Great documentary on how electronic voting machines can be hacked.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
That's the first sensible suggestion I've heard on how to make electronic voting machines workable. Imran, you've done it again!

Yeah, I should get paid for this **** .

[onodera]

Originally posted by LordShiva


http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2...-students.html

Yes, and? People are stupid, so you shouldn't allow them to vote if they can't figure out how a voting system works and how to protect the secrecy of the vote. Ballot numbers problem can be taken care of.
Take a look at other end-to-end auditable voting systems if you think this one's been compromised. I used ThreeBallot as an example because it's simple to understand.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What's a "hanging chad"?

Though electronic voting, with a paper backup may be the best of both worlds... vote electronically and then take your paper backup and put it in a box.

That would be the optical scan (scantron) machines. Unfortunately that is exactly the type of machine which is proven to be hackable in the documentary. True that if there is a 100% recount then the hack can at least be caught (unlike with the all electronic machines) but Federal law only requires a 3% recount and if you want a 100% hand recount then you have to pay for it yourself. That means someone with millions and who has his name on the ballot has to ask for it.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

That's the first sensible suggestion I've heard on how to make electronic voting machines workable. Imran, you've done it again!

Throwing away extra tax $$$, just like a democrat...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That would be the optical scan (scantron) machines. Unfortunately that is exactly the type of machine which is proven to be hackable in the documentary. True that if there is a 100% recount then the hack can at least be caught (unlike with the all electronic machines) but Federal law only requires a 3% recount and if you want a 100% hand recount then you have to pay for it yourself. That means someone with millions and who has his name on the ballot has to ask for it.

No, I don't mean that. I mean that you use a touch screen and then a paper copy is printed out at the end, detailing your vote. You take that paper copy and drop it in a ballot box on your way out.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Not over here. I haven't heard any accusation of fraud in a national election in a long time, and there weren't many such accusations in the recent local elections, despite the mayors' extended power of cronyism.

Well since you live in a corruption-free society, what do you have to fear from voting machines? I mean, you obviously have no corruption. Right?

You say your court system has kept things in check. Well a court system can also protect people if votes are not anonymous.

Please tell me how it works. All the third-party verifications I saw either: 1. didn't adress the risk of the machines being purposefully programmed to skew the results, 2. went against vote privacy, or 3. were very unwieldy (ThreeBallot)

There are a multitude of ways it can be set up.

1. is simply a matter of running diagnostic checks. Much like watching over the counting of paper ballots.
2. is only an issue for pussies.
3. is not an issue since with electronic voting you can have multiple different systems all working at once without any extra work for the voter.

It's a nice theoretical world you're living in

No. It's a really ****ty world I live in where people are too afraid to stand up for what they believe, and so want to undermine the whole system by making it murky and impossible to verify whether your vote counts.

I simply do not think that pussies should run the world. if it's worth doing, it's worth being responsible for it. Cower in fear if you like, I'll never respect your position.

The US was founded by people willing to risk their lives for independence. Now (as you suggest) we're too worried about what our parents will think if we come out and publicly support the causes we think are worth supporting.

I was heavily involved in local elections recently. Being in the opposition, there are many people who required secrecy about their support: local civil cervants, obviously, but also people who were expecting a job as a city employee, or a public housing.

So what you are saying is you don't know how people voted, and using that as an argument to support your notion that people voted differently than they presented themselves to have voted?

Pray tell how you come up with these magical understandings of what is really going on with no verification of how people actually voted?

Or are you saying your "anonymous" system isn't anonymous and you actually know how specific people voted?

Basically, as soon as a system allows for local cronyism, anonymous voting is the only thing that ensures voting freedom.

No asshat is going to tell me how to vote. People need to grow some balls and take responsibility for their actions. If you're discriminated against because of how you vote, there is legal recourse.

(Your whole "the parties keep each other in check" argument refutes your position here as well.)

It's not only the authorities. There can be a strong peer pressure into voting for the "right" candidate (such pressure is frequent in families, less so in circle of friends).

It's there regardless. I don't know who votes how, neither do you, because there is no verification. Your assumption that people are voting for the "wrong" candidate because of anonymity is unsupportable without a method of verification.

Even if it is true though, creating a system which encourages people to misrepresent how they voted is not a good thing. It is also not a good thing to encourage people not to stand up for what they believe.

We build an entire system around protecting anonymity and not requiring responsibility and then wonder why we get a system that's untrustworthy and where no one takes responsibility.

Gee, I wonder why that is?

Finally, nosy employers might be interested into knowing if their employees vote well.

You just need laws to protect people's rights. Not to obfuscate what happens so no one can verify it.

At the very least, I should be able to choose to have my vote public. That way if my anonymity is not as important to me as making sure my vote was counted correctly, I could do so.

As a result, a great many people will simply abstain, or vote the "right" way, only to avoid the potential trouble (because the trouble doesn't have to be real: the potentiality is enough). You already have an abysmal voter turnout, but I guess there are always creative ideas in order to lower it

Turnout for turnout's sake is just silly. If people don't want to vote, it's a good thing that they don't vote. It's their choice.

An even greater amount of people simply avoids talking about politics, not in order to stay "safe", but merely because it's a bore they rather avoid.

Yet it is your assertion that people don't disclose because they feel "unsafe" doing so.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Aeson
Well since you live in a corruption-free society, what do you have to fear from voting machines? I mean, you obviously have no corruption. Right?

I don't live in a corruption-free society at all. However, I do live in a society that developed a voting process that works. We do have our share for all other aspects of corruption (such as cronyism, illegal financing of political parties etc)

You say your court system has kept things in check. Well a court system can also protect people if votes are not anonymous.

Obviously, it's just as easy to provide proof of fraud when you had an observer at the polling booth, as to provide proof of discrimination based on political opinions Ergo, justice is bound to be as efficient to track down discrimination as fraud

1. is simply a matter of running diagnostic checks. Much like watching over the counting of paper ballots.

What do you mean by "diagnostic checks"? Please be precise.

So what you are saying is you don't know how people voted, and using that as an argument to support your notion that people voted differently than they presented themselves to have voted?

Pray tell how you come up with these magical understandings of what is really going on with no verification of how people actually voted?

Or are you saying your "anonymous" system isn't anonymous and you actually know how specific people voted?

No. I know quite a few people who told me they voted for me (I strongly doubt they said so in order to get favours, because I have absolutely no chance of ever being in power in my town). But they asked me for secrecy, simply because they expected to be punished by the mayor: everything gets known in the neighbourhood. Now, maybe they didn't vote for me in the voting booth - but they had really no interest in lying to me in the first place.

No asshat is going to tell me how to vote. People need to grow some balls and take responsibility for their actions. If you're discriminated against because of how you vote, there is legal recourse.

(Your whole "the parties keep each other in check" argument refutes your position here as well.)

Again, there's a matter of proof. And a matter of actuality. In my town, I have too many hints to ignore the cronyism going on. But I have no proof of it, and I'm sure the potential testimonies would disappear if I requested them, simply because those people do need a roof on their head, do need a job to feed their children...
Besides, my mayor uses promises much more often than actual cronyist deeds: he'd promise to subsidize some neighbourhood association if they support him, he'd threaten (rarely directly) to remove the housing or the city job. And generally speaking, that's enough for many people to stay in line. The only moment they are free to express their political opinion is within the voting booth.

Even if it is true though, creating a system which encourages people to misrepresent how they voted is not a good thing. It is also not a good thing to encourage people not to stand up for what they believe.

Actually, it is worse in places where voters have no anonymity. An African dictatorship had a referendum some years ago, where the "No" was a red card, and the "Yes" a green card. Curiously enough, the "Yes" won with a huge margin... Clearly, that system encourages people to stand for what they believe...

Fact is, the more often one votes for some party, the more one will end up identifying with said party. That mechanism of "party identification" is very commonplace (note that "party identification isn't the only explaining factor in voter behaviour, it's just an overwhelming one).
Non-anonymous voting will encourage social-pressured votes, and will end up in strengthening social-pressured opinions... Rather than having more people stand for their own opinions, you'll end up having more conformists who won't have the possibility to escape their conformism.

Yet it is your assertion that people don't disclose because they feel "unsafe" doing so.

Different situations, different reasons.
Under Stalin, people didn't dare to talk about politics in front of their children out of sheer terror. Under a softer threat (such as the kind made by my mayor, or by some intolerant employer), people will favour secrecy in order to be "safe". With more typical peer pressure, people will avoid talking about politics mostly to avoid a bother.

[Dinner]

I posted this same OP on the forum for my local newspaper and the thread got spammed by Rush Limbaugh listeners who said "Democrats are nuts who always claim Bush cheated!" even though neither I nor the documentary claimed voter fraud actually occurred.

The documentary just points out obvious security problems with our current electronic voting machines and urges us to fix them.

The local paper is extremely right wing and tends to attract crazy folks.

[LordShiva]

WTF is your newspaper's forum?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Obviously, it's just as easy to provide proof of fraud when you had an observer at the polling booth, as to provide proof of discrimination based on political opinions Ergo, justice is bound to be as efficient to track down discrimination as fraud

There are difficulties in catching either. Which is more/less difficult will be case by case specific. But a legal system can (and should) provide similar protection against both.

You're pretending all fraud can be caught with paper votes, while pretending fraud can't be caught in regards to electronic systems. (In which case, we're all economically ****ed...)

What do you mean by "diagnostic checks"? Please be precise.

Test input and outputs. Put the specific machines through tests periodically. Run a bunch of test votes through it, check for consistency in the recording of the votes. Do so regularly. (It could be done very quickly set up properly.)

The exact procedure would be specific to the machine.

No. I know quite a few people who told me they voted for me (I strongly doubt they said so in order to get favours, because I have absolutely no chance of ever being in power in my town). But they asked me for secrecy, simply because they expected to be punished by the mayor: everything gets known in the neighbourhood. Now, maybe they didn't vote for me in the voting booth - but they had really no interest in lying to me in the first place.

Maybe they told the Mayor the same thing. You're just guessing as to who they're telling the truth to.

Again, there's a matter of proof. And a matter of actuality. In my town, I have too many hints to ignore the cronyism going on. But I have no proof of it, and I'm sure the potential testimonies would disappear if I requested them, simply because those people do need a roof on their head, do need a job to feed their children...
Besides, my mayor uses promises much more often than actual cronyist deeds: he'd promise to subsidize some neighbourhood association if they support him, he'd threaten (rarely directly) to remove the housing or the city job. And generally speaking, that's enough for many people to stay in line. The only moment they are free to express their political opinion is within the voting booth.

And you have anonymous paper ballots...

Actually, it is worse in places where voters have no anonymity. An African dictatorship had a referendum some years ago, where the "No" was a red card, and the "Yes" a green card. Curiously enough, the "Yes" won with a huge margin... Clearly, that system encourages people to stand for what they believe...

Being part of a farce election (which probably was rigged anyways) isn't the same thing as being part of an election in an actual democracy where people have legal recourse if their rights are infringed on.

Fact is, the more often one votes for some party, the more one will end up identifying with said party. That mechanism of "party identification" is very commonplace (note that "party identification isn't the only explaining factor in voter behaviour, it's just an overwhelming one).
Non-anonymous voting will encourage social-pressured votes, and will end up in strengthening social-pressured opinions... Rather than having more people stand for their own opinions, you'll end up having more conformists who won't have the possibility to escape their conformism.

And you'll have people seeing others who they thought were conforming not conforming and be liberated by it. Probably a mix of both (and various other implications).

Different situations, different reasons.
Under Stalin, people didn't dare to talk about politics in front of their children out of sheer terror.

We're talking about western democracies (US in particular with these voting machines). You seem confused, since your examples are Stalin and some African dictatorship. (Well, and teh EVIL Mayor )