Is E-Voting Too Costly To Use? Or Too Costly Not To Use?

from the help-us-out-here dept

Remember earlier this month when the feds wouldn't decertify existing e-voting machines because that would be too costly? Well, thanks to John for pointing us to a report that notes that the too costly part was actually using the machines in the first place. Utah's elections officials (the same folks who forced an elections official out of his job for daring to conduct independent security tests of Diebold machines that later turned up a huge security hole) are now claiming they had no idea how expensive it would be to operate an election using e-voting machines. No wonder they were so pissed off at the elections official who tested the machines. As you may recall, Diebold then charged them to examine the reset the machines following the test. It's not just the cost of the machines that was the problem, but they required a lot more training, more poll-workers and additional costs for storage and maintenance of the machines. As that last article notes, elections shouldn't necessarily be cheap, but it's ridiculous to claim that we need to keep the faulty machines because it would be too expensive to get rid of them, when it looks like it's pretty damn expensive to keep them as well.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Kyros, Dec 20th, 2006 @ 8:14pm

    Down with e-voting machines. When fox news hacks your product on TV - it's time to call it insecure and throw it away.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Omnie, Dec 20th, 2006 @ 8:28pm

    I still fail to see what will make e-voting so great.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike, Dec 20th, 2006 @ 11:17pm

    It's obvious anyone with a brain will understand e-voting will be adopted within 15 years.

    It's also obvious that most hired to institute the early e-voting systems are bums. (Who obviously cannot do the job. politics are great, and average iq's below 115)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Toodles, Dec 21st, 2006 @ 12:29am

      Re: Mike - IQ

      Seems you've been mislead on what IQ means. I'm sure your mother told you that you were special and all that non-sense, so now you have some sort of superiority complex. But hey, that's ok as long as you're still willing to learn. So, learn this, the accepted standard IQ scale.

      IQ Scale

      Over 140 - Genius or almost genius
      120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
      110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
      90 - 109 - Average or normal intelligence
      80 - 89 - Dullness
      70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency in intelligence
      Under 70 - Feeble-mindedness

      Normal Distribution of IQ Scores

      50% of IQ scores fall between 90 and 110
      70% of IQ scores fall between 85 and 115
      95% of IQ scores fall between 70 and 130
      99.5% of IQ scores fall between 60 and 140

      So, it appears you expect people who are just below Genius to watch the polls? I'm sorry, I think they have better things to be doing. You know, like making in a month what you do in a year.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon Utahn, Dec 20th, 2006 @ 11:35pm

    The sad thing is this: the communication between the functional users and the technical users. E-voting is a great thing. The systems though are only as great as those who programmed them. As a Utahn, most things in the technical world are poorly implemented by any that are not trusting those technically proficient enough to provide a solid technical program that is sound. It's a war that is difficult to understand. We strive too much for independence in a world where we are interdependent. In Utah we slide from one extreme or maxim to to the other. Why is it soooo difficult to find the common ground acceptable and then providing for security and functional use for the common end user.
    The real problem is that we can validate the system instantaneously and provide a strong audit of real activities. That scares many politicians. Who cares what one believes, but c'mon be accountable for the choices and actions you choose to prescribe too. The world would be a far better place if we followed some simple moral principles.
    Hopefully e-voting can be implemented better throughout the country on a *nix platform or at least even a mac platform. Open source e-voting, now there's an idea, granted to be shot down quicker than any other bright idea. Cheers

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    566, Dec 21st, 2006 @ 6:08am

    sarcasm and cynicism aside: no long term studies

    A report was recently issued suggesting HAVA funds were spent in appropriately - without the benefit of significant life-cycle analyses. In terms of costs, no one has empirical evidence, one way or another.

    The dynamic that pushed the states to make uninformed decisions in their purchases is similar to that used by the federal government when it coerced states into falling into line for a nationwide drinking age and speed limit.

    Following Bush v. Gore, short-term remedial tactics were chosen over longer-term strategic investment decisions to the benefit of certain voting system vendors.

    http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/42786-1.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Solo, Dec 21st, 2006 @ 1:19pm

    We have computers that can simulate nuclear explosions, saving us to actually explode test nukes. We can predict the weather fairly accurately, thanks to better computer modeling.

    But adding a number each time a button is pushed. No can do.

    Think about what problems e-voting is solving. Use that as a requirement. Craft a solution accodingly.

    My opinion is that paper election is better. Proven, reliable, accountable. Get those characteristics in e-voting and then we can talk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This