Jim March: Call Your Office

Status
Not open for further replies.

Waitone

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,406
Location
The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
Whaddya make of this:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/31/State/Crist_wants_touch_scr.shtml
Crist wants touch-screen voting machines gone

By STEVE BOSQUET
Published January 31, 2007
ADVERTISEMENT

TALLAHASSEE — Eager to end six troublesome years of touch screen voting in Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist wants every county to switch to paper ballots by 2008.


Crist will ask the Legislature to spend more than $30-million to replace touch screens with an optical scan system that allows a voter to mark an oval next to a candidate’s name before slipping a ballot into an electronic reader — the same way absentee ballots are cast.

The change would affect a majority of the state’s voters living in 15 mostly urban counties, including Pinellas, Hillsborough and Pasco.

Crist will travel today to Palm Beach County, home of the disgraced “butterfly ballot” that in 2000 became a symbol of electoral ineptitude.

Accompanied by Secretary of State Kurt Browning and U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat and a vocal critic of touch screen voting, Crist will endorse the change in voting systems while offering the money to pay for it.

“I think it’s important to make sure people have confidence in our voting system,” Crist said Wednesday. “If there’s a need for a recount, I think it’s important that we have something to recount.”

Supporters of optical scan voting say it is more certain to reflect a voter’s intent because it creates a paper record of every ballot.

In a touch screen system, a voter receives a card and inserts it into an ATM-like machine and touches the screen to record choices. The card is sent to the supervisor of elections, where the choices are downloaded and counted.

No tangible record exists.

Crist’s eagerness to junk touch-screen voting comes amid a continuing furor over the high number of undervotes in a close Congressional election in Sarasota conducted with touch-screen machines.

The lack of a paper audit trail has frustrated efforts to conduct a manual recount. The trailing candidate, Democrat Christine Jennings, filed a lawsuit asking for another vote.

Reaction to the Crist plan Wednesday was cautious.

Pinellas County uses two massive optical scan machines to process absentee and provisional ballots. The bulk of the voting during a county-wide election takes place on 3,400 touch screen machines.

Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections spokeswoman Nancy Whitlock said she was reluctant to comment on Crist’s proposal before the governor makes his announcement.

But Whitlock said that if touch screens were replaced with optical scanners, vote counting would take much longer. She said that under federal election rules, each polling place must have a touch screen to serve the disabled.

In 2001, Pinellas spent $14-million to buy an electronic voting system, much of it spent toward buying touch screen machines. Whitlock said the county would have to consider selling its touch screens, perhaps to a jurisdiction in another state, to avoid a financial loss.

Pasco County Supervisor of Elections Brian Corley said transparency and security are key points.

“It’s no secret Florida ... has been a lightning rod of controversy,” Corley said. “There seems to be the will of the people to move toward paper trails. If that would satisfy the people, then I would support it.”

Some voting-system watchdogs expressed skepticism about what they see as a hasty decision by the new governor.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Crist’s impulse to scrap touch screen units and replace them with optical scanners was “too quick.” The ACLU said it was concerned with the impact on voters who do not speak English or have physical disabilities.

On the other hand, the activist group People for the American Way called Crist’s plan “a strong first step” and said touch screen machines “have caused too many problems in Florida.’’

Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho, a fierce critic of touch screens, also hailed the move.
Sancho said Crist is following the recommendation of an elections task force made six years ago after the hanging-chad fiasco of the presidential recount. The task force urged that all 67 counties be required to switch to optical scan voting, but lawmakers left the choice up to each county.

One lobbyist wore two hats, representing counties and a voting machine vendor. The Florida Association of Counties received cash commissions in return for endorsing machines sold by Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Neb.
The result, Sancho said, was a politically-motivated, lobbyist-influenced decisions by some counties to switch to touch screen technology.

“We dumbed down the process to accommodate technology that has limited capacity to be audited,” Sancho said. “That was simply the wrong way to go.”

The 15 touch screen counties are Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Charlotte, Collier, Duval, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Martin, Sarasota and Sumter.

Times Staff writers Will Van Sant and David DeCamp contributed to this report. Steve Bousquet can be reached at [email protected] or (850) 224-7263.
 
Why put machines in there at all

Perceived need for speed. It's a desire not a need.

Perception of greater accuracy, more ease of use and less chance of fraud. None of which I or many others are convinced of.

NukemJim
 
We use the optical scan paper ballots in Mass and I have never heard of anyone complaining they are too complex or that they couldn't figure it out. They are very clear and straight forward and if you have ever taken an SAT you have tons of practice. When you are done you stick it in a box that looks kinda like an old laser printer and you are done.

What scares the crap outta me here is that they post a list of voters names and addresses on the wall by the door and don't ask for any ID. You can tell them you are anyone.
 
Perceived need for speed. It's a desire not a need.

Agreed. It's not like they take over the moment they know they've won.

Perception of greater accuracy, more ease of use and less chance of fraud. None of which I or many others are convinced of.

At least for me, I feel the greater chance of fraud with pure electric voting machines outweighs any gain in accuracy. And from what I've heard, they haven't managed to get the accuracy problem fixed, as the machines crash often enough to introduce big errors.
 
I like optical scan. Its fast and simple, and there is an audit trail. Much better than touchscreen. Why any jurisdiction went with the touchscreen ones in the first place, I will never understand.

Now if we can only get a requirement to show ID before voting.
 
I wouldn't mind these touch-screen machines, if they printed out a hard copy of your vote. The best idea I've heard is to have the machine hooked up to two printers that use wide rolls of paper. When you vote, it prints out your vote two times; one for you to keep, and one locked behind a clear plexiglass window, so you can make sure it matches the one in your hand.

If it's not possible for these touch-screen machines to leave a tangible hard copy of the votes cast, then I don't have a problem with the "fill-in-the-bubble" kind of voting systems. You'll prolly have to make the bubbles big enough for the voters to use bingo daubers, though...
 
You people must be confused.

Paper ballot voting is the ONLY way to prevent vote fraud. Ask any liberal? It's been proven beyond a ridiculous doubt that's how Bush stole two presidential election.

Why, here in Chicago and Cook County we've used paper ballots for years and there's never been a single instance on voter fraud. (Hard to enunciate properly with your tongue tucked that far into your cheek)

Ask anyone named Daley about it. The Daley machine LOVES paper ballot voting and so do all their constituents in Chapel Hill, Holy Sepulchre and any of the five other major cemeteries along 111th street.
 
First: this is a (good) knee-jerk response to the very obvious problems in the Sarasota congressional race where it's dead obvious the machines (touchscreens with no paper trail) blew a race. Long story but...google:

sarasota jennings ES&S 18th

That situation is coming down to a court fight wherein the losing candidate is asking for access to the voting system source code. The trial court says no, so it's going to appeals.

It's possible the governor isn't doing this out of the kindness of his heart. By getting rid of the machines, he may hope the court will see the matter as moot and not order an investigation. Because if such an investigation was done, there might be a lot more than questions floating around.

Next: optical scanners with paper ballots are fine so long as somebody looks at the paper ballots. In a lot of states doing so is illegal or very difficult to make happen, in which case the situation is no better than with straight electronic voting.

Third...there's a situation developing in Arizona where we found something we weren't expecting: a long history of election officials "peeking" at how the vote is going up to 8+ days before election day, based on the mail-in vote (which is about 50% of the total). We're now trying to find out if this has been used as a "Zogby poll from hell". For example, it will cost big bucks for a county-wide Zogby or similar poll with about 2,000 respondants; county election officials have been printing early vote summary reports with 20,000 and more actual votes.

Full story (with lawsuit involved) broke yesterday at:

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/46569.html

--------

Now for some comedy.

One of things we found out while checking AZ voting systems was that Maricopa County had illegal software on the central tabulator. Not just any illegal stuff, but Microsoft Access, which can be used to tinker with the Sequoia Voting System's MS-SQL-based data files just like it can mess with Diebold's MS-Access data.

We didn't find this out until a couple weeks after the general when we reviewed the Windows Event Logs and found "MS-Office-11" had crashed once. Armed with that we finally got within 20 feet of the central tabulator and photographed the evidence. Uncertified software ain't supposed to be there, esp. not uncertified software that can monkey with vote totals without leaving an audit trail entry.

The county admitted it was a "whoops", claimed they didn't actually hack with it, and agreed to pull it off there.

Flash forward to just over a week ago. The AZ Democratic Party was holding it's state convention in Phoenix and voting on party officers from the chair on down. I noticed that the vote was to be tabulated via paper ballots and Maricopa County optical scanners and central tabulator brought in on contract by county election staff.

So I wander over and ask some questions about the central tabulator station, an old laptop that they'd loaded the Sequoia software onto.

Yup. They'd done it again. MS-Access and the rest of the officecrap all over the thing.

Now...it's necessarily that anybody wanted to hack this vote. It's that the county just didn't give a damn about security, legality or the appearance of running a sane election.

So the only registered Libertarian in the room ends up doing election protection in a Democratic Party election :). And yeah, a lot of people got the joke...

---------

Sidenote: in my experience so far the AZ Democrats are a whole 'nuther species versus their psychotic California cousins. The AZ branch of the breed is fiercely protective of elections but due to a famously screwed up race a few years back in Legislative District 20 in the GOP primaries, election repairs have turned bipartisan around here.
 
Now...it's necessarily that anybody wanted to hack this vote. It's that the county just didn't give a damn about security, legality or the appearance of running a sane election.

Welcome to Florid... errrr....... Arizona!

This is exactly why I think that the actual printed out vote cards (or photocopies thereof) should be available for regualar peeps to look at. It should be no big deal for umpty-seven news organizations to all sit down, count the cards, and tell the county how badly they screwed the pooch. The only honest system is one that's totally transparent. Every person should have every access to see the result, and how it was tabulated. If Channel 5 news (for instance) was to come on and declare that they had counted the votes and got a large discrepancy compared to the "official" tally, then some red flags might be raised...
 
This is exactly why I think that the actual printed out vote cards (or photocopies thereof) should be available for regualar peeps to look at.

There is a plan in the works to make sure that ballot scanners store a graphic scan of each ballot - at 200x200dpi mono the file sizes aren't bad. And a hash of each scan should be done at the time of scanning and saved to the same CD-R or DVD-R or HDDDV/Bluray-R that holds the scanned ballots.

Then we can use whatever alterate open-source tabulator we want to chew on them, or hand-review each if we want. There's one already - Harri Hursti's "Votoscope" in basically an early beta or late alpha state right now. Works with Diebold-format optical scan ballots and could be adapted to others. It even keeps track of which ones are "iffy" and lets you hand-review just those.

This would be completely independent of the county's tabulator software.

Imagine a scenario where in important elections, each media outlet would bring their fastest "gamer-class" PC to the elections department to chew through the ballot scans and produce a count faster than the other guys, while at the same time people like me are chugging along on slower but equally accurate gear doing our own check...
 
Yeah, I missed that somehow: it's vital that the voter not be able to prove how they voted afterwards.

You either get vote sales or "Guido" will "breaka you legga" if you don't vote "correctly".

Both have happened in times past...
 
THe only solution to this

Is a full peer-review by qualified professionals not associated with the manufacturer of all source code for all software used in voting.

And don't give me any "trade secret" crap. Tabulating numbers is one of the fundamental problems of computer science. There hasn't been any innovation in this area since the 1950s, and you can find prior art going back to John Von Neumann and Alan Turing.

If you are unwilling to open up your code to independent public review, you've got no business being in the voting machine market. "Trust us" isn't good enough. Paper trails aren't good enough. It's trivially easy to program the machine to print out a different vote than is recorded and tabulated. It's also trivially easy to program the machine such that the margin of flipped votes is outside the automatic recount window.

What really needs to happen is for either the feds, maybe through DARPA, or some states to fund the development of a complete open-source software suite that can be implemented on multiple hardware platforms. Vendors could compete and profit on the hardware and services, but the software should be peer-reviewed and known to all.

--Shannon
 
NEVER EVER TRUST SOFTWARE

Reflections on Trusting Trust
Ken Thompson
Reprinted from Communication of the ACM, Vol. 27, No. 8, August 1984, pp. 761-763.

http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

Moral
The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top