Newsweek on voting machines: Diebold holds out on establishing standards

[Amaryllis]

Go to the link and read the rest of the article where they talk about how Diebold is holding out on working to establish standards for voting machines, and on working collaboratively with a group devoted to "fair, accurate, inclusive elections" !


MSNBC.com

A Step Forward in the Voting Wars
Why has it taken so long to move toward uniform standards for electronic polling machines?
By Steven Levy
Newsweek

Feb. 7 issue - The polling places in Iraq are front-and-center this week, but the jagged scars of our own election are still far from healed. Part of the problem is that, no matter what the count, many people do not trust results from electronic voting machines. Democracy suffers when there's reason to doubt that the rightful winner is the one who gets sworn into office.

So it's nice to be the first to report a development that might help things out. A renowned cryptographer with a keen interest in voting, David Chaum has persuaded a team of election officials, computer scientists, interest-group advocates and voting-equipment makers to join in a coalition called Voting Systems Performance Rating (VSPR). The goal is to generate a set of voting-system standards that everyone can agree on—sort of a Consumer Reports for election machines. There would be ratings in areas like security, privacy, reliability and accessibility to the elderly and the disabled. After the group does its work, states and counties would have a way to evaluate voting equipment before they buy. Voters could be more effective watchdogs, since VSPR's work would be public. "In voting systems, the thing you need most is transparency," says Chaum.

"Something like this is desperately needed," says Tracy Westen, head of the Center for Governmental Studies, which will participate in another new group, the Voting Systems Institute, that will support and implement the work of the VSPR. "Otherwise we're wandering around in the wilderness."

Uniform standards for voting machines seem like such an obvious step that you may well ask why it's taken so long to get this far. Sadly, instead of working together on behalf of the voters, the various players in the election world have spent much too much time sniping at each other and looking out for their own interests. Computer scientists think that election officials are ignorant when it comes to high-tech security. Election officials think the techies are dilettantes who don't understand the nitty-gritty of voting in the real world. And the equipment makers, while excited about selling expensive new gizmos, don't like sharing the secrets of how their systems work.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

More: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6885237/site/newsweek/

[Wilms]

1. kick n/t

[Land Shark]

2. We can't afford catastrophic errors

Because election errors are catastrophic errors that undermine the integrity of our democracy and destroy legitimate confidence, we can not accept:

1. "Consumer Reports" ratings for e-voting machines. One screwy machine out a hundred is way too many.
2. "Random sampling" of 4 or 12%. This means there's an 88% to 96% chance that a malfunctioning machine won't get caught. Just like we don't sample 4% of the people going through airports for weapons, we can't sample 4% of the electronic voting machines, even though statistical sampling methods are otherwise valid with homogeneous populations where mission-critical errors can NOT be created by individual persons or units.

(edited to add omitted NOT)

[Amaryllis]

3. They are operating under the illusion that the makers of the machines

are interested in fair elections!

[Zan_of_Texas]

4. The title alone gives it away.

Why has it taken so long to move toward uniform standards for electronic polling machines?

Here's my comparison headline:

Why has it taken so long to move toward uniform standards for astrologers?

Plus, the identification of a person right off the bat as a cryptographer is a RED FLAG folks. Watch for these two made-up names of groups -- I'll bet money they're set up for show, not accountability.

The cryptographers want to put one more barrier, one more layer, in between the people and the visibility and transparency of the vote.

So, instead of government by, for and about the programmers, it can be government by, for and about the cryptographers.

NO.

Wait, did something not hear me?

NO!!!!!

[Amaryllis]

5. Good analogy...uniform standards for astrologers. Such an exact science,

voting machine fraud.

[Zan_of_Texas]

10. Well. We don't need ANY corporations or private companies

involved in our vote counting.

NONE.

Sure, we can order some boxes of empty paper.

Okay, I'll relent to have machines assist the disabled in HEARING and PRINTING a ballot. And, a printing machine can print out ballots on site.

That's all.

The casting votes, counting and tabulating can be done by HUMAN BEINGS.

They can use off the shelf calculators, and a spreadsheet, off the shelf.

That's it.

Done.

[Helga Scow Stern]

11. Actually, I would rather you not use astrology as a comparison.

I have made my living as an astrologer for many years. I take what I do very seriously, and I wouldn't mind if there were a great many more standards in the profession.

How about professional standards for journalists? Politicians? Lay off astrologers, please.

Otherwise, your points are valid.

[IndyPriest]

6. WTF?! What rule says a machine builder has

ANYTHING to say about how our elections are going to be run?? Damn, that pisses me off! WHy are they even part of the conversation? They "don't like sharing the secrets of how their systems work." Well, excuse me all to hell!

[Verve]

8. My thoughts exactly! If they can't be transparent than find a company who

will!

[Amaryllis]

9. Share how you really feel :) Well, you know, if you share your secrets,

fraud is a challenge to pull off...

[Wilms]

7. Newsweek! Mercy! Must kick, again. n/t