Slashdot Log In
Maryland Scraps Diebold Voting System
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jan 21, 2008 04:42 PM
from the long-overdue dept.
from the long-overdue dept.
beadfulthings writes "After eight years and some $65 million, the state of Maryland is taking its first steps to return to an accountable, paper-ballot based voting system. Governor Martin O'Malley has announced an initial outlay of $6.5 million towards the $20 million cost of an optical system which will scan and tally the votes while the paper ballots are retained as a backup. The new (or old) system is expected to be in place by 2010 — or four years before the state finishes paying off the bill for the touch-screen system."
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Florida Literally Scraps Touch-Screen Voting 177 comments
Kaseijin writes "Florida Governor Charlie Crist is getting his wish. The New York Times reports the state will replace touch-screen voting machines with optical-scan models by July 1, 2008 — the most aggressive timetable of any jurisdiciton rethinking this approach to voting. The touch-screen machines most likely will be sold to other jurisdictions or stripped for parts."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Connecticut Governor Seeks to Protect Personal Data Online 59 comments
Technical Writing Geek alerts us to a report that Connecticut governor Jodi Rell has begun to develop legislation to create an "opt-out" registry to prevent the distribution of personal information on the internet. The registry would be analogous to the "Do Not Call" list. This comes after Rell received many complaints about the availability of personal data from directory assistance sites such as WhitePages and 411.com. While Rell understands that the "sites are breaking no law by gathering and disseminating this information," the legislation will add to the work she has done to re-evaluate the disposition of private data. Where do we draw the line between free speech and privacy in the information age? From the Journal Inquirer:
"'Privacy concerns are constantly evolving,' Rell said. 'We must not only keep up with them but do our best to stay ahead of the curve.' Rell said she will ask state agencies to review private information about residents that the state collects, manages, and distributes."
[+]
Politics: Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad 174 comments
phorest writes "One would have thought the choice of Ohio lawmakers to move away from Diebold touch-screen voting terminals would be welcomed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Instead, the group is warning the elections board that their alternative might be illegal under state laws. 'The main dispute is whether a central optical scan of ballots at the board's headquarters downtown would result in votes not being counted on ballots that are incorrectly filled out. The ACLU believes the intent of election law is to ensure voters can be notified immediately of a voting error and be able to make a second-chance vote.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But what I want to know - (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But what I want to know - (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Diebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5, Informative)
Changing the name was a sneaky move.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Changing the name was a sneaky move.
Re:Diebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Especially in Chicago, NYC and the East Coast. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlike state government agencies, the banks, especially many of the ones in Chicago, NYC and up and down the east coast of the US, are run by the kind of folks who might be inclined to provide a set of concrete sneakers to anyone who sells them untrustworthy ATM machines. And the ATM makers know this.
Re:Especially in Chicago, NYC and the East Coast. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Especially in Chicago, NYC and the East Coast. (Score:4, Interesting)
On a recent gameshow (1 vs. 100), first question was who was so and so's step son. Some actress got married and by the marriage the stepson is like 5 yeas younger than the dad. Whatever, I can't remember the question or answer, that is completely useless knowledge (unless you are an agent or something). Out of 100, only 3 people got it wrong. Not bad. 97% of the people in that set knew the answer.
Next Question: What is the third highest rank in the Senate called?
Out of 97 people, a third got it wrong.
Now these are people who were screened for a TV gameshow. They should be smarter than the average bear. A third got it wrong.
These and people less intelligent (than gameshow contestants) are the voters. What do you think they care about more? What do you think they spend more time exposing themselves to, politics or OJ and Britney? That is the true hopelessness of our situation. If you know of a way to get 200 million people to stop paying attention to a drug-addicted talentless dead-beat mom or other Hollywood scuttlebutt, I would love to hear it. You want us to run a marathon to stop election fraud when most of the public barely knows how to crawl. Nevermind the 100 yard dash to comprehend why our economy and world reputation are crumbling to dust. IMHO, that is the answer to your question.
Other answers may vary. This answer does not constitute the opinion of my employer or my land lord or my cat. This answer may become invalid in the future and no guarantees are made, either thusly, thisly, or implied. This answer may be copied if it contains this disclaimer. Due to quantum fluctuations, this answer may cease to exit at any time. This answer may cease to have been written in the first place if an unforseen time warp should occur. Do not submerge this answer in water.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ, only a third? I am abd on a Ph.D. in history and even I don't know that off the top of my head (minority whip maybe?).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:5, Insightful)
The more I learn about this Diebold outfit, the more I think they should be kept far away from any part of our electoral system. Just yesterday, I read an interesting story about a county clerk in some rural Nevada county who looked the machines over carefully and, not being a techie, called in a few trusted computer people to check out one of the systems. Naturally, Diebold's machines are closed source, so they say this County Clerk violated their EULA. The worst part of this is that Diebold put pressure on the County Board until this clerk was forced to resign. They've got that much power.
Just the idea that our elections would run on a closed-source, impossible-to-audit system is unbelievable to me. Especially after the rate of undervoting (ballots that were completely filled out, except the Diebold machines say there was no vote cast for President that only seemed to occur in heavily Democratic precincts in Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio. In some minority districts, the rate of undervoting was EIGHTY PERCENT in 2004. That means, in a heavily contest year, in an area that has a high turnout rate, voters went in and filled out their computer ballot for all the local races, all the judgeships, county board, etc., but for some reason did not cast a vote for President. It's absolutely ridiculous. Problem is, since there are no paper ballots, it's impossible to audit. Diebold sends in the count and that's it, jack. Four more years of a jug-eared dry drunk in the White House.
It's going to take a while, and maybe a few election cycles, but if we can't get honest paper ballots in every single precinct in the USA, there needs to be some serious shit a-flyin'.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Transparency should be the order of the day. Computers will always tend to obfuscate things for the common man, because as far as he is concerned, anything that happens inside a computer system may as well be a form of arcane magic. There are a far higher number of people who understand the principles of "counting", given you a far greater pool of competent election officials to draw from.
Understanding cryptographic signatures and ens
Re:Diebold = Premier Election Solutions. (Score:4, Funny)
My "Bush-bashing discourse?" Check again, dipshit -- I'm not the same guy you were blabbering to. You're just making such an ass of yourself that even otherwise-disinterested third parties like myself feel the need to point out how much of a fuck-up you are!
"Like me?" You don't know anything about me, Mr. I'm-Too-Stupid-To-Check-The-Name-Of-The-Guy-I'm-Replying-To, except for the fact that I think you're a flaming douchebag!
Now, seriously. Are you even even aware that you completely ignored every piece of meaningful content of PopeRatzo's post, and instead flew off the handle over a random meaningless remark? You're acting like you're a spoiled four-year-old who was insulted personally, and that's just stupid. Grow a thicker skin, and stop deluding yourself that you're G. W. Bush! Unless you are Bush, in which case your whining represents whole new orders of magnitude of patheticness...
Parent
Where can Diebold hide now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Diebold are going to have real trouble building their reputation back up after this; even though other machines may be vulnerable, the fact that this case has been so well publicised is seriously going to damage Diebold's public image.
Re:Where can Diebold hide now? (Score:4, Interesting)
But that is not what they did... instead, there was a conversation in a darkened back room somewhere that went something like this:
Politician: I thought you said it would be undetectable?
Company Rep: I thought you said we'd not be prosecuted?
Politician: You didn't say you'd fsck it up this badly.
Company Rep: I did what you told me you wanted, give or take a couple of votes.
Politician: This is not going to be good, you had better hide the evidence now, bury it deeply.
Company Rep: No problem, we just paid Britney another $2 Million to pee on the courthouse steps.
profit!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love optical scanners. They are so easy to do, quick to report, and easy to check if there is a problem.
What a lot of people don't realize is that on election day those boxes are carted around escorted by agents from both parties. There is no funny business to be done because it is being watched the entire election with lawyers for both parties parked around the area ready to respo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the other parties around here can't muster enough people to vote at every polling place, much less provide a volunteer to staff each one and assist in carrying the ballots around.
Neither the Republicrats nor the Demopublicans currently feels threatened enough by a third party to risk charges of rigging an election. Think about the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And pigs are certain to fly anytime now.
Some states appear to question their machines. Others don't. But I don't see anything about states demanding their money back for the scrapped equipment. And therefore I don't think Diebold is too concerned! They already sold the f
Verified Voting (Score:4, Informative)
Thought others might find it interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do have to say that I find it troubling that so many states don't require either a paper trail or proper auditing of elections. Seems to me that democracies work far better when there's somebody keeping an eye on things to make sure that partisans don't cheat the masses.
Stuck with the bill. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stuck with the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to say "It's OK! This is how we LEARN!" but unless the responsible parties are actually held accountable for their decisions they won't learn either. While in a perfect world this would lead to some people losing jobs or offices, I find that it's quite rare that people pay attention to huge wastes of taxpayer dollars. Putting it in terms th
Re:Stuck with the bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
voting (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... an all-electronic system doesn't work, and neither does all-paper. Gee, I wonder if there's someway to combine the two and maybe get some sort of hybrid, combining the best of both worlds...
TFA does describe a method of combining electronic and paper, the optical scanners. A person votes on a paper ballot which is then fed into a scanner. The scanner allows for quick tabulation of votes but if there's any questions about the votes the paper ballots are still available. And there's no reason tou
What about the old machines? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think they tried, but the Jawas stole them.
Election fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Heck, Shoup is still in the game today! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a little of Shoup's history. [sptimes.com]
It's a big, hairball of a mess and none of the right people are in jail.
-FL
Parent
" ... impossible to imagine ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
That's true, as far as it goes.
But voting systems can -- and have been -- imagined that make it much more difficult to get away with such an attack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh good, so now my neighbor can know who I voted for. So can my boss and my wife.
Nothing like good ol' fashioned voter intimidation.
Paper ballots are pretty horrible, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
Designing a reliable balloting system is really quite easy. The UN nailed it down decades ago:
1. Printed paper ballots wherein each ballot is marked by grease pencil or felt marker.
2. Ballots are folded and placed into a slot on top of a locked clear plastic box.
3. The boxes are guarded, transported to a central location, and then opened and the ballots are all hand-counted by volunteers in front of observers from all parties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Interesting)
They can be. Have the touchscreen device print the vote onto the paper ballot, and a barcode with a checksum. Scan it optically and verify it against the checksum.
Anyone can verify their ballot - they simply look at what is marked. Misreads simply don't happen - if the two don't match, there is a problem. Give they guy a new ballot (replacing the old one), and have him do it again.
If the hand recount doesn't _exactly_ match the automated totals, it can be scanned in batches (any size). Count X ballots, scan X ballots. If they don't match, there is a problem.
As a nice side effect, machines don't have to be trusted, and don't have to have a network connection either. The machine can't screw up your vote without marking the wrong thing (or the CRC would be wrong), and you can check that yourself before it's counted. Recounts can be done by hand, and in the event of total system failure, you can still mark the silly thing by hand.
As a nice bonus to this, you get the benefits of touchscreen voting - secret ballots for the blind (audio), multiple language support, pictures, the ability to offer more in-depth descriptions of line items, etc.
It's not exactly rocket science.
Parent
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Funny)
No, but if you could do it with rockets, that would be awesome.
Parent
Re:Optical scan ballots (Score:5, Insightful)
This brings up one of the consistently-unasked questions in debates over electronic balloting: what's the hurry? I don't mean "It would be nice if we knew sooner," but what is it about an election requires that this stuff be done quickly?
A second unasked-question would be, "what makes hand-counting errors less desirable than electronic-counting errors?"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point behind optical scan is that it is quick, low cost and still auditable.
It's quick, but the system I propose is considerably cheaper. I disagree with the third point. Optical scan ballots, in practice, are only "audited" by the same scanning equipment used to count them initially. This does not really translate to "auditable" in my mind since equipment tampering is undetectable. The likelihood of observers being able to certify the reliability of the scanning equipment "on the spot" is very low. Voter suppression is the most serious issue in the USA, and as my system is extrem
Lawsuit time? (Score:4, Interesting)
Who wrote these contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get some balls and sue Diebold (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's start holding them accountable for their shenanigans instead of just taking our ball and going home.
My previous county's voting system (Score:5, Informative)
Here's your paper, here's your marker. Fill in the dot next to who you're voting for. If you make a mistake, please see one of the attendants for a new ballot and we will destroy the old one, and record the action and confirm it with your signature. If you would like to vote and are unable to properly use the marker, please see one of our attendants for assistance. Once you are done, please slip your ballot into the secured box at either end of the room. The "I voted" sticker is optional and will not be forced on you.
I voted in that county for 7 years, and not once did anyone ever question the authenticity of the outcomes, even when outcomes were close.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I meant to post sarcastically; obviously the blind and seriously disabled are going to HAVE to ask for assistance no matter what system is used, the brain dead/comatose shouldn't be voting (unless you're a Democrat, in which case you're in favor of ID-free voting, felons voting, so I expect you're in favor of voting for the dead or nearly-so, since it worked so well for Kennedy), and ultimately this whole ISSUE was touched off by a few urban Florida c
Proud to be a Marylander (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny in 140 years or so Maryland has gone from that to being one of the more progressive states in the union. Seriously, don't let our past fool you Maryland is a great place to live -- and for the record we never did leave the union. Now let's not get into what the states official motto translates to.
Windows CE insanity (Score:3, Interesting)
If the voting system is more complicated than a basic 4-function calculator, you're doing something waaaaaaay wrong. Maybe you should just licence the system Brazil uses? Or India? That's where your hi-tech comes from theses days anyhow.