M
mongoose
Guest
"After eight years and some $65 million, the state of Maryland is
taking its first steps to return to an accountable, paper-ballot based
voting system. Governor Martin O'Malley has announced an initial
outlay of $6.5 million towards the $20 million cost of an optical
system which will scan and tally the votes while the paper ballots are
retained as a backup. The new (or old) system is expected to be in
place by 2010 -- or four years before the state finishes paying off the
bill for the touch-screen system."
But what I want to know - (Score:5, Funny)
by Recovering Hater (833107) on Monday January 21, @04:45PM
(#22130986)
#
-is where the "Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag is?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:But what I want to know - (Score:5, Funny)
by jrothwell97 (968062) <jonathan&jonathan-rothwell,co,uk> on
Monday January 21, @04:50PM (#22131062) Homepage Journal
Just 'cause I'm feeling nice, I have tagged it as
'suddenoutbreakofcommonsensejustforyourecoveringhater'. Happy now...?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
#
Diebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5, Informative)
by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Monday January 21, @04:45PM (#22130992)
I'm sure many of us are aware... but let us not forget who Premier
Election Solutions, really are. They are Diebold.
Changing the name was a sneaky move.
[ Reply to This ]
o
o
Re
iebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5,
Insightful)
by sconeu (64226) on Monday January 21, @05:02PM
(#22131194) Homepage Journal
The difference is that both Diebold and their clients (the
banks) have a vested interest in making sure ATMs DO record every
transaction accurately.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
+
#
#
Re:Especially in Chicago, NYC and the East
Coast. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Trogre (513942) on Monday January 21,
@05:59PM (#22131756) Homepage
And why oh why is your country not populated
by people who might be inclined to provide a set of concrete sneakers
to anyone who sells them untrustworthy elections?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Especially in Chicago, NYC and the
East Coast. (Score:4, Interesting)
by g-san (93038) on Monday January 21,
@08:32PM (#22132984)
Well, I assume by your tone you are
talking about the US. Here is my anecdote for the day:
On a recent gameshow (1 vs. 100), first
question was who was so and so's step son. Some actress got married
and by the marriage the stepson is like 5 yeas younger than the dad.
Whatever, I can't remember the question or answer, that is completely
useless knowledge (unless you are an agent or something). Out of 100,
only 3 people got it wrong. Not bad. 97% of the people in that set
knew the answer.
Next Question: What is the third highest
rank in the Senate called?
Out of 97 people, a third got it wrong.
Now these are people who were screened
for a TV gameshow. They should be smarter than the average bear. A
third got it wrong.
These and people less intelligent (than
gameshow contestants) are the voters. What do you think they care
about more? What do you think they spend more time exposing themselves
to, politics or OJ and Britney? That is the true hopelessness of our
situation. If you know of a way to get 200 million people to stop
paying attention to a drug-addicted talentless dead-beat mom or other
Hollywood scuttlebutt, I would love to hear it. You want us to run a
marathon to stop election fraud when most of the public barely knows
how to crawl. Nevermind the 100 yard dash to comprehend why our
economy and world reputation are crumbling to dust. IMHO, that is the
answer to your question.
Other answers may vary. This answer does
not constitute the opinion of my employer or my land lord or my cat.
This answer may become invalid in the future and no guarantees are
made, either thusly, thisly, or implied. This answer may be copied if
it contains this disclaimer. Due to quantum fluctuations, this answer
may cease to exit at any time. This answer may cease to have been
written in the first place if an unforseen time warp should occur. Do
not submerge this answer in water.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
o
o
Reiebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:4,
Interesting)
by PopeRatzo (965947) on Monday January 21, @06:12PM
(#22131888) Homepage Journal
I bet there will be some nasty digital skeletons in
the closet.
Absolutely.
The more I learn about this Diebold outfit, the more I
think they should be kept far away from any part of our electoral
system. Just yesterday, I read an interesting story about a county
clerk in some rural Nevada county who looked the machines over
carefully and, not being a techie, called in a few trusted computer
people to check out one of the systems. Naturally, Diebold's machines
are closed source, so they say this County Clerk violated their EULA.
The worst part of this is that Diebold put pressure on the County
Board until this clerk was forced to resign. They've got that much
power.
Just the idea that our elections would run on a closed-
source, impossible-to-audit system is unbelievable to me. Especially
after the rate of undervoting (ballots that were completely filled
out, except the Diebold machines say there was no vote cast for
President that only seemed to occur in heavily Democratic precincts in
Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio. In some minority districts, the
rate of undervoting was EIGHTY PERCENT in 2004. That means, in a
heavily contest year, in an area that has a high turnout rate, voters
went in and filled out their computer ballot for all the local races,
all the judgeships, county board, etc., but for some reason did not
cast a vote for President. It's absolutely ridiculous. Problem is,
since there are no paper ballots, it's impossible to audit. Diebold
sends in the count and that's it, jack. Four more years of a jug-eared
dry drunk in the White House.
It's going to take a while, and maybe a few election
cycles, but if we can't get honest paper ballots in every single
precinct in the USA, there needs to be some serious **** a-flyin'.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
#
Where can Diebold hide now? (Score:3, Insightful)
by jrothwell97 (968062) <jonathan&jonathan-rothwell,co,uk> on Monday
January 21, @04:47PM (#22131008) Homepage Journal
Diebold are going to have real trouble building their reputation back
up after this; even though other machines may be vulnerable, the fact
that this case has been so well publicised is seriously going to
damage Diebold's public image.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Where can Diebold hide now? (Score:4, Interesting)
by zappepcs (820751) on Monday January 21, @05:28PM (#22131426)
Journal
Actually, they could have scored a huge boost in credibility
IF they had said, wait! We'll pay for the NH recounts because we are
certain our machines are good, and if anything is found to be wrong,
we'll fix it before the next primary or caucus.
But that is not what they did... instead, there was a
conversation in a darkened back room somewhere that went something
like this:
Politician: I thought you said it would be undetectable?
Company Rep: I thought you said we'd not be prosecuted?
Politician: You didn't say you'd fsck it up this badly.
Company Rep: I did what you told me you wanted, give or take a
couple of votes.
Politician: This is not going to be good, you had better hide
the evidence now, bury it deeply.
Company Rep: No problem, we just paid Britney another $2 Million
to pee on the courthouse steps.
profit!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
#
Verified Voting (Score:4, Informative)
by earlymon (1116185) on Monday January 21, @04:55PM (#22131102)
Journal
All this made me start to wonder about voting machine requirements and
this turned up - http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ [verifiedvoting.org]
Thought others might find it interesting.
[ Reply to This ]
#
Stuck with the bill. (Score:4, Interesting)
by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Monday January 21, @04:57PM (#22131130)
Homepage
Perhaps the state could sell some of the Diebold devices to help pay
the bill that they're stuck with. They may garner a cult
following(like the iPhone) of hackers and tinkerers. The devices are
worthless as voting machines but they may be coaxed into second lives
as kiosk-style internet machines, etc.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Stuck with the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
by KiloByte (825081) on Monday January 21, @05:00PM (#22131154)
Or, you see, return them as faulty and demand the (taxpayers')
money back?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
o
Re:Stuck with the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Amorymeltzer (1213818) on Monday January 21, @05:18PM
(#22131336)
This is just stupid. Wasting $65M to $90M is pointless,
but they deserve it. Moving backwards isn't the answer, and neither is
moving only slightly backwards. There's no way that for that kind of
money, they couldn't have gotten a series of machines that actually
works. I don't want to spit the same old Diebold sucks, yay linux/open
source/etc. vitriol but there are a lot of options available to a
small business, not to mention a bloody STATE. The instant these
things weren't working properly eight years ago, they should've given
Diebold an ultimatum and then gone elsewhere.
Maryland expects to be back on the paper trail, following
states such as Florida and California, which have also decided that
all-electronic systems make it too easy to compromise elections.
Hmm... an all-electronic system doesn't work, and neither
does all-paper. Gee, I wonder if there's someway to combine the two
and maybe get some sort of hybrid, combining the best of both
worlds...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
#
What about the old machines? (Score:4, Informative)
by jo7hs2 (884069) on Monday January 21, @05:02PM (#22131182)
Here is question... Before touchscreen voting, our area in Maryland
had an optical paper system, which resembled some sort of Star Wars
fan video version of R2D2. Why didn't they hold onto these machines,
just in case the touchscreen voting devices didn't work out?
[ Reply to This ]
#
Election fraud (Score:5, Informative)
by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Monday January 21, @05:08PM (#22131238)
I don't know if this is common knowledge to informed Americans (I only
know of it because it is part of my family lore), but in the 1970s
there was another voting machine company, named after its founder,
Shoup. They made the voting booths with the pulldown lever, and though
I doubt they're still around today, some of you older /.ers may
remember them. Anyhow, this company was plagued by scandal. One of the
Shoup family, Ransom Shoup was actually convicted of conspiracy to
throw an election. The company was also involved in bribing florida
politicians. And this was in the era of paper ballots, too. Fast-
forward to today: nobody knows if Diebold is up to no good, but that's
kind of the point. Without a paper trail, it will be hard to convict
anyone of anything, and I think Diebold knows this.
[ Reply to This ]
Heck, Shoup is still in the game today! (Score:5, Informative)
by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Monday January 21, @06:20PM
(#22131964)
Except Shoup is now calling itself, "Advanced Voting Solutions
[advancedvoting.com]" (AVS). You've probably heard of them. --The most
astonishing part is that Diebold's, Howard Van Pelt and Larry
Ensminger left Diebold and were hired by AVS in late 2004. --And not
just a small hire either. Van Pelt and Ensminger are now AVS's
President and Vice President!
Here's a little of Shoup's history. [sptimes.com]
It's a big, hairball of a mess and none of the right people are
in jail.
-FL
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
#
" ... impossible to imagine ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
by Bearpaw (13080) on Monday January 21, @05:13PM (#22131292)
FTA:
"Indeed, it is impossible to imagine a voting system that could be
impervious to attack," the report concluded.
That's true, as far as it goes.
But voting systems can -- and have been -- imagined that make it much
more difficult to get away with such an attack.
[ Reply to This ]
#
Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
by rtechie (244489) on Monday January 21, @05:17PM (#22131334)
Optical scan ballots really aren't a dramatic improvement in
reliability. In fact, the touchscreen systems replaced optical scan
ballots in many locations.
Designing a reliable balloting system is really quite easy. The UN
nailed it down decades ago:
1. Printed paper ballots wherein each ballot is marked by grease
pencil or felt marker.
2. Ballots are folded and placed into a slot on top of a locked clear
plastic box.
3. The boxes are guarded, transported to a central location, and then
opened and the ballots are all hand-counted by volunteers in front of
observers from all parties.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Interesting)
by karmatic (776420) on Monday January 21, @05:33PM (#22131474)
Optical scan ballots really aren't a dramatic improvement in
reliability.
They can be. Have the touchscreen device print the vote onto the
paper ballot, and a barcode with a checksum. Scan it optically and
verify it against the checksum.
Anyone can verify their ballot - they simply look at what is
marked. Misreads simply don't happen - if the two don't match, there
is a problem. Give they guy a new ballot (replacing the old one), and
have him do it again.
If the hand recount doesn't _exactly_ match the automated
totals, it can be scanned in batches (any size). Count X ballots, scan
X ballots. If they don't match, there is a problem.
As a nice side effect, machines don't have to be trusted, and
don't have to have a network connection either. The machine can't
screw up your vote without marking the wrong thing (or the CRC would
be wrong), and you can check that yourself before it's counted.
Recounts can be done by hand, and in the event of total system
failure, you can still mark the silly thing by hand.
As a nice bonus to this, you get the benefits of touchscreen
voting - secret ballots for the blind (audio), multiple language
support, pictures, the ability to offer more in-depth descriptions of
line items, etc.
It's not exactly rocket science.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
o
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Funny)
by Kingrames (858416) on Monday January 21, @06:10PM
(#22131874)
"It's not exactly rocket science."
No, but if you could do it with rockets, that would be
awesome.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
o
o
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
by rhizome (115711) on Monday January 21, @06:08PM
(#22131854) Homepage
Hand counting is not quick, and human error can enter into
that. Hand counting with lots of observers can be pretty time
consuming in terms of man-hours.
This brings up one of the consistently-unasked questions
in debates over electronic balloting: what's the hurry? I don't mean
"It would be nice if we knew sooner," but what is it about an election
requires that this stuff be done quickly?
A second unasked-question would be, "what makes hand-
counting errors less desirable than electronic-counting errors?"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
#
Lawsuit time? (Score:4, Interesting)
by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Monday January 21, @05:21PM (#22131364)
I wonder if we'll be seeing a slew of lawsuits against Diebold coming
in the next few months/years as the states try to recoup the cost of
their investments in the Diebold voting machines. I'd bet that they'd
have contracts with Diebold that would hold them responsible for
failures in the equipment. Given the reports from NH that seem to
indicate discrepancies between what Diebold equipment reported and
hand recounts I'd think that's a pretty good indicator that the
Diebold equipment is faulty.
[ Reply to This ]
#
Who wrote these contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)
by devjj (956776) on Monday January 21, @05:32PM (#22131462)
If the state buys a touch-screen voting system that is later proven
(without a doubt) to be flawed in any of a number of ways, all of
which contribute directly to an incorrect tally of the vote (the very
reason the machines were procured), why does said state still have to
pay for that contract? Are states not naturally covered by the same
laws we are? Did they not get a warranty? Did no one even stop to
****ing ask?
[ Reply to This ]
#
My previous county's voting system (Score:5, Informative)
by oahazmatt (868057) on Monday January 21, @06:31PM (#22132080)
I always enjoyed my previous county's voting system.
Here's your paper, here's your marker. Fill in the dot next to who
you're voting for. If you make a mistake, please see one of the
attendants for a new ballot and we will destroy the old one, and
record the action and confirm it with your signature. If you would
like to vote and are unable to properly use the marker, please see one
of our attendants for assistance. Once you are done, please slip your
ballot into the secured box at either end of the room. The "I voted"
sticker is optional and will not be forced on you.
I voted in that county for 7 years, and not once did anyone ever
question the authenticity of the outcomes, even when outcomes were
close.
--
NO to touchscreen voting!
taking its first steps to return to an accountable, paper-ballot based
voting system. Governor Martin O'Malley has announced an initial
outlay of $6.5 million towards the $20 million cost of an optical
system which will scan and tally the votes while the paper ballots are
retained as a backup. The new (or old) system is expected to be in
place by 2010 -- or four years before the state finishes paying off the
bill for the touch-screen system."
But what I want to know - (Score:5, Funny)
by Recovering Hater (833107) on Monday January 21, @04:45PM
(#22130986)
#
-is where the "Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" tag is?
[ Reply to This ]
Re:But what I want to know - (Score:5, Funny)
by jrothwell97 (968062) <jonathan&jonathan-rothwell,co,uk> on
Monday January 21, @04:50PM (#22131062) Homepage Journal
Just 'cause I'm feeling nice, I have tagged it as
'suddenoutbreakofcommonsensejustforyourecoveringhater'. Happy now...?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
#
Diebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5, Informative)
by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Monday January 21, @04:45PM (#22130992)
I'm sure many of us are aware... but let us not forget who Premier
Election Solutions, really are. They are Diebold.
Changing the name was a sneaky move.
[ Reply to This ]
o
o
Re
iebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5,Insightful)
by sconeu (64226) on Monday January 21, @05:02PM
(#22131194) Homepage Journal
The difference is that both Diebold and their clients (the
banks) have a vested interest in making sure ATMs DO record every
transaction accurately.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
+
#
#
Re:Especially in Chicago, NYC and the East
Coast. (Score:4, Insightful)
by Trogre (513942) on Monday January 21,
@05:59PM (#22131756) Homepage
And why oh why is your country not populated
by people who might be inclined to provide a set of concrete sneakers
to anyone who sells them untrustworthy elections?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Especially in Chicago, NYC and the
East Coast. (Score:4, Interesting)
by g-san (93038) on Monday January 21,
@08:32PM (#22132984)
Well, I assume by your tone you are
talking about the US. Here is my anecdote for the day:
On a recent gameshow (1 vs. 100), first
question was who was so and so's step son. Some actress got married
and by the marriage the stepson is like 5 yeas younger than the dad.
Whatever, I can't remember the question or answer, that is completely
useless knowledge (unless you are an agent or something). Out of 100,
only 3 people got it wrong. Not bad. 97% of the people in that set
knew the answer.
Next Question: What is the third highest
rank in the Senate called?
Out of 97 people, a third got it wrong.
Now these are people who were screened
for a TV gameshow. They should be smarter than the average bear. A
third got it wrong.
These and people less intelligent (than
gameshow contestants) are the voters. What do you think they care
about more? What do you think they spend more time exposing themselves
to, politics or OJ and Britney? That is the true hopelessness of our
situation. If you know of a way to get 200 million people to stop
paying attention to a drug-addicted talentless dead-beat mom or other
Hollywood scuttlebutt, I would love to hear it. You want us to run a
marathon to stop election fraud when most of the public barely knows
how to crawl. Nevermind the 100 yard dash to comprehend why our
economy and world reputation are crumbling to dust. IMHO, that is the
answer to your question.
Other answers may vary. This answer does
not constitute the opinion of my employer or my land lord or my cat.
This answer may become invalid in the future and no guarantees are
made, either thusly, thisly, or implied. This answer may be copied if
it contains this disclaimer. Due to quantum fluctuations, this answer
may cease to exit at any time. This answer may cease to have been
written in the first place if an unforseen time warp should occur. Do
not submerge this answer in water.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
o
o
Re
iebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:4,Interesting)
by PopeRatzo (965947) on Monday January 21, @06:12PM
(#22131888) Homepage Journal
I bet there will be some nasty digital skeletons in
the closet.
Absolutely.
The more I learn about this Diebold outfit, the more I
think they should be kept far away from any part of our electoral
system. Just yesterday, I read an interesting story about a county
clerk in some rural Nevada county who looked the machines over
carefully and, not being a techie, called in a few trusted computer
people to check out one of the systems. Naturally, Diebold's machines
are closed source, so they say this County Clerk violated their EULA.
The worst part of this is that Diebold put pressure on the County
Board until this clerk was forced to resign. They've got that much
power.
Just the idea that our elections would run on a closed-
source, impossible-to-audit system is unbelievable to me. Especially
after the rate of undervoting (ballots that were completely filled
out, except the Diebold machines say there was no vote cast for
President that only seemed to occur in heavily Democratic precincts in
Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio. In some minority districts, the
rate of undervoting was EIGHTY PERCENT in 2004. That means, in a
heavily contest year, in an area that has a high turnout rate, voters
went in and filled out their computer ballot for all the local races,
all the judgeships, county board, etc., but for some reason did not
cast a vote for President. It's absolutely ridiculous. Problem is,
since there are no paper ballots, it's impossible to audit. Diebold
sends in the count and that's it, jack. Four more years of a jug-eared
dry drunk in the White House.
It's going to take a while, and maybe a few election
cycles, but if we can't get honest paper ballots in every single
precinct in the USA, there needs to be some serious **** a-flyin'.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
#
Where can Diebold hide now? (Score:3, Insightful)
by jrothwell97 (968062) <jonathan&jonathan-rothwell,co,uk> on Monday
January 21, @04:47PM (#22131008) Homepage Journal
Diebold are going to have real trouble building their reputation back
up after this; even though other machines may be vulnerable, the fact
that this case has been so well publicised is seriously going to
damage Diebold's public image.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Where can Diebold hide now? (Score:4, Interesting)
by zappepcs (820751) on Monday January 21, @05:28PM (#22131426)
Journal
Actually, they could have scored a huge boost in credibility
IF they had said, wait! We'll pay for the NH recounts because we are
certain our machines are good, and if anything is found to be wrong,
we'll fix it before the next primary or caucus.
But that is not what they did... instead, there was a
conversation in a darkened back room somewhere that went something
like this:
Politician: I thought you said it would be undetectable?
Company Rep: I thought you said we'd not be prosecuted?
Politician: You didn't say you'd fsck it up this badly.
Company Rep: I did what you told me you wanted, give or take a
couple of votes.
Politician: This is not going to be good, you had better hide
the evidence now, bury it deeply.
Company Rep: No problem, we just paid Britney another $2 Million
to pee on the courthouse steps.
profit!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
#
Verified Voting (Score:4, Informative)
by earlymon (1116185) on Monday January 21, @04:55PM (#22131102)
Journal
All this made me start to wonder about voting machine requirements and
this turned up - http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ [verifiedvoting.org]
Thought others might find it interesting.
[ Reply to This ]
#
Stuck with the bill. (Score:4, Interesting)
by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Monday January 21, @04:57PM (#22131130)
Homepage
Perhaps the state could sell some of the Diebold devices to help pay
the bill that they're stuck with. They may garner a cult
following(like the iPhone) of hackers and tinkerers. The devices are
worthless as voting machines but they may be coaxed into second lives
as kiosk-style internet machines, etc.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Stuck with the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
by KiloByte (825081) on Monday January 21, @05:00PM (#22131154)
Or, you see, return them as faulty and demand the (taxpayers')
money back?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
o
Re:Stuck with the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Amorymeltzer (1213818) on Monday January 21, @05:18PM
(#22131336)
This is just stupid. Wasting $65M to $90M is pointless,
but they deserve it. Moving backwards isn't the answer, and neither is
moving only slightly backwards. There's no way that for that kind of
money, they couldn't have gotten a series of machines that actually
works. I don't want to spit the same old Diebold sucks, yay linux/open
source/etc. vitriol but there are a lot of options available to a
small business, not to mention a bloody STATE. The instant these
things weren't working properly eight years ago, they should've given
Diebold an ultimatum and then gone elsewhere.
Maryland expects to be back on the paper trail, following
states such as Florida and California, which have also decided that
all-electronic systems make it too easy to compromise elections.
Hmm... an all-electronic system doesn't work, and neither
does all-paper. Gee, I wonder if there's someway to combine the two
and maybe get some sort of hybrid, combining the best of both
worlds...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
#
What about the old machines? (Score:4, Informative)
by jo7hs2 (884069) on Monday January 21, @05:02PM (#22131182)
Here is question... Before touchscreen voting, our area in Maryland
had an optical paper system, which resembled some sort of Star Wars
fan video version of R2D2. Why didn't they hold onto these machines,
just in case the touchscreen voting devices didn't work out?
[ Reply to This ]
#
Election fraud (Score:5, Informative)
by Capt'n Hector (650760) on Monday January 21, @05:08PM (#22131238)
I don't know if this is common knowledge to informed Americans (I only
know of it because it is part of my family lore), but in the 1970s
there was another voting machine company, named after its founder,
Shoup. They made the voting booths with the pulldown lever, and though
I doubt they're still around today, some of you older /.ers may
remember them. Anyhow, this company was plagued by scandal. One of the
Shoup family, Ransom Shoup was actually convicted of conspiracy to
throw an election. The company was also involved in bribing florida
politicians. And this was in the era of paper ballots, too. Fast-
forward to today: nobody knows if Diebold is up to no good, but that's
kind of the point. Without a paper trail, it will be hard to convict
anyone of anything, and I think Diebold knows this.
[ Reply to This ]
Heck, Shoup is still in the game today! (Score:5, Informative)
by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Monday January 21, @06:20PM
(#22131964)
Except Shoup is now calling itself, "Advanced Voting Solutions
[advancedvoting.com]" (AVS). You've probably heard of them. --The most
astonishing part is that Diebold's, Howard Van Pelt and Larry
Ensminger left Diebold and were hired by AVS in late 2004. --And not
just a small hire either. Van Pelt and Ensminger are now AVS's
President and Vice President!
Here's a little of Shoup's history. [sptimes.com]
It's a big, hairball of a mess and none of the right people are
in jail.
-FL
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
#
" ... impossible to imagine ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
by Bearpaw (13080) on Monday January 21, @05:13PM (#22131292)
FTA:
"Indeed, it is impossible to imagine a voting system that could be
impervious to attack," the report concluded.
That's true, as far as it goes.
But voting systems can -- and have been -- imagined that make it much
more difficult to get away with such an attack.
[ Reply to This ]
#
Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
by rtechie (244489) on Monday January 21, @05:17PM (#22131334)
Optical scan ballots really aren't a dramatic improvement in
reliability. In fact, the touchscreen systems replaced optical scan
ballots in many locations.
Designing a reliable balloting system is really quite easy. The UN
nailed it down decades ago:
1. Printed paper ballots wherein each ballot is marked by grease
pencil or felt marker.
2. Ballots are folded and placed into a slot on top of a locked clear
plastic box.
3. The boxes are guarded, transported to a central location, and then
opened and the ballots are all hand-counted by volunteers in front of
observers from all parties.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Interesting)
by karmatic (776420) on Monday January 21, @05:33PM (#22131474)
Optical scan ballots really aren't a dramatic improvement in
reliability.
They can be. Have the touchscreen device print the vote onto the
paper ballot, and a barcode with a checksum. Scan it optically and
verify it against the checksum.
Anyone can verify their ballot - they simply look at what is
marked. Misreads simply don't happen - if the two don't match, there
is a problem. Give they guy a new ballot (replacing the old one), and
have him do it again.
If the hand recount doesn't _exactly_ match the automated
totals, it can be scanned in batches (any size). Count X ballots, scan
X ballots. If they don't match, there is a problem.
As a nice side effect, machines don't have to be trusted, and
don't have to have a network connection either. The machine can't
screw up your vote without marking the wrong thing (or the CRC would
be wrong), and you can check that yourself before it's counted.
Recounts can be done by hand, and in the event of total system
failure, you can still mark the silly thing by hand.
As a nice bonus to this, you get the benefits of touchscreen
voting - secret ballots for the blind (audio), multiple language
support, pictures, the ability to offer more in-depth descriptions of
line items, etc.
It's not exactly rocket science.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
o
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Funny)
by Kingrames (858416) on Monday January 21, @06:10PM
(#22131874)
"It's not exactly rocket science."
No, but if you could do it with rockets, that would be
awesome.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
o
o
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
by rhizome (115711) on Monday January 21, @06:08PM
(#22131854) Homepage
Hand counting is not quick, and human error can enter into
that. Hand counting with lots of observers can be pretty time
consuming in terms of man-hours.
This brings up one of the consistently-unasked questions
in debates over electronic balloting: what's the hurry? I don't mean
"It would be nice if we knew sooner," but what is it about an election
requires that this stuff be done quickly?
A second unasked-question would be, "what makes hand-
counting errors less desirable than electronic-counting errors?"
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
#
Lawsuit time? (Score:4, Interesting)
by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Monday January 21, @05:21PM (#22131364)
I wonder if we'll be seeing a slew of lawsuits against Diebold coming
in the next few months/years as the states try to recoup the cost of
their investments in the Diebold voting machines. I'd bet that they'd
have contracts with Diebold that would hold them responsible for
failures in the equipment. Given the reports from NH that seem to
indicate discrepancies between what Diebold equipment reported and
hand recounts I'd think that's a pretty good indicator that the
Diebold equipment is faulty.
[ Reply to This ]
#
Who wrote these contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)
by devjj (956776) on Monday January 21, @05:32PM (#22131462)
If the state buys a touch-screen voting system that is later proven
(without a doubt) to be flawed in any of a number of ways, all of
which contribute directly to an incorrect tally of the vote (the very
reason the machines were procured), why does said state still have to
pay for that contract? Are states not naturally covered by the same
laws we are? Did they not get a warranty? Did no one even stop to
****ing ask?
[ Reply to This ]
#
My previous county's voting system (Score:5, Informative)
by oahazmatt (868057) on Monday January 21, @06:31PM (#22132080)
I always enjoyed my previous county's voting system.
Here's your paper, here's your marker. Fill in the dot next to who
you're voting for. If you make a mistake, please see one of the
attendants for a new ballot and we will destroy the old one, and
record the action and confirm it with your signature. If you would
like to vote and are unable to properly use the marker, please see one
of our attendants for assistance. Once you are done, please slip your
ballot into the secured box at either end of the room. The "I voted"
sticker is optional and will not be forced on you.
I voted in that county for 7 years, and not once did anyone ever
question the authenticity of the outcomes, even when outcomes were
close.
--
NO to touchscreen voting!