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.'"

16 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Voting machines by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  2. Easy Solution... by blcamp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Easy Solution... by snsh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pencil? Pen!

    2. Re:Easy Solution... by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Its not that computer based voting is a bad idea, its just that it was tackled as a means to make money, not to provide a better voting service. Corners were cut in the name of profits, and the result is the shit systems currently giving the concept a bad name.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    3. Re:Easy Solution... by shilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course it's a bad idea! At the end of the day, any computer-based system is inherently opaque and impermanent, whereas paper-based systems are inherently transparent and permanent. It requires the simplest of skills (literacy and numeracy) to check out the veracity of a paper poll, and once a mark is made it's difficult to erase. Contrast that with computer systems.

    4. Re:Easy Solution... by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that. It provides a solution for a problem that is unrelated to the issue.

      The fact that it takes longer to count should not bother anybody. So what if the counting takes two weeks? For all I care they only release the information all at the same time one month after the election for all of the country.

      I am not interested in knowing who is the winner at 14h04. I am interested in the fact if the winner has been elected in a fair way. And if you can not bring people in to hold up your counting (by volunteers, appointing or by paying them) then perhaps you should abandon this whole democracy thing as it is clear that the people have no real interest in it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Easy Solution... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not that computer based voting is a bad idea...

      Yes it is. Computer based voting is a bad idea. Computer based vote counting is a bad idea. I cannot fathom how any honest person who knows anything about computers and computer programming would ever condone the use of computers to count votes in elections. A lot of Slashdotters in particular need to get real on this issue. Technology is great, but sometimes it's better to keep things simple.

      When it comes to elections the most important thing is that people have faith in the vote. Computers have never, and will never be able to provide this. This is true today, and it will be true a thousand years from now. A thousand years from now democratic societies will be voting and counting on paper ballots. Lip service democracies and the like will be using computers.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  3. Freedom and Democracy EPIC FAIL by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Re:Voting machines by txoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:I just don't get it. by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Voting machines by Talderas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  7. The People by conureman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Voting machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Voting machines by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:This whole election is crazy... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:This whole election is crazy... by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.