E-Voting: The Next Florida?

I'm normally all for technology, but this issue has made me so uncomfortable that I will only vote absentee until I see a better solution. Hopefully, anyone else who feels this way about it will do this. A large surge in absentee voting might convince politicians to reconsider.
 
rdaneel said:
I'm normally all for technology, but this issue has made me so uncomfortable that I will only vote absentee until I see a better solution. Hopefully, anyone else who feels this way about it will do this. A large surge in absentee voting might convince politicians to reconsider.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with a low tech solution to a high tech non-solution.

(And I was just quoting that same quote from "The Jerk" yesterday. You average random victim bastard.) Am I psycho or what?
 
All three broadcast networks had major stories on the lack of security of computer voting. Took an outside hired expert seconds to hack into the Diebold system.
 
I never thought paper ballots were a problem until the morons in Florida mucked everything up.

Rather than spending millions on an uncertain electronic system, I thought the states should have spent a few thousand dollars to post big signs with illustrations at the polls that said, "This is how to cast a proper vote. If you do not do it this way, your vote may not be counted. If you still can't understand these instructions, please go home."

Of course, that might interfere with the left's crybaby "count 'em again and again and again and again and again ... until we win" electoral slogan.

As annoying as that was though, just wait until this next election comes down to the wire without paper verification. For that reason, I have to agree with the post above that electronic voting machines are in fact just a high tech non-solution.
 
Silly troll, we can't have "another florida" since scumbag attorney David Boies is too busy running an extortion racket on Linux users for SCO and Microsoft to go to florida and steal an election for Gore who is not running.

You used to be a much better troll SG>
 
It's just insane to have voting in the hands of private companies with proprietary software. The fact that the companies involved look shady is just the icing on the cake.

If the US government actually cared about transparent and reliable voting machinery they would have a single, open source software package for voting, and all votes would be recorded electronically and on a printed ballot paper which would be kept in case a recount is needed.
 
WildCat said:

This is already done here in Cook County.
Click to expand...

Has it changed recently? I got a receipt when I last voted in Brookfield, but it didn't have any validation that it recorded my vote correctly.

I do know that they ran it through a scanner, but that only checks for invalid votes. I didn't vote in all of the contests, and it didn't balk at that.
 
corplinx said:
Silly troll, we can't have "another florida" since scumbag attorney David Boies is too busy running an extortion racket on Linux users for SCO and Microsoft to go to florida and steal an election for Gore who is not running.

You used to be a much better troll SG>
Click to expand...
Trying out your "memes" eh?

If I be a troll and upon me proved, then you sir, are a beslubbering boil-brained clack dish.

Your assumption, implicit in your feeble insult is that there were no technical problems in Fla. Your shallow analysis fails to recognize that while you can agree with the legality of the outcome, you can also understand that they changed the system for a reason.

Your lumpish hasty-witted retorts are always mildly amusing.
 
-Vote on the touch screen
-Ask for printout of vote
-Check against screen
-Correct errors if necessary and get new printout
-Drop printout in ballot box when it is identical to what you wanted
-Check 'finished'
-You have voted electronically, fully controllable

What's the big problem? :)
 
Bjorn said:
-Vote on the touch screen
-Ask for printout of vote
-Check against screen
-Correct errors if necessary and get new printout
-Drop printout in ballot box when it is identical to what you wanted
-Check 'finished'
-You have voted electronically, fully controllable

What's the big problem? :)
Click to expand...
Only that none of them allow for this simple solution.
 
In 2002, Brazil led the world's first informatized election. 117 million people voted for 19,000 candidates (including for presidency), and we knew the results of the presidential election in less than 4 hours. IT experts from many institutions, including international ones, participated in the elaboration and evaluation of the electronic ballot boxes. The elections were fraud-free as far as we know - and we know a lot.

Some observations:

* Brazil has a 11% illiteracy rate;
* Voting is compulsory from ages 18 to 65.
* Some areas of the country are very isolated. Think Amazon. In places without electricity, they used car batteries.

So how was it done? I can provide more links tomorrow. I can guarantee it keeps the privacy of the voters, it's very fast and simple.

From Wired and here an explanation of how the system works

Each candidate is assigned a number, and believe me you'll have those numbers badgered until you know them by heart. You can bring a memo with you. Radios and TV stations explain repeatedly how to do it, for the sake of the illiterate and technophobes.

Press number for President. You punch in 1, 5, in the number keyboard. The picture of your candidate appear. Then you press Confirm. Beep Beep Beep. It's over. You can opt to vote "blank" too.

When the elections are over, the machine prints the results. The data, also stored in a flash card, is collected and carried by officials until the local voting agency, and then sent via the internet to the federal agency. The system is very redundant, and every step is checked multiple times. 3% of all votes are chosen, randomically, to be checked against the printed ballots. Apparently, in the next elections, they will get rid of the printed votes, but that's still under debate. Sure, it's cheaper, but maybe less safe? Well, there WAS fraud when all the ballots were in paper, so...

Less than 1% of the machines were defective, and some were exchanged in time. In most cases, the heat provoked the malfunction. In those cases, paper ballots were used (and voters looked so disappointed).

The reasons ballots are not printed and given to the voter is that it was feared that some people (think isolated towns) could be coerced into exhiting their ballots to a third party. Also think of the possibility of votes being sold.

It's easy to say "no electronic system is safe", and that's true, but add enough safeguards and make it redundant, and you have trustworthy results. Candidates who were defeated made their mission in life to discredit the electronic ballots, to no avail.
 
specious_reasons said:


Has it changed recently? I got a receipt when I last voted in Brookfield, but it didn't have any validation that it recorded my vote correctly.

I do know that they ran it through a scanner, but that only checks for invalid votes. I didn't vote in all of the contests, and it didn't balk at that.
Click to expand...
In Chicago you run your punch card through a machine and it will tell you whether or not there was an undervote or an overvote.

There's no readout of who you voted for, I don't know what good it would do anyway. I wouldn't remember which 50 judges, sanitary district commissioners, mosquito abatement district commissioner, etc. I voted for anyway! I do keep a short list of which judges I vote against though. (take that, "Let 'em Go Leo"!)
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
It's just insane to have voting in the hands of private companies with proprietary software. The fact that the companies involved look shady is just the icing on the cake.

If the US government actually cared about transparent and reliable voting machinery they would have a single, open source software package for voting, and all votes would be recorded electronically and on a printed ballot paper which would be kept in case a recount is needed.
Click to expand...
I am completely against using paper ballots as a final determination of vote counts. Way too much opportunity for shennanigans to take place. Who removes them from the polling place? How are they transferred? Stored? Who has access?

Nope, I'm not at all comfortable w/ that. Illinois machine politicians are experts at making votes disappear or appear if it suits their purposes. Take it from someone from Chicago, where we vote early and often, and don't stop voting even after we're dead. :p
 
WildCat said:
I am completely against using paper ballots as a final determination of vote counts. Way too much opportunity for shennanigans to take place. Who removes them from the polling place? How are they transferred? Stored? Who has access?
Click to expand...
I have been one of those silly guys sitting there, watching the containers fill up with paper ballots. It was the only available way of doing it for centuries, and different checks were developed (like having people from all political parties watch the containers).

I trust it a lot more than whatever is registered in a computer in a program I cannot control, whereas a private company and half of the world's hackers might.

However, the computerized voting/counting is so much faster that I would love to see people do both at the same time. Computer for speed, paper for controls. :)
 
Bjorn said:
I have been one of those silly guys sitting there, watching the containers fill up with paper ballots. It was the only available way of doing it for centuries, and different checks were developed (like having people from all political parties watch the containers).

I trust it a lot more than whatever is registered in a computer in a program I cannot control, whereas a private company and half of the world's hackers might.

However, the computerized voting/counting is so much faster that I would love to see people do both at the same time. Computer for speed, paper for controls. :)
Click to expand...
I just don't buy the whole conspiracy bit (the programmers will rig it) w/ the electronic machines. Also, there are very few people expert enough to attempt a hack, and fewer still would have the opportunity, I suspect. And if it's set up properly it would be possible to identify the culprit. With the paper ballots anyone off the street would know how to alter the votes, or "lose" them. They would have to be stored in thousands of different places, equalling thousands of opportunities for mischief, over at least a few weeks of time. It is a far less reliable and secure method than electronic.

Just think of all the 1's and 0's that make up just this web page. Tens of thousands of them, zipping through cables and phone lines, and arriving perfectly on your desktop. Now imagine if you, by hand, transcribed every 1 and 0 and sent them on their way. Do you think the page would be viewed correctly then? This is the same human error that is introduced in a hand count, and not even allowing for intentional errors! Whatever the error/fraud potential is for electronic voting, it will be at least a thousandfold for paper ballots. No way should the paper ballots take precedence over electronic ones, barring a hardware or software failure of course.
 
WildCat said:

I just don't buy the whole conspiracy bit (the programmers will rig it) w/ the electronic machines. Also, there are very few people expert enough to attempt a hack, and fewer still would have the opportunity, I suspect. And if it's set up properly it would be possible to identify the culprit. With the paper ballots anyone off the street would know how to alter the votes, or "lose" them. They would have to be stored in thousands of different places, equalling thousands of opportunities for mischief, over at least a few weeks of time. It is a far less reliable and secure method than electronic.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not such a conspiracy-minded guy. However, I see the paper ballots as an extra security measure if something should happen to the computer programs, the computers, the power supply, or if the results should seriously differ from, say, exit polls. It would allow us to check some sample areas - does it look like the computers got it right, or is it totally off.

Just think of all the 1's and 0's that make up just this web page. Tens of thousands of them, zipping through cables and phone lines, and arriving perfectly on your desktop. Now imagine if you, by hand, transcribed every 1 and 0 and sent them on their way. Do you think the page would be viewed correctly then? This is the same human error that is introduced in a hand count, and not even allowing for intentional errors! Whatever the error/fraud potential is for electronic voting, it will be at least a thousandfold for paper ballots. No way should the paper ballots take precedence over electronic ones, barring a hardware or software failure of course.
Click to expand...
As I've said I've been sitting there, doing this, and as long as one keeps the number of votes (for each checking group) small, it works.

We are from different political parties, we count the votes and confirm the results, the results from our little area is available for the public and for us the next day - even if the public cannot see discrepancies we who counted certainly would.

Since all small areas add up to the total count in our county, the number of votes couldn't be cheated with unless you trust that those who counted are not checking the official results.

Again, computers for speed, fine, just keep the paper ballots just in case - as you say, things might happen, e.g. a hardware or software failure. :)
 
Conspiracy theorists are going to still rant and rave over E-voting for one reason...

IT CAN BE HACKED INTTO!


It wouldn't take much.

The security on the voting machines is not top notch.

They lines to the voting machine most likely go to an outside source.


Another problem is, E-voting machines are using, "Smart Cards" that the registered voter is supposed to have.

Hate to burst the buble on this one but, any hacker, cracker, or even a carder can easily bypass this and program the smartcard so it is not just counting one but hundreds of votes.


But then again, there is NO perfect voting system.
 
Because folks keep mentioning Florida, I think we all agree that anyone who couldn't figure out that ballot was a moron. Period.

Now on with your discussion.
 
Theodore Kurita said:
Conspiracy theorists are going to still rant and rave over E-voting for one reason...

IT CAN BE HACKED INTTO!


It wouldn't take much.

The security on the voting machines is not top notch.

They lines to the voting machine most likely go to an outside source.


Another problem is, E-voting machines are using, "Smart Cards" that the registered voter is supposed to have.

Hate to burst the buble on this one but, any hacker, cracker, or even a carder can easily bypass this and program the smartcard so it is not just counting one but hundreds of votes.


But then again, there is NO perfect voting system.
Click to expand...
It's not that easy. If it was you'd have people hacking into ATM's all the time. Or would hack into the DCFS or Social security computers to get checks every month.

Hackers get into poorly secured networks where some idiot used his pet's name or his birthday as a password.

I don't know the specifics, but I doubt it would be that easy.

If Brazil can pull it off, why can't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom