Slashdot Mirror
Finnish Court Dismisses E-Voting Result
wizzor writes in with a follow-up on the Finnish municipal election in which 2% of the votes were lost by a defective e-voting system, and which the Helsinki Administrative Court had found acceptable. Now the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland has rejected the election results (original in Finnish; bad Google translation here) and ordered the election to be re-run. The submitter adds, "Apparently 98% of the votes isn't enough to determine how the remaining 2% voted, after all."
If 2% of the votes were lost, how many were incorrect or not registered properly? If the system can lose votes, it can very easily put them for the wrong person as well...
E-voting has had more lives than a cat. It should be over, done, kaput. An experiment that failed.
In theory, because of the voting system used, 2% of the votes could have dramatic consequences. Of course, we'll never know because the votes are anonymous and the recipients secret, but if you think that quite a lot of candidates got in with just a few dozen of votes, you can clearly see how 2% could have determined a lot.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The problem with the electronic voting vs. banking comparison is that bank account have your personal information all over them. Votes, however, do not. If you gave up secret voting, you could likely make a 'secure enough' voting system, since anyone could check their own vote in the system.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
2% creates doubt and mistrust in the election results and that is unacceptable. What if the votes were lost in a non-random fashion? What if the same e-voting system gets reused later in a case where 2% could mean the difference between a seat going to one candidate or another? What if the root cause of the loss caused other problems as well? What does it say about the quality control and security of the system? People should be able to trust the outcome of an election.
It sure seems like an easy problem, doesn't it.
As a programming problem, it seems like an easy problem because it is. Thing is - it's not a programming problem. It's a security problem. As a security problem, the programmer is the most significant potential attacker. Does it still seem easy?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Its actually surprisingly hard, if you start to think about it. If you compare to the paper ballot system, there are checks and balances. The different party officials and citizens can oversee the counting (in fact, they volunteer to do it). One corrupt counter does not break the system, however, because the others will catch him. And its very hard to cause a country-wide discrepancy.
If you compare an e-voting system to, say, a banking application, there's one big difference: in the banking application you WANT a secure trail of events, stored for perpetuity. In voting you want anonymous results while at the same time secure results. Its very hard to do this, as almost every design makes you trust someone in some way.
Then if you add the issue of voters not being able to verify the system for various commercial reasons... my take on this is that an e-voting system does not make sense for simple and efficient elections like the ones we have in Finland. Counting is fast, there are no reliability problems (in fact, there is a 10x higher reliability in paper ballots). Its cheap, because its mostly run by volunteers who have an incentive to participate.
When your company name is so sullied that you need to change it, you ought to realize that you have reached the end of the line...