

Voting Machines - aneesh
http://xkcd.com/463

======
sysop073
I really can't imagine how we can use a closed-source voting system; I
remember in March when Sequoia flipped out that a CS student was going to
examine their machines and stopped him. Like that isn't at all suspicious

[http://sysop073.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-post-is-trade-
secr...](http://sysop073.blogspot.com/2008/03/this-post-is-trade-secret.html)

~~~
andreyf
_...use a closed-source voting system..._

Calling it "secret software" might help, as people can understand that (and
why it's bad) without explanation.

Public accountability requires no secret software.

------
rms
It's really sad how corrupt the system is, yet I've learned to just dismiss it
as an expression of existential angst because the corrupt system somehow seems
to function anyways and I myself can't fix it. Yet.

[http://www.videosift.com/video/From-The-Programmers-Mouth-
Ho...](http://www.videosift.com/video/From-The-Programmers-Mouth-How-
The-2000-Election-Was-Fixed)

------
vaksel
At this point, how long before we'll be able to vote using the internet?
Figure have people enter their social security number, date of birth, and the
20 digit randomly generated password that gets mailed a month before the
election.

~~~
Fuca
Hopefully never.

If there is a powerful force that can infiltrate the counting process we need
to have it open to the public.

~~~
vaksel
is Diebold open to the public? Hell in today's society I wouldn't even trust a
human, because no matter who the person is, if they volunteered to run
elections in their district, they are a political person. And right now the
political climate is very charged "NEOCON WARMONGER!" "LIBERAL DIMOCRAT!". And
given the opportunity they can easily make votes disappear, or state different
results, which get confirmed by another political person.

I mean I could understand the point, if the current system was infallible. But
its not, so why not make the whole process easier on your average voter?

More importantly, ME! I'm not going to go vote, because I don't feel like
standing for an hour in line, just to cast a ballot in a state where the
result is already pre-determined because of demographics. I mean if you think
about it, your vote only matters if you live in the 4-5 swing states, all
others will go Democrat/Republican no matter what you do.

~~~
gills
I think that you should take your position to it's logical conclusion. You may
find a contradiction.

------
hugh
Y'know, I hate to come to your country and tell you how to run your elections,
but I really think the best way to do it is the way we do it in Australia.

You go to the ballot box, and you get a pencil, and a printed ballot sheet
with a standardised design nationwide. You write little numbers (we have
preferential voting) in little boxes, and stick it in a box. No hacking, no
tampering, no confusion, no breakdowns, and no lining up for more than a
couple of minutes.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
From what I hear, American elections involve many more votes than most other
nations. At my local polls, the semiannual elections contain ballots for 5 or
six different districts (federal, state, county, town, school district, fire
district, police district) as well as referendums on several tax proposals and
even things like road improvement projects. There are votes to sustain the
currently elected Judges in my court district, and votes for positions like
tax assessors. I'm sure I'm missing a few. Seriously, it's a _lot_ of votes.

My voting district uses Scantron ballots which are nice because you do fill
out a paper form, which is tallied on the spot. You get the paper trail of a
paper ballot, with the speed of an electronic system.

~~~
hugh
So you'd have to fill out eight ballot papers instead of our two or three. Or
perhaps, you'd fill out a single perforated ballot paper and it would be
ripped apart before counting.

I've seen Australian ballot papers which are about three feet by one foot, and
list a few hundred candidates for the state upper house (later they changed
the law to make it harder to get on the ballot sheet). Anyway, if we can cope
with that, I'm sure you guys could cope with having multiple elections on one
big perforated sheet.

The Scantron system actually sounds sensible enough though. If that were
implemented nationwide it would be a good system. But I can't understand this
district-by-district (or is it county-by-county?) disparity of voting schemes.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
Oh, it does sound like you have a good number of entries on your ballots.
Sorry for making assumptions.

To be honest I've never voted in an election which _didn't_ use Scantron
ballots. I believe the voting devices are selected and allocated on a state-
by-state basis though. The federal law mandates certain requirements the
states must meet but leaves the implementation up to each individual one. I've
lived in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Utah, and used Scantrons in
each location. Maybe the computerized systems are used in more urban or
wealthy districts?

------
mlinsey
Here's an analysis of machines used for the 2004 election. Some security
experts were able to do a thorough review because the source code that Diebold
wanted to keep secret from state governments was accidentally made available
on a public server. Oops.

<http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf>

------
stcredzero
Why aren't high security requirements apps deployed on hardware that's
completely incapable of modifying its own code? There's no reason why you have
to have the dev environment on the target machine. It might be more
convenient, but for high security, it just doesn't seem like a good idea.

One possible answer: general purpose architectures are cheaper due to
economies of scale.

