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."
It's too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't voters insist on using the old machines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Couldn't voters insist on using the old machine (Score:4, Insightful)
I've voted in every election in the last fifteen years and have yet to wait in line at a polling place.
And it needs to be ... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about all of the electronic voting machines (even though Diebold is most suspect) and it's about the whole country.
Re:And it needs to be ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is much better, if more expensive, to allow counties to implement the voting system they see fit.
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.
and it's not enough (Score:2, Flamebait)
Closed source junk, on the other hand, is imposible to test and verify.
Re:It's too late (Score:3, Interesting)
But now that you mention it... If the machines are opensource, aren't the people loading the code into the machines ALSO the ones who've been loading uncertified code into the machines? How do the voters know that the source code they've seen is what's in the machine?
Re:What mess? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, wait.
The printer was delayed until AFTER the next major election.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
Well, okay, there is another recourse -- "1776 is the cure for 1984" and all that. But I really don't expect to see that happen, no matter how egregious the vote fraud gets.
Give it a rest. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait.
The printer was delayed until AFTER the next major election.
Give it a rest.
EVERY elected executive-branch office in California is held by a Democrat except the new gubernator - who is a flaming liberal on all issues except partly on fiscal AND married into the Kennedy clan and advised by them.
That includes the Secretary of State who promulgated this decision.
Yes we'd ALL love to have this done in time for '04. But CA is
2005? 2006? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:2005? 2006? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:2005? 2006? (Score:2)
Electron Day 2004:
Yes, we use paperless machines here still, this is saving you money...
Wait! Stop! Please, do not pay attention to man behind the curtain, he is the repairman...
Democracy works? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Democracy works? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Democracy works? (Score:3, Insightful)
Learn the type of govermnent you have and then youll be able to properly complain about it.
later
At what point (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:republic&
The US is a republic. Eire is a republic. The soviet union was a bunch of republics. China is a republic.
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
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 unre
Re:Let's add to that.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Democracy works? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you're very wrong. If that was the case, Gore would have moved his entire campaign to Florida, campaigned for Nader in every other state in a deal to keep him from being added to the ballot in Florida, and would have won the election easily.
Also, states are allowed to split their electoral votes. Some states themselves forbid their electors from voting for anyone but the candidate with a plurality of
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)
replace the printer (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah right, so his company makes even more money...
Re:replace the printer (Score:3, Insightful)
What to count (Score:3, Insightful)
The electronic votes or the printed votes.
Who says they are the same?
Who says people will even bother reading the piece of paper?
Re:What to count (Score:2)
- No one, that is why one can complain and request a recount, should there be a doubt.
- Well, those who care to vote, surely care how it will be counted. I mean, it is not like one goes there just for fun.
New warning labels (Score:5, Funny)
Will Diebold voting machines should now carry warnings that state, "This voting machine contains technology known by the State of California to be harmful to Democracy"?
Re:New warning labels (Score:2)
Re:New warning labels (Score:2)
Among others, www.m-w.com defines "democracy" as
Re:New warning labels (Score:2)
Re:New warning labels (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New warning labels (Score:2)
Re:New warning labels (Score:2)
Some advice to the nitpickers, then. Words mean what they mean. Saying "the di
Re:New warning labels (Score:2)
how? (Score:2)
Re:how? (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but at least it would be possible to hold a paper recount, which would show such a deception.
Re:how? (Score:2)
Neither.
If you are really serious about having a Democratic Republic, in event of a significant discrepancy, you find the people responsible and put them in Guantanamo, PERMANENTLY.
And then you start again. From scratch. Otherwise why don't you just forget about the whole thing.
I mean it's not like the USA can't afford decent voting systems and machines, it's not s
Re:how? (Score:2)
Hey... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest. If technology doesn't simplify life, what use is it?
Re:Hey... (Score:3, Interesting)
One nice advantage of electronic voting is it has the potential to be very easy/quick to set up an election; there are very many other positives. This decision addresses the one giant negative associated with the process.
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: (Score:2)
Re:Hey... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
Re:Hey... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hey... (Score:5, Funny)
Been watching Fox News, I see.
Re:Hey... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the standard solution, but throwing away someone's vote is undemocratic and undesirable, so if there is now a better solution available (e.g. a touchscreen that makes the voter's vote is valid before it gets submitted), why not use it?
My system can do that! (Score:2)
They should look at my voting system idea, which I outlined in my journal [slashdot.org].
Re:My system can do that! (Score:2, Funny)
Staff #1: "The Think Tank has lots of ideas, we're going through them case-by-case for viability"
Staff #2: "Look at this other country, they have a good implementation, we can modify it and try and solve the problems it has."
Staff #3: "Here are a list of commercial vendors, they all seem to have quality products except for one - Diabolic I think their name is?"
Important Guy: "No, we've tried them, what a shambles."
Staff #4: "I
Re:My system can do that! (Score:2)
Everyone thinks they're the first to think of this.
Everyone's got the right idea -- except Diebold.
--Dan
Re:My system can do that! (Score:2)
Even a show of hands would be more accurate - you are unlikely to get less than zero votes.
Just get a bunch of crypto and security guys, they'd be able to figure out a good system that has anonymity and auditability.
But it sure doesn't seem very important to the US.
If anyone put such shoddy code in a banking system they'd be sacked with extreme prejudice. But hey no big deal,
Re:My system can do that! (Score:2)
No electronic system can do this.
Of course, some of our current non-electronic voting machines cannot, but some can. The voter can actually see what physical piece of evidence will be later counted to determine their votes.
Since you cannot write a proof to guarantee code does something, you have no mechanism to tie any artifact (whether electronic on-screen results
Why So Long? (Score:4, Insightful)
A year is plenty of time short of deliberate sandbagging.
Re:Why So Long? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why So Long? (Score:4, Insightful)
um...useless? (Score:4, Interesting)
(1) The receipt includes a voter ID and the results of their vote. This totally violates the anonymity of the voting process but does allow for counting.
(2) If the receipts include no voter ID but just some form of transaction ID, then why print them off at all? Just run some report at any point during the voting process to see the tally? Why not? If the voting system is compromised, then there is no way to ensure the paper votes with the transaction id, generated from the compromised system can be trusted either.
As I see it, this solution does not add value without removing rights.
Re:um...useless? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:um...useless? (Score:2)
So if the machine is deficient on purpose, you could get a list of all people who didn't vote for candidate X, including name and address. The list won't be complete since not everyone will complain, but it'll be large enough to send Vinnie over for a "talk" later on if you
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 re
*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:um...useless? (Score:2)
With an appropriate cryptographic solution the receipt doesn't have to reveal information about the actual vote. And still it is possible with the right algorithm to verify, that this vote was actually counted in the final result. Unfortunately I don't remember the rest of the details about how this should work.
Re:um...useless? (Score:2)
BTW, the article states that you don't get to touch the receipt. You simply view it inside the printer, behind a piece of glass.
Re:um...useless? (Score:2)
paper receipt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe setup a few touchscreen kiosks for those who really need it. For the rest of us, I want my pen and paper.
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!
Re:paper receipt? (Score:2)
Some of the biggest advocates for DRE machines have been advocates for the blind and other disabled people who have previously required help at the polls.
Re:paper receipt? (Score:2)
> machines are *huge* for blind people, because they
> can be supplemented with an audio interface that
> help them vote unassisted.
A touch screen that prints a paper ballot can also be fitted with an audio interface.
> Computer-mediated voting allows any number of
> interfaces to be presented in order to overcome
> various disabilities.
All of those interfaces can be used with machines that print paper ballots.
how is this better than paper voting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Voter: Sheriff, I just voted with that machine over there, and it said I voted for Bubba Smith.
Sheriff: Yeah, what's the problem? Don't like my cousin?
Voter: Uh, no everythin's fine. Forget it.
Re:how is this better than paper voting? (Score:2)
Re:how is this better than paper voting? (Score:5, Insightful)
With traditional paper voting, you keep the piece of paper in your hand until it's in the box. The only visual verification is that somebody saw you put a piece of paper in the box. Any piece of paper, it doesn't matter. When the votes are counted later, if your vote is disqualified, then no-one knows you did it.
With this system, the votes are printed and visible to you. If you're going to complain that the machine stuffed up, you have to tell someone. This person will ask you who you voted for, and will want to verify that the printout contains another candidate's name. Once they've verified that your candidate and the the one on paper are different, some action will be taken to fix the machine. But by then, the official will know how you intended to vote. Your vote is no longer anonymous.
Re:how is this better than paper voting? (Score:2)
> visible to you. If you're going to complain that
> the machine stuffed up, you have to tell someone.
The machine could have a REJECT button which would drop the spoiled ballot into a shredder and let you try again.
Amen (Score:5, Insightful)
A paper trail is just a sanity check, and a completely reasonable way of keeping things in line.
Iowa has the best voting system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the circle has to be completely filled in. But the again, if you can't fill in a circle then you probably shouldn't be voting.
Counting the votes is relatively fast. We usually know within 2 hours of the polls closing who has won.
Why do we even NEED an electronic system? What is wrong with the paper ballots?
-Nick
Your system might already be electronic. (Score:2)
Sounds like a scantron system to me. A machine is counting your votes already. A machine might also be adding the county results up for you too.
Re:Your system might already be electronic. (Score:2)
Re:Iowa has the best voting system. (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus paper is expensive. Plus counting is only fast if you have the people (or the machines, which are dangerous) to do it.
Plus scantrons are ambiguous. There's a recognition issue there, and while they're pretty good, the margin of error is nonzero (as it is with all counting systems, but here it's measurably non-zero). And then you'd get into "pregnant chad" lands again, just with, I dunno, "pregnant bubbles".
Look, the paper trail isn't the important part. The important part is that a hardcoded audit trail is available, and that it can be easily spot checked to ensure that the machines are working as they are supposed to be working.
Electronic voting is the right way to go, in the future. As you scale the number of people, the logistics get insane, and wasting money on elections is not what I want a government to be doing. We're talking about *counting* here, something that's been done since the first person looked at his fingers.
What you need, though, is a foolproof system. A system without friggin' software, a system running on bare metal, just logic gates, writing to a verifiably safe write-once-read-many storage medium.
Unfortunately, in order to develop that, you need to have some technical expertise, which Diebold and co definitely don't have. Come on. Commercial off-the-shelf crap? Jeez. Take out a damned electronics CAD package and design something that doesn't suck.
Difficult for other states to not follow suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
there goes anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)
I recommend using blinded signature techniques to solve the problem. "Poll watchers" will network their computers to the voting machine, and when someone votes, their machines will sign the voter's choices through a blinding mechanism that will validate the vote. The vote will then be released to the poll watchers' machines mixed with "chaff".
The chaff would be generated prior to the vote; a large number of votes would be created, tabulated and signed blindly. Each vote broadcast on the network would be mixed with ten or so randomly chosen chaff votes. At the end of voting, the unused chaff votes would be tabulated again, the number of chaff votes cast would be calculated and subtracted from the total, giving the true number of votes cast.
Re:there goes anonymity (Score:2)
Re:there goes anonymity (Score:2)
Why is this market insightful? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's already a linear log of votes - votes at the bottom of the ballot box were turned in first. And that doesn't change - THE VOTING MACHINE DOES NOT COUNT VOTES! It just produces paper ballots with greater accuracy than previous methods. That's it. It's the paper ballots that count.
1 to 150? (Score:3, Insightful)
Very interesting... (Score:2)
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:Vote buying laws would have to be changed. (Score:3, Informative)
The vote-buying schemes you describe are *exactly* what
Re:The real question is... (Score:2)
Re:The real question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that electronic voting is really an advantage over traditional methods, especially as it's so open to abuse. But if it is implemented, then at least the possibility of verifying results is now there.
I'm sure some smartass will just claim their voting receipt is different from their vote just to kick up a stink though... enough of these could throw the thing into more doubt.
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]
Still the potential for abuse (Score:2)
Those voters that don't bother examining their receipts can be easily discerned, and the voting machine could conceivably be instructed remotely to change that voter's vote.
This is a very good step being taken by California, but I think they need to go one step further and mandate a recount for every electi
Re:Still the potential for abuse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Still the potential for abuse (Score:2)
Nobody would ever do that.
Not once in the history of this nation, or of the world for that matter, has anyone ever conspired to steal power.
All those stories you hear about fraud and elections in the past, they're all made up. Nobody ever stuffed ballot boxes. Nobody ever denied the right to vote to minorities. Nobody ever bought votes, or intimidated voters on their way to the booth, or bribed election officia
Re:No guarantee (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that the receipt is actually a printed ballot, put into a ballot box at the polling place just like the current ballots. If the machine printed out one thing but recorded another, then during the inevitable recount (in CA a recount is automatic if the margin is less than a certain amount) they'll find a discrepancy between the results of the recount and the results reported by the machine. You start seeing that in several recounts, especially if it changes the outcome of the election, and there'll
You misunderstand the system Also modest proposal (Score:3, Interesting)
You misunderstand the "receipt".
They don't keep it. They put it in the ballot box for potential recounts. It IS the official ballot - the count in the machines is just a convenience.
- - - - -
The point about vote selling, however, is significant.
One thing I'd have liked to do, a few elections back, was to get a raw record
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 runn