Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LA County Gets State Approval of New Vote-Counting System Using Open-Source Software (latimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the first-of-its-kind dept.

A new voting system that uses open-source software for counting ballots has been approved by California elections officials. "The certification of the new tally system for the county paves the way for other improvements, including redesigned absentee ballot packets, in the Nov. 6 election," reports Los Angeles Times. "It is the first election system of its kind, using publicly available source code that has been certified for use in California." From the report: The ballot-counting equipment is part of a broader redesign of Los Angeles County's voting system, which will include new equipment while relying on a traditional paper ballot. The county's existing system, portions of which are now decades old, has been targeted for replacement for several years.

54 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by GerryGilmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Damn - considering that every single major tech provider from Google through Facebook through...relies fundamentally on open-source software, the idea that our elections rely on - essentially - DOS-based, closed-source systems for every step from voting through counting is beyond bizarre!

    1. Re:Finally! by AlwinBarni · · Score: 1

      Damn - considering that every single major tech provider from Google through Facebook through...relies fundamentally on open-source software, the idea that our elections rely on - essentially - DOS-based, closed-source systems for every step from voting through counting is beyond bizarre!

      Agree, elections after all is not a daily thing, I would say that for the sake of protecting this essential democratic tool it is worth to just manually count the ballots by representatives of major parties (on local level of course) and compare the results. Are we so lazy?

      Regarding the closed software issue: some time ago I heard a podcast about software to guide judges whether to allow bailout or not - the software is closed source, and when the redactor asked why not open source ALL the experts in the discussion expressed opinion that "no no no, closed software is good" - I heard ka-ching sound in background (not literally, and it is just my assumption, that the researchers were sponsored). Anyway, personally it baffles me to have this not only a proprietary closed software, but also without any whatsoever review by an independent entity.

  2. Nice gesture, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being able to look at the source is great and everything, but which actual bits are installed and configured on the machines is another matter.

    Anything with a general purpose CPU shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the election system. A volunteer observer with a high school education should be able to verify, by simple inspection, the operation of any machine involved with counting/processing the physical ballots.

    1. Re:Nice gesture, but... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The computer should be used to print the filled out ballot, because American elections throw in voting for other stuff like sherif and dog catcher. The human readable paper ballot should then be taken by the voter, verified, and inserted into the ballot box. The ballot boxes are opened and counted by humans, and the totals and winners announced. And those computers don't have a network connection, and all software is a standard load with audits done.

    2. Re:Nice gesture, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Being able to look at the source is great and everything, but which actual bits are installed and configured on the machines is another matter.

      Also, more verification in the areas that haven't experienced any widespread election fraud isn't exactly going to help.
      Meanwhile voting records in Georgia is still deleted and no-one held accountable.

  3. You're welcome, America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    California leading the way once again. While Georgia is closing polling stations in majority-black counties, California demonstrates how to have fair and honest elections. And guess what? When the elections are fair and open and all the citizens get to vote, you get good government.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:You're welcome, America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here in Arizona we have paper ballots that get read through an optical reader and saved in a box

      This is not about the ballot. If you read the summary, you'll see California is already using paper ballots. It's about what happens to the data after it leaves the optical scanner. How it's reported, tabulated, stored.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:You're welcome, America by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      When the elections are fair and open and all the citizens get to vote, you get good government.

      Start drinking early tonight, did you.

    3. Re:You're welcome, America by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Absolutely!! How could government possibly get any better than Pelosi and Feinstein??

      I'm not sure if you're maybe from elsewhere and unfamiliar with how governments work in the US, but Pelosi and Feinstein are representatives of California or a California district in the federal government - in Washington DC. They are not "California government". See, states each have their own government, and California's is doing great, sweetie.

      https://www.foxbusiness.com/fe...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:You're welcome, America by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      That's exactly how it's done in Los Angeles county too. The machines in question COUNT them.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  4. Bullshit. Never trust a computer by aberglas · · Score: 5, Informative

    Being open source is less horrible, but there will still be plenty of opportunity of hacking. Most of this hacking is done by (elected) election officials, not Russians. And the Republicans are far better at it than the Dems.

    Go for simple paper ballots. Counted in front of scrutineers appointed by the candidates. The scrutineers then report numbers back to their candidates independently from the official system, so no room for fudging.

    This is what happens in Australia. And all the votes are counted by hand within a couple of hours of closing the booths. It is a quick and painless process.

    I might add in Australia we also have a slightly more complex preferential system, where you order 1, 2, 3 instead of just one X. This avoids the vote splitting issues that the USA has. But it does require a population that knows how to count, even if they lived in a poor school district.

  5. Just Use Paper by steveb3210 · · Score: 1

    Optical Scan has a killer feature. And that is you can have as many people voting as you have tables. Theres no hardware to break down. If the scanner breaks, go find another one, delay of a few hours at most.

    1. Re:Just Use Paper by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Agreed, the whole system is fully distributed, no reason to ever ever ever upgrade from paper ballots.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:Just Use Paper by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Optical Scan has a killer feature. And that is you can have as many people voting as you have tables. Theres no hardware to break down. If the scanner breaks, go find another one, delay of a few hours at most.

      the problem I see with this is the security of the paper ballots. Unless you physically or logically secure the stack of ballots from having ballots added, removed or modified, you still do not have a secure system.

      I suggest that paper ballots be serialized so they are unique when printed. Then all ballots are tracked to point of use at the precinct. Every ballot given to a precinct must be returned, used or not, and the number of used ballots must match the number of voters who voted. Then as each precinct returns their ballots for counting, all issued ballots must be accounted for and every ballot with votes must have been issued to that precinct and verified by serial number. A record of used and unused serial numbers is created at this time. Then we scan the ballots into images and secure the physical ballots. All of the above is witnessed by election judges from both parties.

      Actual counting of the ballots takes place from the images, generating a database of serial numbers with the votes cast on that ballot. The initial count of ballots is electronically tabulated and reported. THEN, a random sample of ballots are manually validated by comparing the scanned images and tabulated votes with the actual ballots by election judges from both parities.

      Recounts are done by retrieving the physical ballots, rescanning them, verifying their serial numbers again, and going though the counting and auditing process again.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Just Use Paper by steveb3210 · · Score: 1

      In Connecticut, we feed our own ballot into the scanning machine on the way out..

    4. Re:Just Use Paper by steveb3210 · · Score: 1

      In my polling place, you stick your ballot on the machine on the way out and you can see it tick up a mechanical counter on the top.

    5. Re:Just Use Paper by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Now we risk losing anonymity.

      You can make it harder to track who (UUID not a serial number for example), but someone at the polling place could on the sly track the last four digits to people, and since the ballots are tracked by place, you'd likely be able to uniquely identifiy every vote.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Just Use Paper by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Now we risk losing anonymity.

      You can make it harder to track who (UUID not a serial number for example), but someone at the polling place could on the sly track the last four digits to people, and since the ballots are tracked by place, you'd likely be able to uniquely identifiy every vote.

      True, but if the serialization is done by barcode, it's really hard (though not impossible) for a human to record information easily. Further, precincts should have multiple election judges who's duty is to monitor each other for such activity. Coupled with a "no electronic device within reach when handling ballots" policy for the election judges I think we can make this really hard to do.

      Perhaps the serial numbers can be encoded on the top and bottom of the ballot in a known margin. In this way, the serial numbers are easily removed from the voted ballots once the unused ballots are destroyed. If you wanted to maintain the serial number information, one could simply mask it off in the scanner during the count process and only scan the serial numbers when verifying the authenticity of the ballots.

      But in truth, the anonymous vote using paper ballots is subject to all sorts of ways to ID the actual voter. Finger prints, DNA testing, are all ways this can be done after the fact. The only way to avoid such things is to only allow the handling of the voted ballots by authorized people who are supervised, only for specified reasons and only to load them on the scanner to get images for counts and audits.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Just Use Paper by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Curious.. Does the machine verify that your ballot is complete and tell you what votes it would register? What is the point of scanning it right after you fill it out? Does the ballot remain in your hands or do you leave it behind?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Just Use Paper by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Barcode only (no human readable number) and prohibition of cameras from anyone working the polls should be enough.

      Also, UUID over serial number.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:Just Use Paper by steveb3210 · · Score: 1

      I think you put it in yourself so you know that it was counted without tampering. I believe the machine has a hopper of all the scanned ballots that can be used as a paper trail.

  6. Re:Bullshit. Never trust a computer by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2

    "Never trust a computer"....Says a guy who - besides posting on /. - probably does much more personally important stuff like banking, shopping, etc... ON A COMPUTER!!

  7. Why do they care? by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why does California worry about counting the votes, if they would not bother to verify the eligibility of the people casting it?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Why do they care? by PseudoAnon · · Score: 2

      What made you believe that California doesn't verify voters' eligibility? I'm not seeing support for your significant claim.

    2. Re:Why do they care? by mi · · Score: 1
      1. Illegal immigrants can obtain driver's license in California.
      2. Anyone obtaining a driver's license in California (and in many other states) can check a checkbox to also register to vote. It is the person's own discretion, scruples, and fear of prosecution, that decides it.
      3. Anyone registered to vote, can come and vote — no verification is done at the time of voting.
      4. Indeed, various cities — including San Francisco — encourage non-citizens to vote now. Ostensibly, they are only supposed to vote for local issues only (such as school boards), which is legal. In practice, there are no checks preventing them from voting.

      It is possible. It happens. Attempts to quantify, how wide-spread it is, are sabotaged.

      As with other possible exploits, we must assume being compromised... Which is unfortunate...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Why do they care? by PseudoAnon · · Score: 2

      While it is true that citizens are able to check a box to register to vote when they get their driver's license or state ID, the non-citizen versions of those IDs do not come with that privilege. Non-citizens are unable to register to vote and are unable to vote. But I can understand your mistake because conservative media leaves that incredibly important detail out when fearmongering.

      You are correct in saying that San Francisco recently allowed non-citizens with children in school to vote in school board elections, but you are incorrect in suggesting that they can vote in more than just those school board elections. Details matter.
      https://www.factcheck.org/2018...

    4. Re:Why do they care? by mi · · Score: 1

      Non-citizens are unable to register to vote and are unable to vote.

      There is literally nothing preventing them. And that is the point KKKon$ervative media are making — correctly. The forms at the DMV are the same for all. Whether or not to register to vote is determined by the applicant himself — the DMV employees are neither expected nor even allowed to verify eligibility. Indeed, this is what caused that poor abuela from Kansas to do it, according to this article:

      She applied for an Illinois driver's license in 2005, presenting her Peruvian passport and her green card. On one form, she declined to register to vote. But she said a clerk asked her if she wanted to register to vote. When she asked the clerk if she was "supposed to," she said the clerk responded: "It's up to you."

      The only reason we know about her is that she disclosed this to the officials during her naturalization process. How many more people like her have done — and continue to do — the same is anybody's guess. Because not only is no one checking, active measures are taken to prevent the checking.

      you are incorrect in suggesting that they can vote in more than just those school board elections. Details matter

      They cannot as in "it is not legal". They can as in "nothing prevents them from doing it". This is, what matters. Are you going to claim, there are no thieves, because theft is illegal?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Why do they care? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      -1, "When did you stop beating your wife"-style telling a question

    6. Re:Why do they care? by mi · · Score: 1

      They can as in "nothing prevents them from doing it

      Your anecdote doesn't actually prove that.

      The cited article describes, how it happened — thus proving, that it can happen.

      Filling in a form isn't the same thing as getting it approved

      Why would anyone reject a voter's registration? Based on what? There is nothing on the form, that indicates (in)eligibility to vote — if the applicant asserts eligibility, he is eligible.

      are you trying to tell me that DMV clerks have the possibility to edit voting records?

      WTF? No, they don't — they just pass the applicant's information to the vote-registration office. Which then dutifully registers the person to vote. Not only is no one asking any more questions, no one can ask any, even if someone wanted to.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Why do they care? by mi · · Score: 1

      This makes even less sense, than is usual for Left's ramblings...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Why do they care? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      It might not make much sense to you, but to anyone who has studied formal logic, it's obvious that he's pointing out the fact that your post is a loaded question fallacy.

      The classic example is, "When did you stop beating your wife?" That question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that you did in fact regularly beating your wife, much like your question is based on the unfounded and unsupported assumption that California doesn't verify the eligibility of voters to vote.

    9. Re:Why do they care? by PseudoAnon · · Score: 1

      Good news! You are mistaken in thinking that the forms at the DMV are the same for everyone. Non-citizens file forms that do not come with automatic voter registration, and they are not able to register to vote with the non-citizen versions of those IDs. However, this may only be true for California (the state we were talking about). Perhaps it sometimes happens in other states like you suggested.

      "While it’s true that undocumented residents living in California can obtain driver’s licenses, the state has not passed any laws that also provide them the right to vote. The New Motor Voter Act was passed in an effort to improve voter turnout, and while this law does automatically register citizens to vote when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses, that action only applies to citizens who have already attested and/or documented an eligibility to vote."
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...

      And for the San Francisco school board elections, it sounds like you may be assuming that non-citizens will get a general ballot for state/federal elections instead of a ballot specific to the school board elections. Can't vote for something like congressperson or president if those aren't even fields on the ballot.

  8. Re: TRUMP ADMITS IT - HE'S SO DONE! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Ya, it's pretty fuzzy as a story. Not necessarily fake, but the headline is misleading and the text makes some leaps in logic.
    To me, "fake" is stuff just made up out of almost nothing - the main business of Breitbart for example.

  9. Let's see what elaborate corruption they come up w by elcor · · Score: 1

    I love these things: politicians get pressured by a few who actually give a shit, or get cornered into doing the right thing, then spend a decade undoing it. This time, they'll have the entire coding community on their back and those guys never give up a good verbal battle!

  10. So where the the alleged open source? by jtara · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is there an actual repository of actual code?

    None of the articles (including in technical press) have mentioned where to find the alleged open-source software.

    I found plans and progress reports and PDFs and PDFs, and more PDFs, oh, my!

    Nary a source file. Nary a mention of language(s) etc.

    Can somebody help me find where it is hiding?

    Yes, I looked on GitHub. I realize it's not the only place to look, but the most obvious.

    From a Pretty PDF:

    "This should include making hardware components available for inspection, and source code to the
    extent that the manner of doing so would not jeopardize system security or availability."

    "available for inspection"? Is this like how your HOA makes documents "available for inspection"? Looking through paper documents in a cramped office with no air conditioning?

    And that "extent and manner" means it is not open-source. If it is not ALL open-source (place don't point to passwords, etc. which shouldn't be in a source code repo) then it's not open-source. Period.

  11. Re:Bullshit. Never trust a computer by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    What takes the long time is other stuff. Often they don't count the ballot at the polling place, which is often in someone's house, a church, a school room etc. So there's time needed to drive the ballots to a counting station. That's where a lot of tampering has a chance of occuring - not altering ballots but losing a box here and there from certain districts.

    But that's still minor. We have absentee ballots by the truckloads that need counting. Almost all of this counting happens *after* the winners and losers have been announced by television, and after most candidates have conceded. These include ballots from military personnel serving overseas (never mind the scandal of some states trying to cull them from the rolls). In California you can sign up to be a permanent vote-by-mail voter, so you never even head to the polls. There are enough absentee voters now that it's a significant fraction of the electorate. Each of those ballots have to be opened by hand, the name checked against the voter rolls, and presumably the signature is checked. This can take many weeks.

  12. Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SW by rally2xs · · Score: 2

    Good grief, will we never learn? To make it truly unhackable, you use paper ballots, get about 50 people into the room, and count the damned ballots by eyeball. Not that hard.

  13. Re:Bullshit. Never trust a computer by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    I agree that the 1-2-3 system is better than the single X, but it is more vulnerable to vote-selling. It's easy to identify one's vote when you have not n, but n(n-1)(n-2) different ways to cast it. Unfortunately the perfect system does not exist.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  14. Blockchain voting please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Blockchain is literately made for this task. Seems a waste to go any other direction.

  15. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    You will need to buy off 26 people, the one you want to cheat, and the other 25 on the other side to not look while he does it.

  16. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    No, you pay off ONE counter in EACH precinct and hope some or most of them get through without an audit by making sure it's not close enough to trigger a recount. You wouldn't have to tilt all of them, and some you would just be making closer rather than in your favor (since all the votes are aggregated anyhow). Steal a hundred votes here, a hundred there, a thousand somewhere else. Keep the margins tight, so that one big victory elsewhere (also assisted by buying a vote counter) can cancel them all out.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  17. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should look into how votes are actually counted...

  18. That's Great - now about the voter registration by treymichaelcook · · Score: 2

    This system seems nice and all, but what is LA County going to do to fix its voter registration rolls. Currently LA county has a 112% voter registration rate, which is obviously means some shenanigans are going on. Judicial Watch is currently suing California over this. https://www.judicialwatch.org/...

  19. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    From what I have seen, they scan them optically. Then if things don't check out, they might count the ballots (not the votes, just the actual physical papers) to make sure two didn't get stuck to each other or anything like that. Only if that fails to resolve the discrepancy do they actually count votes manually, and only that particular batch that the machine barfed on.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  20. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1
    Pointless strawman.

    To make it truly unhackable, you use paper ballots, get about 50 people into the room, and count the damned ballots by eyeball. Not that hard.

    Maybe you need to scan the posts you are replying to optically, instead of just going with your idiot talking points.

  21. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    The PRI in Mexico rigged elections for 80 years using nothing but paper ballots.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  22. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    Fine, there's nothing you can do about corruption, but what we don't need is a bunch of f'n Russian techs in Moscow screwing with the elections by attacking electronics.

  23. *sigh* This... xkcd from a short time ago. TRUTH by dejavux · · Score: 1

    https://xkcd.com/2030/

  24. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

    No, you pay off ONE counter in EACH precinct and hope all of them keep your secret...

    That is the flaw. Conspiracies are hard, because someone always talks.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
  25. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    I trust a dumb machine that just counts and does nothing else over 50 people doing that same counting. Even if they're all honest, the 50 people are going to make more mistakes unless the machine is broken.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  26. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they talk, but by then it's too late to do anything but take down some bag men. How many elections have been negated due to tampering or fraud? None in the U.S. at least.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  27. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    Again, irrelevant. You need to read the posts you are replying to, or are you just a dumb machine?

  28. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    It is possible to have a discussion without the ad hominem attacks, but it is beyond obvious that you don't want to discuss, you want to inflict abuse. Go die in a fire.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  29. Re:Software? SOFTWARE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' S by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

    Of course it's possible. But unlikely if one of us isn't interested in reading whats written, and changes the topic randomly to suite his talking points.