Electronic Voting: Hacked?
 

Okay, I'll just be forthright and say that electronic voting scares the bajeezus out of me. I don't like it. I've been very cynical about electronic voting machines for a while, and the fact that many of them don't even leave paper trails scares me even more. I recently found an article that not only sums up my feelings quite well, but also investigates certain happenings around the installation of these voting machines.

Read the whole article here.

I'm usually not one to be so paranoid on a political matter, but I feel this one is very overlooked and potentially very dangerous. It only takes ONE electronic voting machine in a district to throw off the entire vote. What are your thoughts on this? Am I crazy? Do you partially or fully agree? How can this be stopped? Discuss.

Guess the Let's Privatise Everything! orthodoxy's sort of undermining democracy over there.

Is the manufacture of the machines supervised by government? I'd have thought this would be an obvious one to nationalise.

I don't see how that makes the system any less potentially corrupt.

I'm going to use this thread as an opportunity to ask something I've been wondering for a while: What are the advantages of voting machines? Seriously, I really can't think of anything. I suppose that "faster results" would be one, but to actually be able to do that you need voting machines at each voting stations, so you're essentially buying a shitload of machines that get used once every 4 years. I can't see that costing less than the old pen/paper method, and when you're counting those, anyone can watch to see if people are trying to change the results. The article also mentions something that amounts to "making voting easier" but who the hell isn't able to put a check into a box next to the name of the candidate they want, yet would figure out a voting machine?

Is this simply a case of "hight tech = better" or something like that?

This is why I prefer the good ol' fashioned 'put a X next to a name and drop the ballot in a box' method. It may take longer to get a result, but hey! It's reliable right? Isn't that whats most important? Technology can mean easier, but can also mean risks and lazyness.

Richard J. Daley and George Parr unavailable for comment.

I don't know about these electronic voting booths. In Canada, we use the old X marks the spot still just to make sure everything is counted and physically checked. I find in interesting that the need for convienence is sooo much more important than actually voting... Is this system an attempt to make more Americans vote?

Ooh, Broken Government on CNN is going to cover electronic vote hacking in just a few minutes. I'll edit this post with my thoughts after that.

Do a search on Yang Enterprises in Florida... you'll find some pretty dirty shit being flung in all kinds of directions. Considering some of the stories I heard from employees there... I wouldn't be suprised if they did something illegal.

I'd seriously at least like a paper trail to be printed right after a vote is cast... and preferably a way for the voter to look at that print out and verify "yes, this is what I picked". I know that may seem redundant in a way to count the paper votes and compare to the electronic ones but it is good fault tolerance.

I suppose if security holes were dealt with however, it would be a substantially better system. I think paper is probably more expensive than the machines, and probably more open to fraud. With the nation paying attention to such security holes, maybe there will be enough of an attempt made at fixing the holes.

Because it introduces complications that wouldn't otherwise be in place. It makes the results more widely known, so that if one were to try to fix an election, it would require a whole lot of people to keep their silence.

And the understanding is that it is worth the inconvenience if we can institute a kind of "monitor your neighbor" mentality. At least as far as vote counters are concerned, anyway.

The problem is no amount of security can keep a determined person from breaking in. You can create software that makes it difficult enough to make most people think it's not worth it. But you can't make it secure enough to keep out someone who's willing to try the challenge.

There's always a hole. There's always a vulnerability. There's always a way around something. There's always a way to break it. That's the problem with computers and software.

You should also have some kind of back up or copy (like a paper trail) so those who control the software or configure it cant go and change it later to change the votes. Or change it before to act in a certain way. Even if you had the perfect security in place it would be useless if the Admin(s) decided to be dirty and cheat. Atleast with paper it takes a larger amount of effort to change the votes. With computers all the Admin(s) would have to do is change a value in a database to change the whole election in their favor within minutes, for example.

Now hold on, I'm going to assume that they don't connect these voting booths to any sort of internet, because that would be quite stupid if they did. It would be pretty hard to break into something that isn't connected to anything except maybe the other voting booths and a little printer that gives you the results of the day.

It's not. The article specifies how they can do it, by using a kind of memory card that is uploaded into the machine. The problem is that the memory card, without having been overseen by the government, could be tampered with at many points along the way before it reaches the machine itself.

Add to that the ease of gaining access to the machine (many of them use locks for which multi-purpose keys are available...desk drawers, minibar locks, etc.) and it's just a lot of unnecessary risks they're taking for "ease of use."

Check out the article if you want more specifics, because I can't remember offhand.

Those are two issues though that can be corrected relatively easily. For the memory cards, take greater precautions and use a proprietary format to prevent tampering, as for the locks, have the state store them in its storage facilities that are more secure.

If those are serious issues, then I'd dare say our government is horrendously inept at taking such basic precautions to ensure a fair vote.

Right, but that's not necessarily difficult to orchestrate. Complex conspiracies can be crafted with only a small cadre of informed members.

What you're suggesting is that the potential for individual manufacturers rigging individual elections is more dangerous than a single entity fixing elections from a centralised position. I don't really buy it.

That said, I don't really buy electronic voting machines in the first place. It's just a bad idea all around.

Did my post get deleted or did I just never click the add reply button? I hope it wasn't deleted since it was wise words of wisdom that would solve this stupid dilema.

OPEN SOURCE.

Since this is the third time you've said that without bothering to explain it, you can count yourself banned from this thread.

Well, open source is a great thing to produce quality software. But even as the Linux geek that I am, I really don't see how this eliminates the risk of fairly few people being able to fix an election by editing a database.

Early voters in Florida have been experiencing a 'glitch' in which a vote cast for the Democratic candidate shows up as the Republican when the ballot review screen appears. Some voters have had to repeat the process three times or more before their ballot came out correctly. What's worse is that these machines were not removed from the voting process. Workers simply re-calibrate the touch screen, and put it right back into service.

It makes one wonder how many voters simply didn't notice that their ballot review didn't match the actual vote cast, and submitted an incorrect ballot.

This is more than just a bit distressing, because I work with touch-screen based interfaces on a regular basis. Poorly made touch-screens (a.k.a. cheap) require constant re-calibration. Pressing your finger on one of these screens can register as an input several inches away. Since there is no tactile feedback as with a physical button, if there isn't a good visual feedback system its very easy to make a lot of errors and not notice them.

Original Story

Jim Crowe, paper ballots fraud, electronic voting fraud, voter purging does it really matter? I doubt any election has been entirely clean.

Come to think of it, I can't name an election where there wasn't a little fraud involved. Especially if you consider all those empty unfufilled promises the politicians make to appeal to voters as some sort of fraud. Heh.

I don't understand this attitude people get whenever something controversial arises. Uh, okay, we get it. You're cynical. Does that mean no one should do anything about it, or just shut up about it already for your personal peace of mind?

It should put things into prespective. If it hasn't been any different in the past, nor present; then what kind of optimism does it take to assume it'll be different in the future? Voter fraud will exist for as long as there are democracies.

That's not cynical, that's being realistic. This doesn't mean something shouldn't be done, or that we should stop caring. Far from it. It means we should not lull ourselves into complacency that if we take care of this one issue we'll have free and utter corruption free devices in our voting process.

Perhaps you'll forgive me if I happen to think alarmism is just about the only thing left to pull the general public out of their "seen it all before" attitude. Focusing on one issue at a time is the only way it will get done, and I don't think emphasizing what's happened in the past makes the present issue any less important to address.

Yes, fraud to some degree has always existed in past elections. However, why this issue seems so important to me has to do with a few things. One, this can be fixed. Maybe not easily, but certainly much easier than trying to find ways to prevent other instances of election fraud. Secondly, this is on such a national scale that I feel it has to be dealt with. Electronic voting machines are virtually everywhere now. Almost every district has at least one. Finally, every other election/voting problem I've ever heard of in my lifetime has never received as much attention or alarm as this one has. It's on a large scale, it potentially affects a lot of people, and it can be stopped in a relatively simple way; that is, to stop using them altogether. Quebec already has, and many governors and mayors around the US have expressed their desire to go back to paper ballots.