E-Voting System

oscarBravo

DublinWriter wrote:

Oh yes they did!

Are you saying that the voting machines - the ones in the polling stations you push buttons on - have a DBMS (or at least a JET runtime)?

I really, really don't think so, but if you have a source for that I'm open to correction.

Red Alert

what if the MS Access Application is installed on the count computer? then making sure the old brown bag touting politician gets elected is only a few clicks away from an SQL-savvy election official.

the machines definitely don't use MS access internally. they probably use a DBM-type hash table held in the cartridge. the machines themselves haven't got PC-level processing power onboard.

jimmycrackcorm

bk wrote:

I disagree, I think it is very necessary. I'm not just worried about fraud, as a Software Engineer, I know that anything but the most trivial computer program contains bugs and a complicated piece of software like this probably contains many bugs. I'm very worried that these bugs will cause an inaccurate count or even lose votes. I'm not the only one, talking to my colleagues about this, they all agree that it is just too risky, in fact the most vocal people against e-voting seem to be people who work in the tech industry.

E-voting can work but it must have:

1) A paper audit trail to verify the vote if there are accusations of irregularity or if the result is way off the exit polls.

BTW OscarBravos concern about this breaking anonymity of the vote can easily be fixed. Rather then use sequential numbers on the paper trail, simply use unique random id's, relatively easy to do.

2) The source code should be made open source or made viewable by people like me and my colleagues.

This will help fix bugs, but doesn't necessary protect against fraud (how do we know the software we have reviewed is actually on the machine).

The excuse about the need for the software to be proprietary is complete BS. You can easily create a contract for those looking at the code that says you can read it but not copy it. This is how Java is protected, anyone can look at it, but they don't have the right to copy it. They know they can do this, so I believe the real reason why they don't want to open the software up to general evaluation is that they know that there are a large number of bugs in it or afraid that people will find lots of bugs.

I work in IT and I'm all for this E-voting. The present system is already open to much levels of error such as impersonation and the way that re-running counts produces different values. However I too share the concern that a lack of an auditable log. I can certainly hear an atm printing an audit trail in the background of my transaction

On the subject of the level of bugs making the system too risky, two things I'd say are that if you really believed that then you'd never set foot on an modern jet; and the level of estimatable risk is probably smaller than the present system. The "open source code" argument is an interesting one - perhaps you could argue with Sky that their smart card should be open source also?

I was also surpised by the ops statement that the counting software written in Delphi was unsuitable until I saw he is an "expert" in VB.

The reason I say we should embrace this technology is not for the fact that we get quicker results but that it makes it possible in the future to have more voting opportunities. Because of the logistical issues, we the people only really get to have very little say in reality. We vote in Government but they often make decisions that the majority disagree with. E-voting offers a first step on a path to a future where all the people can get to vote on more and more issues. This will ultimately lead to a true democracy.

But first the dis-believers must have paper.

Cork

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

E-voting offers a first step on a path to a future where all the people can get to vote on more and more issues. This will ultimately lead to a true democracy.

But first the dis-believers must have paper.

E Voting has big potential. The existing system despite it's critisms has worked well. I have not seen any unsuccessful canidates challaging results.

I would have more faith in eletronic workers than council workers counting votes and party hacks looking over their sholders.

The hardware will be used - this will quiten political partys trying to use this as a cheap political football.

Bards

well said

Enright

if they are selling them off, i would buy one, they might recoup say 1000 euro in total, but the real saving will be in the money saved for storage! anyone else intersted in a group purchase, we might even get them cheaper !!!

Cork

Enright wrote:

if they are selling them off, i would buy one, they might recoup say 1000 euro in total, but the real saving will be in the money saved for storage! anyone else intersted in a group purchase, we might even get them cheaper !!!

There is nothing wrong with the hardware.

If the opposition partys gave one hoot about the electoral system - they would encorage their respective councilors to sort out the mess that is the electoral register.

This is another example - where a pen & paper system is outdated.

This should be linked to people's PPS numbers.

DublinWriter

Cork wrote:

This is another example - where a pen & paper system is outdated.

This whole thing reminds me of the following story. It maybe an urban myth, but I still think it's relevant here:

NASA's big problem with the early Apollo missions was that ballpoint biros didn't function too well in space due to the lack of gravity.

They commissioned several key US defense contractors to come up with a pen that would work in zero-gravity, and after a couple of years and spending 50 million US dollars of R&D, the zero-g pen was finally developed.

The Russians, on the other hand, just used a pencil.

dahamsta

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

oscarBravo

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The present system is already open to much levels of error such as impersonation...

...and the proposed new system addresses this how, exactly?

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

and the way that re-running counts produces different values.

The proposed system certainly appears to address that problem. Re-counts would always produce the same result.

The question remains, is it the correct result?

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The "open source code" argument is an interesting one - perhaps you could argue with Sky that their smart card should be open source also?

We don't own Sky's TV broadcasting system. We really ought to own our national voting system.

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

The reason I say we should embrace this technology is not for the fact that we get quicker results but that it makes it possible in the future to have more voting opportunities. Because of the logistical issues, we the people only really get to have very little say in reality. We vote in Government but they often make decisions that the majority disagree with. E-voting offers a first step on a path to a future where all the people can get to vote on more and more issues. This will ultimately lead to a true democracy.

I don't disagree that more direct democracy could be a good thing, but I fail to see how the proposed system really helps in any way. It takes more people to operate it, and costs more to run. Also, direct democracy implies yes/no style referenda, which really don't take very long to count.

oscarBravo

Cork wrote:

The existing system despite it's critisms has worked well.

How do you know?

Cork wrote:

I would have more faith in eletronic workers than council workers counting votes and party hacks looking over their sholders.

Party hacks looking over shoulders is what makes the current system work. It's the complete inability to look over a shoulder that makes me distrust the proposed system.

Cork wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the hardware.

That's not what the CEV said.

Cork wrote:

If the opposition partys gave one hoot about the electoral system - they would encorage their respective councilors to sort out the mess that is the electoral register.

Apparently that's going to happen anyway. Not that it makes any difference to the type of voting system used.

Jackie laughlin

I'll try again. These machines don't warrant attention. They are mere voting machines, up market "shard" generators! Had they worked absolutely perfectly, there would have been no progress other than a fast count. The spend was madness from the day someone with little sense proposed it.

Dump them and begin examining the enormous problem of how to do PRSTV on-line.

jimmycrackcorm

oscarBravo wrote:

...and the proposed new system addresses this how, exactly? The proposed system certainly appears to address that problem. Re-counts would always produce the same result.

Accuracy.

The question remains, is it the correct result?

More accurate.

We don't own Sky's TV broadcasting system. We really ought to own our national voting system.

Ownership was not the point and sky got their system from an Israeli company and coincidentally it is a proprietary system. The point was to do with open source. I don't doubt that if the sky encryption was open source that we'd all have free sattelite.

I don't disagree that more direct democracy could be a good thing, but I fail to see how the proposed system really helps in any way. It takes more people to operate it, and costs more to run.

Progression is generally a slow affair. It's a case of one step at a time. Are we really going to keep the manual count for all time no matter how technologically advanced we get?

Also, direct democracy implies yes/no style referenda, which really don't take very long to count.

If thatis the case - why can't we vote on every government bill ourselves - being yes/no decisions?

ecksor

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

More accurate.

What makes you think that?

I don't doubt that if the sky encryption was open source that we'd all have free sattelite.

That depends upon their cryptographic protocols. Secure protocols and algorithms should remain secure under open scrutiny. Being open or closed source really has little to do it with it in this day an age.

Red Alert

Yes I'm expert in VB amongst other languages, my point being that I know when something is blatently unsuitable. Voting is too big a deal to place in a Delphi-powered system sitting on MS Access.

A C app sitting on Oracle or Postgres would make me a much happier bunny.

Jackie laughlin

I've found an e-voting thread isolated way up in the "sponsored" themes. It's right next to "Irish Sceptics".

Jackie laughlin

Sorry, I should have said "hosted", not "sponsored".

bonkey

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I don't doubt that if the sky encryption was open source that we'd all have free sattelite.

Why?

Do you realise that the encryption used for most banking transactions is open? All of the common algorithms - DES, SHA and so forth...they're all well known and published. There si generally little secret about what is being used where.

With crypto, the algorithm and the implementation don't much matter (excepting flaws in the implementation). what matters is the strength. While obscurity can theoretically add strength, it is not strong in and of itself, and the loss of testing and verification capacity generally results in a less and not more secure system, either through a less-secure algorithm, or flaws in the implementation.

Its like a door. You can invent your own lock, or you can go and buy one which has a known strength. You want a stronger, less pickable lock...you're far better off buying one which has been tested and proven to be a stronger, less-pickable lock. Inventing your own discards the years of learning and so forth that lockmakers have put into their locks in favour of "if no-one knows how I did it, it *must* be secure".

Red Alert wrote:

Yes I'm expert in VB amongst other languages, my point being that I know when something is blatently unsuitable. Voting is too big a deal to place in a Delphi-powered system sitting on MS Access.

A C app sitting on Oracle or Postgres would make me a much happier bunny

As a self-proclaimed VB expert, you're obviously qualified to talk about Delphi and C. I'm curious as to why you didn't proclaim yoruself to be an expert in the relevant langauges to your argument though. You thought VB was more relevant/impressive? Or you're not an expert?

Care to explain what the problem with Delphi is?

Further, the application isn't built on an MS-Access, its built on the Jet engine which is not quite the same thing. For single-process-access situations (such as this), its perfectly suitable to the task.

There is nothing wrong with the choice of software in this case. How the software may be used....thats a seperate issue.

dahamsta

Arguments for and against security through obscurity. I think "many eyes" is the most powerful argument against it. Of course there's also the security of the "secrets" to be considered -- Diebold in the US ran an open FTP server, for example, which doesn't say a lot for their consideration of security issues.

adam

lostexpectation

so now that government is going out looking for world experts, do you reckon these experts will have any contrary views, nope.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote:

so now that government is going out looking for world experts, do you reckon these experts will have any contrary views, nope.

Gues it depends what they mean by "experts", but I'd tend to agree with you - not much hope there.

DublinWriter

Red Alert wrote:

Yes I'm expert in VB amongst other languages, my point being that I know when something is blatently unsuitable. Voting is too big a deal to place in a Delphi-powered system sitting on MS Access.

A C app sitting on Oracle or Postgres would make me a much happier bunny.

Hilarious!

I totally back Bonkey up on this. Delphi, in terms of robustness, security and speed has ran rings around any incarnation of VB that you'd care to name.

If I want to write a tight, self-contained WIN32 or .NET .exe in a proper object-orientated language, I use Delphi or C-Builder.

If I want a headache and tons of DLL dependancies for simple things like dialog boxes, with an .exe that can be decompiled right back into source code, I use VB.

If VB is so wonderful, how come no Microsoft product was ever written in it?

However, developing a Delphi app and using the MS-Access Jet engine is a lot like putting Diesel in a Ferrari.

At least the DBMS used in the polling stations should have been Oracle 9i.

Jackie laughlin

I'm a techie too but I cant believe I'm seeing this question discussed as an engineering problem.

The damn things are mere voting machines! If they can be made to work, if they inspire absolute confidence, nothing, nothing, nothing - not a shred of democratic progress - will be achieved.

I may under freedom of information try to find the name of the fool who suggested that we replace paper with voting machines and by using the term "e-voting" caused the technically illiterate to slaver at the jaws and transfer more millions into private hands.

lostexpectation

Colm MacCárthaigh gives an overview of the timeline of events surrounding the evoting fiasco.

its look like when opposition mounted they decide to immediatly repulse it by signing contracts

At the first meeting, on December 10, Margaret McGaley and Shane Hogan made clear to fundamental and undeniable problems with the system. Such was the extent of the concern, the committee actually wrote to the Minister, asking that no money be spent on the system until there was time to further investigate the problems. Members of the committee (including Government party members) were interviewed on National Radio over the next few days, and voiced their concerns.

But just one week later, at the meeting of the December 18th it became apparent that the Department and the Minister’s interest had been awoken. Niall Callan had been drawn in from the Department and had brought along representatives of the manufacturers with him. Joe McCarthy, a chartered engineer, Fellow of the Irish Computing Society, and security expert was now also invited to outline his serious concerns with the system.

Apparantly the manufacturers had a very convincing presentation, because after going into private session the committee voted (along party lines, and with the support of Mildred Fox) to reverse their previous position and now support the position of the Minister. The contract, committing the Irish public to 40 or so million euro of expenditure, with no recourse to refund, was signed within the 24 hours.

After expert opinion, making plainly clear that the system would not, and could not work as required, Minister Martin Cullen, with the help of TD’s John Cregan, Noel Grealish, Michael Moynihan, Mildred Fox, Billy Keleher, John Moloney, Sean Power and Senators Michael Brennan and John Dardis, authorised the signing of the ridiculous contract (the utterly inept drafting of which is its own seperate problem) which got us into this whole mess. That Martin Cullen remains in office despite this, should be a source of shame for this nation.

via http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/blog/index.php/2006/07/13/e-voting-would-you-like-more-of-this/

Jackie laughlin

Lostexpectation,
Many thanks for this. I've filed it.

Is there any chance of going further back? This interests me because the fundamental problem is not whether the system would work or not but why anyone would propose an electronic system which would cause no progress whatsoever?

If everything worked and everyone had faith in the system, the only difference it would make would be to produce a result quickly and arguably it might - just might - make the transfer system more accurate. Much ado about nothing?

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Is there any chance of going further back?

http://lists.stdlib.net./pipermail/e-voting/

bonkey

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If everything worked and everyone had faith in the system, the only difference it would make would be to produce a result quickly and arguably it might - just might - make the transfer system more accurate. Much ado about nothing?

In general, I'd agree that its much ado about nothing.

To be honest, the turning-point in direct usefulness is when machines such as these can significanly lower the cost of an election while also making them logistically simpler. Of course, this is assuming that people can have faith in the system, and that everything works...including - as you draw reference to - an accurate transfer system.

As to everyone having faith in the system...that would be a goal rather than a pre-requisite in my mind. I believe the system must be trustworthy, but if Technophobe Ted still won't trust it cause its a mah-sheen, then fine. Trust will take time to fully achieve, but the ultimate aim would be that once people have trust in electronics playing a part that one can ultimately move towards the idea of a decentralised voting. Maybe not one using today's networks and so forth, but that would be the ultimate goal.

As should be fairly obvious from the above and my earlier posts, I'm less of the opinion that electronic voting at poll stations can't be done today and more of the opinion that it's currently not being done right and frankly the longterm benefits aren't there yet anyway.

Jackie laughlin

OscarBravo,
Thank you. However, I'm still mildly interested in identifying the person who proposed electronics and software which would have no effect whatsoever.

Bonkey,
Leaving aside capital, storage and maintenance considerations, elections would be cheaper because of the elimination of paper and the payment of overtime to counting staff. Even if I were to accept that elections are expensive in the grand scheme of things (which I don't) the proportion of overall cost saved is clearly very small.

I'm not sure that technophobes exist. Well, there was my late aunt who had a fear of electricity but I think that was a psychological phobia. no, people generally like gadgets.

Really though, the serious thinkers have already turned their minds to on-line voting and plebiscites.