Canceled TV Shows Get Proper Burial Online

Is E-Voting Too Costly To Use? Or Too Costly Not To Use?

from the help-us-out-here dept

Wed, Dec 20th 2006 7:12pm — Mike Masnick

Remember earlier this month when the feds wouldn't decertify existing e-voting machines because that would be too costly? Well, thanks to John for pointing us to a report that notes that the too costly part was actually using the machines in the first place. Utah's elections officials (the same folks who forced an elections official out of his job for daring to conduct independent security tests of Diebold machines that later turned up a huge security hole) are now claiming they had no idea how expensive it would be to operate an election using e-voting machines. No wonder they were so pissed off at the elections official who tested the machines. As you may recall, Diebold then charged them to examine the reset the machines following the test. It's not just the cost of the machines that was the problem, but they required a lot more training, more poll-workers and additional costs for storage and maintenance of the machines. As that last article notes, elections shouldn't necessarily be cheap, but it's ridiculous to claim that we need to keep the faulty machines because it would be too expensive to get rid of them, when it looks like it's pretty damn expensive to keep them as well.

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

7 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Kyros, 20 Dec 2006 @ 8:14pm

Down with e-voting machines. When fox news hacks your product on TV - it's time to call it insecure and throw it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Omnie, 20 Dec 2006 @ 8:28pm

I still fail to see what will make e-voting so great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 20 Dec 2006 @ 11:17pm

It's obvious anyone with a brain will understand e-voting will be adopted within 15 years.

It's also obvious that most hired to institute the early e-voting systems are bums. (Who obviously cannot do the job. politics are great, and average iq's below 115)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Toodles, 21 Dec 2006 @ 12:29am
  
  Re: Mike - IQ
  Seems you've been mislead on what IQ means. I'm sure your mother told you that you were special and all that non-sense, so now you have some sort of superiority complex. But hey, that's ok as long as you're still willing to learn. So, learn this, the accepted standard IQ scale.
  
  IQ Scale
  
  Over 140 - Genius or almost genius
  120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
  110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
  90 - 109 - Average or normal intelligence
  80 - 89 - Dullness
  70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency in intelligence
  Under 70 - Feeble-mindedness
  
  Normal Distribution of IQ Scores
  
  50% of IQ scores fall between 90 and 110
  70% of IQ scores fall between 85 and 115
  95% of IQ scores fall between 70 and 130
  99.5% of IQ scores fall between 60 and 140
  
  So, it appears you expect people who are just below Genius to watch the polls? I'm sorry, I think they have better things to be doing. You know, like making in a month what you do in a year.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon Utahn, 20 Dec 2006 @ 11:35pm

The sad thing is this: the communication between the functional users and the technical users. E-voting is a great thing. The systems though are only as great as those who programmed them. As a Utahn, most things in the technical world are poorly implemented by any that are not trusting those technically proficient enough to provide a solid technical program that is sound. It's a war that is difficult to understand. We strive too much for independence in a world where we are interdependent. In Utah we slide from one extreme or maxim to to the other. Why is it soooo difficult to find the common ground acceptable and then providing for security and functional use for the common end user.
The real problem is that we can validate the system instantaneously and provide a strong audit of real activities. That scares many politicians. Who cares what one believes, but c'mon be accountable for the choices and actions you choose to prescribe too. The world would be a far better place if we followed some simple moral principles.
Hopefully e-voting can be implemented better throughout the country on a *nix platform or at least even a mac platform. Open source e-voting, now there's an idea, granted to be shot down quicker than any other bright idea. Cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
566, 21 Dec 2006 @ 6:08am

sarcasm and cynicism aside: no long term studies
A report was recently issued suggesting HAVA funds were spent in appropriately - without the benefit of significant life-cycle analyses. In terms of costs, no one has empirical evidence, one way or another.

The dynamic that pushed the states to make uninformed decisions in their purchases is similar to that used by the federal government when it coerced states into falling into line for a nationwide drinking age and speed limit.

Following Bush v. Gore, short-term remedial tactics were chosen over longer-term strategic investment decisions to the benefit of certain voting system vendors.

http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/42786-1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solo, 21 Dec 2006 @ 1:19pm

We have computers that can simulate nuclear explosions, saving us to actually explode test nukes. We can predict the weather fairly accurately, thanks to better computer modeling.

But adding a number each time a button is pushed. No can do.

Think about what problems e-voting is solving. Use that as a requirement. Craft a solution accodingly.

My opinion is that paper election is better. Proven, reliable, accountable. Get those characteristics in e-voting and then we can talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]