NIST to recommend decertifying direct record electronic voting

We weren't sure that our government would ever actually, you know, listen to the people that it apparently serves -- at least so far as electronic voting goes. That may soon change, given that internetnews.com is reporting that the National Institute of Standards and Technology will recommend "the 2007 version of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) decertify direct record electronic (DRE) machines." (Those would be the non-"software independent" boxes whose votes cannot be audited and certified, yet which are used in 30% of jurisdictions.) Why the sudden change of heart? Well, apparently all of the attention that's been put on the lack of a paper trail or some kind of verified voting system has actually made a difference -- huh, fancy that. Of course, predictably, there remains a naysayer in the midst, an election expert named Roy Saltman, who told internetnews.com: "If you insist on paper you're tying elections to an old technology." Um, Mr. Saltman, that may be true, but until we can get our new tech to work as well as our old tech, then the new tech is sorta useless, isn't it?

[Via Techdirt]

[nick @ Dec 1st 2006 8:14AM]

Hmm.. Roy Saltman... A stubborn unrealist, that thinks that no backup system, like having a paper trail is good... Suddenly millions of votes won't count if the technology fails..

I have to side with engadget on this one.

(nicholas)
http://www.tingog.com

[Stephen @ Dec 1st 2006 8:52AM]

Two words: absentee ballot

[John Doe @ Dec 1st 2006 4:49PM]

Two words: legit reason
Many states require you to have a legit reason to go absentee. I know here in MN, just because ain't one of them.

[SuperChuck @ Dec 1st 2006 8:59AM]

I'd like to get a receipt... Something I can check that my vote was recorded properly.

[Eddie @ Dec 1st 2006 9:05AM]

In an ideal world, every vote would be recorded, by serial number, into a digitized database, and you would get a printout of your serial number.

Later, you could check to see that your vote was tallied properly.

Therein lies the future of electronic voting.

[Ryan @ Dec 1st 2006 9:57AM]

If your car still uses wheels, you're tied (tired) to an old technology.

Idiot

[Dr. Benway @ Dec 1st 2006 10:01AM]

It's only fair to point out that the rest of the world thinks the US election system is a big joke. Sadly, most Americans feel the same, but a minority of A) Idiot, or B) Lazy Incumbent politicians are holding up simple, sensible reform.

This is a small, simple step that is going to make a big difference. Sadly "experts" like Roy Saltman and some politicians are still going to try to hold it back. Normal people: remain strong and keep pushing! The fools will be defeated.

[chych @ Dec 1st 2006 10:02AM]

The problem with having a receipt is that you can show, with proof, that you voted for some person. This results in a feedback mechanism where one could 'buy' people's votes and know they voted for a certain person.

[Edward @ Dec 1st 2006 12:05PM]

"The problem with having a receipt is that you can show, with proof, that you voted for some person. This results in a feedback mechanism where one could 'buy' people's votes and know they voted for a certain person."


Actually in other places where paper receipts are done, the user is NOT identified on the paper and what voter does is check the record to see if it matches their vote and drop the paper slip in a box. This way there is a backup record that can be recounted.

It doesn't prevent all possible forms of hacking an election but it's far better than methods that don't have a paper trail.

[paul34 @ Dec 1st 2006 10:08AM]

hmm... I guess maybe the "lobby" folks for these people must have stopped giving "gifts" to the appropriate people

good news nonetheless, but let's see if it actually happens

Besides, they're only "recommending" it. Which means that the folks in power (the folks you're supposed to be giving money and other gifts to if you're one of these companies) will ignore it anyways.

yay 'merica.

[Michael Gallegos @ Dec 1st 2006 10:19AM]

Absentee ballots are fine, but do you get a card saying the received it? If not, you do not have a paper trail either.

[Jeff @ Dec 1st 2006 10:48AM]

This is all great and everything, but if we're decertifying the machines used by 30% of the country in the last 2 elections, doesn't that kind of nullify the results of those 2 elections too?

Not legally, but in practical terms - if we now are officially admitting these voting machines don't work, doesn't it stand to reason that the elections that relied on them are also invalid?

There's no precedent for this. There's never been a voting technology that has actually been in use and then later decertified because it was determined not to work, after elections had already been conducted using the technology.

[etjohnson1 @ Dec 1st 2006 12:17PM]

Two Words: PAPER BALLOTS!

Here in Minnesota we still use paper ballots. They are very simple to use and understand, and no one seems to have a problem with them around here.

[Jeff Lewis @ Dec 1st 2006 12:38PM]

"If you insist on paper you're tying elections to an old technology."

"old" is only bad if it cannot do the job well. "new" is only good if it can. The idea that you have to use something because it's new, or even that there MUST be a new something is dogma and bad dogma at that.

Here in Canada, all federal elections are done on paper. The entire country's votes are done and counted in one day, securely by hand, and we have the outcome by midnight.

[h0mi @ Dec 1st 2006 2:07PM]

Our voting system has a lot of problems; the partisan tone in DC and in our statehouses only exacerbates the issue because both sides see different problems with voting in this country and are unwilling to tackle the problems identified by their partisan opponents. We need to establish a method that ensures that people who cast votes are who they say they are, are allowed to vote (and allowed to vote in that precinct) and are prevented from casting more than 1 vote in an electio. We also need to be certain that the vote they cast is properly tallied and can be recounted accurately in the event that the election is deemed to be "too close".

The problems with voting machines, be they mechanical or electronic or simple paper ballots, is that you need to be able to trust the poll workers and everyone else handing the ballots. For every possible "hacker/programmer" who can take a diebold machine and throw the election to their candidate, there are people stuffing or tossing out ballot boxes, or offering crackheads $20 to vote for their guy. What good is a paper trail if the paper trail is only checked on recounts (instead of _all_ elections), or if the paper trail is unreliable because the votes are recorded wrong (or otherwise discarded)?

[John Doe @ Dec 1st 2006 4:49PM]

The best system is pretty streight forward.

Easy to read, easy to use touchscreen. When you are done the machine prints out an easy to read OCR copy. That copy can then be red over by the voter. If there is something amiss it would be pretty damn obvious since there would only be one candidate listed. The voter then takes the ballot over to the ballot box and feeds it into the box that has an OCR head on it. (This is what many MN precincts use.) Since OCR tech is pretty damn easy to impliment, has been in use for year in a very real trial by fire, and has code that is easily audited (Read: There aren't, 10,000 lines.) Its a system that fulfills two of the biggest complains:
A. Paper trail for recounting.
B. Easy to use electronic voting.

As for the dip shit who want to totally do away with paper. Until you show me a perfected system that can't be tampered with, and is infallible STFU.