E-Voting Done Right - In Australia 485
tehanu writes "After all the furor over e-voting in America, Wired News has an article about e-voting done right in Australia. An important factor is that all of the software is open-source. The company responsible actually seems to have given consideration to the integrity of the democratic process, too - from the lead engineer: 'Why on earth should (voters) have to trust me -- someone with a vested interest in the project's success? A voter-verified audit trail is the only way to 'prove' the system's integrity to the vast majority of electors, who after all, own the democracy.' They also have scathing words for Diebold: 'The only possible motive I can see for disabling some of the security mechanisms and features in their system is to be able to rig elections. It is, at best, bad programming; at worst, the system has been designed to rig an election.' In general they are 'gob-smacked' by the whole situation with electronic voting machines in the US right now."
Mod This Up; I Won't Get Karma (Boo Hoo) (Score:3, Informative)
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.htm l
02:00 AM Nov. 03, 2003 PT
While critics in the United States grow more concerned each day about the insecurity of electronic voting machines, Australians designed a system two years ago that addressed and eased most of those concerns: They chose to make the software running their system completely open to public scrutiny.
Although a private Australian company designed the system, it was based on specifications set by independent election officials, who posted the code on the Internet for all to see and evaluate. What's more, it was accomplished from concept to product in six months. It went through a trial run in a state election in 2001.
Critics say the development process is a model for how electronic voting machines should be made in the United States.
Called eVACS, or Electronic Voting and Counting System, the system was created by a company called Software Improvements to run on Linux, an open-source operating system available on the Internet.
Election officials in the Australian Capital Territory, one of eight states and territories in the country, turned to electronic voting for the same reason the United States did -- a close election in 1998 exposed errors in the state's hand-counting system. Two candidates were separated by only three or four votes, said Phillip Green, electoral commissioner for the territory. After recounting, officials discovered that out of 80,000 ballots, they had made about 100 mistakes. They decided to investigate other voting methods.
In 1999, the Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission put out a public call for e-vote proposals to see if an electronic option was viable. Over 15 proposals came in, but only one offered an open-source solution. Two companies proposed the plan in partnership after extensive consultation with academics at Australian National University. But one of the companies later dropped out of the project, leaving Software Improvements to build the system.
Green said that going the open-source route was an obvious choice.
"We'd been watching what had happened in America (in 2000), and we were wary of using propriety software that no one was allowed to see," he said. "We were very keen for the whole process to be transparent so that everyone -- particularly the political parties and the candidates, but also the world at large -- could be satisfied that the software was actually doing what it was meant to be doing."
It took another year for changes in Australian law to allow electronic voting to go forward. Then in April 2001, Software Improvements contracted to build the system for the state's October election.
Software Improvement's Matt Quinn, the lead engineer on the product, said the commission called all the shots.
"They, as the customer, dictated requirements including security and functionality, (and they) were involved at every step of the development process, from requirements to testing," Quinn said. "They proofed every document we produced."
The commission posted drafts as well as the finished software code on the Internet for the public to review.
The reaction was very positive.
"The fact that the source code had been published really deflected criticism," Quinn said.
A few people wrote in to report bugs, including an academic at the Australian National University who found the most serious problem.
"It wasn't a functional or a security issue but was a mistake nonetheless, and one that we were glad to have flagged for us," said Quinn.
In addition to the public review, the commission hired an independent verification and validation company to audit the code, "specifically to prevent us, as a developer, from having any election-subverting code in there," Quinn said.
"We were concerned that it wouldn't be secure enough," said Green, the electoral commissioner. The audit
Sign the HR2239 petition. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open source? (Score:3, Informative)
But with all the people who have a vested interest in it being done right, it's MORE likely that somethign stupid does NOT slip by. If this type of tech were around years ago, we could have a "why" a miscount would have happened and could have fixed it. If nothing has changed, last years (proverbial tech) is still being used.
Re:oss software? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Australian voting system (Score:5, Informative)
The Austrailian ballot is where candidates (for all elections) are listed entirely on one ballot and you get to choose which candidate you want regardless of party.
It may bewilder some people that before the 1920's when you went to vote, a member of the Republican or Democratic party stood outside your polling in place and handed you a "Republican" or "Democratic" ballot. Said ballot would have only the party nominations for President, Senator, House Representatives, State Governor, State Senator, etc. As a result you "voted the party line."
The Austrailian ballot was introduced between the 1920s and 1940s in the US (different municipalities adopted it at different times). It changed US politics because now people could vote for a Democratic President but a Republican Senator. One major result is that since WWII there have been very few times when the party of the president coincided with the majority party of Congress. In fact the Bush administration which has had a Republican Congress for most of the three years it has been in office is an exception not a norm.
Preferential voting system (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm not sure why the Diebold source isn't avail (Score:3, Informative)
FOIA is a federal act, and while most states have equivalent acts, FOIA requests can not be made to a state. For example, New Jersey's equivalent law is called the Open Public Records Act. With FOIA, and with OPRA, requests can be made to any executive branch agency. The Division of Elections would fall under this in New Jersey. I cannot speculate as to whether or not they would agree to the request without court action.
And here in Canada... (Score:5, Informative)
Then the magic begins: the cards are each fed, as collected, into a vote counting machine. The ballots are held in the case a recount (automated or manual), and the results are known just as soon as it takes to communicate the results from each of the machines at each polling station.
We usually have the final, _official_ results within an hour or two of the poll closing time, and you can always go back to the paper ballot to verify the count. And who the heck has a hard time with a piece of paper and a pencil?
No hanging or dimpled chads here, and this to me seems the best of both worlds - technology aiding the speed of vote-counting (isn't that what this is all about, anyway?), but with the safeguards (and transparency) of a manual voting system.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In other words. . . (Score:2, Informative)
Amazing.
I also like the idea of bringing these guys into the US market, ASAP. Let them compete with the likes of Diebold. If the majority of the people evaluating the voting systems are not in someone's pocket, then Software Improvements will acquire a big contract, indeed.
Re:real democracy (Score:1, Informative)
Since a state is awarded electoral votes based on the number of representitives + 2 senators.
There was a big debate way back in the day about how representation should work. Should it be based on population or should it be 1 state 1 vote (or some variant on that theme).
The constitution found the comprimise of the bicameral system and here we are today.
Re:Preferential voting system (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is that IRV works OK until a third party becomes viable - then, all bets are off. The article mentioned above quotes the following as an advantage:
It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.
Is this an advantage? I think not. The more common system, plurality or "first-past-the-post", which to be fair is even worse than IRV, does the same thing by artificially encouraging people to vote for front-runners. I would argue that any such artificial bias towards any party is a bad thing, and that the vote should reflect the true preferences of the voters as accurately as possible. IRV is an illusory fad in this regard.
Approval Voting and the Condorcet Method are much better. Condorcet is technically the best available method, but approval is (for the US anyway) also a good choice because it offers good technical compliance and ease of practical implementation.
Re:I'm not sure why the Diebold source isn't avail (Score:5, Informative)
*(Legal Reason) Because of the way the electoral college operates, the presidential election is technically a state level election. When you vote for president, you are actually voting for your state's electoral college members, who will then vote for their party's choice for president when the electoral college vote formally takes place in January. The constitution mandates that states shall select electoral college members in ways that the respective state legislatures shall establish. Obviously, for all states, this method is popular vote. In most states, the winner of the popular vote takes all the electoral votes, but there are a few states where the electoral votes are proportional to the popular vote (Maine and I think one other that I just cant recall right now). Anyway, because of that clause in the constitution (Amendment.. 12? or 16?), the states are essentially responsible for the presidential election.
Re:Lead Engineer (Score:3, Informative)
Diebold is a US company with strong (and right-wing) management. They don't allow their lower echelons to speak to the press; all contact is handled by Public Relations. See for yourself [yahoo.com].
BTW, Diebold's "programmers" are in Ohio. I use quote marks because they're mainly MCSEs who write front-ends for MS Access running on XP Tablet.Still a big security hole (Score:3, Informative)
The basis of the voting system (IMO) need to be the voter making a direct mark on some tangible and independently verifiable object. Touch screen systems fail at this, the voter touches the screen which electronically stores the vote. There is no way to verify that the vote recorded is that which was cast. It would be quite possible for a hacker to cause the machine to register one vote electronically and one vote manually.
Such a touch-screen and paper trail system seem to demand an automatic "re-count", you count the automatic system tally, then you must also count the paper trail receipts. What's going to happen when the two are not the same to within 1%? Will the electronic tally be deemed faulty, or will the paper handling system be deemed faulty?
With the single point voting systems this is not an issue. The "punch card" and "fill in the box" ballots both achieve the direct manipulation and independently verifiable tests. There have been some problems with them, but this should be taken care of with voter education, and voters actually caring about the process before the elections. You can't solve human stupidity with technology, you can only hide the symptoms.
I live in Mesa, Arizona where we use the "blacken this area" type ballot. It's easy to understand and easy to do. There's no easy way to alter my ballot without it being obvious it was tampered with. The ballot leaves my hand directly in to the electronic voting thingie. If ever there were a recount, the paper ballot if authoritative since that is what I voted.
Of course, we have our own problems here: the main one is that they don't check I.Ds at the votinc center. All you need to tell them is your name and your address. So all you need to vote multiple times is a phone book and a way to get to several voting centers.
Re:Trouble is ... (Score:3, Informative)
From the very informative ACT FAQ [act.gov.au]
It doesn't say exactly what procedures will be in place, but AFAICT they've done everything The Right Way(TM) until now, so I suppose they'll handle this as well.
Re:Obstacles to US adoption of SI system(Note: OT) (Score:3, Informative)
We don't have this problem. Everyone aged 18 years or older must vote, meaning they get checked off on the electoral roll and are given a ballot paper that they must place into the ballot box.
There is nothing in the system that states that the vote must be valid. If you want, you can put a blank ballot paper into the ballot box, or write an essay on the evils of the preferential voting system, or whatever you please as long as you show up and put the ballot paper in the box.
Our vote counters and scrutineers then remove the "donkey votes", as they are known, from the rest during the counting process.
The whole point of this is to get truly representative government, or as close to it as practical.
However, I would LOVE if there were a "I DO NOT want this candidate in power" option, and checking off a candidate would DEDUCT a vote
The Australian preferential voting system effectively gives you this ability, by allowing you to place your voting preferences in order. The candidate you loathe would be placed last amongst your preferences, meaning that under no circumstances would s/he get your vote, even if it meant your vote went the the 2nd-worst candidate.
Re:Why not pencil and paper? (Score:1, Informative)
FWIW, in Australia we vote by pencilling numbers in boxes, and they get counted by hand. Every vote is scrutinised by election officials and party scrutineers, then they're counted by hand. Works like a charm, it's fair, and it's accurate.
Re:Open source? (Score:1, Informative)
The only thing that bothered me was the comment at the very end...where he said others in the world should have a 'say' in who gets voted in as president in the US.
Speaking as an Aussie ... he was half joking, the Aussie sense of humour can be easy for Nth Americans to miss ...
BUT, as the proverb goes, "oft a true word is spoke in jest!"
The point is that the President of the US is now de facto the President of Australia and many other American protectorates around the world. You guys basically get to vote for the guy who gets to tell our government what to do and we are disenfranchised.
Given that this guy runs our country, surely the democratic thing to do would be to allow us to have some voice in his election. ;)
Not exactly mandatory... (Score:3, Informative)
Once you reach voting age (or are naturalised as an australian) you are eligible to "register to vote". Once you complete this process you will then be expected to vote in ALL future elections for your area. If you do not register to vote you will not be allowed to vote in any elections.
This is analogous to a "one-way" opt-in process. You can choose not to vote until you so desire, but once you register there is no way to de-register yourself (excluding death and insanity).
Q.
Re:Preferential voting system (Score:2, Informative)