Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government Security Technology Your Rights Online

IEEE Standards For Voting Machines 221

kgeiger writes "Voting machine designs and data formats are a free-for-all. The result is poor validation and hence opportunity for fraud. An IEEE standards group wants all election computer systems to speak the same language. From the article: 'IEEE Standards Project 1622 is working on electronic data interchange for voting systems. The plan is to create a common format, based on the Election Markup Language (EML) already recommended for use in Europe. This is a subset of the popular XML (eXtensible Markup Language) that specifies particular fields and data structures for use in voting.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IEEE Standards For Voting Machines

Comments Filter:
  • by Jon_S ( 15368 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:30PM (#41849577)

    Actually, this was the paper I was looking for:

    http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdf [themoneyparty.org]

    Same authors and analysis. But much more in depth treatment of the data and analysis of alternate explanations.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @10:48PM (#41849671)

    When Texas and Iowa are threatening to arrest election monitors, standards are not the issue.

    No, what Texas has said is that international election monitors have to follow the same laws as everyone else and stay 100 feet away from the polling place. They are perfectly free to speak to any voter beyond that 100ft radius.

    Also I believe the treaty the US signed regarding election monitoring note that monitors must obey local laws.

    Did I miss something? This seems to be a non-issue.

  • Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Informative)

    by QQBoss ( 2527196 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @11:32PM (#41849929)

    Texas, at least, is not threatening to arrest election monitors. It is threatening to arrest election monitors who don't follow Texas law regulating election monitors. There are (for early voting) and will be (for election day) LOTS of election monitors in probably every voting location in Texas within the 100 foot limit: the only ones who would be arrested will be those not following the law, and certainly not before they receive a warning to follow the law (though anyone from the U.N. should probably consider themselves already warned). If the U.N. wants to monitor Texas elections, they can- just follow the law. If they don't know the law and can't be bothered to read it for themselves, I am sure they can find a lawyer who will be happy to advise them for a reasonable fee (but only one and his number is unlisted, the rest of them will charge outrageous fees commensurate with their belief that laws should be written so confusingly that only an ordained lawyer can decipher them).

    Agreements between the US government and non-US entities are just that- agreements between them at that level. They do not affect the 50 states unless those states also sign on to the agreement or otherwise pass/change laws to achieve compliance with the agreement, particularly with regards to voting which is a state level activity- the federal government only has a say as to when the vote is made, not how (unless the how falls afoul of federal law that the Supremacy Clause is in effect for). If the US government believes that this is so important that state law should be subsumed, the executive branch should elevate the agreement to a treaty and get it passed through the Senate to be ratified so that the Supremacy Clause can take effect. Until then, state law trumps international hand waving 'agreements' at the state level within the USA.

    Now personally, I have no problems with international observers as long as the only thing they do is observe and don't interfere in any way, shape, or form. I think the USA should be setting a good example- demonstrating by example how to peacefully change government and prosecuting fully anyone attempting to interfere with that capability. But it is up to the federal government to persuade the states to achieve this, not to violate the Constitution and enforce it by fiat.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02, 2012 @04:42AM (#41850907)

    Not all machines or all districts. That is how the anomaly becomes so clear. If you look at the vote flipping and ballot stuffing statistical test for example, these 'dodgy' districts that show clear vote flipping all to Romney:


    Tabulators seem to be easier to rig with tabulators showing a clear rigging for Romney:

    Presumably because a room full of people counting in front of witness needs a lot of conspirators, but the tabulator only needs the single engineer who sets up the tabulator to rig it and he can do hundreds of machines across many districts.

    If you read the stats test, there was vote flipping (i.e. fraud) from Santorum to Romney in Ohio, and you can see the same thing on the Tabulators test. I don't like Santorum myself, but the numbers don't lie.

    I'll copy the conclusion of the stats paper in full here, the numbers are quite damning. The data is there at the bottom, I've played with the Maine data myself to check.

    VII. Conclusions
    Slopes on cumulative vote tally charts, which should settle to horizontal lines,
    are an amazing statistical anomaly. The hypergeometric distribution chart,
    normally produces after a minor initial oscillation, a smooth horizontal line for
    the rest of the chart. By applying this distribution to the 2012 Republican
    primary election data, we exposed a serious election anomaly, which can be
    seen as obvious slopes favoring one candidate. It is an extraordinary
    observation and indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation. A
    massive set of detailed data and analysis for all 50 states, beyond the scope of
    this paper, also confirmed these unlikely results. These highly anomalous
    election results indicate a widespread, systematic exchange of votes favoring
    one candidate.
    Statistical analysis of the Republican Primaries results from 2012 in Iowa, New
    Hampshire, Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Wisconsin, West
    Virginia, and Kentucky show strong statistical evidence of election
    manipulation15. The anomaly subsides somewhat towards the end of the
    election cycle, when completion is weakened by the earlier election results.
    Historically, an early vote gain effect snowballs through the various primary
    states as it benefits the candidate with momentum as well as additional votes.
    Mitt Romney, based on our analysis, should have (statistically) gotten third
    rank in Iowa’s election (as opposed to second); second rank in New Hampshire
    (as opposed to the first rank), and so on, resulting most likely to a brokered
    convention at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, FL.
    Some rather large statistical anomalies in states such Ohio have negatively
    affected opposing candidates by reducing their momentum and fundraising
    power. Ohio’s election (statistically) should have been earned by candidate Rick
    Santorum. Rank switching in Oklahoma’s election also affected candidates.
    The statistical analysis clearly shows that other candidates were supposed to
    get more votes than the official count. Tests were performed on random
    samples as well as the entire statistical populations represented by the whole
    state in each case. These facts assure us that the tests have high statistical
    power, as well as lack of selection bias. Many individual counties (600+) have
    been analyzed as well, indicating that this type of election fraud is pervasive.
    We urge readers of this paper to reproduce our results and publish their

  • by readin ( 838620 ) on Friday November 02, 2012 @10:31AM (#41852785)

    They also bring transparency.

    The fact that we CAN audit people after the fact and at least in theory burn anyone for cheating is itself a deterrent.

    Voting machine tampering is harder to detect.

    Which is why so many people recommend that the voting machine spit out a piece of paper that the voter can verify has his vote recorded correctly, and drop that piece of paper into a separate box. In most cases the voting can be tallied efficiently electronically, but in a disputed election the paper ballots can be counted by hand.

The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the expense of it. -- Josh Billings