Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

It's About Time for Online Voting

By Allison H. Fine, Personal Democracy Forum. Posted July 3, 2008.


Historians will undoubtedly consider our current era of voting machines the technological equivalent of the 8-track tape machine.
Advertisement

Doll inspectors squinting helplessly at hanging chads was the lasting image from the federal election of 2000. We were shocked and frustrated by the fragility and archaic infrastructure of our election system. If only we could replace those dastardly little squares of paper with something better, something modern, electronic and foolproof, then all would be well in America.

Two years later, an irony-free Republican Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), a power grab by the federal government to standardize election processes in over three thousand municipalities across the country. HAVA provides funds to states to transition from paper ballot systems to electronic ones, but doesn't mandate which machines states must use. Six years and over three billion dollars later, a hodgepodge of delicate, complicated, expensive, and unreliable election machinery populates the countryside. Meanwhile, not a single cent of HAVA money, or any other government funding, has gone into researching the electoral system of the future.

Seventy-six million Americans registered on the National Do Not Call Registry fueled almost entirely by friend-to-friend e-mails. Over seventy million blogs exist, according to the blog tracking site Technorati. Joe Lieberman and Dan Rather suffered the wrath of some of these bloggers -- one survived, the other didn't, but political and media Goliaths have been put on red alert. YouTube videos were instrumental in sinking the incumbent senators Burns and Allen in the 2006 election and will surely be similarly influential in 2008. MoveOn.org boasted a membership of over three million in November 2006; at its height in the mid 1970s, Common Cause had one-tenth the number of members. As the ecosystem of political campaigns has changed radically, we have stubbornly, almost irrationally, refused to take advantage of the revolutionary power of the Internet when it comes to voting. Online voting is the obvious answer to our voting woes.

We replaced levers and punch cards with privately owned, proprietary electronic machines that are shut tight to the public like bank vaults. Some states, like Florida (why is it always Florida?), have thrown out their electronic voting machines in favor of optical scan machines. I spent Election Day last year in San Francisco, watching as poll workers repeatedly pulled the ballots of individual voters out of the scan machines, looked at their votes, and announced aloud to the room, "Well, the problem is that you voted for Gavin Newsom in column A, but didn't also vote for a candidate in columns B or C." (San Francisco has a ranked ballot system, which is a great idea but needs more educational outreach to be effective with voters.) Historians will undoubtedly consider our current era of voting machines the technological equivalent of the 8-track tape machine.

But the machinery is only a part of our voting problem. There is a quiet crisis in recruiting poll workers. The Election Assistance Commission conducted a national survey in 2004 that revealed that on average poll workers were 72 years old, and presumably older still every day. Sixteen-hour days that ricochet between tense and tedious for paltry pay are not great recruiting enticements. In Maryland in 2006, almost a third of the poll workers didn't show up for work on Election Day.

We have come to the point where almost any body will do in some places to relieve our "Greatest Generation" poll anchors. California and other states are recruiting high school and college students as poll workers, for pay and course credit incentives. It is a telling sign of the vulnerability of our system, and our poor planning for the future, that the most visible aspect of our democracy totters on the reliability of teens to help open polling places at dawn.

So why do we continue to hold onto an 18th-century voting process in a 21st-century world?

According to Celent, LLC, a research firm specializing in banking, nearly forty percent of households did some banking online in 2006.17 Bank of America alone has over 22 million online banking customers worldwide, and their services includes using mobile devices for banking.18 According to Forrester Research, online retail sales in the United States are projected to grow by about fifty percent and exceed $300 billion annually.19 If we can trust our personal and business finances to online systems, with nary a worry about security as a result of institutions having worked hard to secure their systems, surely we should be able to do the same with our votes.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: elections, voting machines, online voting

Allison H. Fine is a senior editor of the Personal Democracy Forum and a senior fellow at Demos: A Network of Ideas and Action. She is the author of Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age (Wiley, 2006) and Social Citizens(beta), a discussion paper commissioned by The Case Foundation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Future of democracy. Direct Representation will be best with high speed vote computation systems.
Posted by: aouie01 on Jul 3, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For people to be able to vote their way on any issue they wish to vote on, a faster vote computation system is essential. This can be achieved using the internet. Online voting systems can be made much safer than the current system with ways to verify each individual's vote by independent entities to whom the votes can be simultaneously transmitted. (An example of risk in our current system - What if in some remote towns, they just stamp a number of ballots however the people watching over the ballots choose to?)

Hope to have some open source voting system and / or at least details of an idealized democratic system at DirectRepresentation.com over the next several months. In the meantime get a glimpse of a similarly named system, though with not much going for it other than an important step over proportional representation.

In the idealized democratic system, people will have the option to vote as often as they want to, or hardly ever. Representatives can be periodically selected and deselected as though they were your employees. If your representative is doing a poor job of representing you, you can switch representatives for the following month (or week or other time period).

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

2 OH NOES & 2 LET'S SEES
Posted by: mimue on Jul 3, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As it is, the voting process seems increasingly dubious. Two aspects of simply adding online voting to this would make it even worse.

1 - TRANSPARENCY FOR DUMMIES
"18th centry voting", i.e. paper ballots, is transparent to anyone. You end up with stacks of paper; this "system" can be audited and reproduced by anyone who can read and count.
This kind of transparency is not available in online voting; only a very select few would know enough about the hardware and software involved to realistically assess the system's feasability and security.
Everyone else could only trust, but never know, that a vote result is feasible.
If your/my mom can't audit it, it's not ready for primetime.

2 - HACK ONE, HACK'EM ALL
Computers, especially those with identical operating systems, are exteremely similar. So if someone finds a vulnerability, it can easliy affect millions of computers (=online voters) at once (you know, like, ahem, viruses...).
In comparison, paper-ballot-stuffing is hard and tedious work, thereby limiting the potential for fraud, whilealso being much easier to detect - at least on a large scale.

These two aspects, to my mind, make online voting (and to a lesser extent current computer-based voting systems) a breathtakingly bad idea.
And makes real, pen-and-paper based voting the best alternative by far, so far.


BUT PLEASE, DO DREAM ON...

Over time, it obviously would bet great to find ways to safely integrate us-the-people-online more tightly with decision processes. If we start off with a limited approach, we might be able to both make good use of our connectedness and gather enough experience to move on further.

Two changes to the approach to online voting might offer a less risky basis and lessen the plunge we need to take.

1 BABY STEPS
Introduce online voting first to initiatives propositons and new forms of participation that have a narrower scope, smaller risk of being irreversible and a generally smaller risk of causing harm if hacked and/or mistrusted.

2 RECOURSE
We need(ed, in 2000) a system of recourse. In cases of questionable (possibly fradulous, to-close-to-call, glitched out etc.) tallies, we need the possibility to react, to ascertain the will of the voters. (Sorry, but Supremes really did a heckuva job on that one, adding force to this idea)
I know I'm not alone in thinking that a couple months w/o a president elect in 2000 would have been prefereable to what actually happened.

If we jump into online voting unpreparedly, don't be too surprised if Bob Barr is elected president with 94% of the vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Or, how about this. Posted by: EinMD
And so we make it even easier to steal votes
Posted by: DrSuess on Jul 3, 2008 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a computer programmer, I think the internet is great. But I also know its limitations. With all the hype about the stolen elections- internet voting would make vote fraud even easier. There are certain things that are too important to sacrafice to convience. Our democracy is one of them

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» /agree Posted by: EinMD
» Yup! Posted by: fanny666
Yeah, right!? Voting with no paper trail??? No way!!
Posted by: BillDouglas on Jul 3, 2008 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes old fashioned things are better than cutting edge new things.

Voting on paper that can be recounted and verified is the ONLY way to have any hope of a real democracy.

This bizarre article starts off by claiming "hanging chads are mysterious." Guess what, a hanging chad is a verifiable vote.

The Florida election was stolen by a Republican party who didn't want to count votes, and a Supreme Court who conspired with them to stop legal votes from being counted.

There is nothing mysterious about recounting votes, if the goal is truly to COUNT VOTES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumbest idea in the history of mankind
Posted by: EinMD on Jul 3, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Riiiigh.....THAT wont' cause problems. What are you an idiot?

We have already seen that you can hack a diebold box in 15 seconds.

Now imagine there is no box, just a web page on some server somewhere....and you're a political pundit or PAC or even a political party and have millions of dollars to pay hackers, crackers and intrusion specialists to figure out how to get in and change the results.

If we're going to have elections online we might as well just shut the American people entirely out of the political process. We barely get a voice now as it is when it only costs about $10,000 to buy yourself a Senator. If we do online voting whomever hacks the system LAST will be the one that determines who gets elected and the votes themselves will be meaningless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

paper ballots work
Posted by: nidan2006 on Jul 3, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I disagree completely with this article. E-voting introduces far more problems than it solves. I am a scientist and a computer programmer. Simple paper ballots get the job done, and are auditable and can be counted by hand. Canada uses them, as does England, Germany, and most other western democracies. Canadians count the entire country, by hand, in 4 hours. If you must use a machine to count, a mark sense ballot is a good compromise, which can be easily counted by hand.

Suggested reading for the author would be Rebecca Mercuri's works. Electronic voting was the subject of her PhD thesis. She has testified in front of congress on the topic.

http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html

I also recommend Douglas Jones' website. He is a professor of computer science. I believe he has served on the Iowa State Board of Elections.

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: paper ballots work Posted by: BlueSun
» see also VerifiedVoting.org Posted by: fanny666
www.blanstonshrieks.blogspot.com
Posted by: thepuffin on Jul 3, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the commenters who state this is an abysmally bad idea.

Why must everything in America be subjugated to the demon-goddess of convenience?

Screw convenience. If you want a real, participatory, as-honest-as-possible election, do away with electronic voting, go to 100% paper ballots, and give us a bloody week--not a few hours on a WORKDAY--to vote.

How's the Kool-Aid taste, anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: crawl..walk..READ...write! Posted by: BigElectricCat
There's How We Vote and How We Vote
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 3, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same broken system is still the same broken system, whether electronic or on paper. First-past-the-post elections are more dangerous to our country than allegedly inefficient ballot technologies. If anyone has ever thought ill of the two-party system, or has ever been pissed off that another official has been elected with less than a popular vote, then they might check into Instant Runoff Voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's How We Vote and How We Vote
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 3, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same broken system is still the same broken system, whether electronic or on paper. First-past-the-post elections are more dangerous to our country than allegedly inefficient ballot technologies. If anyone has ever thought ill of the two-party system, or has ever been pissed off that another official has been elected with less than a popular vote, then they might check into Instant Runoff Voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's How We Vote and How We Vote
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 3, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same broken system is still the same broken system, whether electronic or on paper. First-past-the-post elections are more dangerous to our country than allegedly inefficient ballot technologies. If anyone has ever thought ill of the two-party system, or has ever been pissed off that another official has been elected with less than a popular vote, then they might check into Instant Runoff Voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Victrola
Posted by: victrola on Jul 3, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Allison, who do you really work for? Voting online is the most dumbass idea and I am amazed that it could even be brought up as a viable subject on Alternet. Paper ballots, hand-counted in the precinct on election night is THE ONLY WAY WE WILL CORRECT THIS ELECTRONIC VOTING MESS. Capiche? Nothing less will do. In a way I am glad you b rought it up just so we who completely understand how elections are rigged can completely shoot your idea down—AGAIN. Oh sure, let's make so just ONE PERSON can swing an entire election. Voting online is DUMBASS, DUMBASS, DUMBASS!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a very easy solution
Posted by: ciccio on Jul 3, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Electronic voting, if honest, is the best way to go, it is quicker, cheaper and far more accurate than paper ballots.It is also relatively easy to keep it honest, just give every voter a printout of their vote, each numbered and post the results on line by number. Everyone who takes the trouble to vote will also take the trouble to check their vote, the least little fiddle will be exposed in hours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who's voting in Oregon?
Posted by: Theodore on Jul 3, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mentions an increase in total voting in Oregon since the start of vote by mail. Two problems with that statement: First, it doesn't prove causation. Maybe some unmentioned factor would have increased turnout more over that time period with the old voting system. Second, it doesn't address the demographics of the increase in turnout. Were there some segments of the population less likely to vote by mail? Do the proponents of the system have a vested interest in silencing those segments?

Anybody who knows more about the system in Oregon, please expand.

Extrapolating the concept to online voting though, we have to wonder who in society will end up less likely to vote, even as the total turnout increases.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SAVE THIS ONE FOR APRIL FOOL'S DAY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 3, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The possibilities for disaster here are limitless and too numerous to list. Big deal it's fast and convenient, but it comes at a very high cost. Example: fast food. Everyone in a rush, too busy to cook or make a sandwich. Enter fast food and now it's literally killing us. Anyone who can't wait a day or more if necessary for the results of an election has other problems. They are not effiency experts. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real problems arent solved by technology
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Jul 3, 2008 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poll workers.....anyone can work a poll just as well as anyone else. I have seen a number of incidents over the years at polls all solved by poll workers young and old. If someone really cares they can create a foundation to fix the lack of poll workers. Shit someone just gave billions of dollars for the welfare of dogs. Why not the well fare of democracy.
18th-century voting process? So what. People should vote in person. It is the safest way to count. The best way would be for people to leave behind a unique signature like a retina image. Thats 21th century technology working to reduce fraud.
Online banking is not secure because your data can be gotten from the bank. Digital data is easily stolen or manipulated at the source rather than the terminal. Malware and spyware can circumvent and then recreate the appearance of secure connection.
"If online banks can be audited, so can online voting systems." Digital information is easily altered in a way that audits will miss plus all digital information can be faked.
"encryption systems" again malware and encryption can be faked. What will one encrypt?

"you will inevitably see a system riddled with human and technical mistakes and problems" Nothing made by humans is exempt from this problem. Nothing.

Just think what the internet has done for perpetrators of identity theft. Digital information is easily stolen and hard to fix.

The current state of technology is not applicable to voting.

How about an example of internet voting that is safe and secure involving say a mere 500,000 "registered" voters that has been up and working for several years and cant be hacked.
So do I register my MAC address and my processor ID? What do people do who access the internet using 15 different pieces of equipment. How do you protect the system against malware?

How does someone vote anonymously over the internet in a secure manner that can be audited?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HAHAHA...this story is a joke right???..right??????
Posted by: blueapples26 on Jul 3, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"According to Celent, LLC, a research firm specializing in banking, nearly forty percent of households did some banking online in 2006.17 Bank of America alone has over 22 million online banking customers worldwide, and their services includes using mobile devices for banking.18 According to Forrester Research, online retail sales in the United States are projected to grow by about fifty percent and exceed $300 billion annually.19 If we can trust our personal and business finances to online systems, with nary a worry about security as a result of institutions having worked hard to secure their systems, surely we should be able to do the same with our votes."

This smells very putrid to me. Who is writing this NWO fascist crap and why is Alternet post it. The perception management ( mind control) folks are at it again. They want to control in everyway. Notice how the words people and human beings are replaced with words such as customers(meat popsicles) and household(what is a household btw?) These companies work for the fascist corps. and they want us to thrust them. I gotta give them a digg for the brazenness in telling us what they have in store for us. btw what does the increase in online shopping and banking have to do with voting. The propaganda continues couched on how much many will be made for us online voters...wake up...break the cystem..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Thought Against Making Voting "convenient"
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 3, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no value in increasing voter turn-out before increasing voter competency. Privatizing the process like this, making it more convenient, takes away institutional pressures to take the vote seriously and make informed decisions. There should be some kind of commitment involved in the act of turning in a ballot that is analogous to the commitment to making informed decisions. Putting the vote online is like giving every single American a hand-gun and expecting them to make good decisions. This is not unlike the DC Police Chief saying that crime probably won't change dramatically with the Supreme Court's ruling on the hand-gun ban, but that without a doubt accidental shootings will increase. The difference is that in that hand-gun scenario, you see the individual instances of how bad the idea is. No one is going to personally "get caught" making uninformed decisions on their ballot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignoring reality
Posted by: conquip on Jul 3, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was shocked to find this article on Alternet. This is the type of article one would expect in the corporate controlled media extolling the virtues of trusting the "system". The American "system" is now an oligarchy with an unholy alliance between government, defense interests, and major corporations. It is the corporations that are pushing us towards the day that all citizens of the world are mere components of a system that ultimately services the interests of the elite of the corporate world.

Any form of electronic voting, whether through a local server or a national server, is still a computerized form of voting with no human verifiable trail. It is a red-herring to compare security associated with the banking system, which still requires monthly statements, receipts, and other paper records to verify and to use for audits, and secret methods of recording and counting votes.

In addition to the excellent links provided by this commentator, I would urge a quick internet search using key words such as "internet voting", "electronic voting fraud", etc.

A more glaring deficiency in the article is the ignoring of the fact that millions of Americans do not have a computer, either to vote on, or to check to see whether their vote was counted accurately. The article also presumes that those creating, maintaining, and operating the system, and anyone else with access to it, will not act out of self-interest. Elections are worth billions of dollars, can be used to impose an ideological agenda upon a nation, and have been manipulated as long as there have been elections.

This issue has been studied by government commissions and computer scientists both in the United States and in Europe. The author should have researched those studies and referred to them in the article.

The corporate world would love the day that they could wrap an oligarchy in the facade of electronic democracy.

We are a nation of people, who have adopted a representative form of government. Control the vote, and you control the nation. Electronic forms of voting is the easiest method to do that.

Also check out:
www.blackboxvoting.org
www.voterunite.org
www.verifiedvoting.org
www.votetrustusa.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe another way to start.....
Posted by: Gentle Axeman on Jul 3, 2008 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would be, in the case of the presidential election, to ditch the electoral college....
The winner take all scenario results in a lot of votes in a presidential election not being counted at all, on a state basis....in the determination of the winner...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

absolutely
Posted by: davesilvan on Jul 3, 2008 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The feds are willing to accept millions, billions in revenue from internet-based sales taxes, but 'voting online isn't secure'? Excuse me? technology is secure enough for people to purchase things online with 128 bit encryption, but it's not safe enough for us to vote?

And how about this, I've been thinking about this a while now (a few years): why can't I log on to some government server and see who each and every one of my votes went to in Philly in 2000? Why can't I bring up a list of all the minor offices I sure as hell voted for, all those minor offices that are on every ballot, so obscure I can't even think of any real titles?

My bank automates and archives each and every account every night/morning from 2-5 am, making sure each and every transaction is legit; why can't we do this with votes? Why can't I call up past elections online and make sure my votes went to who I actually wanted?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Transparency
Posted by: billwald on Jul 4, 2008 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I propose true transparency: post all county voting lists and the votes on the net for national elections. Anyone could check for dead neighbors, down load the data and make his own talley.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Swiss Internet Voting
Posted by: person17 on Jul 4, 2008 10:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FYI - Google: "The Geneva internet voting project"

from: The Geneva internet voting project

"The internet voting application is currently in its 3rd version"

"the application has considerably evolved over the last four years"

"we do not provide a link anymore to the voting web site, in order to avoid man-in-the-middle attacks"

"We implemented a quantum cryptography-based secure channel on top of the SSL channel. Since the applet generating this cryptography layer is located on the voting server, that is within the controlled perimeter, it increases the State controlled perimeter and cannot be corrupted neither while being upoladed to the voter's PC nor in the voter's PC."

"The State IT system is the sole owner and maintener of the application, there are no more vendors linked to it anymore."

"We now have an unprecedented and unique experience of internet voting use by the citizens over time and in the context of different ballots (municipal, cantonal and federal, referendums or initiatives)."

"we are considering selling the system to any interested party outside Switzerland"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

like many I am unconvinced by article
Posted by: whealeydj on Jul 5, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I am thinking of two truisms: 1) you dont want to throw the baby out the bathwater and @) better the devil you know than the one you dont. I have been a pollworker since 1984 when I was 23 so the writer had it right that 7/8 the time it is boring, but general presidential elections are stressful on workers; I almost quit after 2004 when Sec of State Blackwell was a partisan jerk who I thought should have been impeached for misconduct but legislature was controlled by partisan Republicans as well. The presence of poll observers that year added to my stress I am too wary of technology to take it out of hands of good Democrats and Republicans who watch each other even if average age is 72. I strongly suggest that tech savvy alternet readers try to become poll workers to improve the poll worker pool. they are desperate for good young people. If you dont trust the poll workers and machines , vote absentee, I have almost always had to since I only onc lived in the precinct I was working.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time to return to simple paper ballots
Posted by: tomkara on Jul 5, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As others have noted, technology is the problem in this case, not the solution. There is nothing wrong with a simple paper ballot. Anyone can read it. It is it's own paper trail. Contrary to misperceptions probably fostered by voting machine companies and the Republican party and Republican controlled media, paper ballots can be counted quickly. There are usually only a few thousand or fewer voters in any given precinct. Paper ballots worked fine for generations, and have worked fine in recent times. Canada has had faster results using paper ballots than the US using voting machines. Let's end the idea that we need complex technologies to solve very simple problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

electronic voting, I vote yes...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jul 5, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but only with a verifiable paper trail!

especially with all the political wolves hell bent on making a buck and bucking the system for political advantage at the same time!

Electronic voting... it's time and is long overdue...
Caution must be observed and this endeavor should be organized, run and monitored by "several" non politically associated persona's or group's through a non political arm of government... [like the judiciary maybe?]

anyways that my 2 cents worth...
comments welcome

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Future of democracy or hackers destroying the election process?
Posted by: kahuna_2bears on Jul 6, 2008 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see this terrible idea "Let's have online voting pop up occasionally.

This is one of the things that I hope NEVER happens.

This IS a good idea on paper but it does not and can not work in the real world.

Technology offers MANY advantages; but unfortunately; this technology opens the doors to MANY security concerns.

I was in the field of Computer Virus research from 1992 - 1996, and I got to know many of the Phalcon Skism, and other groups of hackers that wrote and released computer viruses just to cause havoc in the lives of end users who were not wise in the field of Computer security.

If voting was available online; you would have 13-16 year old kids voting for adults because the adults did not select a password that was difficult to guess.

This is the same reason I am VERY much against Medical records being online. Hackers could log into these data bases because end users chose idiotic passwords such as their birthday, aniversary, "God", "Home" and other similar stupid and easy to guess passwords.

Let me explain a hypothesis. Lets say President Bush was in the hospital, and a hacker hated Bush; he could break into the network and sees that President Bush has type A blood, and the hacker changes the blood type to B blood; the staff would trust the idiotic computer and give him the wrong bloodtype that would lead to life threatening or fatal consequences.

I was against Al Gore's idea for the clipper chip for the risk from hackers as well as being woefully insecure.

The idea of the clipper chip was to have ALL clipper chips online so that any branch of law enforcement could access them. This would provide a world wide data base of clipper chip keys would be accessible to all hackers in the world if they could just breach the security of the data base, and these hackers break into computer systems at the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, and other government branches every few weeks.

The clipper chip was woefully insecure because it only used a 40 bit key. A 40 bit key only offers around 1 trillion possible combinations in the keys.

When I was in the computer security field; I used PGP with a 1024 bit key when I encrypted the viruses I found and sent them to A-V developers.

Today with faster and faster computers; I would not dream of encrypting data I want secure with anything less than a 2048 or 4096 bit key.

Will return to my corner

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]