Slashdot Mirror


One U.S. Election-System Vendor Is Using Developers in Serbia (computerworld.com)

The Open Source Election Technology Foundation is trying to move U.S. voting machines from "proprietary, vendor-owned systems to ones that are owned 'by the people of the United States.'" But in the meantime, Slashdot reader dcblogs brings this report from ComputerWorld: One major election technology company, Dominion Voting Systems, develops its systems in the U.S. and Canada but also has an office in Belgrade, Serbia. It was recently advertising openings for four senior software developers in Belgrade... Dominion said it takes measures "to ensure the accuracy, integrity and security of the software we create for our products...."

Alan Paller, president and director of research at the Sans Technology Institute...said that "one shouldn't feel complacent about maintaining software development and manufacturing all within the United States because foreign agencies have successfully placed technically competent spies on the payroll of American technology companies." But Suzanne Mello-Stark, a forensic computer scientist at Worcester Polytechnic Institute with a focus on voting machines, wants software and hardware transparency in voting systems. "The systems are proprietary and we don't know what the code looks like," said Mello-Stark.

83 comments

  1. You can get anything you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At Alice's restaurant.

    1. Re: You can get anything you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I also recently found out about Dominion Belgrade and was a bit confused. But then I realized that this actually makes sense. Rigging elections is not as easy as you might think. Better build on prior experience.

    2. Re: You can get anything you want by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Elbonia is probably pissed that they missed out on this opportunity.

    3. Re:You can get anything you want by DougReed · · Score: 1

      'ceptin' Alice.

  2. Voting machines... Trash them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Demand paper ballots now!

    1. Re:Voting machines... Trash them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend Chad has an intriguing newsletter. Would you like to subscribe?

    2. Re:Voting machines... Trash them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will your newsletter have pics? I heard that chad was hung.

    3. Re:Voting machines... Trash them all! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I heard that he left the US after the 2000 elections and emigrated to Chad, where he's been their chief election commissioner

  3. Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better than if the developers would be in the US?

  4. Why trust one or two people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Serbian or American, the issue with electronic voting is that it's not transparent to everyone, and can be rigged by a very few.

    So moving the software to the USA, making it open source etc. won't guarantee the election is not rigged. Because the people voting on the day cannot check the machine is running the correct software and all the parts involved in counting are running the correct software.

    That's why there needs to be human verifiable items, like paper trails that can be checked by the person voting and the person counting and the candidates overseeing the count, and any interested observer....

    Proprietary voting machines, create distrust in the voting system and should be phased out, but 'open source electronic' voting machines shouldn't be phased in in their stead. Paper, human verifiable votes are whats needed.

    1. Re: Why trust one or two people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we should just go to caucuses. If any district is registered as voting a different way than happened, everyone there can contest it.

    2. Re: Why trust one or two people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't understand why I don't walk into a voting booth, pick my candidate on a computer which prints out a ticket with all my info and who I voted for them on my way out I put the ticket in a secure box. Then the printed tickets are ALL counted like paper ballets.

      Then the computer verifies the paper and the paper verifies the computer. There is no way to cheat that system without rigging a massive number of computers and also somehow getting the people to count the tickets from any of those areas to lie about only specific voters. It would take so long to do that someone would get immediately suspicious because counting the tickets shouldn't take so long. We know about how long it takes to count ballots any deviation from that norm arouses immediate action and revote.

    3. Re:Why trust one or two people? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      That said, using software which voting device owners are free to run, inspect, share, and modify (free software) is critical because of other advantages. Voting districts should be free to make the software accommodate their needs as their laws change, and as unexpected situations develop. Proprietors know that voting districts are dependent on them and can easily reject modifications, raise the price of modifications beyond what the customer was initially planning to pay, and exact other kinds of harsh penalties for modifications. Free software lets customers hire their own programmers or use in-house programmers to make the needed modifications as per the customer's choice.

    4. Re: Why trust one or two people? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      The only benefit of such a system would to get the result sooner than a full paper count and that benefit is quite moot considering that the effect of the vote won't take effect for a very long time anyway. You write that the computer verifies the paper but #1 there is no need to verify the paper considering how paper counts work and #2 wtf do you do if the two results differ anyway, all you know at that time is that there is a difference, not where it is.

    5. Re:Why trust one or two people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but counting votes manually should not be necessary anymore. Manual vote counting is expensive, slow, and prone to mistake, too.

      How about a Voting API that takes the voter's input and sends it to multiple backend vote counting services for processing? We know something is amiss if the backend counting services disagree by more than a tiny percentage. We could still have paper trails with receipts and transaction numbers.

    6. Re:Why trust one or two people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps someone could invent a machine for this. It could connect to the computer with a wire and print the results. I'm not smart enough to design it, but I would call it a "printer".

    7. Re: Why trust one or two people? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Where I vote we use something similar except for the printout showing your info and who you voted for. We mark paper ballots and feed them into a machine that is supposed to count them. It's not a tamper-proof system, but it's far better than most out there.

      I usually vote absentee anyway because I'm always traveling on my job.

      One of the biggest problems we're going to see this election cycle is non-citizens and dead people voting. I've always been against a national ID card, but maybe it's time we have one just to protect our elections.

    8. Re: Why trust one or two people? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The paper count is always the official one. If the counts differ, you have another set of humans count the paper votes. The computers are just there to make the people with no patience happy.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re: Why trust one or two people? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Fraudulent votes from dead people, non-citizens, etc - voter fraud - is a red herring. It is quite unlikely to get worse because of electronic voting.

      The real issue is election fraud - where a small number of people can directly manipulate the election result data. Something like UPDATE votes SET selection = (SELECT id FROM candidates WHERE party = "Crony Capitalist"); Tho probably a bit more sophisticated - getting 100% of the vote always looks bad.

    10. Re: Why trust one or two people? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Well fuck the people with no patience :-). If we are talking about the US president, the vote takes place on November 8 then the electoral votes will not be case until December 19 and then on January 20 the newly elected President is inaugurated. So why does the no patience people need to know the result two months prior to it actually takes effect?

  5. Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps you do not understand the nature of open source. The physical location of the programmers does not matter. Anyone from around the world can see and make contributions to the code base.

    Instead of relying on "Trust", the code can be vetted and verified by candidates, political parties or anyone interested.

    1. Re: Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who installs the program on the machines? Open source software is reliable when **you** install it.

    2. Re: Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. When was the last time that anyone looks at and understands the millions of lines of code out there. Not too long ago someone slipped malware code into a piece of FOSS code and it wasn't discovered for years.

      The thing is everyone thinks someone else is checking the code and in fact nobody is.

      So, we'd need some organization of code auditors and an auditor of auditors to make things kosher.

    3. Re: Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to think that an open source voting platform would get more eyes than your average open source project. And, let's be honest, there is nothing complicated with incrementing counters.

    4. Re: Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone shows you the source code, can you prove that the code you are shown is the code that is actually running on the machine, all the time, without alteration? Not without a tremendous amount of time, effort and difficulty that is far beyond the capability of any local election board.

      Physical ballots (paper, whatever) are easily verifiable. Electronic ballots are not.

      Doing something "on a computer" may make it faster and easier, but not necessary better.

    5. Re:Open Source by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      "The physical location of the programmers does not matter." True. And whether they're working on open or closed source has zero bearing on that fact.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re: Open Source by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Which piece of FOSS would that be? I've heard of one attempt to put it into the Linux Kernel but that was caught immediately.

  6. Paper please by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, Informative

    Proprietary machines and software have no place in a Democracy (or a Democratic Republic). But they have very important roles in a plutocracy.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  7. Still better than the ones from Koch companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These new ones made with developers from multiple countries have got to be 1000x more trustworthy than the ones made by the Koch brothers companies.

    Bring on voting machines made by people without prior history of committing wide spread fraud in US elections!

    1. Re:Still better than the ones from Koch companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1000x more trustworthy than the ones made by the Koch brothers companies.

      How trustworthy were the voting machines made by the Koch Brothers' companies? Zero? 1000 x 0 = 0. Doesn't sound too trustworthy to me.

      Negative one? 1000 x -1 = -1000. That's even less trustworthy.

  8. Might as well vote for Crooked Hillary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The fix is in.

    You're going to be counted as voting for Crooked Hillary! anyway, might as well vote for her.

    Oh, you say the fix is in for TRUMP?!!?!?!

    Haven't been paying attention, have you?

    Who's been telling Wall Street one thing, while telling you another?

    Who just had Obama's FBI/DoJ let her get away with having an illegal email server with classified data on it, while giving everyone around her sleazy, sweetheart immunity deals?

  9. Why just the United States? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    The Open Source Election Technology Foundation is trying to move U.S. voting machines from "proprietary, vendor-owned systems to ones that are owned 'by the people of the United States.'"

    If they want Open Source, wouldn't it be "owned" by the people of the whole world?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Screw security by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    juicy gov't contracts should be creating jobs in America. Crap like this is the closest thing to socialism in America. Seeing it offshored when I know several competent programmers who are out of work (self taught guys, trying getting a job w/o a college degree and try going back to school in your 40s when tuition's $10k/year and you've got kids about to hit college yourself). Fuck them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Screw security by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      "Socialism" has a definition, and it's not "anything that rsilvergun doesn't like". Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Screw security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... juicy gov't contracts should be creating jobs in America ...

      They do, after the C- and administrative levels have taken 69% of the money. Which leaves 31% to pay for materials and labour. This purchase is a few pennies compared to the cash handed-out to US corporations.

      ... closest thing to socialism in America.

      High taxes in a capitalist-welfare state mimic socialism. Socialism doesn't prioritize the greed incentive, which capitalist-welfare does. Is there a practical difference? Probably not. The USA has neither high taxes, nor a priority on a minimum standard of living; thus it not either. It combines a plutocracy and a meritocracy, thus ensuring sufficient middle-class turn-over to keep the underpaid wage slaves grateful for their lifestyle of conspicuous consumption.

      ... I know several competent programmers who are out of work ...

      The government does not owe them a job: That is called communism. A shortage of employment is meant to drive (labour) prices down or redistribute workers to other jobs. The reality is, labour prices are fixed by minimum-wage laws and workers can't move into other jobs because they don't have the level of skill demanded for that minimum wage. Yes, mature-age workers need experience for minimum-wage jobs, nowadays. The answer is to force the cost of training onto employers, again.

      When labour is easily replaced, there is a a need for piece-work wages: The so-called gig economy. The problem with piece-work is, using a metric that accurately describes the amount of effort to finish a task. Poor metrics mean someone wears the cost for the edge cases: The worker because his true time and skill isn't rewarded; the customer because he's not getting social justice, QA or other equality of outcome; the employer because unrewarded labour causes more employee turn-over.

      The wage structure of the economy needs to be re-engineered. This is what makes a basic income so useful: It is a band-aid over the current mess that ensures workers do not suffer while the gig economy emerges and develops.

  11. Really... by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

    We ought to have FOSS election software and hardware, and have a centralized VPN to avoid issues with open wifi connections. The voting machines in the US is horribly broken. Oh, and while you are at it just make a centralized biometrics database for the US and incorporate them in the voting machines.

    1. Re:Really... by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Or, you know, just do like we do in Canada and cast our ballots by making a mark on a piece of paper with a pencil, and then counting them by hand, under the supervision of representatives from each of the candidates who are listed on that piece of paper. Highly accurate, highly reliable, and very scaleable.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:Really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We ought to have FOSS election software and hardware, and have a centralized VPN to avoid issues with open wifi connections. The voting machines in the US is horribly broken.
      Oh, and while you are at it just make a centralized biometrics database for the US and incorporate them in the voting machines.

      OK on the FOSS, but there's zero reason to have any of the machines networked, so no WiFi, no Ethernet either. Also no hardware ports accessible from the outside of the machine.

    3. Re:Really... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Kind of makes sense too, you know, a government of the people, by the people and for the people, should have people involved though out the election process. Making those votes and counting those votes. The only technology they should incorporate is to allow photos to be taken at the polling station where you get marked off the voting rolls, a face to go with every vote.

      The only reason to switch from manual to electronic pretty much seems to be all about scamming the elections and that is the only reason for the electronics, a central point to switch the vote from what ever it was to a 52-54 percent in favour of the hacked in winner. Didn;t the current administration very recently update the security on all those voting system after a claimed hack by Mr Bogey Man Russia (I wonder who really did those hacks and what those updates really do).

      Better they blame Russia than 'Anonymous' otherwise they will have to arrest the anonymous majority, the invisible people, the people who do not count for anything in the currently corrupted non-democracy. As anyone can be 'Anonymous' at any time, anyone cab then considered a potential member of 'Anonymous' and as such they claim cause for wire tapping all their computer systems, you have to prove yourself not to be a member of 'Anonymous', else be considered suspect.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  12. Srpski by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Wonderful. The Serbians love Americans after the bombing of Belgrade. They'd never do anything to mess up a US election.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Srpski by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Zdravo, prijatelju! I'm sure our employer doesn't trust my many Serbian colleagues to write code for our products. Oh, wait...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Srpski by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Zdravo, prijatelju!

      Kako si, bre.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Srpski by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Since our UTF-challenged overlords don't support Latin characters with carons, much less Cyrillic, a proper response shall have to await their enlightenment. :-)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Srpski by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The true test is if you can curse like a Serb. Next to Scots, they are among the world's finest.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Srpski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ne brate, Spanci su sampioni i za nas ;)

  13. Open source not required to inspect and verify by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you do not understand the nature of open source. The physical location of the programmers does not matter. Anyone from around the world can see and make contributions to the code base. Instead of relying on "Trust", the code can be vetted and verified by candidates, political parties or anyone interested.

    Open source is not required to verify the source code. Proprietary closed (as in no outside modifications) can be published for public inspection. The public can build a binary to compare against what is on the machine. However the public needs no right to modify or redistribute to do so.

    For many decades some proprietary software has been available under both binary and source codes licenses. The later allowing the license holders to view and modify the source code. It is usually much more expensive but worth it in my opinion. It allows one to incorporate proprietary software into one's product and not be utterly dependent on the vendor for bug fixes. In other words it lets one retain control of one's project. This could also be a non-FOSS option for a government agency.

  14. It's Diebold. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    Premier Election Solutions
    Formerly called: Diebold Election Systems, Inc
    Industry: Electronic Voting hardware, Consulting
    Fate: Acquired by Dominion Voting Systems

    -- wikipedia

    The fact that they acquired them after they were disgraced speaks volumes.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:It's Diebold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like living in bizarro world...

  15. Some proprietary software has source code license by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Proprietary machines and software have no place in a Democracy (or a Democratic Republic). But they have very important roles in a plutocracy.

    Proprietary software can have its source code inspected and modified by its customers. It just requires a source code license rather than a binary license. It happens all the time. Open source is not the only way to verify and have control of the software.

  16. Maybe they want EU customers? by perpenso · · Score: 1

    So they current have US and Canadian developers and might be adding EU developers. Maybe they want to sell their machines in the EU? Just offering another possibility to investigate.

    1. Re:Maybe they want EU customers? by r1348 · · Score: 2

      Serbia is not in the EU.

    2. Re:Maybe they want EU customers? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Serbia is not in the EU.

      Not yet, it is however a candidate working through the process.

    3. Re:Maybe they want EU customers? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Is it? I thought that Serbia and EU both hate each other due to the Bosnian war, as well as the EU recognition of Kosovo, but refusal to support Serb claims on Srpska

    4. Re:Maybe they want EU customers? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      France and Germany reconciled, why not Serbia and the EU?

  17. US is about the get punked by voislav98 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, this settles it, it's going to be a landslide victory for Trump.

    1. Re:US is about the get punked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not at all convinced that voter fraud benefits Republicans on balance, but hopefully the current fanaticism will will spark the demand for more auditible systems, whoever wins. The electronically scanned paper ballot is pretty much the apex of speed while still being accountible, why do we need any more automation than that?

  18. Oh boy by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Socialism is, by and large, the redistribution of wealth to ensure a minimum standard of living. Americans by and large want this but they're also very uncomfortable with it because they have puritanism crammed into their skulls when they're young (defenseless) children. This is why you see reports of white men overwhelmingly believing that a) the gov't caused all their problems and b) the gov't isn't doing enough to help them.

    So crap like the Military Industrial Complex and gov't waste is how we manage to get these sort of people to accept the help they need. Sorta like Ayn Rand living off Social Security at the end of her life. Well, exactly like that, actually.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Oh boy by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Nope. Socialism is, by and large, the workers owning the means of production. The closest USA has to socialism are employee owned companies and credit unions.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, socialism is about the BENEFITS being redistributed to someone other than the owners. Who actually owns the company or supplies the capital is not relevant. The government taking away all the profits from a company to spend as they see fit is socialism, just as the church taking away the profits of its member's companies would be.

    3. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, socialism is about the BENEFITS being redistributed to someone other than the owners. Who actually owns the company or supplies the capital is not relevant. The government taking away all the profits from a company to spend as they see fit is socialism, just as the church taking away the profits of its member's companies would be.

      Look up the definition of socialism.
      Your definition is wrong.
      When you make up your own definition for a word, that makes everything you say be wrong.
      Your definition is wrong.

  19. Re:Some proprietary software has source code licen by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Only when it comes to elections, the population are really the customer..

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  20. The solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Create a system where citizens are required to link their DNA to their identity before voting, with a national database, and then require voters to use their DNA to select the persons they are voting for.

    That'll eliminate the issue of dead people/cats/dogs voting, and people pretending to be other people voting, and possibly it'll help eliminate a lot of fraud associated with the current paper and computer voting systems.

    Unless you like living in a corrupt nation, in which case... yes, it is totally racist and wrong to check someone's ID to make sure they actually are the person they say they are, when they place a vote regarding something that can have an effect on billions of human beings.

  21. Serbia?! by dejaniv · · Score: 2

    I find it offensive that the submitter and editors emphasized that the software is made in Serbia and highlighted it in the title. They could have said "outside USA" but I guess when you say "Serbia" it sounds a lot more serious. Looking at some of the posts here I see that for some of you it actually does.

    Crooked software is made in many countries. Perhaps the choice of the company wasn't really based on where the company was based but the quality of service. There are many excellent software companies in Serbia. Just check this out. And this, and this...

    I get the point that voting software is too sensitive to be outsourced but if you're going to outsource it then software company based in Serbia is probably one of the better choices.

    1. Re:Serbia?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but i've had enough of Serbian outsourcing. It's becoming the new India slowly.

    2. Re:Serbia?! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But don't they write better code? That's what I have heard - those in Eastern Europe have better coding practices

  22. Obvious conflict of interest, possible fraud by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

    Dominion Voting Systems donated to the Clinton Fund. They were also one of the machine voting systems that appears to have irregularities.
    http://bit.ly/EJUSA_Democracy_...
    http://www.caucus99percent.com...

    --

    -]Phreak Out[-
  23. Serbs make you feel cleansed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have any unclean ethnicities you need purged, trust Serb power! They are great at erradicating women and children and unarmed people real heroic.

  24. Serbia will c l e a n s e you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you want to purge the ethnically impure, use Serbs! Heroic at massacres of woman, children and unarmed men. Real heroes.

    1. Re:Serbia will c l e a n s e you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to purge the ethnically impure, use Serbs! Heroic at massacres of woman, children and unarmed men. Real heroes.

      Yes, but they also know how to program, unlike Albanians, who only know how to distribute narcotics and organs ;).

  25. You're thinking communism by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    different things entirely.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're thinking communism by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Nope, communism is far more than that.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  26. A quote by no one important by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

    Spoken by some nobody, a J. Stalin.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  27. Why does the US... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does the US have this fascination of trying to "improve" how people vote? There's all these systems to let people vote electronically, on-line, or through the mail. Heck, even with paper ballots the US has a history of trying different things. Just remember Florida, 2000, and chads.

    Marking an X next to the person you want to vote for has worked for a long time, it's simple, and doesn't need fancy new equipment which introduce new ways to alter the outcome of elections. The old system isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed.

    1. Re:Why does the US... by RobRyland · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why they keep changing it... to make it easier to rig.

    2. Re:Why does the US... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your definition of "working" and politicians' definition of "working" differ. Dwell on "fancy new equipment which introduces new ways to alter the outcome of elections."

    3. Re:Why does the US... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think it has a lot to do with the US ballot. In Canada we have exactly 1 question on the ballot. In the US, the ballot looks more like this. There is 34 separate questions on that ballot. This is the problem with the US voting system.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  28. Re:Some proprietary software has source code licen by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Only when it comes to elections, the population are really the customer..

    No. The customers are the government officials running the election. Citizens are users of this government equipment, the voting "machine".

  29. WHY NOT RUSSIA? by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Seriously, if they are going overseas and allowing others to manipulate our data, might as well make it Russia. At least you will get better code.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you, US boys, are afraid that something is not developed by people in the US? Are you for real? so all that shit about the free market and freedom of buying here and freedom of... bullshit.
    Your country encourages the rest (or forces, or even bombs) others so that your big companies can go there and make business but when a company is or has offices in other countries you go nuts?

    I love your hypocrisy, it's so... lovely childish.

  31. The Robinson Method solves all problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is nobody talking about it, and why would you accept an electronic 'voting' system, which is obviously designed for fraud?

    http://www.paul-robinson.us/index.php/2008/10/25/the_robinson_method_a_really_simple_way_?blog=5

  32. Finally a story about Election rigging??? by SadButResolved · · Score: 0

    yea they stole it from Bernie, they stole it for McCain and Obama. But you should all get out and volunteer to pole watch and do exit polls, because right now you have a group of foreign agents, that will gather in a room, make a Tally that is completely fake, come out of that room and declare who won the election.

    Wake up, Help Pole Watch lets catch these folks. Watch the UN and DHS, they are definitly not here to HELP free elections. Again owned both by foreign agents.

  33. Yes, and by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Voting should start at 12:01 AM Friday and conclude at 12:00 PM Sunday. Frankly, the election weekend should be moved to September to avoid winter weather ever being a factor.

    The ballots should be paper, the counting should be by hand in public view, controlled by non-voting or third-party people as neither the Tastycrat nor Fingerlican machines can be trusted with this task.

    Lastly: NO EXIT POLLING nor predictions before the polls close, period. The role of the Fourth Estate is to inform, not fucking suppress turnout.

  34. Electronic voting should not exist for this reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's to easy to write a back door that a non technical manager will fail to detect. We should ban electronic polling systems.