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?”
Yeah, I think that the answer is, "yes, we should go back to paper ballots."
I like optical-scan. You mark the paper ballot with a pen with indelible ink, connecting the two marks next to the candidate's name, then put the ballot into the input hopper and watch it go through the machine and get deposited in the locked output hopper. Granted, you don't get a display to confirm that your markings were read right, but if the system is designed right then a subset of polling stations at random is audited by hand, and if the results are too far out of line then the entire election is audited by hand. Plus, you can actually perform the audit without anything more complex than a desk with an inbox, an outbox, a pencil, and some paper. Some light might help so one can work at night.
Even optical-scan isn't foolproof; the ballot can be messed up if someone is an idiot or the machine that does the counting could malfunction or be tampered with, but at least there's a fairly easy way to recount if needed.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
the more they do not trust dre voting machines. Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President
I've worked as an "elections inspector" (actually the head worker at one polling place) in California a few times, and this is pretty much the system used by most counties here.
There are a few ways for voters to mess up the scanner, but in general if there are voting errors the ballot will be rejected and a new ballot card will be issued. It's possible for them to jam the machine, and we need special permission or a higher-level election worker to open it up to clear. There are a series of numbered, zip-tie-like seals which are applied in various places to ensure tampering is detected. In addition to the ballots, there are detailed logs on the memory cartridge, which are printed out in duplicate as "receipts" from the machine itself.
All in all, I think it's a fairly low-tech, low-risk system.
.: Semper Absurda
I recall seeing some video's online of electronic voting machines performing vote switching on the users within a day of this last election. Not to be trusted, any malicious algorithm can be slipped in to mess with the vote. I also saw them 2 years ago after that election. When it's happening enough, that people can get a cell phone video of it happening, it's happening too much. How many people don't realize that the machine mis-recorded or switched their vote between the time they selected the candidate, and the time they press the submit button?
Here is one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Whether voter fraud, calibration issues, or electronic malfunction, it doesn't matter, as in all cases, there is no way to go back and re-check and re-count the 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.
Paper ballots are pretty damn open-source.
Just because a voting machine is supposedly running open-source software doesn't preclude tampering - hardware or software.
Feels like I've said this 100 times now:
Electronic voting: bad.
Computer-assisted voting: good.
Sure, fine, have a touch-screen and pretty pictures and good usability in general, all of that is great. Then have the voting machine print a paper ballot, which is then cast normally. You can check the paper, or just use the paper yourself, if you don't trust the computer, or if it breaks, or has been hacked. And since almost all ballots will be printed cleanly, there will be little room for 2000-style "dimpled chad" and "interpreting the voter's intentions".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The only issue is the paper waste and that can be alleviated by recycling the paper ballots after a set amount of time (I hope they keep them for at least two years but I don't know how long they do).
(1) Paper *DOES* "grow on trees"...
(2) There's no problem farming quick-growth trees to supply the pulp, even if you needed to, which you typically don't
(3) Paper recycles into methanol relatively easily, if you aren't interested in recycling it into paper. Yes, I know, this makes ADM sad, since they want us all using ethanol instead of methanol, so they can sell more corn
(4) Making ADM sad should be a long term goal anyway
Except they still have to be on the voter rolls. It isn't like without voter ID laws anyone can just walk up and say "I want to vote here". There is still voter registration that happens. Unless you know a specific voter and their polling place for each of those people you just picked up, you aren't going to get anywhere at the polling station.
The fact is that most of the voter fraud happens not at the polls but with absentee ballots. Of course the republicans don't want to touch those because they are used by old people and soldiers, which are their bread and butter.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"