E-Voting Critics Brushed Off As Wild-Eyed Activists?

from the way-to-win-support dept

Both the Heartland Institute and the Pacific Research Institute have long histories of questionable public policy positions. Both groups have been accused at times of being involved in astroturf or shilling campaigns for their funders, who usually remain anonymous. PRI, in particular, seems to have a habit of making really bad arguments in support of their position -- such as making arguments against municipal WiFi and net neutrality while making it clear they didn't actually understand either issue. Tim Lee has now pointed us to a bizarre defense of electronic voting systems by a researcher at PRI and published by the Heartland Institute. The defense seems to claim that e-voting was a tremendous success despite all of the problems we've pointed out here. All of the actual problems are simply brushed off as "user error" which shows a startling (but, perhaps not surprising, given the source) lack of knowledge about the complaints of the problems during the last few elections. Also, even if it actually was "user error," that should say something about how poorly the system was designed. If they're built in a way that user error is such a problem, they were built incredibly poorly.

The article continues along its bizarre defense of e-voting machines. Anyone complaining about e-voting system problems is called a "wild-eyed activist" or an "open source zealot." It seems that without an actual argument, the researcher has fallen to simply insulting anyone who disagrees with him. He doesn't explain how to solve the problems that e-voting has introduced, but does make sure to say that user verified paper trails are a bad idea -- apparently because they could be just as susceptible to fraud. So, basically, if I understand his argument correctly, it appears to be that we should use poorly built, untested, problematic e-voting systems with no backup, because "that's progress." Can someone explain how having a backup system that would at least let you have a double check on the system could possibly be bad? Even if they are susceptible to fraud, you've now added two separate systems to count the votes, and any fraud would have to defeat both systems. It's ridiculous to think that it's just "ideological lions" pushing for better voting systems. This is an issue we should all be concerned about for the sake of democracy -- but, unfortunately, it looks like less than scrupulous think tanks are joining in on the side of the e-voting machine vendors.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Matt Bennett, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 12:52pm

    Here's a simple rule: Whenever someone starts using Corp Speak such "innovated out of," they're full of crap.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    billy, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 12:55pm

    who paid em

    I wonder who paid the researcher.
    It was either a company such as Diebold who wants their unsercure worthless shit to be bought up and used,
    or a politician who intends to have the system hacked for their favor
    (not accusing either party D or R, they both suck)

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Matt Bennett, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 1:01pm

    "Never attribute to malice what can be explained with incompetence" or something like that.

    I think it's pretty obvious it was Diebold, or similar, who is just incompetent and still wants to make a buck. I do not believe or take seriously the idea that some politician or organization is purposefully making an unaccountable system, so they can one day seize the reigns.

    It's unwieldly and requires too many people to be in evil colusion. Most people are incompetent, many are greedy, few are evil.

    That way lies madness.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Keith Douglas, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 1:11pm

    The article continues along its bizarre defense of e-voting machines. Anyone complaining about e-voting system problems is called a "wild-eyed activist" or an "open source zealot." It seems that without an actual argument, the researcher has fallen to simply insulting anyone who disagrees with him. I'm surprised your surprised Mike. Ad hominem attacks are usually the retorts of first resort in political debate. Whilst your may be primarily focused on the technical deficiencies e-voting machines it is important to remember

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Keith Douglas, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 1:12pm

    More Hard Knocks

    Whilst your may be primarily focused on the technical deficiencies e-voting machines it is important to remember that, at it's core, this is a political problem.

    p.s. chaps: sorry about the clumsy posting.

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    TheDock22, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 1:21pm

    Coporate Amercia

    This really bothers me. Since when did the election of governmental officials become a billion-dollar industry? If I have to use the E-voting machines to cast my vote, I damn well better be allowed see the source code! Who are they kidding? That us tech savvy individuals will just sit around when we know how horribly wrong software programs can go?

    Until I see the source code, I will continue to use a paper ballot. That's all.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Reed, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 1:29pm

    Just goes to show....

    This whole debate just highlight how when major problems arise in our political system it is so fragmented because of greed and individuals desire for power that it can accomplish NOTHING.

    Voting is a joke apparently and so is our so-called democracy.

    Can't wait to spread our "superior" political system to other countries like Iraq, lol.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Lee Amberson, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 1:34pm

    Why Vote

    After watching the Hacking Democracy documentary on HBO who would want to vote when the systems are so broken that it will let you have a negative number of votes. I'm a Republican and I will no longer vote until this is resolved because Diebold is donating large sums of money to Republicans, so who can prove that the Diebold unprotected Access databases are not starting with a negative number of votes for Democrats or that some unscrupulous county and state employees are not just going behind and changing the votes to favor their party.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    CharlieHorse, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 2:58pm

    #2, #8 100% correct

    nail on the head, here, Mike.

    e-voting is simply currently (imho) built deliberately to be ... errr ... adjustable per highest bidder. I'm not at all surprised by "research" such as this ... of course the pols want a broken system - else how can they manipulate it for their corrupt ends.

    building an e-voting system that is secure and reliable is, well, not exactly trivial, but certainly within our reach. we have the technology and the talent - but not the will - the government/media complex is far too powerful at this time to allow anything close to true and fair elections.

    and sadly, since the two parties in power are both disturbingly corrupt - this is something that will have to take root at the state level with massive grass roots efforts to do this on state by state level. feds will do everything they can to stop it, but I think it is possible to win this fight. If enough states adopt a fair method, then feds will have to accept it - of, yes, we expect to see some asinine legislation saying things like, oh, you have to use diebold, or other crap, but if states and localities simply ignore it, yeah, the feds will try and say the votes don't count - but this is where we can win this fight - remember the furor in the last two elections over "disenfranchised voters"? well, imagine if not just thousands and tens of thousands are disenfranchised- can you imagine the backlash if feds try and discount an entire state's results ? with luck, it will wake up enough people from american idol to actually start caring again about their country and what is happening to it.



     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Starky, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 3:01pm

    Was the research sponsored by Die-Bold? Because it sounds like something they normally do (insulting the critics, pushing the blame elsewhere, or flat-out lying)

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 7:00pm

    Presidential Auction

    and the presidency has been sold to...

    with e-voting, it really is an auction. the highest bidder wins. there is no freedom in voting, no meaning to it. they simply allow corporations to fund a candidate and they spend their money lying, cheating, and stealing an election.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    tek'a, Jan 23rd, 2007 @ 9:02pm

    The most frustrating part is the way Diebold is seemingly so incompetent. They still make those shiny automated teller thingamajiggers, right? and those work, right? If they can build machines to shuffle around bank numbers, PINS and cash, why does a simple "bob smith voted for x, please take your receipt and have a great day!" transaction cause such trouble?


    I usually agree with that "Never attribute to malice what can be explained with incompetence" line, but its getting silly.. in a very unfunny way.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Matt Bennett, Jan 24th, 2007 @ 11:16am

    Hell, I know Diebold makes Automatic Resusitator's (the paddles). I mean, people live or die based on those working!

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    John Smith, Jan 24th, 2007 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Coporate Amercia

    You mean just like the Billion Dollar security company Microsoft lets you see the source code for the operating system you are likely using to post this message.

    Even if they let you see the source code what makes you think you could make heads or tails of it.

     

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


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