US Elections Dominated By Closed Source. Again.

An anonymous reader writes "Another American election is almost here, and while electronic voting is commonplace, it is still overwhelmingly run by closed source, proprietary systems. It has been shown that many of these systems can be compromised (and because they are closed, there may be holes we simply cannot know about). Plus they are vulnerable to software bugs and are often based on unstable, closed-source operating systems. By the inherent nature of closed software, when systems are (optionally!) certified by registrars, there is no proof that they will behave the same on election day as in tests. The opportunities for fraud, tampering and malfunction are rampant. But nonetheless, there is very little political will for open source voting, let alone simple measures like end-to-end auditable voting systems or more radical approaches like open source governance. Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available?"

Comments

Obligatory Daley

[DevConcepts]

Vote Early. Vote Often
http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~geoff/classes/hmc.cs070.200401/votequote.html

Because...

[twilightzero]

Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available? ...there's lots of money and power behind closed source, which leads to corruption and back-room deals. QED.

Re:Because...

[icebike]

Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available? ...there's lots of money and power behind closed source, which leads to corruption and back-room deals. QED.

And so far, no believable evidence that any errors actually changed the outcome of any election other than in those cases where it was so close that even human error could tip the balance. That's why mandatory recount rules kick in, in most states when races are very tight.

At least with the paper ballot reader systems you have the actual documents to count, and could count them on by hand or by an Open Source device after an election to prove or disprove any claims of errors.

But until that happens, even on a small scale, and demonstrates that the closed source systems delivered the wrong result there is just no motivation to do anything.

Of course the totally electronic voting systems, with NO physical record remains pretty much un-audit-able.

Re:Because...

[spidercoz]

Really? Might want to look into voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004. Documented proof exists that thousands of votes were either altered or outright made up.

Re:Because...

[Sigma 7]

And so far, no believable evidence that any errors actually changed the outcome of any election other than in those cases where it was so close that even human error could tip the balance.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volusia_error

The error cropped up in Volusia's 216th precinct of only 585 registered voters. A Global Election Systems (acquired by Diebold Election Systems now Premier Election Solutions) voting machine showed that 412 of those registered voters had voted. The problem was that the machine also claimed those 412 voters had somehow given Bush 2,813 votes and in addition had given Gore a negative vote count of -16,022 votes

This margin of error alone was greater than the population of the affected riding, and is well beyond human error. It also caused a riding to appear it supported the candidate they didn't vote for.

Of course the totally electronic voting systems, with NO physical record remains pretty much un-audit-able.

Actually, they can be audited if you want your vote as part of a public record. In that case, the parents/employer/mafia/dictator will demand you vote in a certain pattern.

Re:Because...

[jra]

"The love of money" is the root of all evil.

Getting that particular quote right matters.

Re:Because...

[icebike]

But again, that is not germane to the question at hand, because you need a really REALLY close election to pull off that kind of tom foolery.

Even manual counting with 5 sets of eyes on every ballot would not protect against this kind of corruption in a tight election.

Even if you could link ballots to voters (and were willing to suffer the inevitable intimidation and reprisals and vote buying of that practice), there is no way to assure the ballots found in the trunk are not tied to people who ALSO have other ballots tied to them, perhaps in different precincts, or different counties.

Close elections are a fundamental problem not solvable by technology, and for the most part, in the grand scheme of things, if society is unable to clearly choose between A and B there is probably no significant difference anyway, and you end up with a tempest in a tea pot over an emotional issue.

Re:Because...

[man_of_mr_e]

Oh geez, you're one of those Coleman Kooks.

Coleman is a carpet bagger. He moved here from new york, pretended to be a democrat to get elected into local politics then changed parties once he was elected. Franken moved here as well, but at least he was born and raised here. The guy is dishonest, a cheat, and even if he'd won the election he'd have serious legal issues to deal with that came to light during the election. Anyone that could support that in a candidate should just crawl in a hole and die.

And you're being dishonest about "found" votes as well. That was bogus talking points the republicans spread and you believe it.

Re:Because...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Not only that, but people seem not to realize that the whole concept of "democracy" is these days merely a marketing gimmick.

As long as the ignorant masses have an illusion of participation and influence on the government, everything is "fine".

So it does not really matter if the new "voting" systems are auditable, error-proof or if they are even functional at all. As long as the spectacle of "voting" is staged with all the appropriate lip service, posturing and grand proclamations, then the machines fulfill their requirements. In fact electronic voting machines do better in this than the traditional ones because of all the blinking screens, fancy graphics, the general air of "high tech" to the uninitiated (which means 90%+ of "voters"). They allow for the show to go on with the bonus theme of "progress" while stuffing pockets of various corporate cronies of the politicians along the way.

As for the "votes" themselves, nothing would appreciably change if the machines did not even bother counting them and replaced them with random noise as most candidates of all political parties these days are already pre-approved by the true rulers of the so-called Western Democracies, i.e. the aristocratic insiders who control all the traditional mass media and the central structures of all major parties.

No outright ballot-box stuffing, electronic edition, is needed. It simply does not matter anymore as the system is rigged far past the point of the need for such crude methods.

And this is the true reason why there is no interest in making sure the voting process actually works. Open source is only a tangent in this, because even without Open Source, other means of insuring validity of the votes exist, such as various paper trails etc. But they are simply deemed irrelevant by those who know that the voting and its outcomes are really meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Hence their different priorities and general disdain for any attempts to introduce any sort of "accountability" by well-meaning but horribly out of touch true believers in "democracy".

Common misconception

[Pojut]

I think a big part of it (from the public's perspective, anyway) is a misconception about open source. Many non-technology-oriented people I know think open source automatically makes it less secure, since "anyone can see what makes it tick."

Personally, I think it has to do with money more than anything else (duh.)

Re:Common misconception

[jra]

> However, I would actually consider the inability to have a recount a positive. It saves money for the taxpayer and reduces confusion and legal challenges after the election.

You sound like Tampa mayor Pam Iorio, who actually said that in public, and still got elected.

Would you both please go jump off a bridge, now?

Everyone else, repeat after me:

A VOTE IS A PHYSICAL OBJECT.

That's your mantra; use it well.

Alternatives?

[Mongoose Disciple]

So here's a question:

Does there currently exist a complete open source voting solution? Something that you could drop in in place of a Diebold or what have you.

It seems like we'd make more headway with local governments if we could say, "Here it is, it's free, it's ready to go, all you have to do is okay it." and I'm not sure if that solution yet exists?

Because that's the way they like it

[Agent0013]

"Why do we remain in the virtual dark ages, when clearly we have better alternatives readily available?"

Because it would take a politician to change the law. But both parties like the broken system we have now because they each want to game the system for their own advantage. Fair and accurate voting doesn't help the political parties or the candidates, it only help the voters!

In other words

[houghi]

A comparison between Vegas slot machines and Electronic voting:
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/03/16/GR2006031600213.gif

Re:Because:

[Errol backfiring]

Corporatocracy is just an evolved form of Feudalism.

There, fixed that for you.