Touch-Screen Voting Snags Continue 522
Not every electronic voting machine misstep comes from Diebold; reader zznate points out that the Virginia machines came from Advanced Voting Solutions (dcw3 butts in: "The slogan on their home page really gives you a warm fuzzy: 'Helping Shape American History for over one hundred years.'"), as well as that the EFF won a decision for an accelerated court date of November 17 in their attempt to stop Diebold from shutting down sites that make the infamous memos available. Let's all hope this is the first in a series of many wins for the EFF against the Diebold folks and crappy e-voting schemes in general. Have you donated lately?"
Reader meadowreach writes points out more trouble on the other coast: "From news.com: 'As voters in California go to the polls, the state is launching an investigation into alleged illegal tampering with electronic voting machines in a San Francisco Bay Area county.' Diebold upgrades software without letting the state know? How reassuring."
Generic Guy writes "CNN is running a story about California not certifying the Diebold voting machines and instead opening an investigation into the use of uncertified systems. Maybe there is still hope for democracy in the U.S."
And from Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Peter Desnoyers writes "Cambridge uses an optical scanner system, where you fill out SAT-style ovals with a pen and the election officer feeds them into a scanning machine. From last night's preliminary results on the Cambridge website:
'In two precincts at 7:55 and 7:59pm the memory cards reached capacity. To ensure that every ballot was counted , the Election Commission has decided to rerun the ballots for 9-1, Lexington Avenue Fire House and 11-3, Churchill Avenue. We expect that it will take between one to two hours.'
I interpret this to mean that they took all the paper ballots out of the box and ran them back through the reader. (with a bigger memory card?) In the mean time, voters were able to continue voting and no votes were lost."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The March of Technology (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that at least some non-tech-savvy election officials are content with the Diebold machines on the basis that "at least they won't have dimpled chads," or something similar. As a result, the people in the know (ie, anyone who knows the inherent unreliability and insecurity of the Diebold devices) should be making it very clear to everyone else that the superiority of newer technology ain't necessarily so.
Politics Over Performance (Score:5, Insightful)
So a few old goats in Florida don't know their right from their left. Big deal! It was hardly a symptom of a problem that, had it really been a problem, would have plagued the voting system since John Adams was elected president.
So now our politicians have decided that the solution to fix a complicated system is to replace it with an even more complicated system. How this kind of logic keeps these idiots in office, I will never understand, but it is clear that these new voting systems are not ready for next year's election.
Why don't we get our system from Australia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why don't we get/license the well working system [slashdot.org] that was put in place in Australia? Yes, its not domestically produced, but the source is there and can be verified. If domestic production is an issue, do we have any reason to believe that all of the Windows code in the Diebold machines was written on American soil? Also, it works. When our own system can say that a switch could be considered, but for now I'd like my vote to be counted on software that has proven itself.
Re:Violation of election laws (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with (Score:5, Insightful)
My idea (as noted in a previous article about this subject) is to use touch-pad voting machines that print a paper ballot that would then be scanned. In the event of a recount (or a dispute with the e-voting machine) these ballots could be counted by hand.
The machine prints the ballot so there is no chance of user error (unless they can't figure out how to use the bilingual touchscreen). The user gets to see the results before he drops the paper into the ballot box.
Isn't this the best of both worlds?
How hard is it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe we can't make an electronic voting machine that is as reliable as a slot machine. If we're going to do it this way, I'll show my support for the older, mechanical machines. What are the benefits?
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm quite happy with voting on paper... why do we need electronic voting?
Jebus jumped up christ (Score:5, Insightful)
You want 'electronic voting'?
Fine, here it is:
Registered voter gets handed a paper ballot. Completely human readable. Little circles next to each person/issue.
Voter enters the booth
Voter inserts paper ballot into the slot below the (oooh, shiny!) touchscreen.
Voter selects, each person issue they want to vote for. Change at any time.
At the bottom, the voter presses "Done". Maybe even a confirmation "Are you sure?"
Paper ballot is spit out of the slot, with the circles filled in for each item the person has voted for. The touchscreen is merely a printer.
Voter can verify the paper against what is on the screen.
Voter walks out, slides the paper ballot into a ScanTron. Said Scantron counts and tabulates as necessary.
The paper ballot goes into a locked box for future verification if necessary.
Done.
Now, remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
These events prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election companies are completely trustworthy, and public officials should continue to poo-poo the concerns of people who know what they are talking about. After all, They tested the machines all last week . Obviously electronic voting is working.
(Satire aside: This points out the problem very nicely; the "secretary of the county's three-person elections board" is simply not qualified to assess the ability of a voting system to perform in advance of the actual vote. This is intended as an elitist statement, it's just simple truth. "Secretaries of county election boards" should probably put a bit more trust in the concerns thousands of knowlegable citizens have with no vested interest in selling anything, and a lot less trust in companies trying to sell them snake oil. For one thing, they obviously don't know how to test these systems, or they would have found these problems.
"Stress testing", anyone? If the news report linked to can be trusted, this was nothing more then a bog-stadard "lack of resources" issue, the kind easily diagnosed by a knowlegable tester, and fixed in advance given enough time, but something that most people have no clue about. The idea of "stress testing" may be obvious to most of us, but we are not average.)
GOP suit (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait the GOP is suing? What about all that stuff I read on the internet that Diebold is in the pocket of the GOP? How can I believe anything I read on the Internet any more? Does this mean that Diebold is in the Democrats pockets?
Answer:Yes, it's ture, Diebold isn't in anyone's pockets - they are simply incompetent.
I will not vote on any machine that doesn't produce a verifiable paper trail at the time I vote. Neither should you.
Re:Violation of election laws (Score:5, Insightful)
By the by, I live just outside of Philadelphia and we had an election yesterday (mayor and various other positions). Listening to the news, I kept hearing the news casters talking about how wonderful it was to be able to participate in this democratic process and just about going into tears over how fabulous it was to have this right. They sounded like they were somewhere that had only had free elections for a few years and everyone was still getting used to the idea.
Re:What's wrong with (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm only familiar with elections here in Canada. Here we have a ballot with X number of names on it with a circle beside each name. You're handed your ballot and a pencil and then go into a booth to mark an "X" beside the name you want. The the ballot is folded and placed in the ballot box. No problems with hanging chads or ballots that are confusing to read. Why isn't a low tech system like this used in the States? Is it a population problem? (Too many people to allow this to scale well?)
Voting (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, the fact that the whole country is not in an uproar about this is evidence of the continued decline of our democracy. Quite simply, it appears no one cares anymore who you vote for cause who wins doesn't change anything. The last time I voted, I found half the canidates were running unopposed, most of the other voters were not only uninformed but seemed to have gone out the way to remain ingnorant of the issues, the canidates had almost no distinguishable differences from one another, and just about everyone of them was doing it not to serve the people but to serve themselves. The only difference nowadays is which special interest group gets its needs met at the expense of the public good this time around. Do your duty as a citizen: wipe your ass with your vote - at least it will make a differnce. Don't like the current system? Get yourslef elected by selling your soul to the lowest bidder, do your duty as an purchased official, and then wipe your ass with the consitution.
Re:Rebooting the voting machine (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way I can see that happening is if a verified (by the voter) paper receipt listing the voters choice going in to a balot box and stored. Let the machines tally. Audit random counties every election. Let recounts count the printed votes. At least this way a "crash" wont result in any lost votes.
I just dont trust anything that isn't transparent.
-jhon
What should have been done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Violation of election laws (Score:2, Insightful)
and especially write to your senators and people in washington. If they argue that they represent the people and they get enough voices saying this is absurd. then things will happen.
We can just complain about what happens or we can spread the word. even the smallest amount of votes make a difference
Thats my 2 cents worth... now i got to go return my soap box
Re:GOP suit (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just FUD to sucker the Democrats onto the bandwagon to pass laws to fix the problem, rather than hiding in the back room figuring out how to use the bugs to cheat. B-)
Re:Politics Over Performance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the main argument against it here in the US is scale. The belief is that, we have 250 million people plus or minus a few. Now, if all of them vote, counting that by hand will take longer than an hour, and our news media would be screaming about that, afterall Americans want their results NOW! Unless, of course, it provides for good TV drama (see 2000 election). This entire argument is bullshit, of course, with only 20% of voters actually voting the number of votes to count is not that large. Also, its not that hard to hire enough people to count votes by hand.
The only other problem with such a system, is in voter fraud. Its very easy to go to several polling locations and cast several ballots (At least here in California, I can go to any polling place as long as I can confirm my identity). The hope is that, with an electronic system they will be able to catch this sort of fraud. Which again is a load, but it sells well. Unless all of the polling places are linked, and once I vote in one, it keeps me from voting in another, and maintains the amnominity of my ballot, then we can talk.
Re:new war driving challenge... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Helping Shape American history for Over One Hundred Years"
We don't want you to help shape history. We'll do that. You just count it.
On second thought, no, we don't want you. Wireless voting terminals? No thanks.
In Britain (Score:5, Insightful)
When the result is close there is a recount and I have never seen the second result to be out by more than 5-10 per 60,000 votes.
There is an important principle that every person has the right to have their vote counted. Errors above 1 per 1000 are not acceptable. The system must not only be fair but be seen to be fair. Furthermore there must be a permanent record of the votes cast. How else can we be sure that all was fair.
This system works... (Score:3, Insightful)
so much more reliably when you replace "printer" with "pen" and "scantron" with "cardboard box".
Really, why do you need anything else?
What about write in candidates? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or is there an on-screen keyboard for a write in?
What if you do not want to vote for the "party blessed" candidates?
What if a majority of the voters wanted to write in someone else?
Re:Rebooting the voting machine (Score:3, Insightful)
The voting machine should print a clearly defined receipt for each vote cast. This receipt is tossed in to the box that only election officials have the key to, after the user can preview it through a piece of glass. The receipt can contain a human readable printout of results, as well as a barcode machine-scannable printout of results. Auditing can then be established on a variety of levels, recounts can be done by scanning the barcodes, and failing that, by the human readable printouts.
It looks like with out some sort of actual dead tree paper trail, it'd look very similar to the Simpsons Bart vs Martin for class president election. Let's do a recount. Yep, Martin won.
Re:Rebooting the voting machine (Score:2, Insightful)
Check your assumptions, VERY VERY CAREFULLY!
You'll find, for example, that Enron gave equally to Republicans and Democrats.
Now that we have that settled, let's talk about the century-long legacy of Democrat vote fraud--which is what my original post was about.
Re:This system works... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Really, why do you need anything else?"
Because, apparently some people have problems following simple instructions. Even with something so simple as filling in the circles, there will be people who can't figure it out and instead put and 'X' or check mark and then complain that their vote wasn't counted correctly.
This phenomenon (sp?) is explained in today's news [theonion.com]
Neither Democrats nor Republicans deserve votes. (Score:3, Insightful)
When Greg Palast revealed that 64,000 Floridian voters were denied the ability to vote in the 2000 US Presidential election [commondreams.org], what did the Democrats do to restore their voting rights? What did the Democrats do to verify Palast's story and expose Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris' fraud?
I don't trust the Democratic or Republican national parties. So I won't vote for parties that hurt me, assuming my vote will be counted accurately at all.
Re:Rebooting the voting machine (Score:2, Insightful)
This whole pile of **** that "corporations give to Republicans and not to Democrats" is just that: Shit.
And corporate giving isn't even the problem. The problem is that the citizenry gave up its obligation to remain educated and informed. That is the basis upon which this Republic was founded.
If we allow shysters like Bill Clinton to pull the wool over our eyes, then we deserve what we get.
I appreciate George W. Bush--though he is FAR from a Conservative, which I am. He does his job vis a vis protecting this nation, but he is as bad as Clinton ever was about allowing further erosion of our Constitution.
But I reiterate: My comment was about the sterling legacy of vote stealing that belongs almost entirely to the Democrat party. They have done it for years, and the crocodile tears they shed in 2000 was almost too much for me to bear, particularly when you had stuff like what happened in St. Louis and Milwaukee--that DIDN'T get any media scrutiny.
Re:GOP suit (Score:3, Insightful)
In palm beach county, which is using the Diebold machines, the officials that ordered them, and the officials that approved said order are all DEMOCRATS. I guess the democrats have been paid off, and are actually secret Bush supporters. (Ooops damn tongue got stuck in my cheek)
Side Note: The appearance of inpropriety doesn't make it so. Every citizen should keep a sharp eye on ANY company involved with the election process. This should be thoroghly investigated, BUT the rants of obvioulsy biased commentators hurt the process.
I've read and seen tremendously outlandish claims all over the internet, most not even backed up by a hint of evidence. If people become numb (and they already are) because there is so much chaff, then everyone looses. With a jaded and sceptical pulic it becomes easier for the big power types to pull the wool over our eyes.
Claims to be investigated are one thing, vitrol and unfathonable (unless you think I shot kennedy) claims of corruption don't help, they hurt the process.
A court challenge to the voting machines would probably be the best idea. Followed closely by not useing them (ie get an absentee ballot and bitch at your local eletion officials until they give in)
cluge