What voting machine security conformance tests are available?
Every machine needs to be measured against a set of standard conformance tests and that information made available to voters.
And of course, there needs to be a paper trail for every vote cast
Posted by world view at December 1, 2005 05:13 AMThis is a topic that just makes me want to scream in frustration. How the hell can anyone think that voter verified paper ballots are not necessary? In my state we're fighting a democrat on this, but making progress. And as Forest says in the link, whose bright idea was it in the first place to even MAKE a machine where results were not verifiable, and what idiots in the states thought this was ok?? Tell them to go deposit money into an ATM machine and not get a receipt and see how good they feel about that. It is simply beyond my comprehension how this even came to be in the first place. I have a BS in computer science and spent a bunch of my time as a tester. Even without hacking and bad intent, I know how easy it is for mistakes to get through, and I know that something that tests fine with 100 pieces of data might not work with 1000 or 10000. I know that when you change to a new release or configure the software (like they have to do for every single election) problems can creep in in the most unexpected places, and those places aren't usually tested throroughly. And I know that there are bugs that come up just every once in a while and are hard to reproduce and the software is shipped with them because no one can figure out what's wrong. Arrrghhhhh!
Posted by CG at December 1, 2005 05:24 AMThere is nothing wrong with the way we have voted for decades, which is the paper ballot. Doesn't anyone think it strange that in Florida (of all places) it became an issue, and as soon as it became an issue, presto, Diebold is on the scene with a handy dandy voting machine?
Posted by Judith at December 1, 2005 05:35 AMWhat do they have to hide? Great question. Though I doubt it's a Dem bias.
What they're hiding BEHIND is the notion that they built the program using Microsoft software, and they can't divulge Microsoft code. LOL Brilliant!
the gross negligence of Diebold is surpassed only by their arrogance--I truly believe they are refusing to disclose their software because even a cursory review by a computer scientist would reveal how shoddy their product is, and how many holes are there for potential ballot box stuffing (and is it really a coincidence that the last election was decided in Ohio, the state that Diebold's CEO swore to 'deliver' to the Bush cabal, and that the results differed dramatically from the exit polls, which had previously never been wrong?)
On a proactive note, can anybody here tell me who I can write to in the Bay area to protest Diebold's involvement in CA voting? I want to do as much as I can to suppress their involvement in CA voting, not due to any partisanship, but due to the quaint concept of 'fair play.'
Posted by leftAhead at December 1, 2005 11:24 AMWe need 2 amendments: one a right to privacy and 2 a right to have my vote counted amendment. These would not be hard to get public support. We already feel we have these rights so lets put it in writing so we don't have to listen to any justices whining about how it is not explicitly there in the constitution.
Posted by at December 1, 2005 12:12 PM