The thing is, one needn't be a Democrat to be worried about whether electronic voting machines screwed things up (though it probably helps). No, the problem is that America's electronic voting machines were doomed to create this level of distrust. It's in their architecture.
After all, with no paper trail, there's no way to prove how people really voted. Thus there is no way for the Republicans to definitively shut the Democrats up about this. Just as problematically, there's no reason for the Democrats to trust the results. And, worse, the software on these machines is closed-source -- and the companies who make it will not allow anyone who so desires to scrutinize the code for insecurities. These companies simply ask that people "trust them".
The lesson? Secrecy doesn't work. The culture of corporate silence around these black boxes is bound to produce paranoid fears in those who lose the election. Until they're open and transparent, it will be impossible for losers to have faith in the electoral system.
OK then, why don't we just install some open source voting machines and have a revote; it's only fair ;)
Posted by: Pork Chop at November 12, 2004 9:28 AM
First of all, a paper trail is not enough. What is needed is a VOTER-VERIFIED paper trail. Furthermore, those paper ballots are put in a ballot box and constitute the OFFICIAL RECORD of the election. Any parallel electronic recording may be used for quick but unofficial returns. But ultimately it's the VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER which is the official record and from which the official tally is made.
Once you have that, it does't matter whether the counting software is open source or closed source. Now I'd prefer it to be open source for whatever incremental confidence it provides.
But with a voter-verified paper trail, the ballots can be hand-counted and the results checked against the software, open source or closed source.
Guess what! If these counties in Flordia did in fact use optical scan ballots then that's it, that's the voter-verified paper trail! Those ballots CAN be hand counted and checked against the results!
So is that being done?
Eric
P.S. I realize you wrote a NYTimes Magazine piece in which you only argued for open source software and neglected to mention the far greater benefit of a voter-verified paper trail. You've made a baby step. Now we just need to get you from paper trail to voter-verified paper trail and then to realize how vastly more important that is than open source software.
Posted by: Eric I. at November 12, 2004 9:41 AM
I think Eric makes a good point. The case of "open source" for e-voting or the electoral process, or heck, for democracy, means going broader with the concepts of "open source".
I agree that open source for e-voting, just as for consumers or for business/enterprise users, is a good solution for a variety of reasons, but it's not a panacea for all that is wrong with the electoral process. A paper trail with an individual receipt for the voter to be able to confirm their choices, as well as a paper trail for recounts, is absolutely critical. The backpage of Wired by Seth Kaplan sure does a good job of it (click here).
It's not so much that a worldwide body of geeks would write better and more secure code than the guys at Diebold (which I don't doubt for a second, by the way), but it's the process by which the code is developed, peer reviewed, and closely tested by a agreed upon framework for results that needs to be applied. While there is some half-assed framework for that now between individual states and their secretary of state and companies like Diebold, that process has gone largely under the radar (except for Bev at blackboxvoting) and avoided the scrutiny that something as critical as electing officals should have from the population and press at large.
I would love to have the right as a voter to run a unit test on a voting machine (and constituent servers) before I enter my data, just to know that it'll work. Not that it needs to be calculus -- we're talking addition here.
The sense of "open source" as a transparent, grass-roots driven process creating a higher-quality end product is discussed by Micah Safry in his article "The Rise of Open Source Politics", which looks at the way that the Democratic Party could restructure it's top-down view of things to re-architect the party.
In the end, I do hope that the press can get over it's fear of being labeled left-wing-nut-jobs and actually cover the issue of ensuring fairness in the voting process. At least before the 2006 election, or if not, at least before Oliver Stone gets to making a movie about it.
[p.s. Eric, I think there is a bit of a call for doing a recount of the optical scan ballots in Florida, Dixiecrats be damned, although more has been made of Ohio so far. Olbermann is really the only guy at the national level covering it.]
Posted by: jason at November 12, 2004 11:31 AM
If you really want to discuss the issue of a fair, democratic election, it starts way before the voting booths:
First of all, the concept of parties needs to be disestablished or, at least, each party needs to be represented equally. For example, let's say each candidate should have equal time on air (Republicans, Democrats, Green Partyists, Communists, whatever!) and should not be able to invest personal money in their advertising campaign. They should also not be able to accept money from private organizations or individuals.
I also think that perhaps there should be some sort of a responsibility to their campaigning claims. If they say, "I will solve the problem of the national debt," then they should be held accountable for that claim if they actually make itto office. This would quickly abolish a lot of B.S. claims.
And lastly, I think there should be a "none of the above" option. And if the majority votes none of the above, then we boot out all of the candidates and start all over. This would guarantee that would would be voting for the person we actually want to represent us rather than just voting for the lesser of two evils.
Or we could solve the whole thing quickly with a wrestling match perhaps...
Posted by: Pork Chop at November 12, 2004 12:06 PM
Good points all around above. By the way, though I didn't have the space to address it in that NYT mag piece I wrote back in the summer, advocating an open-source approach to voting software -- the Open Source Voting Consortium created a system that is not merely open-source at the software level, but which includes paper balloting, and a general rethinking of the entire process of a voting machine. So indeed, their innovation is not merely at the level of code, but at the level of the system you guys are talking about.
Posted by: Clive at November 12, 2004 1:06 PM
I just saw this story on the New York Times web site. A local election in Indiana used optical scan ballots (i.e., voter-veriified paper trail) to elect three members of the county commision.
The vote tallying software had a glitch when it ranked the top-three vote-getters. After a hand recount of the paper ballots, it was found that the person whom the software ranked as third should have been fifth, and the person who was fifth should have been third, thus changing the group of three who were elected.
Now if we'd have had open source software without the voter-verified paper trail, maybe it would have been caught or maybe it wouldn't have. Debugging software is a highly imperfect process, and requires a skill that very few of us have. But almost all of us can sort and count human-readable ballots.
Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Election-Glitch.html
Posted by: Eric I. at November 12, 2004 1:53 PM
I love it. The current software is not open source but the files it uses to maintain the vote totals are readily editable.
Watch the video at Votergate.tv for more on that.
I'm disppointed with the election results but I'd be happy if a serious out-of-the-box approach to improving out election systems was taken up over the next four years.
Posted by: Anthony at November 12, 2004 3:49 PM
Pork Chop, you call for some sort of accountability for politicians who fail to deliver on campaign promises.
Believe it or not, there already is a system for holding politicians accountable for their actions. It's called an "election"! ;)
If the bums don't do what they say, throw 'em out next time!
Posted by: Scott at November 14, 2004 7:18 PM
Posted by: http://www.online-poker-web.net at January 26, 2005 11:54 AM
Posted by: online poker at January 28, 2005 3:14 PM
Posted by: online poker at February 1, 2005 6:18 PM
Posted by: payday loan at February 9, 2005 12:01 AM
Posted by: poker games at February 10, 2005 6:38 PM
Posted by: online poker at February 11, 2005 3:53 AM
OK then, why don't we just install some open source voting machines and have a revote; it's only fair ;)
Posted by: Pork Chop at November 12, 2004 9:28 AM
First of all, a paper trail is not enough. What is needed is a VOTER-VERIFIED paper trail. Furthermore, those paper ballots are put in a ballot box and constitute the OFFICIAL RECORD of the election. Any parallel electronic recording may be used for quick but unofficial returns. But ultimately it's the VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER which is the official record and from which the official tally is made.
Once you have that, it does't matter whether the counting software is open source or closed source. Now I'd prefer it to be open source for whatever incremental confidence it provides.
But with a voter-verified paper trail, the ballots can be hand-counted and the results checked against the software, open source or closed source.
Guess what! If these counties in Flordia did in fact use optical scan ballots then that's it, that's the voter-verified paper trail! Those ballots CAN be hand counted and checked against the results!
So is that being done?
Eric
P.S. I realize you wrote a NYTimes Magazine piece in which you only argued for open source software and neglected to mention the far greater benefit of a voter-verified paper trail. You've made a baby step. Now we just need to get you from paper trail to voter-verified paper trail and then to realize how vastly more important that is than open source software.
Posted by: Eric I. at November 12, 2004 9:41 AM
I think Eric makes a good point. The case of "open source" for e-voting or the electoral process, or heck, for democracy, means going broader with the concepts of "open source".
I agree that open source for e-voting, just as for consumers or for business/enterprise users, is a good solution for a variety of reasons, but it's not a panacea for all that is wrong with the electoral process. A paper trail with an individual receipt for the voter to be able to confirm their choices, as well as a paper trail for recounts, is absolutely critical. The backpage of Wired by Seth Kaplan sure does a good job of it (click here).
It's not so much that a worldwide body of geeks would write better and more secure code than the guys at Diebold (which I don't doubt for a second, by the way), but it's the process by which the code is developed, peer reviewed, and closely tested by a agreed upon framework for results that needs to be applied. While there is some half-assed framework for that now between individual states and their secretary of state and companies like Diebold, that process has gone largely under the radar (except for Bev at blackboxvoting) and avoided the scrutiny that something as critical as electing officals should have from the population and press at large.
I would love to have the right as a voter to run a unit test on a voting machine (and constituent servers) before I enter my data, just to know that it'll work. Not that it needs to be calculus -- we're talking addition here.
The sense of "open source" as a transparent, grass-roots driven process creating a higher-quality end product is discussed by Micah Safry in his article "The Rise of Open Source Politics", which looks at the way that the Democratic Party could restructure it's top-down view of things to re-architect the party.
In the end, I do hope that the press can get over it's fear of being labeled left-wing-nut-jobs and actually cover the issue of ensuring fairness in the voting process. At least before the 2006 election, or if not, at least before Oliver Stone gets to making a movie about it.
[p.s. Eric, I think there is a bit of a call for doing a recount of the optical scan ballots in Florida, Dixiecrats be damned, although more has been made of Ohio so far. Olbermann is really the only guy at the national level covering it.]
Posted by: jason at November 12, 2004 11:31 AM
If you really want to discuss the issue of a fair, democratic election, it starts way before the voting booths:
First of all, the concept of parties needs to be disestablished or, at least, each party needs to be represented equally. For example, let's say each candidate should have equal time on air (Republicans, Democrats, Green Partyists, Communists, whatever!) and should not be able to invest personal money in their advertising campaign. They should also not be able to accept money from private organizations or individuals.
I also think that perhaps there should be some sort of a responsibility to their campaigning claims. If they say, "I will solve the problem of the national debt," then they should be held accountable for that claim if they actually make itto office. This would quickly abolish a lot of B.S. claims.
And lastly, I think there should be a "none of the above" option. And if the majority votes none of the above, then we boot out all of the candidates and start all over. This would guarantee that would would be voting for the person we actually want to represent us rather than just voting for the lesser of two evils.
Or we could solve the whole thing quickly with a wrestling match perhaps...
Posted by: Pork Chop at November 12, 2004 12:06 PM
Good points all around above. By the way, though I didn't have the space to address it in that NYT mag piece I wrote back in the summer, advocating an open-source approach to voting software -- the Open Source Voting Consortium created a system that is not merely open-source at the software level, but which includes paper balloting, and a general rethinking of the entire process of a voting machine. So indeed, their innovation is not merely at the level of code, but at the level of the system you guys are talking about.
Posted by: Clive at November 12, 2004 1:06 PM
I just saw this story on the New York Times web site. A local election in Indiana used optical scan ballots (i.e., voter-veriified paper trail) to elect three members of the county commision.
The vote tallying software had a glitch when it ranked the top-three vote-getters. After a hand recount of the paper ballots, it was found that the person whom the software ranked as third should have been fifth, and the person who was fifth should have been third, thus changing the group of three who were elected.
Now if we'd have had open source software without the voter-verified paper trail, maybe it would have been caught or maybe it wouldn't have. Debugging software is a highly imperfect process, and requires a skill that very few of us have. But almost all of us can sort and count human-readable ballots.
Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Election-Glitch.html
Posted by: Eric I. at November 12, 2004 1:53 PM
I love it. The current software is not open source but the files it uses to maintain the vote totals are readily editable.
Watch the video at Votergate.tv for more on that.
I'm disppointed with the election results but I'd be happy if a serious out-of-the-box approach to improving out election systems was taken up over the next four years.
Posted by: Anthony at November 12, 2004 3:49 PM
Pork Chop, you call for some sort of accountability for politicians who fail to deliver on campaign promises.
Believe it or not, there already is a system for holding politicians accountable for their actions. It's called an "election"! ;)
If the bums don't do what they say, throw 'em out next time!
Posted by: Scott at November 14, 2004 7:18 PM
988 http://www.online-poker-web.net
online poker
Posted by: http://www.online-poker-web.net at January 26, 2005 11:54 AM
35 want to play online poker mate?
Posted by: online poker at January 28, 2005 3:14 PM
8502 want to play online poker mate?
Posted by: online poker at February 1, 2005 6:18 PM
2525 http://www.online-poker-e.com
online poker
Posted by: payday loan at February 9, 2005 12:01 AM
3773 http://www.poker--games.net
poker games
Posted by: poker games at February 10, 2005 6:38 PM
1263 http://www.online-poker-web.net
online poker
Posted by: online poker at February 11, 2005 3:53 AM