Why current voting machines are flawed.

[MatthewF]

Conspiracy theories aside, I think that touchscreen voting machines in general are currently critically flawed. Speaking from experience with touchscreens, sometimes the screen needs to be recalibrated, much like a light gun, when its touch grid gets out of sync. But the thing is, modern tech should ensure that this only ever needs to be done once every few months. Take ATM machines for example -- they rarely need recalibration and are used hundreds of times a day. There are particularly bad touchscreens, though, that experience this problem more often. It's mostly due to cheap hardware and bad auto-recalibration software.

So, after coming across this article, it makes me wonder... why are voting machines using the cheap shit?

Debra A. Reed voted with her boss on Wednesday at African-American Research Library and Cultural Center near Fort Lauderdale. Her vote went smoothly, but boss Gary Rudolf called her over to look at what was happening on his machine. He touched the screen for gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, a Democrat, but the review screen repeatedly registered the Republican, Charlie Crist.

That's exactly the kind of problem that sends conspiracy theorists into high gear -- especially in South Florida, where a history of problems at the polls have made voters particularly skittish.

A poll worker then helped Rudolf, but it took three tries to get it right, Reed said.

''I'm shocked because I really want . . . to trust that the issues with irregularities with voting machines have been resolved,'' said Reed, a paralegal. ``It worries me because the races are so close.''

Broward Supervisor of Elections spokeswoman Mary Cooney said it's not uncommon for screens on heavily used machines to slip out of sync, making votes register incorrectly. Poll workers are trained to recalibrate them on the spot -- essentially, to realign the video screen with the electronics inside. The 15-step process is outlined in the poll-workers manual.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...y/15869924.htm

While someone who is technically astute would notice something like this, how many do you think will cast their votes and then just click the submit button without noticing?

Oh, extra hilarity points for happening in South Florida. Woo.

[FIDGAF]

I see they finally deployed the "Change-A-Vote" software successfully.

[MatthewF]

I would love to take a look at the poll-workers' manual too. For example, are there scheduled calibration checks? If this is actually a problem, they should be doing these checks every 30 minutes or so.

[Squirrel Killer]

I would love to take a look at the poll-workers' manual too. For example, are there scheduled calibration checks? If this is actually a problem, they should be doing these checks every 30 minutes or so.

Poll workers are notoriously under-trained. Even if it's in the manual, I doubt most of them know anything about it.

Funny how optically scanned paper ballots don't need to be re-calibrated, and if there's anything funny with the counts, you can just go back and recount the original ballots...

At this point, I will not vote on a touchscreen. If my county ditches their optically scanned paper ballots, I'll start voting absentee and run against the County Auditor.

[FIDGAF]

I don't know about your districts but the Poll workers in mine are all retired and have a hard enough time handling the current machines. If you give them an electronic voting machine half of them are going to freak out while the other half will be on the phone with support thus making any voting impossible.

Yeah, I know it sounds cruel, but when I have to go through the book myself to point out my name to the person behind the desk because I know what district I'm in it really shows the lack of training. Seriously, if they want to go electronic here they had BETTER find some people that are savvy enough to understand the equipment.

[AndrewM]

I still don't understand this big push to electronic voting. It just seems like a terrible idea. Voting machines should be very robust, while computers generally aren't. Why is it that I, a person who works on computers all the live-long day, fear computers more than these voting people?

[FIDGAF]

I'm with you on that one. With all the crap I've seen lately somehow I don't really feel secure using a computer as a voting machine. Not unless I can cast my vote and check a paper receipt confirming that it voted properly.

[Euri]

My entire county went to absentee only because of issues like this.

For those of you gazing confusedly at my post, I live in Kitsap county, not King.

[noun]

Why is it that I, a person who works on computers all the live-long day, fear computers more than these voting people?

Because, like most of us, you realize that while computers can be huge labor-saving devices, the sheer number of things that can go wrong are beyond the ability of most people to diagnose properly, let alone repair. And while tabulating how many times a particular button is pressed should be something the simplest computer could manage, the fact is that the hardware involved is third rate, the software has been programmed by organizations that have made their political objectives clear, and there's no room at all for humans outside the process to verify that the machines are working properly.

It's the same as stuffing ballot boxes that, mysteriously, never find their way to the auditor's office. It's just that now the votes are much easier to hide.

[Aeroplane]

I'm leaning towards "because they allow people to vote".

[Nick Walter]

I still don't understand this big push to electronic voting. It just seems like a terrible idea. Voting machines should be very robust, while computers generally aren't. Why is it that I, a person who works on computers all the live-long day, fear computers more than these voting people?

It's quite possible to get computers to handle voting properly. Look at ATMs, they are reliable and auditable and secure and generally work out well. Voting machines that were on level with ATMs in all those areas would certainly be very acceptable.

The problem is that the people procuring the voting machines for various elections don't want to spend ATM level money and aren't educated enough on the technical issues to know what features they should be demanding. So they ask for something cheapo, and they get it.

[TheTrunkDr]

I'm leaning towards "because they allow people to vote".

Do you really have a hard time putting an "X" in a circle on a piece of paper? If so using a computer to do it isn't a step down in complexity.

[Jojo]

Slight resurrection, but did anyone see Hacking Democracy, which is currently airing on HBO? I thought it was an interesting, if rather shallow, look at problems with electronic voting. The final hack experiment was rather telling, but I woudl have liked them to go into detail about the feasibility of someone getting hold of a memory card in advance, adding the hack, then sneaking it into the election to infect votes. Overall, it does make me question why on earth counties are spending silly numbers like $22m on new voting machines. Couldn't that money be spent somewhere more worthwhile? Paper votes are just fine too.

[FIDGAF]

Some of those machines have reset buttons on the back so that it's ready to cast the next vote unlick the manual machines that cast your vote and then is manually reset from outside the booth. That alone should give you an idea just how fucking stupid they are. A button, not a key...

[Stroker Ace]

Slight resurrection, but did anyone see Hacking Democracy, which is currently airing on HBO? I thought it was an interesting, if rather shallow, look at problems with electronic voting. The final hack experiment was rather telling, but I woudl have liked them to go into detail about the feasibility of someone getting hold of a memory card in advance, adding the hack, then sneaking it into the election to infect votes. Overall, it does make me question why on earth counties are spending silly numbers like $22m on new voting machines. Couldn't that money be spent somewhere more worthwhile? Paper votes are just fine too.

Just watched this today (thanks Netflix!) and it made me curious about the chain of evidence involved in distributing the memory cards as well. They managed to sow a seed of doubt though, and bonus points for getting senators on the floor saying that it's a bad thing that anyone would ever question this opaque elections process. One of them even said something like "these are the same machines that were used to elect us! Let's not question them!"

Overall the point of BlackBoxVoting (as posed to elections officials/vendors) is summed up thusly:
IF A PERSON DID WHAT YOU DO, AND THEY WERE NOT HONEST, HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW?

[Tom McNamara]

With e-voting, the source code has to be available to the public. Period. This proprietary stuff has no business in the democratic process. I refuse to accept a voting system whose functions are hidden from its citizens.

[AaronSofaer]

With e-voting, the source code has to be available to the public. Period. This proprietary stuff has no business in the democratic process. I refuse to accept a voting system whose functions are hidden from its citizens.

Yes! So that it may be more easily analyzed and hacked!

[Charles]

Yes! So that it may be more easily analyzed and hacked!

Actually, truly secure code doesn't become more hackable just because you have the source code. Take encryption for example. A lot of the best encryption methods are open source, and that doesn't make them any easier to crack.

It's a giant lie that's been propagated by software companies who want to protect their IP that having the source code makes something easier to attack. That's only true if their algorithms and process are flawed to begin with.

And that's the point of making it public; so that these vulnerabilities can be found and fixed before something is deployed.

[Fugitive]

There's already a case study of open-source voting software in Australia, who seem to have deployed it successfully, and you can go download it yourself.

[Qmanol]

Actually, truly secure code doesn't become more hackable just because you have the source code. Take encryption for example. A lot of the best encryption methods are open source, and that doesn't make them any easier to crack.

It's a giant lie that's been propagated by software companies who want to protect their IP that having the source code makes something easier to attack. That's only true if their algorithms and process are flawed to begin with.

And that's the point of making it public; so that these vulnerabilities can be found and fixed before something is deployed.

Exactly - security through obscurity is no security at all. If security relies on the source being hidden, then it is weaksauce.

[Stroker Ace]

Exactly - security through obscurity is no security at all. If security relies on the source being hidden, then it is weaksauce.

12345

[Igor Muravyev]

I wish they were flawed enough to elect an independent party person to the White House.

[drewl]

Not to mention Diebold guaranteeing the Bush victory.....but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut....

[FIDGAF]

Shhhh, you might disappear!

[Stroker Ace]

Again, the point is not that a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has taken over over voting machines, just that a system so unapologetically incompetent can be subverted at any level by a determined attacker, and NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW.

We could just as well have Democrats hacking their voting systems in California as Republicans in Florida or Ohio.

The only reason the Republicans get more play in this discussion is because of Bush's two consecutive squeakers involving Diebold machines and disputed recounts.

[Squirrel Killer]

Not to mention Diebold guaranteeing the Bush victory.....but I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut....

But you are.

[Andrew Mayer]

The only reason the Republicans get more play in this discussion is because of Bush's two consecutive squeakers involving Diebold machines and disputed recounts.

And their active attempts to sabotage reform. What they do actually matters.

[Tankero]

But you are.

Bonus points for finding how Diebold got a no-bid contract for something, anything.

Go!

[Squirrel Killer]

Bonus points for finding how Diebold got a no-bid contract for something, anything.

Go!

What does that have to do with drewl being a tinfoil hat wearing nut because the Diebold CEO used fundraising letter boilerplate text in a fundraising letter?

[Tankero]

Just wanted someone with google-fu mastery to connect the dots for the rest of us plebes.

Is hoping someone else does the moderately annoying work too much to ask?