Hardly Anyone Cares About Computer Voting Problems 530
Avidwriter writes "It's a sad thought that Roblimo explores in a NewsForge article about computer voting fraud and how you'd think all honest politicians would be working to make sure computerized voting systems are open source, and why open source wouldn't hurt well-run voting machine companies' profits. Not that most people care, since they don't even bother to vote, right?"
Thus say... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know off hand, so let's put it to a vote!
I vote in Slashdot polls... (Score:3, Funny)
Lefty and proud of it (Score:4, Funny)
Of course i am. Why do you ask? (-;
...oh...righ^H^H^H^Hleft. (-; (-; (-;
I am left-handed, -footed, -eared, -toed, -kneed, -minded and -(*censored*)ed. And, like most /.ers, i often feel left out.
Re:Thus say... (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think that voting machines you would want simple and private code with high encription.
Re:Thus say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Voting, on the other hand, is a much simpler problem, and the problems with fraud are much better documented and understood. Those that control the rules can control the voting -- but that's a problem with paper ballots as well as electronic. In this case, the risks of opening the code are outweighed by the risks of not opening the code.
Re:Thus say... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thus say... (Score:5, Funny)
"What with voting turnout at an all-time
low, not voting makes me more American."
--
Hank Hill, King of the Hill
Good reliable voting solutions (Score:5, Interesting)
1: The traffic with the database server should be properly secured (ipsec, ssl w/client certs, etc.)
2: The data should be stored in an accountable way. For example, if the data is altered, there should be a way to determine this.
3: The system should allow manual verification of results.
So here was the system I designed:
1: Database server communicates with clients using ESP/IPSec protected communications.
2: Voting machines use touch-screens. At the end, the voting machine displays a list of candidates you voted for and asks you to confirm. Then when you do, it submits your data to the database and prints a ballot. The database also stores information relating to the ballot regarding which voting station you were at. You deposite the ballot in the ballot box.
The ballot contains: 1: An easy-to-scan bar code
2: A human readable ballot listing for manual verification. 3: The ballot serial number.
This gives you almost everything you get with the paper system as well as everything you get with the electronic system.
Re:Good reliable voting solutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Paper ballots provide an audit trail, but the ballot boxes themselves can (and have) been tampered with.
The only useful purpose served by an electronic system is a "quick tally", and possibly less chance of a spoiled ballot, although butterfly-ballot like errors can be set up on a touchscreen as easily as on paper.
Providing a count at the polling place, by a multi-partisan local group (each candidate should be able to produce someone to go to each polling place) reduces the chance of fraud dramatically. Make the hand count the official tally, and the electronic count used only for quick totals.
For a little more accountability, apply modern cryptography to tie paper ballots to their electronic counterparts for cross-checking if required. Make a recount and cross-check mandatory for narrow spreads or manual/electronic dissagreements.
Demand voter-verified, locally counted paper ballots.
Re:Good reliable voting solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Numbered Ballot Papers. I wonder why they didn't think of that before.
Oh, I remember. The greatest advance in democracy since, well democracy really ,SECRET BALLOTS.
I have enough nightmares about electronic voting already. You go into the polling station at 08.30am and they tick your name off against the roll. At 8.32am a vote is cast for Candidate X (as certified by the audit trail in the system.) Guess who voted for whom.
Re:Good reliable voting solutions (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever setup touch screens? I do it quite frequently... they have to be calibrated before use, and periodically thereafter.
Now, if I were an unscrupulous voting machine operator, then no matter how good the software was, I could EASILY fool the calibration routines into thinking that real screen position X1,Y1 (vote for liberal) gets mapped to X2,Y2 (vote for conservative, nazi, etc.). The same could apply to the confirmation screen.
The fact is, the data you're entering (who to vote for) is transformed so many times during an electronic voting process (screen co-ordinates to memory locations to object references to PCI bus to telephone or network to ODBC to file, that there are far too many points for tampering. When I vote on paper, there's only myself, a piece of paper, and a pen involved. Maybe a ballot box. The only real place for tampering is the ballot box, and if you can't keep a friggin' box tamper proof, how do you expect to do the same with a computer?
in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:5, Interesting)
At least it would stop the whining about voter turnout
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, voting is compulsary, but thanks to protection of privacy there is no way for them to know whether you actually voted or no. You just have to turn up, and place a ballot paper - it can theoretically be blank, and for some people often is. But everyone turns out, and it is a much better system. We actually get a reasonable representation of the opinion of the people.
But with response to the article:
Yes! There is a need in the US for a better voter turnout, and if machines are in use it needs to be difficult to be forge or modify votes. Go me, master of the blindingly obvious!
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:2, Flamebait)
personally I'm tired of the mostly-uneducated masses making political decisions. experts make (or review) all legal actions; experts design and administer computer systems; experts control high-level financial decisions. and even with our best and brightest running the game in these fields, there are problems sometimes.
the need is for a government to protect the rights of the citizen, period. giving the susceptible public control over the system is not
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:2)
This is why we have representative government. The citizen elect representatives, who become "expert" in public affairs. But mandate has to come from the "masses" ulimately. The alternative is tyranny.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Funny)
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:2)
[in Australia] everyone turns out, and it is a much better system. We actually get a reasonable representation of the opinion of the people.
Um...how exactly does that make it better? ;)
In NZ we might say: Lord help you, and pity the poor immigrant.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Insightful)
The duty of the government is to protect the rights and well-being of it's citizens.
Where do you pull this from? The people of Australia should decide the "duties" of their government. Not you.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:5, Insightful)
Being required to vote is in the best interest of everyone in the country and it's a small price to pay. You can't tell me that you're life is so significant and hectic that you cannot accommodate casting your vote? Give me a break.
I truly believe that if you don't vote (or in an Australian citizen's case cast a blank ballot) you have no place to criticize politics or the actions of politicians until you do so.
Just my $0.02.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:5, Insightful)
So a criminal justice system is commie plot now is it?
Seriously as members of a community we are expected to contribute to that community as well as take away, other wise the community collapses. Voting is your way of saying this is the person/group I want leading the community. If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about who gets in.
I'm not so sure about this one. I use to think this, but have now modified my view somewhat. While holding that view, I couldn't see how I could complain about a government who I helped vote to power. IE, only those who did not vote for the ruling party can complain (or vice versa). Also, people I know in politics would also tell me that "I can't complain if I don't directly do something about it". IE Unless I'm attending peace marches, writing letters to papers, signing surveys, or even stand for government I shouldn't be complaining about it. Locally, it makes more sense. If I care about the dog droppings in my local park (I do), then why aren't I picking them up myself, or writing letters telling the pollies to do something, or even attempting to be voted in on a "no dogs" policy.
My modified view is something like "Everyone can complain, but the more someone does about something, the more they care about it". IE, listen to complaints of people who make a lot of effort regarding fixing the problem (Voting is an effort). If they can't even be bothered to vote, then I may not think their complaint is worth listening too.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when I only get 2 parties to choose from, and both of those are determined to expand the scope of government, when I am strongly opposed to just about any possible expansion of government? If I don't choose between apples and apples, in effect ENDORSING the 2-party system, then I have no right to speak my opinion? Get real.
I suppose you also believe in the old line, "if you don't have anything to hide then you'll be just
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Insightful)
I would agree with you if you didn't have this option or if you were handed a ballot with three choices and all contained the same name.
Are you seriously comparing the Australian Government to a communist one? Seriously, you're being unrealistic.
Go outside, the world misses you.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:5, Insightful)
Throw in the fact that you can be a conscientious citizen, get yourself well informed on all the candidates and issues, and have your vote negated by some ninety-five year old lady who is voting for Al Gore because he wore the best tie... can you blame us for getting cynical?
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:4, Insightful)
And the flavour of all the drops, is what makes the ocean. Now, the politicians ARE representing you. This is what leaders you get when you're cynical, care-free, repress your feelings and do nothing. Do you want it to get better or worse, it's your choice. At least, you COULD have said that you've done the best you could, but now you can't say that!
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Funny)
Tough shit. I have a moral objection to people not voting. It's one of the responsibilities associated with the benefits of a democracy.
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Informative)
The post above this is exactly right, and I'll explain, using the US as an example. In the US there are 3 "branches of government" as set down in the constitution. There's the Executive Branch (President), the Legislative Branch (Congress) and the Judicial Branch. They each have duties, and the existance of the three brings balance (none of them can go overboard, because it's almost impossible to control all 3).
Now, the US constitution implies
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:4, Insightful)
So you didn't vote for them, because it would have been a wasted vote - but then you wasted your vote anyway?
In the 1992 UK general election, there was a poll conducted by a national newspaper that revealed that 60% of the population would have seriously considered voting for the Liberal Democrats (the third party in the UK, typically gets 10-20% of the vote) if they thought they had a chance of winning.
If even people who think the green party candidate 'makes sense' refuse to vote for them because they won't win, there's little chance they'll ever be perceived as anything but a lunatic fringe...
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:2, Informative)
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:3, Interesting)
I got burned by this when my cruise ship pulled into harbor in Belize, only to find everything was closed until the polls closed at 6pm. Imagine my distain when I found out our ship pulled anchor at 5pm, the bastards!!!
in Chile there IS mandatory voting (Score:2, Interesting)
In Chile we have *somewhat* mandatory voting. It works like this:
1.- You _register to vote_ if you want to vote, and you are 18 or older.
2.- Now that you are registered, you MUST vote on EVERY ellection there is. If you don't like it, don't register. The only excuses is being hospitalized or more than 300 Km from your voting home (you register on a given district, and must vote there).
3.- When you go vote, you must provide the national ID card, and you are tallied against a list of voters for that parti
Re:in australia I hear they have mandatory voting (Score:4, Interesting)
Or to improve the college student turnout maybe they should offer coupons for a free pizza, drink, or whatever to each person that turned out? I'm sure you could get companies to sponsor the elections.
Of course I move every six months or so.. making it hard to get many chances to vote. I think maybe that's why I was refused voter registration during the last Presidential election (though the refusal had no reason writen on it).
Re:Yes, That is true (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Go to jail for short stay or
2. Pay a fine
In practice you don't even have to pay the fine. Almost any excuse is enough to get you out of the fine. In fact, I know people who have tried to 'do the right thing' and pay the fine, and been refused!
The fine notice may simply be a way of checking that you're alive, at the same address etc. Gets people's attention better than a survey.
Perhaps it's because fewer care about politics? (Score:2)
(the Subject asks it all...)
Re:Perhaps it's because fewer care about politics? (Score:4, Funny)
Only in the 2024 elections, when Wil Wheaton defeats Britney Spears amidst questionable computer voting, will you get anyone to care.
It has to be said... (Score:5, Funny)
That assumes you could find an honest politician.
Executables from Open Src still has to be loaded.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Open Source can't hurt, but
you'd -still- have to be sure
that -all- the executables
were made from the final source,
that everybody has access to,
for the eVoting Boxes.
Then, you have to insure that
no changes are made just before
the machines are used... etc.
Re:Executables from Open Src still has to be loade (Score:3, Informative)
that -all- the executables
were made from the final source,
using a compiler that's known not to contain any code that can generate unexpected code from the supplied input... okay, so we need an open source compiler...
but how do we know that the compiler was compiled using a compiler that doesn't inject malicious code that would mean that the compiler compromised the ballot software?
You might want to check out this classic ACM paper [acm.org]
So you look at the disassembled b
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking for too much. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't even bother to click the link to read the article; you think they'd actually get up, leave the house, drive to the voting center, and push some buttons to vote? That's way too much effort involved.
Re:You're asking for too much. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're asking for too much. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some elections that are competitive. I read an economist article where they asserted that in a couple of midwestern states and one tiny east coast state (RI?/DE?) your vote actually counts. The midwestern states had a non-partisan committee (or rather d
Open Source vs. Closed Source voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Voting takes place once every two years in the US (different for other countries). And it only takes place on one day. Security through obscurity can hold that long.
On the other hand, divulging the source code to the system beforehand (otherwise, what's the point to having the system being Open Source) makes it that much easier for evil-doers to find the holes in the system. Keep in mind that these fraudsters aren't going to fix the hole and "turn it back over to the community". They will have plenty of time to find the exploits and they will exploit it on election day.
Yes, in general Security through Obscurity is a bad idea, but in one-off systems like electronic voting, it is the best method of keeping the system secure short of armed guards and video cameras.
non-electronic voting controls (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that someone hasn't already bought the "hole". You're assuming that the ballot system developers are impartial. You're assuming that if the government won't abuse any knowledge that the public has no access to.
You're assuming too much.
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but so does everyone else, and most people will fix the problems. Especially international people reviewing it. So while there is a chance that some clever guy will spot a hole that no-one else can see and this guy uses it to further his own ends, I consider that less likely than some guy putting in a h
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of people who find and fix flaws will far outweight those with malicious intents. As a matter of fact, non-profit organizations and academic institutions can study the code for loop-holes/bugs/etc. Academia is good at coming up with theoretical solutions to problems and would be perfect here. They will be able to analyze the software for flaws far better than any private company can (except possibly large ones like IBM, Microsoft, etc). They will be able to do it from the specifications even (how do you know the specs are correct? )
KoalaBear33
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source voting (Score:2)
Actually, obsurity is a neccessity for security.
Although the whole system need not be obscure, at the very least passwords and private encryption keys need to be obscure.
but in one-off systems like electronic voting, it is the best method of keeping the system secure short of armed guards and video cameras.
I wrote a paper for University on this very matter. It does not matter if the system is secure. It matters only that people can trust that
Open accountability (Score:2)
OK, popular-OS may have many holes in it that we don't know about. You just make sure the total process takes such issues into account. For example; via physical security; by providing mechanisms to detect changes; and by design choices that make it impossible for the application itself to know whose votes are being tallied "at this polling station Mr Smith will be candidate A". Even an open source, peer reviewed sys
The even sadder fact is (Score:3, Funny)
Make sure to read the fine print! (Score:2)
Of course they don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Potential for fraud is a good thing in the eyes of sufficiently corrupt politicians. If it were completely impregnable, then those with the inclination wouldn't be able to fix elections. As much as I love throwing technology at a problem to try and solve it, I really don't think that eliminating a paper trail is *really* a good idea when we talk about electing such powerful people.
How about instead of changing the way we cast our ballot, let's focus on changing the ballot? Plurality voting is about the worst voting system there is. Of course, if we went with Condorcet, third-party politicians might actually get elected.
For those who haven't heard of Condorcet (Score:5, Informative)
Rated voting, which is a special case of range voting, was generally the best method (i.e., it maximised voter happiness) in a test of various voting systems [bolson.org]. Also see ElectionMethods.org [electionmethods.org].
An improved voting system would certainly make lots of things better (though due to Arrow's paradox [wikipedia.org], a perfect system is impossible). I think we also need to improve the voters. The most heard criticism of Condorcet's method is that it's hard to understand, and it's really not all that complex at all.
Tech savy politicians (Score:2)
Say it's not true!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Does this mean the Cowboy Neil option didn't really count?
Why Not Closed Source (Score:2, Insightful)
But what's the big deal if it's not open source. As someone already mentioned, in the case of the limited window of voting, security through obscurity shoud work fine.
If the project leaders of some product decide to go Open Source, I say GREAT!!! Everyone wins!!!
But just because a product is NOT open source, should it be
heh (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure they are doing just that. But just like with any team that has exactly zero memebers, progress is a little slow.
This guy cares (Score:3, Informative)
Open Source won't work! (Score:3, Funny)
Oh the horror!
Who you should vote for... (Score:2)
no kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
I've written to the voting committee, written editorials, but no one cares. they claim that it's better than paper voting because machines don't make mistakes.
once I voted 12 times. but that was because they were relying on cookies. that was fixed in the revote. once they used checkboxes instead of radio buttons, and I voted for everyone. but that was fixed in the next one.
people are lazy, and even if it's got problems, they prefer clicking on some web form to actually going and voting in person. I say if you're too lazy to get up and vote, then you probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
but nobody cares, machines don't make mistakes... yeah? well, I've got a 20 page study of georgia voting technology that disagrees.
it's high time we had an election server h4x0red to make people think twice about it.
Is it worse than analog vote fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)
A few folks care ... (Score:3, Informative)
"iRights" - Voting Machine Analysed, Found Wanting [jerf.org].
From the linked site [verifiedvoting.org]:
From the conclusion of the paper, Analysis of an Electronic Voting System [avirubin.com], emphasis mine:
And finally, the text of the Voter-Verifiable newsletter I received regarding this issue, which should appear on this page [verifiedvoting.org] sometime (July 24, 2003):
physical proof from electronic voting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hardly anyone cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hardly anyone cares? (Score:2)
It may have already happened [scoop.co.nz]
Ignorance + Apathy = Danger Will Robinson (Score:2)
It's worth a shot, though...
EFF already has an action item for this (Score:2)
It's a conspiracy (Score:2)
It's too bad the whole thing had to come down to hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads, but it did.
And computerized voting would quiet all this hubbub how?
Right. It wouldn't.
There would be a bunch of screaming memies saying the software must be bad 'cause it's not Open Source if their candidate didn't win.
Yet historically we'
waking up to the real america (Score:2, Insightful)
For a long time, "honest politician" has been an oxymoron, a laugh amongst the working class. Heavens, we all know there is no such thing. It was Simon Cameron in the 19th century who gave us the modern American definition of an "honest politician" --
"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."
The real truth is that most people don't vote because they know th
Re:waking up to the real america (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the US people want the Patriot Act? A war against Iraq?
So far as I remember: Yes, and yes. Of course, people only wanted the Patriot Act until they began to realize how brutally they'd been fisted. I think the same will happen with Iraq--but at the time we launched the attack, around 65% of the US population wanted to do it.
The only thing not voting really accomplishes, in the end, is to give more power to the people who do vote. Whether or not that's a good thing, you can decide for yourself.
Its ok, as long as its not you.... (Score:2)
- Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Like Airport Security Before 9/11 (Score:2)
It takes something really, really bad to get people to notice (like the 9/11 atrocities). However, it's difficult to imagine something of that magnitude happening with voting. Even all the shenanigins with Florida voting died down. I expect even if it turns out a company like Diebold explicitly threw an
They'll vote now... (Score:2)
With the new system, they might have "voted" and they won't even know that they voted, right? Does that count?
Minor bit of reality check here boys... (Score:5, Informative)
The company I worked for did all of the original design assembly of the PCB boards.
Everything is done on paper (on those models, I hear they have other electronic only models). So it is completely auditable via a recount. The Federal Election Commision certifies the software and the hardware as fit for use. Once certified, no changes can take place without a re-certification, and justification for all changes made.
They use QNX as their base operating system, and use essentially fax based technology inside the system. They scan it using the fax scanner, using timing bars to tell where the bubbles are. They then read the black/white values using an A/D converter (at some point, they switched to infrared technology instead of fax technology). Each machine gets fed test sets of thousands of ballots ( I want to say over 100,000 ballots go thru the system during the final testing phase). Which the exception of a mis-feed, or jam (which has to be detected), there can't be any mistakes.
They are pretty serious about it. At one point I knew every guy who did the day to day coding on the systems. They are plenty trustworthy. Maybe not coding gods, but naferious evil plots just won't happen. Sorry, take your conspiracy theories and go home.
Oh, and no one in their right mind would want to read the code. For a variety of reasons. First it's boring as hell. Second, the rules make it nearly impossible to write interesting code. All function can have on and only one return. No function can be over 200 lines long. No matter how clear the function is, it can't be longer then 200 lines. Why 200, got me, but it's the rule. There are rules against using macros, and rules about function pointers, and rules about recursion, rules about how data structures have to be stored. Rules about lots of different things. Rules about election layouts. Rules about ballot layouts. All kinds of mind numbing rules.
Open sourcing them, or making them available under NDA for a third party audit, sure seems like a good idea. However, there are plenty of safety measures in place to assure that the right things go on.
Christ the machines run while being hit by a giant as static electricity gun. (Vandigraph generator, I believe it was called).
Kirby
Re:Minor bit of reality check here boys... (Score:3, Insightful)
The black box testing is pretty complete, and
Are paper ballots any more secure? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about anyone else, but when I vote, there's these little senile old ladies who ask what my name and address is and don't ask for any ID. Give me some cheap sunglasses and a fake beard and I could cast several votes for me and my neighbors next election.
The sky is falling! (Score:2)
Just a note, but hardly anyone cares about computer voting period. It's not even a blip on the radar for most people. And those who do know already realize there are people with a PC, an internet connection and way too much time on their hands waiting for this sort of opportunity to play around.
It's not that big of a deal yet. Really.
Some people care (Score:2)
Ever Tried To Explain "Source" To A Politician? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to explain "source" to a politician? I have. Let me tell you. Just getting them over that hurdle is tough enough. Most of them are lawyers, and for some reason lawyers tend not to care much about tech. Sure there are exceptions, but I can't help but get the impression that most lawyers would still be using quills and ink if they could get away with it.
So. When you go to policitians with this issue and say "The system should be Open Source so someone can perform a security audit" what they hear is "Our special interest group has an opinion about how the system should work". Really. I don't see any way around this problem either. We could sit around and wait for the public school system run by these politicians to produce lawyers who aren't computer and science illiterate, except of course that by now most of the politicians are products of that very same system!
I see a positive feedback loop here, which like all positive feedback loops tends to create instability. Now... how many politicians have the background to understand that analogy?
Re:Ever Tried To Explain "Source" To A Politician? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ever have the opportunity again, try explaining it in terms of law. That Closed Source is like passing laws that are secret and enforced by secret courts. They can be understood by seeing who gets arrested and disappear, this is like reverse engineering software code. Published Source is like publishing the laws and sometimes perhaps debating them before they are pass
It gets said here often, but (Score:3, Insightful)
It only takes a few minutes to express your views, or cut 'n paste someone else's you agree with. Noise works wonders to help bring an issue before a legislator. On average, very few people actually write any kind of response. Those responses they do get carry some weight.
This means we have a chance to punch well above our weight if we actually do *something*
So, do something. Do it each week. These stories are here on
Join the EFF. If you *really* can't part with the $25 or so to do that, at least use their EFFector mailing list. They provide very timely call to action letters that make providing your input easy.
Put your legislators address in your address book. When you have a thought, just send it to them. Does not have to be fancy, it just needs to be honest and somewhat timely.
I recently worked to help push the Oregon Open Source bill through the house. (HB2892) We failed because a well known AeA lobbyist (Jim Craven --I think.) had the ear of the house speaker. We did make this decision hard for Karen Minnis though. She heard a *lot* about Open Source. Maybe next session she will hear more.
This experience showed me that change requires ongoing dialog with our representitives. It is the only way to counter the lobbyists. Lobbyists offer deals and dollars. The only check on these is public opinion. --Votes.
I met and spoke with many legislators. They are people just like us, who are interested in the issues. Most of them want to know what you think and are willing to take the time to learn it.
Approach them as you would any other person you know. --Just start a dialog. Sure you will get form letters, but after a few of those, you will get actual reply mail. This is valuable.
Tell them you vote. Tell them your stand on the issue. Let them know about interesting news items. A good example for those living in Oregon would be the current Wyden bill.
--This is a great bill. Its risky for him. He needs to hear thanks and support. I wrote him today expressing exactly that while asking if there is anything I can do at the same time.
Do something if you want to see things change.
Vote --- Write your legislature --- Talk to your friends.
--It matters.
No one is going to believe it until it's proven. (Score:3, Insightful)
In some small voting district (preferably one of the smallest in the nation) that has electronic voting, some third party candidate, or even better a write in candidate needs to get AT LEAST twice the total world population voting for him. Someone would for sure get arrested for the unforgivable and henious crime, not of election fraud, but of making the powers that be look bad. At least done this way, the obvious defense would be that harm could already be done, this person just made sure it was known since no one would listen. Not that I think that would help much.
However if some lunatic fringe candidate were to get 900% or 1000% of the total possible vote, and all of that were to come from the same district or even pricinct, there would be some attention given to it.
11 out of 5 does not care (Score:3, Funny)
voting schmoting (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of years later I'd almost completely lost interest except in the soap-opera aspect of the political game. Organised party politics is a waste of time, designed to keep the middle-aged, early retirees and people on long-term invalidity benefit occupied. The others are power-crazed over ambitious types just like you find in any other occupation. (It's not the money, not in the UK anyway, where cabinet ministers only get about 70K sterling IIRC.)
The last year or so have made it clearer than ever that real power is in corporate boardrooms and the country clubs of the US, and proved the truism of the old adage "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal". I'm more and more cleaving to the Chomsky-esque view that the organised political scene is just a distraction, a meaningless soap-opera designed to keep us asking the more profound questions.
The ludicrous US turnout rates - what is it, 35% in /Presidential/ elections? - is only a few decades ahead of Europe IMHO. These people can't claim any sort of popular mandate. Basically what I'm trying to say is: it all sucks.
People don't vote because nobody represents them (Score:3, Interesting)
If your views fall slightly outside views of "the majority" you simply don't get any representation. You also have to remember that "the majority" has an *average* I.Q. of 100.
None of the major political parties views or policies represent my own, so should I be forced to vote for someone who doesn't represent me?
The top down architected democracies which we have at the moment basically don't work as forms of representation. They don't represent the people they are supposed to. Representation really needs to come from the bottom up where local views and issues can be expressed, which means democracy and therefore taxation have to be turned upside down.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (Score:3, Interesting)
You didn't vote? Then you don't care.
You voted using this system? Then you don't care.
The US electoral system is an obsolete farce. I care passionately, and that's why I won't support it by participating.
turnout, bah humbug (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not even going to address the computerized aspect here ...
But in a happy, free country, turnout should be low.
We don't, collectively, have to worry about politics that much, and that is a grand thing!
I vote, but frankly I'm pretty happy that no matter who wins, odds are pretty good that taxes and regulations will stay tolerable, death squads won't be roaming the streets, etc.
Turnout was 100% in good old Iraq, if that's what you want to emulate.
Re:turnout, bah humbug (Score:3, Informative)
No, before Iraq was liberated, Hussein held an "election", where turnout was supposedly 100%, and of course, he "won".
That was my point, high or low turnout by itself doesn't mean bad or good.
Maybe Bush really DID steal the election (Score:4, Interesting)
The source code for the software used in one voting machine was discovered on the Internet, on an unprotected FTP site belonging to Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems Inc. The software, when compiled and run in tests, showed that it appears to be the code used in the company's AccuVote-TS touch-screen terminals.
This software has been analyzed in detail at Truthout.org: How to Rig an Election in the United States [truthout.org]. I think your stomach will start turning just a couple paragraphs in. No, let me start it turning for you: the backend database for this state-of-the-art touch-screen votiong machine is Microsoft Access. But that's only part of the story. Wait until you read about the hidden tables. More details here: How We Discovered The Backdoor [scoop.co.nz]. The actual code from the FTP site is here: Original Data [actrix.co.nz].
I don't know about you, but I became a little nauseous reading this.... It's quite the yee-opener.
Some more on "problematic" election results:
Florida Ballots Project [uchicago.edu]
Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy [gregpalast.com]
NY TImes: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say
The most stomach churning thing of all, I think, is the Christian Right connection to Deibold and ES&S.
If you find this stuff credible, spread the word around.
Re:Wondering (Score:2)
Any system can be fuggard by incompetancy, mechanical trouble, or desire to thwart the process. Paper ballots, aside from being dog slow to count, rely on human beings to count them. Humans goof. Some humans decieve. Politicians like paper ballots because they already know how to abuse them.
Re:Why Should It Be Open Source?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Give each person a randomly unique number when they turn up to vote. Have them enter the number with their votes, check that it's valid, and record both.
After the election, make all the votes available. Everyone can check the totals, and anyone who made a note of their number can check that their vote was recorded correctly. If there's any vote tampering going on, everyone who's vote got tamperd with will KNOW, not just suspect, that the election was rigged.
My full rant on the topic is at href="http://zcat.wired.net.nz/evote/ [wired.net.nz]
Damn straight (Score:2)
If you want to see an even better system than randomly unique numbers, though, check out the paper at vreceipt.com [vreceipt.com]. Not only can voters in this guy's system know their vote was tampered with, but they can prove it wit
Disengenuous argument... (Score:2)
It is highly unlikely that an "easter egg" will be hidden in an open source voting system. It would be too easy for the coder to be caught. Having the source code available for review and testing increases the likelyhood that security flaws, whether resulting from coding errors, improper algorythms, or intentional backdoors, will be found and corrected before the ele
Re:Is open source best solution...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Parent is a troll (Score:2)
This gives an opportunity to construct arguments that may be useful in later debate with more worthy adversaries.
Politicians are known to plant trolls in crowds or press conferences in order to raise issues that might not otherwise be raised, or to point out flaws in an opponents platform with accurate parody.
Re:in the paraphrased words of Bill Hicks... (Score:2)
Sad, but true. How can a donation be political (in support of policy), when you pay both teams?
Dunno. I'm keeping my eye out on the whole Howard Dean thing. They're raising tons of money using the net, and in the process they are democratizing fund raising. I agree that looking at big money donations is disheartening, but I disagree with St. Bill here. The Dean fundraising is just one reason why.
The other is the current occupant of the White House.
nice theory but (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact is, most folks are fat dumb and relitivly happy. They can't be bothered with who is running for what office (or even what mst of these offices are supposed to do) and if they knew it is very hard to tell what major canidate is most likley to vote the way you would like them. As long as the wolf is not at their door and they can still s
Re:bah (Score:2)
After the 2000 election, I couldn't give a great goddamn what happens. 500 elderly jews in Florida + nine supreme court justices are apparently all it takes to decide a national election.