California to Require Paper Voter Receipt 348
DDumitru writes "Wired reports
that California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley will require all electronic
voting systems be equipped with a voter-verifiable paper receipt. This receipt
will not be retained by the voter, but deposited at the polls and may be used
to audit electronic election results.
All new voting system installed after July 1, 2005 must include the new printers.
Existing systems, including the systems already installed in four counties must
be retrofitted by July 2006.
It looks like the public outcry about Diebold and other voting equipment manufacturers
has been heard, at least in a very major market for these machines in the US.
It should be very difficult for other states to not follow suit."
you're missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
the point is that we'll have a complete paper record of who voted for who. the system will be accountable for its results instead of just numbers in an access database that could have been tampered with.
that's what "paper trail" means.
prof.hojo.
my site. [cover-letter-magic.com]
Re:paper receipt? (Score:2, Informative)
It's surprising that this technology hasn't gotten more media attention. People following the news would think the only three ways to vote are old voting machines, punch cards and DRE!
I agree, but the Constitution stops it... (Score:5, Informative)
However, there are some differences between the American and Canadian electoral systems. Please remember, the US Constitution explicitedly puts the responsibility for conducting elections in the hands of the states, for example Section 4, Clause 1 on the election of Senators and Representatives. Furthermore, as witnessed in the last election, we use an Electoral College to pick the President. The selection of the Electoral College members is decided by the individual states. So the Federal government cannot mandate a uniform ballot. (Your statement also ignores the fact that most, if not all, localities use the national elections as opportunities to decide local issues that require some customization of the ballot.)
To do what you propose, while it has merit, would require a Constitutional amendment. One that is not likely to be passed because the states would have to give up some of their power.
Re:um...useless? (Score:2, Informative)
Like hell they do. They're receipts, which means the voter leaves the polling place with them in hand. That makes them even less reliable than the machines we're talking about. As soon as the state asks for receipts to come back for a recount, each party will turn in a half a million such receipts they "found" somewhere.
This new law requiring these machines to print receipts is nothing more than feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing. The machines are still the only word you have on who got how many votes, and they're still using the old, buggy software that local governments aren't even allowed to see, let alone fix. Everybody here who's posting "Hey, they finally fixed it!" is going along with the carrot these politicians are dangling in front of the voters' noses while ignoring the pork-barrel politics that's paying for these machines to begin with.
All the problems of mechanical voting machines, none of the advantages of physical mechanisms, for more money. And somehow spitting out a piece of paper is supposed to fix this?
Re:At what point (Score:3, Informative)
To elaborate: in the US and in many other countries, republicanism is the mechanism of democracy. We are both (in theory) a republic and a democracy -- a republican democracy, or a democratic republic (that latter term, unfortunately, having been recently hijacked by some very undemocratic republics.) Anyone who says "the US is a republic, not a democracy" and thinks it proves something is an idiot.
Examples of undemocratic republics: USSR, China, Cuba, Iraq (yes, still), Iran, North Korea, etc. The list of unrepublican democracies is shorter, but includes countries such as the UK, Japan, and Sweden. If the grandparent poster and those like him had to give up one -- republicanism or democracy -- I wonder which he would choose?
Re:Democracy works? (Score:4, Informative)
But the electoral failure three years ago was a result of something else that few people other than historians ever mention: The US Electoral College was in fact set up by the Founding Fathers as an explicit check on the power of the masses. They were afraid of a popular demagogue winning an election and overthrowing the established order. Not an irrational fear, as illustrated by several cases in the 20th century where this happened in some other countries. So they devised that peculiar scheme whereby the voters choose "electors", presumably well-to-do members of the established parties, and those electors then decide amongst themselves who should be the president. This system can overturn the wishes of the masses, and that's exactly what it was designed to do.
In this case, it did have some help from a court that ordered a halt to the vote counting, so that one state could "choose" the desired set of electors. This is something that the Founding Fathers apparently didn't anticipate, and has thrown a major monkey wrench into the works. But this isn't the first time; check out the 1876 election for a precedent. ("Rutherford Tilden election" is a good set of keywords for a search site.)
Now we have the have the phenomenon of new voting equipment being widely installed, from a company whose CEO has brazenly promised one party that he can deliver states to them in the next election. Information about this equipment supports his claim fully.
So maybe we can truly remove the US from the list of democracies
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hey... (Score:3, Informative)
Check out VoteHere (Score:4, Informative)
By the way, I have no ties to VoteHere, I've just been studying electronic voting a lot lately.
For more info, see http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ [verifiedvoting.org]
Of course, this system has weaknesses, as will any system which enforces both authenticity and anonymity, but even if it cannot be protected against all attacks, it at least lets you know when an attack is happening, which is a huge step up from most paper and even electronic systems.
Re:And it needs to be ... (Score:4, Informative)
You see this in lost of industries: low- and zero-emission vehicles are available nationwide primarily because CA required them. And that's why the banking lobby fought so hard against privacy regulations in CA: because if they had to redo their IT systems for CA, then basically it becomes available to their customers in all states. Cheaper to do it for eveyone than just people in one state.
Re:At what point (Score:3, Informative)
republic = government rule by a select group, can be elected by the people or not.
I agree in principle with what you are saying, but most people who make a point of saying the US is not a democracy are basing on that majority rule concept. A lot of people think that if the majority wants it, it should be law... whereas there is no such principle in the country and ample evidence that is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
As far as unrepublican democracies, how is the UK a democracy? All legislative power is in the house of commons which is elected by the people. The people have no power on their own. Further, the queen can become a de facto dictator if the need exists.
I don't really know anything about Sweden or Japan. With such a small population, I wouldn't be surprised if Sweden could pull it off. Japan however... I dunno.
Re:Still Room for Fraud (Score:3, Informative)
How do you know it says the right thing? Well, uh, you look at it before you drop it in the ballot box. That's why it's called a "voter-verifiable" paper audit trail. If Alice is running against Bob and you want to vote for her, the machine gives you a piece of paper and you make sure it says "I vote for Alice" and not one that says "I vote for Bob".
Re:Vote buying laws would have to be changed. (Score:3, Informative)
The vote-buying schemes you describe are *exactly* what VoteHere's system is designed to avoid.