Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Technology Politics

California Bans Paperless Voting -- For 2006 46

Posted by timothy from the so-they-support-excess-pollution dept.
bizpile writes "Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a law requiring that all electronic voting machines produce paper records of every ballot cast. Under the bill, signed Monday, voters will not be able to touch or keep the records. Instead, election officials will put them in locked boxes if a recount is needed. Legislators in nearly two dozen states have introduced similar bills and New Hampshire, Illinois and Oregon already have laws requiring paper backups. However, those states have few, if any, touch-screen voting terminals. The law goes into effect in 2006. Now if they could just figure what to do this election."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Bans Paperless Voting -- For 2006 More

California Bans Paperless Voting -- For 2006

Comments Filter:

  • this shouldnt be happening in california... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by applegoddess ( 768530 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:17PM (#10380020) Homepage
    it should be happening in places like florida and other important/swing states, and all places that use voting machines that are as vulnerable as Diebold's pieces of junk...and this election is so much more important than the 2006 election in california ):

    • You're probably[*] right right that it should be happening in other places, but I'm not sure that it shouldn't be happening in California.
      It might not need it, but that might work in it's favour. If one State does it by choice then it weakens arguments by other states if they try to claim it's not feasible. Plus it's Arnie, so it's bound to get slightly higher profile coverage than if it was J. Random-Governor from elsewhere. And it's about time that good policies started getting as high a profile as bad p

  • Two issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:30PM (#10380098)

    Under the bill, signed Monday, voters will not be able to touch or keep the records.

    They'll be able to see them though, right? Right? Otherwise, what stops an incorrect electronic vote being backed up by an incorrect paper vote?

    Instead, election officials will put them in locked boxes if a recount is needed.

    So who decides when a recount is needed? If a voting machine screws up 10% of the time and the winning margin is 5%, how will that be picked up against the assumed scenario of a voting machine working correctly and the winning margin being 5% to a different candidate? If an outcome is so obviously false (e.g. twice as many votes as voters), then the paper trail isn't necessary, and if the paper trail is followed for every election, there is no benefit over normal paper voting.

    Of course, everyone advocating for pen + paper voting in the first place (of which I am usually one) will point out, "yes, we've been saying this for years", it just seems that it's so completely and utterly without merit that I must be missing something obvious.

    • So who decides when a recount is needed? If a voting machine screws up 10% of the time and the winning margin is 5%, how will that be picked up against the assumed scenario of a voting machine working correctly and the winning margin being 5% to a different candidate? If an outcome is so obviously false (e.g. twice as many votes as voters), then the paper trail isn't necessary, and if the paper trail is followed for every election, there is no benefit over normal paper voting.
      Well, exit polls are usually

  • Give the man his due. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <ben AT int DOT com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:32PM (#10380106) Homepage
    OK I realize that this may be a bit offtopic, but I've got Karma to burn, so here goes:

    Arnold is doing a good job as Governor.

    Uh oh...I've gone and done it now. I've thrown all my credibility out the window. I must be an idiot for thinking that an actor could be a good governor. I must be stupid for thinking that anyone but a professional politican could actually hold office, not to mention the top executive office of the most powerful state in the union.

    To those politically ill-informed among you, I know this may come as a shock. I know that you enjoy following every reference to the Governor with some half-wit, cliche joke about how he's going to 'terminate' something, but guess what? He's actually doing his job well. Balancing the budget, reforming the workman's comp program, and lots of other little-published but much needed reforms (such as this one) are all what California desperately needs.

    The framers didn't want America to be run by professional policicans. They wanted America to be run by it's people. Average citizens to step for a few years to perform a civic duty, and then go back to the private sector to get on with thier lives. That's what Arnold is doing. He's cleaning up other people's messes because it needs to get done. I'm sure he got lots of other motivations that are not nearly as noble, of course, but the fact remains that he's fixing a problem that needs to be fixed, and you have to give him credit for that.
    • Ronald Reagan? The actor?!? Then who's vice president, Jerry Lewis?

      I suppose Jane Wyman is the first lady... and Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury!

      (cut to Marty imploring Doc to listen to his tale of flux capacitors).

    • Ah, we love to call him the Governator, and it makes it all the better when he actually does a good job.
    • I'm not trying to troll but an average American is not a hollywood superstar.
    • As a California resident who voted for der Gropinator, you'll forgive me if I say that I think the jury is still out. He still has a few years to go, and I'm not necessarily convinced. California's financial mess is not sorted out yet, not even close. The day of reckoning has been postponed, but not eliminated.

      Also, despite his campaign promise to only sit for one term, I find it unlikely that Arnold will be unable to resist attempting reelection, and even the presidency when the GOP comes calling.

      But y

    • He is really only doing a reasonable job. While has pushed through many needed reforms, his balancing of the budget was a short term solution that will seriously hamper California in the future.

      The Arnold solution essentially pushed the debt off to be dealt with at a later date- after interest will take its toll on it and create an even larger debt.
      So Arnold wins points for an effective short term solution, but losses points for a screwing California in the future unless taxes are raised.

      The real solut
  • "By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown. The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would. Judgment Day, the day the human race was almost destroyed by the weapons they'd built to protect themselves. I should have realized it was never our destiny to stop judgment day - merely to survive it, to

  • Illinois... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:42PM (#10380155) Journal

    It doesn't really matter what policy Illinois has. It's the home of the democratic machine. It's where Obama comes from. Even if the state had a real republican vote, enough dead people would vote democrat to change that result.

    It's strange, though. About 85% of the land area of Illinois contains primarily republicans, but it's really just the vote of Chicago that matters.

    • It's strange, though. About 85% of the land area of Illinois contains primarily republicans, but it's really just the vote of Chicago that matters.

      Pull up the county-by-county red-blue map from the 2000 Presidential election from here [usatoday.com]. It is clear that, with some small exceptions, we are becoming a country polarized along urban/rural lines. California, one of the bluest of states, is in reality blue only along the coast -- the much larger interior appears to be solidly red. While many such maps like

  • Thermal printers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @09:52PM (#10380214) Homepage Journal
    Are they using thermal printers or dot matrix? I've noticed that thermally printed receipts tend to fade after a few weeks.
    • Dot matrix is too horrible to imagine: a million printers chattering in unison, their screams overtaking the cries of anguish should win. It will be a tragedy like no other.
    • probably thermal paper, because its much easier to deal with than other means.

      dot matrix (as another poster mentioned) is not pleasent sounding

      laser- well its just too expensive to have one laser printer per booth, yes it is possible to have one printer per precient, but that presents other problems too (like getting in line, getting them mixed up, etc)

      ink- well ink goes dry, and cartridges need to be replaced (kinda difficult)

      thermal- thermal does fade, but they aren't that bad, unless you keep the rec

    • Re:Thermal printers (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MagicM ( 85041 )
      I think dot matrix might cause a privacy issue. It would be easy enough to tell by the sound which candidate the vote is for.

  • Why this bill rocks - full analysis (Score:3, Informative)

    by JimMarch(equalccw) ( 710249 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:26PM (#10380733)
    The complete bill text is available at: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb _1438_bill_20040827_enrolled.html Before going into the effects, let's talk about how recounts work: There is already a California law mandating a 1% random "spot check" manual recount post-election. So that's one way. Two, elections officials can do more recounting at their own discretion if they "smell a rat". It's not very common. Three, the loser of a race can ask for a manual recount. If they STILL lose, they pay the cost of the recount. There are reform proposals out there to increase the amount of post-election recount to somewhere between 3% and 5% and second, rather than random recounts, let party officials or candidates each offer "recount THESE precincts!" suggestions. They're more likely to know "where the bodies might be buried" if there's been cheating. ------------- The voter can't be allowed to prove later how they voted. That'll lead to threats if they "don't vote right" from union bosses, corporate bosses or whatever, or vote selling. Most proposals call for printing "under glass" so you can see the paper, you can hit a "cancel button" if it's not right, or you can approve it. ------------ Existing law says that the "will of the voter" is what really matters, and must be what post-election recounts are looking for. Therefore, while this bill (SB1438) doesn't specifically say that the paper trail is the "final ballot of record", that IS how they'll be treated if there's a discrepancy between the paper record and the electronic record. ------------ What this REALLY produces is a "voter verified paper trail" (VVPT). The bill uses the term "voter verified paper audit trail", but then *defines* that term explicitly: "19251(c) "Voter verified paper audit trail" means a component of a direct recording electronic voting system that prints a contemporaneous paper record copy of each electronic ballot and allows each voter to confirm his or her selections before the voter casts his or her ballot." It works as written, but we dodged a bullet here. "Voter verified paper audit trail" is a term used by proponents of a "crypto audit trail" that does NOT allow the voter to confirm each individual selection at the polling place. Votehere and others have been promoting these "all crypto solutions" where the voter gets a "number" and can then confirm that their vote was recorded, but not what they voted for. Votehere is saying that the "background crypto" would form "proof" that the vote was recorded properly, and Diebold has been quietly promoting this as an alternative to a true VVPT. Crypto is fine, but only if the basic code around it is "known honest". Diebold for one is doing "known DIShonest" code. So thank the diety of your choice that the phrase "allows each voter to confirm his or her selections" is present in SB1438. We can do crypto ON TOP of a VVPT system but under SB1438, NOT in place of a VVPT. Jim March Member, Board of Directors, Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org)

  • Bill analysis - WITH formatting this time! (sigh) (Score:4, Informative)

    by JimMarch(equalccw) ( 710249 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:32PM (#10380759)
    The complete bill text is available at:

    http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/ sb _1438_bill_20040827_enrolled.html

    Before going into the effects, let's talk about how recounts work:

    There is already a California law mandating a 1% random "spot check" manual recount post-election. So that's one way.

    Two, elections officials can do more recounting at their own discretion if they "smell a rat". It's not very common.

    Three, the loser of a race can ask for a manual recount. If they STILL lose, they pay the cost of the recount.

    There are reform proposals out there to increase the amount of post-election recount to somewhere between 3% and 5% and second, rather than random recounts, let party officials or candidates each offer "recount THESE precincts!" suggestions. They're more likely to know "where the bodies might be buried" if there's been cheating.

    -------------

    The voter can't be allowed to prove later how they voted. That'll lead to threats if they "don't vote right" from union bosses, corporate bosses or whatever, or vote selling. Most proposals call for printing "under glass" so you can see the paper, you can hit a "cancel button" if it's not right, or you can approve it.

    ------------

    Existing law says that the "will of the voter" is what really matters, and must be what post-election recounts are looking for. Therefore, while this bill (SB1438) doesn't specifically say that the paper trail is the "final ballot of record", that IS how they'll be treated if there's a discrepancy between the paper record and the electronic record.

    ------------

    What this REALLY produces is a "voter verified paper trail" (VVPT). The bill uses the term "voter verified paper audit trail", but then *defines* that term explicitly:

    "19251(c) "Voter verified paper audit trail" means a component of a direct recording electronic voting system that prints a contemporaneous paper record copy of each electronic ballot and allows each voter to confirm his or her selections before the voter casts his or her ballot."

    It works as written, but we dodged a bullet here.

    "Voter verified paper audit trail" is a term used by proponents of a "crypto audit trail" that does NOT allow the voter to confirm each individual selection at the polling place. Votehere and others have been promoting these "all crypto solutions" where the voter gets a "number" and can then confirm that their vote was recorded, but not what they voted for. Votehere is saying that the "background crypto" would form "proof" that the vote was recorded properly, and Diebold has been quietly promoting this as an alternative to a true VVPT.

    Crypto is fine, but only if the basic code around it is "known honest". Diebold for one is doing "known DIShonest" code.

    So thank the diety of your choice that the phrase "allows each voter to confirm his or her selections" is present in SB1438. We can do crypto ON TOP of a VVPT system but under SB1438, NOT in place of a VVPT.

    Jim March
    Member, Board of Directors, Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org)
  • If you can't see what the black box printed on a hidden roll of paper, how do you know it's what you voted for?
    • Yes, you can see the paper and confirm every vote. Most proposals put it "behind a sheet of glass" so you can't lay mitts on it and walk away with it, but that's OK as the voting machine has a "wait, hold it, I did NOT vote for THAT asshole!" button allowing you to restart (and that piece of paper is cancelled).

      Other lower-cost alternatives involve a large sheet of paper people are less likely to walk away with; they'll stuff the sheets in a ballot box. Problem is, some people WILL be dumb and carry the
      • Your last comment is interesting as in Australia you're crossed off an electoral roll and no information about order is retained.
        • Hmmmm...right. Come to think, this varies by California county - some use a "check in" system where they write your name in, others to the "cross 'em off" thing like you mention.

          "Cross 'em off from the book" may be LESS secure in some ways, as it's easy for a cheater back at the county elections HQ to cross more names off.

          It won't matter soon - most counties are moving towards an "electronic pollbook" and that's yet ANOTHER possible security disaster that needs watching. At a minimum, softwhere in there
  • Because Oregon only does vote-by-mail. It's all 'fill-in-the-bubble' optically read forms, mailed in to the elections office. There are *NO* traditional polling places in Oregon any more. Since all the ballots have to be mailed in (or, for those who want to save on postage, dropped off at the elections offices or at special 'drop boxes' placed around towns in the week leading up to election day,) there is obviously a paper trail. There is always the paper receipt of every vote.

  • Correction on Oregon (Score:3, Informative)

    by afabbro ( 33948 ) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @11:52PM (#10380857) Homepage
    ...Oregon already have laws requiring paper backups.

    No, Oregon doesn't.

    All voting in Oregon is via mail. There are no voting booths or voting machines of any kind.

    • Well, wouldn't that be the ultimate paper backup?
      • Yes...BUT there's still two problems:

        1) If somebody doesn't vote for any candidate in a given race, it's easy for somebody at elections HQ to fill in a dot and "choose for them". This was documented in Napa County Calif in the last election via forensic ink analysis in at least 38 cases for a close local race.

        2) There's no independent election monitors making sure people aren't pressured at home or work or whatever to "vote properly" as happened in San Francisco when a city work manager herded his dozen
        • Here's a third problem in Oregon- you can register to vote, and vote, without ever proving that you have the *right* to vote. If you've got two utility bills and are willing to lie about your citizenship on the form, the guy registering you to vote is forbidden from actually asking you about your citizenship. In addition, with vote by mail, you're likely never to be discovered at all.

          Thus, while the law says citizenship is a requirement for voting in Oregon, only residency is actually required.

  • NH Correction (Score:2, Informative)

    by ThatTallGuy ( 520811 )
    > New Hampshire, Illinois and Oregon already have laws requiring paper backups.

    Sorry, I believe your information on NH is incorrect also. What goes on in NH with electronic voting machines (they print a filled-out ballot which is then optical-scanned like any other ballot) is policy due to the intervention of the Asst Secretary of State, not law.

    I'm running for State Representative in NH and safe electronic voting is one of my core issues. See www.ThatTallGuy.net [thattallguy.net].
    --
    ThatTallGuy

  • You guys are all supposed to be technoligists here and you are overlooking the obvious!

    If you are worried about what the electronic voting machine is recording in memory because it is a closed system, WHAT IS TO PREVENT THE MACHINE FROM RECORDING A VOTE ONE WAY AND PRINTING THE OTHER?

    Sheesh!
    • Because the record of final appeal is the paper record, not the electronic one. Duh.

      If someone requests a recount, then the electronic records are meaningless and the paper vote is all that matters.
      • And when is someone ever going to use the paper ballot? Never - that's when.

        The paper ballot is supposed to be the record int he case of a "recount". But if someone wanted to cheat, then the vote would never be close.
        • I don't know if they'll be doing this or not, but this process is supposed to include a number of random audits, and if the paper trail and machines differ by a non-trivial margin, they do a full recount.
      • 1% on the required manual recounts isn't enough. What you do then is, you hack only a few precincts.

        We've also seen cases where the precincts chosen (in order to get 1% of the total) are NOT chosen randomly by the county elections officials, when the law says it should be. In one case, this was because absentee recounts (on paper) were "harder to do" than meaningless "electronic recounts" on touchscreen machines - so they picked precincts with few absentee voters...as in a handful each tops. Eeeeediots
    • In one sense, you're absolutely right - without honest software TOO, this alone ain't enough.

      That's why we also need open source software running on either standard hardware, or publish the firmware source too.

      That's next year's project :). And one we'll have to fight Bill Gates on tooth and nail - there was a Calif bill this year that was just a "non-binding resolution" asking the California Secretary of State to at least start thinking about open source. THAT was fought bitterly by M$, and it was just

  • We already demonstrated that printers can be retrofitted cheaply and work somewhat reliably. We haven't had to do a recount yet, so no idea if the process is reliable or not. On that note, however, we don't have Diebold machines either; while I don't know if Sequoia Pacific is any better, I already know that Diebold is pretty much the standard for bad systems.

  • As a resident I was happy to see our secretary of state not only ban the use of diebold machines [cnn.com] but also sue diebold for false claims. [rense.com]

    What does this mean? Well couple it with the paper ballot trail Arney signed today, and California, that hippie liberal, commie state has put a major dent into the problems associated with electronic touchscreen voting. I was holding out to use the new machines, and even though I am registered as a permanent absentee ballot voter, I might change that now that there's a goo

    • First, the SecState's office is NOT involved in the false claims case. At all.

      The Attorney General *is* involved, but he didn't file it. He finally decided to join in the case, after about 10 freakin' months, 8 of which holding it "sealed" via repeated court-ordered extensions of the seal which started out as only 90 days.

      The "seal" allows the gov't to decide whether or not the false claims act charges are valid without undue political pressure.

      Sigh.

      Whatever. Lockyer DID finally make the right decisi

Slashdot Top Deals

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.

Close