Electronic Voting Discussion

We’re having a spirited discussion about e-voting’s potential and perils here on SiliconValley.com. Check it out.

Comments


Posted by: on October 12, 2004 06:14 AM

The problem advocates of verifiable voting will encounter — whatever their political persuasion — is that the absence of proof of an invalid election outcome does not mean that (a) the election results were valid, or (b) that they will be valid next election even if they were. Even if you believe in the fairy tales like Santa, the Easter Bunny and honest political parties, our experience with computer hardware and software for the last half-century has to make prudent people question the concept of bug-free systems. And, since every election involves reprogramming of the ballots, it’s going to be an unending threat.

So, we have the risk of undetected (or at least unremediable) malicious destruction or alteration of results; the risk of unintentional loss or contamination through inadvertent design and programming issues; and the risk of subsequent errors by the election officials responsible for this complex process at either the central or local sites. There is no possible recovery with any assurance of integrity; no backup method of verifying the voters’ will; and no effective means of prevention because of the closed nature of the code.

Tell me again what’s wrong with paper? Admitting that no system is absolutely proof against errors and tampering, why in heaven’s name do we quit what has generally worked well for centuries in favor of a demonstrably seriously flawed experiment?

Still, we will have the political drones argue that verifiable elections are unneccessary. I can’t wait for them to tell us again why honest elections are a threat to the nation.


Posted by: hulkster on October 12, 2004 10:10 AM

Hulk not happy with either Puny Human candidates.
So Hulk enter presidential race.
Hulk use “electronic” voting and so far SMASHING Bush and Kerryt.
See Hulk’s “campaign site” at:
http://www.komar.org/cgi-bin/halloween_webcam
where you can view the votes and cast your own ballot.

Hulk for President! 😉


Posted by: lightning on October 13, 2004 08:53 AM

What a lot of people seem to forget is that a voting system (electronic or not) has two somewhat independant purposes:

1. Tally the vote accurately and quickly.

2. Convince everyone (including the sorest of sore losers) that the results are correct.

It’s perfectly feasible for an all- electronic system to do the first (although Diebold doesn’t inspire confidence). It’s effectively impossible for an all- electronic system to do the second. There are just too many ways to gimmick the system.

Diebold seems to be trying to *minimize* the confidence that people have in their systems. I mean, really, what more could they do to destroy confidence in their own machines?

Prediction: A massive Kerry victory in November will be blamed on the voting machines …

This entry was posted in SiliconValley.com Archives. Bookmark the permalink.