Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Maryland Governor Wants Voting Paper Trail

Posted by Zonk on Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:43 PM
from the not-just-shots-in-the-dark dept.
Security Government Politics
smooth wombat writes "Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said Wednesday that he has lost confidence in the state's ability to hold fair and secure elections this fall, and called for paper receipts for Maryland's electronic voting machines,and the delay of early-voting procedures approved by the Democratic-controlled legislature." From the article: "'In light of these recent national decertifications and the Maryland General Assembly's decision to override my vetoes ... I no longer have confidence in the State Board of Elections' ability to conduct fair and accurate elections in 2006,' said Ehrlich, a Republican, in his letter to Board of Elections Chairman Gilles W. Burger. Democrats criticized Ehrlich's apparent shift on the paper-receipt issue, noting that he vetoed a bill last year that would have studied the option. Advocates of reforming the state's voting system cheered Ehrlich's remarks, which he made a day before a Senate committee is to hold hearings on a bill that would require a paper trail. "
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Maryland Votes To Ban Diebold Voting Machines 240 comments
vandon writes "Computerworld.com reports: 'The state Maryland House of Delegates this week voted 137-0 to approve a bill prohibiting election officials from using AccuVote-TSx touch-screen systems in 2006 primary and general elections. The legislation calls for the state to lease paper-based optical-scan systems for this year's votes. State Delegate Anne Healey estimated the leasing cost at $12.5 million to $16 million for the two elections.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.

Maryland Governor Wants Voting Paper Trail 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Work with him! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 2nd Post! (213333) <`ten.llebcap' `ta' `raebdnug'> on Thursday February 16 2006, @12:48PM (#14734556) Homepage
    What, a guy can't make a mistake, change his mind, and try and fix things?

    Work with him, Democrats! Work with him! It's better for everyone that the system is fair, because eventually it will be you that gets screwed over.
    • I'm starting to consider the opinon that voting should be an essay question as of late.

    • Re:Work with him! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SydShamino (547793) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:06PM (#14734757)
      What if the Democrats said:

      "Well, first of all I wish that he had not blocked our efforts to study this last year, but ensuring fair, accurate voting for our citizens is better late than never. We'll get started immediately to implement fixes to the process and work with the governor on this issue."

      The media picked it up as "Democrats critized the governor for his change of position on the issue" but "promised to work to enact new legislation."

      Slashdot reported "Democrats critized the flip-flop."

      And you complained about the Democrats.

      I see the first quote as a very guarded way to say that you are pleased with the governor has done, without it being a sound bite exploitable by the Karl Roves of the world in the next election. From there it was distorted until it simply mentioned the criticism, which amazingly still makes it exploitable by Roves.

      (I didn't RTFA and I made up all these quotes for illustrative purposes only.)
    • The cynic in me only need to read:

      Democrats criticized Ehrlich

      And I immediately think 'because he's Republican'.

      Of course, I'd've had the same thought with a Dem govenor being criticized by Republicans too.

      I edited that last line just so I could have a double contraction in it.
    • A guy can change his mind... but a republican only changes his mind when 80% of his constituents say they will vote against him if he doesn't act in the greater interests of the people instead of his rich buddies. Read the article! He vetoed an attempt by the democrats to check into creating a papertrail. Now he wants to take credit for the idea after vetoing it? That's not a change of mind, that a realization that he's about to get voted out of office and a last stab at winning voter approval after the fac

      • Do you reckon his change of heart has anything to do with him being up for reelection?

        Yes, but only because his "change of heart" may let him stop a motion to allow for early voting. A paper trail cannot be put into place in time for the November elections. (Yes, it's a four year term so he's up for relection; his most likely challenger is charismatic Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley, though Montgomery County executive Douglas Duncan still has a shot at the Democratic candidacy.)

        Our (majority Democrati

        • Yes, but only because his "change of heart" may let him stop a motion to allow for early voting. A paper trail cannot be put into place in time for the November elections.

          Why on earth do you think that? Diebold has been selling voting units that produce paper receipts for over a year now. Maryland could just use those.
  • I got your paper trail, right here! [wikimedia.org]

  • Vetoes aren't as significant as you think (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Democrats criticized Ehrlich's apparent shift on the paper-receipt issue, noting that he vetoed a bill last year that would have studied the option.

    Yes, but chances are, the bill didn't do just that. Chances are, there were a billion and one unrelated things attached to it, any one of which could have been collosally stupid. Until politicians stop playing anti-democratic games like that, I'm not willing to assume that just because he vetoed a "paper-trail" bill that he is against paper trails.

    • Well then this bill was the outlier (the exception to prove the rule?). The complete text of the bill is only 3 pages long. It does one thing:

      "The State Administrator of Elections shall study, review, and evaluate independent verification systems, including at least one system that includes a voter-verified paper audit trail, for the voting system currently used in the State."

      The bill then goes on to describe how the systems will be evaluated and by whom. The complete text is here [state.md.us].

  • Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Thursday February 16 2006, @12:55PM (#14734644) Homepage Journal
    Maryland Governor Wants Voting Paper Trail

    Congratulations, so do your constituents.

  • Hey, you know what an easier way to do this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2006, @12:56PM (#14734646)
    Gee, paper receipts. I wonder how we could possibly implement that.

    Oh wait, here's an idea. Why don't we just use PAPER BALLOTS.

    If you really want your fancy touch screens and all to waste tax dollars on, fine, use them. Just have the voting machine print out a ballot. But we should never be in a situation where we're considering an electromagnetic smudge to have a "vote". You simply cannot have accountability with electronic votes. Electronic voting is a bad idea to begin with and the fact the voting machine companies are now themselves a political interest makes the idea uterly unworkable.
    • Best idea yet. When paper ballots are required for "electronic" voting, the voting machine just becomes a glorified hole punch or a very expensive printer. Punch card voting can actually work quite well when you don't have idiots running it.
      • Punch cards work even better if you don't have illiterate idiots using them.

      • Better than just a "glorified printer" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Rizz (1319) on Thursday February 16 2006, @04:13PM (#14736680)
        Actually, there are a few really good reasons to use electronic voting even if it prints out a full ballot.
        1) It can also store ballot information in the system, so you can have an accurate vote count within minutes of the election closing.
        2) The system can ensure that all votes are valid (not voting for too many people for a single position, etc.)
        3) Electronic voting becomes essential if we ever move to a better voting system (condorcet, etc.)

  • What was wrong with the old system? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by warpSpeed (67927) <slashdot@fredcom.com> on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:00PM (#14734696) Homepage Journal
    I live and vote in Maryland. In the last major election we used paper ballots that were electronicly read. They worked just fine.

    Why should we rush to use these new fangled voting gadgets? Oh, thats right pockets needed lining. What a waste of money.

    Oh, and "Go Ehrlich!" Is that politicaly correct to say here?

    • Why should we rush to use these new fangled voting gadgets?

      There are two good reason. First electronic touch screans and their relitives can be made much moe accessable to disabled voters. Second Electronic voting can be intelegent enough not to let you cast an illigal or ambiguous vote. (for example, voting for too many candidates or failing to punch out the chad.)

      I do agree with the idea of printing out a standard ballot using a touch screen would solve both of these problems as well and also be less p

  • Why is anyone against paper trails? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by germanStefan (766513) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:03PM (#14734729) Homepage
    The question is, why should anyone be against a voting system where people know that their vote was counted? If I press a buttong for candidate A and the paper trail shows candidate B, then one knows and can complain and perhaps revote? The only arguments I have heard of so far are that it would be to expensive. While it may cost a bit, I still think that the costs outweigh the problems when there is no paper trail.

    How many districts have we heard about, where their have been problems with electronig voting machines? Don't get me wrong, I use ATMs all the time, and trust it with my money, so I don't see why it should be so hard to come up with a secure and easy way to use voting machines. Diebold, the same company in trouble in several counties, is trusted for making great ATMs, but their voting machines are notoriously bad and their behaviour not to be trusted http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00 .html [wired.com]. Voting machines's source code should be open to election officials, so that they can take a look at them and make sure that they don't count backwards...

    • Re:Why is anyone against paper trails? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smooth wombat (796938) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:15PM (#14734850) Homepage Journal
      The question is, why should anyone be against a voting system where people know that their vote was counted?

      Because if one has a verifiable paper trail it makes it that much harder to rig an election.

      Don't get me wrong, I use ATMs all the time, and trust it with my money, so I don't see why it should be so hard to come up with a secure and easy way to use voting machines.

      This is the same thing I keep harping on. The usual response from Diebold (and others) is that because it is electronic there is no need for a paper ballot.

      So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic.

      The same thing goes for grocery shopping. Since it's all electronic there shouldn't be a need to have a paper receipt of all your purposes. You should be able to trust the system didn't overbill you for a product or add in products you didn't buy.

      But hey, who am I to use logic when talking about a verifiable paper trail. After all, I should just accept that the government is always right in these matters because the companies making these products have told them there is nothing to worry about.

      • by me.

        So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic.

        I was once shorted by an ATM. In short, I complained to my credit union and they ordered an audit of the ATM and my account was credited. At no time was my receipt requested. My point is how could the voter have something that would really prove the vote he caste was his without casting doubt on his vote?

        Ok, that pun was unit

        • Afer reading what I wrote I realized I left out a very important part. Let me restate and rephrase so that what I was attempting to say is more clear.

          So is adding/withdrawing money from an ATM. You shouldn't need a receipt to verify that the correct amount of money was withdrawn from your account because it's all electronic yet amazingly you get a receipt to prove what you just did. You have physical evidence to support your claim. You don't rely just on what the computer says took place.
            • I agree, this would be a problem. The only resolution I can see is to take the voter at face value and use the paper as their 'official' ballot.

              There are issues that need to be addressed and this is certainly one that needs to be looked into.
      • >This is the same thing I keep harping on. The usual response from Diebold (and others) is that because it is electronic there is no need for a paper ballot.

        I don't know about Diebold, but a paper receipt BUYS YOU NOTHING! How do you know that your paper receipt says the same thing as the electronic registers kept in the machine? Are you going to have a complete count of the paper receipts every election? And don't give me that random audit crap. If you are going to do a random audit, someone knows w
        • How do you know that your paper receipt says the same thing as the electronic registers kept in the machine? Are you going to have a complete count of the paper receipts every election? And don't give me that random audit crap. If you are going to do a random audit, someone knows which precinct it is in, and just rigs the ones in other precincts.


          You don't know the what's stored in the computer ever -- that's the problem! But having the paper ballot stored securely at the voting site ensures that, in the event of a contested election, officials can return to the voter-verified paper ballots which we're certain are correct, verified by each voter independently, and furthermore, unquestionably legible (and thus superior to handwritten or punch-card ballots), as the thing is printed in plain English. In so doing, we can ensure that IFF there is a contested election, the paper receipt, which the voter is certain is accurate, can be used to augment the uncertain, unverifiable digital trail. No "random" audits are truly needed, though perhaps a random sample to be determined afterwards could be used, if only to assuage concerns about the legitimacy of this new system.

          Either you go to a complete paper system, with it's ability to be scammed or you go completely electronic with it's ability to be scammed. At least the electronic produces fast returns, and faster processing of people.


          While it's ostensibly possible to rig an election using any one sort of ballot, I would submit that it is perhaps a bit more difficult to rig an election using two different media to document a ballot. Through verification and recounting as outlined above, the potential to truly rig an election goes back, at least, to the good old days of having dead people vote, double-registration, etc.

          Oh, and don't get on mark sense ballots either. I SAW those scammed in the 2000 election by the supervisor of elections in Orange County Florida.


          I don't know what you're talking about, but that's OK: I fixed the world in responding to your two earlier paragraphs :)
    • why should anyone be against a voting system where people know that their vote was counted?

      The only people who are against rigging-proof voting systems are the people who stand to benefit from election rigging. And, of course, the people who have already benefited from election rigging, and want to benefit from rigging the next election, too.

      That's what's so scary about election rigging. After one election is rigged, those are the people who get to run the next election.

      The genius of democratic ele

  • Vulnerabilities have been demonstrated (Score:3, Informative)

    by Migraineman (632203) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:06PM (#14734760)
    After the Red Team exercises that demonstrated how flimsy the system security was, he really should want the system upgraded and re-scrutinized.

    USA Today Article [usatoday.com]
    RABA Technologies PDF Report on Security Assessment [raba.com]
  • As a Democrat, I thought we were supposed to be the ones wanting accountability and paper voting records -- especially in light of the 2000 election and recent questions about Diebold machines. How can accountability be anything but good in this case? Isn't sunshine "the best disinfectant," no matter which party benefits?
    • As a Democrat, you probably want to go back to paper trails because they are easier to rig. In the 2000 Election, I witnessed some scamming FOR GORE. I also saw some attempts to steal the election, including a court case to try and steal MY properly cast ballot. And my ballot HAD a paper trail to it.

  • It's about time... (Score:5, Informative)

    by DevolvingSpud (774770) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:10PM (#14734798)
    The company I work for, RABA Technologies [raba.com], was the one who did the hack-into-the-Diebold thing for Maryland; this was one of our primary recommendations to them. Like the article said:
    "A national technology consulting firm he hired to review the system in 2003 found security flaws, but state officials said they could be fixed quickly"
    Let's hope this yields a chance to fix them. Our report is here [raba.com]. For a funnier take on it, see my boss in this Daily Show clip [avirubin.com].

  • The machine is your friend (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ExE122 (954104) * on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:21PM (#14734906) Homepage Journal
    This isn't the first time Ehrlich has tried to re-open debate issues involving putting your trust into machines [washingtonpost.com]. [washingtonpost.com]

    But on a more serious note... this article mentions nothing about annonymity. The type of paper trail that they seek would essentially mean that they would have to keep track of your voter ID and who your choice was. While I think it would be paranoid to assume that they would actually go back and try to figure out who voted for who, it does undermine the idea of a secret ballot.

    I think what they really need to work on more is enhanced security and a more accurate verification system. That would ensure that you are indeed a unique registered voter without having to log who you voted for. If they can be sure of who the vote is coming from, then they can assume the vote is indeed accurate.
    • " If they can be sure of who the vote is coming from, then they can assume the vote is indeed accurate."

      Not at all. And printed receipts don't necessarily help the matter either. It would just make John Q. Public feel better about the fact that they are unaware their vote was switched after they pressed the 'accept' spot on the touchscreen.

      Two ballots with matching unique IDs, with no other identifying info on them. One goes in the bin to be counted, the other goes home with the voter. In the case

      • Unless I'm misinterpreting your post ... then their employer or other powerful third party can demand proof that they voted in the required way.

        • Then don't put the vote results for the ballot on the one the voter takes home. In the case of a recount or irregularity, the voter would be able to verify their vote, and no one else's. Employer, etc, wouldn't have access to the vote result. Publish all votes cast by vote ID#.

  • Why is voting openness and accuracy a partisan issue?

  • as a Marylander and TrueVote supporter... (Score:5, Informative)

    by frankie (91710) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:49PM (#14735184) Journal

    The whole issue of verified voting has been mired in stupid partisan squabbling for over 4 years. The entire Demoblican duopoly deserves large shares of scorn, blame, and (in a much better universe than this one) defeat at the polls.

    1. Shortly after the Florida chad fiasco of 2000, our elections administrator Linda Lamone decided to buy DRE machines from Diebold. Voter advocacy groups weren't loud enough ($$$) to block it.
    2. TrueVote [truevotemd.org] eventually started building momentum & influence, but neither Lamone (D) nor Erlich (R) were interested.
    3. Once the voting population finally made themselves heard, the state legislature (both sides) voted in favor of fixing the machines.
    4. Diebold then laughed at Maryland [google.com] for failing to request paper trails previously.
    5. This week, after Erlich realized that this issue could help his reelection bid, he came out in favor of fixing the machines too. So here we are.

  • Vote For IRV MD (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday February 16 2006, @01:50PM (#14735198) Homepage Journal
    Maryland also has a hearing today on SB 292 [state.md.us], which would require "instant runoff" [wikipedia.org] voting in Maryland ballots.
  • That the Governor changed his mind when he found out that Diebold would be charging the state, abour $600 per machine to add a printer. That and help his reelection bid. It might also cause the democrats to take the opposing side of the issue now since they have been working hard in the legislature to make Erlich seem inneffective. The GOP minority leader in the state legislature said that the Democrats motto is "Fail Bobby [Erlich] Fail!"

  • You'd approach the voting booth and type in a some phrase that would be used to calculate a signature for your ballot, which is assigned a pseudo-random id. You get a copy of your ballot and the identifying marks for your votes.

    After the election, you could download (or search online) the official vote. If the ballot doesn't match yours, or doesn't appear, there's a problem. If there are a statistically significant number of "problems", then something's fishy. The integrity of an election could be measur

    • I keep hearing that this will make elections "more secure". If I'm smart enough to hack votes inside a machine, why would you assume that I'm not smart enough to spoof the paper trail?

      Let me guess... thru the use of open source software for voting machines?

      The point with paper trails is that they're permanent. Let me remind you that with the 1988 elections in Mexico, a "system crash" elliminated all evidence, and all of a sudden, the officialist party won the presidential elections. Many people wanted a rec

    • Why is this insightful?

      You don't understand how a paper trail works.
      In a nutshell:
      You vote on the machine.
      It prints a receipt that you can read.
      You verify that the machine & receipt both agree on your vote.
      You drop your receipt into a secure repository, e.g. an old fashioned ballot box.

      Later, if there is any concern over the vote that triggers a recount, it is the secured receipts that are recounted, because there's no point in checking the machine a second time when it says that 10,000,000 votes were c
    • You mis-understand, the voter does not get a receipt.

      What happens is eletronic voting machine replaces the role of the pen in marking a paper ballot. This in no way violates the concept of a secret ballot any more than marking your ballot with a pen and dropping it in a box does.

      The paper ballot is placed in the vote box. The paper ballot is the official vote. Machine totals can be used for preliminary results, but some percentage of the machines will be auditted, to make sure their totals match that of
    • The concept of a paper trail or voter receipt or whatever you want to call it is stupid. Just imagine a paid thug taking people to the polling place and then asking to see their paper receipt to make sure they voted "the right way".

      You don't take the paper ballot home with you. You put it in a locked box, where unlike electronic ballots it cannot be invisibly changed later.

      How will you handle "wrong" votes? Where will you change them? When will you change them? How long will people have to change their mind?

      By destroying the original paper ballot and printing out another; in the polling booth; while you're voting; until you've put your ballot in the box. Note that you can still have computers print out the ballots if you want - and you may want to, so they can prevent voters from accidentally choosing two candidates in the same race, help read to blind voters, warn voters who may have unintentionally missed casting a vote, and make long ballots easy to read. What is important is that the final official ballot is in an immutable human-readable form that gets checked by the voter before it is cast.

      If I'm smart enough to hack votes inside a machine, why would you assume that I'm not smart enough to spoof the paper trail?

      Because hacking into a computer that your opponents are watching requires you to be smart, but hacking into large numbers of ballot boxes that your opponents are watching requires magic.

      Want to make elections more accurate and secure? Forget the voting machines and focus on the weakest elements of the election process, absentee ballots and voter registration.

      No, remember the voting machines while also focusing on absentee ballots and voter registration. Security is hard and tedious - if you want the voting system to be secure, you have to secure every weak element of the process, not just the weakest.

    • The concept of a paper trail or voter receipt or whatever you want to call it is stupid. It violates the whole concept of the secret ballot not to mention adding layers of potential abuse to the vote counting process. Just imagine a paid thug taking people to the polling place and then asking to see their paper receipt to make sure they voted "the right way".

      That would be stupid, except that's not what's being discussed. The "paper trail" in question is a ballot, which gets dropped into the ballot box.

    • Apparently neither the parent poster nor several moderators have any freaking clue what the words Voter Verified Paper Trail [google.com] actually mean.
    • I think that you have some misconceptions about what a voting paper trail consists of. While I don't know of any hard and fast regulations about what form such a trail should take, I doubt that it would take the form you seem to fear.

      First off: the paper "receipt" does not leave with the voter. It is not like the slip of paper you can get at the post office as proof that you mailed something, or that allows you to track the parcel's progress. The receipt stays at the polling location, just like paper
    • Back around 2000 or so I was voting in Stafford County, Virginia [wikipedia.org] where I lived, and the voting machines there used the equivalent of Scantrons; the voting booth had a device where it indicated which item to mark on the page, then you inserted the paper ballot into the machine that scanned it, then dropped the paper inside of it. This meant that it had a paper ballot stored as a check in case there was a question. So this can be done, but because it's easier to (undetectably) steal elections with electroni
    • Well, what 24-year old woman wouldn't want a classy, sexy comment from such a studly, hunky 84 year-old like him?

      I think it's sad she had to bring him tea. You see, they have these things called pitchers that really work well for things like beverages.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.