Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Government Politics Your Rights Online

Maryland Governor Wants Voting Paper Trail 111

Posted by Zonk from the not-just-shots-in-the-dark dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maryland Governor Wants Voting Paper Trail More

Maryland Governor Wants Voting Paper Trail

Comments Filter:

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

    by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbear@pacbe l l .net> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @01:48PM (#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.

      • I'm starting to consider the opinon that voting should be an essay question as of late.

        Voting should be yes/no up/down and able to be verified through a manual recount. The essay question should be given to those people who are supposed to protect the process. The first question is: Why do you oppose a paper trail so that disputed vote totals can be recounted? The second question is: Has someone from Diebold or Sequoia Systems sent a "representative" to "help" you "understand" why you don't need a pa

    • He's just afraid of being beaten in the Nov. race by O'Malley.

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

      by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:06PM (#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.)
      • You know, the Democrats could have used their brains and said, "We're delighted that Gov. Ehrlich has finally seen the wisdom of ensuring that votes can be reliably tallied, even if it did take him a little longer than the rest of us." Snarky, but true.

        And what's the thing with Rove? Upset that the Democrats don't have a political strategist who's worth two cents?

        • Your sentence still includes "finally seen the wisdom" and "even if it did take him longer than the rest of us", which could still be twisted into "though they criticized the fact that it took him so long to change his mind" which would again be reported as "Democrats criticized the flip-flop".

          Karl Rove is a criminal. He has been a criminal since he began working in politics. Criminals have no place in society except in jail.
          • could still be twisted

            Yeah, so? My original statement is short enough to be a sound bite by itself. If it hurts you that people will try to twist your words, stay out of politics.

            • Are you trying to defend the fact that you're twisting their words? My point was that their actual words aren't printed in the article or the slashdot blurb. You seem to have taken what was printed and attacked it as the truth.
              • You're the one who claims your words will be twisted. My point is, so what? It happens to everyone; it's not as though all Republicans have some mystical power that prevents their statements from being spun (cf. govt shutdown during Gingrich-Clinton war).
      • With much fanfare, Maryland's new E-voting sytem was unveiled to the public at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. This replaced an electronic system of paper ballots that were filled out like the op-scan forms used for so many surveys and standardized tests for the last 30 or 40 years. At least some privacy was provided to prevent others from seeing a completed form and being able to link it to a particular voter, and the voter himself or herself fed the form into the scanning machine. For the most part
    • 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.

    • Re:Work with him! (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Foofoobar ( 318279 )
      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
      • If this was true, then implementing a paper trail won't hurt the Democrats, but actually hurt him because he won't be able to manipulate the system as much.

        So what's the problem in creating a paper trail for the next election?
        • yes, that's the way politics works.

          If that were the case, the fact that WMD's weren't found, that no evidence connecting Al Qaeda to Iraq, that memos stating the a known threat to the US were ignored would have had an effect on Bush getting elected.

          Unfortunately, the common voter only has a memory as long as the last thing he saw on the news.

          Sorta blows your theory of actions having consequences in politics out of the water, huh?

          Just think of politics like Hollywood in suits and with more money.
    • Hmmm. He was elected in 2002. He ticked a lot of people off over the last 3+ years. I can't remember whether Maryland's term of office for governor is 4 or 6 years, but I think it's the former. The last few Maryland governor's races have been pretty close, with recounts not quite equalling the 2000 presidential race, but certainly contentious nonetheless.

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

      • Re:Work with him! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 )

        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

        • Re:Work with him! (Score:3, Informative)

          by cheezedawg ( 413482 )
          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.

          • 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.

            According to TFA, "Testimony to that effect came from Donald F. Norris, director of the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who was hired by the elections board for a study and spoke before a Senate committee last week. Norris said he would not recommend buying any of the four verification tec

  • 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.

    • Re:Vetoes aren't as significant as you think (Score:5, Informative)

      by Peter Mork ( 951443 ) <Peter.Mork@gmail.com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:18PM (#14734872) Homepage

      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 @01:55PM (#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 @01:56PM (#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.
    • Just have the voting machine print out a ballot.

      That would come in real handy for a recount. Have stubs at the end of the receipt that shows the vote - nothing else - for submission when/if there's a recount. Of course, there's the whole issue of forgery, but then again, when has it not been an issue.

    • 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.

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

    by warpSpeed ( 67927 ) <slashdot@fredcom.com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:00PM (#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
    • What county do you live in? While I have to admit that I skipped the last election, Montgomery county used touch screen systems for the last presidential election.
    • Not sure what county you live in, but I voted in 2004 in Frederick Co., MD, and I *had* to use a touch-screen. Complaining to the election official got me a condescending smile.
      • I live in Fredneck too. I hate to admit this, but I may be remembering a provisional ballot. I was at the wrong polling place since I had moved between elections. It sucks reaching middle age, the memory starts to slip...

        I guess I still have to ask what is wrong with the old system where they collected the paper ballots and read then in the machine. I do not think that the touch screens preventing voters from incorrectly choosing invalid combinations of candidates is a good enough reason to dump the ol

        • I think it would be an interesting study if someone could compare the old paper ballots (where you completed the arrow with the special black pen) and the touch-screen ballots to see whether there is a change in the rate of people who vote randomly.

          Think about it: you go in knowing who you want for governor and senator. Then they ask you about board of education candidates, and you haven't done your homework (pun intended). So ... do you leave it blank or vote randomly?

          I'm willing to bet that people who a

    • I live and vote in Maryland. In the last major election we used paper ballots that were electronicly read.

      Where do you live? I don't know of a place in Maryland that used paper ballots in the last election. Not saying you didn't, however I'm very curious if there really was a place that escaped being updated. Sure you really voted? Yea, I live in Maryland, in the sticks. We used the Diebold machines.

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

      Right now it should be. They are about rea

      • Yeah, I was incorrect, see other followup comment in this thread.

        Thanks for the link to the sun. I don't get over to that paper much. It amazes me that willi-don is still kicking. He should have been put out to pasture years ago. But they still love him in Baltimore...

        • It amazes me that willi-don is still kicking.

          Not sure if he is going senile or what. Seems like he is doing something to get himself into the news every so often and usually not in a good way. Sometimes he bashes his own party. They may have had enough of him this time. Hey, it could happen. Especially if they had someone else they think could win that position. Spendenning... I mean Glendenning maybe?

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

    by germanStefan ( 766513 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:03PM (#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 @02:15PM (#14734850) 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.

      • Point taken... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by IAAP ( 937607 )
        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.
          • Just to play devil's advocate, say I vote Candidate A, and get a receipt showing I voted Candidate B. I go complain to the election officials. What happens when they say "Prove you voted Candidate A. Your receipt shows B, the machine says you voted B, how do we know it isn't just voter's remorse?"
            • 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

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

          by dodongo ( 412749 ) <chucksmith@nOSpAm.alumni.purdue.edu> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:27PM (#14737882) Homepage
          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 :)
          • >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.

            Not hardly. If you print them out and let the voter touch them, they are not verifiable. And if the voter doesn't touch them

            • Not hardly. If you print them out and let the voter touch them, they are not verifiable. And if the voter doesn't touch them, then you have no garuntee they say what the receipt given to the voter says.

              These are *not receipts*. They are not (in most implementations) to be handled by the voter. At the very least, they are not to be taken home! It is entirely possible to both produce a voter-verifiable receipt, and have it collected either machine-internally or collected in a ballot box. In either case, t

        • If you are going to do a random audit, someone knows which precinct it is in, and just rigs the ones in other precincts.

          How? The decision on which precicts to audit isn't (or shouldn't be) taken until after the polls close, so nobody can tell in advance which ones are safe to rig. The best way to do that is have the decsion made by computer, picking a certain percentage of the precincts using a random number generator.

    • Re:Why is anyone against paper trails? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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...

      Here here!

      Still, I can't fathom why Diebold would hesitate to release said code. Could it really be of such a proprietary nature that they can't divulge it. Are they worried about an end-run or unintentional vulnerability? AFAIK, the design of an electronic voting booth should be as straight-forward as possible , to the point of being bullet-proof:

      exte

    • Re:Why is anyone against paper trails? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are a few reasons that Deibold can make rock solid ATM machines.

      The ATM machines/networks are a VERY mature technology. Give a modern day hacker 15 minutes with an ATM machine from the 80's and watch it crack wide open. We have had ample chance to vet the bugs.

      There are strong financial incentives for acurate ATM machines. No bank wants to even face the possibility of losing money to hackers via ATM machines. As a bank if an ATM manufacture makes you look like an ass, you will not buy those ATMs a
    • 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

    • The reason I am against them in most description is because they give you nothing in return for a few a feeling that everything is good, and do nothing to increase reliability.
      You get two types of machines in these talks: 1) A machine you vote and then get a receipt showing your vote which you pocket, machine keeps official ballot, 2) a machine that you vote and then it prints out your ballet which you deposit and that ballot is the official record.
      With type 1 what do you gain with the printout? The recei

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

    by Migraineman ( 632203 ) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:06PM (#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]
    • On a related note, I took a Network Security class by one of the team members (William Arbaugh) at the University of Maryland, and he spent an entire lecture on covering some of the Diebold security flaws. At one point he opened to floor up to the students, and getting some basic information on how the system stored and communicated the voting results the class had come up with around a dozen plausable exploits (and quite a few less plausable ones as well).
  • 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, I thought we were supposed to be the ones wanting accountability and paper voting records

      Yes. Republicans rig elections and eat babies.
    • 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 @02:10PM (#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].
  • is this guy on? He vetoed a bill to study the possibility of using a paper trail and now he's calling for the same thing. Was something attached to the bill that he didn't like or did he just change his mind on the issue?

    • As I noted above, there was nothing attached to the bill. The governor either a) came to his senses or b) flip-flopped. I originally thought it was flip-flopping, but I've since realized that option a) is more likely. :-)

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

    by ExE122 ( 954104 ) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @02:21PM (#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
  • What we need is scantron! Just require everyone bring their #2 pencils. As long as we can keep candidates and issues down to a maxium of four possible choices per question everything will work out. You've never seen the SAT people worrying about receipts or hanging chads.
    • 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
    • I had an idea like this at one point, why not just use a paper ballot made and a bingo marker.

      Every decrepit old fart in the country knows how to use one of those, and you don't have to worry about erasure (since they're not erasable -- if you make a mistake, you restart, like the idiot you are) and they're very high contrast, so they could be scanned and read electronically if you designed the ballot right.

      I have a feeling that you could get a lot of paper ballots and bingo markers, and one high-speed pape
  • Call me a conspiracy theorist, but who's to say this was the Governor's plan to make the Dems look bad and they fell right into his trap? It could be completely innocent but, He could very well be playing politics right now, having discovered that his constituents liked the idea, and while his base may not be interested in the idea. He managed to get the Democrats to compromise with him before, and then just flips over to the 'good idea' to make em look bad. While he looks like some enlightened individua
  • 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 @02:49PM (#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 @02:50PM (#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!"
  • "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" Nothing to see here. Just another politician trying to show he's "ahead of the curve".

  • 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

  • Sadly, Maryland has been rocked by allegations of vote fraud in the past. Some of this would be easy to deal with given a paper tally from a voting machine. However, many things about Maryland have nothing to do with voting machines and everything to do with the process that certifies a citizen and his/her right to vote. I've heard rumors that as many 6000 Baltimoreans voted even though they were listed as deceased.

    The real problem here is political machines playing dirty tricks on each other. The Repu
  • All you need is for the voting machine to count the vote electronicly and ALSO print out a ballot with both a machine readable barcode and a human readable vote on it. Ballot goes into a sealed ballot box.
    If there is a dispute about the machine readable vote (which has the advantage of being available soon after the election closes), you can scan the barcodes or manually count the votes.

    Its not hard to build, it would be dead simple given a computer to run it on (either a PC or something embedded, whatever
    • And which is the official ballot?
      What happens if I pocket the paper and walk-out with out without depositing it?
      What happens if a machine crashes and it looses all votes?
      Besides you are forgetting most of the people here are worried that an evil corporation will get in and modify the code so that that a few extra votes gets put into a different canidates column. The two parts, one human readable and the other computer readable does not guarentee to them that they couldn't be different.

  • 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.

    He didn't shift his view. The other bill was just a slimy political trick to delay paper ballots for a year by "studying" the idea instead of actually doing it. Delegate Sheila Hixson proposed this bill since it was easier than standing up and saying "I prefer rigging elections and Diebold gave me millions of dollars $$$$!!!" Instead you say "What a great id

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close