Slashdot Mirror
Voting Machines Malfunction: 5,000 Votes Not Counted In Kansas County
An anonymous reader writes A malfunction in electronic voting machines in Saline County, Kansas, left over 5,000 votes uncounted. That's roughly one-third of the votes cast. Counting those 5,207 votes didn't change any outcomes in this case however. “That’s a huge difference,” county Chairman Randy Duncan said when notified by the Journal of the error. “That’s scary. That makes me wonder about voting machines. Should we go back to paper ballots?”
I guess the other thing that I like about it is, if the power goes out, or the machines all suddenly don't work, or if there aren't enough machines, or if a vulnerability in the machines is discovered and cannot be corrected, the voter can still vote in the same way. It becomes the election office's job to figure out how to count the votes in that set of circumstances, but it's still possible to have the election.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Bingo. Having computer assisted voting that produces a ballot that is both machine and human readable is a must. Without this paper trail, you have absolutely nothing. Even with crypto, crypto doesn't protect against erasure, and an "accidental" erasure of votes on a voting machine can sway an election.
I was working on an e-voting prototype using Java in the late 1990s. No matter how it worked, there was no way to secure it, so I gave up on the project, because if the device couldn't be hacked, the data on it was destroyable. Distributed storage could easily be hacked/tampered with, and would be hard to admin by volunteers. The hardware could be made more secure, but it would completely destroy voter anonymity.
Instead, David Chaum's Verifiable Voting system is the absolute best thing out there. It provides not just anonymity for votes, but validates ballots were done correctly.
My local precinct uses electronic black box voting machines. On election day (Nov. 4, 2014) I requested a paper ballot. They told me I could not vote with a paper ballot. I told them that I had checked with the election division of the secretarty of state office for my state and that I did in fact have the right to vote using a paper ballot. They asked me to wait, they called a supervisor. The supervisor then called the secretary of state office. After a few minutes they issued an apology to me and said that yes I could vote with a paper ballot and yes my vote would count. I voted using a real paper ballot which I placed into a real ballot box.
If they do not allow you to vote using a paper ballot then they are denying your right to vote.
Many years ago our company was asked if we could develop electronic voting systems for elections (we do, in fact we invented electronic voting systems decades ago for conferences and audience interactions, so we basically were a logical choice). The customer intended to buy a complete electronic voting infrastructure for a whole country, so this was very tempting. I was tasked to research into this topic, and have examined this very thoroughly from every angle possible.
My conclusion: There is no, absolutely NO way to get the level of democratic voting quality from electronic ballot systems that is comparable to classic paper ballots. The risks are immense, the gain neglectable.
The electronic system is in no way verifyable by the average voter or voting administrator. Anybody can look into a ballot box before the vote starts and see that it is empty, people can watch over the whole thing to verify that everybody casts only one vote, and wittnesses and recounts can see that every vote from the box is counted for the right candidate. But nobody can do this in an electronic voting system. Yes, they can click on a button and the system tells them "0 votes in ballot box", but they cannot verify this. The voters cann press "A", and the machine tells you that your vote was cast for "A", thankyouverymuch, but internally it could just drop the vote or count it for "B" or "C". Nobody could check this. At the end, the machine would display some numbers for A, B, and C, and you have to believe them.
And this is just the logic part of the problem. On top of that there is the question of technical reliability and user errors. There have been voting systems with touchscreens that needed to be calibrated before use, and there have been several cases where mis-calibration led to votes being cast for the wrong candidate/party (just as an example, whoever knows a technical system will know thousand ways it could fail). How does the system cope with a power loss during voting? Has the vote you just cast been counted or not? And what about the ease of vote? You and I can cope with "press candidate button, verify choice, press submit button", but an astonishing number of people can not (anyone who ever did tech support will not be that surprised).
All the key requirements to a democratic vote cannot be established simultaneously with an electronic voting system: Verifyability, integrity, secrecy. Yes, you can do a lot in the realm of integrity (like they do in Vegas for the one-armed bandits), but the stakes are way higher and so is the temptation to fix the game in a way that will go undetected even by the toughest inspection (and you cannout tough-inspect every electronic ballot box after every election!). And if you want a really reliable system, you will loose the secrecy factor. If you want secrecy, the verifyability and integrity will go down the drain. It is in fact worse than the business classic "Iron Triangle" (Fast, Good, Cheap, pick any two), it is more or less a "pick one". And for a true democratic vote, you will need all three.
The only advantages that an electronic ballot system can give are the results seconds after the closing of the ballot station and no problematic votes where people have to decide whether a vote is valid or not. Thats why the politicians LOVE electronic voting - it gives them nice results in time for the evening news. But do you really want to sell away the integrity of the last democratic instrument left for the citizens for saving a few man-hours in each ballot station? And I'd rather wait for the morning paper with the final results from a paper-based, democratically obtained election result than seeing grinning polititians congratulating themselves in the evening news, claiming their win from a quite doubtful, error- and manipulation-prone process.
In the end, I had a long and intense talk with our company founder and CEO and could convince him that electronic voting is a bad idea for democracy, and he communicated this very result to the customer. And as the customers intention was to have a democratially sound election system, he agreed.