Feds to Recommend Paper Trail for Electronic Votes 205
flanksteak writes "The National Institute of Standards and Technology is going to recommend the decertification of all electronic voting machines that don't create paper records. Although it sounds like this recommendation may have been in the works for a while, the recent issues in Sarasota, FL (18,000 missing votes) have brought the issue a higher profile. The most interesting comment in the story comes near the end, in which the author cites a study that said paper trails from electronic voting machines aren't all they're cracked up to be."
Re:Paper records (Score:1, Interesting)
Um, no. The part of the program that prints the paper does not need
to match the part that records the votes. Check out the HBO film
"Hacking Democracy" for an example of this. http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy
As a matter of accounting.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd think this was new technology in light of the voting machine problems.
But ATMs have been in use for at least a quarter century.
Re:Paper voting! (Score:5, Interesting)
San Francisco machines are the best IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)
This system has all the benefits: the preliminary results are available immediately from the electronic machine, there is a complete paper trail, you know if the machine couldn't read the ballot, and absentee ballots look exactly the same as the ballots in the precinct. Why isn't this system used everywhere?
RA storage vs WORM type storage (Score:3, Interesting)
Warning RANT!
Then the people creating the current systems should all be fired. What kind of computer scientist doesn't understand that with any random access storage there is a risk of accidental or intentional destruction or alteration, at any time, in a random fasion. That's why it's called uhh random access. Hello? This is like a CS 101 second week quiz question. They even still call it RAM!
Any write once technology will be infinately better. Which one is academic. You can use a variety of write once technologies with a diverse amount of write confidence levels, number of rereads possible and techniqiue used, and cost. Just write the votes at they happen, in a sequential fasion, in a way that you cannot backtrack and rewrite.
Why the hell are do Sarb-Ox and Hipaa require worm tape and encryption in many cases, yet our voting systems have nothing but the seat of their pants.
As an aside Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] chimed in on this recently. I wonder if this had any effect on NIST's comments.
optical scan is the real deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, well... (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I'd like would be for the electronic machine to generate a cryptographically-secure hash generated from all the votes cast on it. The paper ballots can then be electronically scanned and the same hash algorithm applied to the scanned data. If ALL votes are present and unmodified, then the hashes should be the same. Provided there is no collusion between the voting machine and the scanning machine makers, the probability of the hashes coming out the same in the event of vote-tampering of any kind should be extremely low.
However, knowing that tampering has occurred doesn't solve the issue of what to do about it. I'd simply insist on the election being re-held until all districts came back clean from tampering. Oh, and all sports, adult and cartoon channels would be legally required to stop transmitting until everyone bloody well voted and/or adjudicated honestly. Also, anyone caught attempting (or practicing) voting fraud should be compelled to buy everyone the DVDs of the shows they missed, before being locked up in a psych ward in Romania for the rest of their unnatural life.
Here's a system that would work (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone think of a way to cheat THAT system?
It seems to be able to handle extra votes, dropped votes, and changed votes.
Re:electronic voting idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Paper voting! (Score:3, Interesting)
What Problem are We Trying to Solve? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the problem is that people make mistakes in counting, mark and scan technology should produce better results. If the problem is votes from dead or imaginary voters, how can any technology help?
If there is, as I suspect, no real problem at all, why the hell are we stumbling around with all this half-baked technology?
Paper Ballots: Shorter Lines? (Score:3, Interesting)
All other issues aside, there is no possible way we could afford anywhere near that many touch-screen machines. Even barring technical problems this is bound to cause a bottleneck as people ponder their vote.