On TechRepublic: Why Android beats iPhone
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 17 of 19:
Next »
« Previous
Black Boxes
I actually thought a good deal about how verifiable touch-screen voting machines were before I actually had to use one back in March (it was a Diebold, BTW). I personally was not impressed and was not at all surprised to learn later in the day how much trouble poll workers had getting them going.

Out of fairness to the touch-screen vendors, I should say that there's a similar problem with mechanical voting machines of the sort used in Fairfax County, VA, when I lived there in the 80's. I learned later that they tend to fail silently and not register votes recorded with them.

Back when everyone was using old-fashioned paper ballots, the votes were generally hand-counted publicly right there at the polling place before the results were reported. This ritual was tedious, but did give people some confidence that there was no trickery going on. There are ways to do that with a computer program (assuming the code is written cleanly and there is a way for impartial witnesses to verify that the exec comes from the code), but that can be even more tedious than hand-counting ballots. In general, the harder it is to understand the process and for impartial observers to see what's going on, the harder it is to catch mistakes and the easier it is to cheat; even if I think the vendors are honest (and that's less true than it was when I was a child), honest mistakes can't be ruled out if there's no easy way to tell.

I seem to recall that one of the touch-screen vendors actually released its code for public inspection, only to get comments back that it was indecipherable spaghetti. Definitely doesn't inspire my confidence. On the whole, I think I like optical scanning better, if we're going to do computerized voting at all.

John L. Ries
Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 05/21/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Vote for Bush in '04..  Jeff Spicoli | 05/20/04
Tsk, Tsk!  ShadeTree | 05/20/04
Loss not diminished  voiceofreason_z | 05/20/04
trading blood for oil  stephen732@... | 05/20/04
No verified case of criminal fraud?  voiceofreason_z | 05/20/04
The Promise  Squawkbox | 05/20/04
Good Grief, It's About the Technology  thepubba | 05/20/04
What's REALLY interesting..  Jeff Spicoli | 05/20/04
I cannot disagree more  Squawkbox | 05/20/04
Mafia-controlled e-voting machines for super-business ...  Vily Clay | 05/20/04
Twilight Zone needs you  Squawkbox | 05/20/04
Tip for Squawkbox: try to use your head instead of ... it helps thinking ..  Vily Clay | 05/20/04
Oh yeah those are credible sources  Squawkbox | 05/20/04
Maybe G.W. Bush is a credible source? (NT)  Vily Clay | 05/20/04
Vote Free  sanfiv | 05/20/04
Northeast of San Diego  John L. Ries | 05/21/04
Black Boxes  John L. Ries | 05/21/04
Inversion Test  John L. Ries | 05/21/04
A proposal for computer-assisted voting  cfnb@... | 07/31/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here