US Election Day

[mbossman2]

I know that we actively discourage political discussions here and direct them to www.forumclick.com (please stop on by) but......


today is election day in the USA, it you are registered to vote, please get out and do your civic duty.

[jimmyrules712]

for some reason it never hit me that being registered to vote in a completely different county from where I'm currently attending school is a problem.

guess I'll have to sit this one out.

[doctorgonzo]

I voted today. I'm glad I live in a state where you can register to vote on election day with the proper proof that you live in your precinct (although I was already registered).

It sounds like a lot of the new voting machines are having problems. It could be a long night for poll workers.

[David M]

I am not fond of electronic voting. There is no paper trail with which to audit the votes. There is no such thing as a legitimate recount without paper. I think for everyone's peace of mind we need to eliminate electronic voting. Most computer type people in here know how common an occurance it is for supposedly secure systems to get broken into.

[mbossman2]

Originally Posted by David M I am not fond of electronic voting. There is no paper trail with which to audit the votes. There is no such thing as a legitimate recount without paper. I think for everyone's peace of mind we need to eliminate electronic voting. Most computer type people in here know how common an occurance it is for supposedly secure systems to get broken into.

i think that you have to balance the 2: technologic progress and voting security/integrity.

I used to live in upstate NY where the big voting machines with the little pull levers and I had no idea that they kept a papertrack of the votes. In NC, i have only used a paper ballot.

As an aside, I believe that any election via secret ballot requires a certain level of trust in the counting, collecting and collating authority.

[David M]

I would rather have the inconvenience and the security versus the convenience and poor security. If technological "advances" are going to make something less secure then take me back to the old days...especially for something as important as an accurate vote count. There are unscrupulous people who have no problem altering votes which favor the candidate of their choice.

An audit trail is started when you sign the registrar.... and there had better be the same number of paper votes as there are signatures at the end of the day. This can only be confirmed with paper.

There is quite a degree of trust involved which does not mean that gaping holes in security should be left open.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by mbossman2 As an aside, I believe that any election via secret ballot requires a certain level of trust in the counting, collecting and collating authority.

That is true. In most places the counting is done fairly and accurately. Minnesota runs some of the cleanest elections in the country. But I know that this is not the case in all areas unfortunately.

I hate electronic voting machines too. It is simply ridiculous that many of the touch-screen machines have no paper trail. If the machine crashes and loses all the votes, well, I guess the voters who voted that day are simply out of luck. That's not democracy. How these systems are in place I have no idea.

We use optical scan ballots here, the ones where you fill in the bubble and then put it in the machine. If the machine doesn't work, just count them manually. Best of all worlds.

[HAL9000]

That's the same system we use here DrG (just had our civic election).... and that system seems to work quite nicely.

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by David M I am not fond of electronic voting. There is no paper trail with which to audit the votes. There is no such thing as a legitimate recount without paper. I think for everyone's peace of mind we need to eliminate electronic voting. Most computer type people in here know how common an occurance it is for supposedly secure systems to get broken into.

I completely disagree. Electronic voting is the future and it CAN be secure.

Just a simple reason why: if a website and a database are on the same system, the traffic between the two never leaves the system, hence not subject interception and is secure unless the *entire* system is compromised. A lot of people with a lot more knowledge than myself can easily make it happen. When was the last time you heard of a bank system being hacked? This is infinitely more complex than electronic voting would be.

Electronic voting won't happen for a long time because of politics. I'm not going to go into details on this statement, as that is not a topic for this board, but there is no doubt than elimating humans from a simple count will lead to more accurate results.

Also, how common is a secure system broken into? Please name a few because I can't think of any secure systems broken into lately at all.

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo If the machine crashes and loses all the votes, well, I guess the voters who voted that day are simply out of luck. That's not democracy. How these systems are in place I have no idea.

The answer to this is simple, lack of funding for hardware and software leads to poorly designed software, crap hardware and a severely lacking infrastructure and implementation.

[HAL9000]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 I completely disagree. Electronic voting is the future and it CAN be secure. Just a simple reason why: if a website and a database are on the same system, the traffic between the two never leaves the system, hence not subject interception and is secure unless the *entire* system is compromised. A lot of people with a lot more knowledge than myself can easily make it happen. When was the last time you heard of a bank system being hacked? This is infinitely more complex than electronic voting would be. Electronic voting won't happen for a long time because of politics. I'm not going to go into details on this statement, as that is not a topic for this board, but there is no doubt than elimating humans from a simple count will lead to more accurate results. Also, how common is a secure system broken into? Please name a few because I can't think of any secure systems broken into lately at all.

How about credit card payment processing center.... just as secure... there was a major one just last year affecting millions of Canadian and US card holders.

What it comes down to, if there is a close running, what "hard" verification do you have with electronic systems?

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 How about credit card payment processing center.... just as secure... there was a major one just last year affecting millions of Canadian and US card holders.

I don't remember the details on it, but if I'm not mistaken... that was due to a leak from someone inside. There is absolutely nothing you can do about corruption on any system, electronic or manual.

Originally Posted by HAL9000 What it comes down to, if there is a close running, what "hard" verification do you have with electronic systems?

That's for people who are smarter than us to determine. You have to have an Id to vote and you have to have an address to have an Id. Just put the two together and make it work. I know this is over simplifying, but it is a possible way for something to be figured out.

[doctorgonzo]

Yes, it CAN be secure, just like an OS CAN be secure. The problem is in the implementation, and so far the implementation is awful. They can be hacked in less than a minute. Is that kind of security good enough?

When was the last time you heard of a bank system being hacked? Well, it depends on what you mean by "hacked". If you mean a loss of security like giving names to the public, it happens frequently. But aside from this, banks have an economic incentive to make systems secure: it could cost them lots and lots of money. That economic incentive does not exist for voting systems.

If electronic voting systems were to be used, they would have to be open source. Hardware and software. Proprietary code is not good enough.

But even beyond the implementation, the question is this: what problems are electronic voting machines trying to solve? I don't see any significant problems with our current system that can be solved by electronic voting machines. On the other hand, I see lots of problems that electronic voting machines introduce. Just take a look at the news today: there are problems with voting machines in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois...it is absurd. Paper ballots don't break and don't crash.

Edit: This is not how election day should be.

[David M]

Agreed HAL. Paper is something physical therefore it is darn near impossible to alter without evidence that it has been altered. There is no physical evidence or proof with electronics if the information in the system has been altered. It is very easy to alter an electronic system and leave no evidence of alteration.

As magical and seemingly futuristic as electronics are....perhaps there are some applications for which electronics are totally unsuited? This is the major downfall of electronic security....there is nothing physical to back it up. No signatures, no paper receipts etc.

There is no such thing as an impenetrable electronic system. There will always be a password that someone is supposed to have and many others who are not supposed to have this password. It only takes one incident of someone obtaining the password that they are not supposed to have therefore compromising the whole system.

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo Yes, it CAN be secure, just like an OS CAN be secure. The problem is in the implementation, and so far the implementation is awful. They can be hacked in less than a minute. Is that kind of security good enough? When was the last time you heard of a bank system being hacked? Well, it depends on what you mean by "hacked". If you mean a loss of security like giving names to the public, it happens frequently. But aside from this, banks have an economic incentive to make systems secure: it could cost them lots and lots of money. That economic incentive does not exist for voting systems. If electronic voting systems were to be used, they would have to be open source. Hardware and software. Proprietary code is not good enough. But even beyond the implementation, the question is this: what problems are electronic voting machines trying to solve? I don't see any significant problems with our current system that can be solved by electronic voting machines. On the other hand, I see lots of problems that electronic voting machines introduce. Just take a look at the news today: there are problems with voting machines in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois...it is absurd. Paper ballots don't break and don't crash.

I'm not talking about voting kiosks (see my reasoning about underfunding above). I'm talking about Online Voting.

Simple example of how software can be bulletproof:
The software used in hospitals for life support monitoring and air traffic controller software must be proven (not simply stress tested, but actual proof must be given) to work before they are implemented. Why couldn't someone do the same with a voting system?

Paper ballots are subject to human intervention... nobody can argue this. Conversely, you can't argue with electronic results.

As for banks having financial interests... I don't see why the government wouldn't have an extreme interest in a guaranteed acurate, undisputable voting result. It all boils down to funding and elected officials are not willing to fund it. I wonder why this is...

I don't understand why people are so resistent to change a system which has proven time and time again to be severely flawed... especially when our "democracy" is what is at stake.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 Paper ballots are subject to human intervention... nobody can argue this. Conversely, you can't argue with electronic results.

Sure you can. As long as the data is stored in a database somewhere, it can be hacked.

Plus, not everybody has internet access. Not everybody knows how to use a computer. Online systems would have to address those issues.

I am resistant to change because of the reason I posted earlier. I see this as a pretty simple issue. First, what problems do we have with our current system? Second, how would online voting solve those problems?

If you can't say what is wrong with our current system, then there is no need to change it for the sake of change.

[David M]

I think we are fooling ourselves if we think humans can invent a 100% secure electronic system when there are other humans, who are just as smart, that want to prove them wrong. This is exactly why we need physical evidence, paper, for voting.

[HAL9000]

So what is being said here is that credit cards can be comprimised due to an inside source, but ballots cannot? BTW, the incident I am talking about was not an inside job, they were hacked. I remember that week clearly, the calls coming in were beyond insane and I was taking in the area of 175 calls per day for 7 hours working time... 25 calls per hour.

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo Sure you can. As long as the data is stored in a database somewhere, it can be hacked.

If it were that easy, banks would be "hacked" every day.

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo Plus, not everybody has internet access. Not everybody knows how to use a computer. Online systems would have to address those issues.

You wouldn't have to have a computer. Voting booths could simply be a bunch of computers with touch screens.
"Touch here to vote for A"
"Touch here to vote for B"
If someone can't understand this... they don't have the brain power to understand what they are voting for... sorry if that sounds harsh, but we all know it's true.

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo I am resistant to change because of the reason I posted earlier. I see this as a pretty simple issue. First, what problems do we have with our current system? Second, how would online voting solve those problems?

What problems do we have? Lets see just a few of the issues the 2000 election brought up just in Florida:
1. The Supreme Count can stop/order a recount
2. Counters determining the "intent of the voter" based on cards not fully punched (enter human error)
3. "Misplaced" ballots found after the election
4. Absentee ballots miscounted
5. People with 2 residencies able to vote twice

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo If you can't say what is wrong with our current system, then there is no need to change it for the sake of change.

See above.

Originally Posted by David M I think we are fooling ourselves if we think humans can invent a 100% secure electronic system when there are other humans, who are just as smart, that want to prove them wrong. This is exactly why we need physical evidence, paper, for voting.

There is a reason virtually *everything* is done electronically... because it is not subject to human error. As I stated earlier, if compent, integelligent people (or an AI computer [<- for Gonzo] ) were in charge there is no reason it could not be done correctly.

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 So what is being said here is that credit cards can be comprimised due to an inside source, but ballots cannot? BTW, the incident I am talking about was not an inside job, they were hacked. I remember that week clearly, the calls coming in were beyond insane and I was taking in the area of 175 calls per day for 7 hours working time... 25 calls per hour.

Like I said, I could be mistaken and it appears I am on this CC issue. Thanks for pointing it out.

The point being an electronic system is infinitely harder to tamper with than a people centric system.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 You wouldn't have to have a computer. Voting booths could simply be a bunch of computers with touch screens. "Touch here to vote for A" "Touch here to vote for B" IIf someone can't understand this... they don't have the brain power to understand what they are voting for... sorry if that sounds harsh, but we all know it's true.

Umm...but that's just an electronic voting machine. Nobody says that the problem with electronic voting machines is that people can't understand how to touch the screen. The problem is that they are insecure.

Originally Posted by faulkner132 What problems do we have? Lets see just a few of the issues the 2000 election brought up just in Florida: 1. The Supreme Count can stop/order a recount 2. Counters determining the "intent of the voter" based on cards not fully punched (enter human error) 3. "Misplaced" ballots found after the election 4. Absentee ballots miscounted 5. People with 2 residencies able to vote twice

Well, let's take a look at this:

1. Recounts have nothing to do with voting systems. In fact, if we went to an all-electronic system with no paper trail, then courts would only be able to throw out results instead of recounting them. Not good. At least with paper ballots there is something to take a closer look at.
2. That was a problem with punch cards. I agree that punch card voting systems should be eliminated. They essentially have. You don't need electronic voting machines to fix this.
3. Electronic data can be misplaced too (or haven't you ever dealt with a user who "lost" an important file?).
4. I would have to know how an electronic voting system fixes this problem before I say more. But is this a significant problem?
5. Electronic voting systems would not fix this at all; if they have two mailing addresses, for example, then presumably voter username and password info for voting online would be sent to both. If you are worried about a voter voting in one precinct and then voting in another, take a page from Third World countries and use the old "dip the finger in indelible ink" solution. Cheap and easy.

Originally Posted by faulkner132 There is a reason virtually *everything* is done electronically... because it is not subject to human error.

No, things are done electronically these days because it is cheaper, not necessarily because it is more accurate. There is still plenty of error. Grocery store scanners are notoriously unreliable, for example.

Where is the human error in our well-run elections right now? Take my polling place. I went there this morning shortly before the polls opened. The polling place was staffed by volunteer election judges from both parties. Every ballot was signed by two judges saying that it was correct. If need be, the ballots will be hand-counted by more than one judge, and if the parties want observers there I believe they can send them. Since there are many people present throughout the process from different sides, there are no opportunities to cheat. There are random audits done of random precincts to make sure that the machine totals match the hand count totals. This system has served our state well for years. I like it. There are no worries about database dumps or reboots or hackers.

[David M]

Originally Posted by faulkner132 Like I said, I could be mistaken and it appears I am on this CC issue. Thanks for pointing it out. The point being an electronic system is infinitely harder to tamper with than a people centric system.

People design and operate electronic systems.....they are not mutually exclusive. Electronic systems are "people-centric". Electronic systems do not operate by themselves without human involvement. I don't see how this is any more secure than being able to audit something that is physical.

Is there any court in the country that accepts electronic evidence as evidence without doubt? Physical evidence...sure.

[mairving]

I am hoping that online voting will never happen. While it would be tremendously convenient there is no way to prevent massive fraud. No way you could prove that the person doing the voting was actually that person.

Funny my sister-in-law works at a voting place. They told her that in 4 yrs time they probably won't have an election day. It will become more of a voting period rather than a voting day. So you would vote at various places around town within a 2 week period. Much of this is due to the popularity of early and absentee voting.

[TallTravel]

Originally Posted by David M I am not fond of electronic voting. There is no paper trail with which to audit the votes. There is no such thing as a legitimate recount without paper. I think for everyone's peace of mind we need to eliminate electronic voting. Most computer type people in here know how common an occurance it is for supposedly secure systems to get broken into.

The electronic system on which I voted this morning has a paper trail. It is made by Diebold. The system generates a paper back up for every voter's ballot which can be cross referenced against the electronic poll results in case of dispute.

[HAL9000]

That is something I don't have a problem with, there is a hard copy then,.

[mbossman2]

security is a funny thing. It is a balancing act between security and usability.

I have seen some of the government's "secure" workstations: 2 keys to unlock a metal panel that covers the keyboard (that is hard wired into the computer, ditto the mouse), no output slots (no floppy drive, CD drive, USB ports and the like), screens that are only viewable from a 10 degree cone from center of screen all of this connected to a private network that at no time or point connects to the outside world (and yes, users like this would have 2 PC's on their desk: a secure one and a non-secure one...just like telephones). As you can guess using them is a real exercise in patience (BTW I forgetto talk about the password challenge after password challenge).

So absolutely secure computing is possible, but neigh near unusable.

I have been thinking on this since I posted. While I am sure that we can create a secure electronic voting infrastructure, like david M pointed out, it may not be in our best interests to do so. To mantain the required level of trust, there must be a tried and true method of audit and verification in case questions are raised. Unlike Florida, the methods and procesures must be clearly spelled out and adhered to. perhaps a national standard as it comes to machinery and processes but then that would impinge upon states rights

[Redfallon]

Originally Posted by doctorgonzo Grocery store scanners are notoriously unreliable, for example.

I'm curious about this one. I think the scanners themselves are very reliable. Incorrect pricing and such enters into the picture at the human end, where people manually key the price into a "gun" and tie it to the product's barcode. The other typical problem occurs when there's a physical problem with the barcode it's attempting to scan, again no error or problem on the part of the scanner itself.

[Cricket]

My wife and I voted by mail last week...so I can goof off all day long if I want to.

Cricket

[doctorgonzo]

Yes, the electronics of a scanner are reliable. The point is that electronics are run by people. People can key in the wrong prices. People can manipulate the prices on purpose. Somebody may forget to install a patch. All of these issues could happen with electronic voting machines too.

[rjfvillarosa]

Originally Posted by Cricket My wife and I voted by mail last week...so I can goof off all day long if I want to. Cricket

Being a "Brit abroad" I am not eligible to vote so I am gonna join Cricket and goof off all day.


on a side note an interesting thread with some interesting points of view, being an ex government officer I actually worked as a returning officer at a few elections back home and to be honest the system could do with an overhaul, lets just say "Old people + pencil + paper" not a good mix especially when the pencil is blunt.

[mbossman2]

as to the human error, a friend of mine works for a company that does the vote tabulation for an upstate NY county and on election night the initial returns are called into their phone bank for "rough" tabulation (the results on election night are not inal...that happens a month or so later) and he says that in an evening they have probably 15-20 mistakes in the keying process that need to be corrected (they use this cool "double" system - 2 people on every call, each keying the same information and the system flags discrepencies)