Feds Finally Realizing That Current E-Voting Standards Suck

from the it-took-them-this-long? dept

Wed, Nov 29th 2006 4:18pm — Mike Masnick

Despite the fact that people have been pointing this out for many years, it seems that the federal government is finally recognizing that current e-voting machines suck, and it's time to have much more stringent rules on e-voting machines. Specifically, they want to finally require voter verifiable paper trails so that every machine can have an audit and a recount if there are any questions about them -- which would mean that the plan in Sarasota county, Florida to resell their broken e-voting machines may have just gone out the window. Of course, as per usual, there are always some who are against such a plan. The article quotes an "elections expert" who complains: "If you insist on paper you're tying elections to an old technology." That's about the weakest argument we've heard. We need e-voting machines because they're new? How about accuracy or security? I would think in the long list of reasons why you'd want any particular voting method, "novelty" as opposed to "been around for a while" would be near the bottom of the list.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

AMP, 29 Nov 2006 @ 4:32pm

Sheesh
Accuracy and security are SO last year.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oceanstarz, 29 Nov 2006 @ 6:11pm

e-voting
Die DieBold, Die ! Die !

My local bank put in a DieBold ATM machine and the thing keeps breaking down. Its almost a joke what a piece of useless technology the thing has turned out to be. The DieBold guys show up looking like a couple of blackshirted thugs from central casting and the parts take weeks to arrive. These hostile right wing thugs are the guys we 'trust' to secure our elections, and that is just DieBold.

Why the federal government has allowed these creeps to sell these porous, crappy, hackable boxes of junk is just another example of the corruption and mismanagement our country is becoming know and loved for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin Price, 29 Nov 2006 @ 6:51pm

Maybe we should use hammer and chisel, that would
The idea that we need to revert to paper voting systems because the current pathetic iteration of electronic voting machines doesn't work is painfully stupid. There is absolutly no reason why a reliable, maintainable and secure e-voting machine can't be builit. This issue is the incompetence and corruption in the government procurment process. When you buy from the lowest bidder or the supply who bribed your boss, you get what you deserve.

It only takes one qualified IT vendor and adequent government funding to solve this problem. Go back to paper is only what needs to be done in the meantime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pudro, 29 Nov 2006 @ 10:09pm

Re: Maybe we should use hammer and chisel, that wo
Adequent? You can't even pronounce it right let alone spell it.
Adequate.

I see no reason why we shouldn't put every safeguard and accountability measure in place, no matter how archaic it may appear. It is people like you who threaten our democratic voting structure by insinuating that voting is the most important thing. Counting the votes is the most important thing.

Any purely electronic method can be tampered with unless you place it under ridiculous surveillance, and that still relies on the integrity of those who are doing the surveillance. Your comparison to a hammer and chisel is just as flawed as the "old technology" expert.

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
-Joseph Stalin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Javarod, 30 Nov 2006 @ 2:41am

Electronic voting
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, have the machines print out a receipt, the voter checks the receipt, and then finishes voting by pushing an on screen confirm button. Lastly they toss their receipt in a ballot box, that way if there's a recount, you simply pull out the receipts, problem solved. Why is it that simple things have to be so hard? Oh yeah, the gubberment is involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TerryW, 30 Nov 2006 @ 11:48am

Re: Electronic voting
Jarod - why bother with the machine if you are depending on the paper receipt for accuracy and reliability? What if the voter decides they want to vote differently after the receipt is printed and before they press the confirm button? Now they will have two receipts. What do you do now? Now we need to write a whole new policy. Why waste all that money buying and maintaining and securing machines when all it does is add an extra pointless and contentious step? Perhaps you save a few minutes in the counting process so the media can get the results out earlier but you lose so much more in dependability and confidence in the results. Paper ballots counted by independent paid electoral staff in front of scrutineers from all candidates has worked for years and years without any of this angst. Lets use what works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Javarod, 30 Nov 2006 @ 7:45pm

Re: Re: Electronic voting
Actually I don't disagree with the idea of paper ballots, more this is my solution to the insistence on having electronic voting, and how to insure (at least as best as possible) the accuracy of it. Personally I prefer the mechanical machines, we had them back in NJ, and from what I understand, to rig one requires either replacing or machining some of the gears, something that's difficult to do on the scale necessary to rig an election. Paper ballots can still be tampered with, ballot boxes misplaced, etc, though over all, its relatively flaw free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johnnyO, 1 Dec 2006 @ 10:32am

machines
fuck paper trails...........we demand paper BALLOTS..death to all voting machines
[ link to this | view in thread ]