Super Tuesday Not So Super For Electronic Voting 560
October_30th writes "It's Super Tuesday in 10 states (including California, New York and Ohio) and various reports are coming in that the equipment built by Diebold and various other manufacturers is proving more troublesome than previously anticipated."
Super Tuesday (Score:5, Informative)
These elections run from January through June. This means on the first Tuesday of March, a candidate will pretty much know what his chances of winning the nomination really are.
Microsoft Security Patches??? (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, I thought computers were only vulnerable after the patches were available [slashdot.org]...
Re:Microsoft Security Patches??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe a "custom" OS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sure, maybe an embedded Linux of some kind, but then Diebold would have to hire real programmers...
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Funny)
I have to tell you, I voted for the fist once and I still regret it.
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American, it wouldn't surprise me if that was true.
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, 37% of the non-voters are too cynical to bitch, feeling that their bitching would not be listened to and would simply amount to a waste of time. It's important to motivate these people and tell them that their bitching really counts, and that if they just clam up then they'll have squandered their only rights in a democratic society. (Other than actually voting.)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I would pay to see Simon tell Bush how much he sucks.
Excuse yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignorant Americans. (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh, I'd love to spend some time answering this, but I have Average Joe II on TIVO and I have to finish watching it to make room for American Idol.
Oh! Gotta go get the door. It's Domino's.
Re:Ignorant Americans. (Score:4, Interesting)
scripsit CleverNickName:
... and some dumb bastard modded it Offtopic. If the discussion is about ignorance of politics, how is an ironic comment about citiz^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers' apathy for the topic Offtopic? It strikes right at the central point the grandparent was making...
Unfortunately, I've already wasted my mod points for today...
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Insightful)
As an American living in London [colingregorypalmer.net] I can say from first had experience this is true.
I remember having a conversation with a friend from France when she was explaining to me the details of the California recall vote. At which point I admitted to her that I knew absolutely nothing about the French political system. Do they have a King? I wouldn't know.
To my surprise, she wasn't the least bit surprised. She made a comment that I will always remember. "The politics of the United States affects the rest of the world, but the politics of the rest of the world does not affect the United States."
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Informative)
I'd be surprised if you could find half a dozen brits who knew how the British Prime Minister is chosen. It is not the obvious answer of "The Leader of the Largest Party after a General Election" but the Prime Minister is chosen by Royal Perogative. This is not some idle theoretical power either - it was used in 1957 to appoint Harold MacMillan Prime Minister when he was not the leader of the Conservative Party (which was the party in power). It was again used in 1963 in similar circumstances.
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I understand why you suggest adding rules for this. But first, telling organizations that by their very nature have _very_ different views on precisely things like elections how they should do them feels
Second, I doubt you can write any clear rules that will not penalize some parties. Say you have a rule that primaries must be held at the same day in all states. Then how about parties that are too small to have the resources to do so? Or even too small to ever want or need to hold primaries in all states at all? You will start to need a bunch of qualifiers to the rules, and probably start to classify parties according to size. And if you want to only regulate primaries, you will have a hopeless time defining primaries so they neither penalize other party systems, nor give openings to redefine the process so the rules no longer apply when they should.
Malinformed (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say, for sake of argument, that all 50 states have their caucuses and/or primaries at the same time. They start at the same time, end at the same time. What are we going to see from the candidates?
Well, Kerry would park himself in California for two weeks prior to the primary. Edwards would take New York. Sharpton would go for an inner-city like Baltimore, Dean would take Boston and everyone would be lobbing grenades at Kerry in a desperate attempt to keep him from getting God-knows-how-many delegates in one fell swoop.
Do you see what'd happen? The candidates would campaign only in high-population areas and would talk only about metropolitan issues. Because really, if everything all gets settled at once, it doesn't make any sense for Kerry to sit down at Gwen's Diner in Lisbon, Iowa (great food if you're ever in the neighborhood) and talk to the usual crowd of farmers, hunters and retired schoolteachers who hang out there.
These people are American citizens. They pay taxes. They get overlooked by East and West Coasters every single day of the year except for about one month every four years, when the East and West Coasters come to Iowa to ask Iowans "so, now that you've actually met $candidate, what do you think?"
If you make everyone vote all at the same time, what you're going to do is tell everyone who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area--and that's forty-eight percent of the nation--that their opinions don't count, that they're too minor to matter, and that since everything's settled all at once and fifty-two percent of the delegates are decided in the big cities, that the entire political debate will revolve around big-city concerns.
A campaign season exists to allow vigorous political debate to take place. It exists to make sure rural citizens, who have as much right to be heard as you, have a voice in political proceedings.
Re:Malinformed (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe a significant part of the problem with the primaries lies with the fourth estate. They are far too eager to be the first to peg the candidate of either party.
The result is over-simplification of everything in the political matrix: issues, character, polls, suitability, polls, experience, and polls. There is a significant lack these days of any real journalism in the primaries. Just rely on the machinery of the major parties for the daily pablum and slew coverage accordingly.
Take Dean for instance. The media blew one moment of exuberance out of all proportion and essentially killed off a viable candidate. "Tonight, yet another replay of footage that ceased to be newsworthy after its first showing. Shield the kiddies, we think we've discovered foaming at the mouth this time!"
It's patently absurd that the media manages to herd the general populace to one candidate before even 30% of the respective party voters have had their say.
Oh great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, don't worry. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignorance might not be bliss, but it's pretty antiseptic.
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really, why all the fancy computers with touch screen monitors, why complicated software? Grab the vote in from a keyboard, encrypt it, save it, done.
I really think that the problem here is just the implementation, Diebold is simply selling shitty hardware/software, and really getting away with it because nobody else sells this kind of hardware, at least that is well known and accredited.
It's a crying shame that anything like Florida happened in the first place, but this is the twenty first fucking century, we're smarter than that people...
That's not the issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which doesn't address the problem with the voting machines at all.
The issue is not the fancy interface. (So changing to a keyboard would just add the problem of how you are supposed to collect votes from people who don't grok keyboards.)
The issue is: How do you KNOW the software that grabbed the vote (from the keyboard, touch screen, or what have you), encrypted it or not, and stored it in the database, ACTUALLY STORED THE VOTE THE VOTER CAST, rather than making up its own vote?
And how do you KNOW that the database ACTUALLY SAVED THE VOTES THE VOTING MACHINES FED IT and ADDED THEM UP CORRECTLY, rather than making up different values or being altered by some human intervention?
The MAIN problem with computer voting machines is that, along with hanging chads and dimpled ballots, they've eliminated any paper trail (actually checked by the voters themselves) of how each voter actually voted.
If the software is broken or corrupt, how do you do a recount? Ask it to give you the corrupted numbers a second time?
(Interestingly enough, that's EXACTLY how Diebold proposes to do a recount: Have the database print out the corrupted values as separate printed paper ballots for people to hand-count. B-) )
Re:That's not the issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's not the issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, in the case where the results go unchallenged.
The idea of the voter verified paper trail is to allow the computer results to be checked against voter verified paper results when challenged. It should also be done on randomly selected precincts as an audit of the computer's accuracy.
Re:That's not the issue. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like it's hard to press "1 ". Anyone can understand the instructions if they were clear. The idea of moving it to a keyboard based system is just simply a request I've heard from a lot of people, and a simplifing overcomplicated hardware.. (what if your monitor crapped out?)
The issue is: How do you KNOW the software that g
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is anybody selling this stuff? Does everything have to be privatized? You'd think something like voting, that is as critical to the health of a so-called democracy as anything else, would be fully open for inspection.
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Reliable software is very hard to make.
2) Mathematically provably secure software is impossible or very nearly so.
3) Reliable software that is mathematically provably secure and is affordable simply will never exist.
4) Our county and state gee-whiz government officials don't really understand this and are blowing wads of taxpayer dollars on a hopeless technology project.
5) Representative Democracy gets a big spiked shaft in its rear end.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Interesting)
I also don't disagree with the current paper ballot system, just
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Insightful)
" And the electronic voting trend is accelerating: In November's presidential election, at least 50 million people will vote on touch-screens, compared with 55 million using paper, punch cards or lever machines, according to Washington-based Election Data Services."
Unless there is much larger public outcry it doesn't look like the problems will be solved before a mass rollout.
Re:Oh great... (Score:3, Insightful)
No amount of work will ever produce a computer than anyone can use - and no amount of technology will ever produce a voting system that all can use.
Quite frankly - using the fact that there's fsck-all now that can be done.
i'm here in SoCal, and the radio news channels are reportiong (its all i can get here) are reporting that in some instances, all the ballots are making the Democrat
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me? Where I live we have this amazing technology:
a) A piece of paper printed with circles which are labeled with the name of the parties in big letters
b) A pen
c) An envelope
d) A ballot box
Any dork can use that and for those who can't, it's better when their votes are discarded
Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Informative)
We also have the Diebold machines in Alameda County, California. I can tell you that your vote is not stored on the smart card. The precinct workers have a machine that activates the smart card, writing a token onto it that identifies which party's ballot you should get. Once you select "cast ballot" on the machine, it deletes the token from the smart card so that you can't vote twice. The smart cards are reused repeatedly during the day.
First clue something went wrong... (Score:5, Funny)
Let M eget this right (Score:5, Insightful)
I am shocked
Re:Let [Me get] this right (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be sort of like fully privatizing mail delivery. Sure you could set it up as a viable company, if you are willing to entire A) drastically raise postage or B) cut vast swaths of rural mail delivery. When you get down to it the aims of the public are not compatible with running postal service as a completely private venture. The aims of the public are also not compatible with running elections as a completely private venture.
That would mean treating electronic election machines, no matter who produces them, as an extension of public service. Almost as a utility, perhaps. Political parties are heavily regulated as would be a utility, why not the very machines we use to vote?
How about non-tech security issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has zero to do with tech but will serve to give e-voting a bad name if one of these machines is compromised. Not good.
Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they were just the old style punch cards sitting on a table and someone altered prior to voting starting for the day then it would be a bit obvious when they were passed out to the voters be the election judges.
Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:3)
This was indirectly my point
Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd much rather see us not have electronic voting for the next ten years, even if due to FUD, than to have such insecure voting systems in place due to over-confidence or government cronyism.
Besides, even ignoring that a lot of cracks are physical-security issues, even when dealing with real computers -- this is directly related to tech, because there's just not so many ways to screw with a good old-fashioned hole-punching ballot box, even if it isn't locked up, whereas you could do almost anything to an electronic voting terminal...
Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the actual machines inside the boxes ARE protected with a lock and key. You can't even turn them on without the key.
Having the boxes sitting unprotected sounds stupid, but they are really safer than it sounds. Obviously not impossible to someone that really puts some effort int
Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked.
Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:4, Informative)
Use a standard computer, with two hard drives (and a printer with a big newspaper like spool of paper if you please). Have it so that in the back of the machine, a specific card has to be put into the machine: the card contains a hash written onto a rom chip used to encrypt and validate the votes. Set up a keyboard and a program that simply displays the name of the office, and store in a randomized list the name of the officials you can vote for (randomized to the user, increases security). Set up the software to write the vote onto both harddrives and onto the spool of paper. Store all of this in one of those bulletproof steel boxes with a safe's locking mechanism.
It's really as simple as that.. I could go into more detail, but that'd just bore most of you.. I'm sure a lot of you have thought of better systems yourselves. You see, it's nothing more than incompetence that they didn't implement anything like this.
This just in (Score:3, Funny)
Attention to detail... (Score:5, Interesting)
Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked.
Re:Attention to detail... (Score:5, Funny)
"all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked."
Diebold's implementation of open source voting machines, no doubt.
Re:Attention to detail... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Attention to detail... (Score:4, Funny)
The rest of the machines required the super secret three finger salute (CTRL+ALT+DEL) to log on.
Am I paranoid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I paranoid? (Score:3, Informative)
Payola? How about election fakery? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are you worried about payola?
Worry about ballot boxes stuffed by corrupt election officials working for political machines.
That requires NO paranoia to be concerned about. When the enormous power of government is handed over to the winners of elections, the historical NORM is for the election process to be corrupted.
The battle is to keep it clean. The ONLY way to do that is to ASSUME it's dirty unless you can PROVE it's clean - in a way that's believable by every non-tech-savvy member of every losing faction.
When somebody can say, of an election, "Trust me, it's clean." - and you have to believe him because you can't check, it's almost CERTAINLY dirty. (The only thing that might keep it from being hacked is that the political machines haven't got their hacks finished in time.)
And when the election officials ignore mainstream press coverage about how it can be cheated and how simple it is to fix, you shouldn't be wondering if you're hearing a little alarm bell tinkling. You should be hearing air raid sirens and artillery bombardments.
Re:Payola? How about election fakery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easter eggs.
Example: Code to move 10% of the votes from "no" to "yes", or the D to the R, (or vice-versa), but only on election day, only in certain precincts, and only on candidates in particular ballot slots.
Code with such zingers would pass JUST FINE on the tests - and maybe get by even if you tested it with some extra machines during the election itself.
(Interestingly, though, one of the things that came to light is that these tests you speak so highly of usually aren't actually performed. Another is that, even in a state where an approval process was in place, voting machines were discovered (after the election) to have been running UNapproved versions of the software.)
So next time I suggest you don't talk about things that you clearly have no clue about.
Yo! Bucko! I've WRITTEN similar zingers myself. (Though only to play a practical joke, not to corrupt an election.) They work just FINE. And are damed hard to figure out even if you KNOW they're happening.
All of which begs the issue.
The point is not to make it accurate.
The point is to make it PROVABLE, even to a technical illiterate, that it IS accurate.
"Trust me, I'm an expert." isn't going to cut it when the issue is how Adolf Eichmann III became mayor of Chicago when he was polling 0.5% on the day before the election.
Judging by Diebold's karma... (Score:5, Funny)
Not a problem... (Score:5, Funny)
During the general election, this shouldn't be a problem.
CONspiracies galore (Score:5, Funny)
# ssh diebold.machines.gov
bush@diebold.machines.gov's password:
# gcc -o misunderestimated misunderestimated.c
#
# echo "Is our children learning?"
L337 H4x0r for president (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of the electronic voting systems have no hard copy audit trail or no open audit trail of the votes.
I really don't feel safe with some company "verifying" that the vote has not been tampered with out a proven (non electronic) audit trail.
I'm sure it has been said a thousand times, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure speed of results isn't great, but in most countries with a good transport infrastructure it might take until the next morning, counthing through the night.
As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
What a stupid idea (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some things that computers are good at, and some that they aren't. Just because something is newer doesn't make it better.
It's expensive, insecure, and complicated (and thus prone to failure).
Whose idea was this anyway?
Re:What a stupid idea (Score:5, Funny)
This is because real computer professionals know enough about complexity and reliability in commercial software to have to really work hard to not shit their pants when thinking about electronic voting machines. The people who actually program electronic voting machines are not professionals, otherwise they would have quit their jobs due to the ethical problems. Instead, the programmers who make these voting machines are whores, and, apparently, the people who buy these machines want to get fucked real hard.
The Greater Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
When there is no physical record of the vote, only a few bits on a card somewhere, we'll become even more removed from the process. It won't be long until no one cares anymore, and voting becomes a simple formality.
And the fact that making it verifiable is so easy makes me wonder....
A Note to Diebold Bashers: (Score:5, Interesting)
However,
It's not so much the company 'Diebold' that is at fault as the small company they bought out that was doing electronic voting development. And had started the shit that has been hitting the fan.
Diebold is a lock and security company that happened to buy a terrible, untrustworthy little company for a forray into electronic voting.
For what it's worth.
RD
Re:A Note to Diebold Bashers: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, at the ATMs my bank uses, they tend to have a pretty advertisement up while they're idle. Then, you go and put your card in, punch in your PIN, wait at a "Loading..." screen, and come to the main menu. Generally, I want to withdraw $20, and it's convenient, because the buttons are almost always in the same place. Almost.
So, one day, I decide I need to do something at an ATM. I put in my card, type in my PIN, and hold my hand over the screen. While waiti
Re:A Note to Diebold Bashers: (Score:3, Insightful)
You say "just happened" as if it were mere serendipity that the little company became part of the big company.
No, Diebold should have known what they were getting into when they were making the purchase. And even if they didn't know then, they had ample opportunity to not make the product available until the problems had been corrected.
They still have a responsibility
power problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Fraud already implied (Score:4, Insightful)
Good this is getting out (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most people who read Slashdot know of the multitude of problems Diabold has and the conspiracies their organization is obviously wrought with. However, this has gotten little coverage in the mainstream press.
The only way the public at large will know of the new dangers faced by electronic voting is to hear about this more on CNN, ABC, etc. and not just online. There is still a sort of prevailing mindset with a lot of people that goes, "Ooh, its a computer, of course it can count better than a human."
First-hand experience (Score:5, Informative)
Funny thing is that the poll worker looks like a 60+ retired volunteer trying to talk a much younger guy through on working the tablet.
I was done in just a few minutes. I think it's much faster than the old punch card ballot. Though the tablet navigation didn't quite work as I expected. For example, I was expecting it to be touchscreen, but it wasn't. Instead, you use navigation buttons on the tablet. Also, there was one item where you can vote for up to six people. Everytime you select one candidate, the cursor moves back up to the start of the list, instead of staying on who you just voted. So you have to "cursor down" all over again from the beginning.
I wonder how long the other guy took to vote.
I also noticed there are twice as many poll workers this time. I've voted at the same place for years, and it's always been the same three people. Today the same three are there, but there are three new poll workers also, for a total of six. I think they anticipated there will be problems.
Voting with a receipt? (Score:5, Interesting)
When you fill in your voting form you get a receipt with a record of your voting and a unique number (generated on the spot). At any time you could visit a validation web site, where you would type in the number you were given and check whether the entry matches what you have. Sure you could type in a random number and see someone else's record, but since its not tied to any personal info, it wouldn't be much of an issue. If at any time there is an inconsistency, you have proof in your hands.
Re:Voting with a receipt? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Voting with a receipt? (Score:3, Funny)
~Berj
Doesn't solve the problem. Creates another. (Score:4, Insightful)
That doesn't slove the problem. The issue is not whether YOUR vote is in the database correctly. The issue is whether the difference in the TOTALS for the various candidates or proposition yea/nays, is correct.
But it DOES create another problem: Such a reciept would let you prove to someone ELSE how you voted. Which lets him buy your vote.
(It's laws against vote-buying that keep us from getting access to the raw ballot output - which we could analyze to check the accuracy of vote totaling systems (even with paper and punched-card balloting) and look for voting patterns indicative of other means of vote corruption (such as runs of identical ballots from stuffing operations).
Such suggestions as yours come from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an election, and of checking its results.
It is not to see that your vote is counted.
It is not to see that the most popular candidate wins because that's "right" or "nice".
It's to convince the LOSER that he REALLY DOESN'T HAVE SUPPORT. So he doesn't go out and start a war to overturn the election.
THAT is why republics are stable - and why corruption in voting, or even the PERCEPTION of such corruption - leads to "political instability" (a politically-correct term for riots, vigilantism, and civil war).
Already working systems (Score:3, Informative)
Our location had an electronic system to cast votes. As a person walked in, we wrote their name down next to a ticket number. That ticket was then placed in an envelope attached to the outside of the machine they would vote on. In case of any inconsistencies, we could bring those people back to revote (note that we hadd no way of knowing who they voted for).
The voter entered the machine and pressed the button next to the name of the person they wanted to select. It used what was essentially a large piece of paper over a touchscreen with the canidate's name.
At the end of the night, we printed out a receipt with the results from each machine. These were called in by the location manager for early (unofficial results). Every result was also electronically recorded into two (1 backup) cartriges. These two cartiges and the paper receipts were then hand carried by the location manager to the headquarters where they were analized and verified.
*note that there were steps taken before the machines were used to verify they were not hacked.
No networking to allow hacking and whatnot. The number of votes is verified and electronically verified. There was also the ability to have people re-vote if neccessary. After the election, of all the locations using these machines, I (and the location manager) heard of only 1 technical issue. A machine had failed to boot, and was replaced an hour before the polls even opened.
So my quesiton is, what the hell are these new machines doing that equipment has been able to do for a decade (or more)?
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Diebold == Bush (Score:3, Interesting)
Among the most noteworthy ones are:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-05-dieb
As such, it's no suprise that Microsoft is one of the top "contributors" to the Bush war machine [opensecrets.org].
It makes sense then, that Bush's mandate for electronic voting machines (based on Microsoft technology) would follow shortly thereafter.
But I digress, a quick google search will provide much more research data than I could ever provide here [commondreams.org].
On the bright side, Sen. Edwards (my candidate of choice) is now openly supported by Howard Dean (which is a very good thing). However, I can't help but think that it's a little too late for integrity and values.
They've been bought and sold out right out from under us. Our responsibility to our democracy is to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in November 2004.
The questions are:
Are we done discussing it?
Are we willing to do something about it?
2000 was cakewalk compared to what's going to happen this year. We've had 4 years to bitch and moan about our rights.
Talk is cheap.
Are you guys ready to defend our rights?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Why is this happening? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most communities already own these
Nobody wants electronic voting without a verifiable system of reciepts.
That doesn't seem like asking for a cure for aids by the end of the week.
Why aren't we seeing better voting machines or unified laws to cut down on the crappy operation of elections?
Steve
God help them, they're using Windows CE (Score:5, Interesting)
Slightly Off Topic (Score:4, Insightful)
Saturday is holy to some people (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a different proposal: make Election Day a national holiday. A lot of people would also take the Monday off as well. I think that democratic elections are important enough to be a national holiday, don't you?
The UAW (United Auto Workers union) negotiated a contract where Election Day is a paid holiday for their members. Good for them.
Voting Machine Physical Security (Score:5, Interesting)
As usual, it's the physical security issues that pose bigger issues than electronic security. At my High School in San Francisco, CA, which is a polling place for all elections, including this one, voting machines are delivered to the school about two weeks before each election, and simply left in a small alcove off of a main hallway. See this for further details on this problem [mozillazine.org] In short, I (or anyone else who enters the unlocked school building) have had many opportunities to simply wheel the entire kit out the door and to bring it back in some time later (this would of course violate state law, so it is left as an exercise to the reader).
Cities need to take basic physical security precautions with their voting equipment as well.
The voting song (Score:5, Funny)
"If your happy with the current-administration, click on yes!
If your confident in Diebolds ability-to-provide-secure-voting-solutions, click on yes!
If your happy and you know it and you really want to show it, if your happy and you know it, click on yes
Lets try another!
"Bar bar black sheep have you cast your vote?
No sir, no sir, i was struck of the electoral role by a republican outsourced data-processing company called Diebold"
Well done! now lets try some rhymes!
"Humpty dumpty sat on the wall,
humpty dumpty found a software flaw.
But all the election officials' horses and all the election officials' men,
couldnt save humpty from a Diebold law-suit under the DMCA"
Forget the machines, it's the people! (Score:5, Interesting)
I arrived as a Non-partison voter. Three people manned the booths. I waited in line to get my electronic voter card, and the person in front of me was asked "what affiliation are you?" They responded "neutral". OK, so that sounds like me, I guess that's what I'll say (I didn't know to say specifically "non-partisan"). My turn comes up, I'm asked what affiliant and I say "neutral" too.
I put in my card, and of course the ballot screen is in plain view of everyone, but whatever I don't really care (yet). My choices come up, and I was dumbfounded. I didn't recognize any of the names, I couldn't make any choices or anything. I scanned the screen thoroughly -- the eballots themselves are simple but the interface obfuscates certain important things -- and finally noticed at the top that it said "Natural Party Ballot." Holy shit, they gave me the wrong ballot!
But wait a second, they gave the person in front of me the wrong ballot too, then! And sure enough, that person had already gotten themselves 3 screens deep into an electronic keyboard to try and type "Kerry" (I could see her screen, bogus) because none of the choices allowed her to.
Summary: the guy who gave me my voter cards must be a moron. Oh my god, this can't be an isolated occurrence. But wait, there's more.
I finally get my card settled and go vote. This time I recognize some of the names, but again I couldn't vote on the democratic primary. What gives? I flip open my voter booklet and on the second or third page it stated something to the effect of: "non-partisan voters can vote in 3 of the 7 party primaries, just request a ballot to do so".
So I requested the ballot. Moron #1 had no idea what I was talking about, asked me if I'd voted, I said "yes of course but" and he cut me off and said "well then you're done." No I'm not, look right here in YOUR BOOKLET, SEE? "Gee, I don't know anything about that." OK, done with you, let's try door #2.
The second guy was a little bit more intelligent but still had no idea. "But it's right here in the voter registration booklet, and the details take up this entire page, how can you guys not know what this is?" He still had no idea, but at least he had the good sense to ask person #3.
Person #3, the youngest of the three, was outside taking a cell phone call and came back in to help me. She at least was willing to consider that I and my voter pamphlet might be right. Rummage rummage rummage, shuffle shuffle, oh, the directions state he can vote a paper ballot. Moron #1 insists "we ain't got any", starts looking around. A short period of chaos ensues, the line stops moving forward. A box under Moron #1 contains something; he insists they aren't ballots. Person 2 gets the box, Person 3 opens it and whoa! Look at that, paper ballots.
But they're still uncertain, and it's freaking me out. Well, they reason, I must be allowed to fill out a paper ballot if that's what the booklet says. Huh??????? You guys don't *know*? WTF?
I fill out the paper ballot and hand it back to the 3rd person, who seemed the most intelligent and most aware of what was going on of the three. Of course, she took the ballot from me and folded it, put it in a corner and that's the last I saw of it. It didn't go into a box, it didn't go into any safe place. Who knows what its eventual fate might be.
Now listen, I understand that the electronic voting systems have vulnerabilities and problems and (for the most part) whackjob morons designing them. But you know what? After my experience today I am *really* more concerned about the process, the training, and the people.
They're volunteers, and man thank you, the world could use more of a helping hand in general. But they were soooo ignorant! Where did my paper ballot go? Was that even the right ballot to fill out? And the electronic one? WTF happened to
Re:Forget the machines, it's the people! (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, they're always advertising for precinct workers. I think it would be a great service to our country if lots of us tech-savvy types took the day off November 2 and helped out.
I was a victim this morning ... (Score:5, Informative)
"The computers crashed," I was told. There were three poll monitors, all on cell phones, trying to get through to somebody - anybody - to help them reboot.
Once they got through, I couldn't hear everything that was said, but I did hear the words "OK, now I see 'Windows CE' - what should I do?" I left. I am going back now. I hope I get to vote.
Calling all techies: lets be a lot more clear. (Score:4, Interesting)
Politicians, voter-rights advocates and even some secretaries of state have acknowledged that the systems could theoretically fail
Stating the nature of the technical concerns with these machines this is profoundly misleading. Usually "theoretical" refers to something that basic principles could happen but that practically speaking is not worth considering. It sounds to me like some of these people may have got the message, but the amplitude is way too low. It reminds me of the joke where the engineer states an idea is a "crock of shit", and the news is softened at each step up the ladder until the CEO is told "It will promote growth."
Over the years I've learned that we technical folk use language which is too open to being misconstrued by nontechnical people. Important conclusions get lost in explanations and caveats.
The message we need to communicate is this:
Voting machines are only part of the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
Vote Absentee (Score:4, Funny)
Heck, you can always just claim that you are Amish and are religiously forbidden from voting electronically. I don't know if this is true, but I doubt the poll worker would be able to call you on it.
Feedback (Score:5, Informative)
I voted on the touchscreens here in San Jose for the first time today.
It was a weird experience. I hit big yellow on-screen "button" at the end to cast my vote. The computer made a trilly beep and ejected the smart card. It was very uncomfortable not knowing whether my vote had been recorded correctly, though.
But then I thought back to my very first time voting, in 1996 in Brookline, MA. They had these big booths with little levers beneath every possible thing you could vote for (a little lever beneath each name, a little lever beneath "yes" and "no" for the initiatives). You'd pull the appropriate levers to indicate your vote. The thing is, I wasn't sure how to make sure that my ballot was cast. I surmised that just opening the ballot booth cast my vote--but I wasn't sure.
(There's a description of it under "Mechanical Lever Machines" at http://www.lwvnj.org/booth/machines.html [lwvnj.org]. And, I now know for the first time that I surmised correctly.)
It turns out that those machines also lacked a paper trail. So for all of the times I've voted, I wonder how many times my votes actually counted.
At least with the computer, I'm SURE I cast it correctly. How do I know? Because the computer made a trilly beep to tell me. Somehow, that's more reassuring.
My vote may not actually be counted this time, but at least I KNOW it wasn't because of my screw up.You guys will never hear the end of it (Score:4, Funny)
Why did the American voter cross the road? To get some democracy
Knock Knock
-Whos there?
Vote
-Vote who?
Vote who-ever you like, it just gets piped to the republicans!
Hey bob, did you hear about the new election system?
No? how does it work?
It electionically transfers 'votes' from a politicial party's bank account to Diebolds!
More info... (Score:4, Insightful)
A reporter for KFI named Eric Leonard has done a series of reports [kfi640.com] on the problems that California has been having with Diebold. Ranging from legislators and state employees working for both the State and Diebold at the same time (conflict of interest anyone?) to Diebold refusing to release the raw data from the machines claiming that it's proprietary technology. My guess is that they have GPLed or OSS code in there that they don't want anyone looking at.
I'm in favor of electronic voting, but this is rediculous, handing control of one of the most important aspects of our "democratic" process over to a company that runs Windows XP on ATMs!
Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for the powers that be that maybe OSS voting technology is not such a bad thing after all.
Re:Older news (Score:3, Informative)
Windows has nothing to do with it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this so hard? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Now count which person received the most votes. (check)
3. Announce a winner. (check)
4. Make sure that no person voted twice.
5. Make sure that everyone that voted is registered
6. Make it impervious to hackers yet easily usable by your 95-year-old grandmother.
7. Make it error-proof and virus-proof (tell me when you create the new OS it will need).
You missed some steps. (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Now count which person received the most votes. (check)
3. Announce a winner. (check)
You missed a step:
4. Prove the system counted the votes correctly. (Oops!)
To do this you need:
1a) The machine must make a hardcopy record of how the voter voted.
1b) The voter must be able to check that the hardcopy is accurate.
1c) The hardcopy must be preserved (along with the hardcopies of the other voters' votes), until the recount opportunities have expired.
4) When the loser says "I don't believe it!", the hardcopies must be manually counted, under the eyes of the loser's teammates, to prove that the loser really lost.
1a, 1b, 1c, and 4 are all missing from the Diebold system (along with most of the others).
Instead they have:
1d) Fiddle with the database to move votes from one candidate to another.
along with other possible problems.