Electronic voting machines

[tigerlily46514]

Do you think e-voitng machines, especially the touch screen type, (which have zero way to recount votes) should be outlawed?

"Those who cast the vote decide nothing.  It is the ones who count the votes who decide everything."
~joseph stalin

[Tom62]

In the Netherlands they performed a hack on a e-votingmachine. Instead of counting the votes it started to play a decent game of chess. It proved to be quite easy to manipulate the votingmachine within just a few minutes.

[Will]

Paper can't be hacked. It's really that simple.

[Whitney]

I watched a special about how easy it is to hack voting machines.  I don't care if they are counted electronically but there needs to be a paper trail in case  we need to argue over chads

[Will]

And no more Supreme Court overstepping their bounds. I felt like seceding from the union when they helped Bush cheat in 2000.

[rlrose328]

All voting in Oregon is on paper by mail.  I love it.  The Bush camp has done enough cheating for one lifetime, thank you very much.  But by the time the next election rolls around, Bush may have appointed himself King and Ultimate Ruler, so it might not matter.

[MommaSquid]

I've been casting early ballots by mail in AZ and although it is convenient, I'm not confident that my vote is being counted.  Any form of voting can be tampered with or ignored.  Most candidates aren't worth voting for anyway.  (Sigh)  :doubt:

[SteveS]

I watched a special about how easy it is to hack voting machines. I don't care if they are counted electronically but there needs to be a paper trail in case we need to argue over chads

Yeah, I guess there can't be any "dangling bits"....

I like the idea of a technological solution, but then again I'm a computer guy.  I can't believe that a secure voting machine cannot be constructed.  Ideally, I would think cleverly applying encryption technology, we could provide a voting machine that both hides your identity and allows you to query the final vote to ensure that your vote is included in the total.  Maybe even makes sure that no "hack" votes have been included.  What could be better?

[Whitney]

SteveS, I'm sure it is more than possible to create a secure electronic voting machine....but we have to trust those with the contract to build the machine to remain honest.

[SteveS]

Well, ultimately we'd have to trust something, I guess.  Right now I'm trusting the election judges, and I'm not really sure why they are more or less reliable than anyone else.

I'd prefer to specify the machine in such a way that any "hanky-panky" is potentially detectable.  I don't fancy having to place a large amount of trust in either the government running the machines or in the manufacturer of the machines.  I believe this to be possible with an appropriate design.  But there's always some vulnerability - the question is can it be made better than the current technology?  Without a digital signature or something similar, how do I know somebody didn't swap out my punch card with a different one?  That's why I now have to trust the election judge - that kind of thing, I think, could be improved.

Anyway, still wouldn't prevent somebody from voting wrong, especially if correctly reading the dreaded "butterfly ballot" is a serious strain on their intellectual resources  :wink:

[tigerlily46514]

Steve S, the election judges must rely on the electronic machines, though.  Even the most honorable person could be misled if the machines or the voting cards were tampered with.  

I do like your idea about a hack-proof technological solution, though.  That WOULD be ideal!
 There is an awesome documentary on this very topic, called "Hacking Democracy" about a lil florist in Seattle Wa, who started investigating Diebold voting machines......definately worth a watch. Everyone should google it and find out how to buy or rent a copy...

The film kinda gave me  a futile feeling though....like what is the use of even learning about or trying to campaign for candidates and issues when our voting system  IS hackable?   I still do, but knowing it could all be for nothing is discouraging, isn't it?

I think Laetusatheos is right, it probably IS do-able, more a matter of getting those in charge to be HONEST.....bah ha ha!!!

[Amor Fati]

I voted yes, but I now believe that it should be a qualified 'maybe'.

[tigerlily46514]

Why, Amor?  I mean why would you feel more like a maybe now?

The e-voting machines we have are all owned, well, something like 85% of them are owned by Diebold, and have been PROVEN hackable....

Also, Diebold is owned by a very out conservative, who spoke of "delivering the vote to George W. Bush"

I voted yes, and mine was a passionate YEEEEESSSS!!!   Like our democracy is so jeopardized....

[SteveS]

Hi tigerlily,

I certainly don't condone the manufacture and use of hackable voting machines.  I guess my question would be: why is the paper ballot system currently not hackable?  Look: I don't think anybody "stole" the last election, but my confidence in paper systems is just as "shook-up" by the argumentation of voter intention and "hanging chads".  This system clearly has its own flaws that are also exploitable.  My reason behind favoring electronic systems is that I believe they could be specified to be more "unhackable" (if that's a word) then the systems we now have - not that we should accept the current machines if they are flawed.

In an ideal solution, the "specification" would be open to manufacture, allowing companies to bid on the manufacture business - good old fashion capitalism at work.  A company could not custom design a flawed exploitable machine if they were constrained to produce the accepted specification (and an adequate testing regimen was applied to the production by a third party, preferably multiple third parties).

This is how we do business in the software market, and it protects us both.  A customer cannot come back and claim that the deliverables were not produced if the product is measurably in compliance with the specification.  Likewise, a fraudulent company cannot deliver something that was non-compliant with the specification and get away with it, because the end result would be demonstrably different from the stated specs.

You might have to trust whoever came up with the specification: and the best way to do that is to make the specification open to peer review, the way encryption technology is produced.  In short, we will have to trust our own abilities to smell a rat.  The fact that there is politic adversity in our culture should serve to assist with this by immediately calling out exploitable flaws offered by the competition.  If either group believes they are being sold a phony they're sure to speak up about it, and they will have the media, power and money to do so effectively.

Just my thoughts.

[Amor Fati]

Why, Amor?  I mean why would you feel more like a maybe now?

The e-voting machines we have are all owned, well, something like 85% of them are owned by Diebold, and have been PROVEN hackable....

Also, Diebold is owned by a very out conservative, who spoke of "delivering the vote to George W. Bush"

I voted yes, and mine was a passionate YEEEEESSSS!!!   Like our democracy is so jeopardized....

Well the first question that needs to be determined is: should we have a universal method of recording and tabulating votes?  Currently these systems vary by state and often by precinct, and these various methods of course have differing accuracies.  Now, only if we answer an emphatic YES to this question does it make sense at all to talk about outlawing certain methods, such as electronic voting machines.  

So......maybe, but only if.