Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Your Rights Online

Florida Ruling May Lead To E-voting Paper Trail 209

Posted by timothy from the plain-language-of-the-law dept.
dorkus123 points out this Palm Beach Post story which begins "An administrative law judge over-ruled an administrative decision Friday that the 15 counties that use touch-screen voting systems must be able to perform manual recounts in extremely close elections." Prior to this, counties using touch-screen voting were exempt from a requirement requiring that certified voting machines be amenable to manual recounts. wierzpio adds a link to the AP's similar story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Florida Ruling May Lead To E-voting Paper Trail More

Florida Ruling May Lead To E-voting Paper Trail

Comments Filter:

  • Let's hope taxpayers don't catch them... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    doing this with inkjet printers.

  • bull (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schneidafunk ( 795759 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:26PM (#10097360)
    But a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Glenda Hood said, "This ruling takes Florida back to 2000," of course a paper trail takes us back to 2000 where we could actually recount the votes...

    what we want is a system different than 2000, where we can steal the election without anyone knowing.

    • Re:bull (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And if you REALLY want to cheat the system you can vote twice...
      http://www.nydailynews.com/08-22-2004/f r ont/story/ 224449p-192807c.html
      "Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows." ...
      "The News' investigation also found:

      # Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party.

      # Ne

      • Re:bull (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:26PM (#10097800) Homepage
        My grandparents are elderly New York Jews and are thus required by law to own a condo in Florida. Their neighbors in Florida are mostly the same neighbors they have in New Rochelle. Having your FL absentee ballot sent to your NY address isn't the strangest thing in the world. The FL officials just need to send a list of all the NY address and names to the NY officials and say "are any of these people also registered in NY". If yes, then instead of an absentee ballot, they should be sent a nasty letter about how if they try that again, they will be brought up on charges.

        I want Bush gone as much as anyone. But breaking the rules isn't the right way to acomplish that. After Kerry wins (which I think will happen by a suprising margin), I don't want the Republicans to have anything to bitch about.

        -B

  • Stupid (Score:2, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 )
    The point is simple, you either trust the system to work properly or you don't. Requiring a paper output does not meant that this paper is true and in principle paper means nothing. Just look at the farce that happened in 2000 with Bush in Florida.

    • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:30PM (#10097400) Homepage
      But the point is that with a paper trail, you have some sort of solid record. Each person hands in one receipt when they finish voting; without one, an unliminted number of votes could be cast, and thus, we'd be in a worse situation. Florida-type situations are not prevented, but further problems of uncast votes would take place.

      • Re:Stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

        by josecanuc ( 91 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:44PM (#10097516) Homepage Journal
        The paper trail is not best implemented as a "Receipt" for voting, as that denies anonymity and allows coercion.

        The right way for paper-backed electronic voting to take place is to have the electronic system present an easy-to-use interface, which can be adapted on-the-fly for various limitations in voters (deaf, blind, unable to grasp objects, etc.). Have that interface be the way to vote. Then print the ballot out on a strip of paper and give that paper to the voter. The voter then walks to the ballot box and places the ballot in, just like we do now.

        This eliminates ambiguity in deciding whether a particular ballot is valid or invalid, since the ballot would have a clear indication of the voters' intents.

        Sure you can also get a quick, accurate count from the aper-ballot-printing machines, but if you want to do a "Recount", then there aren't any ballots for corrupt or inept voting officials to declare as invalid.
        • The paper trail is not best implemented as a "Receipt" for voting, as that denies anonymity and allows coercion.

          How is a laser printed reciept placed in a secure box any different than a punched card or marked paper slip placed in a secure box?

          • Re:Stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

            by defile ( 1059 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:09PM (#10097671) Homepage Journal

            How is a laser printed reciept placed in a secure box any different than a punched card or marked paper slip placed in a secure box?

            In theory, it should be impossible to create an invalid paper receipt.

            Compare to hanging chads or someone who checked more than a check only one box.

          • Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

            by josecanuc ( 91 )
            It's different because the computer operating the laser-printed ballot will not allow two names for the same office to be printed, or whatever way is used to indicate a vote for a candidate will not be allowed to happen twice for one position.

            If the ballot does come out with "votes" for more than one candidate, the voter can see that and show the election officials to have the problem taken care of.

            In this way, any question of election results is far less ambiguous. Those who say that e-voting's purpose i
        • The paper trail is not best implemented as a "Receipt" for voting, as that denies anonymity and allows coercion.

          I really wish people would stop calling these things "receipts". They are "ballots", placed in a ballot box by the voter for eventual counting by voting officials.

          The computer count should be nothing but a quick guide to the result. But if that result differs substantially from the exit polls and a random sampling of actual ballots, or the result is too close to call, then you throw the compu

        • Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Audacious ( 611811 )
          Actually a receipt does not deny anonymity. If the receipt is one of the new bar codes [hants.org.uk] (;-) Just joking!) (like used by UPS and FedEx [azalea.com] with the square with the dots in it [adams1.com]), then if someone goes into a booth, votes, and then gets a barcoded receipt the receipt could have all of their choices on it along with their number (if wanted) or not.

          The thing is - no system is failure proof. In the matter of paper receipts someone could print up hundreds of invalid ballots and stuff the ballot box with them after th

    • Re:Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vsprintf ( 579676 )

      The point is simple, you either trust the system to work properly or you don't.

      Sure it's simple. I don't trust the black-box voting machines. How many problems have to be reported before people finally realize these machines are not perfect? The paper trail means there is a fallback position when things go wrong.

      Just look at the farce that happened in 2000 with Bush in Florida.

      As I pointed out in a comment above, the Diebold machines in one Florida county returned a negative number for one candid

  • The deputy elections supervisor in Broward County is quoted as saying a manual recount would take a week. Why? Plenty of countries use paper ballots and manage to count and recount in a day.

  • Paper receipt? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:28PM (#10097377) Homepage
    Why would it be so damn hard for the e-voting machines to print out a receipt after a person votes - a receipt that is retained by the states? The whole point of e-voting is ease of use - maybe even cheaper deployment. But why would it be so hard to implement such a system...or is it all politics & big business?

    • Re:Paper receipt? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the pickle ( 261584 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:49PM (#10097544) Homepage
      It *isn't* difficult to implement such a system.

      Diebold doesn't want to, because it's too much trouble to recall all the (election-stealing) machines they already have in place and equip them for printing. <Conspiracy Theory>Or their CEO doesn't want to because he promised Ohio's votes to Bush this year, and he wants to keep that promise.</Conspiracy>

      The people who keep suggesting an electronic voting machine work exactly as a fill-in-the-circle paper voting machine are EXACTLY on the right track. Without such human-readable PAPER ballots, electronic voting will never be safe. There absolutely has to be a paper backup to the electronic voting.

      p
      • That is my thought also, but wouldn't Diebold benefit from implementing such a feature? I mean, won't they be able to make more money on the whole thing as a result of the added cost? I'm sure the taxpayers wouldn't mind. Perhaps outside of Slashdot and other similar sites - which have users who truly see the potential for fraud in computer-only votes - are the only ones who give a rat's arse. :(

      • Re:Paper receipt? (Score:2, Informative)

        by pyros ( 61399 )
        California already decirtified Dieblod's machines due to excessive problems.
    • Just because you get a printed receipt doesn't mean that's the vote the software tallied. Paper and pen, it's the only way to go. I don't care if it take a few days to count the votes.

    • Florida's lotto machines.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by itomato ( 91092 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:23PM (#10097767)

      Florida has had nearly the same machines spitting out the same paper lottery ticket, keeping the same journal, uploading each set of digits scanned from the same "blacken in the circle" forms for nearly * 15 FUCKING YEARS *

      Change the firmware, repurpose some hardware, and give us a goddamned voting system with some EQUALLY STRINGENT ACCOUNTING [flsenate.gov]

      This process has been carried out billions of times by now, and you'd think that they'd try to utilize some of the expertise accumulated through so many, many, many, many, many drawings (like mini-elections themselves.)

      This is important: -------------------

      Q. Who audits the Lottery?

      A. Florida law requires a variety of strict audits and controls, and the Florida Lottery enjoys the distinction of being the most audited agency in Florida state government. The Lottery, unlike any other state agency, must submit detailed monthly financial statements to the Governor, Treasurer and the Legislature disclosing all Lottery revenues and expenses. In addition to the Lottery Inspector General's internal auditing procedures:

      * The Legislative Auditing Committee contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct an annual financial audit.
      * The State Auditor General may at any time audit any phase of Lottery operations.
      * A comprehensive security audit must be conducted at least every two years.
      * An independent certified public accounting firm witnesses each Lottery drawing to certify the official winning numbers for the drawing.
      • Yeah, but the lottery has money involved as the central issue...

        Oh wait...

        (Failure to provide a human-verifiable paper-trail, at the time the vote is placed, viewable by the voter and then secured in a lockbox should be prosecuted as voter fraud. After a hundred (more?) years of paper voting, I think we know the modes of failure and how to bypass/secure them. Ink on paper is simple and easy to understand. A magnetic-only record is still considered black magic.)

    • Why would it be so damn hard for the e-voting machines to print out a receipt after a person votes - a receipt that is retained by the states? The whole point of e-voting is ease of use - maybe even cheaper deployment. But why would it be so hard to implement such a system...or is it all politics & big business?

      It isn't hard to implement. Sample systems have been demonstrated. And yes, it's all about big business making billions of dollars from ill-considered legislation following the 2000 election

    • Why would it be so damn hard for the e-voting machines to print out a receipt after a person votes - a receipt that is retained by the states?

      Diebold's core business is ATMs!!! So, no, it *wouldn't* be that hard for them to design a machine that spits out a receipt. Of course, then the election couldn't be stolen quite as easily...and isn't that the point of creating touchscreen voting without a paper trail???

  • Florida, home of fair elections... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:28PM (#10097378) Journal
    Where people get turned away from voting stations by police, disenfranchised because they share the same name as people who were previously convicted of crimes in other US states, have to put up with butterfly ballot papers (only in the poorest districts though) and where chads reign supreme.

    What makes anyone think that Florida will get in right this time?
    • Florida...we put the corrupt in corruption....

      Seriously when I hear/heard about the crap going on there it made me want to cut Florida off and send it to Cuba. If your in Florida and Black or a Democrat vote by absentee to make sure your vote counts. Any calls you get that the election day has changed or that they are trying to serve warrents at the voting booth are wrong.

      Note that Republicans in Florida sent out a flier to some Miami-Dade Republicans that read "New electronic voting machines do not have
    • Where people get turned away from voting stations by police, disenfranchised because they share the same name as people who were previously convicted of crimes in other US states, have to put up with butterfly ballot papers (only in the poorest districts though) and where chads reign supreme.

      And don't forget all those that VOTED TWICE [yahoo.com] in the same election.

      "the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five year
    • The tales do grow in the telling, don't they?

      Where people get turned away from voting stations by police,

      I've seen a number of claims that poll workers turned away people, but not that police did it. Closet I've seen is the claim that running traffic checkpoints far from the polls on election night is somehow more likely to apprehend or delay Democrats than Republicans. (Not claiming there ARE no items to that effect. But five minutes of plausible searches with google didn't find 'em for me.) Refere

  • The quote in the summary, translated into English: (Score:5, Informative)

    by CedgeS ( 159076 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:33PM (#10097421) Homepage Journal
    An administrative law judge over-ruled an administrative decision Friday. The 15 counties that use touch-screen voting systems must be able to perform manual recounts in extremely close elections.
    • Hehe, yea, that's more like it.

      That was such a poorly worded quote that you couldn't tell whether he over-ruled the paper trail, or that they are NOW required to have a paper trail.
    • The quote in the summary is no longer the lede of the article on the Palm Beach Post. I don't know if that's because it was a misquote, or because PBP screwed up, corrected, and didn't bother leaving an indication that they corrected. The current text at PBP is An administrative law judge ruled Friday that the 15 counties that use touch-screen voting systems must be able to perform manual recounts in extremely close elections.

  • Uh oh! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:34PM (#10097427)
    Looks like W just lost Florida!

  • Keep it simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leathered ( 780018 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:34PM (#10097433)
    Give paper ballot to voter.
    Voter makes mark next to chosen candidate.
    Voter places ballot in ballot box.
    Count ballots in the presense of the candidates.

    Here in the UK this system has worked without incident for several hundred years. Any other way opens up the system to irregularities, be they accidental or malicious.
    • how about we have 2 buckets labelled bush and kerry which voters can shit in.
    • Same in Canada. I think this isn't used in the U.S. because it was known that in certain parts of the country, vote fraud was so prevalent that hand-counting was just a waste of time, since the "counters" couldn't be trusted. The only way to clean things up was to automate the process, hence "voting machines" whose output could be mechanically counted.

    • Re:Keep it simple (Score:3, Informative)

      by josecanuc ( 91 )
      That's the way the US does it, too; in principle. One of the problems in Florida/2000 came about when voters made mistakes and either marked more than one candidate for a single post, thus invalidating the ballot, or were confused by the ballot layout and possibly voted for someone they did not intend to vote for. Matters were not helped when the media spread the "butterfly ballot" story and many who figured they might have made a mistake tried to contact election officials to either check or verify their v

      • At what point does voter intent become unclear enough to invalidate a ballot?

        The only thing you can really do in a paper ballot is say that any box where you can measure a mark at least x mm long anywhere in it counts. Any paper with exactly one box so marked counts for the candidate whose box was marked; any other paper is invalid.

        You might need some objective definition of how dark a mark has to be along that length, to avoid any petty arguments about things which clearly weren't meant to be marks b

      • All of these issues are settled in the counting hall. A relative of mine has been counting ballots in local and national elections for over 20 years and explained the process to me. If the counter has the slightest doubt as to the validity of a voting form they are placed into separate pile. These ballots are then examined by the all the candidates themselves or their representatives. Almost always agreement is reached as to what candidate the elector intended to vote for, or whether the ballot is to be tre
        • I am curious about the details of this UK system. Do you mind answering some questions?

          How long after the polls close does this "checking of questionable ballots" happen?

          What happens if a candidate or his/her representative decides to be stubborn and not agree with any of the decisions unless the consensus is for that candidate? It's entirely possible and very likely that these events are more civil in the UK. In the US, too many folks take the view of "I don't care what the right or proper thing to do

    • Re:Keep it simple (Score:4, Interesting)

      by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @09:20PM (#10099955) Journal
      The historic problem with this approach is also accountability - ballot stuffing (i.e. putting lots of extra paper ballots in the box) has always been a problem with paper ballots. If there are a suspicious number of votes in the box, how do you tell who put the extras in, which candidate they were voting for, etc?

      There is a bit of info on this page [uiowa.edu] about the problem. The parties used to actually force people to vote on coloured paper depending on who they were supporting, and they made the ballot box transparent - so they could always tell who you were voting for! Of course, if all the officials at a particular voting station were corrupt, then practically anything could happen.

      And, while I agree that without the correct technology paper voting as it is used in the UK and Australia is a much better plan, it's not as though the British system [schoolnet.co.uk] hasn't been the home of massive electoral fraud [fact-index.com] over the years. Blackadder probably sums it up pretty well:

      Political Commentator: And now it's time, I think, for a result, and tension is running very high here. Mr. Blackadder assures me that this will be the first honest vote ever in a rotten borough. And I think we all hope for a result which reflects the real needs of the constituency. And behind me...yes, I can just see the Returning Officer moving to the front of the platform.

      Blackadder: As the Acting Returning Officer of Dunny-on-the-World...

      Commentator: The acting Returning Officer, Mr. E. Blackadder, of course. And we're all very grateful, indeed, that he stepped in at the last minute, when the previous Returning Officer accidently brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.

      Blackadder: I now announce the number of votes cast as follows: Brigadier General Horace Bolsom...

      Commentator: Cheap-Royalty-White-Rat-Catching-And-Safe-Sewage-R esidents Party...

      Blackadder: No votes.

      Blackadder: Ivor Jest-ye-not-madam Biggun...

      Commentator: Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking- Stupid Party...

      Blackadder: No votes.

      Blackadder: Pitt, the Even Younger...

      Commantator: Whig...

      Blackadder: No votes.

      Commentator: Oh, there's a shock.

      (Pitt the Even Younger turns to his mum and cries)

      Blackadder: Mr. S. Baldrick...

      Commentator: Adder Party...

      Blackadder: Sixteen thousand, four hundred, and seventy-two.

      (Cheers are heard.)

      ...

      Commentator: And now, finally, a word with the man who is at the center of this bi- election mystery: the voter himself. And his name is Mr. E. Bla-- Mr. Blackadder, *you* are the only voter in this rotten borough...?

      Blackadder: Yes, that's right.

      Commentator: How long have you lived in this constituency?

      Blackadder: Since Wednesday morning. I took over the previous electorate when he, very sadly, accidently brutally cut his head off while combing his hair.

      Commentator: One voter; 16,472 votes. A slight anomaly...?

      Blackadder: Not really -- you see, Baldrick may look like a monkey who's been put in a suit and then strategically shaved, but he is a brilliant politician. The number of votes I cast is simply a reflection of how firmly I believe in his policies.

  • Dot Matrix Printers (Score:2, Informative)

    by anubi ( 640541 )
    Why can't they just have a printer in the kiosk in an enclosure where the only line the voter can see and verify are the lines indicating the result of his vote...

    Then it scrolls out of view for the next voter.

    Everything would be on one continuous numbered roll. With each vote accounted for in the same manner as those numbered voting slips they give us now.

    • Everything would be on one continuous numbered roll. With each vote accounted for in the same manner as those numbered voting slips they give us now.

      The point of verification is to allow the voter to cancel. You don't want a continuous roll. One system that has been demonstrated prints and displays a sheet for each voter which can be accepted or rejected. If accepted, it goes in the ballot box, otherwise it's shredded, and the voter tries again.

  • If it doesn't take effect by November 2nd 2004, it's just posturing.

  • NO PAPER TRAIL FOR THE VOTER! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hot_Karls_bad_cavern ( 759797 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:39PM (#10097475) Journal
    Never, never, never, should you leave the polling area with "proof" of how you voted - it will lead to cooersion and intimidation and all sorts of other shifty dealings. There is a reason that your vote is private.

    For those who are still not getting it: Guido will wait outside the polling area, if you don't have the "proper" vote, your kneecaps are fucked. Or your family, or your dog. Whatever. This is a silly example, but i figured i'd share with you why paper proof in your hand is NEVER a good idea. Yes, private paper trails for recounts, blah, blah, blah - that's not what i'm talking about here.
    • It is you who don't get it. The voter does NOT leave with the paper receipt, the receipt is retained by the voting precinct in case of a recount. The voter sees the paper and knows that, in the event of a recount, their vote is recorded correctly.
      • Yep Mod up!

        People associate receipts like they do when they go shopping. False analogy.

        The state takes the reciept.

        However what if I vote for 1 candidate yet the receipt says I voted for another? That is the only problem I see.

        • However what if I vote for 1 candidate yet the receipt says I voted for another? That is the only problem I see.

          That, my friend, is precisely the problem that the paper ballot (calling them receipts lends to the confusion...let's call them ballots) is designed to avoid. If the two differ, the discrepancy screams out "FRAUD!" and heads roll thereafter.
    • I confused. Why *are* you talking about this, then? It has nothing to do with the article.

      This creates a paper trail equivalent to paper ballots that are turned in with any other election, leaving them available for a recount. The voter doesn't keep anything resembling a "receipt".

  • From the AP story: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:48PM (#10097537)
    Administrative Law Judge Susan Kirkland agreed, writing state law clearly contemplates "that manual recounts will be done on each certified voting system, including the touchscreen voting systems."

    With a primary election Tuesday and more than one-half the state's voters in counties that use touchscreens, it is not clear what those counties will do.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the incredible stupidity!

    Also:
    But Vicki Cannon, the supervisor of elections in rural Nassau County, north of Jacksonville, said she could do a hand recount of touchscreen votes if the election were close enough to require it.

    "Certainly we could if the state directed us to," Cannon said.

    "I would assume that we would print our ballot records, and count the candidates' names. Time-consuming, maybe. Difficult? I don't think so."
    **Beats head against wall** Don't they realize that this defeats the entire point of the paper trail?! It needs to print as the vote is cast, so that the voter can verify it. By the time they print it out afterwards, it can already be changed!
    • **Beats head against wall** Don't they realize that this defeats the entire point of the paper trail?! It needs to print as the vote is cast, so that the voter can verify it. By the time they print it out afterwards, it can already be changed!

      They completely realize this, they were just hoping you wouldn't.
      • They completely realize this, they were just hoping you wouldn't.

        No, they just hope that 51% of the voting public don't realise this. They know we're not that stupid. They also know we are too politically useless to do anything about it.
    • **Beats head against wall** Don't they realize that this defeats the entire point of the paper trail?! It needs to print as the vote is cast, so that the voter can verify it. By the time they print it out afterwards, it can already be changed!

      Of course they do. There's no reason for them to fight so rabidly for abusable voting systems otherwise.

  • It's not ever going to be 100% (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pedestrian crossing ( 802349 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:51PM (#10097558) Homepage Journal

    An election is a measurement. When you take a measurement, you always end up dealing with the S/N ratio. Mostly the punch cards were fine, we got a good enough measurement to be confident of the results. The last election was close enough in Florida that the measurement was down in the noise, and it was hard to get an accurate reading.

    I guess part of the problem is the "winner-take-all" Electoral College system, which has done a lot do disenfranchise a lot of voters.

    Take me for instance. I am from a state that -always- goes for one of the parties. So the minority in that state never gets represented. If I happen to not agree with the majority of people in my state, I effectively don't have a vote.

    It does free me up to (cynically) vote for a third party, FWIW...

    • The last election was close enough in Florida that the measurement was down in the noise, and it was hard to get an accurate reading.

      Of course, in a system as... interesting... as the US electoral college system, where winner takes all but it's an average of averages, any result too close to call is basically a random number generator. You might as well flip a coin rather than go to the hassle of a recount, because either way you're discarding the beliefs of a vast number of people before you reach the

      • I've never understood the justification for using an average-of-averages voting mechanism to elect the president. Am I missing some obvious (to US citizens, maybe?) benefit of this,

        Historically, the reason for the electoral college is that the authors of the US Constitution were not democrats -- they were republicans (I'm talking the political science definition here, not the political party). The authors feared democracy and worked to limit it in many ways. Electing senators for 6 year terms but only e
    • > It does free me up to (cynically) vote for a
      > third party, FWIW...

      And you would not be thusly free otherwise exactly why?

      Statewide, let alone nationwide, elections are always decided by more than one vote. Therefor, Electoral College or no, your vote has only one effect: it gives the candidate you vote for one more vote. This is true whether he wins the election or only gets five votes.

      In other words, since no single vote determines an election, voting "third party" is no more "throwing away yo
    • "Take me for instance. I am from a state that -always- goes for one of the parties. So the minority in that state never gets represented. If I happen to not agree with the majority of people in my state, I effectively don't have a vote."

      You're not supposed to, that's why it's called majority rule. Or mob rule, depending on your view.

      It sounds like you want to be represented when you are the minority because your view is never in the majority. But I suppose you'd be the first one crying foul if you we

  • And In this year's election... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Laebshade ( 643478 ) <laebshade@gmail.com> on Saturday August 28, 2004 @02:53PM (#10097572)
    They'll be debating about electronic hanging chads.
    • "No fair! You changed the result by observing it!"

      Seriously though, they do appear to be stupid enough to think that a 'recount' means you just print out the votes FROM THE DATABASE and count them. They don't seem to realise that the FRIGGING PROBLEM IS WITH HOW THE VOTES ARE GETTING INTO THE DATABASE! FU--K!!!!!!!

      It makes me so angry I think I might explode...
  • I though it just didn't *occur* to anyone in charge that a computer system without a paper trail wouldn't allow for any meaningful recount. You're telling me a judge actually went out and said, nah, that recount thing is old fashioned, we don't really need it?

    For some reason Florida still manages to shock me ...

  • The articles miss the big point -- deliberately? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by intnsred ( 199771 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:05PM (#10097641)
    The articles both argue over the reliabililty of computer ballot counts, paper trails, and the fiction of "hanging chads" and error-proned human counts.

    This is the corporate media version of what happened in Florida. It deliberately misses the big picture.

    What about the fact that Jeb Bush deliberately removed tens of thousands of "supposed" felons (who were 90%+ Democratic voters; he's trying it again this year but is meeting more criticism)? What about the counting of absentee military ballots which violated Florida law? What about the findings by the federal gov't that there was deliberate denials of voting rights to many Flordians? This included false information about voting places/times, closing roads, excessive police presence at selected voting precints.

    I'm all for a paper ballot trail and audited code for voting machines and a clear oversight process. But the sham election in 2000 (see link below) was far more deliberate than just an issue of "hanging chads" -- and those issues are completely ignored.

  • Why does everyone make this hard? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slashname3 ( 739398 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @03:39PM (#10097861)
    Why do they make it hard? So it is possible for them to cheat the system. Electronic voting is subject to much easier manipulation than paper ballots. Period. Anyone that has half a clue knows this. Primarly since it is difficult to prove that those little electrons on the disk are the very same ones that the person in the voting booth intended. This is worse than the "hanging chad" fiasco.

    The whole issue would pretty much go away if they just implemented a paper audit trail. Of course if you are doing that then you don't really need a fancy electronic system to record it. Just issue a felt tip marker. Much less expensive and fewer issues. But then the group pushing the expensive error prone electronic systems would lose money, and since they have purchased a few politicians that won't be allowed to happen. And the politicians have a desire to manipulate the results so they are not going do anything out of self interest.

    What I find so funny is that the most vocal people on this topic seem to feel that the very same people that vote for them can't seem to understand how to do it correctly. So they have to "interpet" the ballots to guess how that person intended to vote.

    Make it simple. Use a ballot that has the voter mark it with a marker. If they mark it wrong they can ask for a replacment ballot. If they deposit the ballot and it is marked incorrectly, either for the wrong candidate or marked such that it is unclear, then that ballot is voided and is not counted. Period, end of vote. This may get some cry baby liberals complaining that there is some issue with people not getting their vote counted. But if they are so stupid that they can not mark a simple paper ballot correctly then they should not have their vote counted!

    The fact that most of the people having trouble understanding the ballots happen to be Democrats is either a fluke or an indication that like minds flock together.
    • "Electronic voting is subject to much easier manipulation than paper ballots. Period. Anyone that has half a clue knows this."

      Well, I guess I have more than half a clue. Because electronic voting is not necessarily easier to manipulate than paper ballots. Yes, for a certain subset of a population, yes, it is easier. But for others it is more difficult.

      You probably think it is easier to manipulate because you know a lot about computers. But paper ballots are EASY to manipulate (examples include: poor l

  • first hand encounter (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jsm008us ( 774007 )
    Well, since the Palm Beach Post is my local newspaper (yay!) and I have seen the butterfly ballots and touch-screen voting, I find all of this confusing! If you "evote" and only certain counties use paper trail, will the rest be "oh well, nevermind the votes, just make em all for Bush!"? Why is it only in Florida? I think it's the old people here (who drive at 10mph on all roads)!

  • Computing Architecture (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gorehog ( 534288 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @04:31PM (#10098222)
    Can anyone explain to me why all the e-voting solutions are based on the Von Neumann architecture? This architecture is specifies reusable multi purpose computers. We could simply enough increase the security of voting machines if we built a computing solution specifically for the task, one whose logic could be implemented at the board level, one whose tallying would not be so dependent on easily modified and rewriteable memory.

  • International observers to monitor US elections (Score:5, Informative)

    by MSBob ( 307239 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:09PM (#10098902)
    One of the most interesting developments in this election campaign that was completely "overlooked" by mainstream US media is the fact that for the first time in history, US presidential elections will be monitored by international observes.

    How did America get to the point where the fear of rigged elections (normally something reserved for so called "rogue states") is so real that many feel the neat to bring in overseers from abroad? Is it really ture that you always become what you hate?

    • Re:International observers to monitor US elections (Score:4, Informative)

      by intnsred ( 199771 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @07:18PM (#10099327)
      How did America get to the point where the fear of rigged elections (normally something reserved for so called "rogue states") is so real that many feel the neat to bring in overseers from abroad?

      We got there by having the Republican party repeatedly cook and subvert our electoral system.

      Does the name Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon ring a bell?! Read some good histories of the "Watergate era" -- he did far, far more than "just" break into the Watergate Hotel where the Democratic Party HQ was located.

      How about Ronald Reagan keeping the US embassy hostages held by Iran locked up to prevent Jimmy Carter's "October Surprise"? That was a blatant rigging of an election.

      Carter was close to doing an "arms for hostages" deal with Iran to bring back the hostages in October. Reagan sent Bush and others to Paris to negotiate a bigger "arms for hostages" deal with the Iranians. The Iranians took the better offer -- Reagan/Bush's.

      Who says so? Former US CIA agents, French intelligence reports, Russian (Soviet era) intelligence, Jimmy Carter himself admitted that he heard many rumors about such a deal but that he was powerless to do anthing, and to top it off, the now-retired, former Iranian president candidly states that he did do the deal!

      Now, for those that can't keep score, that's 2 rigged elections since 1972.

      Add to that the 2000 election that George and Jeb Bush rigged...

      That's how we got to that point. You're damned right we need international observers!!

      Better still, we need new political parties -- one not dominated by undemocratic traitors and one complete with a spine (some others for variety might be nice too!).
      • Oh, Demms screw with elections as much as possible as well. "Gerrymandering" was named for a Democrat (well, the party had a different name back then, but still).

        The whole system is just *ripe* with potential for abuses.

        Instead of the US trying to forcibly apply "democracy" to other countries, wouldn't it be interesting if it just tried demonstrating how well it could work, and let people institute it themselves?
        • Oh, Demms screw with elections as much as possible as well.

          I just cited 3 instances within the past 35 years that Republicans have cooked the presidential elections. Please give me 1 instance of Democrats doing the same.

          Yes, there's no doubt that the Democrats have skeletons in their closet. They invented big-city "machine" politics, but that nasty trend hasn't been very strong since Richard Daley was the Chicago "boss" in the late 60s. And yes, Gerrymandering was invented by Democrats and is happily
          • "With the limited choice(s) we have in politics, do we really have to wonder why 1/2 of Americans don't care enough to bother even casting a vote?"

            With all due respect, I believe it is called laziness. If everyone who didn't vote decided to vote for a third party, a fictional character, themselves, etc., it would shake the two major parties to the core.

            Why? Simple. If someone isn't going to vote, why would a politician give a damn what they think? Voting for someone, anyone, anything, would make the tw
  • Forget about paper trails. What good is a paper trail if it's never checked. Does anyone believe that after a 'perfect flawless computer count' the winner/biggest briber will allow the vote to be counted by a system that e-voting was supposed to replace.

    Black box voting is going to be tampered with. Think about it. Lets say you take all the votes in the entire country, then taken six guys, put them behind closed doors with the votes, and they come out with the result a few hours later. Does this sound crazy to you? Six guys counting ALL the votes, behind closed doors! And yet this is EXACTLY what is being proposed. Six guys, roughly, count the votes by proxy, using the software they wrote. All the votes!

    And government inspection? Would a few officials locked in the room with the guys make everyone feel better?

    It's crazy. Most people I know are in favour of the idea. Probobly because they consider it more modern and sophisticated. Some tech heads I know even want to see voting over the internet! And these are supposedly educated people!

    Instead of electronic voting, what about votes counted electronically. Paper votes are punched/marked very clearly and taken to an OPEN counting areana. The voted are then scanned by cameras, in front of onlookers, and the tally is updated in real time. This has the advantage of being open, secure and more accuate than present systems. In fact, you could set this up with a Linux, webcam, MySQL the approprate software. Could be a project.

    At least people could see what is going on in real time rather than crowding around a box that proclaims the winner mysteriously after a sudden count.

  • eVoting and ATMs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jd0g85 ( 734515 )
    Someone enlighten me: do ATMs leave paper trails?
    Seems to me that ATMs work flawlessly. Perhaps we should be inspired by the simple but powerful ATM.

    If an ATM screws up, someone is probably out a lot of money.
    If eVoting screws up, we get the wrong idiot in the Whitehouse, a erroneous war, and taxpayers are out a lot of money.

    The same care that went into designing ATMS should be utilized in designing touch screen voting. Our voting systems should probably be built from the ground up with only one pu

  • I hope a trail is forced in other states... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mgoodman ( 250332 ) * on Saturday August 28, 2004 @06:25PM (#10099002)
    ...like Maryland. E-voting without a paper trail is total crap.

    And closed source e-voting is even stupider. Public systems that are the basis of our freakin' democracy (or constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition; whatever you want to call it) should be available for everyone to see.

  • What to ask the politicos (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Saturday August 28, 2004 @07:40PM (#10099426) Homepage

    When the politicians and the voting-machine makers start on their spiel about no paper trails, I think we need to ask them one question:

    "Why exactly are you so dead-set against being able to verify the results without having to assume the results are right?"

    Without an audit trail that's exactly what they're asking. We ought to be holding their feet to the fire on that question, making them answer it every time they try to say we don't need an audit trail.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Close