Computerized voting

[mikester]

Given the chance will you use a computerized voting system or will you ask for a paper ballot?

[350HP930]

The problem I have with these new systems are the mindless masses who will enjoy touching the pretty looking electronic screens without concidering how their vote could be electronically stolen without them ever knowing and without any paper trail that could show such a theft.

Here is an interesting story that documents one of the little fiascos that occured in the crooked little county I used to live in during the 2K elections.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

If the Republican ties at Diebold and ES&S aren't enough to cause concern, argues election reform activist Bev Harris, the companies' past performances and current practices should be. Harris is author of Black Box Voting, and the woman behind the BlackBoxVoting.com web site.

The rush to embrace computerized voting, of course, began with Florida. But, in fact, one of the Sunshine State's election-day disasters was the direct result of a malfunctioning computerized voting system; a system built by Diebold. The massive screwup in Volusia County was all but lost in all the furor over hanging chads and butterfly ballots in South Florida. In part that's because county election officials avoided a total disaster by quickly conducting a hand recount of the more than 184,000 paper ballots used to feed the computerized system. But the huge computer miscount led several networks to incorrectly call the race for Bush.

The first signs that the Diebold-made system in Volusia County was malfunctioning came early on election night, when the central ballot-counting computer showed a Socialist Party candidate receiving more than 9,000 votes and Vice President Al Gore getting minus 19,000. Another 4,000 votes poured into the plus column for Bush that didn't belong there. Taken together, the massive swing seemed to indicate that Bush, not Gore, had won Florida and thus the White House. Election officials restarted the machine, and expressed confidence in the eventual results, which showed Gore beating Bush by 97,063 votes to 82,214. After the recount, Gore picked up 250 votes, while Bush picked up 154. But the erroneous numbers had already been sent to the media.

Harris has posted a series of internal Diebold memos relating to the Volusia County miscount on her website, blackboxvoting.com. One memo from Lana Hires of Global Election Systems, now part of Diebold, complains, "I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16,022 [votes] when it was uploaded." Another, from Talbot Ireland, Senior VP of Research and Development for Diebold, refers to key "replacement" votes in Volusia County as "unauthorized."

Harris has also posted a post-mortem by CBS detailing how the network managed to call Volusia County for Bush early in the morning. The report states: "Had it not been for these [computer] errors, the CBS News call for Bush at 2:17:52 AM would not have been made." As Harris notes, the 20,000-vote error shifted the momentum of the news reporting and nearly led Gore to concede.

What's particularly troubling, Harris says, is that the errors were caught only because an alert poll monitor noticed Gore's vote count going down through the evening, which of course is impossible. Diebold blamed the bizarre swing on a "faulty memory chip," which Harris claims is simply not credible. The whole episode, she contends, could easily have been consciously programmed by someone with a partisan agenda. Such claims might seem far-fetched, were it not for the fact that a cadre of computer scientists showed a year ago that the software running Diebold's new machines can be hacked with relative ease.

The hackers posted some 13,000 pages of internal documents on various web sites – documents that were pounced on by Harris and others. A desperate Diebold went to court to stop this "wholesale reproduction" of company material. By November of last year, the Associated Press reported that Diebold had sent cease-and-desist letters to programmers and students at two dozen universities, including the University of California at Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The letters were ignored by at least one group of students at Swarthmore College, who vowed an "electronic civil disobedience" campaign.

Equally troubling, of course, is the fact that the touch-screen systems Diebold, ES&S, and the other companies have on the market now aren’t designed to generate a polling place paper trail. While ES&S says it is open to providing voter receipts, and has even designed a prototype machine that does so, the company isn’t going to roll that prototype into production until state and federal elections officials make it mandatory.

[lendaddy]

I think it makes sense, but an ATM style receipt would be nice. Not sure why I guess. I mean what are ya gonna do add em up The next big conterfeit, vote receipts.

[350HP930]

I think scantron is the best system IMHO. It has worked for decades for tests for millions of students and some voting precincts. While the counting can be nearly flawless you also have a paper trail without issues like hanging chads.

To me the electronic system is just a more massive form of vote fraud and theft that is being peddled as reform to the unknowing masses.

[id10t]

Make the apps and OS Open Source, invite code and security reviews with full public disclosure of findings, allow for a paper trail which the voter can verify his/her own vote immeadiately, and a citizen review board, made up of persons selected from the same pool as jury duty. Heck, I think that would satisfy most of the tin-foil hat wearers on slashdot...

[350HP930]

Yes, those are all good suggestions as to how the system could be made legitimate and hard to subvert but unfortunately the exact opposite of those suggestions are being made. For example companies like diebold are refusing to let their code be reviewed and like the article stated the paper trail aspect is being treated as a 'we will do it if you force us to' afterthought.

Faced with these issues I think the system is being set up so it can be rigged by the political machines that control the particular voting precincts.

[mattdavis11]

Scan-tron is terrible, but correctable. That's early 90's tech. Canvass the vote, no doubt. Voter reg. table, next to a long pier, with a boat, comes to mind. "This way, Sir."

[mikester]

I just don't know - I am a security engineer and I see how Civil servants would rather pay for usability over any amount of infrustructure security so I simply do not trust the system unless I see full disclosure of it.

Until I see that full disclosure - I will not trust it. I know computers and I know computerized security and I feel pretty confident that if those computerized voting machines are ever hooked up to a network that those votes are no longer safe.

I've read articles stating that they have been and articles stating that they haven't and won't be...so I just don't know.

There are holes in every OS; Open Source or no...the fact is your average computer person doesn't know how to truely secure a system. Firewalls alone are not enough the OS itself needs to be secure.

So...without full disclosure I can't trust it.

I think it is absolutely silly not to have a paper backup via an ATM style receipt or something. It's absolutely too simple NOT to consider.

[island911]

Originally posted by 350HP930
I think scantron is the best system IMHO. It has worked for decades for tests for millions of students and some voting precincts. While the counting can be nearly flawless you also have a paper trail without issues like hanging chads.

To me the electronic system is just a more massive form of vote fraud and theft that is being peddled as reform to the unknowing masses.

Hey, we completely agree on this.

What gets me, is how the electronic version is supposed to be more stupid-proof. I mean how stupid do you have to be, to not figure-out a scantron or a punch-ballot? . . ..and these people are voting?

I think that this electronic voting is wanted by the Dem's, in the wake of Florida 2000.

[mikester]

I think you're kidding right? The Dem's DON'T want electronic balloting as most of the groups who are going to court over them are Liberal/Voter's rights groups.

It's really disheartening to see that there is no way to please these folks - don't take that as an endorsement for electronic voting or for the stupidity of someone who can't fill out a f'ing scantron. I remember in gradeschool being instructed specifically how to fill one out. They spent a LOT of time on that instruction....

[Mule]

I have voted using machines, punch cards and a "black out the appropriate dot" system. All were sufficiently simple for all but the dumbest of knucle dragging mout breathers. IMHO anyone who cant succesfully vote with whatever system their area is using is too stupid to be voting & the fact that their vote didn't count is (as Martha would say) a good thing.

[jyl]

Some of the problems of punch-card ballots have nothing to do with whether voters are "dumbest". For example, if a chad hangs, or is dimpled, I wouldn't call that voter stupidity - he/she pushed the punch through the hole as instructed, but the paper simply failed to cleanly punch out. Plenty of voters won't think to double-check every last chad.

Also, more voters than you'd think are incompetent with machines or written instructions without being what you call "knuckle draggers". My mother-in-law is an example. She is 75 y/o, very bad with any sort of mechanical device, and not great at reading and following even moderately complicated written instructions (eyesight has something to do with it). But she is otherwise a pretty average older voter, raised a family, worked her whole life, owns her own home, and is a diligent voter (and solidly Republican, BTW).

Do you think this sort of person is "too stupid to be voting" and a "mouth breather" whose vote shouldn't be counted, Mule? How about being a little less self-righteous? Or will you wait until you are 70+ y/o with deteriorating eyesight to develop a little empathy?

[jyl]

BTW, I am voting absentee via a paper ballot.

I would like to see electronic voting machines with an appropriate paper trail. More importantly, I would like to see elections handled by competent, non-partisan elections boards - not the partisan boards of varying competence that we have today. And I would like to see better voter databases, including safeguards against over-voting (identity card checks) and under-voting (no over-zealous partisan officials striking thousands of voters from the pools because they have the same name as a convicted felon).