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...

[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...

[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.

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!

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.

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