Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online Hardware Technology

Super Tuesday Not So Super For Electronic Voting 560

Posted by timothy from the paper-trail-regardless-of-lever-abstraction dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super Tuesday Not So Super For Electronic Voting More

Super Tuesday Not So Super For Electronic Voting

Comments Filter:

  • Super Tuesday (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xeed ( 308294 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:41PM (#8446318) Journal
    For all the voters who will be voting for the fist time, or just aren't familiar with the terminology, 'Super Tuesday' is the first Tuesday of March when 10 or so states have their primary elections.

    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)

      by Xeed ( 308294 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:43PM (#8446349) Journal
      They've cracked passwords to gain access to computer servers and showed that some systems relying on Microsoft Windows lacked up-to-date security patches that should have been downloaded from the Internet.

      Wait, I thought computers were only vulnerable after the patches were available [slashdot.org]...

    • Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:43PM (#8446353)
      For all the voters who will be voting for the fist

      I have to tell you, I voted for the fist once and I still regret it.

    • Re:Super Tuesday (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nocomment ( 239368 )
      They all should have done as gmhowell and asked for paper [slashdot.org]. 'course that was troublesome in and of itself. At least Joe got some cookies :-)

    • Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Interesting)

      by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:53PM (#8446480)
      Excuse me, but even listeners to the BBC (British Broadcast Corporation) are assumed to know what "Super Tuesday" means... are Americans more ignorant about the American politcal system than Europeans?

    • Re:Super Tuesday (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dirtside ( 91468 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:13PM (#8446679) Journal
      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.
      Of course, the results of the earlier primaries and caucuses influence the results of the later ones, devaluing the votes of those who live in states that have later elections. How can anyone rationally claim that having elections for the same thing weeks apart is a good idea? All voting for a given election should happen on the same day. I don't know how feasible this is from a legal standpoint (could federal election laws be changed to require the states to have their presidential primaries on the same day?), but come on, this is absurd. Some voters change their votes to some degree based on who's already in the lead; rather than find out what people really think, the current process is designed to give a snowball effect to the candidates who get an early lead. Not to mention that some candidates drop out after only one or two primaries, even though in a fair election they might have done much better.

      • Re:Super Tuesday (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:31PM (#8446855) Homepage
        Um, a bit confused, here. Political parties are private organizations in the US as well, right? Doesn't that mean they can choose their candidate in pretty much any way they damn well please? Primaries, mail-in ballots, an all-night draw poker game among all interested candidates, or simply drawing a name out of a hat? I mean, a party can just declare a candidate by fiat, without having to even pretend choosing among a pool of willing people, right?

        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 ...iffy. Say a party has an internal rule that whomever is the party chairman will also be the candidate (as is the case in all larger Swedish political parties). It works for them. If you don't like it, you vote for another party. Why should a law be passed to forbid them of doing that? Same thing here: if a party wants to have different days, and the majority of members are fine with it, let them. If a majority actually feels it is a problem, they can presumably change the rules internally, switch to another party or create a new party with the intention of replacing the old one.

        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)

        by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:08PM (#8447249)
        This proposal gets floated so often that I can only consider it malinformation at this point--a pervasive meme which works to people's detriment.

        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)

          by john82 ( 68332 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:51PM (#8447726)
          Both your argument and the parent to which you responded are well-reasoned (novel in itself on Slashdot).

          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)

    by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:41PM (#8446323)
    I hope they either fix them or go back to the paper system before the next presidential election comes up. I'd hate to see another Florida-type voting crisis get blamed on technology...

    • Oh, don't worry. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:44PM (#8446357)
      There won't be much of a trail to audit. And the trail that their is won't tell anyone anything other than what broke, as opposed to by how much.

      Ignorance might not be bliss, but it's pretty antiseptic.

    • Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:47PM (#8446397)
      The question is, why is this "technology" SO STUPID?!

      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)

        by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:03PM (#8446580) Journal
        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.

        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)

          by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:17PM (#8446714) Homepage
          And, to preach to the choir, once you've made a machine that's verifiable and produces a proper audit log, is it actually any less expensive and troublesome than the paper ballots?
          • And, to preach to the choir, once you've made a machine that's verifiable and produces a proper audit log, is it actually any less expensive and troublesome than the paper ballots?

            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.
        • 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.)

          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)

        by LearnToSpell ( 694184 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:06PM (#8446611) Homepage
        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.

        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)

        by Mr. Piddle ( 567882 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:09PM (#8446645)
        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.

        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)

          by ciroknight ( 601098 )
          Why do anything more special with the software than: digitally sign the vote from the keyboard, print it to a log file and then physically PRINT it onto paper. The digital signature can be checked against a hardware key, like Adobe uses to safeguard some of it's products. The system wouldn't be costly *could use a bunch of 486's with 1 gig hard drives and an LPT port*, would be fast, effective, and a lot more secure than current systems.

          I also don't disagree with the current paper ballot system, just

    • Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Malk-a-mite ( 134774 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:49PM (#8446431) Journal
      From the story:
      " 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)

      by gsfprez ( 27403 )
      it seems to me that there is simply something inherent with voting that requires the voter to be smarter than a breadstick.

      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)

        by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knuckles@@@dantian...org> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:05PM (#8446598)
        no amount of technology will ever produce a voting system that all can use

        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

  • First clue something went wrong... (Score:5, Funny)

    by loyalsonofrutgers ( 736778 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:43PM (#8446343)
    George W. Bush won the democratic primary in 7 of the 10 states

  • Let M eget this right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:43PM (#8446350)
    The people that used shoddy methods to secure their product, and then decided if nobody knows about the problems then they don't exist, produced a shoddy product that doesn't work wel ?

    I am shocked

    • Re:Let [Me get] this right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by loyalsonofrutgers ( 736778 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:03PM (#8446570)
      The problem is that the two actors involved here, the public (government) and Diebold, each have two completely different aims. The public want a secure, easy to use, verifiable, non-bullshit voting system to ensure fair elections. Diebold wants to maximize shareholder value. A closed process will NEVER produce the desired result under those circumstances. Diebold will say "sure it works, trust us." Trusting them assumes they're not maximizing shareholder value: big mistake.

      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)

    by TheLinuxSRC ( 683475 ) <slashdot AT pagewash DOT com> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:43PM (#8446351) Homepage
    Georgia Tech student Peter Sahlstrom said he found 10 Diebold terminals sitting unprotected in the lobby of the school's student center Monday. Sahlstrom, 22, photographed the machines in their unlocked cases

    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.
    • Since the machines can be reprogrammed it has a lot to do with the tech.

      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.

      • Since the machines can be reprogrammed it has a lot to do with the tech.

        This was indirectly my point ;) If the physical security of the machine cannot be guaranteed then it doesn't matter what media the machine uses. Personally, I don't know anything about the old punch-card machines, but you are probably right. It would be easier to screw with the software of an electronic machine than the mechanics of the punch-card machines. Good point.

    • Re:How about non-tech security issues? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by amplt1337 ( 707922 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:51PM (#8446455) Journal
      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.
      No no no... very good.

      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...
    • Just as an FYI regarding this, the Diebold machines have numbered plastic seals that are recorded weeks prior to the election. If a seal is broken, the machine number is recorded and removed from being used in the election.

      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)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:05PM (#8446605)
      If these machines are comprimised it's due to the gross incompetents of the designers. It really isn't hard to develop something like this and keep it secure, think about it this way.

      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)

    by justin_speers ( 631757 ) <`ten.tsacmoc' `ta' `sreepsaj'> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:43PM (#8446352)
    Early returns show Dennis Kucinich winning every state, with Al Sharpton a close second in all ten...

  • Attention to detail... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by E-Rock ( 84950 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:44PM (#8446359) Homepage
    This quote from the article demonstrates the comeplete lack of attention to security that runs throughout the products:

    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.

  • Am I paranoid? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:45PM (#8446371) Homepage
    What's really quite disturbing is that the unreliability of these voting systems has been well covered in the mainstream press, not just the left-wing open source communist web blogs, yet the voting officials still have no clue or interest in considering the liabilities of using these systems. It just defies reason, and makes me lean ever closer to my paranoia / tinfoil hat and wonder about payola.

    • Re:Am I paranoid? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Stile 65 ( 722451 )
      Sorry to burst your bubble, but right-wing conspiracy theorists were there long before the left wing commies. See votefraud.org [votefraud.org] and votescam.com [votescam.com] for examples. I don't know whether there's really a conspiracy like they believe, but they've been trying to make people aware of these issues since 1992 (votescam) and 1996 (votefraud).

    • Payola? How about election fakery? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:23PM (#8446771) Journal
      What's really quite disturbing is that the unreliability of these voting systems has been well covered in the mainstream press, ... yet the voting officials still have no clue or interest in considering the liabilities of using these systems. It just defies reason,and makes me lean ever closer to my paranoia / tinfoil hat and wonder about payola.

      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.

  • Judging by Diebold's karma... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dav3K ( 618318 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:45PM (#8446374)
    I wonder when they will be buying their SCO license.

  • Not a problem... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:46PM (#8446378)
    No need to worry, these problems should go away by the election in November. The machines just got confused while trying to add extra Republican votes since there's no Republicans running in the Democratic primary.

    During the general election, this shouldn't be a problem.

  • CONspiracies galore (Score:5, Funny)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil@po l i t r i x .org> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:47PM (#8446388) Homepage Journal

    # ssh diebold.machines.gov
    bush@diebold.machines.gov's password:
    # gcc -o misunderestimated misunderestimated.c
    # ./misunderstimated supertuesdayvotes -democrats -100000000 +republicans +100000000
    # echo "Is our children learning?"

  • L337 H4x0r for president (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RY ( 98479 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:47PM (#8446403) Homepage Journal
    I am curious how many candidates are going to scream that the results were changed by nefarious means.

    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)

    by Ga_101 ( 755815 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:49PM (#8446425)
    What is wrong with counting crosses in boxes?

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:49PM (#8446432)
    Few members of the general public seem to have any concerns about electronic voting, but every computer professional I know thinks this is a lousy idea.

    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)

      by Mr. Piddle ( 567882 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:14PM (#8446692)
      ...every computer professional I know thinks this is a lousy idea.

      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)

    by Bombcar ( 16057 ) <racbmob@@@bombcar...com> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:51PM (#8446452) Homepage Journal
    The biggest problem with these devices is that they remove the voter from the voting process even more. As it stands today, many people think that their vote doesn't count.

    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)

    by Raindance ( 680694 ) * <johnsonmx@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:52PM (#8446457) Homepage Journal
    I'm a Diebold basher as well. They've completely screwed the pooch, so to speak, on electronic voting and public trust.

    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
    • Tell that to their ATM software department.

      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
    • Diebold is a lock and security company that happened to buy a terrible, untrustworthy little company for a forray into electronic voting.

      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)

    by mattsouthworth ( 24953 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:52PM (#8446466) Journal
    I voted today in greater Cleveland. We had punchcard ballots, which was good, since the power was flickering all afternoon.

  • Fraud already implied (Score:4, Insightful)

    by donnz ( 135658 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:53PM (#8446482) Homepage Journal
    According to this article [guardian.co.uk] on The Guardian there are already questions about certain e-elections. The problem, as I see it, is that allegations like these can be made but it is impossible to refute them. Once the integrity of the process comes into serious question public confidence and participation can be expected to plummet.

  • Good this is getting out (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @07:58PM (#8446524)
    This is actually a very positive thing in my opinion. Not because it could have messed up election results, but because of the shift in attitude news like this could bring if its given fair treatment.

    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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:00PM (#8446546)
    When I went to vote this morning (Orange County, CA), there was this 30-something having a real difficult time with the voting "tablet". He kept wanting to give up and leave, but the poll vounteer won't let him go and tried to help him. But the poll worker can't cast votes for him, and doesn't want to know who/what he wants to vote for. So it made for a very interesting scene for all.

    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)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:04PM (#8446587) Homepage Journal
    With all this talk about potential election fraud, with these electronic voting machines, I was wondering whether a certain idea could work:

    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.
    • Any system where a voter can prove their vote to a third party will not work. In such a system, votes could be gained either by money ("bring your voter receipt for G. W. Bush for 10% off your next fill-up") or coercion ("prove you voted for J. Kerry or the RIAA will file a lawsuit against you").
    • for (int i=0;i<MAXID;i++) getvote(i);

      ~Berj

    • Doesn't solve the problem. Creates another. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:49PM (#8447081) Journal
      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.

      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)

    by pcgamez ( 40751 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:04PM (#8446594)
    I worked in the state of Kansas elections for the presidential election in 2000.

    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)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:08PM (#8446626)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Diebold == Bush (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) * on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:08PM (#8446630) Homepage
    A quick google search for Diebold Bush will return more than 3,200 results.

    Among the most noteworthy ones are:
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-05-diebo ld-money-to-bush_x.htm [usatoday.com].

    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)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:10PM (#8446650)
    Back with the mess in Florida in 2000 engineers testified before the supreme court that the only reasons the old punch card voting machines malfunctioned is because the paper trays were never emptied ( think of a hole puncher )

    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)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:12PM (#8446678)
    I've been listening to talk radio, and poll troubleshooters are calling in. I didn't realize it up to now, but the machines, at least in my city, are using Windows CE for the OS. Apparently a lot of the systems were booting to the desktop instead of the application (the app is on a flash memory card in the machine). I infer from the symptoms people are describing that some machines were allowed to sit unpowered and unplugged for a long period prior to the election, and the batteries ran down, erasing the script that would have executed the application when the machine was turned on. The poll workers aren't trained on what to do in this unexpected circumstance, and have to call the troubleshooters who were trained in how to get the app running. Naturally, the troubleshooters are inundated.

  • Slightly Off Topic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:15PM (#8446698)
    Perhaps the fact that we're voting on Tuesday is part of the problem. If all elections were held on a Saturday instead, then 1) Fewer people would have problems getting off from work to vote 2) There would be less traffic 3) There would be no shortage of potential polling places, as all the schools would be empty (personally, I've alway been uncomfortable with voting in somebody's garage). In short, perhaps if we voted on weekends, perhaps more people would turn out to vote, thus cheating in elections would be less effective?

    • Saturday is holy to some people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mec ( 14700 ) <mec@shout.net> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:32PM (#8446862) Journal
      Some people, such as Orthodox Jews, restrict their activities on Saturday. You might reply "tough for them", but any change that makes voting harder for a significant class of people is going to be opposed by elected office-holders from any party that draws support from Saturday-observing people. That's why this proposal won't go anywhere in the U.S.

      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)

    by zachlipton ( 448206 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:18PM (#8446731)
    Georgia Tech student Peter Sahlstrom said he found 10 Diebold terminals sitting unprotected in the lobby of the school's student center Monday.

    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)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:24PM (#8446785) Journal
    Hello kids, lets sing a song.

    "If your happy with the current-administration, click on yes!
    ... (clicked on no)
    If your confident in Diebolds ability-to-provide-secure-voting-solutions, click on yes!
    ... (clicked on no)
    If your happy and you know it and you really want to show it, if your happy and you know it, click on yes
    ... (page protection fault)"

    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)

    by jordan ( 17131 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:36PM (#8446912) Homepage
    Forget the machines, the ballots, whatever. My voting experience scared me and I don't even have to mention electronic voting.

    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

  • I was a victim this morning ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by triclipse ( 702209 ) <slashdot AT combslaw DOT cc> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:37PM (#8446917) Homepage
    Although I was well prepared for the issues and candidates for this election (I live in San Diego County), I was not aware that my district was switching over to electronic voting. When I arrived at the poll, all the booths were empty and there was a line out the door. I noticed the new "Diebold Voting Systems" election booths.

    "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)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:45PM (#8447019) Homepage Journal
    From the article:

    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:


    These systems are flawed in such a way that they cannot be used securely and verifiably by any practical effort. The only way to "fix" the current generation of machines is to throw out the design completely, along with the engineering processes that created the design.


  • Voting machines are only part of the problem. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mbrett ( 751233 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:46PM (#8447031)
    Wouldn't it be funny if, in November, the voting machines actually worked properly and were not rigged, but the election was STILL stolen? Contrary to popular belief, the main problem in Florida was not unreliable paper voting systems, which accounted for a few hundred misplaced votes. The main killer was the erroneous exclusion of tens of thousands of blacks from the voter lists by Database Technologies (DBT). http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/ 04/voter_file/ Diebold may come out of the 2004 election smelling like roses, so nobody will care when 2008 rolls around. And the election can still be stolen in both instances, with one weapon (manipulated voter lists) in '04, and yet another (rigged machines) in '08. Who says the neocons are dumb? Not me!

  • Vote Absentee (Score:4, Funny)

    by pangian ( 703684 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @08:57PM (#8447158)
    Several groups concerned with electronic voting are recommending that people vote absentee in their voting district plans on using electronic voting machines without a voter-verifyable paper trail (VVPT). In many places, the deadline for getting an absentee primary ballot has passed, but some counties using e-voting technoloyg in CA and MD are allowing people to vote on paper (though not always at every voting station in the county--often only at one or two central polling stations).

    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)

    by bug506 ( 584796 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:01PM (#8447196) Homepage

    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)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:02PM (#8447202) Journal
    Oh man im sorry i just cant help it:

    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)

    by T3kno ( 51315 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:08PM (#8447251) Homepage
    Not sure why, but I submitted the exact same story only with more info this morning. Oh well :) The radio [kfi640.com] station that I listen to has been reporting all day about the problems with the Diebold machines. Entire polling places were shut down in San Diego county this morning due to technical problems.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close