Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

New Jersey Court Won't Block Electronic Voting 64

Posted by michael from the paper-deemed-harmful dept.
SilentChris writes "A New Jersey court has denied an e-voting ban request made by Rutgers University on behalf of a voter. The plantifs argued the machines 'are "inherently insecure" and do not offer a backup paper record of each vote, which means there is no way to verify ballots if there were a recount' (much the same as arguments made on Slashdot). The court responded by saying the 'alternative is worse. Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'. Despite the setback, the case hasn't been officially dismissed. However, the plantiffs will need to take action today to have an effect on next week's presidential election."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Jersey Court Won't Block Electronic Voting More

New Jersey Court Won't Block Electronic Voting

Comments Filter:
  • With less than a week away, it seems like it would be difficult to add paper trails even to e-voting machines. Next Tuesday will be an interestingly chaotic day to say the least, especially with the R&D's swarm of lawyers standing by...

  • Do they? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Troed ( 102527 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:43AM (#10653409) Homepage Journal
    Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'

    Except ... it works in the rest of the world - even in areas larger than the USA.

  • Professional? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 )
    Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'.

    Professional what? Professional Liars?

  • Too bad the Judge doesn't know tech from his arse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:48AM (#10653459) Homepage Journal
    Quoting said judge:

    "Your alternative is worse. Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster. Your alternative is to go to an emergency ballot or an absentee ballot."

    I'm a "professional" and I say that paper is more secure and less prone to problems than a half-baked tech idea that was selected based upon the strength of its glossy brochure than its functionality.

    I notice that the Voting terminals here in Texas had wide-open USB ports. What's to say that my little keyfob wouldn't accidentally be inserted, and that pesky autorun.inf would do strange, scary things to the machine? How are you then going to prove that you voted for who you say you voted for? You can't. How is that not a formula for disaster?

    Here's a novel idea: combine the best of both worlds. Tech is great at constraining input in appropriate ways (only pick ONE, etc), whereas paper is harder to counterfeit. Have the terminal as the input device that then prints out the completed ballot, which is then dropped in the box. This eliminates the problems with people not being able to punch holes in cards correctly, while providing the security of knowing your vote was recorded correctly.

    Not having a paper trail at all means your vote can be changed easily and without detection; having a paper that is only a "receipt" also means that your vote can be changed easily and without detection. Having a paper that IS your vote means that it is harder to change your vote, and would take some collusion and effort: printing money is easy; altering money is hard.

    • How are you then going to prove that you voted for who you say you voted for?

      Hmm, just out of curiousity, how would you prove that you voted for who you say you voted for with a paper ballot? Not like they let you take a copy of your ballot home with you, or the orginal ballots have names inscribed on them, is it?

      I haven't used a paper ballot in nearly 20 years. But seems to me that they didn't have serial numbers that were cross-indexed with the voter rolls then, so switching ballots out wouldn't hav

      • "I haven't used a paper ballot in nearly 20 years. But seems to me that they didn't have serial numbers that were cross-indexed with the voter rolls then, so switching ballots out wouldn't have been all that hard if someone had wanted to."

        My understanding of US paper voting is this (based on how it works in Europe):

        You vote on a specially printed ballot with security features.
        Your vote goes into a locked ballot box which the local polling workers can't open.
        The ballot box is taken to be opened and counted
        • My understanding of US paper voting is this (based on how it works in Europe):

          You vote on a specially printed ballot with security features.

          So, they don't have printing presses in Europe? People counterfeit money all the time - if they can do something as complex as money, a ballot is a cinch.

          Your vote goes into a locked ballot box which the local polling workers can't open.

          The ballot box is taken to be opened and counted.

          All of these steps are done in front of representatives of opposing candidates.

          • You're registered in one precinct, and you show your "voting card" when you vote. Unless you manage to get voting cards belonging to other people, and vote before they do/want to, there's not a problem.

            Again - it works everywhere else - what makes you think the US is so special it wouldn't work for you?

            • If they're dead, they won't show up to vote. This, by the way, was the favorite method of stuffing ballot boxes by the Democrats in Chicago for many years.

              Not that I believe that it is still happening, in spite of the fact that one of the people Gore brought to Florida to help him with his recounts was the son of the Chicago Mayor most notorious for that sort of thing. Interestingly enough, the son was also Mayor of Chicago. What a coincidence!

              • If they're dead, they haven't got a voter's card.

                • Really? In the USA, the government doesn't come around and confiscate your voter's card from your widow. They do that in Europe?

                  Seriously, in the USA, with 50 different States, replacing a dead man isn't terribly hard. Basic technique - find someone who died in a state different than the one he was born in. Not hard to do, we're a moderately mobile people. Get some fake ID made, and request a copy of his birth certificate from the issuing State. Go elsewhere with that perfectly legal, valid birth cer

                  • Prior to each election voter's cards are sent out to those who are allowed to vote. We don't send cards to dead people.

                    • Interesting. How do you determine whether the Government is sending cards to all the right people, and none of the wrong ones?

                      That said, we don't do it that way over here...

                    • That said, we don't do it that way over here...

                      Well, instead of refusing to see the problem(s) with the current US system, you could take some clues from other countries to improve the system. But I guess this goes against the "we're the best country/democracy in the world" propaganda the US public has been fed for so long as well as the Not Invented Here syndrom. And of course, you would have to admit the current system is not perfect, something the current administration may have a problem with...

                    • Lots of problems with ANY system. Don't know that we would fix them by mailing people Voter Cards.

                      After all, if the Voter Cards weren't mailed out properly, we'd disenfranchise people. Which would be a bad thing. Or of the Voter lost his card, he'd be disenfranchised. Again, a bad thing. Or if you were, by a mischance, not issued a Voter Card because your name matched that of a felon, we'd disenfranchise people. A bad thing.

                      We have Voter Rolls here. When you vote, you go to your precinct, and pres

          • How do you handle the Graveyard voting? You know, someone comes along and represents himself as Joe Blow, votes, then goes to the next precinct, and repeats the process with a different name. Faking ID isn't hard, really - kids do it all the time to get beer.

            Assuming you're a professional (you can create an unlimited number of perfect-but-fake ID's, you have a way to be assured you will never be recognised by anyone who knew the deceased, you have a way to ensure dead people are not purged from the voti

    • Do you have a credit card or debit card? Do you ever use them? Do you always get a receipt when you take money out? Do you use the Internet to purchase stuff online?

      How many ATM transactions happen every day? How many credit card transactions happen every day? We know how to make electronic machines that can replace manual or mechanical processes. If these things weren't very secure (I'm not saying they're 100% secure) then we wouldn't use them nearly as much as we do. If they weren't more accurate
      • Problem is you get a statement in the mail that tells you your credit card purchases and ATM withdrawls and whatnot, or you can check these online. You can't do this at the voting booth for valid reasons. In fact I have had ATMs error on me and withdrawl money from my account without giving me the money. Its extremly rare, but multiply this by millions of people and the fact that there is no way to go back and verify gives the maker a chance to cheat that it doesn't have with ATMs and such.
      • If the bank stole your money, they would lose you as a customer, so their interests and yours are aligned.

        Plus listen to the ATM when you take the money out and you'll hear it print a note on the internal printer, even when you don't request a receipt it still prints a paper trail.

        "The bottom line is that these electronic voting machines can be, and probably already are, many times more accurate than paper ballots."

        "and probably already are", they're unverifable, its not enough to say "and probably alrea
      • After seeing the leaked Diebold code- I've started avoiding ATMs manufactured by that company.
      • The bottom line is that these electronic voting machines can be, and probably already are, many times more accurate than paper ballots. We know how to make ATMs, we can make them secure, reliable and even easy to use. Why are you so against doing the same thing for voting machines?

        I think that's a question best addressed to Diebold.

    • Here's a novel idea: combine the best of both worlds. Tech is great at constraining input in appropriate ways (only pick ONE, etc), whereas paper is harder to counterfeit. Have the terminal as the input device that then prints out the completed ballot, which is then dropped in the box.

      Even better: you could have the voting machines keep a complete GUI transactional log of every voting session, to help verify the final paper ballot count.

      Polling places using electronic voting machines are already reporti

    • My ideal system would work like this:

      The computer terminal would be used as an input device that can verify that the voter's input makes sense and give him a chance to revise his choices if he'd like. If he'd like to cast a vote that doesn't make sense to the machine, he should be able to do that too. (why? I don't know, I just don't like the idea of someone not having complete freedom to vote as they'd like.)

      Then, it will simultaneously increment its counters, just as the Diebold is supposed to be doing

    • Voting terminals here in Texas had wide-open USB ports. What's to say that my little keyfob wouldn't accidentally be inserted, and that pesky autorun.inf would do strange, scary things to the machine?

      How do you know that it will actually run? Are they running linux or windows or do they even have an OS at all? Are the USB drives enabled? Do the machines even have USB drivers installed? Etc... Etc...

      How are you then going to prove that you voted for who you say you voted for? You can't.

      Sounds just li

  • Ballot Box Observers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:53AM (#10653524) Homepage Journal
    One wonders if one could make a persuasive argument that electronic voting booths are illegal because they deny third parties an opportunity to observe the ballot box?

    Does anyone know of any state law (NJ or otherwise) which guarantees independent observers the right to verify the "ballot box" is empty before voting begins, to observe the box at all times during vote casting, verify that the box is sealed after election is closed, and observe the counting of the votes post-election? If so, I think an electronic ballot box would fail all those tests.

    • Does anyone know of any state law (NJ or otherwise) which guarantees independent observers the right to verify the "ballot box" is empty before voting begins, to observe the box at all times during vote casting, verify that the box is sealed after election is closed, and observe the counting of the votes post-election?

      This happens in Australia. The observers aren't really independant - but each candidate on the ballot in question gets to send one.

      Sounds like far too sane an idea for voting in the United

    • They do not deny third parties the ability to be voted for. You can still do write ins by law. Anyone in Jersey can go to the election officials and ask for a paper write in ballot instead of using the machines.

      • Anyone in Jersey can go to the election officials and ask for a paper write in ballot instead of using the machines.

        I believe this is the case nationwide, but I can't cite a source.

        What happens next could be of interest: The total number of write-in ballots are determined, but not tallied. No attempt is made to determine voter intent, which is to say, even if you wrote-in the name of someone on the ballot, it will not count as a vote for that candidate, at least not yet. These are treated as "disputed"

        • To go over some, under the FOIA i think it was soemone actually go their hands on the balots after the count and Bush did win. Sorry, can't site a source.

          allegations of flaws in a certain version of the e-vote software places all votes cast on boxes running that version into dispute.

          This would be the entire counties/systems votes since they all should be running the exact same version. Hmmm... That would be interesting, the entire states voting challenged all in one go.
  • My mind boggles when I hear that a court supports electronic voting without a paper trail. Currently, the Chinese (in both mainland China and Taiwan) have an army of hackers.[1] They work relentlessly to hack into American computer systems and would attempt to alter the results of an election to throw the win to the politician willing to sacrifice American interests in favor of Chinese interests. Without a paper trail, how could anyone contest the results of a tampered election?

    Fundamentally, there is

    • Without a paper trail, how could anyone contest the results of a tampered election?

      In order for the Chinese Crackers to get access to the voting machines, the voting machines would have to be on the internet and accepting all incoming connections. Adn they would have to be able to hack them in under 12 hours. All electronic machines I know of so far only make outgoing Phone Modem connections to report results, never going over the internet. The computer that tallies the individual results is not connec
  • Now, I like the idea of Electronic Voting. I think it's a good thing.
    However
    Electronic voting should be strongly resisted if they refuse to provide backup, paper receipts. Now, I don't want voters walking out of polling places with ballots, but if the database gets corrupted, I want that paper ballot to be available so my vote gets counted!

  • I am worried for the country (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 ) * on Thursday October 28, 2004 @10:29AM (#10653973) Homepage Journal
    There is so much hate out there on *BOTH* sides, that no mater who wins there is going to be major back lash from the other side.

    I see so few people voting for some one, I see most people voting against the other. I am at the point I think we should abolish the current 2 partys and see how the 3rd parties do, I wil back the constution party.

    But this just shows how fscked up the system has become now. I wish that they would go to the voting boxes we have here in the Pittsburgh area older, but I don't think you ever heard of said problems in Pittsburgh, or it could be Pittsburgh is a one party system ares (you are eather out of office or a democrate here)
    • Problem with constution party is on one hand they say they want to return all power to the states and let them run their things. Then on the other hand they state that these states must adopt a Republican system (the voting style not the party) or the federal government should lay the smack down on these states that don't. They also imply that abortion and other immoral acts should be illigal in all states, but come just short of saying that the federal government should see to it.
      • Well the Declaration of Independence. says we have the right to *LIFE* liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion denies to the unborn all 3 of these 3 rights, and the federal government then does have the authority, nay I say the responsibility to protect these 3 rights. And the 14 amendment does say a person can not be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". In abortion the unborn human person is
        • Hmm. I personally am opposed to abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, but when you write:

          Also the Constitution does not give the courts the right to write law, all it can do is interpret the law or determine if a law is constitutional, Roe vs. Wade was the SCOUS [sic] wrote a law in that ruling there for it is an unconstitutional ruling.

          you are incorrect. SCOTUS didn't "write a law". Roe vs. Wade was a ruling on the constitutionality of existing laws criminalizing abortion. So even though we m

          • They did not just rule on that, they said that abortion is to be law, and a "right". if that is not writeing a law, I don't know what is.
            • No, that's not what they said.

              The default rule in the US is that activities are lawful unless actively made unlawful.

              So if there was no law that talked about abortion at all, neither saying it was legal nor illegal, then it would by default be legal.

              In order to make it illegal, a government has to pass a law saying that it is illegal.

              The power of a government to make a law is limited by higher laws. For example, cities cannot make laws that their state legislatures tell them they cannot make. State legi
            • They did not just rule on that, they said that abortion is to be law, and a "right"
              Actually they ruled that the desicion to have an abortion falls under the right of privacy, not that it was it's own seperate right.

              From the actual decision [tourolaw.edu]:

              This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad en

    • That's what happens when you only have 2 viable candidates. It's easier to sling mud at the other guy than to build up yourself. Negatives make a bigger impression on the people who vote. The problem is that most people would rather stay home than vote for the lessor of two evils. The irony is that our candidates may be decent people, but when they are both demonized by the opposition, it is hard to be satisfied with whoever wins.
  • 'alternative is worse. Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'

    IT works everwhere else it even worked in previouse American elections, Perhaps the statment should read "Every Electronic voting booth professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'

  • the benefits of e-voting so outweight the problems. Everyone seems to think it is in-secure because there were two kids in their basement with their dad's laptop and they cracked into the prototype system. news organizations picked up on this, and it was spin city. e-voting insecure. Tonight at 11:00, who are you voting for? then suddenly we have this outbreak of paranoid housewives who now don't truse e-voting. They tell their husbands, their husband tell the co-soccer coach and on and on and on. Let me
    • If you can't see your enemy, it makes it difficult to prepare for their attack. You can lock ballots in a big steel box and be comfortable that no one is going to steal them...or at least without you knowing about it. However, when that familiar box becomes a box with "some microchips and diodes" and you don't know how to protect it, you become very afraid that the voting system isn't safe anymore.

      Electronic voting is the way of the future, but the engineers developing these machines can't overcome the p

  • What a crock. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by scowling ( 215030 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @11:23AM (#10654766) Homepage
    "Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster"

    The Canadian federal elections use paper ballots, and every vote is counted within eight hours of the closing of the polls.

    Paper ballots work. Non-transparent systems like most of the e-voting systems in the US are the recipes for disaster.

  • San Francisco does it almost right IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @01:03PM (#10655884) Journal
    In SF we get large paper ballots ( 11x17 or bigger) and a black pen. For propisitions, you have a yes and no and you draw a line between them. You have a line to select your candidate also. The ballot shows the candidate and party they belong to, and they are usually in columns, with a heading of what you are voting for, and seperated by lines. Like and HTML table with one column and a table header.

    Then you get a reciept, and they put it through a machine, which counts it. Unfortunately you don't get a copy of who or what you voted for, which is one area they could improve on.

    If you select both Yes and No the machine will reject the ballot and you have a do over. If you select 2 or more people for the same office it gets rejected and its a do over.

    Its not perfect, but it seems to work pretty well. Like I said, all I think it needs is a reciept.

    • Unfortunately you don't get a copy of who or what you voted for, which is one area they could improve on.

      You shouldn't get such a copy. If you can prove your votes to a third party, then said third parties can start employing bribes, extortion, etc. to alter votes.

    • I was an election official poll worker in SF. If you get at least one non-stupid person working it seems like a pretty good system. After the polls close, two things happen:

      1) An election official comes by to pick up the memory card from the machine. (You have to break one of those counting seals to pull it out. I don't remember, but I think the seal goes with the memory.) That gets driven to the seccrit spot to be counted.

      2) Poll workers count and checksum the number of paper ballots (used, counted from
  • This should be a slashdot poll. Do you agree that "a paper ballot is a formula for disaster" when compared to the current, electronic voting machines? Then mail the results to this judge.
  • The court is absolutely right on this one. Paper ballots are a formula for disaster. And that disaster has happened in every single election in the history of the world. It's insane to think that paper ballots are a safe choice when they have never, not once, been used in an election that didn't turn out to be a horrific tragedy for the human race. Hitler was elected with paper ballots. I rest my case.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close