A near-future "fringe" solution to Diebold...

[DaveJ]

Lately I have heard some concern over something having to do with voting machines. It appears many of them facilitate corruption. For instance, there is no honest reason for Diebold to keep their source code and electronic design a secret. So obviously their interests are self serving, and therefore they cannot be trusted. Their response to their system's vulnerabilities lacked any sense of acknowledgement toward the findings of Princeton researchers.

As someone who dabbles in both programming and electronic design, I know that in this industry, that kind of arrogance screams incompetence. Basically, if they won't reveal their design there probably is something wrong with it.

However, even if the voting machines were reliable it would hardly fix the overall problem.

In the meantime, let me submit a ridiculously ‘fringe’ idea.

This will really sound crazy to many, but I'm positive this is where things will head eventually, assuming Democracy survives.... Why not use technology in a positive manner? I know that I sound crazy already. I know. I must be a nutcase... but hear me out. The only reason computerized touch screen voting systems exist today is to fill the bank accounts of a few weak minded republican wannabe techies who consider every line of crappy code they vomit out to be proprietary. So again, why not use technology for something positive instead?

This may sound like a futuristic unobtainable dream to the dull minded, but in reality, a few competent people could create this system in a few weeks...

This is what we need:
The U.S. should obtain votes from every eligible voter online!

Simply create a database which records each vote according social security number. Individuals' home addresses can be mapped to state ID's, driver's licenses, and/or other records which are already on file. Give each person a code that only they know, and enable them to check in to make sure their votes were recorded properly. People could then also be able to view the comprehensive results including their own votes without actually knowing each others' votes. This would be an infallible system that eliminates the possibility of corruption.

Then, we will have obtained true Democracy and convenience. Republicans believe that voting should be an exclusive privilege that belongs to a few. I believe that everyone has a voice that should be heard.

Progress can be scary to some but it is necessary. Democracy must be compelled to obtain votes from everyone. The key to alleviating concerns, I think, is making the system open, unlike the Diebold system which is not open but closed to overall inspection. That is a typical Republican strategy -- excluding people from the Democratic system because of course they do not believe in Democracy.

We have had an open system up until now -- paper ballots. The problem is that although paper ballots are open, the majority of the population is excluded as a result of social factors... working that day, not having transportation, not knowing where the polling places are, not having been registered, etc.

The idea is simply this: online people could see how they voted and how their neighbors voted without actually knowing who they are (via private IDs), for the sake of privacy. That way corruption is avoided. They know their voted is counted because they can see it in the list. And they know what the overall count is because they see all the votes right in front of them.

To address the possibility of the so called "dead man" votes, there are also ways of avoiding that. For instance, the system could tabulate the address of each voter without revealing their choices. If anyone sees that nonexistent neighbors are on the list it would get reported and the fraud would be revealed, making it virtually impossible for anyone to pull off such a fraud. (Identity theft would be avoided in a similar way -- people would see the fraud and report it, so there would be no sense trying to pull it off)

To sum things up, by doing this in an open and electronic manner, a way that every kid who uses MySpace these days understands, the U.S. can obtain votes from practically everyone, or at least a huge percentage of the population the likes of which has never been seen before.

What's happening is, Republicans plan to take advantage of our irrational (and momentary) fear of computer technology just like they take advantage of every other human weakness for their own self serving schemes. Ideally we would be strong and progress, take the lead, and admit that this plan would work!

[flobee1]

1. I like the Idea

But it may be a while before that could work correctly. At the present time, the spoofing technology that is out there would make voting from home a scarier thought than voting on a diebold machine.
Like with any "new" thing-baby steps.
Lets get a verifiable paper trail and a decent set of pollworker policies in place and working, then we can think about the next step.

I work with technology like this on a daily basis. Its not the technology that scares me-
Its that Diebold insisted from day one that their system was secure.

No system is ever secure

but there are things that can be done-right now-to make it more accurate
Dont let ANYBODY tell you any diffrent-
Diebold can hook a printer up to those machines and make them print out whatever you want to know about your vote in a matter of hours

And votes being stored on memory cards? Are you freakin kidding?
Your vote shouldn't be stored at all!
The tachnology is in place to have that vote counted instantly.
We could actually know who wins before we go to bed!

Until these most basic issues are corrected-I will continue to vote by absentee ballot

[DaveJ]

3. Agreed, especially regarding storage issue...

Vulnerabilities aside, the Diebold machine I saw the other day looks like a piece of crap. Philips screws holding it together, a generic file cabinet lock on the memory card compartment, and a generic off the counter memory card. Given the external laziness of the design I'm sure it is just as sloppy internally, plus they have the arrogance to call their system 'proprietary' and belittle Princeton researchers. Come on!

These people are typical lazy ass republicans dong the least amount of work they can for the most money they can get away with charging. They have no interest in Democracy. There is no way they can be trusted.

Also I agree that the fastest solution would be to hook up a printer... however, that kind of defeats the initial purpose of the machine. And what we really need is greater voter turnout. Perhaps the Repukes are hoping that all of our complaining about the system will keep voters away.

We need to take a bold step forward.

[aquart]

2. All the Diebold ideas I like involve an axe.

[liberalpress]

4. A couple of problems as I see it.

1.) Hacking. If hackers can chop into supposedly secure credit bureaus and steal information, what's to stop them from hacking the database

2.) As strange as it is to believe, not evey address has a computer, and there are some people I know, good citizens all, who would rather die than have anything to do with one.

[RC]

6. On line voting is subject to the same type of software glitches

as the machines they purpose to replace.

Nothing less than paper ballots put into a locked box and strict rules for their handling will restore honesty to our voting system.
Anything electronic involved in voting is subject to hacking.

All on-line voting does is to shift the problem from a corrupt voting machine to a corrupt server somewhere. This is not the answer.

[stellanoir]

5. Having been reading and writing about this issue

for three and a half years, I must say. . . This is probably the funniest and most accurate line I've yet to read about EVM's. . .

"The only reason computerized touch screen voting systems exist today is to fill the bank accounts of a few weak minded republican wannabe techies who consider every line of crappy code they vomit out to be
proprietary."

Having sent out piles of letters about the nefarious nature of EVM's and optical scanners in '03-'04, I got a snail mail response from one of my Senators. Jack Reed (D) of RI sent me a 4 page congressional document pondering the possibility of online voting. It was interesting but wasn't what I wrote to him about at all and I was exasperated by it.

Months later (8/04) I heard him address the issue of Diebold and he said the dumbest thing EVER. "Now that Diebold has been put on watch, I'm sure they'll do the right thing." EGADS. Like all too many of our reps who are trained in legalese almost exclusively, he had no clue about programming.

I'm not sure as to whether in my exasperation back then I threw the letter about online voting out. I just wanted to let you know that the idea was kiicking around in some committee more than 2 years ago. So it's not as "fringe" as you may think.

The issue of computerless or computer phobic citizens would be somewhat problematic but could be remedied by the maintenance of some centralized polling places that are far better equipped than what we are currently stuck with.

[DaveJ]

8. BTW, thanks for noticing my disgust with Deibold's laziness...

It is interesting to know that two years after Diebold was 'put on watch' their machines are still only protected by Philips screws or a file cabinet lock and security tape. I wonder what they were doing before that.

It seems likely that online voting will take hold eventually. I hate to repeat myself, but to remind others, there would be oversight among individuals on the internet. For example kids on MySpace form very tight knit groups. I know people (who happen to be older) who will fear security vulnerabilities in computers no matter what they are told -- for example it's just as simple to replace or miscount a paper ballot.

But again, they key here is creating an open system where the source code is known, and where there is implicit oversight within communities and among neighbors. Yes, a hacker could manipulate the results but when ten thousand people see their votes change the hack would be exposed. Thus there would be no point hacking an open system. With paper ballots, if those ballots are switched nobody knows it happened!!

[stellanoir]

15. There has been endless speculation as to whether it's

laziness or specific ill intent. People also speculate as to whether the lack of security with the machines are flaws or features.

But I figure either way it stinks. Or as a person who works for the CIA succinctly retorted when I asked whether they knew about the voting machines. That person responded "What that they don't work?" I said "That's all you need to know."

That "put on watch" line of the Senator's was truly mind numbing in its ignorance. How do you watch something that is entirely secretive?

[magellan]

7. Couldn't a clever programmer devise a way

...to ensure your vote shows up in a list as properly counted, while behind the scenes it's being deleted or moved to another candidate? I'm no programmer but I could probably get Access to do that. And as far as I know, Diebold software is based on Access.

IOW the problem isn't just the transparency of the vote; it's the transparency of the vote-counting as well. There is major cause for concern over what the tabulators are doing that no one seems to be looking at.

The only surefire, reliable, virtually unmuckable way to vote is hand-counted paper ballots with count watchers overseeing the process.

[DaveJ]

10. Not sure I understand the question...

I feel like I'm suddenly on the hot seat but I'm no expert -- just a regular guy with a common sense solution that I'm sure a lot of other people have.

Again, I'm not sure I understand. If the votes are there for everyone to see and count for themselves, how could there be a different result behind the scenes?

[magellan]

12. Maybe I'm missing something

But check it. You cast your vote. You're able to log in and verify on a screen that your vote was counted as you intended, and you're happy.

HOWEVER, that's just a screen that's been programmed to reflect the recorded INTENT of your vote. There's another program that's tabulating the votes, you don't get to see what that's doing (as now), and it's actually shifting your vote somewhere else behind the scenes.

How do you know?

[zeemike]

9. I have a simpler solution

Paper ballots that the voter fills out and deposits in a slot the goes to a secure room where it is counted immediately by a poll worker and observed by representatives of all concerned party's and then put into a locked box for verification if needed.
The advantages of this would be an instant vote count when the polls closed and no need to buy expensive machines and a chance for some people to make a little extra money at election time. plus in order to steal votes you would have to buy off a lot of people and that would not work too good.

[orpupilofnature57]

11. Fucking Sticks and chips ,it's not that hard of a concept! if it takes a..

month ,but Our need to have it yesterday ,plus the fact that corruption is ambiguous and could infiltrate any system, therefore only through total disclosure at evey step can we assure a clean election of any level.

[sendero]

13. I've been programming computers..

... for 20 years. IMHO, there is no electronic voting system you could design that could not be thwarted at some point. The problem lies in the recount potential. There is no way to make such a system subject to an actual recount.

I love computers and I love technology but this is one area they would be not be used in. The first time I heard about e voting I was worried, because cheating is TRIVIALLY easy.

I hope to see Diebold et al get the rug pulled out from under them someday, but it won't happen until they are caught red-handed. Which they will, but it's too bad that so many people are so clueless about how easy it is for them to facilitate cheating (I don't think Diebold is doing the actual cheating, I just think they've left any number of doors wide open so anyone with two brain cells to rb together can figure out how).

[DaveJ]

14. Before I go...

I may be logging off soon but I wanted to make this point again first.

After giving this more thought I still believe this system is totally viable but of course I know it won't happen in two months and probably not in two years either.

I just don't want this Diebold thing to play into Republicans' hand and keep people from voting. That may be what they really are trying to make happen.

Again, I will try to make this simple to understand, the plan is simply that everyone is given a unique confidential ID, the IDs and corresponding votes are put in a huge public list that can be cross examined by the voters themselves. And we need this to be online to get as many people to vote as possible. Very simple.


Edit: To address the issue of possibly fake IDs being added to the list... there may be other solutions but one would be to have a second list of the actual locations of those who voted (fake people and locations would be noticed so no point even trying to add a fake person), and then to make sure the number of people match in both lists.