California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has approved the use of flawed (many would say fatally flawed) Diebold voting machines in the June election.
I think that’s a horrible idea, and am working on a series of posts on why.
But if you’re in the group who agrees with people like Bruce Schneier and Avi Rubin that this is a bad idea (using flawed voting machines which can cast doubt on the outcome of elections), please click here to go to Sen. Debra Bowen’s campaign site (disclosure: she’s running against Bruce McPherson for Secretary of State; I know her well; I support her completely) and send the Secretary a message suggesting he rethink his poor decision.
I’m working on a series of posts on this, and trust me – this isn’t a right or left issue.
This isn’t a right or left issue… this is a “right or wrong” issue. I look forward to your future posts on the subject.
AL,
You worry me on this one. Diebold has been demonized by the “election was stolen” left and now we hear all kinds of complaints about lack of a paper trail and other problems.
I can’t believe we are unable to have a secure electronic voting system. Look at the secure communications nets, or financial processing systems, why is a voting machine any different?
It sounds Luddite to me.
Cordially,
Uncle J
Jimbo, we absolutely can have secure voting systems; we don’t. It’s a difficult problem, because unlike ATM’s, where you can (and I hope, do) go back and make sure that the deposit was credited to your individual account, I can’t go look at the vote total and pick out “my vote”.
The fact that people who I may disagree with on other issues are right on this doesn’t make them any less right; and people like Schneier and Rubin are pretty far from being Kossacks.
I’m working on some longer explanations, and will try and have something – probably the first in a series – up today.
A.L.
Absolutely right, A.L. (and N.M.).
A voting system must be trustworthy. That means allowing recounts, not just pushing the same button again, so the machine prints out, “Yes, John Smith won again.”
What that translates into for computerized voting includes a paper trail (so votes can be recounted manually) and open source software (so citizens can check what the vote-counting program is doing).
Voting software is complex, but it’s not all _that_ complex. There is no excuse for sacrificing the integrity of our democracy so that a few companies can make a profit.
This is a test.
bq. Sotto voce: Wonderful. The new blacklist makes it impossible for me to post unless I remove my blog URL from the autofill field. Ah well. Life during wartime. I’ll have to eschew p*ker similes, too, I expect.
Pace Uncle Jimbo:
Often, in cases like these, there’s a thing-nobody-wants-to-admit. In this case, my “gut check” says that the thing-etc. is that people involved with the mechanics of voting are sick of paper.
Uncle Jimbo’s attitudes harmonize with that — hell, if we can put people in space can’t we build a no-paper voting system we can trust? The answer depends on how willing one is to drink eaxctly which kool-aid. As matters stand, the “Trust Diebold” position is a classic case of handwaving appeal-to-authority, emblematic of Diebold’s stance throughout, and it reeks. Diebold doesn’t have to have rigged an election to want to stonewall this. Diebold’s deeper fears are obvious:
1) if they break out their code for examination and it turns out to have flaws, what kind of lawsuits or charges are they opening themselves up to? What happens to their stock value?
2) if they cooperate and open the code completely, what happens to their intellectual property (and concomitant shareholder value)? Lawsuit time again.
The combination of no-open-software *and* other software issues *and* no paper trail is intolerably, apoplectically, *BAD*.
One doesn’t have to believe that bad guys are subverting any specific election to undertand that. One simply has to perform Beard’s thought experiment. Does pushing the “who won?” button another time make you feel any more certain?
Subpoena-ing relevant personnel is just the start. If it happens, I’d also post marshals at Diebold’s shredders 24/7. But then I’m funny that way.
I also wonder about the applicability of “UCITA”:http://www.badsoftware.com/uccindex.htm in all of this. DO the voting machines come with shrinkwrapped deny-all-warranty EULAs? That would be funny, in a sick way.
* My site is gumptionology dot blogspot dot com.