Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Government Politics

Dave Barry on Electronic Voting 323

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
eggoeater writes "With the general interest Slashdot has with electronic voting machines, I thought we'd all enjoy reviewing Dave Barry's take on touch-screen voting machines and debating the merits of police officers carrying lightsabers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dave Barry on Electronic Voting More

Dave Barry on Electronic Voting

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe a little offtopic but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by leonmergen ( 807379 ) * <lmergen@gm a i l.com> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @09:50AM (#10227571) Homepage
    From the article: "One big concern is that electronic voting machines could be tampered with by ''hackers,'' as was the case recently when an 11-year-old New Jersey boy named Jason Feeblehonker, using only his GameBoy, was able to get himself elected governor of both North Carolina and Wisconsin. "

    I probably haven't been paying attention, but is this really true ? I really can't imagine hacking something using a gameboy... anyone has an article about this? Wasn't able to find it with google...

  • 1 vote for you 2 for me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @09:52AM (#10227583) Journal
    Internal changing of values happened in Las Vegas. Gurantee it'd happen in voting. www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

  • Formicidae (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @09:53AM (#10227587) Homepage Journal
    Actually, the best thing about the article was visualizing all three of the candidates standing on lawns with biting ants. Hmmm... wonder if I can get some
    Jason Feeblehonker 2004
    bumperstickers printed up?

  • Eletronic voting booth (Score:5, Informative)

    by gustgr ( 695173 ) <(gustgr) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @09:54AM (#10227592)
    Brazil has been using eletronic voting devices for about 6 years. Next month we will have elections sessions for municipal mayors, and we are going to use the eletronic voting system. This system is very reliable [senado.gov.br].

    This Java applet simulates [tse.gov.br] the Brazilian eletronic voting system we use (it is in portuguese).

    • This system is very reliable.

      I don't speak Portuguese, but I did a quick text search on the page you linked to. The word "Diebold" does not appear anywhere on that page.

      I am inclined to think that your system is probably more reliable than what ours will be... and we're not just using it for municipal elections either. We're using it--for only the first or second time in most states--in a Presidential election.

      • Re:Eletronic voting booth (Score:4, Informative)

        by gustgr ( 695173 ) <(gustgr) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:15AM (#10227692)
        Actually we have already used this system in two Presidential elections, in two Governor elections and in one Municipal Mayor election.

        Brazilian government has applyied successfully a campaign to teach the people (a lot of poors and uneducated) how to use this system.

      • Re:Eletronic voting booth (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:09AM (#10227965)
        There is no Diebold in Brazil. The CEO of Diebold promised to deliver votes to Bush. So, if there ever is a Diebold machine in Brazil, Bush will get votes there. He won't be elected, however, since Brazilians think Osama bin Laden is less violent and more reasonable, and a lot more intelligent.

    • Very reliable indeed! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It works better than expected; in fact, without electronic voting we would never have guessed that nobody votes against the incumbent candidates. Its really interesting how people love our leaders so much that not a single vote is cast against them.

      Back with messy paper, the vote was much closer. Now we know that vote is and was wrong.
    • Inside the voting booth you'll find a ''touchscreen,'' which is a computer screen coated with a thin, invisible layer of germs left by all the people who voted ahead of you, many of whom use the sacred sanctity of the voting booth to pick their noses.

      One person with a hankerchief filled with super nasty germs...

      I can see someone sueing the state over the health issues.

      Besides, I believe in the sanctity of something called a paper trail. I do not know if the Brazilian system supplies a paper trail, but s

    • Reliable?

      Considering Diebold is planning on making most electronic voting machines I wonder how reliable they can get compared to their other products [mintruth.com].

    • Re:Eletronic voting booth (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mark_in_Brazil ( 537925 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:47AM (#10228153)
      This system is very reliable.
      Unfortunately, there's very good reason to believe it isn't secure or reliable, at least in the sense of actually recording the will of the voters.
      Here's a link [urnasemfraude.org] to a site where one can download a book (in Portuguese) entitled Burla Eletrônica ("Electronic Scam"). The book contains am objective and yet scathing analysis of the (lack of) security and reliability in the machines used in every Brazilian election since 2000. It's really scary. The government has ignored calls to make the machines more secure. It is left as an exercise for the reader to guess why...
      I have said before that I believe Brazil's democracy is much healthier than that of the USA, and I believe this is due to the true multi-party nature of the political system here (as compared to the effectively two-party system in the USA). But the dependence on these "electronic ballot boxes" ("urnas eletrônicas"), with no serious scrutiny being given to them, and with the government trying to sweep signs of trouble under the rug, makes me worry for Brazil's young and vibrant democracy (I say "young" because the first free elections after the military coup of 1964 were held just under 20 years ago).
      A point that should hit home for /.ers is that these machines, like their Diebold counterparts, do not leave a paper trail, and make recounts impossible. The subtitle of Burla Eletrônica on the download page is "A máquina que faz seu voto sumir" ("The machine that makes your vote disappear"). It's not clear to me if the big question mark is to punctuate that subtitle or to stress the questionability of these machines.

      --Mark

  • Technology (Score:5, Funny)

    by In-gin-eer ( 643894 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:07AM (#10227656)
    Hokey religions and ancient punch-cards are no match for a good electronic voting machine in your booth.

  • OK, that is IT! (Score:5, Funny)

    by magefile ( 776388 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:07AM (#10227658)
    I'm going to join the police. I mean, the tasers were always cool, but ... lightsabers? Dude, sign me up!

  • Beets (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:11AM (#10227671)
    Dave Berry wrote: These are supposed to eliminate the screw-ups we had in the 2000 election, in which the ballots of thousands of Florida voters were not counted because, due to poor design, many Floridians have the intelligence of a sugar beet.

    I'll bet he gets at least a few letters complaining about the sugar beet intelligence comparison - from sugar beets.

    • I bet he gets a lot more letters from sugar cane, particularly since it is raised in florida, and competes with the midwestern sugar beet for the distinct and high honor of vice-presidential candidate.

      and lordy, do we need the improvement ;)

  • Banned (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxter ( 809927 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:12AM (#10227677) Journal
    All forms of electronic voting should be banned. We've seen what can happen with the diebold [diebold.com] machines, and we all know ow easy it is to manipulate data. Count all votes three times by three different groups of people and all discrepencies accounted for. This is our right, a democraticaly voted government. Fuck the costs.

    • Back door in Diebold machines (Score:5, Informative)

      by qengho ( 54305 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:39AM (#10227806)


      We've seen what can happen with the diebold machines

      Yeah, but have you seen this? [blackboxvoting.org] Don't even need a Gameboy to hack the election...

    • Re:Banned (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:13AM (#10227981)
      Canada has always had pencil-and-paper voting and always seems to be able to get decisive results in a few hours. Why can't the Americans do this? Is the missing technology high-school graduates who can read?

      • Re:Banned (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtaylor ( 70602 )
        I've often wondered how the legally blind vote in Canada. I've yet to see a ballot with any raised markings.

        Do they just take a friend with them?
    • All forms of electronic voting should be banned.

      So you're volunteering to hand-count all those scantron and punch-cards yourself?
      • If that's what it took to ensure free and fair elections, I'd certainly do my time. It could be like jury duty, and multiple people (made unaware of each other's identities, to prevent collusion) could be required to count the same sets of ballots to ensure they didn't blow off counting or skew the results.

    • Re:Banned (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 )
      You'll know something is wrong when the new President's first act is to make electronic voting terminals mandatory for all presidential elections.

      Jedidiah.
    • awwww, spoilsport, the one game I've been waiting for is Peter Jennings' "Election 2004" by RockStar.

  • Comedy as news source (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Travis Fisher ( 141842 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:14AM (#10227685)
    RTFA. Really, do. It's funny. You'll like it. And if you're not a slashdot regular, probably it will be your first introduction to the fact that electronic voting is an issue that you should be concerned about. Of course, its not very informative, but it will at least lead you to think about hackers as a concern for e-voting. And you'll be participating in a modern American phenomenon -- using comedians as a major source of information about current issues. Yay USA!

    • Re:Comedy as news source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cpeikert ( 9457 ) <.ude.tim.mula. .ta. .trekiepc.> on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:23AM (#10227737) Homepage
      Of course, its not very informative, but it will at least lead you to think about hackers as a concern for e-voting.

      Hackers aren't the real concern for e-voting. Partisan election officials and machine manufacturers are. So in a way, this Dave Barry article both introduces a real concern, and at the same time disposes of it by implying that it's far-fetched.

      But I think you're very right about comedy being a good way to point out important issues -- for example, The Daily Show is probably one of the best news sources out there.

      • Hackers aren't the real concern for e-voting. Partisan election officials and machine manufacturers are.

        That sounds good, but I don't think it's really true.

        It's a security axiom that anything can be hacked. It's usually stated inversely as "the only secure machine is off the network in a locked room, powered down". This may also be seen as a result of "Every nontrivial program has at least one bug."

        Election officials have no more ability to affect an electronic election than they do with paper b

    • Re:Comedy as news source (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      you may laugh, but if you really compare, you do get more sides of what a party says when you watch satires about politics than you do with the regular news... of course along with zinger.

      With regular news, if something is just too obviously a lie or stupid, they just won't mention it or just focus on the intent, which was backed up by the unmentioned ridiculousness.

    • Comedy is a great news source because it can point out the hypocrisy and straight out lies without fearing repercussions that might limit "real" news outlets.

      The best example is "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. It's sharp and incisive. Dick Cheney was caught lying about WMDs in Iraq. Stewart stroked his chin for a minute before intoning, deadpan, "I'm sorry to inform you, Mr. Cheney....that you're pants are on fire.'

      Great show. Watch it 11:00 PM on Comedy Central.

  • Excluding stories from homepage? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tero ( 39203 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:16AM (#10227697)
    Ok, so there's two checkboxes for excluding Politics in the preferences, neither of them seems to work and as long a these stories get posted on the front page, there's no way to avoid them.

    So a small plea to the editors; please keep politics in their own Section until someone fixes the Exclusion? Please?

    • Re:Excluding stories from homepage? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:11AM (#10227975) Homepage Journal
      Blockquoth the poster:

      So a small plea to the editors; please keep politics in their own Section until someone fixes the Exclusion?

      or fixes the election... :)

      Kidding aside, this story is about tech and its impact, not just politics. It's not inappropriate that it appear on the main page. Here's a radical thought, if you see the headline for a story and you just know you won't want to read it: Don't. Participation on slashdot is voluntary in many degrees.

      If you're so thin-skinned that you can't handle seeing the merest headline that indicates politics simply exists, then you probably would be happier unplugging the computer and TV, and simply watching the paint crack.
  • How long before we demand direct democracy.

    Seems like something that could be really useful in politically backwards countries like the U.S.

    • How long before we demand direct democracy.

      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

      Stop and consider all the areas where you are or could be in the minority before you wish for a democracy.

  • Not about the electronic voting or anything, but that is pretty dang funny.

    I think he's got some points being funny though. I mean, how many people do you know who becoome so obsessed with this election, that even a mention of "a different" canidate will get you a glare?

    Peopel need to tone it down a bit. Stuff like that really provides some needed comedy, when it's really needed too.

    I walk down the hall talking to some people, and they say that this year is going to end up sucking. "Why's that?" I ask. "Because I've got several massive projects due in the start of December, my grandma is on the verge of death, and to top it all off, Bush might get re-elected." ...

    This guy isn't even of legal age to vote, and he was literally thinking that Bush being re-elected is by far worse than anything else at the moment.

    Come on people, live a little, joke a little. Rock on Dave Barry.

    • Re:I think Dave has some points (Score:5, Funny)

      by Colonel Cholling ( 715787 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:26AM (#10228053)
      I think he's got some points being funny though. I mean, how many people do you know who becoome so obsessed with this election, that even a mention of "a different" canidate will get you a glare?

      I had a friend who used to be like this, one of those "defeat Bush at all cost" types. Then, as the campaigns wore on, he became more and more jaded, realizing that Kerry probably wouldn't be much better at fixing all the things that were wrong with the Bush administration. He considered voting for Nader, but thought that that would just be throwing his vote away and playing into Bush's hands.

      Then he remembered he was a Canadian citizen and couldn't vote here anyway.

  • Slashdot polls (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:28AM (#10227761)
    Just use the polls on slashdot for voting. Somehow I suspect this would result in CowboyNeal becoming president.
    • I suspect Bush would retain the presidency because the insensitive clods would demand recounts for all the sensitive/foreign/non-english/blind clods.

      I'm voting for Nader you insensitive clod!

    • Just use the polls on slashdot for voting. Somehow I suspect this would result in CowboyNeal becoming president.

      Hey, I've been complaining about missing options for the last three elections.

    • Re:Slashdot polls (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gilroy ( 155262 )
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Somehow I suspect this would result in CowboyNeal becoming president.

      Actually I'm pretty sure it would result in the election of Natalie Portman...
      • Actually I'm pretty sure it would result in the election of Natalie Portman...

        I can't think of a better way to revive an interest in politics. I'd certainly vote for for; it couldn't possibly be any worse than the options we've had in the last 30 years, and we'd finally have a president worth watching during a "State of the Union" address.

        Max
    • Do you really want US elections decided on these rules:

      * Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.

      * This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

  • Use a paper absentee ballot (Score:3, Informative)

    by shawkin ( 165588 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:36AM (#10227793)
    The Republican Party is now telling voters in areas with electronic voting machines to vote using a paper absentee ballot. All voters would do well to follow this advice.
    You _are_ voting, aren't you?

  • Bring back the punch cards and provide receipts (Score:3, Informative)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:44AM (#10227837) Homepage Journal
    Nothing is 100% secure, right? I mean what stops someone from taking all paper votes from a particular state and burning them and just tossing in a few million of forged papers?

    How do we *know* that the computers used in voting are not tampered with? I mean how do we really know that noone switched the good tested machines with their own versions? Oh, but the central processor should in principle be able to identify a PGP encrypted signature of a specific machine that has the machines' Intel processor ID in it as well as an authentication number, the key should be sent to the central processor and the processor ID should be requested seperately to authenticate the machine or some such, and the process should be transparent etc. etc. But there will always be people with too much access, the people wearing all black, who can make police shut the hell up, the people who can drive to the machines at night, switch them with their own versions of hardware, the people who have physical access to the central processor, the people who are on in it with the Man.

    So bring back the punch cards + receipts, I say.

    Why is it that when you buy something in a store they give you a receipt of a merchandize but during an election you don't get one? Aren't you buying something for your tax money, a governor or a senator or a president?

    2 thin cardboard cards stuck together in a fassion that allows to perforate both of them simultaneously with names printed on both and with perforated contours of holes to be punched out by the voter. The voter then punches the hole corresponding to the name they choose and give the face (top) portion of the card to a processing person, who runs the card through a simple card reader and then throws the card with into a sealed box. The bottom portion remains with the voter.

    Now, how about that recount? Recount the top portions of the cards in the box and allow people to come in with their portions of the cards and run them through a card reader.

    • Oh, forgot to mention. Both - the top and the bottom parts of the same voting card should contain the same unique identifier. This does not identify the person's information but allows to match the card in case of a recount.

      So what happens if top and bottom portions of the card with the same identifier give different vote?

      Scandal
    • Nothing is 100% secure, right? I mean what stops someone from taking all paper votes from a particular state and burning them and just tossing in a few million of forged papers?

      I haven't participated in running an voting location, but I believe this is dealt with by having lots of eyes on the paperwork as well as a representative from both major parties. It's not perfect, but you can say this - for all the problems they had in Florida, people replacing the votes with forged votes was not the issue.

      So br

    • Nope.

      Giving receipts out encourages vote buying - people standing on street corners promising $50 in exchange for a Bush receipt. When elections can be called by a couple of hundred votes as in Florida, and with the level of voter apathy, vote buying becomes highly feasible and not too expensive.

      There is one way that works and has worked for centuries - a ballot paper, and a pencil to put a cross by the candidate's name. And all the ballots counted by hand, in full view of multiple representatives from al
      • How many people will sell their vote for 50USD? Is it really that bad in the US that this could be a problem?

        • How many people will sell their vote for 50USD? Is it really that bad in the US that this could be a problem?

          You can buy votes for a lot less than $50:

          Cigarettes Distributed For Gore Vote [themilwaukeechannel.com]

          From the article:

          Campaign volunteers for the Democratic Presidential campaign were discovered distributing cigarettes to homeless voters after the volunteers had recruited the homeless specifically for their vote Saturday.

          In all fairness, the Gore campaign responded:

          "This kind of activity described by Channe

      • Receipts are good (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MarkusQ ( 450076 )

        Giving receipts out encourages vote buying - people standing on street corners promising $50 in exchange for a Bush receipt.

        This is the worst argument against reciepts I've ever heard. Unfortunately, it is also the most common, and also the "offical" objection. Let's drive a stake through it right now, shall we?

        On the one hand, if we give receipts, someone might buy some votes. Now, in order to have this effect the ellection, they have to let people know about it before they vote. Otherwise they

    • We don't get a reciept 'cuz that would allow for someone to demand proof of who you voted for, allowing for intimidation and vote buying.
    • Why is it that when you buy something in a store they give you a receipt of a merchandize but during an election you don't get one? Aren't you buying something for your tax money, a governor or a senator or a president?

      I'm sorry, that privledge is reserved for multi-national corportaions and unions.
    • It is a bad idea to give people receipts for elections because then you can actually buy votes. In the current system, you cannot prove you actually voted one way or the other. With receipts, well, you can. This would actually, however, make your vote worth something...

  • Doesn't anyone think it's sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:46AM (#10227853) Homepage
    It doesn't bother anyone else that people in this country were seriously asking for UN observers for a US election?

    Politics has always been kind of an ugly business, but I don't remember a campaign in my lifetime that was so bitter, petty, angry, divisive and deliberately misleading. We have collectively sunk to the ethical level of Karl Rove.

    Not only do we not deserve a leadership position in the world, we are becoming ugly and pathetic. We are in real danger of turning into the richest third world country on the planet.

    • Re:Doesn't anyone think it's sad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cbare ( 313467 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:22AM (#10228036) Homepage Journal


      Whaddya mean third world country?

      • rampant crony capitalism
      • giant national debt
      • devalued currency
      • pointless wars motivated by crackpot ideology
      • nominal democracy characterized by shakey elections

      Naaa that'll never happen here. This is America!


      p.s. in deibold we trust.

    • There's dirty politics in every country, and has been for hundreds of years, and the US is no exception.

      Some notable election thefts prior to the 2000 election, some of them much more blatant:

      John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election largely due to ballot stuffing and double-voting organized by the Democratic Party political machines in several major cities.

      John Quincy Adams, as 2nd-place finisher, won the 1824 election by basically buying the electoral votes of Henry Clay (the 4th-place finisher) in return

  • voting probs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spark00 ( 803383 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @10:55AM (#10227900)
    for our municipa elections here in Toronto we fill out a ballot (often with 20 or 30 candidates on it because for a couple hundred bucks any knob can get on the ballot), and what happens is you fill it out, then bring it to the 'box' which is a machine. it reads the pencil marks you've made, and if you've done it wrong it rejects it. It gives you a read out of your choices.

    this does a couple of things. one, it confirms your choice. (no more florida issues). and two, it automatically counts the vote. when the polls close, the total is uploaded to the central 'counting' station, and within minutes they have totals. the only timme we get into recounts is when the margin is so close that it triggers one.. in which case they manually count them.

    seems to work. paper & technolgy together . just a thought but there's no reason to get all weird about improving the voting system.

    one other thing i'd say is that having ONE voting system accross the entire system is not a bad idea. votind districts don't control it, the cheif electoral officer (municipal, provincial, or federal depending on the election) decides what system to use. that way if it's buggered up, it's buggered for everyone.

    now if we could only get rid of first past the post we'd be laughing.

  • Anonymous voting is a good concept... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:01AM (#10227928)
    ... but why not do this nowdays: give me some "cookie" number when I vote and let me see later (via INet most probably) how have you really counted my voice. Can be done like this: I pull my voting blank from a pool of those (like in a lottery), there's an unique number on it that no-one knows but me. I can write it down to my notebook/PDA if I wish and you - when counting the votes - store to some DB that a given cookie number is registered as a vote for this or that candidate. You can also give me some kind of receipt so that if I find my vote has been messed up somehow I have something to proove it.
    • I completely agree. Unfortunately, I've discussed this with some people who are very concerned about what might result. Specifically, employers, union bosses, or whoever, might demand to get that unique number, so that they can confirm you voted the way they want.

      Personally, I would tell anyone who demanded such information to stuff it, regardless of the consequences, and I'd want them thrown in jail immediately. But I do recognize that it's a tradeoff.

      A tradeoff, but one we desperately need. I was
    • The idea behind anonymous voting is to ensure that, even if they paid you or something, people don't know who you voted for. So they can attempt to buy votes but not know how it pays off, or not bother trying to buy votes at all. However, if you are provided with some way of seeing what you voted outside of the voting booth, then you can show someone else that you did indeed vote for Mickey Mouse as president like they told you, and they will pay you.

  • 30 Second Commercial Spots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Izaak ( 31329 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:03AM (#10227938) Homepage Journal
    The part I liked best was his rif on 30 second commercial spots. They do nothing to inform the voters, yet they are often the thing that swings the election. They are a primary reason money has become such a huge corrupting influence in politics. Like those Swift Boat Vet adds. They have been completely discredited, but many people will never learn that part of it and only remember the adds themselves. This is why I urge people to do a few google news searches and inform yourselves of the issues before going in the voting booth.
    • This is called the "sleeper effect" [wikipedia.org] -- people remember messages better than the source, so if a source of a message is discredited, over time the message increases in credibility as people forgot who said it.

      Also, negative ads REALLY DO work. That is, after all, why they use them. For whatever reason, people have a "negativity" bias according to which they pay more attention to negative information, and remember it better later. It has shown that the primary effect is not winning votes for one side, but to

  • Cthulu/Voldermort 2004 (Score:5, Funny)

    by xyloplax ( 607967 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:11AM (#10227973)
    Why settle for the lesser of two evils?

  • Rolls of paper tape (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @11:26AM (#10228051) Homepage Journal
    Say you have 10 candidates. So you set up 100,000 voting stations across the country (I am not an American). At each station you have 100 (10 rolls x ten booths to allow 10 people to vote at the same time) extremely large rolls of paper tape encased into a transparent plastic cover. The paper rolls are of different color. The paper tape has candidate's name printed on it over and over again on the face side. On the other side of the name there is a number printed as a bar code binary format and in a decimal format, this is a sequential number that identifies the paper roll, and the position of this number within the roll.

    As a person enters a booth, (s)he sees 10 buttons, of which only one can be pressed at once and once a button is pressed the other buttons are deactivated until the next person enters the booth. Once a button is pressed, the voter can see a candidate's name cut off from a corresponding tape, the piece of paper falls into a box.

    So now by the end of election with this particular setup you have the following:

    1. 100 boxes with papers on them in each voting location.
    2. 100 tape enclosures with some tape left on them.

    So now to count just look at the end of the tape, the last sequential number must tell you how many votes were cast for this particular candidate.

    The boxes and the tapes must be stored seperately for a recount purposes.

    -----

    Here is how to make counting of the totals possible:

    Have a website where the people doing the local counts login into and post their numbers against their voting location.

    These numbers must be accessible by all, the person who just submitted them will see them on the site and if something funny happens to them (like they change one way or another) then have the local news notified.

    This website should be well secured though. Please.

    • And goddamn it, to make it impossible for someone to run a program that just rotates through one roll of paper and fills up a box with Bush's name on it, make sure that you count how many people voted at this location and how many papers were cut off.

      Maybe cutting of the papers off should be a half manual process to make this scenario even less likely.

  • Optical Scan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zeroduck ( 691015 ) on Sunday September 12, 2004 @02:22PM (#10228903)
    I like shiny new things as much as the next Slashdotter, but, give me a break. We love shiny things because they're cool to toy with.

    Elections are something you don't toy with.

    It's all about being trustworthy. When there is a recount, you damned better well be able to take a hand count of the votes observed by both canidates. With an electronic system, you're left with what the machine says, and thats it. Thats just not acceptable.

    It might not be kosher to say, lets step back to something not bleeding edge, and full of buzz words.. Here in Wisconsin we use optical scan machines and they work excellent. The elector gets their ballot, and for every office theres the list of canidates. To select one, they just complete the aarow on the side of their name. They slide the ballot into the tabulator, and the tabulator counts (or kicks it back if its an undervoted or overvoted ballot). There is a permenant record of their vote--the actual ballot they filled out. In the case of a recount, its very hard to argue that the voters intent lies elsewhere.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Close