One source, one vote 2

[Dimandja]

A company which developed software to be used in voting machines and applications has released it's source code for "evaluation", and to show that it is "hacker-proof":

"You can actually program it to cheat, and you can watch where the protocol detects where your ballot was changed ... which I think is very instructive," he said.

Should voting software be "open source"?

The link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4677716/

Dimandja

 

[sleipnir214]

Yes, it should.

The code must be made available for review by programmers, cryptographers, etc., to verify its operation and to test manufacturers' claims.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[MasterRacker]

Not only does the code need to be open source, but there needs to be some mechanism whereby independent inspectors can verify that the open source code is actually what's installed and running in the machines. Every single part of the voting process needs to be as open and transparent as possible.


Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...

 

[octothorpe]

Well, let's see... the error.cpp file contains only one comment for the entire class:

// Oh, this must be really bad.  Report it as an error and return.

But the mutex.cpp file gives a very descriptive name to the general, catch-all mutex...

MutexToProtectAllSortsOfGlobalThingsIncludingButNotRestrictedToFixedModularExponentiation

Heh. It's certainly a move in the right direction to make these public so that errors can be caught. But the source needs to be escrowed and each machine checkable.

I would, however, like to seem some exit poll data on whether all those dead people that vote prefer electonic or paper ballots.

 

[GwydionM]

Why all of the fancy technology? Paperbase systems are not perfect, but they are quite hard to fiddle.



------------------
A view from the UK

 

[octothorpe]

Paperbase systems are not perfect, but they are quite hard to fiddle.

But a system that performs both (computerized and papertrail) would be significantly easier and faster to audit. Paper ballots themselves (depending on the style) are difficult to forge... but not difficult to lose (especially lost deliberately).

 

[johnherman]

Touche' GwyndionM. In the 70's the US govt bailed out Chrysler because they said it was necessary for the public to have three major US automakers to promote competition, yet they squash attempts to create a major third party.

Hypocrites.

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.

 

[screwloose]

There are other parties besides the major 2, however, they don't have the funding, backing, etc., to make them a viable and recognizable threat.

Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party was the only 3d party that I know of to win the White House. (and don't get into semantics of the Whigs party, etc.)

Nothing states there can only be 2 parties, but that is where the money is, and probably always will be until there is a considerable change in people and their views of government. But that is doubtful as long as the government keeps giving people free cheese and every other thing people think is free (because it comes from the government?!?)

Tax code could be simplified to a flat 10%, but then someone is going to complain they want to deduct housing, then someone else wants this, others want that, and on and on. Suddenly you have a 10,000 page 400 pound tax code!

It starts with the people but they think it starts with the government (who is the people). Only when they figure that out.

 

[johnherman]

According to my research, Roosevelt and the Bull Moose (aka Progressive) Party did not win the Presidency in 1912. He and Taft (the Republican incumbent) split the Republican vote and Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected.

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/bullmoose.htm

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.

 

[screwloose]

So what party did TR belong to when he won the presidency? (I am too lazy to look it up)

 

[Dimandja]

I believe TR was president as a republican. Later, he tried to stop the reelection of Taft (a republican) by running again (as republican). This led to TR bolting out of the republican party to form that impromptu Moose party. The split republican vote lost the elections to Wilson (a democrat).

Dimandja

 

[lespaul]

and originally the president and vice president could be elected even if they weren't from the SAME party!

here's a link to an article from the 'Atlantic Monthly', but I don't know if I can get to it since I subscribe to the magazine or if it's open to the public:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/ackerman.htm

if it's not available, here's a snippet:

In 1800 the sitting President, John Adams, a Federalist, was facing off against his own Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, a Republican. (The Republican Party of 1800 was formally known as the Democratic-Republican Party, and it was the precursor to today's Democratic Party.) Both parties believed that the very future of the Republic was at stake. To the Federalists, Jefferson and the Republicans were vicious factionalists who might import the French Revolution to America. To the Republicans, Adams and the Federalists were closet monarchists who aspired to copy the English model of government.

Today the idea that a President and his Vice President could hail from competing parties is wholly alien. But the Founders had inadvertently made it rather easy for this to happen. When the Constitution was drafted, the two-party system had not yet emerged, and no one especially wanted parties to arise at all. In fact, most of the political theorists on whom the Founders drew had equated party division with factional strife; republics died when leaders factionalized, culminating in the despotic rule of Caesars or Cromwells.

Leslie

 

[bbarr]

all voting systems have problems, even paper based system (and not just because of dead voters).

all voters have an id, their SSN (this also prevents illegals from voting).

After the vote a statistically valid random sampling could be done to verify that the votes were valid (and catch dead people voting).

Of course, there would need to be some independent third party to do the verification (maybe Kofi Annan and his UN crew ... I'm sure they wouldn't make Kerry's win look like too much of a landslide.).

Or maybe Hans Blix can come out of retirement and search for Votes of Mass Destruction!!!

 

[screwloose]

all voters have an id, their SSN (this also prevents illegals from voting)."

But not the dead (Florida 2000).

 

[johnherman]

Hey, if the dead can be elected (Missouri) then they should be able to vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/senate.missouri/

Also, note who was the LOSER !!

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.

 

[screwloose]

Convicted felons are also upholding their civil duty by voting!!!

 

[sleipnir214]

That may not necessarily be a problem with the system.

Not all states permanently disenfranchise convicted felons -- Louisiana and Colorado law, for example, only disenfranchise felons while they're in jail. Other states have mechanisms for reinstatement of voting rights.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[johnherman]

And of course, even if convicted felons can't vote, they can still be elected Mayor of Washington DC; as in convicted cocaine traffiker Marion Berry.

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there - original.

 

[piofenton]

Ireland has made an attempt in the past two years to move to E-voting. It has proved unsuccesful for a number of reasons. Firstly, an initial testing, showed that it had flaws, with certain votes been lost. On top of that, the machines themselves to facilitate e-voting did not prove tamper-proof.
Also there was a social aspect, where Irish people just didn't trust it! And finally in Ireland, we have a proportioanl representation system, which involves long and dramatic election counts (and recounts). This has become a spectator sport. Its tough on politicans but who cares

 

[Dimandja]

Firstly, an initial testing, showed that it had flaws, with certain votes been lost.

Were these machines borrowed from Florida?