Virginia Ditches 'America's Worst Voting Machines' 393
Geoffrey.landis writes: Computerized voting machines are bad news in general, but the WINVote machines used in Virginia might just have earned their reputation as the most insecure voting machine in America. They feature Wi-Fi that can't be turned off (protected, however, with a WEP password of "abcde"), an unencrypted database, and administrative access with a hardcoded password of "admin." According to security researcher Jeremy Epstein, if the machines weren't hacked in past elections, "it was because nobody tried." But with no paper trail, we'll never know.
Well, after ignoring the well-documented problems for over a decade, Virginia finally decided to decommission the machines... after the governor had problems with the machines last election and demanded an investigation. Quoting: "In total, the vulnerabilities investigators found were so severe and so trivial to exploit, Epstein noted that 'anyone with even a modicum of training could have succeeded' in hacking them. An attacker wouldn't have needed to be inside a polling place either to subvert an election... someone 'within a half mile with a rudimentary antenna built using a Pringles can could also have attacked them.'"
Well, after ignoring the well-documented problems for over a decade, Virginia finally decided to decommission the machines... after the governor had problems with the machines last election and demanded an investigation. Quoting: "In total, the vulnerabilities investigators found were so severe and so trivial to exploit, Epstein noted that 'anyone with even a modicum of training could have succeeded' in hacking them. An attacker wouldn't have needed to be inside a polling place either to subvert an election... someone 'within a half mile with a rudimentary antenna built using a Pringles can could also have attacked them.'"
Meet the new guy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because most of them don't think voting should be as easy as any other day to day task and believe that the possibility of fraud is something worth working hard against... instead here, asking to see a photo ID is somehow racist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Massachusetts for example has a wonderful photo ID law - if you don't have one, then you vote provisionally and can prove your Identity later to have your vote counted if their is a run-off.
But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas a) don't let you vote at all, b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student
Misinformed Dropping it in the mail is costly? (Score:4, Informative)
> But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas
> a) don't let you vote at all,
O Rlly? Prett sure I voted.
>b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of the year
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID. You can instead choose to vote by mail in your home state. Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
> c) make it very difficult to prove your ID and COSTLY in both time and energy.
Dropping your ballot in the mailbox is SO difficult and expensive. The mailbox is all the way outside! Damn you libs are lazy MFs. (No ID required for voting by mail.)
If you choose to vote in-person, it's convenient that you ALREADY needed to have yoir birth certificate handy to register for school, because yes you will need it if you want to stop by the DMV to get your FREE voter ID (only needed if you don't have a DL, other state ID and want to vote in pereon).
Re: (Score:3)
Then you get your Texas state ID or the FREE Texas election ID.
Re: (Score:2)
even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of a year - and therefore have the legal right to vote,
Disclaimer: All of my college experience has been in-state, but I did have a full military career where my state of citizenship didn't match my state of residence. I am not a lawyer or an election official. Seek the professional advice of your local ones if you have further questions, or at least hit up the state's election website.
As such, no, being a full time student 9 months out of the year in a state, by itself, does NOT give you the right to vote in that state.
You have to declare your intent to be
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.
But doesn't count the vote until you provide the identification that you should have had in the first place. You think "not able to vote" and "vote but not have it counted" are significantly different? Different enough to flame against Texas and hold Mass up as a shining example of how to do things right?
Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.
IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Or
Re: (Score:2)
Very well put - wish I had mod points today. I've come to particularly hate "the soft racism of low expectations", the evil assumption that some races just aren't going to be as successful, by their nature. Always good to call attention to it for what it is: still racism.
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC, if you move to Oregon you are required to get an Oregon DL within 30 days of moving here. That's how Oregon deals with voter id. If you don't claim residence in Oregon why should you be voting in Oregon elections? Register where you do claim residence and vote there. Pretty simple.
I live in Oregon. In this state you are not required to have voter ID. We have vote-by-mail. The only ID requirement is your signature on the outside of the envelope your ballot is enclosed in (actually your ballot goes in a privacy envelope or the signature is on a piece of the envelope they can tear off before opening the actual ballot envelope so they can connect your ballot to your name). The signature on the ballot envelope is compared to the signature on your voter registration card to validate yo
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm [merriam-webster.com].
No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up t
Re: (Score:2)
There exists an explicit right to keep and bare arms..
I should rather hope so. Although muscle shirts aren't my thing at all, whatever floats your boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Third world countries don't ask for a photo id. They make you dip a finger in ink that won't wear off until after the election in order to signal that you voted.
The photo ID requirement is racist because (A) virtually no voter fraud occurs as a result of claiming false identity at the polls and (B) a disproportionate number of minorities either don't vote or are turned away when photo ids are required.
In other words: the sole meaningful result of a photo id requirement is that minorities are denied a vote.
P
Re: (Score:2)
The photo ID requirement is racist because (A) virtually no voter fraud occurs as a result of claiming false identity at the polls
Oh, please. The cemetaries in Cook County, IL used to empty out on voting day as Democrat political operatives would drive "dead" people around to different polling places so they could vote for Dailey and his associates. Unless you think those voters really were the people they were claiming to be, there was (and still is) plenty of vote fraud from false identity voting.
The reason it is hard to catch is because you actually have to look for it to find it. It wasn't "caught" in Chicago even though it was
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok... can you please tell us where today there is a place with a "no blacks" sign with regards to getting photo IDs?
Or is there a place where there are certain requirements which all must meet, but somehow blacks are just too stupid/poor/lazy/etc to be able to meet them?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok... can you please tell us where today there is a place with a "no blacks" sign with regards to getting photo IDs?
It is entirely within the realm of possibility for a policy to not have racist intent and still have a racist result. (Though in this particular case, there is certainly the appearance of intent.)
Or is there a place where there are certain requirements which all must meet, but somehow blacks are just too stupid/poor/lazy/etc to be able to meet them?
Let's assume that only one of the qualities you list can present an impediment. If blacks are on average more poor than non-blacks, is it possible that this is a result of racism? (Hint:yes).
The whole voter fraud problem is itself a fraud.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to look up the meaning of 'racist [merriam-webster.com]'
In such a ridiculous hypothetical yes... but it is just that, a non-existent hypothetical.
So skin color is automatically an impediment? Still waiting to see/how/where that is to getting a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
can you please tell us where today there is a place with a "no blacks" sign with regards to getting photo IDs?
You can get a photo ID from your local DMV! Of course, your "local" DMV is 40 miles away. Oh, and the bus to take you there requires 3 transfers and will take 4 hours--not counting the time spent waiting at the DMV. And the hours of operation for the DMV are M-F from 9 AM to 5 PM.
So if you've actually got a job during those hours, you're SOL.
Funny how these things seem to happen around black neighborhoods. White neighborhoods, conversely, have 3 DMV offices in a 20 mile radius that are open on weekends.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And where is this place?
And only blacks ride the bus? Racist!
There are plenty of offices that have limited schedules. One govt office near me is only open for applications during a 4 hour period on alternating Tuesdays and will only
Re: (Score:2)
His was just an anecdotal scenario made to illustrate his point.
But if you are trying to dispute that voter ID requirements disproportionally affect minorities the facts simply are not on your side.
The states that have instituted voterid laws are all cases where its clear that:
a) there has never been any indication that voter fraud of the type voter id will prevent isn't actually a real problem
b) as a percentage more republicans have the necessary voter id documents in their wallets and purses right now tha
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh this should be good.
Except for that we lack adequate mechanisms to even detect or act on such a thing. More on that later though.
Re: (Score:3)
if that is the case, is the solution to simply not require such IDs...
It worked for a few hundred years.
If I show up at your polling place nice & early and claim to be you and vote on your behalf, I've just committed fraud [...] how do you detect/prevent that later in the day when you show up?
Well, for starters, when you showed up to vote, there would be a record saying that you already voted.
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning
Correct. But you know and record that an incident of fraud has occurred. So we're using all this direct evidence of fraud to make the case that we need photo id right? Where is that evidence? We're passing a law, and creating bureaucracy to manage a problem we actually have right?
What if instead I drive to various polling places early in the morning with a pre-determined list of people who I am going to vote on fraudulently behalf of and who I do not think are likely to vote later in the dead (recently deceased, homebound, hasn't voted in a while)... is that going to be detected at all?
Go do some follow up spot checking; Hi... it says here you voted at 7am at polling station X; c
Intentional or unintentional racism. (Score:2)
It helps if you consider that the conservatives are more against 'poor people' and disproportionally targeting blacks is a matter of they're more likely to be poor.
Or, if you still want a racist answer, that they target poor people because blacks tend to be poor and they can't target them directly.
Personally, I think conservatives just hate poor people of any color, for the most part. They're mostly fine with rich and middle class black people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I did... as a question as one possible reason for blacks not getting voter IDs.
I don't recall saying voter suppression doesn't exist. Trying to create an air of inevitability of one candidate over another is actually one form of voter suppression... effectively trying to discourage the other side from turning out to vote... which is actually legal.
Some forms can be illegal for sure, and while you cite the Wiki
Re: Meet the new guy (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason the Rs want voter ID has nothing to do with racism. They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why? Because those who don't tend to vote Democrat.
I can live with requiring ID so long as it doesn't turn into a poll tax.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why?
Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.
There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate, why should we dilute the vote even further by letting everyone who walks into the polling place vote? Why SHOULDN'T voting be reserved for citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the little phenomenon of people with more than one address voting in multiple precincts, people who blatantly vote at multiple polling stations, and worse.
As sibling said, a state-issued photo ID costs less than two Starbucks frappé drinks.
Oh, and you have to have one anyway to buy liquor, buy cigarettes, take out a loan of any type (including payday loans), write a check, use any state or federal government services (other than voting), get electricity and/or water turned on to your home
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the little phenomenon of people with more than one address voting in multiple precincts, people who blatantly vote at multiple polling stations, and worse.
As sibling said, a state-issued photo ID costs less than two Starbucks frappé drinks.
Oh, and you have to have one anyway to buy liquor, buy cigarettes, take out a loan of any type (including payday loans), write a check, use any state or federal government services (other than voting), get electricity and/or water turned on to your home/apartment/whatever, get married, drive a car...
Let's emphasize here: None of that list can possibly place an obligation upon the state to issue you even the one that skips the 'drive a car' part. One thing the list doesn't mention is that you do need one to do any sort of thing at a bank--not just write a check or get a loan, but to cash a check or open an account. A state-issued photo ID is also one of the things you will need to take with you to the local Social Security office if you need a social security card, which you kind of need for most jobs
Re: (Score:2)
Registering to vote, at least in the state of NC, requires either a driver's license (or state ID) or a SSN. You don't just wander into a voting booth.
Insightful? Really,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate...
As a person squarely in the "my vote doesn't count" category, I feel compelled to say that it isn't that the candidate I'd vote for can't win, it's that no one I'd want vote for could ever possibly win. There is no possible way for me to vote in any way that both A) represents my beliefs and B) adds support to the least bad alternative. It really has nothing to do with diluting my vote. My vote would never be in the top five parties in the USA, much less the top two. I'll never be represented any way ot
Re: Meet the new guy (Score:5, Insightful)
They want to make it harder for people that don't readily have ID to vote. Why?
Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.
There are continuous claims that voting is ineffective because "my vote doesn't count" when it is because someone is voting for a losing candidate, why should we dilute the vote even further by letting everyone who walks into the polling place vote? Why SHOULDN'T voting be reserved for citizens?
Oh please! Show me a case of where in person voter fraud is more than an occasional occurrence. The GW Bush administration made it a point of emphasis with the US Attorneys and they found basically nothing. Voter ID is a solution looking for a problem. I thought the R's were against more regulations and bureaucracy.
Prosecute the Polticians (Score:3)
She got caught. Good. I want to see prosecution of people who commit voter fraud. But are you assuming that there must be hundreds or thousands of people who did the same thing without getting caught? Enough to materially affect the election? Seems like a big stretch to me.
I want to see the people who think it's okay to disenfranchise entire groups of people because they're not likely to vote your way get prosecuted. There is absolutely *no* excuse for the voter ID laws they are putting in place today--it's like jim crow laws, you're just trying to exclude people who won't vote for you. It's reprehensible and in a civilized society it would be criminal.
seriously, enough about IDs and illegals (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that even the most rigorous ID check in the world wouldn't have stopped an election from being subverted if these machines were used, right?
I'm tired of hearing biased party hacks and online wingnuts rant about "voter fraud" and what must to be done to stop it. The fact is, it's very hard to swing an election using ID-related fraud, and there's no evidence to indicate it has ever been a real problem or might have swung an election - and don't bother with that rabid reply with links to an example, it might possibly have happened once or twice in some insignificant local race somewhere, but that's completely irrelevant when at the same time WE HAVE STEAMING PILES OF SHIT LIKE THIS MACHINE BEING WIDELY USED MAKING IT TRIVIAL FOR SOMEONE TO ALTER EVERY SINGLE VOTE CAST IN ANY MANNER THEY WANT!!! So spare me the crap about ID laws being essential to combat fraud, those shouting that the loudest somehow managed to say nothing about the glaringly obvious potential for major fraud with electronic voting machines, despite those vulnerabilities being fully pointed out at the time by various security experts. Those detailed reports were completely ignored by the same folks claiming to be so concerned now.
The real agenda behind voter ID laws is insultingly obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Because voting is a right reserved for citizens of the US and the political subdivision holding the election. Stopping people who aren't citizens from voting is a good thing for all of us.
Ahem. You have to register to vote. This already stops people show aren't citizens from voting. Let's stop all this nonsense involving made up scenarios and recognize the real reason behind voter ID laws are to keep poor and minority populations from voting for the democratic party.
The funny thing is, despite these shenanigans and the ridiculous gerrymandering and faux news shows, the GOP is destined to fail. It just a matter of time now. You cannot keep the majority of people voting against their own inter
Re: (Score:2)
To emphasize Obfuscant's good reply: the worries about the cost of IDs are also misplaced. A driver's license, specifically, can be expensive, and some people just can't get one due to disability. Requiring a driver's license would indeed be a dirty screw intended to disenfranchise a swath of voters.
But these days every state has a non-driver's photo ID (when I was young we called it a "drinker's license"), which doesn't have anything to do with the ability to drive, and is much cheaper (usually under $10), and generally they're good for longer as well. An ID that costs you about $1/year is not an undue burden.
Nothing's perfect, but it seems a perfectly reasonable compromise to keep the vote honest.
It at least some states which have enacted voter ID laws, a non-driver's license is also free if you're qualified to vote, which means that the only real hardship is going to the DMV to obtain one--and arguably the rulings that say poll taxes are illegal could be leveraged to mean that this is in fact implicit in all such laws.
Given that you need a photo ID to do an amazing lot of things that should but don't mean the government could be obligated to issue you such, I'm actually more suspicious of the peopl
The cost of the ID isn't the $10 (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't the $10. You don't simply fork over $10 and get an ID; you need some proof of identity, like a _certified_ birth certificate. Don't have one? They're not free either. Moreover, you often need a government issued ID to get a certified birth certificate. That's a bit of a catch-22, right? The solution varies by state. Sometimes you can use a combination of utility bills, W-2s, car registration, bank account, etc. The first requires a permanent residence. The second requires a real job. The latter two probably required a photo ID in the first place. Almost all states allow an attorney to request a certified birth certificate, but attorneys aren't free either. The situation of not having a real job, permanent residence, and certified birth certificate is probably totally foreign to /. users, but there are a non-trivial number of (usually poor) American citizens in that situation, but they still deserve the right to vote.
Now, some states try to avoid this mess. E.g. in WI the non-driver IDs are free if you need one to vote. Also, if you don't have the documentation you need, you can fill out a form [wisconsindot.gov] and the DMV will take care of everything -- at least in principle. I don't know how well it works; the WI DMV is already stretched kind of thin.
I have mixed feelings about all this. Voter fraud is simply not a problem in the US. (Yes, some idiots filled out fake voter _registration_ forms last election because they were paid to fill out lots of registration forms. That's not voter fraud since no fraudulent votes were cast.) Voter ID laws are there to make life difficult for poor people who tend to vote for Democrats. End of story. What's the upside? Because of the political angle, voter ID laws have lead to organizations assisting poor people to get ID cards. I don't know how effective the organizations have been, but the people who get an ID probably benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Homeless people are not 0.001% of the population, they're more like 1% of the population. And they're not a random 1%, they're a 1% with a lot of common needs and interests. That 1% block can swing many an election.
Re: (Score:3)
OK. Make it hard for those with incomes of over a million dollars a month to vote, and I won't object. They can hire people to take care of the details. But if you think the extremely poor are around 0.001% of the population then you need to think again, and perhaps open your eyes.
And for the extremely poor even the requirement to VISIT the DMV can be impossible. Many of the offices are designed to be driven to. And at least around here you're supposed to phone for an appointment which may be a month l
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, why does a voter ID have to have a permanent "home"? I know it matters for political subdivision purposes, but really all that matters is that you:
a) establish residency in that subdivision
b) are not voting in more than one place
If you are homeless, then if you want to vote locally, you establish a pattern of living and working in that one place. There are ways of doing that. Your ID could then reflect that instead of a home address. Things the homeless would do normally, like getting on a lis
Re: (Score:2)
So what's your solution, government issued photo IDs? Sounds good, but IMO the system for obtaining such a photo ID should be:
* fast -- no standing or sitting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles (or Registry of Motor Vehicles, here in Massachusetts) for an hour or two.
* inexpensive -- in Massachusetts, it's $25 for an ID. At the minimum wage of $7.25 that's nearly 3 and a half hours of work. I don't know what the cost of an ID is in other states. Does a plastic card really cost $25 to produce? Even
Re: (Score:2)
* inexpensive -- in Massachusetts, it's $25 for an ID. At the minimum wage of $7.25 that's nearly 3 and a half hours of work. I don't know what the cost of an ID is in
In order to sidestep this objection, most states have addressed this problem by allowing people without drivers license to get a FREE non-driver photo ID for voting.
This seems like a simple and easy way to make this a non-issue.
Yes, there is some inconvenience to go get an ID but it probably takes longer to stand in line to vote than it does to stand in line to get an ID. Yes, the republicans might have ulterior motives for wanting stricter voter ID laws but so do the democrats for not wanting them. To an
Re: (Score:2)
*On a side note, background checks for gun ownerships also "just make sense" and likewise the republicans should allow it to happen.
...I might of missed something, but NICS, IE 'National Instant background Check System' has been in place for quite a while, hasn't it?
On the other hand, you also run into the same problem with private transfers in states that have passed laws such that even those have to go through the NICS check - they authorize dealers to charge for it, and thus a private transfer averages around $45 for the check(note, the actual check is free to the dealer, and takes about 10-15 minutes for the paperwork).
Personally, I
No shit, Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No shit, Sherlock (Score:5, Interesting)
Where was Captain Obvious ten years ago?
She was (and still is) here [blackboxvoting.org]. Alas, as you mentioned, no one wanted to listen.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the contract on those machines just ran out. Those machines were probably bought and paid for over 10 years with support, and they were hoping that the vendor would
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 10 years later, the contract was not renewed, the vendor probably doesn't even support them anymore, and it's all paid off, so it can be dumped as scrap equipment.
It's stated that the vender has gone out of business, so there's a guarantee of no support from them.
LOL ... (Score:2)
Wow, that's pretty terrible.
And, I'm sure in no way similar to all of these new consumer electronics which want to connect to the intertubes .. none of which would use default passwords, store unencrypted data, send passwords in plaintext over a network ... hmmmm, wait a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, the popular activity is "halt and cook", where the malicious party overrides the normal print procedure so that the paper stops in the toner-bake stage and continues to cook there. Maybe a nearby employee will notice the smell before it sets off a smoke alarm, but even if the firmware is replaced, the mechanical components and heating element in the printer are usually done for.
lp0 on fire!
all voting should be paper and pencil (Score:5, Insightful)
electronics, and to a lesser extent voting machines, just exponentially increase the amount of attack vectors
of course you can still fake votes with paper voting, but then you are talking about a crazy conspiracy involving delivery trucks and teams of people. it's a lot harder to hide
rather than one well placed hacker
the poorest democracy and the most advanced democracy should all vote the same way
the overriding point is legitimacy: people have to trust their vote counted. replacing paper and pencil with a black box of gears or electronics does not engender trust
this is far, far more important than getting results a couple hour earlier
Re: (Score:3)
this is far, far more important than getting results a couple hour earlier
Or, allowing people with severe disabilities not to have to suffer the utter humiliation of requiring assistance.
Yes, that was sarcastic. But advocates for the disabled pushed this fiasco really hard...
Re:all voting should be paper and pencil (Score:4, Insightful)
Or better yet, feed the ballots into two+ independently built/owned/designed counting machines and investigate if the answers are ever not 100% in agreement, if you want your results faster. You can even go back and hand count later in an audit.
Re:all voting should be paper and pencil (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the perfect electronic voting machine would operate like so:
1) A well-designed touch screen interface would let you select your candidates based on your available ballot choices.
3) The device would print out a "voting receipt" for the person to verify.
4) Once verified:
4a) The device would store the results electronically (locally, not via a network connection which could be rendered insecure).
4b) The person would put the receipt into a slot that leads to a locked box.
5) When the results are ready to be counted, they can be electronically tallied, but there would also be a paper trail to make sure the electronic votes weren't tampered with.
Re:all voting should be paper and pencil (Score:4, Informative)
Who says it has to be a fully electronic system?
A decade ago in South Dakota I used an electronic system which was actually more secure than what you describe.
You walk into the voting booth, insert your ballot, it scans it and displays a single race per screen, you make your choices, confirm your choices in the end, then marks your ballot and returns it to you.
Prior to putting your ballot in the final box, you visually confirm that each race is what you selected... so you have the convenience of a touch screen system but with the verifiability of paper.
Re: all voting should be paper and pencil (Score:2)
I want my own receipt, one I can validate my vote with later.
And that would also bring with it some fabulous opportunities for shenanigans
Re: (Score:2)
A couple things that I don't like:
1. It's a Diebold machine (not a stellar reputation)
2. I have no clue what happens if I disagree with the printed ballot since it's all internal
3. One year the paper roll was jammed in the machine. I told the poll worker
Re: (Score:2)
Some other things should be added.
First, the paper ballot should also list all the candidates the voter did *not* choose, so that a later recount can see if there were choices left off, which is something that should invalidate the election.
Secondly, neither the voting machine nor the verification/scanner machines should store any results. The only thing that should store the cumulative results during the day should be the ballot box itself, ie, the box that holds the voter-validated ballots.
I'm fin
Re: (Score:2)
well said, thank you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with electronic voting, when it's done right. Use the computer to create a ballot that's uniform in appearance (no "hanging chads", no half-filled circles for a Scantron machine to puzzle over, etc.) and has the voting information stored in both human and machine readable form. Let the computer count its machine readable votes for the initial vote count. If there's a discrepancy, recount the human readable votes (and let that take precedence over the machine readable votes, if the two
Re: (Score:2)
of course you can still fake votes with paper voting, but then you are talking about a crazy conspiracy involving delivery trucks and teams of people. it's a lot harder to hide
And yet, it happens.
Of course, in the modern age, it is much easier to sue to get the ballots thrown out after they have been counted and found to favor your opponent, or to sue to get yet another recount that would push the certification of the results past the deadline for them mean anything.
the poorest democracy and the most advanced democracy should all vote the same way
Why? If there were ever developed a secure proper electronic voting system, you think we all in the US should get our fingers dipped in indelible ink just because they do it that way in some poorer countries? I se
Re: (Score:2)
any voting system can be tampered with
the idea is to have the simplest system, so the tampering has the fewest and most labor intensive options only
electronic, and to a lesser extent mechanical, introduces more complexity, which means more attack vectors, more ways, and easier ways, to mess with the vote
with electronic one well placed hacker can sprinkle enough fake votes in a way that can escape even statistical analysis for tampering
there is no benefit to making the vote needlessly more complicated, go ah
Re: (Score:2)
we accommodate blind people in many ways, you are presenting a false dichotomy
turning our voting system into a needlessly complex untrustworthy blackbox system that can be leveraged by one hacker instead of a team of workers to destroy people's faith in their government, just so the handicapped have a slightly easier experience, is pretty fucking stupid
Re: (Score:3)
absolutely. OCR it. but everything should still be done by hand, on paper, and that has to be kept
Re: all voting should be paper and pencil (Score:2)
That's how I've voted in two different states over the past 44 years.
Re: (Score:2)
forced voting by mail? is that even legal?
i thought you were lying and trolling
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat... [seattlepi.com]
nope, it's true
that's obviously moronic and should be overturned
someone has to mount a legal challenge
hilarious
hard core democrat here. you're pretty fucking stupid. you understand why voting by mail is so horrible, but you think that's a ding against paper voting. it'
Re: (Score:2)
forced voting by mail? is that even legal?
Ask Oregon. That's how we do it out here. Your ballot arrives by mail a couple of weeks before the end of the election ("election day") and you can either mail it back or go find a drop-box.
I've heard that it is not uncommon to find unopened ballots in the wastebaskets at the post office. I've never cared enough to go look for myself, but I can believe it. People throw out their "junk mail" in a convenient place, and if they aren't going to vote the ballot is junk mail to them.
that's obviously moronic and should be overturned
Moronic or not, it is conv
Re: (Score:2)
well if fat lazy stupid americans value convenience, they get the government they deserve and should stop complaining
Re: (Score:2)
well come on: court challenge. demand the change. it's in your hands. apathy will mean it stays
Re: (Score:2)
the issue is trust. needless complexity is inherently untrustable
even open source
average joe isn't going to comb through source code and verify. he isn't even going to go "i don't understand it but pimply computer dweeb over there says it's ok." who fucking cares what some *other* guy says? you have to trust someone, and that's the problem
meanwhile, everyone can trust a piece of paper and a pencil
Lowest bidder isn't always the best choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're supposed to have proposal criteria which disqualify proposals that won't work adequately.
The problem is, especially in IT, organizations issuing RFPs don't necessarily know what those criteria should be. This is especially true in government IT procurements where an agency has received a political mandate to address a problem it's never dealt with before. It doesn't know how to address that problem, much less how to draft criteria for an IT system to address that problem.
As with any kind of o
Pringles (Score:2)
An attacker wouldn't have needed to be inside a polling place either to subvert an election... someone 'within a half mile with a rudimentary antenna built using a Pringles can could also have attacked them.
Damn agricultural lobby always trying to find new ways to screw with the government.
Been gone for a while now (Score:2)
Maybe not everywhere, by in my polling location (GWU in Ashburn) they haven't had the e-voting booths for at least the last 4 years. It's all been paper/marker Scantron-type ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not everywhere, by in my polling location (GWU in Ashburn) they haven't had the e-voting booths for at least the last 4 years. It's all been paper/marker Scantron-type ballots.
Yes, the article said that Virginia only had 3,000 of them still in use in the 2014 election.
Still, three thousand is a lot.
Paper Ballots (Score:2)
Mostly old news (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Scantrons - eminently viable solution, thank you. Can be utilized completely without electricity if necessary, can be counted by both hand and by independent electronic machines, highly auditable.
Only problem is, as you say, somebody speaking a different language might need a special ballot(preferably in both english and the alternate), and a blind person would need assistance.
In the case of the different language, even that's not especially necessary - you can provide a handout with translations for the v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need the translations for the names, you need them for the ballot initiatives. School bonds and the like.
That's actually what I was thinking of when I said 'sections'.
I could figure out the "important" elections like president, governor, federal and state congressional elections even if they were in Spanish, for example, by name recognition. Japanese would be... tougher. ;)
Re: Mostly old news (Score:2)
"The last time everybody used them was 2004, which coincidentally was the last time the state voted for a Republican president."
Earlier someone asked why it took 10 years to get rid of these machines.
Huh.
Um... Wow... (Score:2)
I've always supported pen&paper voting, with e-machines, if used, only being used to produce a paper ballot.
If you have paper ballots, you can still recover from things like a power outage*, you can hand count the things if necessary, and if you declare the paper 'receipt' to be the official ballot, everything is countable and can be audited.
I've had some arguments with people about how electronic machines are more usable for those with disabilities, but see above - you can only do the best you can, and
Re: (Score:2)
Like it's going to be in Virginia until the last of those elected through the use of these machines are gone.
Or re-elected by a more trustworthy system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what did we learn from this? (Score:2)
I'm betting the only conclusion we can really draw is that the vendor for these systems stopped making their regularly-scheduled payments to the appropriate campaign organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting the only conclusion we can really draw is that the vendor for these systems stopped making their regularly-scheduled payments to the appropriate campaign organizations.
Ah, no.. The fact is that the OTHER vendor started making bigger donations to those in power and the incumbent vendor decided to take the money and run.
Diebold quality! (Score:2)
I dont understand why the Feds dont pass a law that states all voting machine source code MUST be audited by professionals before an election and then compiled, checked and then uploaded to the machines.
Diebold can easily be told to go stuff it in a sock when they complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Diebold can easily be told to go stuff it in a sock when they complain.
Diebold hasn't been around for years. They were getting so much bad publicity that they removed their name from the voting machines they made, and then changed their name to "Premier Election Solutions".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
(following that, it was acquired by Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and then by Dominion Voting Systems).
Now that that is done (Score:3)
America needs to ditch the world's worst voting system.
ungrateful jerk! (Score:2)
"In total, the vulnerabilities investigators found were so severe and so trivial to exploit, Epstein noted that 'anyone with even a modicum of training could have succeeded' in hacking them. An attacker wouldn't have needed to be inside a polling place either to subvert an election... someone 'within a half mile with a rudimentary antenna built using a Pringles can could also have attacked them.'"
well that's the last time I elect him governor!
Early projections (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because hackers are such staunch Conservatives, right?
Re: (Score:2)
have Virginia suddenly going Blue.
Suddenly blue? So, they haven't ever elected a democrat before now?
Virginia might be considred PURPLE, with some pretty dark shades of blue. They may have a Republican governor, but they do have two democratic senators and a couple of house seats..... They've voted to elect the democratic candidate in the last two presidential elections.
Virginia has been BLUE for at least the last 8 years... What would be sudden is if it started electing republicans....
I live in Virginia and never use electronic voting (Score:2)
At the sites I've voted the default choice has been, since the 90s or so, that you get a scantron form and fill out dots with a felt marker. The forms are very simple and clear. None of this butterfly nonsense or anything like the ridiculous schemes we also saw in Florida in 2000. The form is then fed into a machine and the votes are presumably optically counted, and of course, the original hard copies can be maintained for recounts, etc. It always seemed to me to be a reasonable and secure way to ru
The good news is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)