I won't purchase your product. Instead NJ bought a pig in a poke and now they are stuck with these machines.

The idea that the machines workings have to be secret for security reasons is a complete fallacy. Sooner or later one of these voting machine companies is going to break ranks and allow independent security reviews - just so these problems go away.

Re:Hypocrisy

[monxrtr]

The State of New Jersey signed licensing terms that does not allow an independent party to review the code. The state should not violate that contract. And thus, the State of New Jersey violated its own laws (and so did Sequoia), and possibly Federal Statutes as well, regarding independent poll observers and independent verification of vote tallies. By definition of it being closed source proprietary code, it's illegal. Goodbye Sequoia contract, at a minimum. Rinse and repeat for every State and County. This is going to be a huge victory for open source, and a huge blow against "imaginary property". Just an appetizer before the RIAA goes down.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't think the argument "If you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't mind the search." should ever be used under any circumstances.

We should have visibility to the voting software because of the nature and importance of its role in our government. The "openness" of our government was a goal of its original design, and remains a goal of its continuous operation. It, and its processes, are *supposed* to be available for inspection as a matter of maintaining accountability to the people it serves.

I would say the same of any employment relationship...the employer (in this case "the people") should be able to monitor the methods of the employee (in this case, the voting machine and software).

Having nothing to hide is completely irrelevant.

Individual private lives are in no way government employment contracts, and as such openness is neither a beneficial goal nor a practical requirement. Inasmuch as some people do directly work for the government, their working lives should be monitored like any other employee, but their private lives should be kept private, like any other citizen. Privacy itself, on a personal level, is inherently desirable (both as a means of protection from potential exploitation and also as a peace-of-mind benefit), and therefore all citizens are entitled to it (except in extreme cases where discovery is warranted, such as a judicial court order).

Again, having nothing (or something) to hide is completely irrelevant.

If we want to avoid double standards, then we should refuse to use that "nothing to hide" argument for any reason. Let's stick to what's relevant.

Re:Hypocrisy

[plague3106]

Yes and no. It appears that this is a contractual issue. The State of New Jersey signed licensing terms that does not allow an independent party to review the code. The state should not violate that contract.

No, I disagree. When it comes to elections and verifying voting machines, the state has every right to verify, the clause on the contract is irrelevent. Proper voting is more important than a contract between business and government.

Re:Hypocrisy

[catxk]

As long as the machine counts votes incorrectly in the right* way, the lobbying efforts would only have to be minimal.

* or left/republican/democrat/etc., depending on who's ruling the state in question

Re:Hypocrisy

[robertjw]

When it comes to elections and verifying voting machines, the state has every right to verify, the clause on the contract is irrelevent. Proper voting is more important than a contract between business and government.

The relevancy of the terms of the contract is for the courts to decide - which is what will happen if NJ sends the machine to an independent review source, but I can't say I agree with you.

A state, or any entity, cannot, and should not, sign a contract and then just ignore the provisions of the contract. Proper voting is very important, and it's up to State authorities to ensure the voting is correct. This decision should have been made PRIOR to signing the contract. If the terms of the licensing did not allow for proper voting the contract should not be signed. Now NJ will spend months or years in litigation and spend millions of dollars if they violate the licensing terms.

A government violating the terms of a contract at will is as tyrannical as improper voting is - maybe worse.

Re:Hypocrisy

[jonaskoelker]

Does anyone else here see the obvious double-standard that we've created for ourselves? You seem to be suggesting that we should apply the argument "not wanting to show => having something to hide" to Sequoia, thereby lending that argument credibility. I really think this is a bad idea.

What you instead should be arguing is that citizens have a legitimate right to privacy (fourth amendment and all that). The government doesn't have a right to conduct its jobs in secrecy; the citizens have to keep government power in check. Similarly, the citizenry has to be able to trust the election results; for that to happen, review of the election process (including vote counting) has to happen.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll simply respond with, "Yeah we have trade secrets we want to hide" and that'll be enough for politicians.

Re:Hypocrisy

[CodeBuster]

The difference is that Sequoia is selling a product that is being used to fulfill a very critical and very public function of our democracy while the personal affairs of a private citizen are generally not critical in the same way. I see no double standard in advocating personal privacy while at the same time defending the ability of the people to reverse engineer, test, and verify that a product which they have purchased, either individually or collectively, fulfills the requirements of the buyer.

Re:Hypocrisy

[nuzak]

> Does anyone else here see the obvious double-standard that we've created for ourselves?

There's no double standard. Anything that favors the powerful over you is what they do.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

> A state, or any entity, cannot, and should not, sign a contract and then just ignore the provisions of the contract.

No, but if the contract is unconscionable, then whoever signed it needs to be held accountable, and the contract thrown out.

> Now NJ will spend months or years in litigation and spend millions of dollars if they violate the licensing terms.

It seems pretty clear to me that they're going to be in litigation if they don't. Screw 'em.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no double standard if you consider the psychology instead of the logic.

This is the modern version of "My country, right or wrong", simple appeal to authority made by the lazy and witless.

Re:Hypocrisy

[plague3106]

The courts, which are supposed to represent the people, who are the ones that demand a fair election, right?

The terms are irrelevent, and if the court finds otherwise, we need to replace the court because they have rendered themselves irrelevent.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Maximum Prophet]

But they *do* have something to hide, and they admit it. It's their secret, proprietary vote counting algorithms. (Since these are wrong, obviously they are using a different form of math than the rest of us.)

They're saying that their SPVCA's are their IP, and no-one else can have them. (Why anyone would want to steal buggy software, I wouldn't know)

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I am almost certain that you will find that contracts that are contrary to the public interest are not enforceable.

Re:Hypocrisy

[robertjw]

I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. I am almost certain that you will find that contracts that are contrary to the public interest are not enforceable.

Perhaps, but it will still cost money and time to determine if that's the case. The citizens of NJ will have to pay for their inept public officials.

Re:Hypocrisy

[wonkavader]

"It seems pretty clear to me that they're going to be in litigation if they don't. Screw 'em."

Umm... are you thinking that because the numbers are demonstrably wrong, that something will come of this? Have you not been paying attention for the last six years?

Don't get me wrong: that would definitely be wonderful, but the odds are against it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[BlueStrat]

And thus, the State of New Jersey violated its own laws (and so did Sequoia), and possibly Federal Statutes as well, regarding independent poll observers and independent verification of vote tallies.

You act as if this never happens with multitudes of things in NJ every day.

"You wants ta 'spect dem votin' boxes eh? Well, I tink my associate Vinny here wants ta 'spect yer kneecaps, how 'bout dat? No? Ok, tell ya's what. I like youse. Just sign dis here paper sayin' it's all good, and I'll make sure nuthin bad happens to yer house n family, cuz it's real dangerous these days, no tellin' what might could happen, ya know? An' here's a couple tickets to da game tonight...no no, I insists! Now geddouddahea!"

Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't hurt me.

Strat

Re:Hypocrisy

[mdmkolbe]

There is no contradiction here. It is simply the rules of burden of proof.

When an individual is accused of a crime, he or she doesn't have the burden of proof; the prosecution does. When a company is asking us to trust their machines to accurately count our votes, they do have the burden of proof to show that their products are fit for that purpose.

A party who has a burden of proof but fails to provide prima facie evidence looses their case or debate by default. If they not only fail but also refuse to provide such evidence, then one ought suspect dishonesty on their part.

Re:Hypocrisy

[BungaDunga]

*cough*2000election*cough*

Re:Hypocrisy

[sydneyfong]

Yes and no. It appears that this is a contractual issue. The State of New Jersey signed licensing terms that does not allow an independent party to review the code. The state should not violate that contract. And I'll contract with you that no third party will be allowed to log my internet connection, wiretap my phone conversations, and track my physical and "cyberspace" habits.

Contract isn't law...

Re:Hypocrisy

[robertjw]

And I'll contract with you that no third party will be allowed to log my internet connection, wiretap my phone conversations, and track my physical and "cyberspace" habits.

Contract isn't law...

No you won't, or more appropriately, no I wont. Contracts have to be agreed on by both parties. They may not be law, but they are defensible in civil court.

Bottom line here, it's not good for governments to just pick and choose which parts of a contract they want to honor. It's not good in terms of costs to the taxpayers when they get sued. It's not good the next time they want to purchase something from an independent contractor. I'm not saying the contract isn't flawed, and they shouldn't do something about it. I'm just saying somebody should have thought about this before they agreed to the terms of the contract.

Re:Hypocrisy

[sydneyfong]

Oh, then I'll just contract with my dad that no third party will be allowed to log my internet connection, wiretap my phone conversations, and track my physical and "cyberspace" habits...

My point is that doing something wrong, and pointing to a contract doesn't make it a moral excuse. If your argument is right then by similar lines I could contract with a friend to piss off every person I see on the street, and when reprimanded I could point to the contract to say that "hey, I didn't do anything wrong I have a contractual duty to piss you off!"...

Re:Hypocrisy

[robertjw]

Oh, then I'll just contract with my dad that no third party will be allowed to log my internet connection, wiretap my phone conversations, and track my physical and "cyberspace" habits...

My point is that doing something wrong, and pointing to a contract doesn't make it a moral excuse. If your argument is right then by similar lines I could contract with a friend to piss off every person I see on the street, and when reprimanded I could point to the contract to say that "hey, I didn't do anything wrong I have a contractual duty to piss you off!"...


No, you couldn't. You could contract with a friend in your imaginary scenario, and then, after you were hauled to jail for assault and decided pissing off every person you meet, he could sue YOU for breach of contract. Probably wouldn't win because it's silly, but he would have standing. Creating such a contract with your friend wouldn't be smart, just like this voting machine contract wasn't smart. You can't point to the contract to justify your actions, but you are liable when your actions don't fulfill the terms of the contract.

Re:Hypocrisy

[jackbird]

Article 1, Section 10 disagrees with you. Contracts trump constitutionality.

Re:Hypocrisy

[sydneyfong]

That's essentially my original point. Why should the government be excused from something that they were supposed to do (maybe they don't have a strict legal responsibility, but nonetheless that's a social responsibility) simply because they had a contract telling them not to do those things?

Re:Hypocrisy

[robertjw]

That's essentially my original point. Why should the government be excused from something that they were supposed to do (maybe they don't have a strict legal responsibility, but nonetheless that's a social responsibility) simply because they had a contract telling them not to do those things?
They shouldn't be excused - but they should not violate the contract either, at least not without legal council and an accounting of the potential cost. What they SHOULD do is ship all of those machines back to the manufacturer and demand they be let out of their contract.

The original discussion was if Sequoia should be hit with the "if you don't have anything to hide..." argument that is used with the Patriot Act, etc... Thing is, there is no legal requirement, AFAIK, for Sequoia to submit their product to an independent third party review. If they was legal cause, and maybe this would fall under terrorists trying to subvert our election process, the contract should definitely be negated. If there is no legal precedent to break the contract, the State of NJ should stay within the bounds of the contract and find a resolution that way. The "if you don't have anything to hide" argument doesn't hold water, when they obviously stated they have intellectual property concerns and the State of NJ knew up front that this was the issue.

No government should make laws just to randomly get them out of a bad contract they shouldn't have agreed upon to start with. The guy that made this deal should be sacked, and Sequoia should stand behind their product.

oh dear.

[apodyopsis]

oh dear, another "non compliant" analysis.

duck and cover, they are reaching for their lawyer.

sounds like this story is a might fine basis for some good ole' fashioned DMCA action. Pffffft, that was the sound of sequoia credibility dying a death...

Re:oh dear.

[CaptainZapp]

Pffffft, that was the sound of sequoia credibility dying a death

What credibility are you talking about?

After all those neato stints that just about every voting machine company tried to pull their credibility is somewhere between a San Francisco Tenderloin crack hooker and a timeshare salesman for quite some time now.

Thinking about it the hookers credibility is probably a lot better then the ones of those voting machine vendors.

Re:oh dear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hookers always deliver what you pay for. You might some STD, but that's just an added bonus. Voting machines really haven't ever delivered what I was told they would. Maybe decent elections will the silver lining of REAL-ID.
 
  Seriously though, why do we need instant official election results. People aren't sworn in until the beginning of the next year.

Re:oh dear.

[phorm]

Thinking about it the hookers credibility is probably a lot better then the ones of those voting machine vendors.

Yes, because whether she does the job right or not, either way you got screwed :-)

Re:oh dear.

[Dr. Cody]

mmmmmm, tenderloins...

Re:oh dear.

[nuzak]

That's an actual neighborhood in San Francisco. The residents there usually call it "The Loin". Its one recommendable property is that it's not quite as bad as Hunters Point.

Re:oh dear.

[DocHoncho]

Seriously though, why do we need instant official election results. People aren't sworn in until the beginning of the next year.

Election day "drama" + TV == Ratings

Re:oh dear.

[Dr. Cody]

That's pretty bad.

Re:oh dear.

[cgenman]

At least the hooker is open about screwing you out of your money.

Software bug

[INeededALogin]

The readout on a screen seems like a simple data display problem. Perhaps the programmer did something stupid like:

print array.lastIndex.indexNum

instead of

print array.count

The real concern here is not that it has a bug. All software has bugs. The concern is over what kind of QA was performed to guarantee our votes. If such a simple and obvious test case was not performed, how on earth are we to feel good about this machine?

Re:Software bug

[Iphtashu Fitz]

But as mentioned above, this wouldn't explain why the republican tally is +1 and the democratic tally is -1. If it was a dumb programmer bug like you mention then both tallies would be off by the same amount, either they'd both be +1 or they'd both be -1.

Re:Software bug

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a simple data display problem. Some ballot/vote apparently got counted differently in two different summaries.

One summary showed N Democratic ballots and M Republican ballots. Another showed N-1 Democratic votes and M+1 Republican votes. If it were a simple data display problem like you described, the sum of the summaries would not be the same.

Re:Software bug

[SanityInAnarchy]

That seems like a very odd mistake to make -- off the top of my head, I could probably guess array.count, or array.size, array.length, etc. I probably wouldn't know about array.lastIndex, let alone array.lastIndex.indexNum.

Re:Software bug

[gstoddart]

The readout on a screen seems like a simple data display problem. Perhaps the programmer did something stupid like:

What stupid thing the programmer may have done is irrelevant here.

This is supposed to be a secure machine for tallying votes. Either it is capable of counting, and providing a verifiable audit which matches the results it reports. Or, it's fundamentally broken and can't actually be used to count elections. I don't see how there is any middle ground.

There simply is no room for trying to account for what might be the underlying cause.

The real concern here is not that it has a bug. All software has bugs.

Software used for mission critical things (and I would argue an election counts) goes through much more rigorous certification.

This stuff hasn't, obviously. The fact that they keep threatening to sue people who point out that this thing has glaring mistakes in it means they probably know how badly written it is, and don't want to be accountable for it.

Cheers

Re:Software bug

[Talderas]

Could people please RTFA and look at the vote counts instead of letting their partisan/paranoid bias make them lie about the results.

The images show 61 votes cast for Republican candidates and the total printout shows that 60 votes were cast Republican.

The images show 361 votes cast for Democrat candidates and the total printout shows that 362 votes were cast Democrat.

That's +1 Democrat, -1 Republican.

Re:Software bug

[betterunixthanunix]

First of all, when did it become acceptable for "all software" to have bugs? The software that runs a missile control center better be bug free, especially the part that controls the firing sequence. There are certain situations where software errors are just not tolerable -- and I would say that voting machines are one of those cases. Our entire society is based on the idea that people have the right to vote on who leads them; if our ability to trust voting machines is undermined, then the foundation of our society is undermined. Plain and simple: this kind of software error is absolutely not tolerable, and this entire line of voting machines should be immediately recalled from every district that they are in use in.

If you RTFA, you will note that this error does not occur in every instance, meaning that this is not a simple off-by-one error, but something much more serious. Sequoia claims that this bug can be reproduced if the operator of the machine presses a valid button, but then an unused button. That is a "logic bomb," and is indicative of two things:

1.) Formal methods were not employed in the design of this software, and so the system was never proved to work.
2.) The product was not tested sufficiently, and the testers assumed that the machine operator would never make an error while operating the machine.

Neither of these situations leaves me with much confidence in Sequoia's ability to design a mission critical system. Sequoia needs to perform a review of its methods of design and testing before they sell any more voting machines, and the governments purchasing these machines need to start demanding that the designs be made available to the public.

Re:Software bug

[morcheeba]

If you read the article closely, it looks like there are two counters when there should be fundamentally one. The design is flawed & indicative of poor thinking -- much more serious than a typo.

Re:Software bug

[KaptainKrunch]

Agreed. I develop software for airplane flight displays (which also play a part in auto pilot). We do VERY rigorous testing to ensure bug free software.

Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Ngarrang]

At first, I was thinking,"Oh, maybe some people chose not to vote after calling up either Rep or Dem." But then I realized the math involved. The computer says 60 votes were cast for the Reps, but 61 votes are actually placed.

Sheesh, why does this have to be so difficult. We can conduct trillions of dollars of business electronically, but we still don't have an effective digital voting system? I think the conspiracy here is by someone who hates technology likes to kill trees for paper balloting, not that digital voting is being rigged.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[ivan256]

If we did it right, less people would get rich off a lucrative government contract.. Or the same number of people would be less-rich.. Either way.

1. Land government contract
2. Do little or nothing.
3. Profit.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[encoderer]

One counter started at Zero, the other at One? ...These kind of bugs are written all the time. ...Of course, this is why the software should be OSS. The more eyeballs, the more people running in debug mode just to play around and have fun, the more people slicing and dicing the source code, the better.

It's hard to believe this is even an issue. The problem is that the people making voting machines (like Diebold) come from Banking sectors, where privacy and private, proprietary systems are the modus operandi.

Seems to me a good way to fix this would be to get some high-profile Non-Profs and top-brand CS schools (I'm thinking MIT, Apache Foundation, Cal Tech, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western, etc) all working together to gather some grant money, build the hardware and software solutions, open everything up for scrutiny, and produce a working product.

We can wave our arms over what somebody SHOULD build, but if we had a compelling alternative ready to go, it'd be a lot easier to pressure governments to do the right thing.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[garcia]

Sheesh, why does this have to be so difficult. We can conduct trillions of dollars of business electronically, but we still don't have an effective digital voting system? I think the conspiracy here is by someone who hates technology likes to kill trees for paper balloting, not that digital voting is being rigged.

Because money is one thing and those that control how that money is spent is another.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[MindStalker]

One counter started at Zero, the other at One?
If thats true that shows the machine was tested ZERO times.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Jason Levine]

In the comments, Felton mentions that he has looked at two tapes so far. One is shown in the article. The other one has a column that is off by 2 votes. That pretty much eliminates the "Array Counter" theory.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

One counter started at Zero, the other at One? ...These kind of bugs are written all the time. No, it's more like one counter started at +1 the other started at -1. Not such a common bug.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Jason Levine]

I agree. It shouldn't be this hard to design a system that would count votes quickly *and* accurately. I could make a website that would tally the results accurately. Why can't they do the same (with a better interface) via more robust languages?

I'm not a big fan of the argument that Open Source = Always Better and Closed Source = Always Worse, but in this case I think it applies. The voting machines' inner workings are hidden from view from everyone, including the government running the election. If you're running something like a public election system, your machines should be open for scrutiny. Your *ENTIRE* machines. This means hardware *AND* software. If a company cried foul when the government that bought their machines tries to get them independently evaluated, I start to smell something fishy. This is probably the only time I'd give credence to "Why do you complain if you have nothing to hide."

In my mind, the perfect eVoting system would be completely open (meaning the government officials could get any third-party individual to evaluate the code/hardware). The components would be off-the-shelf PC parts and would likely run on Linux or even on a hardened installation of Windows. (Yes, you can secure Windows, but that's another argument.) The machine would sit in plain view, but the monitor would be in the closed-off area. This would eliminate the possibility of a voter tampering with the machine while in the voting booth. They would only have access to a few components and not the main system.

The voter would select their choices via a simple (but large type) keypad. (Press 1 for Obama, Press 2 for Clinton, etc.) After voting in one race, the machine would switch to the next race. The voter could easily go back and review/change their vote. At the end of the voting session, the voter would be presented with their choices and be asked to confirm them. A receipt would be printed showing the choices also. The voter would be asked to review the receipt and confirm that it was accurate. A No answer might alert Poll workers to a problem. A Yes answer would prompt the voter to inset the receipt into a special slot. A random bar code printed on the receipt and read by a bar code reader would ensure that the correct receipt was inserted. Then the electronic vote would be recorded and the voting session would be over.

After the polls closed, the machines would burn their results to CD and would be hooked up (via wired connection most likely) to a VPN connection to a central server. The central server would take in all of the votes and tabulate them. If any voting irregularities were suspected, you could go back to the burnt CD results or the paper receipts.

I'm sure this system would have holes (any electronic system would... even non-electronic voting systems are subject to fraud), but it'd likely be a lot more secure/accurate than Sequoia. Now I just need to convince some government worker to pay me a couple million dollars to build it.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[monxrtr]

How about we also add security cameras to record the "backroom" monitor vote tally as it occurs in real time and also add a security camera to record the filling in of ballot forms (without recording faces). The ballots should be recorded at all times. And how about we also open up polling places to web cams, so every citizen can real time watch the polling place during poll hours/counting. These rooms should be as secure as casino counting rooms.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[roystgnr]

We can conduct trillions of dollars of business electronically

If those trillions of dollars had to be transacted via "secret ballot", I'm pretty sure that hundreds of billions of them would have disappeared. Somehow it's a lot harder to write error-free code when you know that nobody's going to be able to do something as simple as checking their bank statements to catch your errors.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Jason Levine]

I'm not sure I like the webcam or ballot cam ideas. With the webcam, you would be introducing an Internet-connected system that might be compromised. I'm not sure how that might be used to compromise the integrity of the voting, but I would still leave it out. As for the ballot cam, I'd be worried about abuse of the system. The video might be scrubbed to remove faces, but a face might make it through. Or perhaps a corrupt official would secretly turn off the "face scrubber" or obtain a "pre-scrub" copy of the video. When you cast your ballot, you shouldn't think that someone is looking over your shoulder.

I do agree about recording any vote tallying that goes on. A recording system like this, though, would likely fall outside of any electronic voting solution. (It could be a part of increased security, but shouldn't be tied to the eVoting system.)

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[gnasher719]

No, it's more like one counter started at +1 the other started at -1. Not such a common bug. We only know that there is at least one bug. We can make guesses what exactly the bug is, but they are purely guesses. We can be relatively sure that in an election where it matters the results would be wrong (my understanding is that in this particular vote the total numbers for Republicans and Democrats are completely irrelevant), but we have no idea how far off.

It would be possible that the bug chooses a random bit position, and two random array positions, and flips the bit at this position within the numbers at these two positions when it calculates the totals. That would explain the result here; it would also explain that sometimes the result is off by two, and if it changes bits in the numbers for two candidates of the same party, then you often can't see that the result is wrong. Or maybe the totals are right, but the candidate numbers are wrong. Anyway, in a real election it might switch bit 20 and move 1 million and a few votes to the wrong side.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Jesus_666]

Not Linux. I'd go with an application-specific OS/firmware, of course open-sourced. The reason? I'd make it a requirement for the entire voting machine/local network to meet at least EAL 6, EAL 7 very much preferred. Have them prove that every single component is free of error.

Ideally, there should be mathematical proof that the voting machine/network work either absolutely correct or not at all under any circumstances. Once that is met we can start worrying about making the machines tamper-proof and suppyling a nondigital fallback mechanism in case of failure.


This is hardware that can determine the future policy of what's arguably the nation with the highest destructive potential on earth. "Good enough" doesn't cut it. Vendor-approved doesn't cut it. Mil-spec doesn't cut it. The only acceptable standard is technical perfection.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[noidentity]

One counter started at Zero, the other at One? ...These kind of bugs are written all the time. ...Of course, this is why the software should be OSS. The more eyeballs, the more people running in debug mode just to play around and have fun, the more people slicing and dicing the source code, the better.

This would work if the goal were bug-free software. But since it's not, making it open-source would just guarantee that the final executable was built from something other than the published source.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[dzfoo]

>> Sheesh, why does this have to be so difficult. We can conduct trillions of dollars of business electronically, but we still don't have an effective digital voting system?

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but, as someone who has worked in the financial industry in the recent past, I have seen first hand that those trillions of dollars of electronic business transactions conducted daily aren't really all that accurate all the time, nor *gasp* secure.

It's true. Sorry.

        -dZ.

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[Anonymous Coward]

and top-brand CS schools (I'm thinking MIT, Apache Foundation, Cal Tech, Carnegie Mellon, Case Western, etc) One of those universities doesn't belong on this list. I bet you can tell me which one!

Re:Maybe the votes were not placed?

[sydneyfong]

Ideally, there should be mathematical proof that the voting machine/network work either absolutely correct or not at all under any circumstances Actually, mathematical proof is overrated for non-"algorithmic" programs. By that I mean programs with little mathematics to be worked on. A proof of djikstra's algorithm's correctness is useful, because its correctness is not (for most people) immediately apparent. A proof of "hello world" is useless. A proof of a program that outputs integers from 1 to N is useless. Useless in that you *could* write a proof, but the program would be simpler than the proof, and easier to verify its correctness.

Keep in mind that a proof (of a program) should be at least simpler and easier to understand than the program itself, otherwise verifying the correctness of the proof would be at least as hard as verifying the correctness of the program.

A voting machine is conceptually simple. Just ask the user for input, and record them. The difference between having a proof and not is that when you don't have a proof, you ask a group of computer scientists / engineers to look at the machine and the program, and if they say "We can't spot any problems", you're reasonably sure that it's correct. When you have a "proof" of the program, you might need mathematicians to verify the proof and say "We can't spot any problems in the proof" ;-p

It's not a silver bullet....

it's like the Kempelen's chess machine

[someone1234]

The little gnome in the machine made a slight error. So what?

Re:it's like the Kempelen's chess machine

[why-is-it]

The little gnome in the machine made a slight error. So what?

Maybe they should try running KDE instead?

Re:Not only that...

[Jaysyn]

Mod down, way NSFW.

Enough Already!

[flajann]

Nix all the evoting crap and go back to paper ballots. We know that paper ballots work, and are a LOT harder to fudge to the level of throwing an election.

On the whole of it, I have a big problem with the "Winner takes all" system anyway, with the majority giving the power to a handful to beat up on us all. Not even getting into how the Republicans and the Democrats systemically shuts out all other parties.

But if we are going to have voting, at least make it fair. Give equal time to ALL parties, not just the D-R club, and use paper ballots under tight security. At least make "Democracy" less of a joke than it already is.

Re:Enough Already!

[TripMaster Monkey]

We know that paper ballots work, and are a LOT harder to fudge to the level of throwing an election.

While I agree with you, I just have to point out that it's not all that hard...after all, the recent presidential election in Mexico was stolen the old-fashioned way.

Re:Enough Already!

[Humorless Coward.]

Paper ballots, punched cards, touch screens, or whatever; the results are manipulated, regardless.

Any sufficiently simple paradigm is virtually assured of creating simpler ways of bypass.

We pretend to vote. They pretend to rule. You pretend to complain.

If any of you are serious about effecting change, run for local voting clerk office, get elected using the current system, and appoint slashdotters as election monitoring officials.

Re:Enough Already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper ballots are easier to engage in fraud with as compared to high-tech computerized voting machines.

Have you never heard of "stuffing the ballot box"? Have you never considered what that refers to?

Fraud with paper ballots put Lyndon Johnson in the U.S. Senate, which put him in the Vice Presidency, which made him President of the United States.

Re:Enough Already!

[solipsist0x01]

Evoting can work if the source and hardware design of the machines are completely open to the public. We have a right to know how our votes are counted. I don't understand why this is such a problem, and I really don't understand why anyone would put up with anything less.

Re:Enough Already!

[Aliks]

There are quite a few reasons to think that paper ballots are being sabotaged. The favoured techniques include siting of the least efficient equipment in the poorest districts, thus creating more spoiled "Democrat" ballots which can be thrown away.

The more control one party has over the voting process, the more likely it is that voting fraud takes place.

By all accounts the anomalies in 2004 for Black and Hispanic votes were quite substantial.

Re:Enough Already!

[eulernet]

In France, in the last elections 2 weeks ago, there was a fraud where a guy counting the paper ballots hid voting ballots in his sockets.
Here is a link with a nice comic picture:
http://www.ouest-france.fr/La-chaussette-fait-recette-a-Perpignan-/re/actuDet/actu_3635-598349------_actu.html

This means that cheating is always possible, even in major democratic countries (I don't include Russia and Mexico in these).

Re:Enough Already!

[mikelu]

Because open source projects don't have the funds to lobby the government. The people deciding what voting machines/software to use aren't savvy enough to realize that the people saying "Our stuff is safer because our code is secret!" are full of it.

Re:Enough Already!

[rcamans]

Hey - Our elections were stolen the old-fashioned way, too. Bought, scammed, lied, fake voters, dead voters, every way imaginable. And the electoral college straightened it out. Yeh, right.
If our elections were fair, why is it we can only vote for rich people?

Re:Enough Already!

[Yvanhoe]

While I agree with you, I just have to point out that it's not all that hard...after all, the recent presidential election in Mexico was stolen the old-fashioned way. And we know this. In US, no one can know for sure.

Re:Enough Already!

[Prof.Phreak]

Nix all the evoting crap and go back to paper ballots.

I tend to take a different point of view. For example, if amazon can track the millions of customers, purchases, orders, etc., with minimal errors (most folks tend to get what they ordered and charged the proper amount), why can't evoting on the same scale work?

Yes, there are architectural differences, etc., but my point is that we can make evoting about as reliable as paper voting---there's nothing fundamentally `bad' about machines adding up the votes.

Re:Enough Already!

[Anonymous Coward]

>>We know that paper ballots work, and are a LOT harder to fudge to the level of throwing an election.

>While I agree with you, I just have to point out that it's not all that hard...after all, the recent presidential election in Mexico was stolen the old-fashioned way.

The difference is how the effort scales with the number of votes switched. With paper ballots, the amount of effort required to throw an election is proportional to the number of ballots that are changed. It's a lot harder to hide the switching of many votes than it is to hide the switching of one vote.

With electronic voting, a single cleverly designed electronic virus can change the results on many machines as easily as it can change a single vote.

More importantly, a cleverly designed electronic fraud system can leave behind no forensic evidence. Case in point is the Ohio problem where one candidate was listed as "withdrawn" from some, but not all machines. Multiple people, including an election official, noticed this. Yet, all machines tested after the election did not show this anomaly.

With paper ballots, if you have a dedicated group of watchful citizens keeping their eyes on the ballot trail 24/7, it is very difficult to commit fraud without leaving some evidence.

Other points: Paper ballots don't run out of printing roll paper in the middle of an election. People, esp. those less experienced with computers, can understand a paper ballot easier. These same people are less likely to accidentally mark a paper ballot compared to a sensitive touch screen.

Re:Enough Already!

[Tom]

The real difference isn't that forging is more difficult.

The real difference is that undetectable forging is a whole lot more difficult.

With a paper ballot, there are a couple hundred years of forensics that you can throw at the sample to test whether they were all filled out by the same person, for example. Modifying existing ballots is even harder, if you want to do it in a way that stands up to any kind of investigation.

In pure electronic voting, one bit is for all purposes identical to another bit, and the only checks you have against tempering with the data or software are - other data and software.

Re:Enough Already!

[grumbel]

Evoting can work if the source and hardware design of the machines are completely open to the public. That isn't enough because you have absolutely no guarantee that the hardware and software you vote on is equal to the hardware and software design that was published. And also you would still have a voting process that is basically a magical blackbox for 99.9% of the population, some experts might be able to verify it, but not the voter and this is a big deal, since a voter should be able to understand and verify the voting process. Good old pen&paper based voting does that, eVoting doesn't even get close.

I see eVoting as basically a first step to abandon democracy. Other then gaining the ability to temper with votes there simply isn't a need for eVoting.

Re:Enough Already!

[CodeBuster]

I have a big problem with the "Winner takes all" system anyway, with the majority giving the power to a handful to beat up on us all. Not even getting into how the Republicans and the Democrats systemically shuts out all other parties. The system has its problems to be sure. However, as we are witnessing right now with the 2008 democratic presidential nomination, it has some advantages as well. The current situation with the super delegates, split primaries, and close races leading up to a nail bitter at the 2008 Democratic convention increases the chance for special interests to engage in back room deals and brokering at the convention of the "smoke filled room" type which used to be notorious in the Democratic party. This back room dealing undermines the confidence of the people in the fairness and openness of the selection process even more than the "winner takes all" system. I don't know anybody who believes that a delegate death match between Hilary and Obama leading all the way to a fractious, bitterly contested, and possibly even a brokered convention is in any way "good" for the Democratic party. The "winner take all" system eliminates these possibilities which, in my opinion, are even worse than "the majority giving the power to a handful to beat up on us all". If the system is not "winner take all" then it is very likely that the brokered candidate will be beholden to an array of narrow minded special interests that will all come calling to collect on their "loans of support" if the candidate is eventually elected.

Re:Enough Already!

[Catbeller]

But he was CAUGHT. Show the pockets in an e-voting system that we can search. And his pockets weren't "intellectual property".

Re:Enough Already!

[Paaskonijn]

In France, in the last elections 2 weeks ago, there was a fraud where a guy counting the paper ballots hid voting ballots in his sockets. You mean he hid them behind his glass eye? Now that's dedication!

Re:Enough Already!

[DoctorFrog]

I tend to take a different point of view. For example, if amazon can track the millions of customers, purchases, orders, etc., with minimal errors (most folks tend to get what they ordered and charged the proper amount), why can't evoting on the same scale work?

How well do you think Amazon would do if they were forbidden by law to know the identity of the people ordering the books? Elections are anonymous - the analogy doesn't hold.

Re:Enough Already!

[Neph]

You mean he hid them behind his glass eye? Now that's dedication!

That's a *much* more palatable explanation than what I thought "sockets" was a euphemism for.

Re:Enough Already!

[sydneyfong]

Disclaimer: I don't live in the USA, the following discussion is not supposed to be US-centric.

eVoting has a potential to lessen the grips of "representatives" on the political system. Correctly implemented, it lowers the cost of voting, and makes it faster and more efficient, and less prone to error. This means that frequent voting could be more feasible.

In any established democracy, you often run into times where your choices of representatives don't really 100% represent you in matters that you are concerned about. You have situations where you vote for a candidate not because you agree with him(/her) but because you disagree more with the other. You have situations where you agree with the candidate 70%, and have no better choice.

Why do we put up with our representatives making all decisions for us (particularly since we don't agree 100% with them)? In a *REAL* democracy, stretched to the extreme, would be that every significant decision be passed by a majority of the population, directly. Of course, there are problems to this form of democracy, since that would force people to read bills all day instead of doing their work. But there are important issues where a "referendum" would be appropriate -- whether to send troops to a war zone, constitutional amendments, impeachment of high officials, etc.

It also guards against politicians not honoring their vows after getting elected. Usually when politicians are voted into office they get to stay there for a couple of years. During that time the only thing you can do is to hope they don't run amok, and to threaten to vote them out in the next election.

With a more fine grained control over the political process, through more issues being decided by more frequent direct polling, you theoretically solve the above problems by retaining political power instead of delegating it to politicians.

I'll agree that if there's no change to the political system, then eVoting doesn't help much. But my point is that it allows changing the system so that it has a potential to solve some inherent problems. I don't think I've did justice to my point since I've written it hastily, but hopefully you get a rough idea.

Re:Enough Already!

[Prof.Phreak]

How well do you think Amazon would do if they were forbidden by law to know the identity of the people ordering the books? Elections are anonymous - the analogy doesn't hold.

Aha. Well, I'm ``anonymous'' (more or less) behind my online identity; There's no reason we can't verify someone's validity to vote, and then separately only track their online login without actual personal identification attached.

WTF?

[nodrogluap]

From the letter the guy got from Sequoia:

We will also take appropriate steps to protect against any publication of Sequoia software, its behavior, reports regarding same...

The (mis)behaviour of their machines is intellectual property?? The rest of the letter says that their contract with the county forbids reporting about compliance/non-compliance (such as, lets say, not being able to add).

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Sequoia just patented the "off by one" voting method.

A Common Problem.

[oahazmatt]

Considering that this article was listed as showing "11 of 3 Comments" I think this is quite a common problem.

Re:A Common Problem.

[mopslik]

Don't be too harsh, now. 5 out of 4 people can't work with effectively with fractions.

Slashdot Polls

[ke5aux]

Ok, thats it! We need the source code for /. polls.

Re:Slashdot Polls

[Constantine XVI]

I'll do you one better: http://slashcode.cvs.sourceforge.net/slashcode/

Re:Slashdot Polls

[ke5aux]

Well, looks like they have nothing to hide so it's not worth it.

While they give this poor bastard a hard time...

[iknownuttin]

the rest of the country is seeing the problems that they caused and their uncooperative behavior to address the problem. It'll also affect the other companies because this will lower the public's confidence in voting machines and e-voting in general.

Great marketing strategy there guys!

The interesting question is...

[WindBourne]

can he show that it favors one side or another? If not, it just indicates a bug in the system and general incompetence. But if it shows a favor on one side or the other, well, that would indicate that we have an issue of voter fraud.

Re:The interesting question is...

[dunc78]

See, it runs into problems with double letters. See double Bs as in "Dobbs" take favor over double G's as in "Kellogg" and double L's as in "Kellogg" and "Mills". Simple mistake.

Re:The interesting question is...

[cleatsupkeep]

I was hoping that movie would be a lot better than it was. How the hell would you write code that would give you that error anyways? I spent a lot of time thinking about that (and here I am on /., coincidence? I think not).

Re:The interesting question is...

[dunc78]

Yeah, I always try to explain to my wife that, to the software, those people should be nothing more than an ID number or something similar. However, I don't think she could care less.

I know, I know!!!

[AltGrendel]

They're trying to use fuzzy logic!!!

Yea, that's the ticket, fuzzy logic!

Re:I know, I know!!!

[Toonol]

Or it's a rounding issue. If 10 Republicans cast 1.1 votes apiece, and 10 Democrats cast 0.9 votes apiece, that would explain things.

How is this possible?

[The Lyrics Guy]

I honestly do not understand how companies screw up something as simple as a voting machine. A first year CS student could write it in Java in a weekend.
The only possible explanation is that the votes are intentionally being miscounted.

Re:How is this possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly do not understand how companies screw up something as simple as a voting machine. A first year CS student could write it in Java in a weekend.

I'd entrust my vote to Diebold before I entrusted it to a machine programmed in Java by a first year CS student.

The only possible explanation is that the votes are intentionally being miscounted.

No it isn't. A more likely explanation is that the machine was programmed in Java by a first year CS student.

(OK enough knocking first year CS students who think anything can be done in Java. We've all seen and heard them though.)

BTW, how you doing in your Java class man?

(I couldn't help myself. Really I couldn't.)

Corporate Death Penalty

[Dog-Cow]

How is intentionally preventing auditing of the basic method of democracy anything less than treason? The Board of Directors should be jailed forever for condoning this activity by the Company's lawers.

Re:Corporate Death Penalty

[monxrtr]

This is a perfect wedge to drive between open and closed source code. All closed source code in government election counting is *illegal*. It's no different then if say Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, was allowed to take paper ballot boxes to his home and count them in private, in secret, and then release the totals with no supervision, or independent observers or verification.

Mark my words, this is the beginning of the end for closed source code in government elections. Here is the perfect opportunity for open source. It's the *only* legal possibility.

Re:Corporate Death Penalty

[DrLang21]

Why stop at treason? I think this calls for high treason. The penalty for that is death if I recall correctly. It's been a long time since there has been a death penalty handed down (originally) from a federal court.

Re:Corporate Death Penalty

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

What? Don't you want to jail the lawyers too?

Re:Corporate Death Penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

How is intentionally preventing auditing of the basic method of democracy anything less than treason?

It would be a public official that approved the purchase with crappy hardware and onerous EULA. Why should it be a corporate death penalty? I read f-ing EULAS and T/S. This is my favorite privacy agreement found today and freely plugged: Short privacy policy. Aluminum Falcon Tee.

Re:Corporate Death Penalty

[Phroggy]

Here is the perfect opportunity for open source. It's the *only* legal possibility. Perhaps you meant to say it's the only moral or ethical or logical or reasonable or sensible possibility, but legal possibilities are defined by Congress. Don't forget that.

Bigger fish to fry

[Bobb Sledd]

I am really sorry, I don't mean to be off-topic. This voting machine problem is really big, but in my opinion it pales in comparison to another larger problem that no one seems to be addressing: people who vote that have no legal right to in this country.

I know in my area, this happens to be a huge problem that has no detection ability. I have personally seen illegal aliens standing in our lines to vote, because I could hear them speaking and laughing about it.

Case-in-point: My uncle (a very white southern-looking farmer-type) went to the local library to take his wife to vote. While he was there he was handed ballot with instructions for voting. He protested, "but I'm not a US citizen! I'm Canadian!"

"Oh!!! Well, give me that ballot back!!!"

THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK IF HE WAS LEGAL TO VOTE FIRST.

How many illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and otherwise ineligible-to-vote people are participating in elections? Until you can filter out who is *supposed* to be voting in the first place, I don't see how a machine-count error makes any difference at all.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[Anonymous Coward]

Had your uncle tried to vote he would have needed to sign the voting register. Physical possession of a ballot does not mean they get to cast it.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[Cheesey]

Christ. They don't check? Then what prevents an individual voting twice?

Here in England, each polling station has a list of registered voters. They tick you off the list when they give you a poll card. I guess it must be the same in Australia where you get fined for not turning up at your polling station.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[LMacG]

And that's exactly the way it's worked in every locality I've ever voted in, provide full name and address, workers cross name off list, get ballot. I'm not buying the GP's story.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[geek2k5]

In the places I've voted at, you have to sign a preprinted list before you get your ballot. It sounds like the people in charge of that polling place weren't trained properly.

That still doesn't diminish the voting machine problem. If voting machines are not 'honest', then both legal AND illegal votes could be redistributed via machine count errors.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[dogzilla]

I call bs on this. Every single election I've voted in (5 so far, in Maryland and Massachusetts) your name had to be on a list, and was marked off that list when you voted. There's simply no way someone who isn't registered to vote could have voted. While it's possible an illegal alien could be registered to vote, it would be a short matter of time before INS tracked them down that way. I think your uncle was having a double laugh - at both the incompetence and gullibility of Americans. You fell for it. I prefer to believe that than you're knowingly trying to shift focus form this very real issue to the phantom issue of illegal aliens (oooooo! scary!) usurping the rights of naturalized citizens.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[magarity]

All his uncle had to do was go to register to vote. My wife went to get a new driver's license and was asked if she wanted to register to vote and handed the form to sign. She said she wasn't a citizen and the DMV person took the form back but there is NO burden of proof at all. Just sign the registration alleging you're a citizen and you get to vote. I took my birth cert to register to vote but the DMV person said she wasn't allowed to even ask for proof, nevermind require it.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[clichescreenname]

I don't see how illegal voting is a bigger problem than rigging the election. If the election is rigged, then the illegal votes won't count anyway.

It's like the people who say Nader spoiled Florida; the election was going to be stolen either way. Nader's presence just meant that they had to steal less votes in order to push Bush over the threshold.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[Joe the Lesser]

I've voted in three different states, and for each one you had to have your name crossed off the registration list and show id. Perhaps the polling place you indicate was breaking election laws by not checking for registered voters.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[mzs]

Had she registered to vote at the DMV, the first time she actually tried to vote they would ask for proof. This is how it works in IL. The DMV (here in IL the Secretary of State) is not allowed to examine most of these forms, regardlessly you will be marked in the role as needing to show proof when you go to the poll. Alternatively you can register to vote at the county clerks office and show proof of eligibility to vote and then the first time you vote you only need to sign. My wife did the first method, I the second.

Re:Bigger fish to fry

[number11]

How many illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and otherwise ineligible-to-vote people are participating in elections?

There is no evidence that this is a problem. Think about it. If you're illegal and trying to hide from the government, why would you go and stand in line at a government event where your identity will be questioned, to do something that doesn't benefit you personally anyhow, something where there is a very real likelihood that you will get caught, have your ass thrown in jail, and get deported when it's all over?

If that's happening, it should be easy to find statistics on arrests, convictions, etc. Feel free to come back when you've actually got some evidence.

BTW, in many places convicted felons are as entitled to vote as you are, perhaps more so. Local rules differ.

This is Jersey, we don't need fair elections!

[why!42]

This is New Jersey why should bother with making sure the election machines can't be rigged. Hell, even our own NJ Supreme Court doesn't follow the NJ Constitution even when they rule something unconstitutional! Witness the 2002 Senate election when one candidate was replaced with another even though the Court ruled it was unconstitutional to do so. "Yeah, it's unconstitutional. Just don't do it again next time." As a Jersey resident, I'll be unsurprised if the election board allows the machines to be used anyway. Can't let some company's profit (and political payoffs) be sidelined by something as trivial as honest elections!

The machines are alright

[tooslickvan]

The machine do calculate correctly; only it gives the answer they want.

You cannot prove correctness at all

[l2718]

Mathematically speaking, proving a program correct from the source code is in generaly impossible (if you could do that you could, in particular, solve the halting problem). From the software engineering perspective it's true that examining the source code gives you greater confidence in the software than just black-box testing.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[Chris Mattern]

Mathematically speaking, proving a program correct from the source code is in generaly impossible

Arbitrary program code cannot be proven correct, true. However, program code can be designed to be provable.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[digitig]

Generally impossible, yes. But in practice it's perfectly possible because software that is written to be proven will avoid constructs that are computationally hard to prove and will include definitions of loop variants and invariants to guide the proof process. You don't need Turing completeness for most practical programming tasks. Sure, the voting software probably hasn't been written that way, but if it's considered in any way "mission critical" then it should have been. It's what's usually required for safety-of-life applications, and I reckon that deciding who should have their finger on the nuclear button is a safety-of-life application.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[Anonymous Coward]

proving a program correct from the source code is in generaly impossible (if you could do that you could, in particular, solve the halting problem)

You've got that back to front. The halting problem is that it is possible to construct programs that cannot be proven to terminate, not that it is difficult to construct programs that can.

Proof of program correctness is a longstanding and well-understood area of computer science. Without it, nobody would ever have authorized anything like avionics software or the use of computers in medical equipment. It's hard to think of a non-conspiracy-theory explanation of why voting machines are not held to the same standards.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Arbitrary program code cannot be proven correct, true. However, program code can be designed to be provable.

We both know, that's only for the most trivial problems, which doesn't include this one.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[jmnormand]

um their program cant be much more advanced than simple count increment. were talking about what 60 or so votes on a simple increment system? push button -> vote++ -> return vote; mathematically my not be possible to "prove" but should be pretty damned obvious if its gets 60 wrong...

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[compro01]

basic integer addition is not trivial?

maybe the problem is they're using floats rather than ints.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[dzfoo]

>> Mathematically speaking, proving a program correct from the source code is in generaly impossible

Although this is certainly true for many applications, I would posit that the software for a vote counting machine must necessarily be deterministic in nature, and that all possible execution paths should be known. Therefore, mathematically speaking, the program should be written in a way that is provably correct. If it cannot be proven correct, then by necessity, it is wrong, as it's output cannot be trusted.

          -dZ.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[DavidShor]

"It's hard to think of a non-conspiracy-theory explanation of why voting machines are not held to the same standards."

Because code verification to that level is expensive as hell?

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[l2718]

"All possible execution paths" would be too many to enumerate. You simply can't. Especially with software that has a non-trivial UI allowing many options, has support for disabled users etc. Instead, the software should incorporate intenral consistency checks so that it knows at all times that it is in a good state, or can immediately flag an error. For example, if a "Republican" ballot is being displayed, then the voting machine should not have a green light next to the "Democrat" ballot selection button. That this is possible tell you that they did something wrong.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[ls -la]

You seem to have a rather poor understanding of Turing recognizability vs. decidability.
The Halting problem you refer to is Turing-recognizable, but not Turing-decidable. That means that there EXIST programs for which a turing machine can't tell you for sure whether or not they will halt, for instance, int i = 0; while(i -lt 99){ i = (int)(rand() * 100) }. However, it can RECOGNIZE programs that do complete (in a finite amount of time), such as int main(){}. Therefore, it is not impossible, as you claim, to prove any code correct. There are some programs which can be proven correct, and there are some programs which cannot. I would think a simple voting machine counter would be easily provable (on event: if(verify()) votes[choice]++;, with a few similarly simple configuration events), and if there were something complex enough to make it unproveable, I would be very suspicious of the company that made them.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[sydneyfong]

I think the classical Turing machine is deterministic (i.e. no randomness involved). So unless I'm terribly mistaken, your example is conceptually wrong.

An example of hard-to-prove (presumably not impossible) is a program that stops until it finds an even number which isn't a product of two prines (Goldbach conjecture):

for n = 4 to infinity:
  for a = 2 to n-2:
    b = n - a
    if a is prime, b is prime: OK
  if not OK: halt

You can similarly link proving correctness of a program with even harder mathematical problems. (Intuitively) It's for this reason that the Halting problem is so "computationally" hard.

I'm no computer scientist / mathematician /logician, so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[ls -la]

You are technically correct that a Turing machine is deterministic; however, so are the random number generators in computers. In fact, one could build a Turing machine to output pseudorandom numbers the same way a computer does, since computers are no more powerful than a Turing machine. There cannot be true randomness (to the extent of human knowledge) without measuring quantum states. My point was merely to show that there are algorithms which one cannot prove will halt.

Using the input as your RNG's seed and depending on the implementation of the RNG, there could very well be some input for which the TM never halts. Could we prove it? Probably, but the point is there is SOME Turing machine (algorithm) that may or may not halt, but we (or at least another Turing machine) cannot prove it.

Re:You cannot prove correctness at all

[sydneyfong]

If your rand() function is really random, then it's not a subject for analysis with the classical Turing halting argument.

If your rand() is merely a pseudo RNG, and one that's used in practice, you probably could prove that it halts. The difficulty of proving a pseudo random generator halts is nowhere close to (dis)proving that the "finding counter examples to Goldbach conjecture" program halts -- if only because of the fact that pseudo random generators will usually produce every number in its range within a small number of steps.

Barbie the voting machine designer says...

[Clover_Kicker]

"math is hard!"

Open source code

[themagic8ball]

I have always thought that those machines should be open source so that everyone can see the source code. This would reduce any cries of fraud. just a thought

Re:Open source code

[LionMage]

I can see why someone would have modded the parent Redundant, but Flamebait? Why is demanding transparency and openness in the voting process "Flamebait"? IMHO, forcing manufacturers of voting machines to disclose source code should be mandatory. It's just good accountability. I don't think corporations should be able to hide behind trade secrets when the public interest is involved. (And really, there can't possibly be something novel about the code for a voting machine, so why make it proprietary?)

What would be even better is an open architectural standard for both the hardware and software, and all manufacturers are required to adhere to both. That leaves some room for innovation and customization, but at least the interfaces are all well defined, and test suites can be written without regard for actual implementation.

Re:Not only that...

[Anonymous Coward]

NSFW - a fairly average, and unskilled shock site. This idiot appears from a nerin.net (European) address every few months...

Daily WTF.

[SanityInAnarchy]

This story reminds me of yesterday's WTF...

Guaranteed results

[revery]

What we need is a company like Diebold or Sequoia to step up and guarantee the results of an election. I'm thinking the line could be: "If within the first 30 days, you're not 100% thrilled with the results of the election, we'll give you your old Republic back". That's right, the Republic-back guarantee, you heard it here first.

Re:Guaranteed results

[zrq]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

Open source how?

[Hikaru79]

Everyone keeps saying that a solution to the problem of potential voter fraud would be to open-source the code. My question is -- how? Let's say they do and someone reads it and understands it; what guarantee does anyone have that the code they've published is the same as the code on the machines the day of the election? It would be absolutely trivial to cut out the naughty bits before publishing.

If Sequoia really were ready to commit mass voter fraud, I doubt they would have too many moral issues with violating the principles of open source while they're at it.

Re:Open source how?

[Geoffrey.landis]

Everyone keeps saying that a solution to the problem of potential voter fraud would be to open-source the code.... what guarantee does anyone have that the code they've published is the same as the code on the machines the day of the election? It would be absolutely trivial to cut out the naughty bits before publishing.

If the code on the machine is not the same as the publically released code, that in and of itself would be tampering with the machine. It is not necessarily easy, but nevertheless it is possible to verify that the compiled code on the machine is the same as the compiled version of the released source code. If they are not, then you have evidence of a crime-- you don't need to figure out what the code on the machine does, you only need to show that it's not the code that the voting commission purchased.

On the other hand, if the source code is not released for inspection, well, you don't have any way of knowing exactly what it does, or if there are back doors, or even just inadvertant bugs that result in errors. ("a 12-bit register for vote count seemed big enough at the time... who would have thought that more than 4095 people in one voting district would have wanted to vote for -XXX-?")

Re:Open source how?

[Seraphim_72]

Pretty easy to solve I think. You could

1. Require an empty machine, have the government install the software on that machine - take a md5/hash/something to fingerprint it. On election day wander around and randomly check sums on machines by booting off of known good media.

or

2. Require that all machines *only* run off of bootable media. As the government get a known good copy and make your own disks, disk duplicators are ridiculously cheap.

or

3. Require that all machines pxe boot and have the government control the servers.

I am sure smarter people than I could come up with even better solutions.

Sera

Re:Open source how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Following that logic to its conclusion, how can we EVER have software involved in the voting process? You may in fact be right, and maybe software and voting should never exist at the same time.

The appeal of OSS is that anyone could review the code and look for defects or "undocumented features". Assuring that the publicly available code is actually on the machine is a matter of trust. Ultimately, someone trustworthy has to load the code on the machine, and we must have confidence that the machine cannot be reprogrammed by untrusted people. And we need an identical level of trust for the server that sits upstream from all of these voting machines. OSS peels back at least one layer of trust, in that we don't have to trust the software provider to provide a bug-free and fair algorithm. Is that enough? Reasonable people disagree.

I suppose we could dumb down the voting technology -- back to the 1980's. Get a bunch of DECWriter IV's from E-bay (printing terminals), some dial-up modems, and hook 'em all up to a VAX on voting day. If the VAX was running open source code and the field hardware was too dumb to be programmed by anyone, maybe that would help.

Re:Open source how?

[Jesus_666]

And as someone else has pointed out, tampering with voting machines should be treated as treason or even high treason. Add more draconian laws. If any voting machine is found to misbehave, a full-scale investigation of eversone involved is started, including the manufacturer. The voting machine manufacturers would be very eager to produce tamper-proof machines if any tampering by anyone automatically equaled an FBI raid on the manufacturer.

Of course it could also mean that nobody wants to make voing machines anymore, which might not be that bad. Paper voting is quite safe when implemented properly.

Re:Open source how?

[sydneyfong]

Easy. Require that all voting machines to be checked publicly before being put into use.
Then voting begins.

After the voting and the results being *automatically* generated, immediately allow the voting machines to be checked again by the public.

I don't see a feasible way to tamper with the results here.

Sequoia vs..... Us ( Me and you, not the USA)

[CodeShark]

Since Dr. Felten is theoretically doing the analysis and finding problems, now Sequoia would state that the State is in violation of a contractual agreement. Do they really want to get into a spitting match where all the voters who voted via a Sequoia machine could potentially file a class action lawsuit against the company for disenfranchising voters by not counting their votes correctly?

Or --more likely -- are they putting out the legal contract mumbo-jumbo to threaten NJ in order to avoid that exact scenario?

Where a truly intelligent voting machine company would do something smart like, say, having an independent commission produce a certification that the machine works properly, with the specification that the internals to the voting machine are only available in limited --but still auditable ways in case of dispute?

What think ye?

Oh noes

[Borommakot_15]

If we have voting machines that cannot count, we might end up with another President that cannot pronounce nuclear.

We need to fix this, right away!

Sequoia's site down

[Black Sheep IR]

I went looking for a press release this morning only to find that they are down for maintenance. What incredibly good and completely coincidental timing for them! No available info at all...

Ehh....what's off by 1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that error fall within the acceptable range for "Close enought for government work"?

Computers cannot prove correctness at all

[bunratty]

Truly mathematically speaking, yes, it is generally impossible to write a computer program that can automatically verify whether a program works. You point out that if this were possible, it would be possible to solve the halting problem. But is there really a computer program that is correct but that humans cannot prove correct?

Demanding trust provides reason for distrust...

[pyrr]

This is what it seems to boil down to. A citizen has doubts and concerns about the output of a voting machine and wants to test it to see if it's fatally flawed or there suspected discrepancy can be explained. I can understand the company not wanting specific details on the construction of the machine and the software it runs to be made public, but the problem here is the same one we saw when Microsoft attempted to enjoin anyone who purchased Windows Vista or Office, via the EULA & DMCA, from running and publishing benchmarks without Microsoft's express permission. It doesn't infringe on ANYONE'S purported IP to independently verify it functions the way it's advertised or see how it stacks-up against its competitors. And as far as benchmarks and testers go, the whole point is that it's a 3rd party and the public can evaluate their methods and decide whether the benchmark comparison is valid. By attempting to influence the independent testing process, Microsoft just made it look like they can't be trusted and they can't compete. That perception is more damaging, IMHO, than an unfavorable benchmark here or there.

It takes pretty big balls to demand trust in the manner Sequoia seems to be attempting to do, and bullying its customers (the American people!) with the threat of lawsuits if they don't trust it implicitly. They have sent the message loud and clear that they may have something to hide and neither they, nor their products, should be trusted. Hopefully the state of NJ will decertify their equipment for their troubles. But it is pretty sad if there's a reasonable explanation for the behavior, or some testing could lead to the discovery of a flaw that could be corrected transparently and restore voters' confidence.

Re:Demanding trust provides reason for distrust...

[monxrtr]

I can understand the company not wanting specific details on the construction of the machine and the software it runs to be made public, Then that company should be barred from conducting business with the State or municipality for the service of counting votes in exactly the same way that any individual who attempted to contract to hand count votes totally in private secrecy without any oversight whatsoever would be barred from conducting business with the State or municipality for the purpose of tallying and releasing official vote counts. Sequoia has violated State and Federal Election Laws; it's immaterial if the State of New Jersey negligently or maliciously was the counter party to the Contract. The Contract itself is plainly illegal, and injunctions, seizures, and financial freezes of all Sequoia assets and voting machines should be undertaken immediately.

Also bring up Federal Election Fraud charges against the Executives because they have synthetically absconded with the ballots and counted them in private secrecy with no oversight. For all the Law cares, Sequoia was recipient to a Mafia Contract to walk into a polling place with guns and take the votes to another location to be counted in secrecy.

If you live in New Jersey, GTF on it. This is a slam dunk case, and will be copied nation-wide by all of us against all closed source code vote counting machines. Contact your local District Attorneys. I wish I could be there to see the faces of the CEO and executives of Sequoia when they lose their (probably multi million dollar) contract. Of course they were probably also paid some obscene remuneration amount for simple monkey code in the 5-6 figure per actual hour of work range to copy the same code to each machine. Also investigate the ties between the Executives of Sequoia and any State of New Jersey politicians. Might be able to end a couple government careers as extra bonus.

Re:Not only that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wordpress had a similar vulnerability allowing people to obfuscate URLs in that manner. They patched theirs, but apparently Yahoo's all cool with allowing such shenanigans.

In other words, don't click on the link, because it doesn't really take you to Yahoo.

This can easily be explained

[kpainter]

by counting the number of people in the local cemeteries.

That's OK...

[OldFish]

when I go to the polls I want to elect someone who cannot do arithmetic and that sort of machine sounds like the right tool for the job.

Sparta NJ Referendum Results

[jurzdevil]

my town recently had a referendum and the votes dont add up. 2881 voted yes and 2467 voted no. This adds up to 5348 but the report shows a total of 5362. http://www.sussexcountyclerk.com/08ss.HTM/

Re:Sparta NJ Referendum Results

[Anonymous Coward]

But then, THIS! IS! SPARTA!

Anybody notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

That the officials couldn't fill out the date correctly? The tape says "On the Feb day of 5, 2008" Shouldn't it be the 5th day of Feb?

Single program

[l2718]

There exists individual computer programs such that humans cannot prove whether they terminates or not. For example, the program that enumerates all proofs in Peano arithmetic looking for a proof of a contradiction. This is an aspect of Gödel incompleteness.

Re:Single program

[bunratty]

Yes, there are programs that may or may not terminate, that no human can prove will terminate or will not terminate, except by running the program, and if he ever sees it terminate, he says, "It terminates!" But that's not the question. Does a computer program exist that a human cannot even prove whether it gives the correct result or not? That is, one that we know terminates and gives an answer, but no one can prove that the program gives the correct answer in all cases, and also no one can prove that it is possible to get an incorrect answer? I suppose we have to discount as trivial all programs that simply print an undecidable statement.

Huh?

[fritsd]

Let me get this straight: you have the right to vote, but not for one of the smaller political parties?

Re:Huh?

[tmalone]

in the primary you have to pick a side if you want to vote. Democrat or Republican. Once you choose, you must vote within that party. At least in a closed primary that is how it works. So, if you're a registered Green, you don't get to vote in the primary. In the general election of course, everybody gets to vote.

Re:Huh?

[dzfoo]

The best way to understand a Primary Election is that it is a party-specific mechanism, governed mostly by party's rules (with certain exceptions), to choose their own candidate. Currently, only the two major parties -- the Republican and Democratic parties -- hold primaries to choose their candidates. If you are a registered voter of either of these parties, you get to participate in the primaries. If you are not, then you get to participate in whatever mechanism your party has in place to choose it's candidate, provided it has an open method.

To compound matters even more, some states have "open primaries", which in essence allows anybody to participate in choosing the candidates of the major parties. This is due to regulations these states impose on the political parties (to make it seem "more fair" -- for some custom definition of fair). But again, at the end of the day, the party gets to choose its candidate in the best way it sees fit.

Now, the reason I mention this is because there is a clear difference between the General Election and the Primary Election, which some people do not seem to understand. The primaries are not intended to be "democratic", they are intended to allow the party to choose its candidate in any way they deem necessary. This is why there are Caucases and Super-Delegates, and other weird things that do not seem entirely fair to those who think of it as a General Election.

            -dZ.

Re:Huh?

[RalphSleigh]

From an outsiders perspective, one must assume that any of the smaller parties could register to hold a primary, but have chosen to decide their presidential candidate some other way...

It is confusing however that in internal party vote is conducted by the state...

Re:Huh?

[EdelFactor19]

in that system for the primary you have the right to vote; your vote would be for primary of your party. its not everyone elses fault that the small party is smart/small enough not to have people running against one another publicly. If there were two green party members I suppose you could vote which one should represent the party as a whole. But if Dem's cant vote in the Rep primary and Rep's not in the dems, you shuoldn't be able to vote in theirs or them in yours.

Personally I just think that its absurd that every state has different rules and a different system. If the election is for a national office, then every state should have the same rules. Whether the two parties have the same rules might be a different issue; but within party the rules should be consistent state to state.... ideally all parties would have to abide by the same rules everywhere, but then politicians and analysts wouldn't have so much to whine about and the people could actually understand what the heck is really going on.

as great as our voting system is; its pretty screwed up. as soon as the rep's see that there candidate is decided the rest of them can to varying degrees use their votes to influence the democratic primary toward which ever candidate they think their Rep would more easily beat. It highlights two major problems:

1. all the primary votes should happen at the same time, on the same day. and no information regarding the outcome should be broadcast until the election is complete.
2. they need to fix and make consistent the voting options. Either everyone gets to vote for every parties primary (probably a very bad idea) or you can only pick one of them to vote for. The only problem is that its largely a 2 party system: so i would say that instead you should be able to vote in either the republican or the democratic primary (not both) in addition to any other parties that hold primaries which you are free to vote in.

actually even better idea, although it would require runoff election format for presidential:
pick a primary to vote in; if the candidate you vote for in primary wins primary you are obligated to vote them as your #1 candidate in a runoff election. This prevents a republican from voting for democrat candidate Y who they think that republican candidate X has a better chance of beating then democrat Z in the primary; and then voting for republican X in the presidential. If you won't vote for the candidate you vote for in the primary than you shouldn't be able to influence the ability of others who will vote for the candidate to do so.

Re:Huh?

[lessthan]

Primaries are for determining the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. They have no bearing on who becomes president (theoretically). When we do vote for president, we can put whoever we want onto the ballet. That is why other parties are not included, the primaries aren't about them.

Maybe it's not a bug.

[DoctorFrog]

Maybe it's a feature... but, y'know, one the voting public wasn't supposed to know about.

Office Space

[TheDarkener]

Michael: "I must've put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit, I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail."

Peter: "Oh! Well, this is not a mundane detail, Michael!"
Michael: "Hey, quit getting pissed at me. Alright? This was all your idea, asshole!"

Bugs == no QA

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically bugs of this level are easily found during QA. They are only introduced when someone patches the code and bypass the QA process.

But what reason could people have to sneak in patches like that?

It disgusts me that slot machines are more secure than voting machines.

It's quite obvious what happened

[whitehatlurker]

The machine counted the vote for Giuliani as being for the Democratic party.

my experience as a NJ poll worker

[scraggly codger]

I was a poll worker in the 2006 election in Essex County, NJ. We were using the new Sequoia machines, for the first time in a general election, I believe. We experienced a discrepancy between the machine vote count and the count of paper tickets which are issued to the voters when they sign in to vote, and which are collected when the voter actually votes at the machine. We had 5 more votes than tickets, out of about 600 total votes in the precinct. The gap was present quite early in the day; a voting official who checked in at our precinct observed the gap at about 10 am. We had no clue how this came about, whether it was operator error on our part or whether the machines were just plain buggy or hacked. Apparently the problem was widespread, since a form letter was sent to poll workers that indicated discrepancies on a ward by ward basis. Never got resolved, as far as I know, nor did it get any meaningful coverage in the local or regional press. Without a full paper trail, I will never trust any electronic voting result.

Re:my experience as a NJ poll worker

[ancientt]

Obviously the machine thinks that since it is doing so much of the work, it deserves to get to vote too.

Several people have made suggestions for a better system, and you've indicated that a paper trail should be required, so here is a way that it could work:

1. Live CDs present touch screen voting options to voters in the booth (no CPU accessible) and a printer
2. When voting is completed, a card is printed that shows the votes and near the bottom has a sha1 hash of the results above a perforation, the same sha1 hash below the perforation plus a machine identifier (i.e. booth B3) and a barcode below that.
3. Meanwhile, the instructions on the screen visually show how the card should be separated
4. Voters must insert their card into a box, which will not accept a card with the detachable barcode and hash still attached then give the barcode/hash stub to an attendant as they leave
5. Attendants drop the barcode/hash stubs into a machine which scans them and drops them into a locked box and shows a running tally of all votes counted so far, and also all votes counted by this machine to voters and attendants alike. Only when the vote is counted by the machines under the attendants control is total updated and the vote electronically tabulated.
6. If a machine doesn't count totals correctly, it is always seen to fail by both the voter and attendant immediately
7. If there is any question, the physical printouts of votes can be compared to stubs and machine totals
8. A small percentage of election results are always audited by a random selection (doesn't matter how to me, they can roll 20 sided die for all I care)

Now you have your paper trail, auditing, preserve the secrecy of the ballot and built in checks against machine error.

Q: Is the perforated card tear away necessary?
A. It offers forensic evidence that a card matches the one it was detached from if it is ever required, which would be much more difficult for separate printouts or machine cut tickets.

Q: Does the hash/barcode infringe on the secrecy of the ballot cast?
A. Not really. A random number can be printed on each vote record and used in the hash result so that even the hashes couldn't be memorized by attendees. I'm not sure this would be reasonable since memorizing hashes or barcodes would be significantly difficult for most people and intimidation is easier with a paper system, but it could be easily implemented.

The Incompetence is Astounding!

[Zordak]

Seriously guys, with basically a carte blance from both major parties at every level from local to state to federal, with a huge budget and the latest technological advances at your fingertips, you still can't plausibly rig an election? I tell you, the art sure has fallen from the glory days of LBJ. It really makes you wonder what has become of our once-great nation.

Why did the voting officials sign this?

[capnez]

Four people signed off this paper-printed tally, apparently without even reading, much less checking the paper and catching the glaringly obvious error. FOUR people!

It also seems they did not read the text of the form above the signatures - where the form has a field for "day", they filled in "FEB" and where the month should have gone, they wrote in something that might be a "2".

Morale of the story: Not even the best paper trail or purely paper ballots will help you if they are controlled by people who don't know or don't care.

(Side note: I worked as a voting official in a local election over here in Austria two weeks ago. We still have only paper ballots, and during and after the count I constantly double-checked if our numbers added up. It should be an elemental check done by hand in every vote count.)

simple math

[neurolux]

The only math a voting machine should be doing is adding 1 over and over again. Why does it have to be so complicated?

Re:simple math

[LinearBob]

I think these folks really do have something to hide. For example, do you recall the county in Ohio in 2004 that came up with something like 4 thousand more votes than there were voters? Or how about the places where the number of votes a candidate received at the end of the day was negative?

I think at least part of the problem we see here stems from the fact these machines are all built using the Windows platform and with Microsoft tools. The Microsoft EULA requires that Microsoft's code remain secret. Since that includes both the OS, and the EXCEL spreadsheet software being used underneath the application code, even if the companies DO release THEIR application's source code, there remains a huge amount of proprietary code that cannot be checked unless Microsoft suddenly opens up their proprietary products for inspection.

Public spec e-voting equipment

[pyrr]

I used to do a bit of military surplus business, I wonder why the federal government hasn't set an open standard for voting equipment as they do with most general-purpose mil-spec equipment from socks to trucks. Every would-be manufacturer can submit a prototype, the government figures out which works best, sets the specifications and minimum requirements, and then releases the design to manufacturing. Anyone and everyone who can make the product to the government's standards gets a shot at filling the available contracts for the product, and I'd imagine whoever submitted the winning design gets some sort of bonus. That way, the spec becomes public, the designer benefits, and the process becomes transparent. That's how it works with military trucks (several companies make them, they may not be identical but the parts are interchangeable between manufacturers, and the plans are available to manufacturers who have been cleared and approved). Trust is not involved, everything basically functions the same, and there's no incentive for manufacturers to keep secrets. Most importantly, it would be transparent, just like punching holes in a piece of paper.