RSS
ES&S E-Voting Machines Gave Votes To A Totally Different Election
from the i'd-say-that's-a-whoops dept
You may recall last year that when we had a series of posts about the fact that e-voting companies refused to let independent security experts review their machines, we had a representative from e-voting firm ES&S show up in the comments and repeatedly berate us for not knowing what we were talking about. That individual insisted that the machines were perfectly well tested. He also insisted that elections using e-voting machines were "extremely scrutinized and very reliable." Of course, we haven't heard from that individual lately -- not since an independent review of ES&S's machines found that security was seriously lacking leading various states to quickly decertify many ES&S machines. Oops.
Reader Jose Luis Campanello writes in to point out a story we missed from last week, about how some ES&S machines used in a state primary in Arkansas didn't just screw up counting the votes, it assigned votes to a totally different election -- and those "lost" votes changed the result of the election. No one seems to have any idea how this is even possible, let alone how it happened. Somehow, I get the feeling that no representatives from ES&S will show up this time to tell us how their machines are perfectly reliable and don't need any kind of independent review. Luckily, in this case there was a voter-verified paper trail (which some insist are a bad thing), which allowed election officials to backtrack and figure out what had happened and correct the mistake. Without the paper trail, there would have been no way to have even realized this mistake happened.
25 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- The Difficulty In Holding The Gov't Accountable When It Breaks The Law
- Washington DC Pulls Down Internet Voting Trial After Hackers Program It To Play UMich Fight Song
- Why Isn't There A Central Database Of E-Voting Problems?
- Did South Carolina Use Second-Hand E-Voting Machines That Louisiana Decertified?
- Justice Department Decides To Break Up E-Voting Company
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
My thoughts
Part of my job is to maintain a POS system. we are a small company but have around 8000 items. all being sold through a few checkstands. I've only seen a very few errors in the system with the inventory, that isn't caused by human error, (meaning not ringing the right items, or not putting the item in). I just don't see how it can be so hard to keep track of the votes.
For the Paper tail. I think it is a great idea. you can verify what it says, and place it in a box for the election officals to use if needed to verify the electionic votes. it reminds me of reciepts. the stores trust reciepts over the electic data.
From what i see there are systems very simular to what evoting machines should run like. but they do need to add more features to prodect the data then most retail stores have.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Abacus
Election criteria is control data that must be entered into the database by humans. Human errors will happen. I see no way to fully automate this nor keep it from happening.
We require triangulation of data sources to fix the human errors that will occasionally arise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Abacus
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My thoughts
Tony, as discussed here previously - and as discussed in many eVoting articles, it isn't as simple as a POS system or an ATM. The complexity in voting systems stems from the desire to make individual votes anonymous. The audit trail needs to be complete to provide for error/fraud detection while at the same time preserving anonymity of individual voters.
Several schemes exist for doing this, but they are not simple.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ok, the only thing I can even guess at is that someone reused a machine without resetting it or something... otherwise they have some of the most "special" data and software guys on earth working on these machines.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So paper trails ARE bad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
2 cents
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: My thoughts
Bull.
Here ya go. Give each user a UUID code. have the user enter it for their vote. Hash it before entering the vote into the DB. When a new code comes in, hash it and do a search before recording the vote. If it matches any record, don't let it vote. If it doesn't, then let it.
There ya go. Annominity without letting someone vote twice.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This isn't surprising
The solution is not to demand a paper trail; the solution is to demand the immediate and complete withdrawl of these systems from use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Democracy?
The fact is, the powers that be have hijacked our right to vote with these machines. They should be banned immediately, or required to open up their code.
Open source is the answer if we want to have e-voting. Putting the power back in the hands of the people won't be so easy with all the behind-the-scenes bullshit that goes on with our government and these companies, who are (shocker) all huge Republican donors.
These companies should all be brought up on charges of defrauding the voters in this country. It's criminal, pure and simple.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sink them all...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why do we need e-voting systems?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is ES&S
This is ES&S. We are sorry.
Sincerely,
ES&S
PS: This is really ES&S
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The article explains that the votes cast on two machines for a constable race were recorded as votes in a Democratic primary for one of the district's State House seats. So all of the misplaced votes went to Democrats. Plus, setting this scheme up would require knowing the results for the constable race beforehand on those two machines. Sorry, Wolfy, no conspiracy this time, just more poor system design and/or implementation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Previous Story
That guy was spinning conspiracy theories left and right trying to explain how this consortium of webmasters and book authors and media outlets were manipulating the public at large in order to make you falsely think the machines wouldn't work.
You guys spanked his idiocy quite well.
Good work. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is ES&S
Dear ES&S,
This is Techdirt. At least we agree on one thing: You are sorry.
Sincerely,
Techdirt
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Dead People Voting?
There were registered dead people voting for a "Certain"
candidate.
We all know the eVoting machines are put in place so the
"System" can manipulate the votes.
We the people, really haven't voted for anyone since the
early 90's
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
no no dont look there
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Democracy?
Among the conclusions we can reach by considering these together is that a sufficiently large budget (and it's available) will allow a sufficiently clueful attacker (and they exist) to subvert any such software system -- if necessary, by modifying the hardware.
The bottom line is that we do not know how to build (or operate, equally important) such systems in a fashion that guarantees their integrity. That "we" includes the vendors, who continue to lie about it for profit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment