Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Voting Software Concept Released
filesiteguy writes "Wired is reporting that the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation has announced the first release of Linux- and Ruby-based election management software. This software should compete in the same realm as Election Systems & Software, as well as Diebold/Premiere for use by County registrars. Mitch Kapor — founder of Lotus 1-2-3 — and Dean Logan, Registrar for Los Angeles County, and Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, all took part in a formal announcement ceremony. The OSDV is working with multiple jurisdictions, activists, developers and other organizations to bring together 'the best and brightest in technology and policy' to create 'guidelines and specifications for high assurance digital voting services.' The announcement was made as part of the OSDV Trust the Vote project, where open source tools are to be used to create a certifiable and sustainable open source voting system."
Once again, programmers thinking software will change the world.
Elections are not based on trust of software, it is based on trust of the PROCESS.
Don't trust the PROCESS, and it doesn't matter how trustworthy your software is.
I want an PROCESS that has ACCOUNTABILITY. A "Bug" in your software means someone goes to jail for negligence, or pays for the cost of a reelection.
Here in the great white North, we have a paper ballot. A simple "X" inside a circle. Human verifiable, countable, no switches, electrons, software, etc. Weeks or months after the election I can see the recounts.
Software can solve a lot of problems, trust is not one of them.
Once they've been granted suffrage. Not before.
I post this same post every time we have a computerized vote counting thread. My objection to this has nothing to do with whether it's a secret proprietary process or a totally open FOSS solution. With each generation of computer technology we gain the opportunity to go wrong with greater speed than ever before. Yes, proprietary solutions are horrid and there's some evidence that they've been used to steal votes and they're truly evil. Unfortunately, FOSS tools can be abused too.
I guess my point is that the process of counting votes using humans is an important part of representative democracy because it doesn't just achieve the goal of "counting the vote". It also impresses on the participants the importance of sanity and trust and impartiality in the process, without which constant reinforcement we can expect democracy to rapidly go off the rails. Compared to that social good, the importance of getting same-day results fades in importance.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No it's not. Slashdot was up in arms against electronic voting when it was closed-source. Open-source doesn't make much of a difference.
While I still think we should use paper ballots (what exactly does e-voting gain us?) it makes a world of difference if the code is open or closed source. Voting is all about trust, if I can see the source and verify that it doesn't have any major bugs in it that is a step in the right direction compared to closed source. Secondly open source is cheaper, I don't want my tax dollars wasted on proprietary software, especially if there is an open source alternative. If we are going to have e-voting, it had better be open source, closed source is unacceptable.
Ruby still isn't a great choice. It should run absolutely as close as possible to bare metal to make sure a JVM bug or a Ruby bug doesn't affect the results.
Sure, but it does provide more readable and testable code while reducing the risk of hardware dependent errors. I think most people can say with certainty that the Ruby interpreter is reasonably stable as is the JVM.
Linux wouldn't be my choice for a kernel either. It's too experimental and rapidly changing for me to feel great about asking 300 million people to trust it
Does Linux change? Yes. Does that affect the stability of a certain kernel version? No. If they stick with 2.6.31.5, it doesn't matter if 2 months from now if 2.6.32 comes out because 2.6.31.5 will still run with no problem (outside of some serious bug), everything in voting machines should be static, no new hardware, no new software, just configuration changes. Linux has been running in embedded systems just like what I described for years now with no problems.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Wait a sec...step back. Take a deep breath and think this through.
All those rules you described are there for what purpose exactly? Because as far as I can see, those rules have not made existing voting software (which presumably meets these guidelines) any more reliable or trustworthy. If the only reason these rules exist is to make the software secure and trustworthy, and if they create what appears to be a huge burden for developers of voting systems, then perhaps we need to throw out this particular set of guidelines *along with* the existing crappy voting software.
Am I the only one to whom this is obvious? These rules don't exist for their own sake - they exist to achieve a goal. If they're not achieving that goal, the rules need to be rewritten before you even touch a single line of this code.
The crimes of eBay are a disgrace to it's pig latin heritage!
Known by whom? Python fanbois?
I'm honestly not trolling and I'm honestly not trying to start a Python/Ruby flame war, but let's not try to hide opinions behind worthless statements like "Python is known to be," particularly when the metric is as subjective as "readb[ility]."
Aside from the enforced nature of Python whitespace, I don't find there to be much of a difference between the two in terms of readability. I prefer specified ending blocks, whereas Python seems to merely use a blank line and the indentation. What jumps out at me (as a Ruby fan) more than anything is how stupid and unintuitive '"""' is as a commenting option. Eesh. But all of that is personal preferences, as it should be. There's no substantive differences and certainly nothing measurable enough that we should bandy about statements like Python being known to be more readable.
Chances are, by the way, that's your answer. Why Ruby instead of Python? The authors likely preferred it and were more familiar with it. It needn't be any more complex than that.