Voting machine producers criticize critiques

Voting machine makers scoffing at bad reviews? That's preposterous! Actually, it's not all that alarming to hear that Diebold, Hart InterCivic, and Sequoia Voting Systems all had less-than-amicable responses to a state study that "found that their machines could be breached by hackers." Of course, we're not exactly sure what all that groaning is about, as we've seen nothing but proof to back the investigation up. Nevertheless, Sequoia dubbed the review "an unrealistic, worst-case-scenario evaluation," Diebold kvetched that the study didn't look at its most recently developed software, Hart found "several inconsistencies, alternate conclusions, and errors," and Elections Systems & Software bypassed the rigmarole entirely by failing to provide their information to the secretary of state. Oh, the irony. [Warning: Read link requires subscription]

[Brian @ Jul 31st 2007 11:42AM]

Why won't the companies just admit their crap is broken and easily manipulated? Unbelievable.

[James @ Aug 1st 2007 10:48AM]

Because public admission of liability probably carries quite a bit of weight in a court of law, and I'm sure Diebold's execs like their Porsches.

[chadow @ Jul 31st 2007 11:44AM]

I really don't see the desire to go to electronic voting. Cost wise it just seems insane to buy all of these machines when they will be outdated junk in the not too distant future. I suppose the current administration would love to help a company like Diebold, seeing as Diabold donated and backed Bush during his re-election and has ties to the Bush family. Bush loves to see his buddies get rich. Ask Rumy about Tamiflu, and Cheney about Halliburton.

What is wrong with leaving something sacred to this country, like voting, to the old tried and true methods. They aren't completely perfect, but they get the job done. When I think of the word "unsecure" the first thing I think of is computers. Hacking, hardware and software failure, data loss and corruption, and processing errors are inherent to computers. Why would we want are voting to have to face those challenges?

[NeoteriX @ Jul 31st 2007 11:51AM]

"I mean seriously, the 'unrealistic, worst-case-scenario' will like never, *never* happen."

Random FEMA and Army Core of Engineers dude prior to Katrina 2005.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 31st 2007 12:11PM]

Yeah, I mean, a complete switch to electronic voting would only mean there would be thousands of these things spread all across the country for elections that will decide the fate of the free world. Like there could be any real motivation to hack these things!

[Cameron Campbell @ Jul 31st 2007 12:08PM]

Paper ballots, cardboard voting boxes, cardboard voting booth screens, IKEA pencils, two people counting, with party observers watching on...

[matt @ Jul 31st 2007 12:28PM]

Seriously, what annoys me more is that they dinged these machines for not properly supporting non-English-speaking voters. With all due respect to immigrants (I support legal immigration and visa etc...), Why are people voting if they can't even read the Constitution, the politician's websites, newspapers, or the voter ballot? If they can't read about the issues, how can they vote rationally or intelligently?

[NeoteriX @ Jul 31st 2007 1:33PM]

You may be pretty naive if you don't think non-English speaking citizens cannot functionally participate in our democratic government. For instance, Hillary Clinton has her whole site translated into Spanish: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/es/

Furthermore, there is 1% ethnic language speaking population requirement for ballots and other voting materials to be provided in another language, per the Voting Rights Act. If you go to any community that meets that minimum requirement, I will guarantee that there will be local ethnic print media (with coverage of the election) and maybe even ethnic radio broadcasts. Some areas even have ethnic local television statements.

Do not discount the importance of family--many immigrant households may have one or a handful of English speakers, and there are most certainly discussions on the candidates, with family members who are more politically attuned informing others.

Lastly, let's not forget the fact that immigrants may have developed conversational English, so that they may watch the news, listen to the radio, and discuss politics with friends; however, they may not have the reading skills necessary to read a ballot and vote.

It's a very erroneous view to think that Immigrants can't vote, and it's probably the strongest advantage of electronic voting.

[matt @ Jul 31st 2007 3:58PM]

I see your point, but I have to ask two things: Aren't you required to read English to become a citizen? Don't you have to be a citizen to vote?

Maybe, I am wrong, but I always assumed that the answer to both of those was 'yes.' Therefore, the whole issue seemed to be a moot point (or an attempt at allowing undocumented people to vote).

Still, if the law requires that voters have the option for a ballot in their native language, then it should be provided. After all, it is the law and we should all honor the laws regardless of our opinion.

[NeoteriX @ Jul 31st 2007 5:02PM]

While the "Ability to read, write, and speak English" is listed as a requirement of naturalization, the way it is explained to me is that this is a very loose guideline. In other words, the testing requires a bare minimum of English ability; and people may pass naturalization without being anywhere near proficient in English.

I may also add that for local Bonds, ordinances, and other measures where you are not just voting for a candidate, but are voting on a particular local issue, they can get quite complex, and even if your English ability is decent, it may help tremendously to have that in your native language.

I know when I read the local propositions, even as a law student and native English speaker, I need to read them several times before I'm sure of what they stand for (sometimes I use the League of Women's voter guide to help--which is incidentally also printed in several languages)

[Guilherme Neto @ Jul 31st 2007 12:37PM]

in Brazil we use the electronic voting system for years and it is very reliable, the machines don't get outdated as it is a very simple piece of hardware and software.

apart from that, the results are much faster and precise. if you starting using it, in the near future you might actually have the president everybody wanted, not the manipulative one you have now!

[peshue @ Jul 31st 2007 12:40PM]

The hackers having source code and an instruction manual is a unlikely situation I suppose. But I imagine that if you were planning on hacking voting machines to any effect you'd be pretty well prepared.

[James @ Aug 1st 2007 10:55AM]

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1673&Itemid=51

I've posted this link before, and I thought the story made it to Engadget at the time -- maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, don't think an enterprising hacker with an old-ish machine can't disassemble the code he finds there. A good voting machine, like any security-focused computer system, should be secure even if I tell the whole world exactly how it works.

[Chris @ Jul 31st 2007 1:09PM]

I'd like to know more about the nature of the hack. Did they modify the source code? How much time did they have? With that type of access, I would have been astounded if they couldn't figure something out.

All this being said, with strong management controls and procedures (i.e. inventory, transportation tracking, background checks, internal audits, etc.)they could probably lower the risk to an acceptable level.

There is always risk and there no such thing as perfect security.

[Victor @ Jul 31st 2007 1:38PM]

In voting, there should ALWAYS be a paper trail... especially when these machines can get hacked by a 5 year old school girl.

[JT_X @ Jul 31st 2007 2:52PM]

A paper trail also makes it easier to prove that you voted for a particular candidate, so you can be compensated appropriately.

[Cyclotron @ Aug 1st 2007 1:24PM]

This all pretty stupid. We had a system that worked fine until the poor sports got involved. Go back to the punch ballot and make one rule clear: chads must be completely removed for it to be a valid vote. Put the responsibility back in the voter's hands. Technology+politics only leads to corruption.

[chadow @ Jul 31st 2007 1:56PM]

I agree with the paper trail comment. Could you imagine if when you bought some high dollar important thing you only got an electronic receipt that was stored on a computer somewhere and not a physical object that you could touch? I know thats not exactly the same, but when it comes to voting I would like to always have countable and verifiable physical evidence that 'yes, we did in fact elect this moron'.

[Rainier @ Jul 31st 2007 2:12PM]

Haha. Maybe they should just use Nintendo Wii's 'Everybody Votes Channel'

[Andy @ Jul 31st 2007 2:51PM]

If you can't get into the LA Times story you can also find the relevant details, and links to the original reports, on our blog at http://eggheadblog.ucdavis.edu/?p=627.

[Kin @ Jul 31st 2007 2:55PM]

Can't they just make something like, oh i don't know some that most ppl been using around the work for years...THE ATM. They don't need touch screen, a few button on the side will work (Old School ATM). I think they're just wasting our Tax $$ on something new and expensive instead of something been proven and reliable. I am pretty sure the computer system (Hardware) of the ATM is not that expensive.

[ekwmin @ Jul 31st 2007 3:23PM]

If I get a paper trail (aka receipt) will they refund my vote? I think they should if the person I voted for turns out to be an idiot. Sidenote: This is a theoretical question, no reference to reality.

[WiLDcAt @ Jul 31st 2007 3:44PM]

have you seen "Man of the Year", I hope that doesn't happen.

[TrojanGuy @ Jul 31st 2007 7:56PM]

Hackers? Who needs hackers when you have the state's official in charge of elections in your pocket?