Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Voting Machines Routinely Failing Nationwide

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the to-boldly-die-where-many-machines-have-died-before dept.

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.'"

29 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Voting machines by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe it would just be easier to bribe Diebold more than whoever is holding their leash now? Saves all that pesky trouble of actually fixing the problem.

    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. Re:Voting machines by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Aye, but then thar be no booty in it, and what's good for gold is good for all landlubbers, savvy?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. 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
    4. Re:Voting machines by thedonger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm surprised that these municipalities don't hold mock elections to test the machines. It wouldn't be so much of a stretch to locally run mock elections. Maybe give everyone who participates a small tax credit. The process could be figured into the overall budget for rolling out new election equipment.

      I also wonder whether organizations like Common Cause have many elections' worth of data to show that now there are significantly more problems than before...

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    5. Re:Voting machines by thedonger · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you vote on Nov 11 your vote definitely will not count.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    6. Re:Voting machines by txoof · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think the problem is the lack of caring, but rather the lack of understanding. When I talk to my mom about this problem, her eyes glaze over and I can tell that she can't quite wrap her head around this problem. She doesn't get the mechanics of the problem and gets frustrated. Once she's frustrated, she can't move on to the other points and develop an opinion.

      I saw this when I sold computers and cell phones. People would come in, not knowing what they wanted, try to ask some questions and then end up frustrated when they didn't "get it". They would usually leave empty handed, or buy the one that fit their price point the best. It's not that they didn't care, but rather they couldn't hold all the variables in their head. This problem is similar, non-technical people can't quite conceive of the problem and its intricacies so they'd rather not be frustrated and just ignore it.

      This means that those of us that do "get it" need to be responsible in advocating for proper solutions.

      --
      This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    7. Re:Voting machines by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try describing it using money. If she has $10 and buys something costing $5, if the till says she gets $4 change then the machine is wrong. Obviously.
      The voting machine tells you things via a process you can't and more importantly aren't allowed to independently verify. But the results seem to be wrong. The machine must be examined to see where the problem lies. They won't let you. How long would you argue in the store that the till was wrong ?

    8. 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.
    9. Re:Voting machines by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The way I explain it is to say that, contrary to all movies on the topic, computers can lie. Here is what I say:

      Computer do exactly what they're supposed to do, and if they're supposed to lie about who won an election, they will. We have no idea how the manufacturer, or anyone with physical access to the machine, may have rigged the election.

      Most of the people are convinced at this point. Some are more knowledgable and ask things like 'Don't they check each machine and certify the code?'

      Although they check the code, 'this check' consists people carefully looking at the code the computer is supposed to be running.

      Which is fine, but then they just ask the computer if that's the code they're running. Which, obviously, the computer can lie about.

      There are programs called rootkits, and their entire purpose is to lie during system checks, to present one set of files to be 'checked' and another set to actually run. This is how many viruses operate, presenting one set of files, without the virus, to the virus scanner, and actually executing another set with the virus. It would be easy enough to activate such a program on voting machines, and it would be undetectable without removing the hard drive to scan it in another machine.

      Furthermore, remember those cards you carry to the voting machine? Anyone, before the election, could have used them to get such a rootkit onto the machine. Behind that pretty voting application is a standard Windows machine that can run all sorts of rootkits, and the code to write your own rootkit is readily available.

      And all computer scientists understand this, that it is in fact a fundamental concept of computer security that there is no way to stop a computer from lying, even to itself. Computer programmers have cracked all the security protocols set up to keep us from copying CDs and DVD and satellite signals, and voting machine security is much much crappier.

      I think this gets the point across without being too technically inaccurate.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  2. big deal by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

    voters have been routinely failing nationwide for years.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. Problems: by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTA:
    ""We're seeing a lot of problems where people are being kicked off the data base rolls if their name is on as Alex as opposed to Alexander or they've put a middle initial in there name and it's not there," said Susan"

    It sounds like these problems could have been avoided if the system was designed properly in the first place. Whoever was contracted for this should be made to solve the problem for providing a product that clearly lacked testing.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:Problems: by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't actually hold companies responsible for their mistakes!!!

  4. 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 MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here in Brazil we use voting machines for more than 10 years and it works pretty good. Also, the new version we're using this year is running over linux.

      Believe or not, it works without frauds in the 3rd world.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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!
  5. Fine them 500,000 per 'failure' by Spatial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a company that makes ATMs, right? If their money was at stake, I'd wager they'd suddenly become rather reliable.

  6. Hey by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as my guy wins, who cares right?

    1. Re:Hey by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As long as my guy wins, who cares right?

      Only if your guy is also my guy.

  7. I just don't get it. by txoof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How can law makers think that it is OK to buy and deploy unproven, closed-source devices to measure elections? There is no other segment of our society that would allow such a mission critical piece of technology to be deployed without independent or redundant systems. My electric tea kettle has been more rigorously tested by third parties than these voting machines.

    The only reasons I can come up with are these: 1. The senators are deaf, dumb and can't hear our collective screams or 2. Appreciate the uncertainty that electronic voting machines provide. I believe both could be true varying degrees for most of our representatives. We have certainly all been screaming enough that they should have heard us by now.

    What can we do? I've written to my representatives only to get a form letter back acknowledging their sincere concern for my "issue". When I lived in Colorado, I insisted on voting by mail. At least vote-by-mail provided a physically countable ballot. Unfortunately, in the 2004 election, my county clerk FORGOT to mail out a chunk of ballots and I had to vote by fax because I was out of the country. Perhaps the absolute worst way I could possibly vote other than a touch screen.

    If you are afflicted by touch screen voting, I suggest registering to vote by mail. At least then there's a chance that some real person will really count your ballot and really record the proper vote. Seems like only a chance these days though.

    --
    This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    1. 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.
    2. Re:I just don't get it. by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Voting by fax should be illegal as your vote can be traced back to you.

      Voting by mail is ok, as long as you put the ballot in a sealed blank envelope and at the other side people check if the envelope is really blank and closed.

      I have done some sit ins in Belgium and votes by mail were opened one at a time. And checked against a list, so that only one vote would be done for that person. If the envelope was not closed or if there were clear recognizable marks on it (somebody even put his name on the envelope) the envelope is destroyed without opening and the vote is not counted.

      All the blank envelopes where then placed in one place and then first opened one by one, to see if there were no two ballots in it. Once that was done, the ballots were divided by party and counted.

      This all under the watching eye of people who were of said party, but were NOT allowed to tough the ballots. Even with this paper, there was a LOT of overlapping control and about 4 to 5 times more people involved as would actually be needed.

      And still that is something I trust more then a machine that counts all that in 2 minutes, instead of us doing it in 6 hours.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:I just don't get it. by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the US, we take all of the mail-in ballots, and put them in a crate. Then, if and only if there are enough to swing the election, we try to figure out the best way to count them, because we weren't really expecting that to ever happen.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  8. Re:Freedom and Democracy EPIC FAIL by Tridus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its honestly baffling sitting up here in Canada, looking down there and trying to understand how this keeps getting screwed up year after year.

    Up here, federal elections are handled by a federal body (Elections Canada), and are done the same way everywhere in the country. Its all standardized. We use a pencil. The whole thing is over pretty fast, and all these problems just don't come up.

    Considering how much more often Americans vote, and how many more things there are to vote for, its hard to figure out why the process hasn't been perfected down there yet. If anything it seems to be getting worse.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  9. athens, tn by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Informative

    Strangely enough, the last armed revolt against the government in the US was in Athens, Tn. in *1946*. The cause? Voting issues...

    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml

    Not that I am advocating it, but it will be interesting to see just how PO'd folks will get...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos