Electronic Voting

dod

Given the Irish governments rush to introduce Electronic voting, I thought, in the light of the problems following the manual voting at the last American Presidential election, that this article was interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3489877.stm

Two leading American experts on computer voting have warned that the forthcoming US presidential election could be more chaotic than the last.

They told a Seattle conference that the new systems may be less reliable than those used four years ago.

The issue of voting systems came to the fore during the controversy over ballot papers in the crucial state of Florida. The question of what really counts as a vote - a clear hole in a ballot paper, or a bulge? - was hotly debated.

Following the fiasco in Florida, the Bush administration passed a bill called the Help America Vote Act, aimed in part at persuading states to switch to electronic voting.

But Professor David Dill from Stanford University told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science the switch may actually make things worse.

"The problem with electronic voting is your votes disappear into the electronic machine and there is no independent way to check that those results are valid," said Mr Dill.

"I know that I am not going to have a lot of confidence in the vote totals reported by those machines unless there is some independent polling or whatever that is consistent with that."

In recent years there has been a spate of disputes over local election results across the US involving voting machines.

There are many different models, and some provide the voter with no record of how he or she has voted - no evidence that the machine recorded the vote correctly.

The Brazil example

Professor Ted Selker, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the meeting that the machines are not sufficiently secure.

He said there could and should be safeguards to prevent anyone tampering with their computer code before and after voting.

Data should be extracted from the machines after voting by someone other than the company which makes them, he continued.

Other countries, notably Brazil, he said, have introduced e-voting with appropriate safeguards and shown that it can work well.

The US needs to take similar steps, he said, if it wants to avoid chaos this time around.

About 25% of the US electorate is expected to vote electronically in this year's November presidential election. This is up from around 15% in 2000.

Quite apart from the loss of the fun of tallying etc. which have been such an integral part of past Irish elections, if the system is compromisable, why would they be in such a rush to force it through?

lucernarian

I think that Fianna Fáil TDs don't like election counts so they come up with all sorts of excuses to save themselves the stress of possibly losing their seat:)

star gazer

originally posted by to be confirmed
Quite apart from the loss of the fun of tallying etc. which have been such an integral part of past Irish elections, if the system is compromisable, why would they be in such a rush to force it through?

They are saying it is part of their eGovernment strategy to modernise irish government and how it does it's business and also it's ability to communicate with the people. There doesn't seem to be any real need for the system, so this is purely a question of choice for the government. With that in mind it is quite a political point on the value for money of the €45million system and don't tell me that the piece of equipment will remain the same for the next twenty years.

cruiserweight

I think that electronic voting will work but only if each voter is provided with a paper print out, and these are kept. In this way if any candidate does have any real concerns these paper ballots can be counted.

Electronic voting just tidies up the whole process. There will be no need for endless re-counts as in Cork and Wicklow in the last general election. Also the grey area of spoiled votes will be eleminated

bonkey

Originally posted by cruiserweight
I think that electronic voting will work but only if each voter is provided with a paper print out, and these are kept. In this way if any candidate does have any real concerns these paper ballots can be counted.

There is no way the voter should be given a receipt of how they voted.

There should be a verifiable trail, yes, but it should never be given to the voters.

jc

Deathtobertie

Given Fianna Fail's reluctance to accept vote results they aren't expecting/don't think are correct is it wise to introduce electronic voting?

If a party does better than expected will Fianna Fail make everybody vote again until the right/expected result ?

De Rebel

Originally posted by bonkey
There is no way the voter should be given a receipt of how they voted.

There should be a verifiable trail, yes, but it should never be given to the voters.

jc

I can guess at your reasons for that statement, but i'd be interested to hear you express them in your own words. Please.

sceptre

I'd like to hear bonkey's reason too but I've a simple reason for having the same position: give a voter a verification of how they voted and it's one step closer to vote-buying and the effective abandonment of a secret ballot by having TDs demand verification that they were the preferred candidate any time Joe Soap comes looking for something done. There have been enough rumours of favouritism with one Limerick East TD (amongst other places, but I heard that one before I moved here as well as after) that I'd hate to see the same guy asking for a receipt before talking to me.

Cork

This system was successful in Dail elections.

Having political partys squabbling over questionable ballots will now be a thing of the past.

The new system works. It has ran smoothly.

People use ATMs all the time - where does an ATM supply an independant audit trail?

pencil

Originally posted by Cork
This system was successful in Dail elections.
People use ATMs all the time - where does an ATM supply an independant audit trail?

Your Receipt.
Your Monthly Bank Statement.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Having political partys squabbling over questionable ballots will now be a thing of the past.

Looks like having political parties and honest citizens worried about questionable /elections/ in the absence of any verification of the systems is a thing of the present and future.

Can you guarantee that the machines do exactly what they say on the box? No. Neither can anyone else that doesn't work for Diebold.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
This system was successful in Dail elections.

Only so far as there was no catastrophic failure. WE don't know if it was truely successful as there is no way to check. Cork, can you tell me why the 400 or so "null" votes were hidden for nearly two years?

Originally posted by Cork
Having political partys squabbling over questionable ballots will now be a thing of the past.

Only because there will be no ballots, not because the sytem will be perfect.

Originally posted by Cork
The new system works. It has ran smoothly.

One hopes it works. As to running smoothly, queue are quite common with electroci voting systems.

Originally posted by Cork
People use ATMs all the time - where does an ATM supply an independant audit trail?

You use the machine, you can ask for a receipt of not. But in any case, the machine keeps its own receipt roll (as well as an on-site and off-site electronic copy). At the end of the month / quarter I get a statement.

The proposed system will only keep an electronic version. This gets abcked up at the end of voting (not during voting, so it the "module" breaks down, those votes can't be retrieved).

Cork, it's like going into a room and telling a Dutch guy your vote and trusting him to record it correctly. Please note the Dutch guy is in the pocket of the Fianna Fáil Director of Elections.

bonkey

Originally posted by De Rebel
I can guess at your reasons for that statement, but i'd be interested to hear you express them in your own words. Please.

1) Vote purchasing becomes possible.

2) Vote altering becomes also possible.

3) What do you do if a voter damages/loses their voting receipt and you need to do a recount?

4) What do you do if you can't find the voter, and you need to get their receipt to do a recount?

Basically put, there is no single good reason why the voter should ever be given their voting receipt. Shown it, yes. Asked to verify that it matches their selection, yes. Put physically into their hands and/or made their property, no.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
This system was successful in Dail elections.

Perhaps - but David Norris has already stated that the same system in the Seanad has serious bugs, because he was able to vote several times on a test issue using it.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
Perhaps - but David Norris has already stated that the same system in the Seanad has serious bugs, because he was able to vote several times on a test issue using it.

Completely different systems, but some similar issues.

Sparks

From the Irish Times, courtesy of Eircom:

The Government has been forced to make significant concessions to its plans to introduce electronic voting throughout the State in June, following Opposition objections. However, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Greens last night jointly insisted that a paper record of each vote would have to be kept for their concerns to be met, writes Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent

Under the changes proposed last night, an independent statutory panel will be set up to verify the security of the system in advance of the elections. In addition, it will monitor the operation of the 6,500 NEDAP/Powervote voting machines and the counting of the votes cast in all elections to come.

Despite repeated declarations that it was not necessary, new legislation will be rushed through the Oireachtas to ensure that electronic voting results cannot be challenged.

So they're trying to U-turn, but at the same time, they're bringing in legislation that means that if the election is fiddled with, and we found out about it, we couldn't bring a legal challange to the results of the election.

Does that not strike anyone else as being a bad idea?

Villain

Originally posted by Sparks

Does that not strike anyone else as being a bad idea?

Doesn't almost everything that this government do?

Labour leader Pat Rabbitte hit out at a "€40m folly" and "this Government's greatest waste of money". He added: "When it comes to counting the votes, I don't trust Fianna Fail."

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
So they're trying to U-turn

No they are pretending to do a u-turn by giving in on some issues, but avoiding the main issue which is VVAT.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
1) Vote purchasing becomes possible.
2) Vote altering becomes also possible.
3) What do you do if a voter damages/loses their voting receipt and you need to do a recount?
4) What do you do if you can't find the voter, and you need to get their receipt to do a recount?

What you mean - to put it briefly - is it would be meaningless, as you could only verify one vote, not the sum of the votes, the sum being greater than the parts.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
at the same time, they're bringing in legislation that means that if the election is fiddled with, and we found out about it, we couldn't bring a legal challange to the results of the election.

Does that not strike anyone else as being a bad idea?

It would strike me as very probably being an unconstitutional idea, but thats just a gut feeling.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
1) Vote purchasing becomes possible.

2) Vote altering becomes also possible.

3) What do you do if a voter damages/loses their voting receipt and you need to do a recount?

4) What do you do if you can't find the voter, and you need to get their receipt to do a recount?

Basically put, there is no single good reason why the voter should ever be given their voting receipt. Shown it, yes. Asked to verify that it matches their selection, yes. Put physically into their hands and/or made their property, no.

jc

How does issueing a recipt from a voting machine alter any of the above? Recipts are just a verification, for the voter. They will not and cannot be used for re-counts. And if one is issued a recipt how can vote purchasing be done? Surely this would have to be done before the fact and not after a recipt has been issued? Same goes for altering.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
And if one is issued a recipt how can vote purchasing be done?

I offer to pay you X Euro if you vote for my candidate. You go and vote, come back, show me your receipt to prove you voted for my candidate, and I swap that receipt for the X Euro you were promised.

As for the purpose of the receipt - which Victor and others seem to be questioning my other points on....

If it is only a printout saying that your vote allegedly was for candidate X, but cannot be tied back to the actual votes, then it serves no verification purpose whatsoever. Its as useful as a screen-print of the terminal just when you hit the "vote now" button or whatever it is.

The whole point of the paper-based verification is so that the electronic count can be independantly verified. The reason you let the voter see the paper printout is so that they can verify at the start of the process that the printout matches the electronic vote.

Therefore, if you sum all the printed votes, you get the same result as the electronic count should produce. Thats the entire point of the paper-based trail.

So if you give that verification paper to the voter, you lose the recountability. If you give something else to the voter, it serves no purpose whatsoever - it can offer no additional surity for the system. It would be no different to saying that our current voting system would be improved by allowing each voter to take a photocopy of their voting paper before dropping it into the box - which clearly it wouldn't.

So, if you are issuing a recipt, you are enabling vote purchasing, but without actually improving the voting system's integrity in the slightest.

If you are issuing the actual paper-based recounting-relevant vote-verification thingy to the voter......then all of the other points I made are still valid.

jc

Hobart

It's a fair point actually. Abnd one I had'nt seen. However vote purchasing goes on today. The fact that the puchasee gets a receipt for this fraud is hardly going to stop the practice. In fact it may result in the criminals culpability being more solidly proven.

I also agree with you inrelation to the verification. However you must allow for the comfort factor in relation to this. I know, and most ppl with an outside knowledge of DB systems would know, that it is quite simple to say one thing and record another with these systems. But the government has to win the confidence of the populous with regard to this. The printing of a receipt is a big step in this regard IMO.

I also think the use of MS Access as a back-end DB system for this is laughable. Why not use DbaseIV by Ashton-tate instead?:D But I won't drag this topic into the realms of technology.

Paddyo

What if a receipt is printed and then placed, by the voter, in one of the more traditional voting boxes that we are used to. Nothing is taken from the polling station by the voter.

If an issue then arose, a manual count could be undertaken from the box of receipts.

The only problem I see is that the receipt paper would have to be of a high security type.


As regards Ms Access - a joke for a mission critical system.


Paddyo

bonkey

Originally posted by Paddyo
What if a receipt is printed and then placed, by the voter, in one of the more traditional voting boxes that we are used to. Nothing is taken from the polling station by the voter.

OK - but why let the voter touch it at all? Print it, display it behind a clear sheet of perspex. User hits the "Yes, thats how I voted" button, and the paper falls down a chute into a box which will be unsealed in the event of a recount. The user gets to see it going into the box etc. etc.

Why bother? Why not do as you suggest? Because I don't think there is anything to be gained by letting the voter get their hands on the paper. What if they decide not to put it in the box out front, or forget to?

If you completely seal the system, but leave the workings of it visible (i.e. the user sees the printout, sees it drop into the box, can see teh box opened later if they really care...etc. etc. etc) you have the best method of validating the electronic count. Everything else only adds uncertainty.

As regards Ms Access - a joke for a mission critical system.

Yes and no....

I'm wondering how many people are aware, for example, that MS Exchange runs (or at least used to run) on a modified JET engine. JET is the DB engine underlying MS Access.

But in general, I would agree. There are far better choices for such a system - Access MDBs are just far too prone to corruption.

But yeah - lets not get too sidetracked on that one.

jc

Paddyo

bonkey

The only reason I would let the voter place the receipt in the box is a confidence issue. 'I have placed my vote in the box'

I accept your point re people forgetting to put it in the box and also the most secure way is not to let the voter touch the paper.

Paddyo

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
As for the purpose of the receipt - which Victor and others seem to be questioning my other points on....

mnmnmmnmm no I wasn't I was being succinct

star gazer

Michael McDowell was on Saturday view on rte today. He didn't seem to be very up on the issues surrounding E-voting which rightly or wrongly leads me to the conclusion that the cabinet hasn't discussed the Evoting situation much at all. Granted McDowell wasn't in cabinet when the decisions on what system to purchase and what specs should be sought (if there was such a discussion). To be fair to him he talked about the opposition being right to bring up this issue. He seems to be in agreement with Mary Harney about not blindly defending the system being introduced. Fifteen weeks is not enough time for an independent 'panel' to look at all the issues, give recomendations and have those recomendations acted upon, unless the recommendations are to go ahead without addressing the VVAT central concern.

Cork

I think that eletronic voting is on the way & it is about time.

Taking days to award a final seat & analysing disputed votes is not a perfect system.

Hand Counting was slow & tedious.

When internation news channels are covering Irish European elections - we often had statements like "The Results in France are xyz, In Ireland - they are still counting".

Opposition TDs criticism of eletronic voting seems to be recent. Has this system not worked with Irish elections.

The biggest joke is that the Irish want a facility to spoil their votes. This is an arguement put forward by some opposition TDs.

Well - At least they give the worlds news media a big belly laugh at the Irish.

The Independent audit trail does not even make sense - has our opposition ever heard of interrogation sofware?

Printing receipts of how you vote really does not do much to protect the secretcy of ballots. What are you to do with receipts - surely polling stations then should have shredding machines.

How many trees would be needed ti cut down to print receipts. Maybe, the Green Party have some answers.

All in All - the system has worked well

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
When internation news channels are covering Irish European elections - we often had statements like "The Results in France are xyz, In Ireland - they are still counting".

Hang on, they have multi-round voting in France (and other countries) that typically takes **weeks** to finish, not a few days.

Originally posted by Cork
Opposition TDs criticism of eletronic voting seems to be recent. Has this system not worked with Irish elections.

I refer you to John Bruton's letter of two years ago and the huge number of reservations the opposition rarised with the electoral act.

Originally posted by Cork
The Independent audit trail does not even make sense - has our opposition ever heard of interrogation sofware?

Please tell us more.

Originally posted by Cork
Printing receipts of how you vote really does not do much to protect the secretcy of ballots. What are you to do with receipts - surely polling stations then should have shredding machines.

The printed slip would go into a traditions tyle ballot box. How does that impinge on secrecy?

Originally posted by Cork
How many trees would be needed ti cut down to print receipts. Maybe, the Green Party have some answers.

Less than it would take to do the proposed PR campaign.

Cork

The eletronic voting system has worked in Irish elections.

Fact.

If people want veriffication - let the independant commission put in test data into the system to test the validity of the system (interrogation software).

Opposition demands for a facility to enable people to spoil their votes & for print outs is absurd.

Should we have a keyboard installed - so that people can write their comments?

The facts are the purposed system is a vast improvement on long hand counts with political partys haggling over desputed votes.

Before - the last general election - what political partys opposed eletronic voting?

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
The eletronic voting system has worked in Irish elections.

"Worked" yes, but with no independent way of checking if the result was right.

Originally posted by Cork
If people want veriffication - let the independant commission put in test data into the system to test the validity of the system (interrogation software).

But they will only be able to test specific data, not real data, not all combinations (they run into the trillions).

Originally posted by Cork
Opposition demands for a facility to enable people to spoil their votes & for print outs is absurd.

Who has asked for this? Any links?

Originally posted by Cork
Should we have a keyboard installed - so that people can write their comments?

Who has asked for this? Any links? are you just hiding your party's inadequacies by throwing in irrrelevancies?

Originally posted by Cork
The facts are the purposed system is a vast improvement on long hand counts with political partys haggling over desputed votes.

It costs more, is less transparent, has no audit trail, will alienate older voters and only advances most count results by maybe 12 hours .... how is this "a vast improvement"?

Originally posted by Cork
Before - the last general election - what political partys opposed eletronic voting?

In my last post I told you to check John Bruton's letter. Am I to draw conclusions about your ability to [strike]spam[/strike] write, but not read / understand English?

http://www.finegael.ie/fine-gael-news.cfm/NewsID/23345/action/detail/level/page/aid/10/year/2004/month/2

An Taoiseach
Bertie Ahern T.D.,
Department of An Taoiseach,
Government Buildings,
Merrion St.,
Dublin 2.
____________

8th April 2002

Dear Taoiseach,

I am writing to express my concern about the introduction of electronic voting including Meath. [/B]

corley

Hi,

I've been following this thread with interest. As a techie (and as someone who was involved in a recount that took over a week) I would be totally opposed to electronic voting. When you see the costs associated with this system and the amount of hassle its causing the government you start to wonder what the motivation is behind introducing it. Well I have a theory about this....

Ask anyone who has been present at a count in a local, general and European election and they will tell you that there's regularly a big batch of "spoilt" votes which follow a particular pattern. These votes typically have 3 (or 4 or whatever the relevant number of candidates is) X's, one beside each Fianna Fail candidate. As the counting staff cannot determine which FF candidate got the first preference, second preference etc. these are deemed to be spoilt even though they are quite clearly votes for Fianna Fail. Although voters for other parties occasionally make this mistake Fianna Fail suffers from this problem to a much greater degree than any other party.

With electronic voting this mistake would not happen and these votes would go to Fianna Fail candidates (assuming that the voters in question weren't intimidated by the prospect of voting using a computer - but that's what the 4.5 million euro advertising campaign for electronic voting is trying to avoid). The result of introducing electronic voting should be to give FF more votes in every constituency across the country. As a result there will probably be 1 or 2 more FF TDs elected than would have been under paper-based voting as these extra votes may make the difference in one or two marginal constituencies..

As I say it's just a theory but I think it explains why the Government are being so dogged about this (and why the PDs aren't being overly keen on pushing the idea!).

Quatre Mains

- aside from the above arguments against e-voting, I will miss the whole counting marathon, which makes for classic tv and is a also real ritual in this country. By moving to the new systems all that drama and sense of involvement is removed - people will no longer sit up at 3am hoping that some Independant gets in, and all the community halls around the country which have always been buzzing will be empty. It's not a disgrace or scandal, but I do think it results in politics and daily life moving one step further apart, which is a bad thing given that voter apathy is on the increase in Ireland as it is.

Cheers
Neil

Victor

Originally posted by corley
Ask anyone who has been present at a count in a local, general and European election and they will tell you that there's regularly a big batch of "spoilt" votes which follow a particular pattern. These votes typically have 3 (or 4 or whatever the relevant number of candidates is) X's, one beside each Fianna Fail candidate.

"X" could also mean no to FF, but I understand your point. However, even if I'm not a fan of FF, if people want to vote for them, that is their right.

Sparks

Originally posted by Cork
I think that eletronic voting is on the way & it is about time.

Indeed, and even the most vocal critics of the proposed system have said that evoting is a good idea - it's just this specific implementation that there's a problem with. Think of it as saying "cars are a good thing, but can I have one that doesn't have this seven inch steel spike mounted in the middle of the steering wheel please?"

The biggest joke is that the Irish want a facility to spoil their votes..

No, they don't. They want to be able to vote "None of the Above". Bertie's just putting in the "spoilt vote" button in the policy-making version of "answering a question you were not asked".

The Independent audit trail does not even make sense - has our opposition ever heard of interrogation sofware?

Nope, and neither have I. Odd that, since I've got a degree in Computer Engineering. Would you be talking about testing software perchance?
The VVAT is a basic, required feature. And it's not like we're asking for something new. The Austrailian system has a VVAT and it's source code is available for downloading on the internet for anyone interested.

Printing receipts of how you vote

Stop there. A receipt is not a VVAT, as you'd know had you seen Prime Time, where that point was set straight by Margaret McGaley when it came up. The voter does not get access to the VVAT, they simply see it printed off, confirm that it's what they actually entered when they voted, and then it's stored in the machine.

How many trees would be needed ti cut down to print receipts. Maybe, the Green Party have some answers.

Not as many as needed to print the forty million euro notes we need to pay for the current, untrustworthy system....

The eletronic voting system has worked in Irish elections.
Fact.

Is it? Was Mary actually not elected, or did some script kiddie with a grudge tweak the results?
And before you say "don't be silly", you should know that there is noone in the state who can definitively answer yes or no to that. Does that not give you pause for thought?

If people want veriffication - let the independant commission put in test data into the system to test the validity of the system (interrogation software).

Doesn't work. As TQM points out, if you test every unit produced in a factory, it does not give you a 0% failure rate. That's a basic fact of testing.

The facts are the purposed system is a vast improvement on long hand counts with political partys haggling over desputed votes.

Actually, it isn't - one's trustworthy (the hand count) and the other isn't. But evoting does have the potential to be better. Just not this specific system.

corley

Originally posted by Victor
"X" could also mean no to FF, but I understand your point. However, even if I'm not a fan of FF, if people want to vote for them, that is their right.

I agree with you totally - votes for any party should be attributed to them and there is a problem with this at the moment in the (paper-based) Irish electoral system. The problem is that the (predominantly FF) government are trying to railroad through a system that is fundamentally flawed so that (according to my theory) they will benefit from these votes which would otherwise have been deemed to have been spoiled.

star gazer

The government parties should realise by now that they are not getting anywhere with the system they are trying to bring in. An independent panel fifteen weeks before the full roll out ofthe new system makes no logical sense, there isn't enough time to go through all the issues. It looks like a delaying tactic and nothing else. The Fine Gael, Labour and Greens motion this week almost got passed, only a majority of 5 when the government (including indpenedent TDs) can have a gap of twenty votes between yes and no votes for government amendments. There is now no credible reason that the government has given that we cannot at least postpone the introduction of evoting for proper scrutiny by an independent commission.

gandalf

Well I think the most worrying aspect of this is that with all this adverse publicity that voter apathy will increase and not decrease with the way the government are introducing a flawed system.

Electronic voting would seem the way to go but with proper safeguards that all is above board which this particular system doesn't give. A receipt system papertrial (which the voter sees but doesn't take away) is the most logical system from my point of view. If theres a problem with one particular memory card/disk then they can check the roll.

There is a part of me as well that will miss the late counts, the actually drama of watching politicians sweat it out and the tension associated with it. If anyone saw the Dublin North count (I think it was anyway) in the last General Election and the way Nora Owen was dumped out then you would realise what I was talking about, sterile and no sense of occasion.

I also wonder why this is being pushed through in such a cavalier manner. Voting is one of the most basic rights for a citizen of our country. People fought and died to give us these rights 80 - 90 years ago and this current government are threating these rights as something that can be diminished with another smutty spin exercise.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
The eletronic voting system has worked in Irish elections.

Fact.

No.

The electronic voting system has been used in Irish elections, and its results were accepted.

There is a significant difference.

If people want veriffication - let the independant commission put in test data into the system to test the validity of the system (interrogation software).

Testing how the system copes with various data is a small fraction of the overall testing which would need to be done.

Opposition demands for a facility to enable people to spoil their votes & for print outs is absurd.

Taking a different tack to the significant number of replies that have already questioned this....

Exactly why is it absurd?

The facts are the purposed system is a vast improvement on long hand counts with political partys haggling over desputed votes.

To quote The Princess Bride : "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

They are not facts. They are nothing close to facts. Facts are verifiably proveable, or simply axiomatic (self-evidently true). That the proposed system is a vast improvement is far from proven, and only the most politically and technologically inept would attempt to claim it was axiomatically true.

The proposed system has had an almost innumerable number of potential flaws and weaknesses pointed out in it that do not exist with the current system, which means that any claim that it is an improvement is - at best - highly speculative until such times as each and every one of those potential issues has been dealt with - either by showing it is not, in fact an issue, or by modifying the system so that the issue is no longer a factor.

Before - the last general election - what political partys opposed eletronic voting?

Who cares.

The question is whether or not - based on what we know today - the system is trustworthy - or at least as trustworthy as the manual system it is to replace. The answer is that it is not possible to categorically state that it is.

So whether or not any party opposed this some time ago, if they are opposing it today, based on the facts that are known today, then saying "but you didn't oppose it some time ago so that doesn't count" is just plain daft.

Or would you like to assert that your own beloved party has never once in its entire existence changed its position on anything?????

jc

Sparks

From RTE:

The Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen, has said he will be bringing proposals relating to electronic voting to Cabinet tomorrow.

Mr Cullen said he had a very clear view himself on how to proceed.

I'll bet the so-and-so does...

Mr Cullen said that, in his view, all the fears raised about the system had been allayed, but that if necessary, any other issues that were raised would also be dealt with.

This is a disaster. How the hell did a technically incompetent idiot get to make a decision that in effect eliminates what little trust was left in the political system - that we could trust our votes were actually counted?

And what kind of public debate is this? It's done the rounds of the current affairs programmes: Morning Ireland, Questions and Answers, Prime Time, and The week in politics, and it's ben in the focus for a fortnight now, and not one person has pointed out that noone in the state has the source code to the voting software!

I mean, for pete's sake, it's the first thing that should have been brought up, that noone can verify that the machines do what they are meant to. No-one. Not in the public, not in the government, not in the cabinet.
And not a word about it on any program!

:mad: Gah! :mad:

Paddyo

Sparks

I did hear on one of the radio programs last week, probably on newstalk that an Irish company had seen and checked the source code relating to the electronic voiting.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of the company.

I do agree that it looks as if we are going to have electronic voting pushed in by the 'Ah sure it will be alright' brigade, using the ostrich system of running the Country.

Paddyo

ecksor

Nathean performed a code review.

There's a report of the results on www.electronicvoting.ie in pdf formats.

Each module analysed has the note 'No issues' or 'No new issues'. No idea what the 'old issues' are, anybody know where to find out what they are? Also, each module contains the name of the reviewer. Same person in each case and only one name. Also there's nothing accompanying the document to tell us what the scope of the audit is or what exactly the auditor is checking against in the way of standards or checklists/taxonomies.

I did a code review of an e-government system a few years ago for security concerns on my own and it obviously occured to me that if I had dishonourable motives I could have kept any issues I found to myself ...

bonkey

Originally posted by ecksor
anybody know where to find out what they are?

Nope, but I was thoroughly unimpressed by the summary at the back which has a number of previously raised issues "closed until post-June 2004".

Going back a few pages, we see that some of these issues which are to be left alone till after June are trifling matters like :

1) DB not encrypted, although it is password protected. The doc notes that there are tools to get around Access passwords - encryption is whats needed.

2) No primary keys on any of the tables.

3) No referential integrity between tables

(These last two beggar belief for me - I know of no self-respecting developer who would design a databaese without these. There are cases where either may not be practical, but seriously.....)

Some other bugs listed included modules not indicating success or failure, etc. etc. etc. but these were said to have been addressed in later builds and were awaiting re-auditing

I should point out that this is based on the review of build 0111. I have no idea if thats the live build, or if the live build has a more up-to-date.

Finally, this looks to me like a code-review, not a proper system-test.

jc

ecksor

It was a code review. Testing should also be done, but I see plenty of merit in a good code review for this system. Maybe it was a good code review, but how will we ever know?

bonkey

Originally posted by ecksor
It was a code review.

Fair enough. In that case, it does what it says on the tin, and shows enough fundamental issues with the database design that I would have no hesitation in saying I don't trust the development.

If I was working for a commercial company, I wouldn't accept any system with a database designed like that.

I sure as sh1t would not let it go live with the DB design marked as an issue "to be addressed after go-live date" which is effectively what this is.

That really scares me. I mean, that *really* scares me.

jc

GeorgeBush

Electronic voting in the states has been shown to be unsecure. Arnie was NEVER elected ! The system was hacked.

Without any paper trails Irish polls will be simply be rigged.

Victor

I just had a whoa! moment.

Vote information can only be held for three months. The code will be released an expected 4 months after the election....

star gazer

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/02/24/story135660.html
'However, speaking afterwards, his spokesman said the Minister had no plans to introduce a verifiable paper trail.'
this is after the big cabinet meeting today, it looks like they are ploughing ahead regardless, this is incredible, I can't believe that they are still doing this regardless of public opinion, never mind opposition and media opinion. You have to give Martin Cullen his due he is one determined Minister.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
You have to give Martin Cullen his due he is one determined Minister.

I'll give him his dues that he understands exactly how politics works in this country : if you can tough it out, it is almost certainly not going to be remembered as an issue come the next election.

Come on....seriously....when's the last time you remember an issue more than 3 months old actually being a significant factor in an election? When did you see voters showing any massive swing away from a government because "you refused to listen to us last year on issue X".

jc

ecksor

Politically I wouldn't consider myself particularly well informed, but I don't actually understand how as a nation we voted back in a government that made us vote a second time on a referendum in an 18 month period.