Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Re-Vote Likely After E-Vote Data Mishandling

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the technology-makes-life-easier dept.

The Courts 172

davecb writes "A California judge is likely to order a Berkeley city initiative back on the ballot because of local officials' mishandling of electronic voting machine data. A recount was not possible because the city failed to share necessary voting records, a violation of election laws. In a preliminary ruling Thursday, Judge Winifred Smith of the Alameda County Superior Court indicated she would nullify the defeat of a medical marijuana proposal in Berkeley in 2004 and order the measure put back on the ballot in a later election."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908429)

This should have been done in 2000
yes, I know it would have been expensive.

Possibly. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908493)

But there were so MANY problems then. Where do you start?

Particularly when both parties seem to benefit from voting problems. If you lose, you claim that it was "stolen". If you have to cheat to win, well, you win don't you?

We need a third party.

Re:Possibly. (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908881)

We need a third party.

We need a second party. There is only one ruling party right now.

Re:Possibly. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19909035)

Harry Potter lives and marries Ginny.

If you mean "money" then I agree with you. (2, Informative)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909037)

We need a second party. There is only one ruling party right now.

If by that you mean "money" which pays "lobbyists" then I will agree.

Otherwise, no. We have two parties and that makes it too easy for them to run negative campaigns against the other party. You might not have heard of me, but I disagree with everything about THAT candidate the YOU don't like.

The things he did that you didn't like? I didn't like them either. And when you elect me, I won't do them!

That is MUCH more difficult when you have to split the campaigning between 2 other parties. Now you have TWO people saying that they don't like the stuff you don't like that that other guy did.

Re:If you mean "money" then I agree with you. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909287)

We have two parties and that makes it too easy for them to run negative campaigns against the other party.

Genius! [jt.org]

Re:Possibly. (5, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909241)

There is only one ruling party right now.

We theoretically have a Republican party and a Democratic party, but they both take their cues and pull their members from Amercia ruling elite. For all of /.'s love of market forces let's look at who controls that:

In 2003, just 1% of all households -- those with after-tax incomes averaging $701,500 -- received 57.5% of all capital income, up from 40% in the early 1990s. On the other hand, the bottom 80% received only 12.6% of capital income, down by nearly half since 1983. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/we alth.html [ucsc.edu]

Who is controlling corperations? The top 10% own 85% of the stock. So it should be obvious to everyone that this same small amount of the population would have the same level of control over the government. But everyone gets one vote you say. But who places our choices in front of us? If the choice is between aristocrat "A" and aristocrat "B", you still have and aristocrat in power when the "vote" is done. This non-choice shows itself in negitivity of the campaigns and the apathy of the voters. People have more interest in "American Idol" than the American government because they have more actual influence in the former.

Re:Possibly. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910085)

100% Overrated

The party has spoken! We must rally the troops to defend the status quo and smash the opposition! All Hail! Sig Freud! Sig Freud! Sig Freud!

Re:Possibly. (1, Interesting)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909131)

Parties are the problem, not the solution. We need no parties; we need politicians to think on their own about some issues for a change. Things like cohesive party-wide election strategies, "whips", thoughtless polarization on the issues by candidates, and thoughtless voting along party lines by voters have no place in a system originally designed to represent the interests of the people.

Not to mention the existence of political parties violates the doctrine of separation of powers, as one can observe from the increasing difficulty of the Bush administration to have favorable legislation passed after control of congress passed to the Democrats.

Re:Possibly. (2, Insightful)

MarsDefenseMinister (738128) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909447)

You know, I dislike Democrats and liberals as much as anybody, but I'm not really sure that the President is meant to have his way ALL the time. Sure, it'd be nice for Bush to have his way 100% of the time, so we could actually fight a war, and fight terror, cut taxes to zero, have school prayer, criminalize abortion, eliminate public education, build a Mexico border fence with robotic machine guns, and lift all restrictions on business.

But, I'm a businessman, and have to see things as they are, from all sides. I'm not that old, but I've seen enough to know that the Republicans won't be in power all the time, and if we clear the way for a Republican President to use his absolute authority to do good things, that means we also clear the way for Democrats to also use absolute authority.

Nope, I think that's just a little too frightening.

Re:Possibly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19909615)

I'm not that old, but I've seen enough to know that the Republicans won't be in power all the time

Without giving away too much, let's just say that you will really like certain amendments to be declare.... er, passed in the immediate future :-)

Sincerely,

--anonymous member of the republican super secret constitution overthrowing committee

Re:Possibly. (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910051)

I wasn't inferring that I agreed with Bush's policies... in fact, I deliberately chose wording that would not reflect any particular political stance. What I meant is that Bush had an easy time of influencing legislation that was favorable to him until the recent congressional election.

Re:Possibly. (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909585)

Not to mention the existence of political parties violates the doctrine of separation of powers, as one can observe from the increasing difficulty of the Bush administration to have favorable legislation passed after control of congress passed to the Democrats.
Or conversely the number of conservative decisions handed down by the Supreme Court lately...

Re:Possibly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19910449)

Hello audience. This comment is addressed to the limeys in attendance. Please take your piece of shit star of the most boring "sport" in existence (soccer) back where the fuck he came from. And take his anorexic, Skeletor look-a-like contest winner looking ass girlfriend too. God, who the fuck are these people polluting my media with there stupid english limey faces?

Thank you for your cooperation in this urgent matter.

Re:Good (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908667)

As hard as it is to imagine how a president could be worse than Bush Jr, I kinda have to wonder how the world would be now if Gore had won.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908691)

I don't know. I don't like Gore, at least in 2000 the only thing I liked about him was his environmental policy, I still hated his corporatism. Maybe he'd be better, maybe he'd be worse.

The only thing I know for sure would be different had Gore become President is that we would not be in Iraq.

That's enough for me to wish things had been different.

Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908743)

Assuming 9/11 had still happened, etc. the world still would have been far better off with Gore as president, if for no other reason than that Gore wouldn't have been stupid/venal enough get us into the Iraq quagmire.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908883)

I wish people wouldn't base their opinion of Gore (or any politician) on his opponent. How much do you know about Gore himself? I'm one of the few people who have read his books and the literature he advocates. This is a guy who advocates a steady state society and forced limits on how many children people can have (like China), along with forced limits on energy use, etc.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908907)

Sounds like a better choice than the guy who sees no limits to the number of children he can bomb into freedom, no limits on the power of the Executive, etc.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908957)

What did I JUST say? Are you incapable of holding them BOTH to a higher standard? Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (2, Insightful)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909001)

Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?

Because there was no third choice. Because you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Because politics doesn't happen in a vacuum. Because you have to vote for what is available. Because the choice in the booth is relative.

What don't you understand about real world voting?

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909027)

The US electoral system is thoroughly gamed. It has been fucked for decades now and the people of the US do nothing about it. They don't believe in democracy anymore.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909375)

They don't believe in democracy anymore.

But... but... they send their children to *die* for democracy!

And they kill the children of other nations for democracy too!

I just can't believe that the freedom loving people of the USA don't believe that democracy isn't worth killing for anymore...

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909171)

There were third party candidates available. I personally voted for Badnarik. Of course, I knew full well he wasn't going to be elected. Indeed, I wouldn't want many of his policies implimented. However, he would have certainly imposed deadlock, allowing our country to get on with business(other than politics). Maybe even lowered taxes.

Still, there were a number of candidates available before the election during the primaries. A number of them would have been better choices.

I don't think that Bush so much won the election as Al Gore managed to lose it.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19910079)

What did I JUST say? Are you incapable of holding them BOTH to a higher standard? Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?
Hahaha!

Mod -1 Über Naive/+1 Funny

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908969)

He sounds like a nightmare.

do you really want the government dictating the kids you can have? what if you get knocked up and go over the states limit? will they abort like china?

gore's interest in environmental policy is completely self serving. i think if he had of won you'd all be in a great deal of trouble. i'm no bush lover, but he was the best of a bad choice.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908991)

Gore's interest in environmental policy is completely self serving.
First, I don't even know how that is possible. Second, no, he actually believes that stuff is for the benefit of human kind.

I'm no bush lover, but he was the best of a bad choice.
And that's the problem with the US political system.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909187)

you can't see how riding a popular topic can be manipulated by a politician? open your eyes.

gore's use of global warming uses the exact same play book bush has been using with terrorism. common theme's are fear of the unknown, ignorance of the masses and the apperance of saving the world.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909263)

Sigh. He's been on the environmental right since before he became a politician. He's the same person he has always been. It's probably because he isn't fake that he isn't in power. And, frankly, I think that's a good thing.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19909029)

China does not force you to abort for a 2nd child, they tax the shit out of you which would break the bank of most families, which is why they abort.

Get with the program, know wtf you are talking about.

As far as Bush/Gore, aren't we currently in a great deal of trouble? What fucking planet are you living on?

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909143)

what difference does it make how they force you to abort? it's still government controlling population in the most scary way imaginable - decieding who is born.

yes you are in trouble, but what makes you think gore would have done better?

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909163)

do you really want the government dictating the kids you can have?

You presume the choice is between having the government dictate to you and not being dictated to. Have you considered the reality that this planet cannot support unlimited growth, and that you might instead be faced with a choice between having the government dictate to you and having someone (or something) else dictate to you.

Would you rather live in a world where you and your significant other can get pregnant whenever you choose, but you only get to 'have a kid' if you can find some way to provide enough food to make the life sustainable? Such a wish smacks of elitism; in a let-them-eat-cake kinda way.

Or how about a world where your employer gets to decide?

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909361)

Have you considered the reality that this planet cannot support unlimited growth,
True. Now look up.

Over population??? Whaa (1)

coren2000 (788204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909555)

The United States, Canada and most of Europe do not have to worry about overpopulation. In fact, with the baby-boom generation reaching retirement and death, under-population is a concern. Canada's (my country) population would be in decline where it not for immigration.

Imposing child population limits in the areas I have stated in the above paragraph is just silly.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909681)

your entire argument is muddled and makes no more sense then some strange homeless guy ranting in the street. you don't even make any kind of point.

the reality is that the worlds population is leveling out quickly, our rate of population growth has rapidly decreased. based on current figures i'd hazard a guess our population will hit a ceiling at 15 billion or so, which considering the huge resources we have on this planet, is nothing at all.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909199)

"do you really want the government dictating the kids you can have? "
That would never happen, and you totally missed his point.

"gore's interest in environmental policy is completely self serving. "

His interest has been there for a very long time, it didn't just appear when he was running for president.
All politicians are self serving, just like everybody else.

"i think if he had of won you'd all be in a great deal of trouble."
haha, what trouble? You mean wose then backing ciompanies that send rotten food to the troops? Worse then attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Worse then the patriot act?
Worse then a person who believe Christianity is the onlt proper religeon?
Worse then Cheney?
Worse then despised by the rest of the world?
worse then creating a department that grabs people as they wish off the street without cause?
Worse then twiddling his thumbs while Homeland security completely screwed up after Katrina?
That's only a small portion. I don't think he would be worse by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909593)

Worse than a guy who is trying to type so fast to reply to a post on slashdot, he makes a ton of errors?

hehe
just a joke. just laugh. made me chuckle ...

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910141)

Worse than wanting to destroy a national park in Alaska by drilling into it for oil?

(That's the issue that made me reject Bush the first time, before he had a chance to make all the other fuck-ups!)

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910067)

You could have elected a Vietnam veteran, a Columbia University professor, a member of the Apple Board of Directors, a guy with experience of government at practically every level, a guy without whom we wouldn't have the frickin' Internet... and GEORGE W. BUSH was the best choice?

Re:Gore was obviously the better choice (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909083)

Don't forget his and his wife's stance on music [wikipedia.org] . (Although the linked article talks about Tipper, Al did support his wife's work at the time it happened - and let's face it, she probably wouldn't have gotten any air time if he didn't - though he later backed away from it.)

Minor point (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909129)

I nver said who I felt shuot win.
My point was, it was so close,and so questionable, that there should have been a recount. The election should not have been left for a court to decide who is the president.

Yes, I would have prefered Gore because he is more technically savvy, and understand technology.
Yes, I would be saying there should have been a recount even if he became the president.

Re:Good (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909133)

As hard as it is to imagine how a president could be worse than Bush Jr...

Hillary. Hands down, guaranteed. She'll be much worse. If the Monica thing hadn't distracted the investigation and media attention away from her so successfully, she would have been the recipient of a presidential pardon also. As long as the people continue to vote for the ruling party, it can only get worse. Of that there should be no doubt.

I kinda have to wonder how the world would be now if Gore had won.

Lieberman is every bit as evil as Cheney. There would have been very little, if difference. Putting him on the ticket was an agreement made with the republican side of the party. It was a gimme. The high stakes drama was executed beautifully. Came off without a hitch. And by all appearances the party will remain in power at least until 2012. Any real threat to the status quo will be met with a "postponement" of the election. You can expect another "event" to justify it.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19909293)

As hard as it is to imagine how a president could be worse than Bush Jr, I kinda have to wonder how the world would be now if Gore had won.

Carter was far worse.

Re:Good (1)

SimHacker (180785) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909449)

Less expensive than one day of Bush's war.

-Don

Re:Good (1)

vonhammer (992352) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909861)

Nonsense. The real issue with the 2000 election is that the election came down to statistical noise. Thus, guaranteeing 4 years of wining by the losers that the election was "stolen". Why would you want to repeat that? And why do you think that you would get a more fair result?

Those damn republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19908441)

They have infested Berkeley for the last 40 years. No, wait... those were hippies. So, all's not well in the most liberal suburb or the most liberal city in the US?

Re:Those damn republicans (1)

SpaceballsTheUserNam (941138) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908505)

If they counted the votes all would be fine, but those dammed Eichmanns who keep trying to mess it up.

Re:Those damn republicans (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908665)

Yeah, the most hippy-infested liberal suburb of the most liberal city in the U.S. voted down a medical marijuana bill, only it turns out they didn't keep enough data to verify the election results (like you could ever trust the data saved on a Diebold machine anyway). Nothing suspicious there at all...

Nono, it's the republicans' fault (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908747)

Since these machines were also used in the concurrent Presidential election of 2004, this pot lawsuit is nothing but a clever ploy by the Republicans to invalidate 2004-2008 presidential term and put George W. Bush candidacy up for re-election in 2008! Either that, or I am running out of tinfoil.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!! yeah baby

Who gives a shit whose fault it is? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909599)

I don't care who they are and I especially don't care what political party they are affiliated with, whoever broke the law here should be shit-canned, as should the Diebold voting machines. Didn't the state of California already bar them from elections for breaking election rules? I know they got caught applying an uncertified update just before at election.

This is simply unacceptable, and screw anyone who only gives a shit if a certain group of politicians is involved, or if you don't approve of the result. Unverifiable voting machines are breaking the foundation of Democracy.

Medical marijuana bill defeted in Berkeley? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908479)

That's unpossible!

Re:Medical marijuana bill defeted in Berkeley? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908719)

That's unpossible!

Perhaps that's why there wasn't any evidence and it had to be redone?

Re:Medical marijuana bill defeted in Berkeley? (4, Funny)

ChatHuant (801522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908939)

That's unpossible!

For some reason the turn-out of pro voters was unexpectedly low.

Re:Medical marijuana bill defeted in Berkeley? (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909635)

The local police department must've scheduled a burning of their whole stock of confiscated pot ;)

Re:Medical marijuana bill defeted in Berkeley? (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910385)

Well, the rest of the world does seem to find American politics a bit amateurish.

Keep Voting Until It Passes (3, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908491)

For God's Sake, Legalize it already.

Re:Keep Voting Until It Passes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19908885)

For God's Sake, Legalize it already.

Irrelevant. State & Federal law override the municipal law.

But that has never stopped the People's Republic of Berkeley from making a statement.

Re:Keep Voting Until It Passes (3, Informative)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909097)

Irrelevant. State & Federal law override the municipal law. But that has never stopped the People's Republic of Berkeley from making a statement.

This isn't just about Berkeley making a statement. There are dozens of Cities in California who have voted on similar regulations. Federal law might override municipal law, but the Feds have not closed down all of the Marijuana clubs in California.

Proposition 215 [ca.gov] , which allows some Medical Use of Marijuana, passed back in 1996. However, the measure left alot of ambiguity, and the State government has never stepped up to clarify some issues.

Local governments have taken it upon themselves to clarify some of the vague portions. For example, should Marijuana Clubs be allowed only after a public hearing or not? Berkeley's Measure R states that public hearings should not be required. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a law requiring Marijuana Clubs be subject to the same health code as many other businesses, in an attempt to remove some of the scam operations.

Re:Keep Voting Until It Passes (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19908887)

For God's Sake, Legalize it already.
Keep your god out of our canabis, you fucking eichmann

Legal won't be cool (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909725)

Half the point of smoking weed is to show Uncle Sam the finger. Gets a bit pointless if it is legal!

Why the euphemisms? (4, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908527)

The case points to the dangers of electronic voting systems, which make it harder to ensure fair elections, Luke said.

How about "make it relatively trivial to rig an election".

Started smoking too early... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908599)

Great stuff, dude, but should not we count them votes first ?..

They need to learn some voting etiquitte (3, Funny)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908637)

> the city failed to share necessary voting records

Dude, quit bogarting all the voting records. Count, count, pass.

And always to the left.

so who can sue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19908639)

A recount was not possible because the city failed to share necessary voting records, a violation of election laws.

Can the citizens of the city file a class-action lawsuit against the city for violating their right to vote?

DUMBLEDOR IS ALIVE (0, Troll)

Shaklee39 (694496) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908675)

DUMBLEDORE IS ALIVE DEAD PEOPLE: * Burbage dies on pg. 12 * Hedwig dies on pg. 56 * Mad-Eye dies on pg. 78 * Scrimgeour dies on pg. 159 * Wormtail dies on pg. 471 * Dobby dies on pg. 476 * Snape dies on pg. 658 * Fred Weasley dies on pg. 637 * Harry gets fucked up by Voldemort on pg. 704 o Comes back to life on pg. 724 Nagini gets beheaded by Neville Longbottom on page 733. * Tonks, Lupin, and Colin Creevy have their deaths confirmed on pg. 743 19 years after the events in the book: * Ron has married Hermione, their two children are named Rose and Hugo * Harry has married Ginny, their three children are named Lily, James, and Albus Severus. * Draco Malfoy has a son named Scorpius The FINAL LINE OF THE BOOK is: * "The scar had not pained Harry for nineteen years. All was well."

Failure of process on a Medical Marijuana bill? (5, Funny)

TheTranceFan (444476) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908705)

What were they smoking?

Re:Failure of process on a Medical Marijuana bill? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909215)

Loco weed [rootcellar.us]

Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than paper? (2, Insightful)

TruePoindexter (975295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908721)

I don't particularly buy the argument that electronic voting is somehow more or less difficult to tamper with than paper voting. Sure there is no guarantee that the hardware and software is protected and will truly offer a fair vote - but can you really say the same thing for paper? Remember those ballots have to go to a machine that counts them. That machine is not perfect - it is just as prone to error and manipulation as your electronic system. Of course with paper ballots you can resort to a manual recount but that is costly and time consuming. Moreover if you think electronic and mechanical counters are unreliable a human is a disaster.

I'm not saying that the current electronic voting schemes are good. There is clear evidence that the majority of them are flawed and should be replaced or at the very least fixed. I am saying however that making blanket comments that electronic voting is either more or less secure than traditional paper ballots is rather misguided. We're an electronic generation and so we are more attuned to make use of technology rather than more traditional methods. Along those same lines we are used to seeing all the flaws of technology and miss out on the more basic flaws in other systems. After all, hanging chads anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_chad/ [wikipedia.org]

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (3, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908917)

Say it with me: count twice, count by hand.

The democratic process relies on people who have more interest in how the candidate is chosen than who the candidate is; in other words, little old ladies. These are not the people who are asking for this technology.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

TruePoindexter (975295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908997)

I'm not referring to little old ladies; they're not the ones making comments like "The case points to the dangers of electronic voting systems, which make it harder to ensure fair elections." I'm speaking to people like Luke who make blanket comments that are honestly unfounded. We should be focusing on improving/repairing current voting systems and seriously look at removing the private sector from the equation completely. Unless you enjoy sharing something in common with the 17th century.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (5, Insightful)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908975)

I don't particularly buy the argument that electronic voting is somehow more or less difficult to tamper with than paper voting. Sure there is no guarantee that the hardware and software is protected and will truly offer a fair vote - but can you really say the same thing for paper? Remember those ballots have to go to a machine that counts them. That machine is not perfect - it is just as prone to error and manipulation as your electronic system. Of course with paper ballots you can resort to a manual recount but that is costly and time consuming. Moreover if you think electronic and mechanical counters are unreliable a human is a disaster.
BZZZZZT. Sorry, but this was so wrong I had to respond.

Your mistake is an issue of scale. It's relatively easy to slip in one or two false paper ballots. It may not even be that hard to make the machine a little more picky when it comes to checking punchouts on the democrat side of the ballot. But there's backups, paper backups, that get checked and confirmed, even if at a small ratio. Someone watching the pile of ballots go through the machine can find it odd that mostly left-leaning candidates get kicked out as incomplete ballots. Little things can be snuck through easier.

But electronic... that's what you want when you want to do BIG lies. Just off the top of my head from the last 2 POTUS elections... cards coming preloaded with thousands of votes. Systems designed so that if you left a busy machine collecting votes and forgot to empty it out, it would kick over at 16384 to -16383 (funny how that happened in left-leaning counties, eh?). Funny "glitches" (I hate that word when it comes to elections) that lost entire counties of votes. Concerns that the system might be undercounting Demos and overcounting Repubs. Software that made it exceedingly easy to switch your entire ballot to republican on the last page, without really telling you it was. Or software that just preselected your candidates for you.

Add too all that... NO paper trail... NO hard copy in your hand to confirm... NO audit trail to be checked to ensure fairness and honesty. Just trust the magic box will tell the other, main, magic box, the correct vote, hope for the best, and ignore the man behind the curtain promising Ohio to Bush. Also, ignore those pesky pollsters and statisticians, they don't actually know what they're doing.

Really, the 2000 Florida situation was unique, because a swing of a few votes either way made a huge difference. But at least ya'll could go back and CHECK. In '04 all you got was "here's the number, if you don't like it too bad". I'd rather have a few weeks of checking to make sure everythings fair, rather than an instant biased result with no appeal.

The scale of the flaws of electronic voting far outweigh the flaws of mechanical voting. With mechanical, a few votes can get screwed up. With electronic, a whole election can.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (2, Insightful)

TruePoindexter (975295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909117)

Your mistake is an issue of scale. It's relatively easy to slip in one or two false paper ballots. It may not even be that hard to make the machine a little more picky when it comes to checking punchouts on the democrat side of the ballot. But there's backups, paper backups, that get checked and confirmed, even if at a small ratio. Someone watching the pile of ballots go through the machine can find it odd that mostly left-leaning candidates get kicked out as incomplete ballots. Little things can be snuck through easier.

But electronic... that's what you want when you want to do BIG lies. Just off the top of my head from the last 2 POTUS elections... cards coming preloaded with thousands of votes. Systems designed so that if you left a busy machine collecting votes and forgot to empty it out, it would kick over at 16384 to -16383 (funny how that happened in left-leaning counties, eh?). Funny "glitches" (I hate that word when it comes to elections) that lost entire counties of votes. Concerns that the system might be undercounting Demos and overcounting Repubs. Software that made it exceedingly easy to switch your entire ballot to republican on the last page, without really telling you it was. Or software that just preselected your candidates for you.

Add too all that... NO paper trail... NO hard copy in your hand to confirm... NO audit trail to be checked to ensure fairness and honesty. Just trust the magic box will tell the other, main, magic box, the correct vote, hope for the best, and ignore the man behind the curtain promising Ohio to Bush. Also, ignore those pesky pollsters and statisticians, they don't actually know what they're doing.

Yes I understand all that, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't ignore the flaws in previous systems and the possible advantages to this one. Any new system is full of bugs. This is why I always avoid the first few generations of a product just because I know there are issues that need to be worked out and I don't want to have to deal with that. This is no different except the implications and reprecussions are far more drastic (politics is a bit more important than say your car afterall). We shouldn't be trying to abolish it altogether, we should be trying to fix it to make it work. In my view the big fixes that need to be made are these:

  • A proper paper trail needs to be provided including a receipt for both the voter themself and the voting district in the event of a recount.
  • The design, production, and upkeep of electronic voting systems needs to be taken out of the the hands of the private sector and instead be taken care of by the government.
  • Electronic systems need to have an operating system that is dratically different and absolutely proprietary to itself and further be completely open source so it can reviewed by the public at will.
  • The interfaces to and from the devices need to be proprietary and not be simply a reshaped version of an existing interface. No more USB ports.

That's a small list really but you get the idea. And again I think you should reconsider if paper votes could somehow not have a huge flaw. Deadmen voting? Hanging chads? Lost ballots? Miss-labaled voting cards? Furthermore you're not considering the political machinations behind those previous elections. While the voting was screwed up both times in both cases the polical machines behind both parties were just as flawed if not more so. Lets not forget the people barred from voting in Florida because they simply shared a name with a convicted felon. Paper ballots would not have saved you from that one.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909275)

A proper paper trail needs to be provided including a receipt for both the voter themself and the voting district in the event of a recount.

No receipt to the voter. Why? They were historically used by unscrupulous men with power over others to verify votes. IE If you worked for me, I could tell you who to vote for, demand to see the receipt showing your vote, and fire you if you didn't vote correctly.

The design, production, and upkeep of electronic voting systems needs to be taken out of the the hands of the private sector and instead be taken care of by the government.

Doesn't guarantee non-partisan.

Lets not forget the people barred from voting in Florida because they simply shared a name with a convicted felon. Paper ballots would not have saved you from that one.

True, paper ballots or not, you have to pay attention to all aspects of the voting system. Personally, I like the fill in the bubble voting cards. They're both machine and human readable.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

TruePoindexter (975295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910109)

NOTE:Before I begin I'm actually replying to three posts here. The parent and then these. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252289&cid =19909313 [slashdot.org]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=252289&cid =19909291 [slashdot.org]
 
 

No receipt to the voter. Why? They were historically used by unscrupulous men with power over others to verify votes. IE If you worked for me, I could tell you who to vote for, demand to see the receipt showing your vote, and fire you if you didn't vote correctly.


We have laws protecting people against this already - if someone actually did this you can land them with one helluva suit.
 
 

Receipt is pointless and worthless.


I fail to see how a paper receipt which would allow voters to verify who they voted for worthless. Moreover I fail to see how the paper receipt the machine keeps is any more worthless than the paper ballot you would prefer to turn in. Same damn thing. Paper is paper.
 
 

Doesn't guarantee non-partisan.

 

Since we all know that the government is the epiphany of proper management and lack of abuse. I mean politicians would never do things to further their own careers at the cost of the public.

Nothing guarantees non-partisanship. Nothing. Do you hear me? The people at the place where they print the ballots can screw with it just as badly as Diebold and again I bring up the case of voter being barred in Florida. Moving to the public sector however changes it from a profit driven business to a public service where (while still quite possible) corruption is less likely. How is moving to public a bad thing when Diebold flat out admits they want one side to win? Also for the record just because it is government doesn't mean that a politician runs it personally. This way all the politicians would be vying for control keeping closer to balance than a private company whom only a few investors control.
 
 

True, paper ballots or not, you have to pay attention to all aspects of the voting system. Personally, I like the fill in the bubble voting cards. They're both machine and human readable.


The receipts the machine keeps would be human readable. Hell you could even make it punch in cards that the voter can visually verify after they're done voting.
 
 

So you want to add massive increases in costs (I do mean massive) for what comes out to a false sense of security. Likely since it will have less overview than existing OSes the new one will be massively LESS secure thus opening up tons of abuse possibilities. Like say having non-trivial to detect code tightly integrated into it that allows for even worse abuse.

So you yet again want to add massive increases in costs (I do mean massive) for what comes out to a false sense of security. Since we all know that no one will ever be able to make a reader/writer using either reverse engineering or publicly available descriptions. Not to mention that a new interface will likely have bugs and less overview than USB does.
No security is perfect. With enough determination and skill you can get into anything, ANYTHING. The point of security is not really to be an impenetrable wall, but rather a wall so damn high you don't bother climbing over it. Also this would be an initial cost, one which would likely be returned in savings over not having quite as many mechanical break downs in the future. There's a reason electronic systems are better than mechanical ones - moving parts break.
 
 

Electronic voting (registration and/or counting) is based on two premises:

  • The software does not contain bugs.
  • The software cannot be made to contain bugs.

I have yet to hear anyone support the claim that it is possible to hold a fair election with an electronic voting machine.

If you (or anyone) really can write software which meets the above two standards, I have a software (nuclear power control) job just waiting for you, name your price.


Quite a fanciful remark there since it is impossible to make a perfect system without at the very least extensive redundancy. Are you telling me that your paper ballots are 100% perfectly reliable? If so a thing called "hanging chad" would like to differ.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910243)

We have laws protecting people against this already - if someone actually did this you can land them with one helluva suit.

There were laws about it back then as well, it still happened. Then there's always the opposite approach - vote purchase. With a receipt showing your votes you'd be able to prove how you voted to a paymaster.

Quite a fanciful remark there since it is impossible to make a perfect system without at the very least extensive redundancy. Are you telling me that your paper ballots are 100% perfectly reliable? If so a thing called "hanging chad" would like to differ.

Most people who want a paper ballot aren't talking about punch cards. Personally, I'm partial to scanotron fill in the bubble sheets. People today are familiar with them from school, they're aware of what counts as a good vote and what doesn't via printed instructions or even training by poll workers.

The whole point of paper ballots is that you enable a good audit trail. Paper ballets can be counted by hand if necessary, designed right they can be fed through multiple vendor's machines, etc...

In a good system you'd recount, hand count at least a few districts chosen by random each year to make sure the machines are doing their job.

It also helps that the machine readable portion is the same as the human readable portion. A barcode doesn't cut it in my mind, it'd be difficult to tell whether the barcode means 'candidate A' which I voted for, which is printed on the ballet, or 'candidate B' if scanned by a machine.

I work on computers, and have a background in programming and security. I really don't like what I've heard about current generation computer voting systems. Too easy for a single individual or group to jigger the elections their way, to be able to set vote totals to whatever they want.

You see, there's a strategy in computer security known as 'defense in depth'. Pure computer voting machines don't have it. I only have to compromise one system to completely jigger an election. With paper ballots - I'd have to worry about recounts, hand counts, multiple counting machines, etc...

Keeping extra ballots from being slipped in is a matter of physical security, which isn't even solved by current evote machines.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909313)

# A proper paper trail needs to be provided including a receipt for both the voter themself and the voting district in the event of a recount.
Receipt is pointless and worthless.

# The design, production, and upkeep of electronic voting systems needs to be taken out of the the hands of the private sector and instead be taken care of by the government.
Since we all know that the government is the epiphany of proper management and lack of abuse. I mean politicians would never do things to further their own careers at the cost of the public.

* Electronic systems need to have an operating system that is dratically different and absolutely proprietary to itself and further be completely open source so it can reviewed by the public at will.
So you want to add massive increases in costs (I do mean massive) for what comes out to a false sense of security. Likely since it will have less overview than existing OSes the new one will be massively LESS secure thus opening up tons of abuse possibilities. Like say having non-trivial to detect code tightly integrated into it that allows for even worse abuse.

* The interfaces to and from the devices need to be proprietary and not be simply a reshaped version of an existing interface. No more USB ports.
So you yet again want to add massive increases in costs (I do mean massive) for what comes out to a false sense of security. Since we all know that no one will ever be able to make a reader/writer using either reverse engineering or publicly available descriptions. Not to mention that a new interface will likely have bugs and less overview than USB does.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910201)

So you want to add massive increases in costs (I do mean massive) for what comes out to a false sense of security. Likely since it will have less overview than existing OSes

Bullshit! It's a voting machine, for crying out loud! All it does is count! My pocket calculator has a fancier OS than a voting machine needs!

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

vic-traill (1038742) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909303)

Your mistake is an issue of scale [ ...snip ...] Add too all that... NO paper trail...

You got it - nicely summarised: Electronic Cheating Scales, while Manual Cheating is Hard Work. Paper voting systems provide a backup counting option which removes the element(s) which make cheating in this environment possible, while electronic voting recounts are just as susceptible to cheating as the original count - the elements which make cheating possible in this environment, in the first place, are still there.

I cannot articulate the degree to which electronic voting scares the ker-snarf outta me. Electoral fraud in a paper-based system takes a *lot* of effort - you practically need a totalitarian state in place to do it large scale. Electoral fraud in an electronic system requires, in the best case, s single clever coder who provides the mechanisms, and some henchmen to do some dirty work - maybe.

All that being said, electronic voting systems are probably an inevitable change. So how do we mitigate the danger? Off the top of my head: 1) The source code must be visible to anyone who wants to see it 2) Incentives for finding issues/vulnerabilities must be made available (c.f 'Bill Gates Should Buy Your Buffer Overruns' from earlier today - maybe instead of MS the gov't should pay?) 3) The change-management process must be rigorous, to say the least 4) the creation of the binary and its distribution must be a public and incredibly tightly specified process (checksums, hashes, etc. out the wazoo ).

This is like radar detection, only with a lot more at stake. Leap-frogging occurs with radar detection, and the Bad Guys come out on top for a while. This cannot happen.

The road to stopping this from happening is paved by the GPL. Code must be freely available (as in beer and freedom - the code can go anywhere anyhow, and there can be no charge for retrieval). Millions of prying eyes must turn the stones of electronic voting source and brush them up and make sure they are indeed rocks and not something else.

Hell, electronic voting systems should be the wheel on which the flesh and skeleton of closed-source code is finally broken in the court of public opinion.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908993)

costly and time consuming

so just how much of your democratic process will you give up to save a little money?

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (3, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909039)

Remember those ballots have to go to a machine that counts them. That machine is not perfect
That's because you're doing it wrong. Machines should augment, not replace, humans. "Trust but Verify" -- at every step:

1) "Voting" Machine that prints out a combination human/optically readable ballot. Human verifies the human part says what they want it to say. We don't want observers confirming this, that's why privacy sleeves have been used for years.
2) "Sorting" Machine that sorts the ballots based on the optically readable ballot. Human flips through the stacks and verifies all of the human parts say the same thing for that race. Observers can confirm.
3) A dumb "Counting" Machine that counts a stack of ballots (without needing to know whose ballots are in it). Human puts the resulting number in the tally under the human readable name on the stack. Observers can confirm. Totals of the entire stack before sorting and after counting each race to confirm that nobody misplaced a stack of ballots.

At each step of the process, a very simple machine (low cost, minimum requirements for certification, etc) performs a single task (and hopefully it will perform it well). And following every machine step comes a step where humans can verify that the step was performed correctly. Since the individual machines don't contain any state about the election at all, voting machine malfunction cannot lose votes, and any malfunctioning piece of equipment can be replaced by any other piece that works. If standards are defined for each step of the process, then multiple companies can compete, driving down prices, and in the event a company is unable to provide sufficient numbers of voting machines, the remainder can be bought from other companies.

Furthermore, many of the tampering problems with paper ballots (whether cast electronically or not) can be taken care of with forethought and work. Ballot stuffing with leftover ballots (or duplicates, or casting the ballots people turn in as incorrect) can be stopped by issuing numbered ballots and invalidating the remaining or wrong ballots. Likewise, lost ballots would be known based on the gaps in numbers. Preventing this from identifying the voter (based on, say, their position in line relative to a planted observer) can be done by packaging the ballots in blocks of 100 or so, pre-randomized within that block. This way at the end of the day, only the unused ballots of open packages have to be invalidated, the remainder can be invalidated block-by-block (bigger blocks: more random and more to invalidate from an open package at the end of the day. smaller blocks: less random but less cleanup at the end).

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

Digicrat (973598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909545)

The key part to any electronic voting system has to be the possibility of manual verification, not necessarily requiring it as part of the process. An equally effective system would use some sort of system of printed ballots (like the mixed system described by parent), but following a fully open and government-regulated specification. All voting districts would require two machines (per booth), from different manufacturers and independently certified in their accuracy, to count the votes. Each machine would be cheap (economy of scale if an effective federal ballot standard was designed) and immediately verified by an equivalent counterpart manufactured by a competing supplier.

Any discrepancies between the two, independent of their cause, would be immediately flagged. Regulations could require the two disagreeing units to be replaced, while a manual (human) recount of the paper ballots is conducted on the questioned ballots, and a sampling of previously verified ballots in the group. In close elections, or in the rare events of multiple failures (human disagreeing with both machines), a full recount of the ballots can be scheduled for the following day using machines from a neighboring district, in addition to human verification.

Independent verification is the key. Neither a single computer nor human can be trusted as both unbiased and incapable of errors, but a deterministic combination (one that can be repeated using a recorded trail in the event of a recount) ensures fairness.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909291)

I don't particularly buy the argument that electronic voting is somehow more or less difficult to tamper with than paper voting.

You are flat wrong.

Electronic voting (registration and/or counting) is based on two premises:

  • The software does not contain bugs.
  • The software cannot be made to contain bugs.

I have yet to hear anyone support the claim that it is possible to hold a fair election with an electronic voting machine.

If you (or anyone) really can write software which meets the above two standards, I have a software (nuclear power control) job just waiting for you, name your price.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19909513)

You could always have some guys go over special made dies with microscopes, or maybe have someone write the code in hex.

Re:Electronic Voting hard to tamper with than pape (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909611)

Why not have both? Paper is just double-checking the electronic, making it harder to hack in remotely, or change a motherboard or data-cartridge while no one is looking.

In general, polling sites have at least one over-seer from each party. If one of the other guys is trying to shuffle papers ballots around, it's going to be a bit trickier because ballots are big, and hard not to be noticed. They're big compared to a CF card. Big compared to remote known windows exploits [secunia.com] .
--
Looking for a C/C++ job in Silicon Valley? [slashdot.org]

maybe (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908775)

Maybe the officials just, y'know, forgot where they put the voting record...I mean, it's really easy to do, what with that funny smelling haze always hanging over the city...

/me misses living in Berkeley...

Gone far enough. (0)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19908899)

This has gone far enough. There is boat loads of evidence that our government no longer counts our votes. The chair of Diebold should have a bullet right in the FACE for treason against everything this country stands for, and most particularly DEMOCRACY.

If they continue down this path of not counting votes, there WILL be violence. Is that what the Republican and Democratic parties want? VIOLENT BLOODY REVOLUTION?!?

FUCKING ASSHOLES!

Re:Gone far enough. (1)

PenguinGuy (307634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909019)

And where did you get the idea that government was supposed to be for us?

At one time that may have been true, but nowadays...all that matters is who has made the most 'contributions' for re-election..

Re:Gone far enough. (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909225)

Is that what the Republican and Democratic parties want? VIOLENT BLOODY REVOLUTION?!?

Whenever you are ready to have a proper revolution, let me know. I'll be happy to help in any way I can.

Re:Gone far enough. (1)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909535)

The chair of Diebold should have a bullet right in the FACE for treason against everything this country stands for, and most particularly DEMOCRACY.

But that wouldn't solve anything.

It's not a person causing these problems, it's a process. So even if you could pick-off the bad actors effortlessly, you'd just be watching new ones take their place.

Is the problem what Diebold (allegedly) did, or did we lose the ability to ensure our democracy long before electronics were even invented? If Diebold vanished tomorrow, would that somehow make all the other electronic voting machines unriggable?

And if democracy itself (as we've implemented it) is not resistant to corruption by that process, is it really the form of government we should be looking to preserve?

Re:Gone far enough. (1)

ZDRuX (1010435) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909807)

America needs more people like you. It's what the country was founded upon and believed by so many. Yet now everyone seems to be a passive pussy just ready to take whatever BS they are being fed. I look at you with a bit of hope.. a hope that there's more people out there like yourself.

I immigrated from Poland to Canada.. but it seems like I have more drive to fix your country then some people living there. I wish you can convince others to follow your lead and take back your own country from the criminals and traitors in the government.

Welcome to another edition of... (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909135)

Smells Like Republicans (the vote-rigging special!)

bugs, voting systems and power (2, Interesting)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909141)

Having seen how paper ballots are conducted it's harder to imagine how that system is manipulated, however the drawback is that fewer people can participate. AFAIR the voting rates in western countires are lower than 20%, which is not a good thing. It's not good because the fewer people who participate in an election, the easier it is to affect te outcome by the influence of "swinging" voters.

The good thing about electronic voting is it allows more voters, and over the internet voting would be a great step forward however, as electronic voting is in it's infancy, it is still easy to manipulate the outcome of an election (as we have seen recently). It's essential that electronic voting systems are hardened.

More citizens involved in the running of 1st world countries is essential, because it's not left vs right anymore, it's the masses vs the power elite (or plutocracy or ogliarch what ever you want to call it), vested interests and other smiley gladhands.

Maybe the vote held was manipulated, but with a higher rate of participation it may not have mattered. What it clearly illustrates is the higher the level of apathy towards a vote the easier it is for a determined set of individuals to affect the outcome. The bottom line is a country is only as free as the amount of 'citizens' participating in it's democracy.

How exactly do you imagine that works? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909579)

The good thing about electronic voting is it allows more voters

Um, how do you imagine that might happen?

The reasons people don't vote include things like not wanting to be on Jury rolls, and the time it takes to get to the voting place.

How does having a touch screen instead of a punch card make a difference?

(no, "electronic voting" is not "internet voting"... the problems there are a whole different kettle of wardheelers)

Not one of the internets is being used (2, Insightful)

eean (177028) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909863)

e-voting has about 0 to do with the Internet. E-voting uses sneakernet to takes votes from ATM-like machines to a central counting machine. At most the machine might make a POTS call to the counting machine.

If they did use the Internet they'd probably be like "zOMG hackers!!!" and actually implement some encryption algo's that could potentially make voting more secure then ever before. As it is, they just put some un-signed numbers on memory cards that are then basically feed into an Excel spread sheet.

sweet (1)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909669)

as a berkeley student and marijuana enthusiast, sweet.

ELECTRONIC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19909821)

WHY the fark are we (Americans in this case) not using Internet based voting??? Seriously. "Ohh, that has too many flaws" or "Think of the hacking possibilities".
Paypal. Banking. Credit card transactions. Shareholders voting on public company things. The security implemented in all of these things far surpasses the security given to real-world Democratic voting. Today I actually printed the voter registration sheet, filled it out, and mailed it off. I will get a voter card in about 35-40 days, mailed to me. Which could be stolen from my mailbox (I think some kids already do this around my house). Couple that with a fake ID and you just voted as someone else. What is that fortune in Linux? "Chicago: Where the dead still vote... early and often!". Just ticks me off. It'd be so easy. Your real voter card comes with a security code on it, like a CVV2 code on credit cards. You go to a state or federal voting website, let's use vote.gov, and put in that info. You log in with your security code and drivers license and vote. What the hell is the problem. Just don't let Diebold be in charge of it.

EFF (1)

emkman (467368) | more than 7 years ago | (#19909905)

If you guys didnt know, the EFF helped with this case. http://www.eff.org/news/ [eff.org]

Old news....(Diebold equipment again) (1)

lpq (583377) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910091)

This happened last week and was first reported here [slashdot.org] . Gawd slashdot editors are slow... :-|

True Random Number Generator Goes Online..Hmmm (2, Funny)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910329)

If we combine this article with the previous article and hook the E-Voting machine up with the new Online Random Number generator maybe we'd have a better luck a selecting "elected" officials. Lord knows it seems like the public can't do it right. Just a thought I had seeing the articles right next to each other.

Or maybe that's how the E-Voting machines already work? :)

OK... (0)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 7 years ago | (#19910443)

...I can has re-vote on Bush v. Kerry 2004, plz? Kthxbai.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?