I’ve read many stories the last couple years about electronic voting technology. HBO’s Special Hacking Democracy on aired Sunday and is available to watch for free on Google Video. It is a great expose of the problems with this early technology, and how the electronic voting machine companies are covering up the shortfalls.
I recently saw a map showing which states are using which voting technologies, and Idaho is one of the few to stick with older punch-card ballots. At first I was disappointed, however after watching that documentary I am grateful Ben Ysursa is taking a cautious approach.
Some of the organizations that are dealing with these issues are the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), Common Cause, and Black Box Voting.
I think Idaho needs to first determine our standards for adopting, deploying, using, and decommission scenarios before we start purchasing electronic voting computers. Some ideas I had include:
- We need a citizen’s committee of geeks to oversee and provide recommendations.
- We should require open-source software be used, and that the open-source code can be analyzed and tested by anyone before, during, and after the election.
- We need to be able to see and test not just the source code, but also the code compiler, and the central tabulation method.
- We need a paper-trail match that can be easily tabulated separately.
- We need a process for a re-vote if the software was found to be corrupted or hacked.
- Finally, Idaho also needs a refund clause worked into the contract, giving the state rights to recoup investment if the product fails in accuracy or security. This can be setup in degress, so minor failures warrant a 5% refund, whereas critical failures warrant an 80% refund.
One simple idea I have is for each voter to create a unique username on the spot when the first start using the voting machine. When finished voting, a the machine prints out a receipt with their unique username and vote selections.
They can walk over to a central station with a large display of all the voters in the precinct that day. The voters are listed not by name, but by those unique usernames just created. The voter can verify their vote selections by their username. If there’s a problem, they can ask a poll worker to delete that username, and then re-vote.
Independent election observers can monitor (perhaps even videotape) the central station (maybe it has a large display screen or even a wall projection), where the updated vote totals are calculated every five minutes. I don’t think calculating every second would be appropriate because it would be more obvious what person just voted and violate their right to a private vote.
What are your thoughts on Idaho adopting electronic voting technologies, and what integrity safeguards would you like to see?
Popularity: 4%
Related posts:
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Having been a count-watcher in the Elections Office before, I am utterly confident in the punchcard method that Bonneville County uses, and the Automark machines, because they give a paper ballot, are a fine interim step for the disabled (as long as they’re counted manually, which admittedly is a pain for the clerks). I don’t see any need to jump into technology solely for the instant gratification provided.
However, the current crop of electronic voting machines may be obsolete by 2010. County Clerks in Idaho have unanimously (I think) recommended going to an all vote-by-mail system, much as Oregon has. That will require somewhat different technology (and has its own unique list of potential voter frauds). My guess is that it will have to be piloted in at least a couple of large counties in 2008 before the Legislature will authorize it for the entire state.
I’d prefer to see other states work out the technical details – no sense 1.4 million people supporting the same process that 33+ million, say, will have to do, at roughly the same total cost.
The biggest issue to me is to ensure that the results are auditable and audited. Even as fast as Idaho is growing, it’s still possible to do a very thorough audit, as long as a paper trail is generated.
Apparently Bush’s nomination to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) served on the board of directors of VoteHere, a shill advocacy company for the electronic voting machine industry.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00178.htm
Interesting development:
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/16111217.htm
A Florida county spent over $4 million on electronic voting machines without a paper trail, and the electorate voted that they wanted a system with a paper trail.
The county is now looking at spending yet another $4 million for a new system.
However, what is not good enough for them apparently is good enough for some other shmuck county, because they plan to sell those machines to another voting district.
Please Idaho, let’s insist on some standards before we purchase. A paper trail is required, and I think “listening sessions” held around the state would be good, where the machines are posed in mock elections that residents can participate in and give their feedback.
Idaho couldn’t purchase the FL machines, since state law requires a verifiable paper audit trail.
Any approved voting machines “must meet the federal election commission standards and be approved for use by an independent testing authority sanctioned by the national association of state election directors (NASED).”
Certifications of machines in Idaho have been done in conjunction with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). You can find out all about the meetings, including the minutes of public hearings on voting machines where the public was invited to try each model, at the SoS’s HAVA site.