The end of accountable elections in Ireland

by pat c Mon Feb 16, 2004 14:53

Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream fame will be dishing a little political activism with his ice cream tomorrow in Washington, D.C., when he calls on secretaries of state throughout the country to secure electronic voting machines.

Full story at:

by T Mon Feb 16, 2004 00:00

I have worked for over 10 years writing software and in my experience there are almost an infinite number of ways that the electronic vote could be rigged or tampered with. At any stage numerous things could be done.

At a very minimum, the software should be openly accessible for all too see, but that still wouldn't come close to providing assurance, because there is still no guarantee that is the same software that is running.

The temptation to carry out voter fraud is huge and the assurances given by the government are totally useless. They just give out bland statements like; the public used it in the last election and nobody complained or sure they use it elsewhere in Europe. I mean what are those statements actually supposed to mean.

But in a certain sense, I almost welcome the electronic voting, because to me it shows up the absurdy in reducing 4 years of government and 1000s of decisions into a set of choices of: Party A, Party B, Party C or Party D. Granted there may be a few more parties. But the whole thing is pathetic.

I encourage everyone to give up voting because the whole thing is a fraud. When you think about it, since each TD supposedly represents about 20,000 people, how on Earth can one honestly say that a single one of them really does represent them. Pure horseshit.

And finally it is worth noting that electronic voting fraud has already occurred in the USA, where a republican senator who just happen to own the company that made the electronic voting machines and also had the contract for the election, got voted in twice while running up a democrat war veteran who had lost 3 limbs in the Vietnam war.

See If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines (related link)

by J26 Sun Feb 15, 2004 14:41

that if there is a paper trail of all ballots cast, then every losing candidate will automatically ask for verification through count of the paper votes, and we are back to square one. Any candidate that didn't would not deserve to be elected (except with the possibility as an FF) Now we have a computerised system that costs a fortune to maintain and a manual vote count which the system was designed to eliminate. It would also cost a bloody fortune in ink and printing costs (printing each individual ballot by inkjet printer or some other similar means is much more expensive than mass printing ballots). I reckon this is the real reason why the minister is so set against a paper trail - it shows up the fact that these fancy machines are completely unnecessary, and in fact undesirable as they will only increase the cost and reduce the speed of an election.


If they want to speed up counts, would it not be better to use machines to sort the bundles of votes ( like the machines the banks use to count notes) rather than destroy the remaining shreds of confidence that people may have in the electoral system. I have heard of entire graveyards rising up and casting their votes for particular candidates in elections. How much easier will that be now??
How confident am I that my vote will be counted as I cast it??
How confident am I in computer code when;
>The bank systems (dealing with money every day) make errors all the time.
>When Microsoft - the biggest software combo of all time cannot secure its systems.
>When the Garda PULSE System doesn't do what is needed of it.
>When the Credit Unions spent €40m on a computer system that doesn't work.
>When I see the experience of other countries such as the farce that was the last US presidential election.

And in the end of the day, all it takes is for 2 or 3 of the right ballot "boxes" to generate an error message for the result to swing totally in favour of the incumbent(!). How difficult would that be. A bit of tinfoil or chewing gum across the connections would probably be enough ( I haven't seen the system, so this is pure speculation on my part)

How confident can I be????


By the way, there is an issue with the secrecy of the existing ballots. They are numbered sequentially and a good personation officer can work out pretty closely who voted for who based on the time they voted (obviously not so much of a problem in urban constituencies where trere is a larger transitory population and greater anonymity, but in rural areas, the local FFer (and FGer if they have the organisation in place) generally has a very good idea exactly who voted for who in the last election). You can see the potential for abuse without me having to point it out.

If I can't be confident I won't vote - it's as simple as that.

by Keith - LY Sun Feb 15, 2004 09:55

Jonah - how do you know the transfers will be done more acurately now?

I've seen most of the documentation that's available about the system through FOI, and I don't remember anything different about the transfers system, other than it's using a computer generated random selection, which by defnition isn't random....

by publicservant Thu Feb 05, 2004 20:48

I believe it was discussed in the Dept of environment to alter the usual lay-out of the ballot paper for the 2nd Nice Treaty referendum. Cullen wanted to change the usual Yes/No to Yes/Tá

He decided to buy the referendum through the traditional method of the biased capitalist media and lies.

by David Thu Feb 05, 2004 15:57

Ah, in that case he's perfectly entitled to decide that we're not allowed.
Cullen also wants us all to vote for Fianna Fail, maybe he can rig the ballot to reflect that personal desire

by Freddy Thu Feb 05, 2004 14:22

I would like to be able to 'rate' the candidates, either as 'x out of ten' or on a percentage basis. Even if someone gets elected we would still be able us to express our disapproval of their policies or behaviour.

by Lone gunman Thu Feb 05, 2004 14:03

Considerd and offered.Except our glorious leader Mr Cullen decided against it as he "didnt want people spoiling their votes"
[todays Indo 5/2.04]
Whats next?being escorted by the gardai in cumpolsory voting.?To make sure you exercise your "democratic right to vote on our failsafe electronic voter".

Im in a dictatorship! get me out of here!!

by David Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:00

There is no practical reason why thay cant have this option on every ballot. It would cost nothing, it would increase democratic choice and it would increase voter turnout. Sure you might not be able to creatively spoil your vote but instead you could join a united voice of those disenfranchised with the candidates on offer or the system we are being forced to accept.

by pat c Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:43

in the old days you could spoil your council vote . putting a message on the ballot paper - eg "you are all crooks! " "wheres the brown envelopes!"

in the 1997 election the wsm put out leaflets asking voters to vote for "mr crook"(?) in dublin south east. this resulted in some people writing in mr crook as a candidate. during the cliffhanger counts between gormley & mcdowell for the last seat, as spoiled votes were being rechecked a bunch of mr crook votes were brought to mcdowell. he was asked if he thought they might be for him.

ah! such days are gone.

by Jonah Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:52

Pros;
* Transfers are now accurately counted for the first time.
* Votes can be stored and open for examination (and research) indefinitely.
* Faster counting of transfers.

Cons;
* No physical evidence of a vote that can be confidently accepted by the average person.

Just because you don't 'see' or 'feel' an audit trail don't think that means that none exists. It is a very simplistic view to say that just because you don't understand how it works means it is somehow more corruptable.

Ballot tampering has happened many times in this country but is not publicised. Three boxes of uncounted votes have gone missing over the past four elections.

A possible enhancement to the system (for a transition period) would be if a reciept was printed off by the machine, which could be seen by the voter and then stored and counted. This could then be used to verity the result.

by Kevin-Scott Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:24

About the US experience with electronic voting.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation.html

by bertrude Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:32

.

by Politics student Wed Feb 04, 2004 15:47

When two or more elections are taking place on the same day it is possible to only vote in one without saying anything to the polling staff. Simply vote as you wish in the Euro election then withouth pressing any of the buttons on the local ballot press the 'cast vote(s)' button. It will tell you that you didn't vote in the local election and will ask you to confirm you only wish to vote in the euro election. Simply confirm it and that's it.

by Dr. Pepper Wed Feb 04, 2004 15:28

What's the story with spoiling my vote? I am registered to vote in Dublin. I'll vote for Joe Higgins in the European elections. But in the Council elections there is nobody worth voting for in my area and I want to spoil my vote.

Can I do that? Will I have to tell the polling clerks that I don't want to vote in the council elections before I go to cast my vote? Is this still a secret ballot?

by Lone gunman Wed Feb 04, 2004 14:48

it only encourages them to think that they are doing a good job of running the country.

by babby Wed Feb 04, 2004 13:57

It would take a longer time (as was seen in the north) but the current way we do the transfers in the south may not get a 100% accurate result in terms of the numbers but the same people are still elected at the end of the day

by Politics Student - UCD Wed Feb 04, 2004 13:48

Electronic Voting is not transerant and will not have the confidence of the voter, or the candidates. Therefore it should not be used.

In any electoral system confidence is essential. Any electoral system can be rigged, however it is hard to rig an election as it is in Ireland at the moment. Each candidate can have a person at each polling station, each candidate has agents at the count which are there to oversee the count (although they only really do tallys!), and ultimatley there are counterfoils that all ballots can be traced back to. If electronic voting is introduced there is no longer a verifiable system.

The voter must also be confident. When a voter puts his piece of paper into a box he knows that it has gone in. He will know that there are check and balances so that his vote will be counted. When a voter pressed a button beside a screen he does not know that vote is going to a particular person. What happens if the displays beside the buttons are mixed up accidently or deliberatly and pressing the SP button is really registering a vote for the PDs?

One benefit is that the transfer of surpluses would be made more proportional. However this could be done with paper votes, although it would take a very very long time to do!

by voter Wed Feb 04, 2004 13:31

It is more expensive. It is less accountable, with the traditional system there is a definite paper trail, if there is any dodgy practices it can be identified, not so with the electorinc voting.

It is also less democratic. Voters cant spoil there votes if they dont support any of the candidates you must either stay at home or choose the best of a bad bunch.

Also the result is not in any quicker. In the generla election in 2002 it took from close of polls at 10pm until about 3am to get a result. In the manual counts it takes about 90mins to get good tallies on the first count. If they are concerned about getting results quickly they could open the ballot boxes at close of polls in the polling stations and count the first preferences. This would mean we would more or less know who has won the election within 2 hours of the close of polls.

The electronic voting will simply be used to rig the elections. Could you imagine the establishment allowing a revolutionary majority to be elected into the Dáil? At least with the paper voting we would have definite evidence the votes were rigged.

by Jimi Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:09

incidentally, isn't this what homer simpson was talking about when he mentioned the "electrical college" ?



Sorry, i couldn't resist :)

by Jimi Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:08

The code really isn't the issue. That has some transparency. A much more worrying aspect of electro voting is that a previously available democratic right has now been removed. The right to spoil, deface, or otherwise mark your vote. The only way remaining to do this is to destroy the module, which spoils everyone else's vote. Also, each of the button selections makes an audible tone when pressed, meaning that other individuals can tell how many preferences were made. Because of this, i'm going to be casting my votes, pressing the error button to reset my selection, and starting again. I recommend that those of you who believe in a truly secret ballot do the same.

by David Wed Feb 04, 2004 09:58

the code was all written in a different country with a different electoral system and the notes on the code were all in a different language. Technicians don't know what half the code is actually for, they have never been tested on an full scale PR election and there has been no independent testing of security measures.

Added the fact that you can no longer spoil your vote if you choose and there is no "none of the above" option and we have a screwed up system that reduces democracy even further

by kokomero Wed Feb 04, 2004 09:52

reliance on "us pros" is not a guarantee that the system is robust and foolproof (fraud-proof). We the people are paying our taxes to acquire an electronic voting system and I would argue strongly that the source-code be either written from scratch or acquired in toto and put in the public domain with a view to having it scrutinised by as many sets of eyes as possible. Even this though is not acceptable and there must be a written record of all votes cast to ensure fraud can be detected.

by Kevin-Scott Tue Feb 03, 2004 22:41

The state of Maryland looked into it’s electronic voting machines by hiring a computer software firm to hack their machines. Their conclusion, more security and paper trails are necessary.

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

See also: Electronic Miscounts of Votes are a Fact - Not a Theory

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/

by Mike Tue Feb 03, 2004 22:16

The term "open source" refers to MUCH MORE than code open to inspection. It refers to "rights" with regard to that code.

Speaking as an experienced professional, there is nothing wrong with the code being proprietary per se as long as.....
a) The source code is available for inspection (by us pros)
b) The executables in the machines can be inspected (by us pros) -- in other words, that we are allowed to compare it byte by byte against the executables we get when we compile the source code oursleves.

That would satisfy me. Many times during my working days I had to verify that a program running in prodution was ACTUALLY what was implied by the source code, not secretly modified to do something else. But I would not consider that sort of inspection as "open software". Proprietary does not necessarily imply secret. The term "open software" mean I have a right to run, modify and redistribute under the same free (not restricted) condition.). Proprietary means I have to PAY somebody who owns it what they ask fro whatever "rights" they are willing to sell . That COULD include the right to look at it but by their choice they can permit that free of charge. And I wouldn't approve buying voting machine software from any vendor unwilling to do so.