Electronic Voting

capistrano

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Actually, I can sympathise slightly with capistrano. When I first heard about the evoting system in 2002, I reckoned it was bound to be safe, well tested and securely implemented. However, the more I learnt about the system, the more worried I got. Do a bit of serious research on the system and then tell us what you think.

Whatever your arguments are, I just don't accept the conspiracy theories. Paper voting doesn't prevent ballot rigging anymore than e-voting. But I trust the people who run our elections to be fair, like they have always been in the past. And the evidence of 2002 is already there.

Do people genuinely think that the new system be abused or are the objections mainly to do with the need for transparency of the voting system? I would find the second argument easier to accept.

sceptre

Originally posted by capistrano
Do people genuinely think that the new system be abused or are the objections mainly to do with the need for transparency of the voting system? I would find the second argument easier to accept.

There are very few nutters who actually believe that Fianna Fail are introducing this system so they can fiddle the results and stay in power forever. The sane among us would have the same objections to the system regardless of the introducers.

With regard to abuse, it's not necessary to demonstrate that it is being abused, the fact that it can be abused in the absence of evidence that it isn't being abused or is defective (certainly seeing the code for a start, some people want some kind of verifiable paper trail, some don't) is enough that the system is unsafe.

Transparency is a good thing - it's one of the cornerstones of democracy. Lack of transparency, conversely, is a bad thing.

Incidentally there's nothing wrong with not trusting the people who run elections to be fair - we've had quite a few unofficial checks and balances in the past to ensure that election results retain fairness. Paranoia isn't a crime. (edit:) And we've official checks and balances too. A true democracy has verifiable fairness. Expecting people to assume it just isn't good enough.

star gazer

originally posted by capistrano
I just don't accept the conspiracy theories. Paper voting doesn't prevent ballot rigging anymore than e-voting.

it would take a massive conspiracy to stuff ballots in constituencies throughout the country with paper ballots, however all you need is a very small number of people, even just one to manipulate the software in either count or voting machine software. It probably won't happen, but without the paper trail how will we know?

capistrano

I'm almost convinced, but I'd be afraid that if we didn't introduce it now (amd maybe improve the system later) it would be a long time before the issue of e-voting would be considered again; politicians have an aversion to losing face.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by capistrano
I'm almost convinced, but I'd be afraid that if we didn't introduce it now (amd maybe improve the system later) it would be a long time before the issue of e-voting would be considered again; politicians have an aversion to losing face.

That's a fair point, but it's not a good enough reason to sacrifice trust in our democracy.

To echo others' points: my problem with the proposed system is not that I believe it will be used corruptly, but that it provides absolutely no way to know for certain whether or not it has been used corruptly. Adding a paper trail would provide a means to randomly spot-check electronic results, which would provide that certainty.

When you push a button on a machine, you "hope" or "trust" or "believe" that the machine has recorded your vote correctly. When I see a piece of paper with my preferences on it dropped into a ballot box, I "know" that the box has recorded my vote correctly.

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
Paper voting doesn't prevent ballot rigging anymore than e-voting.

Actually, it does.

At a simplest level, when you cast your vote on paper, you can have a reasonable amount of surity that the vote you cast will not magically change. Someone on the day will have to physically intervene and either prevent your vote getting to the counter, or substitute something in its place, or whatever.

This is also possible with e-voting, so the two are alike in this regard.

With electronic voting however, you remove the "on hte day" timespan. It would be possible to subvert the system in advance, and then have the system behave in a manner indistinguishable from correct operation on teh day and still produce a modified result.

Until we invent nano-machines that can move the ink around on the paper, we can be pretty sure that this avenue of corruption cannot occur with paper.

Ultimately, e-voting suffers a greater number of avenues by which it can be subverted, and therefore is less secure. The risk from those avenues may be minimal, but it is non-zero.

Do people genuinely think that the new system be abused or are the objections mainly to do with the need for transparency of the voting system? I would find the second argument easier to accept.

Having answered why its less secure, I will admit that I don't see this lack of security as a fatal flaw.

However, accidental corruption is also a far higher possibility with electronic systems than with paper-based ones.

Conveniently, the cheapest, surest method of having a backup in case of accidental corruption (that being a paper-trail - the so-called VVAT) also reduces or eliminates the additional risks which the conspiracy-attuned may not dismiss as lightly as you or I might.

VVAT is a win-win solution. The only thing it really costs the government is some face, which ultimately is why its such a big problem to have it implemented.

jc

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by capistrano
Whatever your arguments are, I just don't accept the conspiracy theories. Paper voting doesn't prevent ballot rigging anymore than e-voting. But I trust the people who run our elections to be fair, like they have always been in the past. And the evidence of 2002 is already there.

Do people genuinely think that the new system be abused or are the objections mainly to do with the need for transparency of the voting system? I would find the second argument easier to accept.

It is really both - the system can be abused (without any voter verifiable audit trail) and the lack of transparency makes it impossible to detect such abuse. But remember, you are not just trusting the people who ran the elections in the past. You are trusting the guys who wrote the software, the guys who developed the software, the guys who developed the software, the guys who tested the software, the technicians who installed the operating system on the PC's, the technicians who touched the count PC during the day. Are you really that certain that a rich powerful person with a financial vested interested in controlling the direction of the next Government couldn't throw a few million euro at;

1) Developing a new biased version of the software
2) Finding the 'weakest link' among all the people listed above, you know - the guy with the drinking/gambling/paedo problem that can be exploited or blackmailed
3) Get their new version on the software onto a pile of voting machines and/or a few count centre pc's

It really doesn't take a huge conspiracy to break this system. Remember seats have been won with a handful of votes, and governments have been decided on handful of seats.

Originally posted by capistrano
I'm almost convinced, but I'd be afraid that if we didn't introduce it now (amd maybe improve the system later) it would be a long time before the issue of e-voting would be considered again; politicians have an aversion to losing face.

So the primary rationale for implementing the new system is to save face for Minister Cullen? And we are supposed to risk the safety of our democracy for the next 20-30 years because that is more important than his reputation? He had endless opportunities to take on the concerns of the opposition and the IT community, but he has opted to go full steam ahead.

And what is the harm if it is a long time before the issue of e-voting would be considered again? It brings no significant benefit - just the count result omes a few hours earlier than before. Is it really worth risking our democracy for this?

capistrano

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
So the primary rationale for implementing the new system is to save face for Minister Cullen? And we are supposed to risk the safety of our democracy for the next 20-30 years because that is more important than his reputation?

Very comprehensive reply, nevertheless, I couldn't care less about Minister Cullen's embarassment. My point was that if the governemnt rowed back on this decision now then they wouldn't revisit it for some time. Just look at the absurd situation re abortion in this country.

If you think that some evil millionaire will try to subvert the electronic system, then why couldn't the same millionaire pay some people to stuff some ballot papers into ballot boxes, substitute ballot boxes on route to the count centres. There are lots of ways to subvert the current system if you are dedicated enough to blackmail/bribe those involved. The difference is that the skills needed to subvert the new system are a little harder to come by than someone who can stuff a few extra ballots into a box.

I think we can have the next elections with the current system and then for the following general election we can look at addressing some of the concerns of people re the openness of the system.

Now, be reasonable, what wrong with that?

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by capistrano
Very comprehensive reply, nevertheless, I couldn't care less about Minister Cullen's embarassment. My point was that if the governemnt rowed back on this decision now then they wouldn't revisit it for some time. Just look at the absurd situation re abortion in this country.

I'm not being rude, but so what? As I asked above, what is the problem if they don't revisit this for some time?

Originally posted by capistrano
If you think that some evil millionaire will try to subvert the electronic system, then why couldn't the same millionaire pay some people to stuff some ballot papers into ballot boxes, substitute ballot boxes on route to the count centres. There are lots of ways to subvert the current system if you are dedicated enough to blackmail/bribe those involved. The difference is that the skills needed to subvert the new system are a little harder to come by than someone who can stuff a few extra ballots into a box.

Just read a few of the tribunal reports to see how a few millionaires are quite prepared to ignore the law to get a few land deals - How far do you think they would go to steer the Government in their particular direction. Did you read bonkey's post above explaining why it is almost impossible to subvert the current paper system? The current system is open & transparent. The proposed new system is not open and not transparent.

Originally posted by capistrano
I think we can have the next elections with the current system and then for the following general election we can look at addressing some of the concerns of people re the openness of the system.

Now, be reasonable, what wrong with that?

Either the proposed new system is good enough, or it is not good enough. This isn't like moving into a house where you can do up one room at a time. This is the fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. And do you really think that a Government elected via a subverted eVoting system will be bending over backwards to do anything to change that system? Of course not - they will make damn sure that the same system is in place for the next election, and the next one, and the next one etc etc etc.

capistrano

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Either the proposed new system is good enough, or it is not good enough. This isn't like moving into a house where you can do up one room at a time. This is the fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. And do you really think that a Government elected via a subverted eVoting system will be bending over backwards to do anything to change that system? Of course not - they will make damn sure that the same system is in place for the next election, and the next one, and the next one etc etc etc.

I think it is exaxtly like moving into a new house; it's good enough to move into and we can make improvements over time.

You seem to be assuming that the system will be subverted. Whatever about theoretical possibilities, the actual probability of electoral subversion is very low indeed.

High-minded talk of cornerstones of democracy etc. just distracts from the argument. Our democracy isn't some kind of utopia, it is already very flawed (as all democracies are). We go through a process whereby people are elected to rule on out behalf. How this is done varies widely in democracies all around the world; you know labour won its last landslide in Britain with just about 25% of eligible supporting it (43% of 59% turnout). What kind of democracy is that?

People should stop treating democracy as some kind of nirvana, it simply another flawed method of choosing a government; perhaps less flawed than some of the alternatives. Nevertheless, folks are gettign very agitated at the notion that there is a remote possibility that a small number of votes might be fraudulent. In the great sceme of things this is totally irrelevant.

Face it, your vote hardly matters in the first place anyway.

ecksor

Originally posted by capistrano
You seem to be assuming that the system will be subverted. Whatever about theoretical possibilities, the actual probability of electoral subversion is very low indeed.

Can you give us a good estimate or method for calculating such probabilities please?

Nevertheless, folks are gettign very agitated at the notion that there is a remote possibility that a small number of votes might be fraudulent. In the great sceme of things this is totally irrelevant.

A major stumbling block with the new system is that there are certain points along the development and installation process where tampering can result in a very significant proportion of the election being influenced. And again there is no practical way of detecting this outcome.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by capistrano
I think it is exaxtly like moving into a new house; it's good enough to move into and we can make improvements over time.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this, though I note you choose to ingore my point about how unlikely it is that a Government elected with a flawed eVoting system will be motivated to make any significant changes to that system. You seem to place a much lower value on the importance of the democratic system than I would. This system is just not good enough to base the future of our democracy.

Originally posted by capistrano
You seem to be assuming that the system will be subverted. Whatever about theoretical possibilities, the actual probability of electoral subversion is very low indeed.

The possibility of subversion is a significant problem in itself. What happens if we get a widely unexpected result in the next election, say a huge surge in support for SF or a total collapse of the vote of FG. Who will be able to stand up & say that they are absolutely certain that this outcome reflects the wishes of the electorate? This will contribute towards increasing dissillusion among the electorate with the democratic & political systems - which has got to be a bad thing.

Originally posted by capistrano
High-minded talk of cornerstones of democracy etc. just distracts from the argument. Our democracy isn't some kind of utopia, it is already very flawed (as all democracies are). We go through a process whereby people are elected to rule on out behalf. How this is done varies widely in democracies all around the world; you know labour won its last landslide in Britain with just about 25% of eligible supporting it (43% of 59% turnout). What kind of democracy is that?

People should stop treating democracy as some kind of nirvana, it simply another flawed method of choosing a government; perhaps less flawed than some of the alternatives.

I'm not claiming our current democracy is perfect. It has many more faults. However, the only proposed change on the agenda is the eVoting system, so the other faults are not relevant for the purposes of this debate, as they will not be changing.

And BTW, wait until an FF goverment get an overall majority with a flawed eVoting system and watch how quickly they will try to get rid of the Irish PR system (as they have tried twice before). And how will they do this? By a referendum held using a flawed eVoting system! Then you will have plenty more of the undemocratic results like the UK one you mention above.

Originally posted by capistrano
Nevertheless, folks are gettign very agitated at the notion that there is a remote possibility that a small number of votes might be fraudulent. In the great sceme of things this is totally irrelevant.

Face it, your vote hardly matters in the first place anyway.

Small numbers of votes (as low as 4 votes) have decided seats. Small numbers of seats have decided Governments. You are handing the keys of our democracy over to a few Dutch programmers and the FF Director of Elections. Big mistake - Huge mistake.

But let's turn the debate around. We've shown piles of reasons why the new system should NOT go ahead? Can you give us one good reason why the new system SHOULD go ahead?

capistrano

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
What happens if we get a widely unexpected result in the next election, say a huge surge in support for SF or a total collapse of the vote of FG.

Just a small point, but the scenario you describe is probably widely expected not widely unexpected.

You like the Irish PR system, I don't. It leads to far too much volatility and therefore forces parish pump politics on us. I would favour single-seat constitunecies with a transferrable vote (like in presidential elections). This wouldn't produce an FF landslide as in alot of cases they wouldn't get the transfers required to get to 50% +1 of the vote. Indeed changing the voting system would change how people vote.

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
But let's turn the debate around. We've shown piles of reasons why the new system should NOT go ahead? Can you give us one good reason why the new system SHOULD go ahead? [/B]

• The system has already been used in Ireland without any problems
• Similar systems have been used in Holland and Germany without any problems
• Issues about transparency can be addressed before the next general election; face it the local and european elections hardly matter
• If we don't do this now, it will be delayed for years becasue politicians will be wary of the public reaction
• An electronic system is much more efficient and will be cheaper to run (we won't need the masses of counters in count centres)
• Election results will be available much more quickly
• Ireland tries to sell itself as a modern information age country. We need to put our money where our mouth is and use information technology whereever we can.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by capistrano
You like the Irish PR system, I don't. It leads to far too much volatility and therefore forces parish pump politics on us. I would favour single-seat constitunecies with a transferrable vote (like in presidential elections). This wouldn't produce an FF landslide as in alot of cases they wouldn't get the transfers required to get to 50% +1 of the vote. Indeed changing the voting system would change how people vote.

Can we stick to the topic in hand please. This is nothing to do with eVoting.

Originally posted by capistrano

• The system has already been used in Ireland without any problems

Wrong - The system has already been used in Ireland with any noticeable problems, but the absence of a Voter Verifiable Audit Trail makes it impossible for problems to be detected. That is like saying no driver ever speeds on the road because I've never been able to read their speedometers from the roadside so I don't know that they are speeding. Pure denial.

Originally posted by capistrano

• Similar systems have been used in Holland and Germany without any problems

Same point as above re absence of audit trails.

Originally posted by capistrano

• Issues about transparency can be addressed before the next general election; face it the local and european elections hardly matter

Your local council probably has more of an impact on your day-to-day life than central Government. Think bin-charges, think parks, think planning policy/permissions, think roads etc etc. Local elections are extremely important. Once the system is used in one full election, Minister Cullen will be off spouting that 'sure we didn't have any problems last time round, why should we change anything' (just as he is spouting this today). Issues re. transparency & audit trails will never be addressed after a first electronic election.

Originally posted by capistrano

• If we don't do this now, it will be delayed for years becasue politicians will be wary of the public reaction

I've asked you 3 or 4 times on this thread to explain why this is a problem or what is the impact. Given that you've ignored my repeated requests, I can only assume that this is just fog.

Originally posted by capistrano

• An electronic system is much more efficient and will be cheaper to run (we won't need the masses of counters in count centres)

Capistrano, it would be really nice if you did some basic research about the proposed new system before you do your next post. The proposed eVoting system will be more expensive[ to run than the old manual system and requires more manpower. Each voting machine requires a dedicated operator to sit beside the machine and enable it for each voter. 6,500 machines = 6,500 man-days. 42 count centres x 50 staff each x 2 day average count = 4,200 man-days saved at the count. So the new system will take approx 2,300 extra man-days of resource to implement.

The cost of storing the voting machines in a secure & safe environment has been estimated at 35 million euro over the 20 year lifetime of the system, based on documents released under FOI.

Originally posted by capistrano

• Election results will be available much more quickly

Congratulation - one out of six right. The election result will be avaiable on the night of the election instead of on the following night. Now is that one little benefit really worth the expenditure of about 75 million euro?

Originally posted by capistrano

• Ireland tries to sell itself as a modern information age country. We need to put our money where our mouth is and use information technology whereever we can.

This is a double-edged sword. Our high-tech reputation also places a responsibility on us to get it right. This is the wrong system, primarily because it doesn't have an audit trail.

There are no good reasons to implement the proposed eVoting system for the June elections. We are handing the keys of our democracy over to a few Dutch programmers & Minister Cullen.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by capistrano

• The system has already been used in Ireland without any problems

How do you know there were no problems? Can you (or anyone else) prove this?

• Similar systems have been used in Holland and Germany without any problems

How do you know there were no problems? Can you (or anyone else) prove this?

• Issues about transparency can be addressed before the next general election; face it the local and european elections hardly matter

How do you expect your opinion on an electoral system to be taken seriously, when you don't take the concept of elections seriously?

Shane has answered the other points very well, although he left one important point out: the cost of storing these machines. I can't remember how much it worked out at, and I can't immediately check the ICTE list - Shane, can you dig that out?

capistrano

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Can we stick to the topic in hand please. This is nothing to do with eVoting.

You brought the issue of the irish PR system into the discussion:

And BTW, wait until an FF goverment get an overall majority with a flawed eVoting system and watch how quickly they will try to get rid of the Irish PR system (as they have tried twice before).

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Wrong - The system has already been used in Ireland with any noticeable problems, but the absence of a Voter Verifiable Audit Trail makes it impossible for problems to be detected. That is like saying no driver ever speeds on the road because I've never been able to read their speedometers from the roadside so I don't know that they are speeding. Pure denial.

If I can't prove it was all right, you definitely can't prove there was anything wrong! And the fact that the early results from the e-voting constituencies foretold the voting pattern across the whole country strongly supports the thesis that the e-voting was completely accurate.

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Your local council probably has more of an impact on your day-to-day life than central Government. Think bin-charges, think parks, think planning policy/permissions, think roads etc etc.

Do you not realize that it is the City/County managers who really run local government. Indeed they were recently the power to impost waste plans becasue the elected representatives couldn't get their act together.

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
I've asked you 3 or 4 times on this thread to explain why this is a problem or what is the impact. Given that you've ignored my repeated requests, I can only assume that this is just fog.

The reasons I want it to happen now are the reasons I listed in my last posting. I believe in e-voting and I think we should have it now.

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Each voting machine requires a dedicated operator to sit beside the machine and enable it for each voter. 6,500 machines = 6,500 man-days. 42 count centres x 50 staff each x 2 day average count = 4,200 man-days saved at the count. So the new system will take approx 2,300 extra man-days of resource to implement.

Fair enough, if that's true it's absolutely shocking and totally unnecessary. Do you think they are just trying to create jobs for the folks who used to do the counts?

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Congratulation - one out of six right

Every single one of my SEVEN points is either objectively true or it is probably true and there is no proof to the contrary.

You really shouldn't be taking such a dogmatic approach to the issue. Open yourself up to the possibility of some change.

Almost all concerns revolve around the theoretical prospect of some mischief to the system, totally disregarding that the outcome previous e-voting contest were completely inline with the paper voting on the same day.

This whole discussion is going round in circles. I've heard all the arguments and I'm still not convinced. There are some weaknesses but nothing we can't fix over time and definitiely nothing we should postpone the introduction of e-voting for.

Here endeth the lesson.

Victor

Originally posted by capistrano
Almost all concerns revolve around the theoretical prospect of some mischief

Not just mischief. Many (most?) computer problems are mere errors not mischief. There is little evidence it will be any different with Electronic Voting, although given the importance of the systems, temptation for mischief is there.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Shane has answered the other points very well, although he left one important point out: the cost of storing these machines. I can't remember how much it worked out at, and I can't immediately check the ICTE list - Shane, can you dig that out?

Oh yes I did - Reread the post again.

The cost of storing the voting machines in a secure & safe environment has been estimated at 35 million euro over the 20 year lifetime of the system, based on documents released under FOI.

Hi Capistrano - I agree it is time to bring the discussion to an end, because you are clearly in denial about this system. Let's recap the discussion;

You told us the system had been tested - I pointed out the specific evidence that no adequete testing had occured.
You told us the system would save money - I pointed out the specific evidence that it will cost more in manpower to run the new system than the old system (in addition to the substantial capital, storage and PR costs for the new system).
You told us that " Most objectors to e-voting either don't understand the technology" - I pointed out that the strongest objections to the system are coming from within the IT communities.
You pointed out that the system has been used in Germany/Holland - I pointed out the important differences in the Dutch/German systems.
You pointed out that there were few objections to the 2002 trials - I pointed out the lack of detailed information about the system in the public domain at that time.
You pointed out that the current paper system was open to abuse, and other posters clearly demonstrated why the transparency of the current paper system is vastly superior.

You continue to ignore the facts that are presented to you and the only point you are left to cling onto is that you really don't believe that anyone will bother to try to corrupt the system.

There is none so blind as one who does not want to see.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Oh yes I did - Reread the post again.

Oops. Sorry!

bonkey

Originally posted by capistrano
If I can't prove it was all right, you definitely can't prove there was anything wrong!

Yes!! You're finally understanding.

You can neither prove a result was right or wrong - you have to take it on nothing but blind faith.

This is a problem with an electoral system.

And the fact that the early results from the e-voting constituencies foretold the voting pattern across the whole country strongly supports the thesis that the e-voting was completely accurate.

No. It strongly supports the thesis that in the unquantifiable number of times that the system works correctly, it will indeed work correctly. From a single election, with a small number of locations being run on little more han a golorified "trial rollout", this is an encouraging, but not definitive sign.

One positive result is simply not enough to say "the system works". And given that we can't prove whether or not it was accurate (as you've already admitted), all we can say is that in this one test-case it would appear that the system's accuracy was not significantly in error, assuming that local voting patterns matched national ones.

I believe in e-voting and I think we should have it now.

I believe in e-voting, and I think we should have it now as well. Then again, I think we should have a decent healthcare system , and I think we should have it now as well.

Just because you want something, and want it today, doesn't mean that you should accept hte first half-baked, incomplete solution thats offered to you - especially if accepting it pretty much ensures that you will not be able to get what you started out wanting for a long, long time.

Do you think they are just trying to create jobs for the folks who used to do the counts?

I don't know what they're reasoning is. All the valid reasons - other than "faster results" are negated by the flaws in the implementatiopn

Every single one of my SEVEN points is either objectively true or it is probably true and there is no proof to the contrary.

/me looks at the answers showing this to be a completely false assertion.

You're not taking the same stance as the minister on this one, perhaps? That if you ignore all the evidence presented to you and continue to insist that you're still right because no-one has made a case against you, that somehow no-one else will notice????

This whole discussion is going round in circles. I've heard all the arguments and I'm still not convinced.

Well, of course you're not. You've read all the arguments and then insist that they are simply false - by asserting that there is no proof that your assumptions aren't true.

its funny that those opposing the system are the ones being billed as Luddites, when its the supporters of it who are the ones being shown to be basing their belief on denial of fact.

There are some weaknesses but nothing we can't fix over time

This sums it up, really. There's no need to worry about the surity of the system while these weaknesses remain, is there? It doesn't matter if its a step backwards in terms of trusting the system? No....sure, thats what you're selling as progress.

jc