Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finnish Court Dismisses E-Voting Result

Posted by kdawson on from the go-back-jack-do-it-again dept.

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."

8 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. 2% were lost... by Mishotaki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:2% were lost... by caliburngreywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the USA, there is often a dramatic difference between early morning voters (usually elderly or thos who work in schools) Mid-day voters (usually unemployed or work non-standard hours) and evening voters (usually work a regular day job) if the 2% was spread out evenly over space and time, representing a random sample, inference is acceptable, but if it represents, let's say, the several thousand factory workers who voted right after work in a district that is abuzz with fervor for a new labor-friendly candidate...yeah, you can't base that 2% of the other 98%

  2. how many coffin nails will it take? by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    E-voting has had more lives than a cat. It should be over, done, kaput. An experiment that failed.

    1. Re:how many coffin nails will it take? by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It still amazes me that we put full trust (and R&D $$$) into electronic banking systems yet can't get the same technology to work for something as simple as counting votes.

      "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this--who will count the votes, and how." - J. Stalin

      Electronic voting does not have an inherent paper trail.

  3. Re:What was the margin of victory? by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Banking doesn't usually require anonymity by Chmcginn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Banking doesn't usually require anonymity by GvG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could be forced by a third party to reveal how you voted (they would force you to give them your random characters and then they would be able to verify that you voted as you were told to.)

  5. 2% creates doubt and mistrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.