Re: electronic voting tomorrow -- MIDRANGE-L

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating.

In Indianapolis last november, we tried our first election with
optical scanners.

just before the election (maybe 2-3 weeks) the Election machine
company came out and did 'routine maintenance' to all the data
collection servers.

the election went off with not much of a hitch.

a couple weeks after, they returned for more 'routine maintenance'.

It was later discovered, (3 months later) that the 1st maintenance
involved completely reloading the software that tabulates the votes
from the sattelite servers.  New software, not tested and approved by
election officials.

the 2nd maintenance involved restoring the software back to what it
was before visit 1, effectively covering thier tracks.

So, we had an election (a small, not very important one, granted),
using collection software that was not tested by election officials
and that no one had or can verify worked properly,

There was very little to NO outrage.

I think very very few people understood the implications.



On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:42:57 -0500, Dan Bale <dbale@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I trust paper ballots far, FAR more than electronic ballots.  Not even
> close.  No contest.
> 
> As I see it, the big difference between paper and electronic is that with
> paper, you always have the physical evidence.  You can see why there are
> unexpected discrepancies and the causes (hanging chads, etc.)  I can look at
> my ballot and match it up to the legend that I punched it from.  (And I
> always do this.)
> 
> With electronic voting, no one, with the *possible* exception of the
> person(s) who wrote the programs, knows what happens exactly when a screen
> button is pushed.  A vote bit is sent through a gamut of instructions for
> which there are zero auditing capabilities.  It lands in a pool, hopefully,
> and in the right pool, hopefully.  If someone screams "cheat!", how will
> anyone ever verify?  To my knowledge, the auditing capabilities are totally
> insufficient.
> 
> If you're cynical about what happens to a paper ballot after you return it
> to be counted, well then, you're not doubting the technology so much as you
> are the people responsible for ensuring every vote counts.  This type of
> cynicism precedes our lifetime.
> 
> Overall, if "the people" lose the trust of the electoral process, it is an
> open invitation to anarchy.
> 
> Who's giving odds that this election won't go before the Supreme Court
> again?
> 
> db
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx / rob@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 4:21 PM
> >
> > Nothing is trusted anyway.  Not paper ballots.  Not mechanical paper
> > ballots (hanging chads).  Nothing.  There will always be an argument
> > saying why it's bad.  Thus, should all attempts to improve be permanently
> > shelved?  After all, if it's all going to be tied up in the
> > courts anyway,
> > why spend the money on trying to improve the equipment when it could be
> > better spent on something less controversial?
> >
> > Rob Berendt
> 
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
> 
>