Here's the rub (Score:5,
Insightful)
by American
AC in Paris (230456) *
on Thursday April 22, @12:47PM (#8940220)
(http://www.snowplow.org/tom/)
|
| OK, all conspiracy theories off to the side. Forget
the whole "Getting votes for the Republicn Party" bit.
Ignore whatever political motivations may be surrounding
Diebold at the moment. Assume that Diebold has no desire
to commit or facilitate election fraud.
The simple fact is that, while Diebold does
indeed care about producing accurate voting results,
they are more concerned with making money. If
Diebold is forced to choose between increasing their
profit and making the system better, they'll choose
profit.
If you put voting machines in the hands of the
private sector, the private sector will try to
maximize profit. Corners will be cut. There
simply isn't any way to avoid this, so long as the
people making the machines are doing so to make money
off the venture.
So long as the design and development of voting
systems is left to the private sector, voters
will be disenfranchised for the sake of profit.
That's all there is to it. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Tehnology is not the root problem
here. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Muda69 (718162)
on Thursday April 22, @12:52PM (#8940278)
|
Machine voting isn't the problem, Diebold is.
They've created a horrible, insecure system. It's
simple enough to create a more secure system that it's
hard not to believe Diebold is deliberately enabling
fraud.
A system where votes were printed to a
machine-readable piece of paper, verified by the
voter, then deposited in a secure box, would be simple
and secure. By printing votes you create a
self-verifying system -- voters can check their vote
is correct, and an audit can easily verify that votes
were recorded as voters intended. Management of the
printed records would be just like the ballots we
already are using, but without the reliability
problems of punch-card systems. Tallying could be done
mechanically, as a barcode could accompany the printed
text.
The whole system is very simple. Even if
they just used an ATM style of security (printing to
an internal paper log) they would be far superior to
Diebold. But using logic is difficult in this case,
because Diebold is clearly making absurd claims, and
it's difficult to refute absurdity.
EVM 2003 is
trying to create a complete open source voting system
(not just machine). I wish them the best of luck. This
is more than just philosophy about copyright and IP,
it's the defense of democracy from those that want
very much to take away even the slight accountability
that currently exists. They've already made it into
office with one fraudulent election (2000), and very
possibly kept control of congress with another (2002,
with many states being won with unverifiable votes
that didn't match up with predicted results). |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Hold Them All Accountable
(Score:5, Insightful)
by NickFusion
(456530) on Thursday April 22, @01:55PM (#8941065)
(http://www.chromecow.com/)
|
So, Diebold gets off with a half-assed apology,
sorry about yer democracy, Mate! My bad!
And
nobody on the federal level is making a fuss
because...hmm, now I wonder why?
And it'll
probably just tool along all status quo-y
until...what? Massive, undeniable fraud? Some kind
of grassroots "Hack the Vote" movement?
I
think it was Heinlien that said, "It may be rigged,
but it's the only game in town."
So keep the
pressure on, and hope it makes a difference before
November.
(Where's my EFF renewal
form...)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Security?
So what! The softwar is shit ANYWAY! by Saeed al-Sahaf
(Score:3) Thursday
April 22, @02:45PM
- Indeed.
by OmniGeek (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @03:01PM
- Re:Indeed.
by dberger (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @05:57PM
- Re:Tehnology
is not the root problem here. by theLOUDroom (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@03:21PM
- nitpick:
abort by d34thm0nk3y (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @11:44PM
- 1
reply beneath your current
threshold.
respectfully and strongly
disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
by zogger
(617870) on Thursday April 22, @03:53PM (#8942635)
|
I am of the opinion that machine voting IS the
problem. Voting is too critical to not have on the
spot, verifiable with your eyeballs 1- an empty
ballot box on poll opening (easily checked by anyone
there), and 2-a count that anyone who can add can
perform and check at the end of the period. And we
have an archaic short voting time period, it needs
to be 24 to 48 hours. I have seen and heard of too
many examples of people who simply can't make the
polls, typically blue collars who are required to be
at work from much earlier than "business hours"
until let go in the evening. I once had to QUIT a
job and walk off to go vote, they would not "allow"
me to come in late, nor leave early, and that day we
had overtime I wasn't expecting. And lastly, instant
runoffs, no more "voting for the lesser of evil"
styled voting, people will have a lot more incentive
to vote their REAL first choice in
elections.
I love computers, but with voting,
nope, I want to be able to verify it with a paper
ballot, not even punch cards,a mark in the bubble
ballot is quite sufficient. And I don't mean a
receipt from some black box voting machine, either,
this is just thousands of dollars a precinct busy
work with electronic voting. More government waste
(and kickbacks),easier fraud potential and
inefficiency. Selling the smell and the sizzle, not
the steak, typical advertising crap.
If it is
not readable by any human who chooses to poll watch
or if there's a dispute immediately and a human
can't read it, then it is not secure, and I don't
care what "guarantees" they give. "They" ALREADY
swore up and down that "it was secure and worked
properly", and they have been proven to FAIL IT in
not a very long time.
Government and
government connected contractors have a long history
of being liars and crooks, and with something like
voting, using computers??? WAY too much temptation
there to ignore, after all, what is it woreth in
potential dollars and power over other humans to
"adjust" who wins?
This is just another way
for that to happen,a much easier way, and as you can
see it has happened, exactly like it was predicted
by folks like me several years ago when it was being
discussed, and I remember the arguments then that it
"would just work and be better". Phooie. I was
right, they were wrong.
"Computerised Voting"
came pre-broken and crooked right out of the box.
And with a real voting period and not this half a
day deal we got now,and some sort of instant runoff
deal,and third parties being covered in the news, we
might see more people voting. the way it is now is
50% voting roughly, that is not any sort of success
figure. It would reduce lines and the wait,the
longer period, and not discrimnate against workers
who can't make it to the polls, or people who have
emergencies come up they have to go deal with, etc.
and "counting" is a normal human thing, I doubt
there's any precinct out there that lacks people who
can count. Yes, there's trouble with that too, but
stricter enforcement of the laws on the books with
severe penalties could knock that down
considerable.
And then MAYBE if the paid off
FCC can see fit to REQUIRE the networks to cover
third parties and candidates in their day to day
so-called "news" reports and in the so-called
"official national debates" we might not only get
more votes, we might get more voting enthusiasm and
some constructive change in this nation, instead of
this "new and improved and it's so shiny!" scheme
which will only go to elect the same tired old
parties and candidates who have caused all the mess
in the first place. And FUNNY it was *their idea* to
switch to "computerised" voting. I certainly don't
recall seeing any private citizens approaching me
with some petition to beg the government to please
switch us to computers, because it didn't happen. It
was shoved down our throats and sold to us just like
beer or cornflakes on the TV. The "controllers"
wanted computerised voting because it's more
hackable than the old original system.
Hard
tech
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- human
readable printouts by chihowa (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@05:52PM
- 3
replies beneath your current
threshold.
- Re:Here's
the rub by Oxy the moron (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @12:53PM
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Insightful)
by Catbeller
(118204) on Thursday April 22, @01:21PM (#8940621)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
but to make a buck on a cheaper
system
That doesn't track logically. The
system already costs $5000 per voting machine. If
the printer was added, they'd simply add another few
thousand for the work and hardware. Memos have
surfaced taht confirm this: they were instructed to
charge HIGH to add that capability, if it came to
it.
No, from the minutes of a meeting
inadvertently attended by a publisher, and from
justing oogling Diebold's 500K/month legal fund,
itcan only be said Diebold's ONLY aim is to prevent
the addition of printed ballots for verification
purposes.
So they don't want an audit trail.
Now, why?
They know that if the system is
audited, ie a recount made and results from counting
paper matched to election tallies, the numbers won't
match up. OR, they are making sure the machines can
secretly alter election vote totals, and don't want
it known.
Since there is no profit motive, it
must be incompetence, or cheating, or
both.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by nacturation (Score:2) Thursday April
22, @02:14PM
- Another
possible explanation. by Ungrounded Lightning
(Score:3) Thursday
April 22, @03:22PM
Re:Here's the
rub (Score:5, Insightful)
by
Catbeller
(118204) on Thursday April 22, @04:06PM (#8942824)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
Not a huge conspiracy at all. It's right out
in the open. They don't want the printers.
They're spending fortunes and dragging in their
favorite legislators to block the audit
trail.
They're not claiming it's
expensive, or complicated, or anything logical.
They claim it's not necessary.
Now, we've
plenty of data at this point, from negative
tallies in Indiana to system tests by computer
scientists. The tallies are not working even by
Dielbold's standards. The scientists cracked the
system in 5 minutes in one case, and found
multiple hacks in all others that permitted them
to own the voting machines, the aggregation
machines, the modem communications, the voter
smart cards... their conclusion: minumum effort
to change vote totals at
will!
Doesn't take a "conspiracy
theory" to stare the truth in the face. The
machines don't work as they are supposed to. The
basic idea is unsound and an invitation to
cheat. The system is already hacked, and the
vote counts can be changed. Strange results have
occured in Georgia and otherplaces: wild swings
for candidates that don't match the polls. The
company has fought like a rabid hyena to prevent
an audit trail, even though doing so means extra
profit.
I don't think the entire company
is out to cheat the voters. But I find it easy
to believe that either the machines don't work
as advertised, or the company bigwigs may be
terrified that an paper audit was run and
cheating occured. I also find it humanly certain
that someone in the Bush-fanatical company has
it in their head to use the easy methods already
known to tip a race in the Republican's favor.
Why not? It's untraceable.
In any case,
extremely robust printers are available for
use,so fallibilty of hardware isn't an issue. Do
ATM's fail to print very often? It's Diebold,
they specialize in tough hardware.
Cost
isn't an issue. They can charge whatever they
like.
Time wasn't an issue, until they
ran out the clock.
The audit trail IS the
issue for them. They fundamentally deny they
need one. Their reasoning is nonexistent. They
simply assert it isn't necessary.
It
boils down to this: they are blocking the
ability to hold recounts. They don't want
recounts. There must be a reason. They are
capable, can charge what they like. So... they
have something they don't want known. It can
onlybe that tthe possiblity exists that the
recount tallies won't match the original totals.
Think what kind of hell would explode if the
new, bulletproof system was shown conclusively
to be completely untrustworthy. It would be a
scandal unlike any other, especially seeing how
hard they tried to hide the problem.
Fear
of esposure as incompetents or fear of exposure
as the enablers of a falsely elected government,
take your pick. And ALL previous elections would
be invalid on the evidence!
I don't think
most Americans would even care, but some would.
Enough to send people to prison. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by Lux (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @08:30PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by Jhon (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @12:59PM
Re:Here's the rub (Score:4,
Interesting)
by Ion Berkley
(35404) on Thursday April 22, @01:01PM (#8940385)
|
| You know the one thing I feel I lack when I read
(with great interest) peoples concerns about
electronic polling is just how bad were previous low
tech systems. We all remember the Florida presidential
debicle, but I wonder if there is somewhere much more
info collected across many elections and systems that
gives us something to compare with. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by cyways (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @02:35PM
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Interesting)
by Aidtopia
(667351) on Thursday April 22, @05:45PM (#8944108)
(http://www.aidtopia.com/
| Last Journal: http://slashdot.org/~Aidtopia/journal/)
|
|
Remember that there were three debacles in
Florida:
1. Diebold machines used in one county registered
-16,000 votes (yes negative) for Gore. When
that was corrected, and the media eventually picked
up the new numbers, Gore called Bush back to rescind
his earlier concilliation. I suspect that
recognizing there could be an error this large
inspired the idea of asking for recounts, on the
hope that similar errors may have changed the
outcome. Of course, there's no way to recount the
electronic districts, so we'll never know if there
were more Diebold problems or even if the -16,000
votes were undone correctly.
2. The butterfly ballot created confusion. How
much we'll never know, but some people probably
voted for someone other than who they intended to.
If this was the cause of the surprising number of
votes for Buchannen, then it's likely this issue
alone cost Gore the election, regardless of the next
point.
3. Hanging chads and the whole problem of reading
intent from a punch card was the center of media
attention, even though the first two issues probably
had a much bigger affect on the election than this
one. Yes, there was lots of debate and unstable
numbers, but the official recounts and the
after-the-fact audits by the media indicate that the
problems with punch cards didn't skew the vote
enough to make a difference.
I suspect that if the first problem didn't happen
or wasn't detected, then we'd never have heard about
the other two, and we wouldn't be spending millions
on contemptuous, incompetent e-voting vendors like
Diebold. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Insightful)
by Liselle
(684663) *
<slashdot.alias@gamebox@net>
on Thursday April 22, @01:02PM (#8940397)
(Last Journal: http://slashdot.org/~Liselle/journal/)
|
You bring up an excellent point!
Makes me
wonder though, if corporate greed can be used to our
advantage. Knowing that profit is the motivator, and
not altruism/patriotism/whatever, means that hitting
them in the wallet is the best assurance that they
will play nice. It's a known target.
Maybe it's
naive to assume it will work, and there will be a
horde of ACs to inform me as such, but while we're in
fantasy land: strict government guidelines for how
electronic voting functions. Even paper ballots have a
margin of error, your electronic system has to do at
least as well, with a certain amount of guaranteed
uptime. Certified this, authorized that. Otherwise,
you'll never get that check to cash, or maybe get hit
with some stiff investor-frightening
fines.
Hmm, maybe strict rules like that will
scare away the private sector from making voting
machines, though... Hell, that works for me, too.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Interesting)
by telbij (465356)
on Thursday April 22, @01:02PM (#8940400)
(http://www.websaviour.com/nexus/)
|
So long as the design and development of voting
systems is left to the private sector, voters will be
disenfranchised for the sake of profit. That's all
there is to it.
Well, only in the case
where the government is too trusting to draft a
suitable contract to protect voters'
rights.
All that's really needed is for
government to stipulate that a single foul-up will
result in zero payment. You can bet that would get
Diebold's act together pretty quick. If they don't
like that we can go back to paper ballots which have a
pretty good track record; statistically reliable error
is much better than the possibility of wholesale
errors or even fraud.
Unfortunately, this whole
electronic voting movement is just companies
capitalizing on the mishaps of the 2000 election. If
legislators knew anything about how computer systems
actually worked, they wouldn't be so easily convinced
that it's better than hanging chads. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Insightful)
by corbettw
(214229) on Thursday April 22, @01:02PM (#8940407)
|
Not to excuse the incompetent greedy fucks at
Diebold, but they're only a symptom of the larger
problem. The real problem is that the government types
who are making decisions about going to evoting know
fuck-all about how computers work, and are not
interested/capable of any real oversight (the "magic
box" can't be wrong, can it?). Couple that with the
natural human tendency to get as much return on as
little investment as possible, and it's almost as bad
as setting up a dingo farm next to a day care
center.
Afterall, consider that Diebold is one
of the largest makers of ATMs in the world. Ever
wonder why they can make ATMs that don't screw up your
checking account balance every time you withdraw
funds? Simple: banks are accountable to their
customers, share holders, and various government
agencies to not screw up people's finances. If someone
went to the ATM and it reported they only had $18,181
(a reference to a previously reported bug on the upper
limits of counted votes), when in fact they had ten
times that much, there'd be a huge outcry (if the
reverse happened, the bank would eventually catch it,
and again there'd be a huge outcry, at least
internally to the vendor). So, again, the problem
isn't that Diebold is greedy (which they are) or
stupid (which they are), but that the people to whom
they are directly accountable (the various county
registrars) have no clue what the hell they're doing.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Interesting)
by Wateshay
(122749) <bill.stagelogic@com>
on Thursday April 22, @01:02PM (#8940410)
(Last Journal: http://slashdot.org/~Wateshay/journal/)
|
| The problem isn't the private sector. If it were
true that quality in the private sector was always
hurt by profit motive, then private sector businesses
would always produce substandard quality vs. public
works. However, in the private sector, quality does
get produced, because there is a segment of the market
that demands it, and therefore there are companies
that are motivated by profit to produce that quality
(e.g. Apple Computer, BMW, Rolex, etc.). The problem
is not that the private sector can't produce a quality
product, but rather that the government doesn't demand
it. If the government were to take into consideration
more than just going with the cheapest bidder in all
instances, we would get better quality. Of course,
that has to be balanced against the unfortunate
side-effect that if more subjective issues than price
are taken into account, you are more likely to get
croneyism, but I really think there's a better balance
than the way the government operates now. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Interesting)
by nomadic
(141991) <<moc.liamtoh>
<ta> <dlrowcidamon>> on Thursday
April 22, @01:20PM (#8940610)
(http://go.away/ | Last
Journal: http://slashdot.org/~nomadic/journal/)
|
The problem isn't the private sector. If it
were true that quality in the private sector was
always hurt by profit motive, then private sector
businesses would always produce substandard quality
vs. public works.
Yes, the problem IS
the private sector. Efficiency, quality, and
reliability DOES NOT automatically follow when
profit is the motivation.
The problem is
not that the private sector can't produce a quality
product, but rather that the government doesn't
demand it
The government did demand it,
they were promised it, and Diebold lied about it.
but I really think there's a better
balance than the way the government operates now.
No, there isn't. Diebold does a hell of
a lot worse than the government does.
What's
happening here is all the people with the
anti-government, pro-privatization bias are
scrambling to make it look like somehow it wasn't
the private sector's fault. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by KevinDumpsCore (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@05:14PM
- 1
reply beneath your current
threshold.
- Re:Here's
the rub by Frymaster (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @01:02PM
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Insightful)
by trentblase
(717954) on Thursday April 22, @01:11PM (#8940506)
|
| This isn't a downside of the voting machine
itself. It's up to the person inputing the candidate
info to leave a "abstain" or "no confidence" option.
Surely the software could support such an option
(even if you had to hack it by putting First Name:
No, Last Name: Confidence) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by comedian23 (Score:1)
Thursday April 22, @01:14PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by secolactico (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @01:17PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by micromoog (Score:3)
Thursday April 22, @02:17PM
- 1
reply beneath your current
threshold.
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Interesting)
by GreyPoopon
(411036) <greypoopon1968@hotmail.com>
on Thursday April 22, @01:03PM (#8940420)
|
| The simple fact is that, while Diebold does
indeed care about producing accurate voting results,
they are more concerned with making money. If Diebold
is forced to choose between increasing their profit
and making the system better, they'll choose
profit.
If you put voting machines in the hands of the
private sector, the private sector will try to
maximize profit. Corners will be cut. There simply
isn't any way to avoid this, so long as the people
making the machines are doing so to make money off the
venture.
The problem isn't really with having the machines
in the hands of the private sector. Moving them to the
public sector just opens up other motivation to cut
corners or alter results (think political). The real
issue is that the driving force behind the private
sector no longer has the strong balancing factor that
was historically attributed to investors. A few
decades ago, businesses had to carefully plan for
long-term viability. Investors held them to that, and
a company that made short-term gains was not
necessarily considered a good investment. Enter the
day trader, and everything changes. Now companies are
motivated to make decisions that yield short-term
gains in profits because investors unwisely jump on
the short-term gains. Look at how quickly a CEO comes
and goes and it becomes obvious. The incentive
provided to a CEO is short-term. They come in, make a
quick gain, get their compensation, and then head off
to destroy another company. It doesn't matter that
three years later the company they left will be in the
toilet when the irregular accounting and outright lies
to the public are noticed.
I'm not sure what the solution to the problem is,
but somehow investors need to start holding
corporations responsible for long-term success, and
long-term sacrifices to yield short-term gains need to
be severely punished. Believe me, if the management at
Diebold knew that regardless of how much money they
make now, it could all be taken away from them for
unethical business practices, they would focus on
quality and customer satisfaction. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by LordMyren (Score:1)
Thursday April 22, @01:34PM
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Insightful)
by flossie
(135232) on Thursday April 22, @01:52PM (#8941023)
(http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm)
|
|
I'm not sure what the solution to
the problem is, but somehow investors need to
start holding corporations responsible for
long-term success, and long-term sacrifices to
yield short-term gains need to be severely
punished.
You have hit the nail squarely upon the head. The
complete lack of regard for the long-term that is
now endemic in the US and, increasingly, the UK is a
recipe for disaster.
Assuming that there is absolutely no chance of
investors (whether individual or institutional)
getting a sudden attack of morality, the best way
that I can conceive of to fix the problem is to use
the tax system. Increase the capital gains tax on
stocks and shares which are sold without being held
for long and decrease the tax on long-held stocks
and shares.
If taxes decayed to near zero for investments
held for 25 years or more, you can bet that pension
companies would start taking the long-term view.
This would exert a significant beneficial pressure
on the behaviour of company directors.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
Re:Here's the rub (Score:5,
Interesting)
by EvilTwinSkippy
(112490) <yoda AT
etoyoc DOT com> on Thursday April 22,
@02:30PM (#8941474)
(http://www.etoyoc.com/yoda
| Last Journal: http://slashdot.org/~EvilTwinSkippy/journal/)
|
| While I agree, there is no eye on the long-term,
I am hard pressed to find the "good old days" you
are refering to.
The 1910's were tied up with WWI. If you were in
the war material business, you did well. Investment
capital was tied up in the war effort.
The 1920's made the dotcom era look sane in
comaparison. Everyone was kiting "Aeroplane" related
stocks, until the market tanked.
So through the 1930's and 40's you had the twin
devils of the Great Depression and WWII.
The 1950's saw the birth of the Cold war.
The 1960's ... we have all seen
the moves.
The 1970's was the birth of Voodoo economics and
hyper-inflation as we know it, continuing on to the
90's.
The 90's we a recession tailed by a... well we
all were there.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by IceAgeComing (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:35PM
- 1
reply beneath your current
threshold.
- Re:Here's
the rub by bobej1977 (Score:3)
Thursday April 22, @01:04PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by Civil_Disobedient (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:42PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by bobej1977 (Score:1)
Thursday April 22, @02:04PM
Re:Here's the
rub (Score:4, Insightful)
by
Civil_Disobedient
(261825) on Thursday April 22, @02:26PM (#8941427)
|
But one we always have by the balls
(boycott) and one which although it may exert
power (economic) it can never hold
authority.
Boycott? That's how we're
supposed to keep private corporations in check?!
And how, pray tell, am I supposed to
boycott a company like Diebolical? Don't
vote?
We don't expect the FDA to
slaughter the cattle and bring it to the
neighborhood store. The FDA ensures that the
people who do, do so responsibly.
But
we're not talking about a product that is
subject to the laws of supply and demand or
other market forces. The IRS is a government
agency, and gets paid through taxes. But how is
a private company supposed to get paid to
offer voting services? Through (you guessed it)
the government, the "number one cause of loss of
liberty" in your words.
Or I suppose we
could just institute a poll tax. The IRS and FDA
get paid through taxes, right? I'm sure people
won't mind their hard-earned money going into
private hands for the luxury of voting.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Here's
the rub by Short Circuit (Score:1) Thursday April
22, @02:37PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by EvilTwinSkippy (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@02:35PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by jlechem (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:11PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by szquirrel (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @01:14PM
- Agreed
100% by mfh (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:15PM
- This
is why by jd (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:20PM
- Re:This
is why by EvilTwinSkippy (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@02:37PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by snarfer (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:36PM
- No,
the problem is the public sector by spreer (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@01:42PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by SQLz (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:54PM
- They
turned to ITAA to whitewash the issue by gminks (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@01:54PM
- I
disagree... by Nevo (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @02:41PM
- You're
not correct. by Moryath (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:49PM
- Nope,
you're misreading them. by Moryath (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@02:53PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by The AtomicPunk (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:53PM
- Two
negligent parties by theLOUDroom (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@03:41PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by SphericalCrusher (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@04:11PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by raidient (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @07:40PM
- From
the mouth of the CEO himself by gad_zuki! (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@07:43PM
- Re:Here's
the rub by Guppy06 (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @09:48PM
- Re:Buy
3rd World tech! by Guppy06 (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@11:05PM
- 3
replies beneath your current
threshold.
Thank Goodness Somebody's
Noticing (Score:5, Informative)
by filesiteguy
(695431) on Thursday April 22, @12:48PM (#8940234)
(http://www.filesite.org/)
|
| I have some very good friends over at the Los
Angeles Voters' office. Oddly enough, they've been
somewhat in the dark about all this. I've been sending
them updates as I get them. I cannot believe that a
voting system would be considered acceptable without
extensive testing. (This in addition to the woeful
concept of usng MS Acess as the back end database.)
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
- Re:Thank
Goodness Somebody's Noticing by Analogy Man (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@02:03PM
Maybe I can avoid posting a dozen
times. (Score:5, Interesting)
by hummassa
(157160) on Thursday April 22, @03:12PM (#8942031)
|
I live in Brasil. We have had voting machines in
the last 12-14 years (yes, twelve to fourteen -- it
depends the size of the city you are in). For the
Brazilians here: the first election here in Belo
Horizonte to use the machines were the mayoral (and
city council, state representation, governor, house
and senate) before FHC was elected (as I count it, 2
years + 8 years + 1 1/2 = 11,5 years). I know it,
because I was "mesário" (election "table" official?
election "clerk"? what is a good English translation?)
in the previous election, and in the two subsequent
elections). IIRC, there were electronic ballot boxes
in Rio and Sao Paulo in the election before that (the
only two cities larger than Belo Horizonte).
Our
voting machines are mainly of three different
(internally) models: (a) the old ones, that use
VirtuOS (*) as the OS, (b) the new ones, that use
WinCE as the OS, and (c) the newest and deprecated
ones that have the second printer to print your vote,
show it to you inside a clear acrilic case, and mix it
with others inside the machine.
Externally, all of
them look roughly the same: a box similar to the old
"portables" of the eighties, with a 5-6" diagonal LCD
and a big numerical keypad in the right side of the
screen, that has, besides 0-9 keys, "confirma" (ok),
"erro" (cancel), and "branco" (white).
The
electoral process (from the point of view of the
voter) begins ... when you get your
first job. If you are a mandatory voter (literate
person from 18 to 65) you have to go to Electoral
Court and register to vote. In the process of
registering, you receive the "Título de Eleitor"
(voter id), in which you have the number of you voting
section. To change jobs, and specially to get a
government job, you have to prove you are a registered
*and* *regularized* voter (you voted in the last
election, or regularized your voting situation after
it).
In the election day, you scan the newspapers
(or the Superior Electoral Court website), search for
the address of your section, and go there. No, there
is no transit vote, you can only vote at that address.
If you can't get there, you'll have to "justify" your
absence.
At the section, you will present your
voter id to one the "mesários", and if you don't have
it on you, you can still vote (you can show other
valid id), but will be delayed. The mesário will
search for your name in the vote-ticket sheet, and
annex it to your id while you vote. You will sign a
receipt in a sheet, and proceed to the voting "booth".
Another "mesário" will type your voter id # in a
remotely connected keypad, setting the machine in the
"ready to vote" mode.
The voting "booth" is really
a desk with the voting machine over it, facing nobody
else in the room, and sometimes with a cardboard
"cover" around it. You will "dial" the numbers of the
candidates, in order. when you dial all the digits of
one candidate, a star-trek-like chime rings, his/her
face will show up in the screen, and if you digited it
right, you hit "ok". otherwise, you hit "cancel" and
start over. After typing all the candidates, you hit
"ok" one last time, the machine chimes again, and goes
to "stand by" mode. You have voted. If you don't want
to vote for nobody, you can hit "white" instead of the
candidate ## (accounted as a "white vote", or "none of
the above" -- this is the equivalent of putting your
paper ballot in the box without marking anything), or
if you really want to protest you can type 9999 or
other non-existent-candidate-#, and your vote will be
accounted as a "null vote", or "I'm really pissed of"
(the equivalent of drawing pictures or writing
"improper expletives" in a paper ballot)
Then, you
get your id back, your ticket (keep it together with
your voter id!!), and you go home. Ah, bars do not
open (theoretically) in the election day, so hope you
have bought your beer in the day before).
From the
point of view of election officials, things are more
complicated. The machines arrive to the Electoral
Judge (yes, a Judge of Law) pre-prepared one to two
months
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
I wonder. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Neil Blender
(555885) on Thursday April 22, @12:48PM (#8940236)
|
| Did India outsource its voting machines? Seems like
maybe it's not just a matter of incompetent programmers.
Maybe e-voting is actually hard to accomplish.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
- Re:I
wonder. by ddelrio (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @12:51PM
- Re:I
wonder. by micromoog (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:20PM
- Re:I
wonder. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@01:08PM
- Re:I
wonder. by arkanes (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:10PM
- Re:I
wonder. by asimulator (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @01:11PM
If Brazil can do it...
(Score:4, Informative)
by Civil_Disobedient
(261825) on Thursday April 22, @01:12PM (#8940517)
|
Maybe e-voting is actually hard to
accomplish.
I don't know about that. Seems
to me, if you put the right people in charge, and keep
the system as open as possible, you're far less likely
to have the sorts of problems that a private firm will
run into. Just like any other kind of software. More
proof needed? Well, electronic voting seems to be
working just fine
in Brazil [cic.unb.br]. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:I
wonder. by neelm (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @01:15PM
- Re:I
wonder. by American AC in Paris (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:19PM
- Re:I
wonder. by rsidd (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:26PM
- Hard?
by YrWrstNtmr (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @03:21PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
Improper Apology (Score:5,
Interesting)
by archipunk
(649241) on Thursday April 22, @12:49PM (#8940247)
|
| "We were caught. We apologize for that,"
Urosevich said of the mass failures of devices needed to
call up digital ballots. ...
"We're sorry for the inconvenience of the voters,"
Urosevich said.
Nothing about apologizing for the problems with the
product, or the fact that they didn't work. He
appologizes for getting caught. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Re:Improper Apology (Score:5,
Insightful)
by Maestro4k
(707634) on Thursday April 22, @01:05PM (#8940437)
|
Nothing about apologizing for the problems
with the product, or the fact that they didn't work.
He appologizes for getting caught. Which
speaks volumes about Diebold as a company. Using the
phrase "We were caught" implies they willfully put the
bad machines out, etc. Having the head of the company
say this makes it very hard for even the most
forgiving of souls to trust them. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Improper
Apology by Bowling Moses (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @03:02PM
- Re:Improper
Apology by donutello (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @08:14PM
- 1
reply beneath your current
threshold.
#2 pencil (Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 22,
@12:50PM (#8940258)
|
| Complication does not equal sophistication.
Sometimes, a number 2 lead pencil really does work best.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
- Re:#2
pencil by BK425 (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @02:00PM
- Re:#2
pencil by EvilTwinSkippy (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:43PM
It's
a disgrace! by dawg ball (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @12:50PM
E-Voting?
Pah by llamaguy (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @12:50PM
Who's not surprised? (Score:4,
Insightful)
by ctishman
(545856) <(ctishman)
(at) (mac.com)> on Thursday April 22, @12:51PM
(#8940266)
|
See, the sick part about all of this is that nothing
will actually happen. Diebold will stall and complain
and fling their influence around, The Governator will
promise to look into it and do nothing.
"The
general election is too close to fix anything now! If
ONLY we'd learned about it sooner!" |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Bah!
by B3ryllium (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @12:51PM
Why
don't we have a Federal Standard? by WarlockD (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@12:51PM
We need more than
Decertification (Score:5, Interesting)
by JivanMukti
(589480) <.c.knox.
.at. .comcast.net.> on Thursday April 22,
@12:54PM (#8940304)
|
Decertifying some (or all) of the machines is an ok
start. What about fines? Criminal charges for violating
state election laws?
Maybe if the company and the
persons who run it were actually held responsible for
their actions it might make others more likely to comply
with the law.
All in all though, I'm glad
California is aware of the problems and hasn't just
ignored them. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
by lspd
(566786) on Thursday April 22, @12:54PM (#8940309)
(http://www.nixnuts.net/)
|
| Personally I don't really care about glitches,
crashes and other problems with the machines. What I do
care about is the use of uncertified software and the
fact that these companies are more or less getting away
with it. It sets a bad precedent for the future. Who
cares if a few voting machines get decertified if you
get to rig an election as a result? Any use of
uncertified software should bar that company from ever
producing voting machines in the US again. Do we really
have to wait until someone is caught rigging a major
election before real efforts are undertaken to stop it?
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
- Re:Fraud
by maximilln (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @01:08PM
Re:Fraud (Score:5,
Informative)
by Ralph
Wiggam (22354) on Thursday April 22, @01:35PM (#8940806)
(http://www.fufme.com/)
|
| "Do we really have to wait until someone is caught
rigging a major election before real efforts are
undertaken to stop it?"
Because these machines don't produce a paper trail,
it will be almost impossible to catch someone rigging
an election. Whatever numbers the computer spits out
are the final numbers, that's it. Even when the number
of votes is 10 times the number of voters (as in
Evansville, IN) there is no way to recount.
There is circumstantial evidence showing election
fraud here in Georgia in 2002. Our incumbent
Democratic Governor and a Dem incumbent Senator both
had 10% leads in the polls the week of the election.
Both lost. Warehouse employees have reported that
Diebold patched thier systems after the elections
board had certified the software on them. Diebold
certainly isn't doing the rigging themselves, but
their incompetence may be letting someone else do it.
I recently read a great quote from that champion of
Democracy, Joseph Stalin - "The people who cast the
votes don’t decide an election, the people who count
the votes do."
News of the GA 2002 election:
wired.com
[wired.com]
scoop.co.nz
[scoop.co.nz]
-B |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:Fraud
by Inebrius (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @02:16PM
- Re:Fraud
by mOdQuArK! (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @02:57PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
Nonmember?
by sangreal66 (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @12:54PM
d'oh
by Vlion (Score:1) Thursday
April 22, @12:55PM
California officials will vote
(Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on
Thursday April 22, @12:57PM (#8940344)
|
| On whether to punish Diebold. This will be
accomplished with an electronic vote using Diebold
equipment. Diebold is confident they will be found not
guilty, unanimously. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Let
the /. programmers do it by AviLazar (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@12:58PM
Absentee
Ballots by yohohogreengiant (Score:3)
Thursday April 22, @12:58PM
I have to ask (Score:5,
Insightful)
by Le Marteau
(206396) on Thursday April 22, @12:59PM (#8940363)
|
Once again, I have to ask - what is the big
goddamned rush to get election results that requires
electronic voting machine? Why are people so frickin'
hard to get the results of an election, like, on
election day.
People should just chill, let a
team of little old ladies count PAPER BALLOTS marked in
PENCIL or PEN, and get the VERIFIABLE RESULTS a week or
so later. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Re:I have to ask (Score:4,
Insightful)
by Civil_Disobedient
(261825) on Thursday April 22, @01:16PM (#8940565)
|
Why are people so frickin' hard to get the
results of an election, like, on election
day.
I believe it's a case of a hammer in
search of a nail. Or, to quote a sig I saw once
on /., "Just because you fixed it
doesn't mean it was broken."
It's not like
the country will come to a stand-still if the results
aren't known three minutes after closing the voting
stations. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
- Re:I
have to ask by Gid1 (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @01:25PM
- 1
reply beneath your current
threshold.
- Because
Americans worship technology by Infonaut (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@01:52PM
- Re:I
have to ask by travdaddy (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:47PM
- Re:I
have to answer by pangian (Score:3)
Thursday April 22, @03:31PM
Grilling
Diebold? by Kenja (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:00PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
What
about the county's responsibility? by djaj (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@01:00PM
This
proves one thing... by techstar25 (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:01PM
WHY
doesn't it work? by koi88 (Score:1)
Thursday April 22, @01:02PM
Alright, I have a question.
(Score:5, Insightful)
by unformed
(225214) on Thursday April 22, @01:02PM (#8940411)
|
Allin all, how difficult would this --really-- be?
At least getting the part right about who's allowed and
who's not allowed to vote? I'm a programmer, I've
studied cryptography, I understand the problems
associated with voting, but what if they made an open
system, hired good programmers, and hired other good
programmers to check the first programmers work, without
having a private company do the work. (or at least force
the private company be open).
Lave the code open,
let people look at it themselves, fin problems or what
not .... test in in some *local*
elections for a few years, and when those work, start
moving it up to larger (ie: statewide) elections
....
Jesus, people have created some
insane stuff back in the day, what's the problem now?
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Why
are these so hard to build? by BagOBones (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@01:03PM
I
mean, Come On by dynamo (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @01:05PM
Second
Thoughts? by kravlor (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @01:11PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
Three
Cheers for Bev Harris by alfredo (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:12PM
awesome.
by xgamer04 (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @01:13PM
Ask
how to do it right where it worked... by jorlando (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:15PM
What the problem was (Score:5,
Informative)
by John Jorsett
(171560) on Thursday April 22, @01:15PM (#8940560)
|
When I first heard, early on election day, the
nature ofthe problems they were having, I guessed what
was going on. They were using machines running Windows
CE as the OS. The application code itself was in a flash
memory, but they were relying on some kind of shortcut
in the volatile system RAM to execute that code when the
machine was turned on. The trouble was, when the poll
workers were trained, they were given the machines to
take home with them. SOme of them sat for long periods
without power, so their batteries ran down and the RAM
got erased, wiping out whatever it was that was supposed
to execute the code automatically. The poll workers
weren't trained for that contingency and had no clue
what to do. Many of the polling places had voters, off
the street, trying to help them diagnoe the problem and
boot the software.
This whole thing was a fiasco
from the beginning. Not only did they use
known-uncertified code, they let poll workers take the
machines home, protected only by a peel-off sticker for
"security". They then had a bunch of unqualified and
unvetted civilans being given access to try to fix the
problems. Unbelievable. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Aren't
Americans frustrated? by xutopia (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:17PM
California
Girls Die?!?!?! by Capital_Z (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@01:19PM
Tossing the Baby With the Bath
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Kozar_The_Malignant
(738483) on Thursday April 22, @01:20PM (#8940606)
|
|
>Today, California officials may recommend
decertifying some or all of Dielbold's machines for the
November General Election. Sadly, this will
include the Diebold optical scanners used in my county.
Like much associated with this issue, this would be
JPFN. The optically scanned ballots are much like the
machine scored tests used in university classes
everywhere. You fill in a bubble with a black felt pen
to vote for a candidate. Simple, quick, readable with
either the optical scanner or the Mark I eyeball in the
event of a power failure.
I am totally at a loss
to understand this rush to electronic voting. As a
citizen, I demand that my vote be:
- Secret
- Subject to verifiable recount
- Free from fraud
I realize that these are
the ideal and that abuses have occurred under all forms
of balloting yet used. However, the paper ballot and
voting lists have stood the test of time. Reducing costs
is not be a valid reason for mucking about with the very
foundation of the democratic process. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Re:Tossing the Baby With the
Bath (Score:5, Insightful)
by demachina
(71715) on Thursday April 22, @02:40PM (#8941587)
|
"I am totally at a loss to understand this rush to
electronic voting."
Its pretty simple really.
The party in power wants electronic voting without an
audit trail. They approved billions of tax payer
dollars to be thrown out to local election officials
to insure it was instituted and at the same time
insured all the electronic voting machine
manufacturers bidding on said systems were controlled
by Republican partisans who no doubt went out of their
way to propose systems with no paper trail. WHO COULD
POSSIBLY WANT A NASTY OLD PAPER TRAIL WHEN YOU CAN
HAVE THESE NIFTY ALL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS. Votes go in
here, get turned in to electrons and you magically get
a vote count out the other end. Pay no attention to
that man behind the curtain.
The Diebold
incident in California really sounds like they were
practicing for how to steal the election in November,
in particular the part about installing uncertified
software and getting caught. This is the #1 thing you
need to accomplish to steal an election with
electronic voting, installing uncertified software. I
imagine they chose California to practice because
California isn't likely to be a swing state and the
primary didn't really count for much. The place they
want to smoothly and successfully install their rigged
software is in all the close swing states in November
when it counts. They also want it in all the states
with crucial senate contests.
Bottomline is
electronic voting is a way to insure the people who
control the machines, which happens to be the
Republicans, can hold power if, god forbid, the
majority of the electorate realize they are either
incompetent or serving the interests of a minority at
the expense of the majority and try to, god forbid,
vote them out of power. We just can't have that. The
Republicans are the only ones we can trust to save
America and make the world safe for American hegemony.
Those Democrats are dangerous, can't be trusted(well
they can't but thats another story).
I don't
imagine there are reliable statistics but its a near
certainty that the default state for elections is for
them to be rigged every time the opportunity exists to
do so. The right wingers will no doubt lob out the
standard accusation now that the Democrats are the one
with the history of stealing elections. Well yes
they've stolen them, the Republican's have stolen
them, every party and politician, in a close race and
with the opportunity to rig an election with a
reasonably good chance of not getting caught will do
so. Power is the ultimate drug, once people have it
they will generally do anything to keep it and get
more of it. Its only by nonstop tireless efforts by a
large number of volunteers, concerned voters, that
elections are made fair and secure. Relying on
incompetent bureaucrats and politicians with mixed
motives just doesn't cut it.
The gold rush
caused by the billions of dollars the congress threw
in to the market as a knee jerk reaction to the 2000
fiasco was certain to not create an environment where
a reliable voting system would be produced and the
rate of change is so high its pretty hard for
concerned citizens to do much about it, though a few
people are making a noble effort.
A couple
nights ago one of the network news shows ran a piece
on how unreliable the military mail system is and how
its disenfranchising the brave warriors who are
defending democracy around the world. They raised the
possibility once again that the all votes of the
military should be done electronically, so they could
be cast in seconds. The end result being millions of
votes being run through the Pentagon, with no paper
audit trail, under the control of the Secretary of
Defense whose job is at stake in the presidential
election so he can adjust the outcome as
necessary.
To be honest the U.S. in particular
is reaching the point it doesn't really deserve a
democracy. Maybe the Republicans should just declare a
state of emergency and put democracy in the U.S. out
of its misery. What's left of it at this point i
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
India
by rsidd (Score:3) Thursday
April 22, @01:23PM
Optical
Scanning Ballots = Segregation? by Maestro4k (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:23PM
The
voters should demand a recount! by dpbsmith (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@01:24PM
Cock-Sucking
Whores gave Michael a good BLOW JOB by Saeed al-Sahaf
(Score:1) Thursday April
22, @01:28PM
w-t-f?
by LordMyren (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @01:29PM
- Re:w-t-f?
by EvilTwinSkippy (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @02:56PM
Miami
are another bunch of morons... by MindSlap (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@01:33PM
Our chief elections officer says "Hell,
no" (Score:4, Insightful)
by Animats (122034)
on Thursday April 22, @01:34PM (#8940804)
(http://www.animats.com/)
|
| Warren Slocum
[warrenslocum.com], the Chief Elections Officer for San
Mateo County, CA, is so mad about lousy voting systems
he's become an activist to put a stop to this. Slocum is
influential, because he's a top election official for a
big county.
San Mateo County went to mark-sense machines years
ago, and has had very little trouble. The ballot boxes
consist of a lid with a scanner locked to a big plastic
bin, so every ballot scanned is locked inside the ballot
box should a recount be necessary. At the end of the
election, the scanners are plugged into a phone line and
transmit results to election HQ. They can be re-read
later, and the ballots counted and matched against the
scans if necessary, one ballot box at a time.
Other than generating huge amounts of paper, there
seem to be few problems with this. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
The fault is with CA (Score:4,
Insightful)
by shreak (248275)
on Thursday April 22, @01:44PM (#8940917)
|
The problem isn't directly with Debold (although
they definitely are culpable).
The fault lay with
the requirements produced by California (and any other
state trying E-Voting). That is to say, none. They just
said "Give us E-Voting, whatever that means"
The
agencies should NOT be allowing the machine producers to
define the voting method. They will invariably produce a
mechanism that maximizes profit potential. How do you
test the machines once you get them. You don't even
understand the process since you didn't develop it. As a
developer I can tell you NEVER let development produce
the requirements. We miss everything and when you think
you found a bug we just say "it works as
designed".
The various election agencies need to
come up with a definitive set of requirements for what
an E-Voting machine should do. The level of detail
should be excruciating.
The agencies also need to
define and publish policy and procedure around these
devices as well. You don't actually need to devices to
do this. If they are built to your requirements then the
procedures can be followed.
The kinds of
requirements need to cover things like:
A paper
receipt must be produced by the voting machine with
human and machine readable type. If the machine readable
type is not the same as the human readable type, the
code produced must not be unique per voter or voter
session (i.e. I can't transcribe the code and use it to
prove who I voted for or you cant prove who I voted
for)
The executing code must be certified (Open
or not) and must then be cryptographically signed. The
certified cryptographic checksum must be published 30
days before the election and each voting machine must
display the checksum at all times during operation in a
place that is visible to voters (i.e. I can write down
the checksum and verify that the machine I'm using is
using the correct version of the software)
When
setting up a voting area each machine must be checked
for the proper software checksum. (potentially a
matching of software checksum and hardware
specification, a use for Trusted Computing
perhaps?)
Each machine must be able to produce
test ballots for every candidate and the test ballots
must be accepted by the designated reader machine. The
test ballots will be conspicuously marked in a human and
machine readable way. The reader will display the
candidate indicated on the test ballot when reading
(could be a screen, 7-seg display code,
whatever).
Lots more, in much more detail that I
went into...
=Shreak |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Damn!
by DJStealth (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @01:47PM
What is so hard about voting?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by ndecker (588441)
on Thursday April 22, @01:48PM (#8940971)
|
| I don't understand whats so hard about Voting. There
is a proven, scalabe, fault tolerant and fast method
already available: Use paper ballots!
Here in germany we draw marks into circles next to
the names of the candidates. The votes are counted by
hand. The results are faxed to a central bureau where
they are aggregated.
This system has several advantages:
- Results are availabe fast: The poll closes 6pm.
First counts are ready about 8pm, the last ones maybe
around 2am. Everything is ready the next morning.
- Linear scalability: For every 1000 voters you need
x voting offices and about 10 people per office to do
their duty to democracy.
- The people in the voting offices are randomly
chosen. To commit fraud, you have to bribe or threaten
those 10 people.
- There is no class break for voting offices. You
need to bribe twice as many people to fraud another
voting office.
- If you are higher up the chain, you cant commit
fraud by changing the numbers you receive. The voting
offices fax their results to the media too. Any
difference would ring the bells in our computers fast.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
Testing? (Score:4, Insightful)
by fdiskne1
(219834) on Thursday April 22, @01:50PM (#8941000)
|
| What ever happened to good, old fashioned testing?
I've seen the problem with companies rolling out
software into production before it has been fully tested
and ended up paying the price. I've had to clean up the
mess of other engineers who didn't test something and
told them about it every time. I asked if they tested
it. They answer "No, it should work. It always has
before." When I ask if they are always 100% confident
that nothing was missed, they say yes, but obviously
this isn't the case. When it comes to something as
important as an election, in my opinion, there is no
excuse not to test, fix problems, repeat ad infinitum,
then roll it out once everyone is satisfied there are no
errors. If this takes 20 years, fine. Just make sure it
works correctly before rolling it out. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
eVoting
made right by soapdog (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @01:51PM
I
though that said by sittingbull (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@02:02PM
Diebold
should be banned by Soong (Score:3)
Thursday April 22, @02:25PM
good
news? by Anonymous Custard (Score:3)
Thursday April 22, @02:28PM
electoral
process by venkats (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @02:34PM
Diebold
TSx system Decertified in California by alfredo (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@02:49PM
Too
much work .. by 0dugo0 (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @02:51PM
California
Girls by budly (Score:1) Thursday April 22, @02:56PM
Why
get an archaic company to do this by lardbottom (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@03:03PM
The
accuracy of the SW and system is irrelevant by
RhettLivingston (Score:3) Thursday April 22, @03:15PM
Breaking:
Panel recommends banning Diebold by polyiguana (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@03:22PM
Vote
Phishing by 4of12 (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @03:22PM
Ok
I have to ask... by KaiLoi (Score:1)
Thursday April 22, @04:11PM
But
why? by tekunokurato (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @05:37PM
the
fix is in by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @05:47PM
California
Girls Doubled-Over E-Voting Fsck-Ups! by KnarfO (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@06:09PM
It's
Not New(s) by calix (Score:2) Thursday April 22, @07:19PM
Diebold
on the way OUT in California! by Catbeller (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@08:06PM
No
proof by Stephen Samuel (Score:2)
Thursday April 22, @11:02PM
The
absolute worst part... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@11:46PM
Evoting
code leaked by IncandescentFlame (Score:1) Friday April 23,
@02:09AM
The
Inside Story Of California's Capitulation by althecat
(Score:1) Friday April 23,
@02:47AM
Another
hardware flaw by bmasel (Score:2)
Friday April 23, @04:46AM
Screwing
Things Up GWB styleeeeee! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@12:54PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
In
Soviet Russia, by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday April 22,
@01:00PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Uhhhh
how hard can it be? by mcwop (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:08PM
Re:The
hypocrisy of the Democrat Party by curtisk (Score:3) Thursday April 22,
@01:09PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:The
hypocrisy of the Democrat Party by Garg (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@01:20PM
[OT]
Re:The hypocrisy of the Democrat Party by cduffy (Score:2) Thursday April 22,
@02:22PM
- 1
reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Diebold
uses MS Access? by PDAllen (Score:1)
Thursday April 22, @06:15PM
18
replies beneath your current threshold.
|
California Grills Diebold Over E-Voting
Foul-Ups
All trademarks
and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.