Slashdot Mirror
Voting Machines Routinely Failing Nationwide
palegray.net writes "Voting machines in several critical swing states are causing major problems for voters. A Government Accountability Office report and Common Cause election study [PDF] has concluded that major issues identified in the last presidential election have not been corrected, nor have election officials been notified of the problems. How long can we afford to trust our elections to black box voting practices? From the article: 'In Colorado, 20,000 left polling places without voting in 2006 because of crashed computer registration machines and long lines. And this election day, Colorado will have another new registration system.'"
I think it's insane that this is left to a private company to do anything more than fit the parts together.
I mean this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for.
There would be no shortage of coders willing to review the code and point out any problems.
It would help with the "open" part of "open and fair" election
Paper. Pencil. Manual count. Done.
I love tech as much as the next geek. It's my life, and my living. But sometimes, the better solutions are the simpler ones.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
How about we fix this problem a few years instead of a few weeks before the next major election? This is further proof that voting needs to be standardized in order to uphold the virtues of our 'democracy.' Otherwise any election can be rigged, and we will end up with another hanging chad fiasco or Diebold epic failure.
it's not too late to fix many of these problems. Although many states don't have the laws on the books to require some safeguards, they can act now to make sure that there are enough back up ballots at the polls, workers are properly trained and there are enough poll workers on election day.
Why does this exact same scenario happen every 4 years? Haven't we learned ANYTHING?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I mean this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for. There would be no shortage of coders willing to review the code and point out any problems. It would help with the "open" part of "open and fair" election
You make an excellent point. A community reviewed and verifiable voting machine system is the best way to ensure that the voters have faith in the vote. Democracy as a concept is worthless if the voters have no ability to verify the vote. If voters can not have faith in the system of elections, then the voters cannot have faith in their government. Electronic voting machines are eroding voters faith in their government and faith in democracy. It's hard to convince people to trust their government if they can't even trust the system that elects the government.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
Depending your state and party, November 11th will be a test vote.
It's hard to implement backdoors to manipulate the votes in such a way that it appears to be faulty equipment.
Or:
4) They liked the money the Diebold lobbyists contributed to their reelection war chests.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
...this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for.
There would be no shortage of coders willing to review the code and point out any problems.
It would help with the "open" part of "open and fair" election
Then why not do it? That's how open source works, isn't it? Identify a need and get to it?
Don't stop at just software though. Make a playbook for the entire system that any precinct is free to implement. Call out the check in procedure, how to handle privacy, how to aid people with disabilities, minimum manning requirements, the redundant paper trail, etc. Make an open source rock solid "how to run an election without blowing it" guide.
True that. 'Cause companies ain't people. Get that enshrined into law and you'll be much better off.
Why don't we just go with a web based voting system. Everyone could vote from home. Surely noone could figure out how to break that.
You're right. The inter-tubes are perfectly secure and safe. It's unpossible that anyone could break them ;)
Ooh, how about american idol style. And the candidate you vote for could send you a personalized message back asking for more donations.
Now yer on to sumthin. Vote by texting REPUB or DEMO to 6657. Normaltextmessagingfeesapply.
The idea of web voting is a really interesting one, with some really interesting consequences. If you look at broadband penetration and home computing numbers, you'll see an interesting pattern. The highest connectivity to the web is among affluent white folks. These are the same folks that shop from their bathrobes at 2:00 am.
One possible consequence of online voting is that the bathrobe-shoppers are more likely to vote than if they have to go to a poling place. Because they are more likely to vote and represent only one segment of the population, the vote can become skewed in one particular direction or another. It could effectively disenfranchise other groups that are less likely to have computers at home.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
You make an excellent point. A community reviewed and verifiable voting machine system is the best way to ensure that the voters have faith in the vote. Democracy as a concept is worthless if the voters have no ability to verify the vote. If voters can not have faith in the system of elections, then the voters cannot have faith in their government. Electronic voting machines are eroding voters faith in their government and faith in democracy. It's hard to convince people to trust their government if they can't even trust the system that elects the government.
You know the problems with these machines and I know the problems, but are you willing to bet (and how much) that the majority of Americans are aware of the problem or even care? Ask yourself how much you would be willing to bet that the majority of Americans care, and if you can't justify a significant amount of assets, you'll have your answer.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It mattereth not much as the nominating process has been privatized as well.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Democracy as a concept is worthless if the voters have no ability to verify the vote.
and everyone shrugs when you ask them why the percentage of people who vote is so low in this country.
I'm surprised that these municipalities don't hold mock elections to test the machines.
Au contraire, that's what they've been doing all this time.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
The majority of the people who vote think that they are making a real choice. They believe that Tweedledee or Tweedledum are, in fact, meaningfully different. It's true! They saw it on television.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Why do you need open source?
Make a mark on a bit of paper, and putting said bit of paper in a closed box - It's easy to operate, easy to understand, failure tends to be highly localised (one bit of paper, or possibly one box full of bits of paper).
Closed source - very bad, only gets reviewed by those that own it.
Open source - bad, only gets reviewed by techies.
Bits of paper with a tick on it - good, anyone who can read can review it.
Does it matter that it takes a bit longer to know the result? Is the potential for fraud on a massive scale worth the saving of a day or two of people counting?
Sometimes technology makes things worse.
Keep in mind that the message is clearly and loudly being sent:
"Profit is the most important thing in the United States of America."
Never in so few, or just those words, but sent nonetheless.
"Government should not do anything that can be done by the private sector."
"The Medicare Part 4 specifically prohibits the government from using its buying power to negotiate a better price on pharmaceuticals."
"A company is *only* responsible to return value to its shareholders, while obeying the law."
etc, etc, etc
With mantras like these, what do you expect?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I think you define the term liberal a bit too loosely. I don't think anyone would agree with you that Bush is a liberal. Bush is a conservative. In terms of spending and government he has gone the opposite of what he promised to do when he ran. These last 8 years what you've seen is a man with no plan making things up as he goes along based on his gut feeling and hunches rather than analyses. You've also seen a man who does not like details and relies on his staff to make too many decisions. This lack of oversight and placing loyalty over competence has led the nation down this path.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I've noticed that liberalism has been redefined to include socialism. Liberals used to be guys like Jefferson and Paine
Obama's liberalism is socialism. liberalism in the classic, jefferson / paine sense is really what you would call libertarian... particularly with jefferson.
Bush is more of a conservative socialist, like Hitler.
Except, for well, that democracy part...
If Bush were like Hitler, then, the Michael Moore and Al Gore would not be making billions bashing the guy, but would be in concentration camps. If Bush did what Hitler did, it would be like he would send Dick Cheney to go out and murder Nancy Pelosi to touch off a single night, have Republicans go and murder the leadership of the Democratic Party.
This is my sig.
I work retail. Most people wouldn't notice if I added an extra dollar to every purchase with over three items.