Incidentally... the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), which in the range of computer-related professional organizations is on the more issue-activist end of the spectrum, has been quite active on voting technology. Check out the organization's e-voting working group.
With subscription fees that small it's easier to just collect the $$ up front, charge 10 or 20 clams up front for free updates for as long as the software is supported (presumably would correspond with how long the OS it designed for is supported). the only reason to charge a yearly subscription fee is if the price is high enough that a big chunk of people would bulk at paying everything up front.
Plus if you allow people to decide up front whether they want this feature/package whatever you want to call it, you can 1)avoid the antitrust lawsuits and 2)not have to include it in the price of the software, allowing you to keep the OS at a nice round $*99 or $*49 figure and rake in a few extra clams on top.
I completely see that this isn't a direct reaction to my post, but I have to disagree anyway.
Un(der)developed countries aren't that way because they aren't working their asses off. Hell, I've seen women older than my grandma carrying their weight in firewood on their heads. The problem isn't that they are aren't willing to work, the problem is that given the infrastructure, corruption, undereducation, etc. that they deal with, one reasonably earnest person in the West can still outproduce ten Nigerians working their asses off.
America circa 1650 and 1800 developed because they had the cajones and the firepower to stand up and say "Hey Europe... we aren't just going to send you lumber and cotten and then buy finished products and tea from you. We're going to make our own shit, and we're going to do it the same way that you do." They may have been using bird feather pens, but they were using the same bird feather pens in use in Europe.
I'm not saying that technology is going to solve all of their problems--there are many people who put far too much emphasis on technology in development, and I imagine that this is what you are reacting to. Fair enough. However, saying that people in developing countries shouldn't have technology until they earn it is sort of like kicking someone in the balls while they are down.
You can blame it on climate or colonization or the lack of middle class or whatever, but it certainly isn't lazyness.
Why does it have to be the western world that stands up to corrupt Nigerian leaders? Not that western leaders shouldn't stand up to them, but aren't the best people for this the Nigerian people? Maybe the best way to change the situation is to get Nigerian citiznes information about which of their leaders are screwing them over and what they can do about it.
How exactly do you get a national power grid to a country of 130 million people with extremely overcrowded cities and a rainy season that wipes out most of the roads and above ground power lines every year?
I can tell you one thing, the University of Iowa and the U.S. government and the World Bank aren't going to give it to them. Perhaps the best way to move toward and infrastructure in Nigeria is to educate Nigerians the best you can so that you can create demand for these services and find creative solutions.
Yes, there are problems with electricity provision. Power goes out several times a day. But Nigerians are very creative people (as all the forms of 419 attest), and they find ways around it. Most businesses and universities run off generators much of the day. A UPS is part of any computer purchase.
Without knowing anything about your friend's project, I'd say that he/she wasn't trying hard enough. There are Internet cafes all over the major cities. There are some extremely talented computer technicians in the major universities. Setting up and maintaining a computer network is more *interesting* than in the developed world, but certainly not impossible.
1) Whether or not you like what one is saying, which obviously in the case of RN--I don't, one must still apply some set of standards to those claiming to be journalists. I would normally have no trouble with any journalist (even said RV) refusing to name a source, for the protection of person and the trade. But when it involves a political tit-for-tat at the expense of lives and national security, then you have to ask yourself whether it is still "journalism."
2) My original post is meant much more as a commentary on RN and the discussion of journalism in the article (I'm on topic, I swear! =), and not a lauding of BH.
If Robert Novak can continue to avoid naming his source in the CIA Officer identity leak, then Bev should have no problem.
Plus what she's doing bears a much greater resemblance to journalism than whatever Novak spews.
You aren't allowed to publish details of ongoing cases that could taint a potential jury pool, and there's no doubt in my mind that that was the entire point of the ACLU's press release.
For obvious reasons these trails typically don't have a jury. Without knowing really any details on the case (as these details have all been suppressed), it is impossible to say for sure. But given the fact that all of this information is suppressed, I highly doubt there will be a jury.
On one hand you have the issue of whether or not someone should be investigated for making an FOI request. On this issue, I tend to be of the mind of many previous posters... voluntary participation in certain [legal] activities bears with it responsibility for the protection of others people who rely on those activities. When I get on a plane I'm happy to go through a metal detector because I want everyone else on that plane to go through one as well. When I'm at a National Park I want to be kept from camping in certain areas, because don't want hundreds of other yahoos camping there camping there as well. As someone who occasionally (though not recently) requests open information, I want to be scrutinized, not just because it is in the public good--as other posters focus on, but because I don't some idiot to abuse this information and make it harder for me to get it in the future.
Whether this information should or should not be made available is a separate issue. My reading of the article is that this information request was denied not because there was an ongoing investigation, but because the Attorney General ruled that given security concers this information should not be released at all. I'm cool with that. I don't know anything about the security implications of making this information public and I'm happy to let that relevant parties squabble about that in and FOI court. What would make me uncomfortable is if they said, well this kid looks alright, lets give him the information... but this guy who happens to wear a towel around his head, no way. One standard for everybody. That's justice.
In my work I've been helping set up stand alone sites for different project teams in the organization. Here, the ability of CSS and ASP/PHP to seperate content from appearance has been extremely helpful.
Now, we can set up a site for a team and give non-technical staff the ability to maintain a professional looking site without having to build a CMS backend. All they do is modify some text files in a content folder on our development server. If everything looks good, they tell the webmaster to "update the site" and the she puts the new content folder onto the "real" webserver. Viola!
The people closest to the information make it available without learning web design or worrying about butchering the site.
The thing is that electronic voting doesn't have to be done poorly. It can be done in a way that is open, transparent, verifiable and has some notable advatages over paper voting (such as granting the blind and minority language speakers a truly secret vote.)
It just isn't being done that way... except perhaps for the OVC voting projest dicussed recently.
Internet voting, while it has been piloted in a few
situations (most recently in the Michigan primaries and some localities in Canada), and while it may work in more "trusted" situations Internet voting
is an extremely BAD idea.
First there is the protential for technical malfeasence:
denial-of-service, spoofing, viruses that record keystrokes, etc. As
report in the DOD's SERVE internet voting system mentioned previously [slashdot.org] states articulately:
"These vulnerabilities are fundamental in the architecture of the
Internet and of the PC hardware and software that is ubiquitous today.
They cannot all be eliminated for the foreseeable future without some
unforeseen radical breakthrough. It is quite possible that they will
not be eliminated without a wholesale redesign and replacement of much
of the hardware and software security systems that are part of, or
connected to, today's Internet."
Second there is the potential for procedural malfeasence: employers,
pastors and friends who "help" people to vote on the internet, internet
voting salons sponsored by candidates that make it easy for you get a
free t-shirt (or a pint of your favorite beer) with your vote, etc.
The online banking analogy isn't appropriate. Online banking accepts the fact that fraud not only happens, but can be undetected. When it is detected you as a victem can bring in your paperwork and make the case that your account balance is wrong. The bank or insurance companies will likely cover your loss... covering such events is an acceptable cost to banks. With elections these risks aren't acceptable. Not to mention they would be harder to detect. It's not like you get a monthly "voting statment" in the mail--now that would be a bad idea.
Re:Paper votes aren't always secure either
on
Open Voting at OSCON
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In some countries, hacking electronic machines might be one of the harder ways to steal an election
Its interesting that you mention this. A year ago I was working with groups trying to ensure the integrity of [non-electronic] voting in Nigeria. My boss, who was also working on the project, mentioned that in his conversations with Nigerians many expressed greater confidence in a computerized election.
The argument could be made that this is due to naivite and blind faith in computers... indeed it's telling the many of the greatest skeptics of e-voting in the U.S. are the people who know the technology best. But it is also true that in many places elections are most likely to be stolen at the local level. Computerizing elections may in some ways make it more difficult to alter election outcomes at the polling station level. By requiring a larger conspiracy to affect the outcome they may make some sorts of fraud less likely. Not saying there aren't plenty of problems with e-voting as it is being implemented in the U.S.(in fact I've said the opposite on several occasions), but it is an interesting point.
Maybe it's not an issued because results are issued on the same day. If the entire country went to paper ballots, as I advocate, you can bet it would become an issue, toot sweet.
Don't sell yourself short. I'm constantly seeing people from Canada and England post that voting is done entirely by paper and that results are available by that evening or the next day. I've seen elections in a number of countries that aren't burdened by such things as "technology" or "electricity". Sure, it takes a few days for official results to be anounced, but this isn't due to delays in counting. Counting is usually done right there at the polling station as soon as it closes, with representatives from all the parties watching. The polling officials at that location know the vote count within a few minutes after polls close. The trouble in these countries is the time it takes to transmit and aggregate that data. In any country with reasonable phones/roads/databases, this shouldn't be at all time consuming. I suppose this excludes Mississippi, but what is that... 4 electoral votes?
Plus you have to remember that in the U.S. the public doesn't wait for the final vote count to be told "results". As soon as a small percentage of stations report results that corroberate the exit polls of the major networks, we all find out that Gore... no wait... Bush... no wait... Anthony Scalia won Florida.
Personally, I think if someone is dumb enough to mark both 'yes" and "no" on a question, and cannot even properly mark a ballot, their reasoning abilities and the ability to decide an issue or select a candidate are highly suspect. Their disenfranchisement for that ballot should not be bemoaned.
This is a sentiment that I'm inclined to agree with, and probably many polling officials would as well. Keep in mind though that many paper ballots are designed for easy counting rather than easy casting and others don't appear to be designed for easy anything-whatsoever. Multiple-page ballots, butterfly ballots, and the like... some of these things make the 1040 look reasonable.
Re:The Same News We Have Already Heard
on
Open Voting at OSCON
·
· Score: 3, Informative
2) Different groups doing each count
This used to be done by having representatives from each party there for the vote counting, corroberating the results. In some countries, in addition to party monitors, independent non-partisan groups check the vote count. In the U.S. however, we have been lulled into trusting the vote count and so as far as I know these efforts haven't been organized recently. Now electronic voting machines that don't produce any sort of auditable trail prevent citizens from exercising this level of oversight should they desire to. There are a few groups talking about non-partisan election monitoring this November. I'm aware of VoteWatch, and perhaps the League of Women Voters and the ACLU will organize monitoring in particularly vulnerable districts. Is anyone aware of other efforts?
Once again, I have to answer - election officials see a number of advantages to electronic voting technology, none of which have anything to do with speed of reporting (which isn't currently an issue):
1) Accuracy. The main reason that everyone is junmping on the e-voting bandwagon is fear that they could preside over the next broward county, with significant numbers of voters being disenfranchised because it is impossible to be sure for whom they are voting. (Significant = greater than the margin of victory.) There is a perception that e-voting machines are more accurate then current voting systems.
2)Access. DRE machines can often be fitted to easily display and count ballots in multiple languages, and can provide audio or raised button (Braille) for the blind. As the first article mentions, currently voters with special needs don't actually have a secret vote. As governments expand excessibility requirements in all areas, electronic voting becomes more attractive.
3) Second-chance voting and error checking. Some electronic voting systems require that the voter check their votes and show any errors (accidently voting yes and no on the same referendum, or skipping a race). Second-chance voting is a good thing that is attractive to a number of voter advocate groups. (Its my understanding that the [leadership of the] League of Women Voters really likes electronic voting for this reason).
I'm not argueing for electonic voting. In fact I'm working with a number of groups opposed to e-voting. However informed debate on the topic requires that e-voting skeptics understand the reasons that election officials choose these technology. If you really are interested in this, I'd suggest that you have a look at a document called Myth Breakers for Election Officials produced by Voters Unite
On the contrary... not being required to pay overtime would likely lead to less job creation, not more.
No employer is required to offer employees overtime, they may only be required to pay them for the overtime that they work. Some companies regulate this more than other by requiring supervisor permission to work overtime or requiring employees to sign up to be considered for overtime opportunities. For the employer, the decision is whether allowing employees to work overtime is better [read: cheaper] than hiring additional staff (with all of the additional associated costs: healthcare, social security, pension, severance costs if amount of work available decreases, etc). Relaxing requirements to pay overtime makes it more even advantageous for employers to ask staff to work more hours rather than hiring additional employees.
BTW... I agree with your assessment of many involved in "government work." Even those who are excited and motivated when they get there often find their souls crushed by the bureaucracy. But isn't the federal government (don't know about state and local) already exempt from DoL overtime regulations?
When you say that the firmware is wobbly/clunky, what do you mean exactly? Hanging up on scrolling? Unintuitive interface? Firmware patches needing frequently [re]applied?
Basically, I'm trying to find an mp3 player for my girlfriend, who is not a geek. Would you feel comfortable recommending Neuros to a non-geek who is keen to learn to use a new player but not interested in doing system maintenance?
If not can you recommend other players that have features like HiSi (which she'd love) and/or MyFi (which I do).
Yes, and then the same machines that have been used and trusted in Brazil election machines were used in Angola in 1992. Only in Angola UNITA claimed that they spewed out fraudulent results and the country fell into 10 years of bloody civil war.
And electronic voting in India will likely work fine if it is done in a way that people are able to trust. Giving all parties access to inspect the equipment and every stage of the process (as seems to be the case) is vital to achieving this.
Meanwhile, electronic voting will likely be problematic in places like Kazakhstan where the government is getting machines from that bastion of democracy, Belarus, and where indications are that this sort of access will not be granted to independent and party monitors.
The moral of the story is that the process of adopting a new voting technology matters. Maintaining (or gaining) public trust in the election process requires that the public have access and ability to oversee all procedures and equipment. (Including the ability to verify results through a hand count if necessary.) This, in my view, is the main problem with the move to electronic voting in the United States.
The only place that my organization considers VoIP is in our offices in developing countries.
In many developing countries landlines simply aren't a viable option due to underresourced, corrupt and/or incompetent state-owned telecoms. Many of these countries have been able to develop more robust cell and broadband services, as these industries have seen less regulation and are more scaleable.
For security, convenience and efficiency reasons we like to provide staff in these offices with cell phones, however cell phones plans in may still leave much to be desired in some countries.
I think that many of our offices would be interested in VoIP cell phones if the coverage was decent (even covering major cities might be > or = to existing cell networks). Latency in phone conversations is already par for the course.
One indicator that is often used is the "missing vote rate," which is simply (number of voters at a polling station - number of votes for an office at that station)/number of voters at the polling station. The idea is that errors that switch voter preferences are either uncommon or random enough to cancel each other out, but the error of greater concern is rejecting a ballot for not being able to determine the intention of the voter. Of course, the missing vote rate isn't an exact reflection of error, since some people only come to elect their uncle Ernie as county tax collector vote for nothing else. Nonetheless this does allow you to identify anomolies when you compare polling stations using different voting technologies statewide. See some of the research by votewatch.
Can anyone think of a really pressing need to use some kind of electronic vote machine, other than the "we can declare the result instantly!"
Well I can think a few reasons why electronic voting machines would seem advantageos to the people who administer elections, and they have very little to do with speed of reporting (which isn't currently and issue):
1) Lower cost in the long run over printing paper ballots. This resonates particularly well with election managers who are forced to *reprint* a bunch of ballots because of a mistake or change in the race.
2)Electronic voting systems can be used to accommodate voters with special needs. Electronic voting machines can often display a ballot in several languages and large print and can be designed to provide Braille or audio through headphones. Currently, in many districts, the blind don't have an entirely secret vote. This is temping for election administrators as accessibility requirements expand.
3) Touchscreen e-voting systems often provide an opportunity for the voter to check and confirm his or her votes, and can reduce the need for election officials to divine the "intent of the voter" that occurs in some pencil and paper, optical or punch systems. This is attractive to managers since Florida.
I am also *very* skeptical of electronic voting, and would probably feel a lot more comfortable with pencil and paper voting (which is not immune from user error and manipulation, I'll remind you). However, too often skeptics rail on e-voting without an real understanding of the resons that election managers choose them.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally... the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), which in the range of computer-related professional organizations is on the more issue-activist end of the spectrum, has been quite active on voting technology. Check out the organization's e-voting working group.
Also, the CRSP testimony to the Election Assistance Commission is worth a read.
Nah, this is the best of all worlds.
With subscription fees that small it's easier to just collect the $$ up front, charge 10 or 20 clams up front for free updates for as long as the software is supported (presumably would correspond with how long the OS it designed for is supported). the only reason to charge a yearly subscription fee is if the price is high enough that a big chunk of people would bulk at paying everything up front.
Plus if you allow people to decide up front whether they want this feature/package whatever you want to call it, you can 1)avoid the antitrust lawsuits and 2)not have to include it in the price of the software, allowing you to keep the OS at a nice round $*99 or $*49 figure and rake in a few extra clams on top.
I completely see that this isn't a direct reaction to my post, but I have to disagree anyway.
Un(der)developed countries aren't that way because they aren't working their asses off. Hell, I've seen women older than my grandma carrying their weight in firewood on their heads. The problem isn't that they are aren't willing to work, the problem is that given the infrastructure, corruption, undereducation, etc. that they deal with, one reasonably earnest person in the West can still outproduce ten Nigerians working their asses off.
America circa 1650 and 1800 developed because they had the cajones and the firepower to stand up and say "Hey Europe... we aren't just going to send you lumber and cotten and then buy finished products and tea from you. We're going to make our own shit, and we're going to do it the same way that you do." They may have been using bird feather pens, but they were using the same bird feather pens in use in Europe.
I'm not saying that technology is going to solve all of their problems--there are many people who put far too much emphasis on technology in development, and I imagine that this is what you are reacting to. Fair enough. However, saying that people in developing countries shouldn't have technology until they earn it is sort of like kicking someone in the balls while they are down.
You can blame it on climate or colonization or the lack of middle class or whatever, but it certainly isn't lazyness.
Why does it have to be the western world that stands up to corrupt Nigerian leaders? Not that western leaders shouldn't stand up to them, but aren't the best people for this the Nigerian people? Maybe the best way to change the situation is to get Nigerian citiznes information about which of their leaders are screwing them over and what they can do about it.
How exactly do you get a national power grid to a country of 130 million people with extremely overcrowded cities and a rainy season that wipes out most of the roads and above ground power lines every year?
I can tell you one thing, the University of Iowa and the U.S. government and the World Bank aren't going to give it to them. Perhaps the best way to move toward and infrastructure in Nigeria is to educate Nigerians the best you can so that you can create demand for these services and find creative solutions.
Yes, there are problems with electricity provision. Power goes out several times a day. But Nigerians are very creative people (as all the forms of 419 attest), and they find ways around it. Most businesses and universities run off generators much of the day. A UPS is part of any computer purchase.
Without knowing anything about your friend's project, I'd say that he/she wasn't trying hard enough. There are Internet cafes all over the major cities. There are some extremely talented computer technicians in the major universities. Setting up and maintaining a computer network is more *interesting* than in the developed world, but certainly not impossible.
I agree with the sentiment, but...
1) Whether or not you like what one is saying, which obviously in the case of RN--I don't, one must still apply some set of standards to those claiming to be journalists. I would normally have no trouble with any journalist (even said RV) refusing to name a source, for the protection of person and the trade. But when it involves a political tit-for-tat at the expense of lives and national security, then you have to ask yourself whether it is still "journalism."
2) My original post is meant much more as a commentary on RN and the discussion of journalism in the article (I'm on topic, I swear! =), and not a lauding of BH.
If Robert Novak can continue to avoid naming his source in the CIA Officer identity leak, then Bev should have no problem. Plus what she's doing bears a much greater resemblance to journalism than whatever Novak spews.
You aren't allowed to publish details of ongoing cases that could taint a potential jury pool, and there's no doubt in my mind that that was the entire point of the ACLU's press release.
For obvious reasons these trails typically don't have a jury. Without knowing really any details on the case (as these details have all been suppressed), it is impossible to say for sure. But given the fact that all of this information is suppressed, I highly doubt there will be a jury.
If this ruffles your panties, check out the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Anyone aware of a good OS app that compares to MS Project?
Actually these are two separate issues.
On one hand you have the issue of whether or not someone should be investigated for making an FOI request. On this issue, I tend to be of the mind of many previous posters... voluntary participation in certain [legal] activities bears with it responsibility for the protection of others people who rely on those activities. When I get on a plane I'm happy to go through a metal detector because I want everyone else on that plane to go through one as well. When I'm at a National Park I want to be kept from camping in certain areas, because don't want hundreds of other yahoos camping there camping there as well. As someone who occasionally (though not recently) requests open information, I want to be scrutinized, not just because it is in the public good--as other posters focus on, but because I don't some idiot to abuse this information and make it harder for me to get it in the future.
Whether this information should or should not be made available is a separate issue. My reading of the article is that this information request was denied not because there was an ongoing investigation, but because the Attorney General ruled that given security concers this information should not be released at all. I'm cool with that. I don't know anything about the security implications of making this information public and I'm happy to let that relevant parties squabble about that in and FOI court. What would make me uncomfortable is if they said, well this kid looks alright, lets give him the information... but this guy who happens to wear a towel around his head, no way. One standard for everybody. That's justice.
In my work I've been helping set up stand alone sites for different project teams in the organization. Here, the ability of CSS and ASP/PHP to seperate content from appearance has been extremely helpful.
Now, we can set up a site for a team and give non-technical staff the ability to maintain a professional looking site without having to build a CMS backend. All they do is modify some text files in a content folder on our development server. If everything looks good, they tell the webmaster to "update the site" and the she puts the new content folder onto the "real" webserver. Viola!
The people closest to the information make it available without learning web design or worrying about butchering the site.
Excellent point, this is an important distinction.
The thing is that electronic voting doesn't have to be done poorly. It can be done in a way that is open, transparent, verifiable and has some notable advatages over paper voting (such as granting the blind and minority language speakers a truly secret vote.) It just isn't being done that way... except perhaps for the OVC voting projest dicussed recently.
Internet voting, while it has been piloted in a few situations (most recently in the Michigan primaries and some localities in Canada), and while it may work in more "trusted" situations Internet voting is an extremely BAD idea.
First there is the protential for technical malfeasence: denial-of-service, spoofing, viruses that record keystrokes, etc. As report in the DOD's SERVE internet voting system mentioned previously [slashdot.org] states articulately:
"These vulnerabilities are fundamental in the architecture of the Internet and of the PC hardware and software that is ubiquitous today. They cannot all be eliminated for the foreseeable future without some unforeseen radical breakthrough. It is quite possible that they will not be eliminated without a wholesale redesign and replacement of much of the hardware and software security systems that are part of, or connected to, today's Internet."
Second there is the potential for procedural malfeasence: employers, pastors and friends who "help" people to vote on the internet, internet voting salons sponsored by candidates that make it easy for you get a free t-shirt (or a pint of your favorite beer) with your vote, etc.
The online banking analogy isn't appropriate. Online banking accepts the fact that fraud not only happens, but can be undetected. When it is detected you as a victem can bring in your paperwork and make the case that your account balance is wrong. The bank or insurance companies will likely cover your loss... covering such events is an acceptable cost to banks. With elections these risks aren't acceptable. Not to mention they would be harder to detect. It's not like you get a monthly "voting statment" in the mail--now that would be a bad idea.
In some countries, hacking electronic machines might be one of the harder ways to steal an election
Its interesting that you mention this. A year ago I was working with groups trying to ensure the integrity of [non-electronic] voting in Nigeria. My boss, who was also working on the project, mentioned that in his conversations with Nigerians many expressed greater confidence in a computerized election.
The argument could be made that this is due to naivite and blind faith in computers... indeed it's telling the many of the greatest skeptics of e-voting in the U.S. are the people who know the technology best. But it is also true that in many places elections are most likely to be stolen at the local level. Computerizing elections may in some ways make it more difficult to alter election outcomes at the polling station level. By requiring a larger conspiracy to affect the outcome they may make some sorts of fraud less likely. Not saying there aren't plenty of problems with e-voting as it is being implemented in the U.S.(in fact I've said the opposite on several occasions), but it is an interesting point.
Maybe it's not an issued because results are issued on the same day. If the entire country went to paper ballots, as I advocate, you can bet it would become an issue, toot sweet.
Don't sell yourself short. I'm constantly seeing people from Canada and England post that voting is done entirely by paper and that results are available by that evening or the next day. I've seen elections in a number of countries that aren't burdened by such things as "technology" or "electricity". Sure, it takes a few days for official results to be anounced, but this isn't due to delays in counting. Counting is usually done right there at the polling station as soon as it closes, with representatives from all the parties watching. The polling officials at that location know the vote count within a few minutes after polls close. The trouble in these countries is the time it takes to transmit and aggregate that data. In any country with reasonable phones/roads/databases, this shouldn't be at all time consuming. I suppose this excludes Mississippi, but what is that... 4 electoral votes?
Plus you have to remember that in the U.S. the public doesn't wait for the final vote count to be told "results". As soon as a small percentage of stations report results that corroberate the exit polls of the major networks, we all find out that Gore... no wait... Bush... no wait... Anthony Scalia won Florida.
Personally, I think if someone is dumb enough to mark both 'yes" and "no" on a question, and cannot even properly mark a ballot, their reasoning abilities and the ability to decide an issue or select a candidate are highly suspect. Their disenfranchisement for that ballot should not be bemoaned.
This is a sentiment that I'm inclined to agree with, and probably many polling officials would as well. Keep in mind though that many paper ballots are designed for easy counting rather than easy casting and others don't appear to be designed for easy anything-whatsoever. Multiple-page ballots, butterfly ballots, and the like... some of these things make the 1040 look reasonable.
2) Different groups doing each count
This used to be done by having representatives from each party there for the vote counting, corroberating the results. In some countries, in addition to party monitors, independent non-partisan groups check the vote count. In the U.S. however, we have been lulled into trusting the vote count and so as far as I know these efforts haven't been organized recently. Now electronic voting machines that don't produce any sort of auditable trail prevent citizens from exercising this level of oversight should they desire to. There are a few groups talking about non-partisan election monitoring this November. I'm aware of VoteWatch, and perhaps the League of Women Voters and the ACLU will organize monitoring in particularly vulnerable districts. Is anyone aware of other efforts?
Once again, I have to answer - election officials see a number of advantages to electronic voting technology, none of which have anything to do with speed of reporting (which isn't currently an issue):
1) Accuracy. The main reason that everyone is junmping on the e-voting bandwagon is fear that they could preside over the next broward county, with significant numbers of voters being disenfranchised because it is impossible to be sure for whom they are voting. (Significant = greater than the margin of victory.) There is a perception that e-voting machines are more accurate then current voting systems.
2)Access. DRE machines can often be fitted to easily display and count ballots in multiple languages, and can provide audio or raised button (Braille) for the blind. As the first article mentions, currently voters with special needs don't actually have a secret vote. As governments expand excessibility requirements in all areas, electronic voting becomes more attractive.
3) Second-chance voting and error checking. Some electronic voting systems require that the voter check their votes and show any errors (accidently voting yes and no on the same referendum, or skipping a race). Second-chance voting is a good thing that is attractive to a number of voter advocate groups. (Its my understanding that the [leadership of the] League of Women Voters really likes electronic voting for this reason).
I'm not argueing for electonic voting. In fact I'm working with a number of groups opposed to e-voting. However informed debate on the topic requires that e-voting skeptics understand the reasons that election officials choose these technology. If you really are interested in this, I'd suggest that you have a look at a document called Myth Breakers for Election Officials produced by Voters Unite
Thanks. Electronic voting happens to be one of those fancies that I get to tickle while on the clock.
/. and you'll find me to be an idiot.
Talk to me about the relative advantages of KDE and Gnome or many other issues discussed on
On the contrary... not being required to pay overtime would likely lead to less job creation, not more.
No employer is required to offer employees overtime, they may only be required to pay them for the overtime that they work. Some companies regulate this more than other by requiring supervisor permission to work overtime or requiring employees to sign up to be considered for overtime opportunities. For the employer, the decision is whether allowing employees to work overtime is better [read: cheaper] than hiring additional staff (with all of the additional associated costs: healthcare, social security, pension, severance costs if amount of work available decreases, etc). Relaxing requirements to pay overtime makes it more even advantageous for employers to ask staff to work more hours rather than hiring additional employees.
BTW... I agree with your assessment of many involved in "government work." Even those who are excited and motivated when they get there often find their souls crushed by the bureaucracy. But isn't the federal government (don't know about state and local) already exempt from DoL overtime regulations?
When you say that the firmware is wobbly/clunky, what do you mean exactly? Hanging up on scrolling? Unintuitive interface? Firmware patches needing frequently [re]applied?
Basically, I'm trying to find an mp3 player for my girlfriend, who is not a geek. Would you feel comfortable recommending Neuros to a non-geek who is keen to learn to use a new player but not interested in doing system maintenance?
If not can you recommend other players that have features like HiSi (which she'd love) and/or MyFi (which I do).
Yes, and then the same machines that have been used and trusted in Brazil election machines were used in Angola in 1992. Only in Angola UNITA claimed that they spewed out fraudulent results and the country fell into 10 years of bloody civil war.
And electronic voting in India will likely work fine if it is done in a way that people are able to trust. Giving all parties access to inspect the equipment and every stage of the process (as seems to be the case) is vital to achieving this.
Meanwhile, electronic voting will likely be problematic in places like Kazakhstan where the government is getting machines from that bastion of democracy, Belarus, and where indications are that this sort of access will not be granted to independent and party monitors.
The moral of the story is that the process of adopting a new voting technology matters. Maintaining (or gaining) public trust in the election process requires that the public have access and ability to oversee all procedures and equipment. (Including the ability to verify results through a hand count if necessary.) This, in my view, is the main problem with the move to electronic voting in the United States.
The only place that my organization considers VoIP is in our offices in developing countries.
In many developing countries landlines simply aren't a viable option due to underresourced, corrupt and/or incompetent state-owned telecoms. Many of these countries have been able to develop more robust cell and broadband services, as these industries have seen less regulation and are more scaleable.
For security, convenience and efficiency reasons we like to provide staff in these offices with cell phones, however cell phones plans in may still leave much to be desired in some countries.
I think that many of our offices would be interested in VoIP cell phones if the coverage was decent (even covering major cities might be > or = to existing cell networks). Latency in phone conversations is already par for the course.
Could be an interesting microenterprise project.
One indicator that is often used is the "missing vote rate," which is simply (number of voters at a polling station - number of votes for an office at that station)/number of voters at the polling station. The idea is that errors that switch voter preferences are either uncommon or random enough to cancel each other out, but the error of greater concern is rejecting a ballot for not being able to determine the intention of the voter. Of course, the missing vote rate isn't an exact reflection of error, since some people only come to elect their uncle Ernie as county tax collector vote for nothing else. Nonetheless this does allow you to identify anomolies when you compare polling stations using different voting technologies statewide. See some of the research by votewatch.
Can anyone think of a really pressing need to use some kind of electronic vote machine, other than the "we can declare the result instantly!"
Well I can think a few reasons why electronic voting machines would seem advantageos to the people who administer elections, and they have very little to do with speed of reporting (which isn't currently and issue):
1) Lower cost in the long run over printing paper ballots. This resonates particularly well with election managers who are forced to *reprint* a bunch of ballots because of a mistake or change in the race.2)Electronic voting systems can be used to accommodate voters with special needs. Electronic voting machines can often display a ballot in several languages and large print and can be designed to provide Braille or audio through headphones. Currently, in many districts, the blind don't have an entirely secret vote. This is temping for election administrators as accessibility requirements expand.
3) Touchscreen e-voting systems often provide an opportunity for the voter to check and confirm his or her votes, and can reduce the need for election officials to divine the "intent of the voter" that occurs in some pencil and paper, optical or punch systems. This is attractive to managers since Florida.
I am also *very* skeptical of electronic voting, and would probably feel a lot more comfortable with pencil and paper voting (which is not immune from user error and manipulation, I'll remind you). However, too often skeptics rail on e-voting without an real understanding of the resons that election managers choose them.