IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Electronic Voting Machines
I've always said that electronic voting machines must still have a "verification" component to them to work.

My argument has been for the electronic voting machine to "print" a barcode to a cash register tape with your vote.

Basically, after the vote has been sent to the office, someone can verify it by running the tape through a fast bar code reader and show that the electronic count and the printed count match.

You could have the machine "digitally sign" the votes, but then votes could be traced back to the voter.

It's that, or back to chads. Trust is always a tricky thing.

Glen Austin
New Ya know
Every slot machine, video poker machine, keno machine et al in Vegas (and there are hundreds of models of these things, made by several manufacturers) is required to have its source code submitted to the State of Nevads gaming board before any of these things sees the neon of a gaming floor (I was going to say "the light of day", but anybody who's been in a casino would know what an oxymoron that would be...). The source code is inspected by the board (!), and periodically verified that the inspected code is what is actually in the machines. This is done to insure that the machines don't cheat, and that their randomizing algorithms are indeed statistically random.

None of the myriad manufacturers of the machines complains that thier "trade secrets would be compromised", or any other such tommyrot. The just do it, or they don't sell machines. And AFAIK, no trade secrets or proprietary algorithms have been compromised by the Nevada Gaming Commission in the decades that this has been the law there.

Which, I suppose, just goes to show you where our values lie: It's more important to protect a casino megacorporation's money than to protect the Constitution.






(And that surprises you how?)
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Nah.
where our values lie: It's more important to protect a casino megacorporation's money than to protect the Constitution

It's not that - it's that the current junta doesn't want elections to be a gamble... They want to be CERTAIN of the outcome.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New **snort**
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Back to chads my ass
What's wrong with pencil and paper? Completely unhackable, there's a paper trail, and read by human beings leaves pretty much a zero chance for misunderstanding and miscounting (including the vote I counted that had "I think you all suck" scrawled across it; I counted it appropriately as no vote and understood it completely).

So it makes running an election more labour intensive. BFD — efficiency in running the ballot is not the be-all and end-all.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New "No humans were used in running this election"
That is the goal, innit?
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New That's how Illinois does it.
At least, that's how DuPage county does it. I'm sure that Mr. Burns will correct me if Lake County (?) is different. And Mr. Afro can comment on downstate (since he lives south of I-80).

Black felt-tip marker. Paper. Ovals to fill in next to your candidate-of-choice. A space for you to write your own name (ahem...I mean, a write-in candidate) if you don't like any of your choices.

Yet still...Read by a Diebold machine. But at least there's a paper trail.
-YendorMike

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
New Still using punch cards downstate
-----------------------------------------
No new taxes.
--George H. W. Bush

We don't torture.
--George W. Bush
New Lake county has paper...
BIG sheets of it, with the little SAT-type ovals, just as Yendor described it.

(You know, Mike...I never tried entreing my own name in any of those slots...I see an Adventure in Electioneering coming on!)
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New People cost money and are subject to error.
Yeah, I know, so do/are machines. But part of the reason for automating this stuff is to try to reduce the errors and improve the accuracy and timeliness while reducing the cost of people to run the elections.

In the last election here, we used [link|http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5138|WinVote] machines. It seemed fine. No paper receipt was given.

It gives me pause to not be sure that my vote was counted as cast, but it's really no different from the system we had before. Our earlier election equipment was a booth with a wall that had membrane buttons that one pushed to indicate one's choice. Lights changed to indicate the choice, then a big "Vote" button was hit to record the vote. There was no receipt in that case either.

Ultimately, what matters is how much trust people have in the folks running the election. That means that the technology of the voting should be open for inspection by competent people. If any networks are used, they should be secure. If paper ballots are used, they should be indelible and carefully guarded. Etc. Paper ballots aren't fraud-proof.

I trust the people who run the elections around here. Yes, I wish the software was carefully audited and I wish there was some demonstration that the results couldn't be tampered with before they're made public. But I don't think fraud or negligence is an issue around here.

YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Machines are too easy to cheat with.
Human error is a factor, true, but look at the hanging/pregnant/dimpled chad fiasco; did mechanical voting add ANYTHING to the process other than complication?

Basically, it's easy to dismiss human error as a reason for mechanising the voting process, by the simple mechanism of allowing the interested parties to oversee the counting process.

Works for us. No reason it couldn't work for you.

People don't cost money. They volunteer.

But now big business has smelt profit in the democratic process, and any hope of a simple-but-effective process in the American political system is dead.

Cross in a box, counted by humans, overseen by the interested parties. It's the wave of the future, baby!


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New People do cost money.
At least around [link|http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/working.htm|here]. It's not a lot, but 1.4 M people at, say, $100 each is $140 M. I have to believe that more people would be needed if paper-and-pencil ballots were used.

I understand your point, and agree with it to some extent. But I think the problem is mainly trust and verification, not the technology.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Volunteers are free.
And the machines make trust and verification harder, not easier.

To put it bluntly, I simply do not believe that it is possible to produce a machine where I can visibly see that the vote I think I've cast (and have received a receipt of some kind for) has voted the way I intend.

I have no way of knowing that, even before the ballot box, my vote hasn't been tampered with.

People and paper have their flaws, but this very fundamental one isn't it.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New See my link.
Volunteers are paid here. :-)

There's a recount going on in Virginia in the Attorney General race. The official margin of victory is [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001409.html|323 votes out of 1.94 M cast]:

Four types of voting machines had been used in the election, complicating matters. Voters in most of the state used optical scanners and touch-screen or lever machines. Individual ballots cannot be recounted on touch-screen and lever machines, but the results can be double-checked from printouts. The judges decided not to rerun ballots through the optical scanners and punch-card machines.

The attorney general's race is the closest statewide election in modern history. State law permits a recount when the margin is less than one percentage point. In this race, the margin was 0.0166 of a percentage point.

Democratic observers allied with Deeds pinpointed discrepancies of just five votes in three precincts, apparently all the result of paper jams when ballots were fed into optical scanners.

The mistakes apparently occurred when poll workers took jammed ballots out of the optical scanner and either ran them through the machine again -- in effect, counting them twice -- or lifted the optical scanner and dropped them in by hand, meaning they were never counted at all.

The machines, which have been used in Loudoun since 1997, reportedly have an error rate of 1 in 4 million, according to county officials. About 60,000 votes were cast in the county in the attorney general's race.


Pencil and paper aren't foolproof either.

FWIW. My final $0.02, I think. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Concur
Cross in a box, open count by humans, overseen by representatives of all parties. That's actual democracy, kids.

We might elect some right numpties over here, but there's never even the whiff of any impropriety in the process.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New But your elections are far simpler than ours
If England is like Canada, in an election you are answering one question. Which candidate do you wish to represent you?

In my last vote I answered a couple dozen different questions. Who do I want for President, Senate, Congress, city council, schoolboard, a couple open judgeships, numerous propositions, etc?

That quirk of the US election process makes voting here far harder to do and to count than the British Parliamentary System is.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New So?
Vote counting in the tradition by which it's followed up here (you count the votes in front of representatives of the people running in the election) is the best way to make sure that each vote is counted and counted properly. That quirk is why I hope that fixed term elections never comes to this country, but, that said, even if you have six or eight ballots in one, the process of calling the vote, holding up the ballot so everyone can see it, handing it around to anyone that might want to look, and then tabulating the vote and finally putting the ballot into the box for safekeeping, is the best way to ensure there's no fraud.

It means that you're going to have a lot of people involved in counting the votes; perhaps even a statistically significant portion of the population. Why this is seen as a bad thing for democracy is a mystery to me.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New I understand the Canadian system
I even have counted votes for it.

I've also voted in the US system, and that experience makes me appreciate that the problem of counting votes here is a lot worse than it is there.

Some of the ideas carry over - for instance all major parties should audit the counting process as a matter of course. But the implementation is going to be more complex.

Cheers,
Ben

PS The real problem with the US system is not the complication. It is that there is a long tradition of, and too much tolerance for, people trying to manipulate the vote.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Not a problem at all, if one uses a little grey matter.
Sweden has municipal, provincial, and national elections all at once. Here's how they work:

You takes your municipal-party ballot(*) and stuffs it in one envelope(+), your provincial-party ballot and stuffs it in another envelope, and your national-party ballot and stuffs it in yet a third envelope. You seals your envelopes, comes out from the hush-hush sooper-*sikrit* election booth and steps over to the table where the volunteer functionaries sit, behind the ballot urns(&), and show some ID so they can cross you off in the ledger (Yes, even if the ID checker is your old "junior high school" history teacher, he *will* insist on seeing ID -- just to give you a lesson in how things are supposed to be done, I think), and then you stuff each ballot into the correct urn.

How can you get this right, you ask, when the ballots are inside sealed envelopes -- how would you know which sealed envelope goes in which urn? Well, you see, the ballots are colour-coded, and the envelopes are special election envelopes: They have two lower corners cut off(%), so the corresponding corners of whatever paper is in them are visible! The pre-printed text is much more towards the center of the paper, so that can't be seen. (I suppose if you did a write-in, and doodled all the way out there, then you only have yourself to blame for the functionaries noticing that "that crackpot probably wrote 'Donald Duck' again".)

You just stuff the envelope with the protruding white corners in the urn with the white top, the one with the pale-blue corners in the urn with the blue top, and the one with the pale-yellow corners in the urn with the yellow top.

OK, sure, if you're electing deputy sherriffs and dogcatchers, you'll need more colours -- but the principle should work all the same, AFAICS.

(Another alternative would of course be, "so DON'T vote for every frigging functionary under the sun on the same day.")

HTH!




(*): Usually pre-printed by the parties wot want you to vote for them, but blank papers are available for you to write "Donald Duck!" on, if that's how you feel.

(+): To preserve the secrecy of your vote -- wouldn't want the volunteers who oversee the process to sneak a peek at your ballot.

(&): Big wooden boxes, actually. (Well, probably plywood, to be *quite* precise.)

(%): The envelopes also have a glued-in piece of string along the top, under the flap you glued sealed, IIRC. This is presumably to make them easier to open, by just pulling on the string, so the election functionaries don't have to use more lethal forms of letter openers.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Yes Mr. Garrison, genetic engineering lets us correct God's horrible, horrible mistakes, like German people. - [link|http://maxpages.com/southpark2k/Episode_105|Mr. Hat]
New At 2 dozen questions...
that simple approach won't scale very well. There would be endless problems with people trying to figure out where each box is, with person A getting to box 5 then needing to find box 3, or people dropping the envelope for one box in another one, etc.

I agree that it would be best to have us directly vote on fewer things at a time. But that isn't going to happen without major changes to the Constitution. In the meantime this quirk of the US system provides a complication that very few foreigners appreciate.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New I guess they dont have any black or old people there
that ID thingy stops them from voting.
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Intelligent Design?
Blimey. It's a "theory" with far-reaching consequences indeed!


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New So how do you write in Donald Duck...
...in Sweedish? Or Finnish?
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New With a biro, usually.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
     In case there was any doubt about Diebold,... - (a6l6e6x) - (35)
         Electronic Voting Machines - (gdaustin) - (23)
             Ya know - (jb4) - (2)
                 Nah. - (imric) - (1)
                     **snort** -NT - (jb4)
             Back to chads my ass - (jake123) - (19)
                 "No humans were used in running this election" - (jb4)
                 That's how Illinois does it. - (Yendor) - (2)
                     Still using punch cards downstate -NT - (Silverlock)
                     Lake county has paper... - (jb4)
                 People cost money and are subject to error. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Machines are too easy to cheat with. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                         People do cost money. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             Volunteers are free. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                 See my link. - (Another Scott)
                 Concur - (pwhysall) - (9)
                     But your elections are far simpler than ours - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                         So? - (jake123) - (1)
                             I understand the Canadian system - (ben_tilly)
                         Not a problem at all, if one uses a little grey matter. - (CRConrad) - (5)
                             At 2 dozen questions... - (ben_tilly)
                             I guess they dont have any black or old people there - (boxley) - (1)
                                 Intelligent Design? - (pwhysall)
                             So how do you write in Donald Duck... - (jb4) - (1)
                                 With a biro, usually. -NT - (pwhysall)
         Getting some airplay, least on NPR - (Ashton)
         Very well, then - (rcareaga) - (9)
             Love your style. Nice art. Thanks! -NT - (hnick)
             thank you sir - (boxley)
             Very nice indeed. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
             Wonderful humor! Thanks for the chuckle. -NT - (imqwerky)
             I am updating my blog in your honor, sir. -NT - (inthane-chan)
             Simply.. - (Ashton)
             Well done, Rand! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             I've been seeing these in lots of places lately -NT - (Silverlock)
             Another example of Die**** press du jour - (Ashton)

Same thing we do every night, Pinky...
149 ms