Electronic Voting: Your Worst Nightmares are True 904
jfreon writes "On Democracy Now Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting fame, disclosed (near the end of the transcript) that in the compromised 1.8Gigs off Diebold's FTP site they uncovered "an actual election file containing actual votes on election day from San Luis Obispo County, California". Problem is, the date stamp was 3:31pm - during voting hours! The Diebold system uses a wireless network card. Worse: "So that means if they can pull the information in, they can also send information back into those machines. ""
The system is not the biggest problem (Score:2, Insightful)
We're trying to spread democrazy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Free and Fair Elections (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The system is not the biggest problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why e-voting may never take off (Score:4, Insightful)
Every technological setback may end up as another knife in e-voting's back.
Re:Voting machine manufacturer wants votes for Bus (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe fewer people will be able to form their opinions on freely available information that way. That's what you neocon/conservatives would like, after all. Just like Britney Spears says [drudgereportarchives.com]:
Don't question the authority. That's the way to go.
Re:i hope we don't over-react (Score:0, Insightful)
That makes no sense.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Voting machine manufacturer wants votes for Bus (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps high-tech isn't the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps a few precincts can be corrupted with paper voting, but the whole nation can be corrupted with electronic voting. What moron puts a wireless adapter on a voting machine, anyway?
Voting is a fundamental exercise in any democratic system. I think being very cautious and conservative is justified, here. Chasing electronic voting for its own sake is simply foolish. It almost seems the push for electronic voting is due only to hungry contractors trying to make a dime for themselves. The 2000 Florida vote is merely a red herring in all this.
Re:This is why e-voting may never take off (Score:3, Insightful)
The advantages of a system like this:
1) Electronic results for easy/fast counting
2) Original ballots retained for recounts.
3) User interface is familiar to anybody who has ever been to school.
4) No hanging chads.
My complaint with the all-electronic system is that there is NO physical evidence of a vote and no posibility of a re-count. I hope that these all-electronic systems die a horrible death. Even if they ARE hack-proof, there will always be a little suspicion floating around them (prove that they have not been hacked). At least with paper ballots at some point, to tamer with the election would require somebody to stuff the box by hand -- hard to do under a lot of watchful eyes.
As long as they make it close if they tamper... (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone were to tamper with the things, they wouldn't make it a Saddam-ish, 100% of the vote.
Then again they might get Micheal Bolton to mess up the decimal point.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it be "bitter liberal types" who should be worried about voting machines that cannot be audited?
Why shouldn't right wingers also be concerned about voting machines that give you no way to verify who voted for what?
Why is it a "liberal" issues? And why do the right wingers instinctively want these machines?
Curiouser and curiouser!
Ignorance of Some Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
Electronic voting systems were flaunted as a way to avoid these problems.
Unfortunately, electronic systems cannot fix these problems because they all stem from the stupidity of some Americans. If they are so stupid as to be unable to follow simple instructions on completing a paper ballot, then their opinion on the "best candidate" is likely to be irrelevant. They are unlikely to be able to pick the "best candidate".
Further, these ignorant Americans will be unlikely to follow the simple instructions for completing an electronic ballot as well. The electronic system might prevent them from selecting multiple political candidates, but they will still, somehow, end up in being unable to select the candidate that they want.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:5, Insightful)
1) God's will should be fundamentally irrelevant in the U.S. government (First Amendment).
2) The USA isn't "better" than other countries from a humanistic standpoint. There isn't anything super-special about the US that God would put it up on a pedestal over anyone else.
People who try to inject God's will into the US government are most often arrogant, naive, and ignorant Christians who think their rules are superior to any others (again violating the First Amendment).
The US is a country ruled by the People, all inclusive, regardless of faith.
Re:Dammit, (Score:4, Insightful)
Those were the good ol' days, kid. Small government, wars that ended, and a Commander-in-Chief who kept his trousers on while working.
Come to think of it, the music was a lot better back then too, wasn't it?
Re:mod me down (Score:4, Insightful)
your expectations are too high (Score:4, Insightful)
A paper trail is comparatively expensive, but worth its enduring characteristics in recording a vote.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The system is not the biggest problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand what PROBLEM these electronic voting systems are intended to solve. Usability? Fraud prevention? Recountability? Non-centralized weakness? For ALL of those supposed problems, these electronic voting systems are WORSE than paper ballots.
The only advantage I see is that the electronic systems can count ballots faster, but we've never had problems with the speed of ballot counting. Ballot counting is easily parallelized across all voting precincts across the nation. In fact, that is a GOOD thing because the counting process is publicly overseen by representatives from all political parties and vote tampering is limited to a smaller set of votes.
Re:mod me down (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who built the machine are the same ones running the data stream. They've got ROOT. Having any data access in the middle of the election means that Diebold could write back too, and that simply shouldn't be possible with a well-designed voting system.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:4, Insightful)
Definitely. Now, how do we accomplish that? I don't have contacts with the press. I've got contacts on at least one dem campaign team (surprisingly, not Dean!), even contacts in the defense industry, but the press? Nothing. Who does? How do we get this in front of them?
Re:Voting machine manufacturer wants votes for Bus (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The system is not the biggest problem (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're a citizen, old enough and not a felon you should be able to vote.
Re:Voting machine manufacturer wants votes for Bus (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is one of the times I'd be LEAST likely to suspect election fraud. You seem to forget that any election more attention-getting than local school board is going to be continuously monitored by opinion polling.
If, as you suggest, the landslide was fraudulent, then the election results would have no relation to either the pre-election polls or the exit polling. This would attract an awful lot of attention in the media, and I believe that any fraud on the scale that you suggest would at least be openly accused.
The only place, in my mind, that election fraud would be useful beyond the threat of detection would be in extremely close races -- those that no one has any idea who will win. In those cases, than altering the votes by 1% would still be within the margin of error on even the exit polling, and so wouldn't be immediately suspicious.
Re:The system is not the biggest problem (Score:3, Insightful)
We have people suing over spilled coffee
To be precise, we have a person suing a restaurant because it sells a product that they intend for you to put in your mouth despite the fact that it is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. They do this despite the fact that they KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that their actions will cause people to be injured. Excusing the restaurant because "people should know coffee is hot" is tantamount to excusing the presence of dangerous amounts of arsenic in their fries, because "people should know that fried food is unhealthy." Note that in the case you refer to, the restaurant was NOT sued until they had repeatedly refused to assist the burned woman in paying her medical expenses.
So, what's stupid? The fact that large numbers of people BELIEVE the covert PR campaign conducted by the restaurant against the injured woman. They knowingly sold a dangerous product and lost in the lawsuit. However, they managed to generate a groundswell of support to protect themselves from future liability lawsuits.
This, of course, is symptomatic of the people's belief that corporate entities are their friends, when they are in fact their natural predators.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, the "neo-conservative" tradition he and his cabinet (except Colin Powel) espouse, was, in fact, founded by a former Trotskyite and Communist. See the History of Irving Kristol [mediatransparency.org], father of William Kristol [weeklystandard.com]. So, we are in fact led by those who espouse an ideology closely crafted and derived by former Communists and Communist ideology. Former Communists running the GOP - go figure! --M
Just make your X on your ballot (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed in counting? Who needs it? It's not like the offcials take office the day after the election anyway -- hell, the President has to wait two and a half frickin' months. Why the rush to have an instantly-countable system?
Furthermore, in many other large-ish countries (such as France, the UK and Germany), voting is still done by making a big honkin' X on a circle next to the name of the guy you want. And no, it's not a bubble form that has to be filled in just right -- just make your damn X as sloppy as you please. No hanging chads, no network to hack, no problems reading it. And they still have the results in by the morning in time for the early papers.
So why have electronic voting again?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:Help fix the problem! (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet none of you worry (Score:1, Insightful)
How do you trust them with your money but not your votes?
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, all politicians are evil, and substantial campaign contributions (especially from companies or special interest groups) should be illegal. Dammit!
Sure, say what you want, but I can't believe you really think the manufactures of our voting systems should fall within the same rules as normal companies.
We have special restrictions for all sorts of vendors to the US Gov. For instance most military contractors need to certify that none of their employees are non-citizens.
Saying that voting machine manufacturers should be as impartial as possible is hardly a radical idea.
Re:The system is not the biggest problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I am completely fucking sick and tired over the way everyone trots this out as an example of how quick people are to sue, when all that person is doing is demonstrating their ignorance. Do you know the facts of the case? Do you know what happened, or are you going off of the fact that you heard someone sued because they spilled coffee on themselves.
The woman spilled a cup of McDonalds coffee on her groin. It didn't just hurt. It didn't just burn a bit.
She had to spend a significant amount of time in the hospital due to THIRD DEGREE BURNS, and required multiple skin grafts. They also found that McDonalds was serving their coffee significantly hotter than coffee is usually served. After all, it would have to be extremely hot to burn that badly. There was no reason to expect McDonalds coffee to be BURN THE SKIN RIGHT OFF YOUR BODY hot, but it was.
If you bought a beverage, spilled it on yourself, and as a result had to spend a week in the hospital, and had no prior knowledge that the beverage was that dangerous, would you think "silly me, I should have known this drink would hurt so bad even though I've never heard of this happening to anyone else", or would you think "how can they do something so dangerous without warning people?" I vote for the latter.
Vague information on encryption (Score:4, Insightful)
And what about their wireless security? You can store votes in a steel box protected by voracious bears, but if they (the votes, not the bears) aren't protected on the way to wherever it is that they count them up, it doesn't make much of a difference. (I'm assuming here that that is what the wireless networking is used for). Is Diebold using WEP, which can be broken in a couple of hours? Unless Diebold has adopted WPA early (which, given their track record on security, I kinda doubt), some schmuck could sit in his car outside the polling place and run a wireless packet sniffer on whatever traffic is being sent.
The way that Diebold seems to be hiding information on its machines' security is disturbing - you'd think that if they had solid software they'd talk a little about it to impress potential customers, rather than just making vague blanket statements. Given everything that's happened, though, that's apparently is not the case.
Re:Falicious logic in article (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't want someone to take the last section as I have and conclude 'scare mongering rubbish'
this is so wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Better yet, I think the bureau of printing and engraving should make some fancy counterfeit-resistant ballots, each printed/embedded with a unique serial number in a place where everyone can keep an eye on the process.
After the election, any unused/mismarked ballots must be accounted for. The ballots should have a matching stub with the unique number and what they voted for that the they can take home with them and may at any time go to the county clerk's office to verify that their ballot is still recorded as having said what they thought they said.
Re:Ignorance of Some Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
Never mind that some voters have problems unrelated to their intelligence, like poor eyesight, poor muscle control, etc. An electronic system, whatever its security flaws, can provide features that help confirm the voter's choice. Not to mention that the presentation of the choices can be easily randomized to help avoid bias toward the top-listed candidate.
Oh, and I'm not stupid, but I still can't vote for the guy I want [electionmethods.org] without wasting my vote. Electronic systems would make it a LOT easier to implement better voting algorithms.
If Diebold is tampering with the votes, we need to stop them NOW. But security is only one aspect of these systems, and the only real drawback besides cost.
for your really worst nightmares (Score:3, Insightful)
now let's talk conspiracy theories
Re:The system is not the biggest problem (Score:3, Insightful)
But really, it doesn't require much more than an IQ of 70 to learn how to use a punch-card ballot -- AND make sure the chads are completely removed...
It takes luck to ensure that nothing happens to the card after you punched it. Once it leaves your hand, it is not immediately fed into a card reader in front of your eyes. The chad system is fragile enough that hanging chads, extra punches, and stray chads from neighboring cards can be introduced during shipping and handling.
Do not assume that all fouled punch ballots got that way because of the voters. A fragile record-keeping system like that is completely unacceptable when it needs to be transported before counting.
And, punchcard readers can introduce additional folding, mutilating, or spindling when they process the card. So on a recount vote, the record of who voted for what has been altered by the damage caused to sone of the cards on the first run through the machines. Recounts are another reason it is unacceptable to have a voting system with a fragile record-keeping ability. The ballot has to have the endurace to survive the counting process without introducing any changes.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:4, Insightful)
I would disagree and say it is fairly radical. First of all, you are saying lets judge someone for what they think, not what they do. Beyond that, you are saying lets judge them for political thought/speech. (Giving money to compaigns is considered a free speech issue currently by the courts.)
You are telling these companies (and by companies, you of course mean the employees of these companies) that they have no right to political discourse in the United States if they are in this industry.
I can see the interview for a job in this new market segment.
Wait, I got a great idea, all companies should be forced to be politically "diverse" -- we should force companies to hire people based on thier political beliefs... Also, while we are at it, companies should also be religously "diverse" as well... screw standards, screw who does the best work, as long as you get a high enough "diversity" rating, maybe the government will give you corporate wellfare!
*sigh* -- I don't like these stupid, un-secure, un-open, non-standard voting machines anymore than the next guy, but when the political party of the company owner/employees starts to be picked at as the primary way to attack it, I start to worry deeply about political freedom in the United States.
Pass a law that states all voting systems must be open-source and reviewed by at least 5 state colleges or some such, and you will get a decent system (or you will at least know that you can't get one) -- but attacking the political beliefs of the owner/employees of a company is pathetic and sad.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that is terrifying, that Anonymous Cowards equate "The US is a country ruled by the People, all inclusive, regardless of faith" with an attack on America's history and destiny, and belive that the statement "God's will should be fundamentally irrelevant in the U.S. government" is attacking christians.
You need to listen to less talk radio, and try greek mythology instead, you'll find that it does a much better job satisfying your bloodlust and explaining away those scary ideas.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
The first is that both movements are extreme, and many times extremists will move from one extreme to the other. Sam Kinison and David Horowitz are two examples of this phemomenon. Think about how many hard partier types suddeny "See God" and become exterme evangelicals.
Also, both movements share a proclivity for authoritarianism. Both have a "We're right, you're wrong so just shut up" attitude. Both have a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts (e.g. global warming, Lysenko Genetics). So it seems natural for people who want to assert authority one way to smoothly transition to another, with only the change of a few core beliefs.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what I am talking about. I am advocating a system that refuses to do business with partisin companies. The owners and officers of said organization should be forbidden from making political contributions.
You may not like it, but the truth is that is plain unethical for them to behave this way, closed source or otherwise.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Defense contractors screen their employees all the time, because security is important there. Is the security of our elections any less important?
You call this administration "conservative"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you see this administration engaging in limited government, or espousing freedom in any way, shape or form? I certainly don't. How much larger has the budget grown under under these GOP controlled executive and congressional branches of government? How many more laws and repressions of basic constitutional freedom and civil liberties has this GOP instituted? How limited has their role been in "Nation Building", that term so Bush disdainfully spouted to tar Clinton's policies in the Balkans and Africa, and yet exactly the same has he done (poorly) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You call that "conservative"??? I call them "authoritarian", but certainly not "conservative".
Better check your political compass [politicalcompass.org], buddy.
Cheers,
Maynard
I'd recheck your sources (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, some of the states they cite as "permanently" disenfranchising felons DO have procedures in place to restore civil rights... Florida (where I live) is a good example. Florida is often cited as one of the 10 (some sources cite 14 states) that permanently keep felons from voting... NOT TRUE. Check out this press release from the ACLU [aclu.org]
Some states give voting rights back automatically... some have a few hoops you must jump through. Either way, committing a felony costs you. Now, I'm not aware of a single state that does not have procedures in place for restoration of civil rights. If someone wants to correct me, please do so.
Re:Slashdot is a small portion of the public (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the fact that the company is run by republicans isn't relevant. Both parties are corrupt. They're both bought, there are conflicts of interest with both, etc. Bush and Haliburton, the Clinton's and their scandal, etc. I wouldn't trust either of them and until people realize that they're simply two sides of a plutocracy we're going to be screwed.
To use these machines from an obviously biased company is tantamount to election fraud. Saying otherwise, pretending that everyone looks past their personal preferences to provide a fair playing field, is just ridiculous and goes against all of recorded history. The *only* way we'll get a fair result is if people who hate each other watch every step of this together, both watching for the other to screw up, and both afraid to cheat for fear of being watched.
It's not a question of if this particular company is crooked. That's a given. The question is how to keep everyone honest.
Re:If you can't trust people, can you trust 'leade (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's very simple actually. The group of potential leaders you have to chose from in an election are NOT just a random sampling from the population. The choices are almost exclusively, well-educated, reasonably intelligent individuals.
If you look into US history, you will find many many times that a political leader has made a very unpopular decision, that, in retrospect, was the right decision to make. And those aren't rare exceptions, they are regular occurances.
Well, the constitution, through the courts, provide only a bare minium of protection.
No longer would you ever see anything like "Equal Rights" laws being enacted. You would probably also see lots of programs like Welfare end, simply because it has a bad reputation among the majority of the people.
Re:Voting machine manufacturer wants votes for Bus (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed; just look at Michael Moore. He's made a lot of noise about the man he calls "Governor Bush", but the problem is, it's very obvious that it's not the democratic process that he's worried about, but rather that his own side lost. Can you even imagine Michael Moore ranting about "Former Vice President Gore"? No, it simply wouldn't happen.