Colorado voting machines don't make the grade
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted December 20th 2007 8:22AM
posted December 20th 2007 8:22AM
In a terrifically unsurprising blow to electronic voting fans everywhere, Colorado's Secretary of State has declared the machines unreliable -- and apparently in need of a software patch. While not as harsh as some rulings on the systems, Secretary Mike Coffman decertified three out of four machines which had been tested. Why the bad grade? Apparently the machines failed on accuracy and security, two sort-of-crucial components to dependable voting solutions, and two components which have been lacking in many systems. Coffman believes Colorado's findings could have a larger impact, stating, "What we have found is that the federal certification process is inadequate." Clearly another blow for the Diebolds (er, we mean Premier Election Solutions) of the world, but hopefully a sign that we can expect tough love for suspect voting machines.
Sometimes the simpler solutions are the best ones.
Good! Here's to hoping that by Nov '08 all voting machines will be scraped and we'll be back using paper ballots. Otherwise, expect another sham election.
Why can't they get voting machines right?
Considering the talents of hackers, we won't have reliable electronic voting until we have to provide a registered DNA sample for every vote.
Why don't they just issue RSA secure IDs and be done with this? The can't be as expensive as all of the b.s. they're going through.
Voting... no one can get this right at all.
The only way anyone is going to trust these machines is if they are open source.
Just like how we're going to pretend that time sped up and Palm died. Let's pretend that voting machines don't exist. Is it really news that voting machines suck?
why is it so hard to make a machine that displays candidate names, and records the button you pressed?
Actually, Premier was the ONLY one not to be decertified. I guess facts don't get in the way of opinions at Engadget.
And this device works with visually impaired persons?.
Actually, they do. They have audio feedback (over headphones for privacy) and some can support sip and puff for people with motion limitations.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/17/harvey_wasserman_on_new_ohio_voting
...people went in, and they hit touch-screen machines, and they pushed “Kerry,” and “Bush” lit up...
But "hanging chads" make paper ballots unreliable too. So if nothing is reliable, why not just go with the electronic version? At least we'll spare some trees.
I am from colorado, and Personally I like the old fill in the blank voting method. Somehow sliding it into the Machine at the end makes me feel all warm inside. Now the actually scanner reading, and counting my vote, that is another story all together.
Being from Colorado, I have a hard time believing that this isn't just a bit of political hackery by the new Democratic administration. ESS has said that they passed brand new requirements for all voting machines very shortly before they ran these tests. I bet it's only on those new requirements that the voting machines had any problems. Many of the counties have said that it is impossible for them to replace the machines before the next election, so they're going to just go ahead and use them.
I have to wonder if this current Colorado administration isn't just trying to leverage their newfound power to ensure their future victories as well.
The ESS systems we use here have tons of redundancy features, including voter verifiable paper ballots that are stored in the machine. I can't see why they've been decertified just a couple of months before the primaries. Couldn't they have done this far enough in advance that they could have addressed the issues before the next vote?
The chad problem is not a problem of paper voting
the chad problem is a result of an idiotic mixed solution.
You want a good system
the only thing the computer should do is print a ballot paper marked with the candiate you choose(that is until you introduce prefs and bin that electoral college) then you go stick that in a ballot box which is the real vote
the computer means nothing
the ballot paper is everything