Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Will Help Iowa Caucuses Go High-Tech
jfruh writes: Poltical party caucuses are one of the quirkier aspects of American political life: local party members gather in small rooms across the state, discuss their preferences, and send a report of how many delegates for each candidate will attend later county and statewide caucuses to ultimately choose delegates to the national convention. It's also a system with a lot of room for error in reporting, as local precinct leaders have traditionally sent in reports of votes via telephone touch-tone menus and paper mail. In 2016, Microsoft will help both Democrats and Republicans streamline the process in a fashion that will hopefully avoid the embarrassing result from 2012, when Mitt Romney was declared the winner on caucus night only for Rick Santorum to emerge as the true victor when all votes were counted weeks later.
Iowa is about to get their accounts completely ass fucked by a company that cannot even create a decent stable program with a good interface (well, sorta if they have 20+ years).
Are these people insane? They could probably just hire a web developer or 2 and get the same result.
Government employees in my mind lately are sorta like babies, if you jangle something shiny at them (OHHH MICROSOFT I KNOW THEM) they shit themselves and blurble for it without thinking of anything else. Sorta like how the health care website got all screwed up by oracle.
They need passionate people who care about technology, microsoft only cares about business and the products they make are horrific shit.
As a Canadian that still uses paper ballots when voting, I still can't understand how it takes weeks to count votes in the U.S.A.
"We have to wait until the other precincts report their totals to know how many extra votes we need." -anonymous poll worker
Let's see the hackers arrange for Bill Gates to get 100% of the votes; maximum embarrassment all round...
Des Moines, Feb. 26, 2016 - Officials from the Federal Election Commission have descended upon the capitol today after a bank of Microsoft-supplied vote tracking machines declared Free Software Foundation President Richard M. Stallman to be the undisputed winner of the 2016 Iowa Caucuses. Stallman, who won a record-breaking 100% of the vote, told journalists that he welcomes the results even though he had not previously declared himself as a candidate for the presidency. Stallman has already issued a statement declaring that if he is elected, "2017 will truly be the Year of the Linux Desktop."
Federal officials have insisted that the voting machines were somehow hacked, potentially by terrorists associated with The SCO Group, a former Unix developer infamous for years of frivolous lawsuits over the ownership of Linux. One official, speaking on condition that his name would not be published, said that The SCO Group had left "footprints" in the code used to hack the machines. "It was the strangest calling card we've ever seen," the official said, "When we looked at the code, half of it was the words "PWNZORED BY SCO" over and over again. Given the patterns we've seen with ISIS and Al-Qaeda, we can assume this is a terrorist group taking responsibility for the attack."
Locals in Iowa, however, believe the results to be legitimate. Several residents told reporters that "The results can't be any more corrupt than they already were" and "At least we won't have to listen to all those conspiracy posts on Slashdot if Hilary loses."
A spokesperson from Microsoft declined to comment on this story, saying "Bill's absolutely livid right now. The machines were supposed to glitch and give him 100% of the vote.. I mean, ensure a fair and accurate balance in making sure every vote counts. Needless to say, we are looking into it."
vote Cthulhu. why choose the lesser evil
This is a so-called solution that ignores the realities of the political process.
For one, in 2012, Ron Paul won Iowa, not Mitt Romney and not Rick Santorum.
The counted poll the article refers to is a just a straw poll, nothing more--the caucus itself, which happens afterwards, is what controls the selection of delegates. Folks who just voted in the straw poll and left before the caucus started didn't actually participate in caucusing for their candidate.
Sadly, the media reports these polls as if they were election/caucus results, and in 2012 mislead the public into thinking that Ron Paul, who was the winner in Iowa, somehow had no support even though he won Iowa.
Microsoft is now focusing on this irrelevant straw poll that doesn't represent the actual caucus results. But more importantly, even ignoring the fact that this straw poll doesn't actually have any real-world effect other than being useful as a way to mislead the public, listening to the video didn't answer any real questions about how their solution would really help even that process.
For instance, they talk about how the voting data (and they're talking about precinct and district level results for the unimportant straw polls), wouldn't be viewable to people in another political party. Well, if that's the case, how does anyone who participated in the straw poll verify that the totals were reported correctly? If that data is secret, then this is clearly a step in the wrong direction.
Then happens if there is a difference between the Microsoft-reported results and the paper mail reported results? If the mailed results take precedence, (which is ideal), then we're still back where we started--a correction to the straw poll is made weeks later. If the electronic results take precedence, then suddenly Microsoft is in control of the election.
I doubt they've put together a system that can be externally verified even in the presence of skilled bad actors at all levels. (ie, any vote counting system for political elections should be resilient against an attack of, say, all the designers, app store folks, and everyone at Microsoft related to the project working either individually or colluding together to give votes to a favored candidate. With a properly designed system, every single one of those people could be as nefarious as possible and vote rigging would still be detected.)
And..they talk about the "chair" being given credentials to report votes for his precinct/district, as if that has anything at all to do with the credentialing problem. So..how is that done specifically? Is Microsoft psychic? The chair isn't determined until a convention or a precinct begins--it's something that's voted on at the time.
So what happens if a different person is elected chair than the state party expects ahead of time? The vote totals for the straw poll are publicly known. A change of having those vote totals relayed via secure credentials given to a person the state party selects ahead of time (and who may or may not end up being the chair) and who may have a hidden agenda shared by the state party, isn't really a clear improvement over the same person relaying the very same, public information through a less secure channel and more error-prone channel.
In both cases we're completely dependent on there being external verifications of the process and in both cases we're screwed if those verifications don't happen.
So while it sounds all nice and shiny and such, and it will be nice that Microsoft is GPL'ing all the code to do this so that it can be adapted and used in any other project, (yes, I realize that isn't likely to be true--it will have either a proprietary license, or they'll try to pretend it is open-ish somehow), I don't see how it fundamentally solves any serious issue.
The Iowa caucus process has a caucus vote before the actual caucusing. Sadly, a lot of people go home after the vote but before the caucusing starts. Also sadly, the media lazily reports on and misleads the public into thinking that the initial caucus vote is relevant in the process.
Two things happen, one after the other: First there is a caucus vote. But it's only after that vote that the caucusing itself starts, which selects delegates to go to district and state conventions where the national delegates get selected. It's who those delegates support and who they vote for at the national convention that counts. The caucus vote doesn't make any difference to that process.
Again, the selection of the national delegates, and who they vote for, has *nothing* to do with the caucus votes that are reported on in TFA--those caucus votes are as much of a straw poll as the Iowa straw poll is, and sadly enough many people are taken in by that.
If the caucus-goers vote in that caucus vote that they are supporters of candidate A, but then vote for delegates who are supporters of candidate B, then it's candidate B that they're truly giving support to, (as those delegates will then vote for national delegates who are supporters of candidate B.)
The winner of the Iowa caucus process is the candidate who gets the most delegates supporting them, not the candidate who ended up winning the "caucus vote" poll that was done before caucusing started.
Confusing the two things is conceptually no different than a person telling a telephone pollster that they are voting for candidate A but then later in the ballot box actually voting for candidate B. It is also no different conceptually from the media continuing to report on poll numbers after an election and neglecting to report on the actual election numbers.
Winning means actually getting delegates. You can call winning a poll that has no effect on anything winning if you want, but it's a pointless use of the term.
Articles at the time talking about this: