States Using Cloud Based Voting System For Overseas Citizens

gManZboy writes "If a ballot was lost in the cloud, would anyone know? Several states are using an online balloting website based on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing platform to allow U.S. voters living overseas to cast their votes via the Web in 2012 primary elections. In addition to a now complete Florida primary, Virginia and California will use the system for their primaries, and Washington state will use it for its caucus. To ensure the ballots are from legitimate voters, people use unique identifying information to access their ballots online, according to Microsoft. Once received, the signature on the ballot is matched with registration records to further verify identity."

Comments

Why?

[Dexter Herbivore]

Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).

Re:Why?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Because 1). People treat voting counting as a basic data collection and management problem, rather than something with particular significance.

2). Because of 1) they go shopping for a commodity "IT Solution". Unfortunately, humans (on average) are barely better than insentient objects at choosing a "Solution" that isn't a raging clusterfuck(even in those situations where there is such a solution).

3). Because of 2), somebody is left with an onrushing deadline and a pile of shit, and has to make everything appear to go more or less smoothly on time, working with whatever they have.

There certainly is reason to be substantially more suspicious of electoral matters, given what's at stake; but organizations of all types routinely build horribly maladjusted systems for all sorts of purposes, so it isn't a huge surprise...

Re:Why?

[TheLink]

In many countries the voters are unhappy when the vote counting is done behind closed doors- they know something fishy is going on (whether they can do anything about it is another matter).

One important requirement for a voting system is convincing enough of the losers that they've lost.
So even if you have an electronic voting system that actually works properly[1], you need to convince the voters that it works properly.

Of course if most of the voters don't care that much then it doesn't matter.

[1] There are some electronic systems which seem like they might work properly and be verifiable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s
But can you convince enough voters of that?

That said usually the people running/rigging the elections would prefer to use other methods instead ;).

Re:Why?

[jeffmeden]

Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).

Because they decided it was a good idea to replace one expensive vulnerable system with one slightly less expensive vulnerable system? I imagine it's time for a scorecard for e-voting (like the one for "fixing" spam) that starts with "It looks like you are proposing a replacement to the paper ballot. Your idea is bad for the following reasons..."

I imagine a similar fear must have sank in to the board members of the first pair of banks that decided to start electronically trading transactions with each other... "You mean someone could just like, hit a button, and the money could be *gone*?" And somehow here we are, all still alive and well despite, apparently, the ability for money to be stolen at will by anyone at any time because the worldwide banking system is almost entirely operated electronically and over the interwebs.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! In Amerika we've gone the other way so that issue is moot.
You see, we've developed a system where we take two identical candidates and blow them up until every possible microscopic difference is visible and then we convince voters that those differences matter. Then, after the election, we shrink them back down and show everyone how similar they really are. Everyone from the losing 'side' gets to blame the winning 'side' for everything bad until the next 'election'. It's great fun but not much of a way to run a country.

Re:Why?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Is there a voting system that isn't vulnerable? Having people show up in person to vote has shown ineffective at keeping the dead from casting a ballot.

Well, you could probably require some sort of picture ID before allowing someone to vote.

But that idea has been deemed to be reactionary and evil, so I guess the dead will continue to vote at the usual rate (which really isn't all that high).

Re:Why?

[Samantha Wright]

You are thinking too deeply about this problem.

Re:Why?

[Pope]

In most places in Canada at least, we need Photo ID to match the voters' list, and the postcard that the election team sends out that has our name, address, and voting location. Of course every ballot I've cast has been with a paper and pencil and the results are tabulated fairly quickly.

The biggest issues I've seen with the US federal ballots are that local races are including on the same one that you're using to vote for your Rep, Senator and President. Separating these out would make things so much easier to deal with IMO.

Re:Why?

[mr1911]

but the reality is that the voter fraud that exists is rare. Only a handful of people are prosecuted in any given year.

Your second statement is not proof that voter fraud is rare. It merely supports that only a handful of people are prosecuted.

Speeding tickets are rare in comparison to the number of drivers speeding. Does that mean they were not actually speeding? Or does it show that there are not enough resources to catch each violation.

Your statement could be true because fraud is rare. It could also be that prosecutors do not want to prosecute or are dissuaded from prosecuting more instances. It could be that the system is so weak producing evidence of the fraud is difficult.

Re:Why?

[bondsbw]

I have to disagree. The burden of proof should be on those who claim the system is legitimate and free from corruption. They are the ones asking the populous to trust that the system is fair.

Re:Why?

[pillbug88]

it will be hacked, i don't see any other outcome.

Re:Why?

[Kalriath]

Well, your government believes it has the right to exercise its authority anywhere on the planet, and has been caught writing laws for other countries (when it doesn't outright invade them) so in all fairness, the entire planet should get to vote in US elections.

Slight tongue in cheek aside - these people [US citizens living overseas] are still under the jurisdiction of your government, and still pay taxes (my understanding is for US citizens, federal taxes are based on worldwide income?) so why shouldn't they get input into the election process? I thought taxation without representation was the antithesis of what the US was all about?

pointless

[vlm]

Peasants, do not revolt. You can select from one 1%er corporate purchased candidate or the other 1%er corporate purchased candidate. They do have slightly different marketing messages/lies and you get to select which identical candidate hired the better PR agency and/or you get to select which lies you prefer to hear.

Re:pointless

[ackthpt]

Peasants, do not revolt. You can select from one 1%er corporate purchased candidate or the other 1%er corporate purchased candidate. They do have slightly different marketing messages/lies and you get to select which identical candidate hired the better PR agency and/or you get to select which lies you prefer to hear.

You can vote for [] Bashar al-Assad [] Tank come to your door and blow you up

Election returns prediction

[dkleinsc]

Barack Obama (D) 38%
Mitt Romney (R) 37%
DLL Not Found (I) 15%
Ron Paul (I) 10%

Re:Election returns prediction

[ackthpt]

Ill go one better, the system gets hacked and the following returns are kicked out

Barack Obama (D) 0%
Mitt Romney (R) 0%
Ron Paul (I) 0%
Anonymous (A) 100%

With honourable mention for LOL WUT Party candidate

Exactly how does voting require Cloud?

[ackthpt]

I don't understand why Cloud Technology is necessary for something which requires only a secure website and identity validation. Is this a cast of technology for the sake of technology?

Why not let big corporations hire politicians?

[rrohbeck]

They pay them anyway, now they run elections? Why bother with this voting thing at all?

Nice

[GameboyRMH]

Votes running online on a Microsoft-based system? This would be awesome if there were any candidates worth stuffing the virtual ballot box for :-P

Re:Uhm..

[PPH]

We had a vote ....

Great

[backslashdot]

So now people who don't have to live in it get more convenient ways to decide how people in a particular state should live?

Less of a threat

[ThatsNotPudding]

than the GOP trotting out their 'must be this rich and white' voter ID laws wherever and as quickly as they can. Poll taxes are back.

When demographics give you racially impure lemons, destroy free and fair elections as you see fit.

buzz word

[alienzed]

Are we replacing the word 'Internet' with 'Cloud'?