Touch Screen Voting and the Space Shuttle

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Bo Lipari of New York Verified Voting makes an effective
argument against touchscreen voting again:

Touch Screen Voting and the Space Shuttle

High-tech promise, high-tech failure

After a long hiatus the Space Shuttle is flying again.
But it’s now clear that the Shuttle program has been too costly,
hasn’t lived up to expectations, and is headed for the junk pile -
an ultra-expensive, high-tech solution which has failed to deliver on its promise.
Election officials rushing to purchase touch screen voting machines
should consider how the promise of new high-tech solutions often results
in an expensive high-tech failure...

Most people assume that when it comes to technology, new is always better
than old. But an "old" technology can also be a mature, proven, and reliable technology.
The Shuttle was designed to replace the “old” technology of expendable rockets.
Promoters of touch screen voting machines intend to replace the “old” technology
of paper ballots....

Complex, high-tech solutions like the Shuttle and touch screen voting machines
should be reserved for those tasks where additional complexity is necessary.
For routine jobs, like putting a satellite into orbit, or filling out a ballot,
tried and true "old technologies" are more appropriate, reliable, and cost effective.

http://nyvv.org/blog/2006/07/touch-screen-voting-and-space-shuttle.html

New Yorkers can be really proud of Bo Lipari.

[GregD]

1. Bo rocks!

That's one smart dude.

He has been in this fight since summer 2003 and wrote a great analysis (read: put down) of Clinton's legislative non-response to the issue.

[napi21]

2. I don't disagree with the theory, but how do we really know that

the old machines were accurate either? I know, in Pa, they were still using the machines I saw my parents use when I was 5 or 6 years old, and I'm now 62! Theres were old lever machines where you turned down the lever for the candidate you wanted to vote for and then hit the red button. When it registered your vote it sounded like some kind of an iron lung! Now that I think about it, how did we know someone wasn't tinkering with those machines too? Maybe political parties weren't as dishonest then as they are now????

[Wilms]

3. actually, Bo is a tireless campaigner for Precinct Based Optical Scan

Assuming all, if not many, NY counties would be choosing between DRE's, Central Count Optical Scan, and Precinct Based Optical Scan, Bo picked the latter...the better of the lot (if there's lots of auditing).

I know levers can be messed with, and I'd like to know details. Are they really so insecure to make e-voting attractive?

For now NY is hanging on to levers. No e-voting machines have been certified apart from the AutoMark Ballot Marker (who's ballots are to be Hand Counted!).

So NY is "last in HAVA compliance, and (perhaps) first in integrity".

[salvorhardin]

4. That's something I've been curious about for a long time

And I've never found a good answer. How are lever machines hackable? Everybody seems to agree it's true but no one seems to know how. One thing we do know is that there is no way of centrally hacking lever machines (unless the machines are stored in all one location for a county or district or precinct). They require hands on access to be hacked.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. its called limiting the exposure

States using lever machines limit their exposure to fraud or loss of votes
by having small precincts.

There are many reasons we have precincts -
-not just so the poll workers will recognize you (they don't recognize me)
-not just so you can vote near your home (best reason of all though)

By limiting the number of ballots cast in one location, the risk to the votes is more limited

If something goes wrong in a precinct like -
-the poll workers or voters throw away a bunch of hand counted paper ballots
-the poll workers or voters stuff the ballot box with hand counted paper ballots
-the poll workers do something weird to the voting machine
-the voter does something weird to the voting machine
-the poll worker or voter stuffs the optical scan(more difficult) or DRE (poll worker)ballot boxes
-the machine just flat out eats votes (Carteret Style)
-the voters are turned away or blocked from the polls deliberately (Ohio Style)
-not enough machines so not everyone gets to vote (Ohio Style)

i.e anything that keeps all votes from being either cast or counted

Then the damage is limited to that one precinct.

The chances of most votes getting cast and counted is much better in small precincts
than in a Super Precinct, where 10,000 voters would vote.

So, even with levers - you could only tamper with about 800 votes in one precinct,
because that is all that is cast in a lever precinct, (or they have to add another
"machine").

With optical scan, the paper ballot is the backup, so unless some sophisticated
hacking and stacking is going on, then a recount will work. If hack and stack is
used, you would have to very closely examine the poll books. Very.
(I don't know all of the details, but John Brakey of www.AuditAZ.org has
written about it)

It doesn't matter if it is hand counted paper ballots, optical scan or if we
vote using marbles in a jar - anything can and will go wrong.

So, in NY, with the lever machines, they limited their exposure to fraud and
or malfunction by limited the number of votes cast in a precinct.

We MUST assume that things will go wrong.

This is another reason that I despise Super Precincts - too many votes
in 1 place, too much risk.

[Wilms]

6. That's fantastic!

Great post I hope you'll put up as an original thread. Deserves it.

[BeFree]

7. Note also...

...that all the programs that run the space shuttle are well examined and tested day-in and day-out. They know one little mistake in a computer program can mean disaster.

But the programs that run elections are hardly tested and only tested by testers that are hand-picked by the vendors.

But every time independent tests are done, the series of major flaws found make the scientists involved call for scrapping those programs.

Elections are not rocket science but it seems we've been led into a position that we now need such science to keep from blowing democracy sky high!