Diebold Admits ATMs Are More Robust Than Voting Machines

An anonymous reader points out a story in the Huffington Post about the status of funding for election voting systems. It contains an interesting section in which Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Premier (formerly Diebold) acknowledged that less money is spent making an electronic voting machine than on a typical ATM. The ironically named Riggall also notes that security could indeed be improved, but at a higher price than most election administrators would care to pay. Also quoted in the article is Ed Felten, who has recently found some inconsistencies in New Jersey voting machines. From the Post: "'An ATM is significantly a more expensive device than a voting terminal...' said Riggall. 'Were you to develop something that was as robust as an ATM, both in terms of the physical engineering of it and all aspects, clearly that would be something that the average jurisdiction cannot afford.' Perhaps cost has something to do with the fact that a couple of years ago, every single Diebold AccuVote TS could be opened with a standard key also used for some cabinets and mini-bars and available for purchase over the Internet."

Re:So?

[morgan_greywolf]

Not to mention Diebold's ATM business != Diebold's voting machine business (now called Premier Election Systems). The voting machine business is a small sideline business for Diebold. Diebold makes LOTS and LOTS of stuff. For one, they are a U.S. government contractor that makes physical access control systems and all sorts of things. The ATM business is an offshoot of that.

The voting booths have nothing to do their mainline business.

This a bit like AM General admitting that their LSSVs aren't as robust as their HMMWV's (:HumVee's") -- of course they aren't, their completely different business lines.

Re:What is Our Democracy Worth?

[kenh]

Unfortunately, voting is a local exercise, despite the federal implications, and as such each jurisdiction has the freedom to implement voting in the manor they see fit. Of course, when we had that little mis-adventure in FL a few years ago, paper was deemed "unacceptable", so the federal government decided to throw lots of money around to help everyone buy *whatever* electronic voting machine they wanted, then when the local politicians made bad decisions (based on ignorance, greed, corrupt vendors or a combination of all three) the politicans are now stepping back in and saying that the electronic voting process is no good, and we need to go back to paper...

A fundamental change is needed, one that will either have the states ceding power tot he federal government to develop "the one true" voting machine used in all districts *or* we get off this technology merry-go-round and use paper ballots - as a bonus it will give the losing politicans more time to round-up lawyers to challenge their loss...

India has affordable/ secure voting machines

[aqui]

Security depends both on the voting / counting process and on the technology (this is true for paper ballots as well). The problem is when the technology can easily be changed in a hidden way that is unverifiable by elections officials.

A simple machine, that has been tested and verify can be sealed with stickers with signatures of election officials.

A machine (think diabold) with all kinds of inputs (think keyboard plugs) and complexity (think OS, DB etc...) cannot be easily sealed and verified by election officials.

I found two interesting articles about India's EVM

The two things I found interesting:
1) EVM cost = $230 (hard to tamper with, and relies on election officials to keep secure)

2) Diebold cost = $3300 (easier to tamper with, and relies on election officials to keep secure)

This points out two things: voting systems don't have to be complicated or expensive to work well, and that security depends both on the machine and the voting process.

Just like with paper ballots the election officials need to ensure security of the voting and counting process.

In Canada we have some electronic voting at the municipal level in some cities (mostly optical scan machines).

A comparison of EVM and Diebold
http://techaos.blogspot.com/2004/05/indian-evm-compared-with-diebold.html [blogspot.com]

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Voting_Machines [wikipedia.org]

The issue is not about cost. The issue is crappy design, and politics in the selection of voting machine vendors.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[Etrias]

The reason for that box was actually an attempt to lessen the influence of money in the political process. How it is supposed to work is the FEC determines who are "serious" candidates and then distribute the money evenly amongst them. It is fairly tipped and a damn shame though as it strongly favors Republicans and Democrats over third parties.

More info here at the FEC website [fec.gov].

Re:What is Our Democracy Worth?

[maxume]

Paper scan voting pretty much solves all of the problems, at reasonable cost. The interface is one that people are used to(paper that is), there is a paper trail, the machines are well understood.

Hopefully people manage to remember the ongoing debacle in New Jersey for at least an election cycle or two.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[Dragonslicer]

On our taxes it asks "Would you like to donate an extra $3 to the candidates?"

Please mod this down to get rid of the "Informative". You don't pay an extra amount of money, you allocate to the general campaign financing fund an amount of money from the taxes that you're paying anyway. It does not increase the amount you pay. It even says so right next to the check box.

We are getting stuck on the machines!

[qazwart]

It doesn't surprise me that voting machines are not built as well as ATMs. ATMs are filled with thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars. It would be a rich target for all potential thieves. The voting machine electronics must be protected from all sorts of assaults. Voting machines only contain vote totals, so fewer people would be after them. After all, if you smash an ATM, you still get the money. You smash a voting machine, and you simply lose the votes.

The problem is we're stuck on machines vs. voting procedures. New York and New Jersey had voting machines that did not produce a paper trail for almost 100 years, and this was by design. The voting fraud problem in the Northeast was ballot stuffing. Voting machines, by eliminating paper ballots were designed to eliminate this type of voter fraud. The voting machines were designed around voting procedures. A voter had to register before hand. They had to sign in. Their signature was compared to their signature on their original application. The voter was handed a ticket. They handed that to a poll worker who would place the ticket in the voting machine, and pull a big lever which unlocked the machine. The voter would enter the machine, pull another lever to close the curtains and vote. When they finished, they pulled the lever to open the curtains. This cast the ballot and locked the machine. Poll watchers oversaw the whole process.

This machine/procedure combination eliminated ballot stuffing. The voter could only vote a single time before the machine locked up. The poll worker couldn't unlock the machine without the poll watchers noticing. Voter counts were taken from the machine totals, the tickets on the machines, and the sign in list. Since the voting machines were purely mechanical, they were trusted by all parties. All parties could watch the machines being setup and make sure there were no problems. Poll watchers would run tests before the polls opened to verify the machines. This didn't kill the political machines which simply switched tactics, and it didn't entirely eliminate voting fraud, but it certainly helped.

What we need to do is set a procedure up to ensure that elections are fair. Ballots must be secured and watched over by all parties. In Zimbabwe, they counted the votes locally at the polls and posted the results at each poll. This prevents the ruling party from manipulating the ballots. You could go from poll to poll, and add up the election results yourself. We also must ensure that each voter votes only once, and that each voter's vote is totaled as they intended. That was the issue in Florida with the punch card system.

So, we need to think beyond the "technology" aspect of the voting. It isn't paper ballots are simply better. It's about ensuring that we have confidence in the tabulation of the votes and whether it truly reflects the view of the populous. So, think of how you'd secure the paper ballots, how they would be counted. Who would oversee the procedure? How would the ballot boxes be protected from additional votes being added? How do we ensure that voters only vote once and not sneak in additional ballots? How do we verify the ballots? How can we ensure the entire procedure is fair?

The problem with the current Diabold style voting machines is that they are mystery boxes and we cannot tell if they tabulate the vote fairly. We would have to ensure the firmware, the software, and hardware has not been tampered with. A paper trail can help since paper is easier to verify. But, paper is easy to duplicate, toss, and manipulate which is why the Northeast went to the mechanical paperless machines to begin with.

Unless you think of the entire voting process, and ensure the voting process is easy to verify, it doesn't matter how voters cast their ballots.

Re:Not the same people

[Amouth]

because for now.. the CC companines don't lose the money.. if you stole my card and went and bought shit and i report it as fraud.. then i pay a fee (50$ i think) and the CC refunds me my money and then charges back to the company where you bought shit..

so in reality.. the CC has to do a few more transactions and alittle leg work.. (what my 50$ covers) and the company selling stuff gets nothing but lost inventory and the fraud guy makes off with the stuff..

untill the CC companies here in the US are held accountable for the transactions then they have zero incentive on putting together more expenisve and effective security into the cards/transactions.. because it doesn't effect their bottom line..

and the reatail places are screwed because their only option is to stop accepting CC's.. and if you do that in the US you might as well clsoe your doors as most of the population doesn't cary cash any more.. and sadly most of them don't have the cash to cary.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[skroops]

I don't know a single person who said yes to that...

"During each of the last five years, approximately 33 million taxpayers have checked the "yes" box." [fec.gov] With those numbers, you probably don't know a single person who uses Linux either...

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Do I really think that lawmakers will say, "We should get rid of traffic light cameras, because people are obeying the law and reducing our income from fines."? [msn.com]
Yes.

Re:Best Parallel Ever!

[sm62704]

You care about voting machines? So front the cash to your local election commission

I do. every time I buy something I pay state and local sales tax. Every time I earn a paycheck I pay income tax. Every time I buy beer I pay an excise tax.

I'm paying for the ATMs, too. The bank gets its money from me when it charges me fees and invests my checking account money for their profit.

I expect my elected officials to do their damned jobs without my nagging. It's their responsibility under the state constitution to ensure a secure vote.