How Would You Design the Voting Technology? 233
Bob Glickstein asks: "Punch-card ballot machines are now universally reviled, and we techies all know the perils of electronic ones. But I haven't seen anyone talk about a better solution. It's gotta be inexpensive, rugged, reliable, accurate, verifiable, tamper-resistant, simple to use, and secret. Verifying a vote tally should not result in TV news images of rooms full of election officials, squinting at ambiguous marks on a piece of paper. What contraption can possibly meet all these criteria?"
Poll (Score:2, Funny)
Ideally, the system should allow voters to suggest candidates if they're feeling creative. There should be a warning message strongly suggesting reading past election results first, though.
Maybe put some disclaimers on it to keep expections down, like "This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're u
Slashdot polls (Score:5, Funny)
Who would you like to see the next US President?
George W. Bush
Howard Dean
Ralph Nader
I am Canadian, you insensitive clod.
CowboyNeal
Hey, we're in safe hands... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, fourteen years on, these kids are just becoming elligible to vote for real. I'd think that either of those two choices, Big Bird or Bill Cosby, would make great candidates. For one thing, they have tangible diplomatic skills that have been tested over the years by the most feisty allies (Mr. Snuf-a-lufagus, Dr. Huxtable's wife), adversaries (Oscar the Grouch, the younger Huxtable kids) and special interest groups (Count Dracula, the older Huxtable kids).
Personally, my vote would go to Big Bird. I'd like to see a cabinet with real weight and authority and I think that his staff, including Bert and Ernie, would bring a certain gravitas to the West Wing that's been missing for the last few decades.
So, please, if we're going to see a Slashdot poll, can we add these two candidates for the benefit of that generation? Oh, and perhaps Britney Spears too.
Re:Hey, we're in safe hands... (Score:2)
Simple!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Note that is how California does it and if it good enough for California, by god it is good enough for everyone.
Simple in concept, just not in practice (Score:3, Insightful)
An electronic voting machine which should produce a printed record. Some type of blind-numbering system should be used for identities -- crypto theory has plenty of theoretical models for this. Users should be able to pick from a drop-down menu or type in a candidate, though for other countries (i.e., rural Africa, etc) or for certain classes of handicapped people, other methods, such as picking from a set of pictures, should be available.
This is pretty strightforward, but as diebold found out, the devil is in the details...
Brazilian voting system (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.procomp.com.br/projesp.asp [procomp.com.br]
Unfortunelly the page is available just on Portuguese, but for the core stuff you can use a web translator.
Its not a perfect system, but it help us a lot here.
Re:Simple in concept, just not in practice (Score:2, Interesting)
Bugger the Poll (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bugger the Poll (Score:2)
Since we are giving the president sizable power, I would prefer something a bit more cerebral, like a massive chess match or an comprehensive standardized testing program.
One man, one bullet (Score:2)
My voting system.. (Score:4, Funny)
Just do what colleges do.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You're a smart man (Score:2)
Re:You're a smart man (Score:2)
If these people can't punch a hole with an arrow pointing to it, I'm not so sure that this will work, either.
[Boy, is THIS quote going to hurt me when I run for office.]
Re:You're a smart man (Score:2)
This is the same technology used in most state lottery tickets. When the voters fill out the form, they have it scanned. If it doesn't read correctly (they didn't fill in the circle completely, filled in two, etc.) the machine rejects it, the poll workers tell them how to correct it, and the voter fixes the problem. This seems like one of the best electronic system ideas that have been proposed, IMHO.
Re:Just do what colleges do.... (Score:2)
Back in highschool, a friend of mine was filling in his name on a scantron sheet for a test (his name is Kevin Sopko), and the scantron registered his name as "So ko Kevi" (it didn't pick up 2 letters).
I cringe at the thought of using scantron for an election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just do what colleges do.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just do what colleges do.... (Score:2)
Re:Just do what colleges do.... (Score:2)
Here's one (Score:2)
Here's the info and picture of one Electronic Voting Machine:
Electronic Voting machine (EVM) [bel-india.com]
Technical specifications: Technical specifications [bel-india.com]
-- Sig
I am telling you, you won't believe this !! [tacobell.com]
Re:Here's one (Score:2)
Those links seem to be acting up so here are new ones:
Here's the info and picture of one Electronic Voting Machine:
Electronic Voting machine (EVM) [bel-india.com]
Technical specifications: Technical specifications [bel-india.com]
-- Sig
I am telling you, you won't believe this !! [tacobell.com]
Depends on the desired outcome... (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Voter checks in at front desk, signs voter registration and is given a punch card.
2) Voter enters a voting booth, and inserts blank card.
3) Voter enters their vote choices on touch screen (with pictures of candidates even!) and when done, card is automatically punched with appropriate votes.
4) Voter takes punch card and inserts it into a Republican card reader.
5) Voter takes card and inserts it into a Democratic card reader.
6) Voter takes card and inserts it into independent card reader.
7) Voter gives card to election offical.
8) Election offical presses a button. If results from 4 & 5 & 6 do not ALL match, voter must start over (back to step 2) with a fresh card (current card is destroyed.)
9) Card where votes match placed into old fashioned voter box for recount broo-haa-haa. (sp?)
-------
But as Joseph Stalin, I would never advocate having multiple parties each having their own electronic systems in a polling place. Accurate vote counts are kind of antithetical for me.
Re:Depends on the desired outcome... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever the hash is needs to be a public algorithm, but it must include the time (that card was punched) so that two people voting identically after one another would display different hashed check-sums (that would be compared against the other parties hashed checksums in step #8.) Perhaps not the hour, but only the minute and seconds. This would have to be punched on the card as well.
-------------
But not to worry. The USA do not desire accurate votes. No one wants the unwashed m
Re:Depends on the desired outcome... (Score:2)
The dictionary is your friend: brouhaha [m-w.com].
Sincerely,
The Spelling Police
(obOnTopicComment: I like your idea. Instead of sticking card into three readers, how about having a large number of readers, all of them provided by different organizations and built by different manufacturers. The voter would be required to put the card in two randomly-chosen readers.)
Source Code (Score:2)
Private Sub Command1_Click()
Dim MyVotingPreference
Dim UserVotingChoice
If Command1.Value MyVotingPreference then UserVotingChoice = MyVotingPreference
end Sub
Re:Source Code (Score:2)
And, because I'm a dumb ass that didn't use the preview feature, the punchline of my joke disappeared. Damn VB for using greater than/less than signs instead of !=.
Re:Source Code (Score:2)
> == >
< == <
And of course, to create the above I used:
& == &
Don't let TV dictate anything (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a matter of democracy not entertainment. The process is what is important. TV tries as hard as it can to influence the elections as it is, making the process entertaining would play into their manipulative agendas.
Client Server Kiosk (Score:2)
One. The identification system. It gets you passed the sign on screen. It is developed separately by an independent group whose sole purpose is to create an accurate identification system which can be applied to both state and national elections. Use SSN, Driver's License or State ID, and PIN number assigned to you by the Voter Registrar Volunteer along with current address and full name. The PIN number allows the people giving them out to verify your physical identity so you don't get to g
Re:Client Server Kiosk (Score:2)
Taxes pay for development, duh... what the hell are taxes for if not maintaining governing institutions. How much would it cost? Less than any military machine or operation every conceived. Why should each State have to have their own system designed and developed when the process is the same for State elections as for Federal elections? One design fits all elections.. they all have the same requirements.
Independent
Re:Client Server Kiosk (Score:2)
But voters may claim, after the fact, that it changed their vote. Two more design factors may come into play here.
Easy !!! (Score:3, Funny)
So there you have it. My New Voting System. Thank You.
Re:Easy !!! (Score:2)
("durn furiners" == "people who are so dumb that they couldn't figure out how to be born in the US")
Equal Access (Score:2)
Although many qualities were mentioned, the single most import quality of any voting machine was omitted. That quality is equal access. All members of a democracy must have equal access to and equal ability to use the voting machine.
As an example, currently in California there is controversy over the decision to reduce the number of voting booths in Los Angeles County from the normal 4922 voting booths to 1800 booths for the recall election. Because of the increase in the commute time required to rea
Re:Equal Access (Score:2)
But since most "professional" politicians are lawyers and most laws are writ
Use a pencil and paper! (Score:5, Informative)
The most transparent technology there is at the moment for recording votes is for voters to tick boxes (or write numbers) on printed ballot papers and put them into ballot boxes. Voting slips are counted by hand based, in the presence of witnesses. If the result is close, the voting slips can be recounted. This system works well in Australia at all levels of government.
OK, we do get problems occasionally. But they are typically things like people impersonating other voters, and people voting multiple times at different polling booths. However, the system copes with this. If the number of voting irregularities detected is sufficient to effect the outcome of an election, a by-election is called in the seats in dispute. It really helps that the courts in Australia are not heavily politicised like they are in the US of A.
(The problems with voter impersonation, etc are also present when voting machines are used. The same solutions could be used in both cases; e.g. requiring voters to present photo ids, and throwing rorters into jail for a long time.)
Re:Use a pencil and paper! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Use a pencil and paper! (Score:5, Interesting)
In Sweden, we use a simplified version of this. Don't trust the voters with a pen! Each party has their own ballot with their name printed on it. You get them in the mail before the election, you get them when you vote and you have more ballots in your voting both.
Thus, 99% of all voters don't even need a pen.
The counting is done manually, and is 95% ready just a few hours after the voting is closed.
I would never trust any kind of "voting machine". There is no transparancy. Being an engineer, I can see too many ways to cheat with them.
(The exception (1%) is that you still CAN take a blank ballot and vote for whatever party you want, say the Donald Duck party. Those votes get counted too.)
Re:Use a pencil and paper! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Use a pencil and paper! (Score:2)
A big sheet of paper, where the user blacked in the oval for his/her selection. Messed up votes could be re-done, with a new ballot. Ballots where signed in and out by a election judge. Once all done, feed it into the machine, which counts it.
The physical ballot remains for recount, audit trail, whatever.
Worked well IMHO.
Standard Security Procedures (Score:2)
When they obtain the card, they type in their secret pin number so that no one, not even the person helping them, can
it'd be owned in a week (Score:2)
Mmm, vote buying (Score:2)
Thank you, now you can prove that you voted the way I want. Here's your cheque.
I'm biased cause I worked in the industry... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I absolutely insist on machine-readable and hand-countable pen-marked paper ballots. This is the only way to insure both fast and accurate election night returns *and* verifiable beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt recount ability. These machines have been manufactured for many years and they *were not* responsible for the Florida cluster-fsk.
Re:I'm biased cause I worked in the industry... (Score:3, Informative)
i mean, here in finland we've used a system where you draw a number in a circle to represent your vote, and return that then(folded).
and we do get election night results, and apart from saving money i just don't see much point in moving to all electronic. can't see it saving much money either since you would need specialised professionals(or maybe not) instead of the common volunteers you have now. true, finland is a much smaller country than
Computer-generated optical scan ballots (Score:3, Interesting)
The ballot is placed inside an opaque folder to hide the actual votes, but an end sticks out. A poll assistant aids the voter in feeding the machine, which sucks the ballot in and counts it. If there's a problem the ballot doesn't get sucked in and corrective action can be taken.
What could be
should be verifiable (Score:3, Interesting)
1. individuals can later make sure their vote was registered correctly.
2. organizations could step through the enumerated voter numbers and publish their own results of the election. They would back up the database in the process.
3. individuals can submit their vote to as many organizations as they want. The groups would then cross verify the votes with their databases.
What to do if someone finds out their vote isn't correct, is debatable. I wouldn't allow them to change it, but if there are enough errors then the election needs to be done over again.
There could be a simple web site that takes your vote and submits it to as many organizations as it can.
I don't know what to do about people that don't vote, nor the people that don't verify their vote.
I'm sure there will be millions, and every one of them could be voted without their aproval. yikes. Damn lazy people.
None of this is really important anyway. What the fuck good does voting do when there are campaign finance laws that are only bipartisan.
-metric
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
Making sure that your particular vote is properly counted would be impossible because of secrecy issues. In the counting process, the ballot is separated from any form of user ID early on so t
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
Once the election process is computerized, it is no longer "one of the most open processes in our government". How are you going to witness the bits flowing through the FSB and out onto a harddrive? My solution has a downside, I admit, but it's a small price to pay compared to what it achieves.
Whoever registers voters knows the mapping between voter_id and individual. They are the only ones you
BROWBEATINGB verifiable (Score:2, Insightful)
If there is ANY way to trace my vote to me, I can be compelled to vote a certain way. Blackmail, death threats, etc. If how I voted can be found out AFTER the election, it's still just as bad. Don't try to tell me that I wouldn't accidentally let my voter ID number slip if someone was holding a gun to my head.
The complementary scenario is where someone offers to pay $100 per vote in a certain district, payable upon proof of a certain vote. You think campai
Re:BROWBEATINGB verifiable (Score:2)
and you can be compelled to vote a certain way.
If you don't take a picture of the ballot with
the correct results on it, I will break your
legs. Your "secrecy" is a wild goose, a snipe.
Re:BROWBEATINGB verifiable (Score:2)
However, if my boss can lookup how I, or anyone else who works for him, voted and make decisions based on that our society would be much worse off.
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
you'd have to give your email address when you registered though....
which would be great for politicians to send you all their latest campaign spam... I mean propaganda err... I mean information.
Seriously though, it's not such a bad way to do it. Some people would have an email address they only used for elections I guess.
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
not really. Each organization would accept a query on the voter _number_. A new number is allocated for each election. None of the databases need any information about you.
-metric
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
If I can be connected to how I voted, then a) If I vote for a certain person for some meaningless office, someone will buy me a beer. b) If I can be connected, then everyone else can see: my employer could then offer bonuses to people who voted certain ways (ovbiously using diffrent terminology.)
In terms of verification. They should tak
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
Take a photo of your ballot, with the correct results,
and I will pay you $20.
This whole fantasy of secrecy has to be broken
before we can institute a rational and fair
system.
Re:should be verifiable (Score:2)
And why does secrecy prohibit a rational and fair system?
Rational and fair, as I understand it mean a few things. One, human error should approach to close to zero as possible. Two, systematic error should also approach zero. Three, the person with the most popular support should be elected.
Yes, our c
Call me somewhat old-fashioned... (Score:4, Informative)
In 1992 I worked an election as an inspector. Each step of the inspection was signed off by a Republican and a Democratic inspector, after both of us saw and confirmed each step of the procedure. I think it would be much easier to make a mechanical clock run fast after the back was sealed on than it would be for anyone to cheat by manipulating one of these machines.
These are the steps, as I recall:
- The machines are shown with both backs removed. This shows a
matrix of mechanical counters, all of which are shown to read 0. There
are "total for office" and "total for candidate" columns at the top
and right. These also read zero.
- The inner back is fastened on. This covers all but the summary
row and column. These are checked to still read all zeros.
- The outer back is fastened on. This covers the summary numbers.
- The election begins. As each voter comes in, he or she is checked
off, so the number of votes can be compared against the machines.
- Inspectors from both parties are sitting with a view of the back of the machines at all times, to further guard against tampering.
- After the election, the outer cover is removed and the summary
totals recorded on paper. The total voters for each office should be less than or equal to the number recorded at the door.
- Next the inner back is removed and the matrix is recorded on paper.
The totals are checked against the numbers recorded in the previous step. All inspectors sign off on this as well.
I just don't see where such a system leaves any room for cheating. Of course, it also couldn't handle an election among 135 candidates, but that's got to be a first anyway.For anyone who hasn't used these machines, they have mechanical safeguards against voting for more than the correct number of candidates for any office. No hanging chads, no votes for too many candidates, no butterfly ballot confusion, and there's a paper trail that can be verified quickly rather than in a vague and subjective way.
Isn't it easier to trust clockwork you can inspect than code you can't? For one thing, no one's going to "download" you new clockwork when you aren't looking at it... and it's 100 years easier to audit.
Ditch the voting (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ditch the voting (Score:2)
Re:Ditch the voting (Score:2)
Yeah, perhaps I'm dreaming, but if we have AI greater than a human's, I'd certainly vote for it.
Consistency. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consistency. (Score:2)
Sounds pretty unwieldy to me.
Paper! It still works! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Paper! It still works! (Score:2)
And this is exactly why I have been telling the banks they need to get rid of those damn machines and go back to counting my money by hand! I want to see them going penny by penny and dollar by dollar so there's no mistakes!!!!! I mean how many people can it possibly take to count out the thousand or so dollars a month I want to put into my a
My proposal. (Score:2)
-Voter identifies itself, gets a paper ballot with all candidates. These are clearly identified by equally sized photogrpahs and their respective party symbols, if any and their name.
-Voter crosses with pen one candidate only, this is done in the privacy of a voting booth.
-Vote is put in a trasnparent box.
-Voting station closes.
-Officials of an independent, citizen led, election comission count the votes, supervised by representatives of the different parties and can
Low-tech (Score:2)
The method may not be perfect, but it's impossible to organize some tampering nation-wide without being noticed. And unlike the technical solutions, the method is transparent enough that anybody will understand how it works and why the results are trustworthy.
The method is: <drumroll> Have volunteers sort them out.
Zurich (bigge
Re:Low-tech (Score:2)
make certain that people have tangible ballots, that can be checked after.
make certain that the tangible vote is turned into an electronic vote in a way that is visible to the actual individual voter
( here we have ballot-cards that people "X", and put into slip-covers, and then hand them to the volunteers for sliding into the electronic counters .. it wouldn't cost much to change the counter so that it
a) had an only-narrowly-visible
( "polarizer", as-in polarizing the direction it
Only manual is visible (Score:5, Insightful)
In the traditional UK system, every single step of the process is open to the public and visible, except for the voter marking the paper.
That's actually really surprising. I can watch in my local polling stations as voters ask for ballot papers, are given them, hide in a booth to mark them, come out and put them in a box. I can watch the box all day. I can see the box carried to the counting room, and stand on the balcony as counters take the papers out of the boxes and sort them into piles. I don't have to trust anyone else to oversee the process, it's all there for me (or any other voter or candidate) to check.
Nothing that happens inside a box with electronics is visible to an outsider.
The manual system is vulnerable to small human errors and small opportunistic fraud. It is totally immune to large systematic fraud.
The only disadvantage is the expense, but the authorities are considering switching from it to new systems that are several times more expensive to run.
Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:5, Informative)
Oregon abolished the polling place. That's right, we haven't had a voting booth set up for an official election in Oregon starting with the 2000 Presidential Election (don't blame us, we didn't vote for him, and we didn't leave home to vote against him!).
So how do Oregonians vote? In the comfort of their own homes. About six weeks before election day, every residence with a mailbox gets a voter's guide that comes with a voter registration card (if you're not registered and want to vote, you turn it in at least 30 days before the first election you want to vote in). A week or two after that, your ballot, secrecy envelope and return mailing envelope come in the mail. You punch out the appropriate holes on the punch card. Stuff your ballot in the secrecy envelope, stuff the secrecy envelope in the mailing envelope, and put your signature on the back, and either mail it or drop it off at the elections office, or if it's within a week of election day, at any of dozens handy points at various public facilities (libraries, town squares, city halls, courthouses, election offices, etc) staffed by elections officials specifically to collect ballots.
But how does Oregon prevent voting fraud? Easy. We check signatures on the envelopes against the voter registration. Not sure what the sample rate is, but fraud has not been an issue. If you don't get the ballot and you were supposed to, you go down to the elections office, show your ID, they verify your registration and they void out the missing ballot (so even if someone turns it in, when they go to scan the barcode before checking sigs, they see it's void and throw it out). They issue you a ballot and hand it to you and you're on your way.
What does all this mean? Well, for starters, you get three or four weeks with your ballot instead of three or four minutes. Time is on your side in making an informed, well-thought decision without having to stress out that you're missing out on having a life to go down to the polls and vote.
Encourage your state to abolish the polling place
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
Yeah, that's true. The problem is, not everybody has time to wait in line an hour to vote (longer in LA County, California) because the pissants already in the voting booths couldn't be bothered to come prepared with their picks, nor does everybody have the time or inclination to sleep on the steps of a public school to get in before them. I think this is one of the reasons TV advertising is so effective in California but h
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
If they're not prepared to take a hour to vote every few years maybe they shouldn't be voting. There's been a lot of talk here in the UK recently about voter apathy causing low turnout at elections. The "solution": make it easier to vote! This doesn't solve the real problem of disillusionment with the political system and politicians in general but it does increase the turnout.
So we have more people who aren't interested in pol
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
quite unfairly. For example, I don't have an I.D.,
so how can I vote?
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
Re:Umm, guys, Oregon got it right (Score:2)
This is a piss poor way of guarding agains voter fraud. Design a voting system that guards against voter fraud, don't rely on the populace to police a system which is so open to abuse.
I've Suggested This one Before... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) On a touchscreen, choose your candidates, then confirm your vote by pressing the "Vote & Print" button.
2) In the background, your vote is electronically counted.
3) The voting machine prints out your boarding pass / ballot, while also encoding the magnetic strip on the back with the details.
4) The voter can read the printed ballot to confirm it is correct,
What contraption? (Score:2)
The key is appropriate technology.
In this case, that is paper and a pen.
the best solution... (Score:2)
I think I'll patent this idea before anybody else does.
Any method must be completely open. (Score:2)
Whatever method is chosen, it must be completely open to the public. There can be NO proprietary, hidden software in Government. Otherwise, how would citizens inspect the workings of government, as is their duty?
There can be NO hidden file formats in government. Otherwise, how will a citizen or historian inspect government documents long after the file formats have changed by a greedy software vendor?
The complete plans to mechanical and electrical devices used in counting ballots must be available t
Use the College (Score:2)
Use any old method whatsoever and just use the Electoral College to overrule the popular vote and install the bastard of choice as designated by your friendly state representatives (who only bother to represent your interests when it's time for them to get re-elected -- otherwise they're owned by large corporations.)
With this technique, the actual popular vote doesn't mean crap but the sheep (we, the sheep) can have the illusion that what we say and th
Ideal vs. politically acceptable (Score:2)
Local election districts will never go with that though -- too hard to defraud easily.
The best politically realistic voting method is paper ballot. If you can't read, use a pen, etc... tough.
LOL Technology (Score:2)
I'm NOT kidding.
Lots of countries use 'em including many parts of the US. They're cheap, reliable, dificult to corrupt and easy to correct. Heck they even take care of themselves between elections.
The only need for an automated system is for that-night-returns, which really is a silly requirement driven only by TV new's demand for the results: RIGHT NOW.
Get over it.
Counting an election properly takes time. Enough with the
A hybrid system would work best. (Score:3, Interesting)
- Each machine is totally independent of all others, and -this is important- not connected to any network. Each machine has a unique serial number, and is equipped with a touch screen, speakers, and a microphone, a button, and a printer.
- The first thing the user encounters is a choice of languages. This is pretty self-explanatory.
- The user is then presented with the list of candidates. Each candidate is presented in sequence, with the presentation consisting of the following:
- A voter can select the candidate by touching the screen, pressing the button, or giving a voice command while the candidate is onscreen. Each candidate will be onscreen for six seconds, or the time it takes for the candidate with the longest name to say it plus a second of padding on each side, whichever is greater. This should give ample time to recognize a candidate.
- The user is given a chance to confirm the vote. All their votes are read sequentially, and the user may confirm that this is in fact what they want to do.
- The ballot is printed. It carries a barcode stating what machine it came from, but no information which can be used to identify the voter. This way, if a machine is found to be malfunctioning or compromised, the votes which came from it can be tracked and examined further, but the vote itself remains anonymous.
- A receipt is also printed. This does not carry the vote information, but does carry the barcode for the machine it came from, in case there is need for proof that a voter used a specific machine.
- The voter takes the ballot to the ballot box and casts it.
The idea behind this system is to both maximize security and minimize damage potential. Not networking the machines, for example, does not do terribly much for the security, but does ensure that a hacker could only exploit one machine at a time; to manipulate many machines would take a huge effort. Likewise, the fact that ballots are both machine- and human-readable ensures that the more secure machine counting can be used as a primary system, but hand counts can be used as a fallback mechanism.- A picture of the candidate.
- The candidate's name onscreen, rendered however best fits the language the user chose.
- An audio clip of the candidate saying his or her name.
The idea behind this whole spiel is to present as many ways as possible for a voter to recognize the desired candidate. In this case, the user has text, visual, and aural cues.Not all punch cards are the same (Score:2)
Uhm, no. Florida used a particularly stupidly designed punch ballot, where the device cuts down one side first and it's fairly easy to not cut all the way through. Colorado, along with many other states, uses a punch device which cuts all 4 sides at once (and makes a bigger hole). It gives resistance for a bit, then a satisfying "thunk" when it cuts through--all the way through, no "hanging chad", no ambiguity about whether the punch is complete or
my system... (Score:2)
Washington State's Solution (Score:2)
Vending machine technology. (Score:2)
The money now spent on political advertising would go directly to the State.
Completed Ballots _must_ be human readable. (Score:2)
Perhaps ideally I'd spec a touch screen computer/printer combo which would show pictures of the candidates in random order, you pick one, and only that candidate is printed on the ballot in MICR font or something.
Problem in Florida wasn't with the ballot system (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok - This is a huge myth. The problem in florida wasn't with butterfly ballots or punch card systems at all... It was with a faulty law saying that the vote counters had to determine the "intent of the voter" rather than just count votes. Simplify the law and say the intent of the voter is expressed when more than two corners (three, one, whatever) of the box are torn and there isn't a double vote of any kind... That removes ambiguity.
Now go back and realize that ALL of the florida recounts - No matter what any silly liberal will attempt to tell you - came out with GWBush in front. The problem being is that in each and every count the closeness of the count was well under 3 sigma to the error of the counting process, however we are rather sure that he got more votes than Gore did. If Gore wants to complain - why the heck didn't he win Tennesee, his home state - and make Florida mute.
Triple counting. (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Polling machine adds voters choices to internal counters.
3. Polling machine prints paper slip with both a human readable and a machine readable record of voter's choices. This slip is placed in a sealed ballot box as in the current punched card system.
4. Once the polls close, the poll-workers, with the candidate's/party's representitives, record the tally from each machine. This becomes the official result unless a descrepancy is found in the following steps.
5. A random sample of n paper slips from each machine is machine counted based on the machine readable information. If this dosen't match the results from 4 pretty closely, a full hand count will be necessary.
6. A random sample of m paper slips (where m can be less than n) is counted based on the human readable information. If this dosent' match the results from 4 and 5 pretty closely, a full hand count will be necessary.
By printing the paper slips with human readable information, and machines mistalling votes will likely be noticed immediatly by the voters. Step 5 prevents tampering with the polling machine's internal results by ensuring that the printed slips match the internal tally. Step 6 prevents a more clever attacker from printing his or her desired vote on the machine-readable portion while recording the voter's choice on the human-readable portion.
I got it all figured out. (Score:3, Interesting)
First and foremost, I believe everything has it's place. I think that zelots that think that EVERYTHING should be run in Linux or EVERYTHING should be open sourced are nuts.
Everything has it's place.
And the electronic voteing booth just screams for open source.
That is where I would start. I am closed minded to any company or individual that won't go open sourced on these things.
If I was in charge I would offer the electronic voteing booth contract in the same fashion that the Navy has 'fly offs' for new jet contracts.
I would find a company, or three and give them my requirements for the voteing booth. I would ask them to design something to my specifications and it must be open source.
Then I would put up a challenge to the Linux community. I would post the same requirements that I gave those companies on the net and look for some people to put together a free software open source voteing booth.
In a year I would do the 'fly off' (or vote off, sans actual election) and either pick the free software project or one of the companies.
That is part one of my plan.
The second part are my security requirements.
At some part in either the registration process or possibly at the polling place (or even both) the voter is issued a blank smart card. The card contains no personal information either digitally or printed on the surface.
The voter goes to vote.
When they cast a vote the computer tallies it up in memory (naturaly) and then they are issued a paper reciept.
The paper reciept does not need to contain any personal information either. It does need to list who the person voted for in clear bold English. A senior citizen should be able (and encouraged) to read the reciept to see that no mistakes were made. Also on the reciept is a bar code to aid in computer tabulation.
At this point the smart card comes into play.
Here is where the smart card gets, well smart.
It is totally optional. If someone leaves the card at home, or is opposed for any reason they don't need to use it.
The user inserts the smart card and some information is stored on the card.
**note** Feel free to add suggestions to this, I am not a comp sci person at all. I came up with this on my own***
The information is something like this:
1. The exact time that the card is written to.
2. The number of voters to have used the machine that day.
3. A hash file representing the exact size of the program data on the machine (like you would use to double check the a file you would get off of usenet)
4. A running total of all the results of the voteing on that booth so far.
Finally all this data is secured with a key that is kept private in the voteing booth itself. I would make it a law that once the elections ended the key had to be made public.
Here is what I am accomplishing:
1. You can always do a normal tally and not worry about my back ups. If everything appears normal and people are happy then there you go.
2. If recounts are asked for they can be easily accomplished by using the paper reciepts from the voteing machines. If someone cries foul at the bar code they can read the type on the reciepts.
3. If people are still crying foul - the voters keep the smart cards. Since every machine has a different key and all keys are public as soon as the voteing is done then it is a simple enough matter for independent programmers to verify the votes on there own.
But what most people will do is go back to the polling place and swipe the smart cards into a reader. The reader will record the information and produce a graph showing the real time voteing that happened at each booth. Sans personal information (thank you very much).
In the event that someone tries to cheat the system it will be obvious. Even if someone reencrypts the card they will show up like a sore thumb next to the next card that is read (see... we did a running tally of the votes.
Re:It's OBVIOUS.. American Idol can't be wrong (Score:2)
Wonder if it's patented yet?
Re:alternative voting method (Score:2)
Absentee ballots (Score:2)
There are a lot of worse ideas than this around, but I have objections:
Re: (Score:2)