Debian GNU/Linux Used in Electronic Voting Trials 162
RoweM writes "The Australian Capital Terrority will use a Debian-based, GPL'd electronic voting system in elections this October. See this article, and the vendor's press release. Note, this is not Internet voting, but an electronic vote registration and counting system--you still have to go to the polling booth :)."
This was a good choice (Score:1)
Re:Voting in Australia is compulsory (Score:2)
Re:Voting in Australia is compulsory (Score:1)
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Actually, both examples you gave can be attributed to the Democrats. It was Gore's campaign that was distributing the cigarettes. (story from the station who caught them [themilwaukeechannel.com]). With Motor Voter, it's not any harder to register to vote than it is to get a drivers license. Even before that, it wasn't that difficult. Heck, depending on your ethnic background, there are groups that will seek you out and help you become a registered voter. Given the little time that it requires, I am surprised that anyone finds it to be a hard process.
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
It appears that your definition of art is whatever the "artist" thinks it is. By that reasoning, the guy who crapped his pants [goupstate.com] while waiting in line at the DMV, could claim it was an artistic performance. IMHO, this "art" is just a way to get attention by doing something as disgusting as possible and the people doing it probably belong in a mental institution.
I'm also sure there are many people that would like to use your individual/municipality logic applied to zoning, regulations, taxes, etc.
Re:Here in .BE, it was DOS software :-( (Score:1)
Indeed, the resolution and refresh rate was bad, but that was mostly because they used some stupid dos program to do it. The userinterface was not bad: didn't have anything that shouldn't be there, and everybody could practise for weeks on it.
Here in .BE, it was DOS software :-( (Score:2)
Here, the system is as follows: you get your voting card by mail a few weeks before the election-day (as usual), you go with your voting-card and ID to the guy that sits there, you give him your voting-card and ID, and he gives you a card with a magnetic strip (in stead of the paper with all the candidates on). You go to the computer - running DOS, slide the card in, take the laserpen and click on your candidate. The magnetic cards comes out, you go back to the guy, put your card in a cardreader, take your ID and go home...
The only problem we've had so far is with the laserpens: they aren't always accurate
apt rules. (Score:4)
Reading Politician Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following politicians will be REMOVED:
georgewbush dickcheney
The following NEW politiciams will be installed:
harrybrowne artolivier
0 politicians upgraded, 2 newly installed, 2 to remove and 538 not upgraded.
Need to get 2/2 politicians. After unpacking 0 will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]y
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org stable/libertarian harrybrowne 3.04-6.1 [520kB]
Fetched 520kB in 4m26s (1953B/s)
Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org stable/libertarian artolivier 2.43-5.2 [450kB]
Fetched 450 kB in 3m52s (1985B/s)
(Reading database
Impeaching georgewbush
Impeaching dickcheney
Selecting previously deselected package harrybrowne.
Unpacking harrybrowne (from
Selecting previously deselected package artolivier.
Unpacking artolivier (from
(Reading database
Inaugurating harrybrowne (3.04-6.1)
Inaugurating artolivier (2.53-5.2)
booth:~#
Not open source? (Score:5)
There are lots of warm and fuzzy words about open source, but the only thing the article says explicitly will be GPL'ed is the OS ("platform"):
The press release refers to "ACT's Hare-Clark electoral system" and says only:
Thanks as usual to Slashdot's editors for their insightful commentary.
Re:...barrier to voting entry... (Score:1)
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
That's a new name (Score:1)
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
good till.. (Score:2)
The only issue I have with electronic voting is that it seems like it would be just as susceptable to being rigged as lets say.. chads... While it could be more accurate, it depends on how the austrailians are about implementation.
Implementation->If they do it right then they will be in good shape. If they do it like Bart (Bay Area Rapid Transit) then I think it would work. Bart uses linux in its system and I think Bart is pretty reliable, except for the occasionaly train failure. Bart is a metro transit system. Most of there issues are bad equipment or old equipment. (good implementation) (search google on bart) If they do it like Caltrans (California Transportation) and their implementation of the FastTrak then they are really screwed. FastTrak is a toll booth system that allows you to be auto billed instead of paying at the gate by an electronic reader. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. They only implemented it in a few lanes instead of all. (poor implementation).
In any case I am not familiar with how the austrailians are in their impementation of ideas, but if it is anything like the olympics I think they will be in good shape.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:good till.. (Score:2)
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:...barrier to voting entry... (Score:1)
Re:If you don't like the outcome of the election . (Score:2)
--
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
And BTW, check out the census information on the percentage of low-income homes with computers.
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Serves you right for being poor/handicapped in the first place.
(Damn, I could have sworn I left a
That's not a good method, and there's none. (Score:1)
Not everybody is resourceful enough to go voting. Say if Joe is so poor and he works in a 24-hours shop, with long shift that overlap the voting time, he doesn't have the chance at all. On the other hand, this is not much a problem for middle class workers.
To put those people that can't afford to vote into the class that can't make informed decision is irresponsible. I think, if we can, we should reduce this voting cost as much as possible. And how uninformed decisions could affect the results, if it's really random? It affects the results when it's not random.
The only concern that I have, for voting online, is the difficulty of cheating prevention. Voting in person and registration at the booth is an efficient way to detect where you're the person you are. But how do you check a vote's validity online as easy as checking your driver's license against their records by the officials?
Re:Florida (Score:2)
One Party System! (Score:1)
Why offline? (Score:1)
--
Vote Socialist [votesocialist.org] or quit whining!
Re:Open Source vs Proprietary (Score:1)
I'd have to disagree with that, in the same way I'd have to disagree if you said 'closed source products rip all their ideas from other closed source products'.
Every products gets new ideas from competing products, Open Source is no different. Open Source software can (and does) have some features that proprietary software does not yet have. Notice the word 'yet'. Proprietary software will copy features that work as well.
Open Source vs Proprietary (Score:2)
Both a proprietary and an Open Source system can be code audited by outside people, if the proprietary company allows it. I think that any government should make that a stipulation before using anybodies code.
I prefer the Open Source solution, but if a proprietary solution comes along that performs the job better (and can be code audited) then use it. Better yet, wait two weeks and the Open Source product will have all of the same features!
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
Well, sort of compulsory, anyway - the fine for failing to vote is not large.
Re:GNU Internet Voting Project (Score:1)
First, FREE is heavily geared towards internet voting - the only interesting parts of the implementation are involved in this. Here the voting is happening in ordinary polling places so the problems are quite different.
Secondly, FREE pretty much assumes first-past-the-post non-preferential voting. That makes it useless for the ACT both in terms of the front end used interface (it has no facility for listing preferences) and in terms of the tally system (it doesn't implement the Hare-Clark counting algorithm).
Re:Voting in Australia is compulsory (Score:1)
Voting is compulsory in Australia, but failing to vote won't land you in prison any more than a parking ticket would. There is a fairly nominal fine for failing to vote.
Re:Not open source? (Score:1)
Re:Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:1)
The original statement was misleading. With half an hour's work or so anyone can understand how to count votes using Hare-Clark. The paper counting process has always been observed by scrutineers from all parties who know how to apply the system. The idea of an open source electronic system is that party scrutineers can now check the code to ensure that it correctly applies the system. Understanding why it gives sensible results is a bit harder (for some of the edge cases) but still well within the reach of most people with a bit of thought and some worked examples.
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
He had -no- stance on any of the issues debated, etc, and was only on the Green ticket because he was high profile, and agreed with their anti-corporate mindset. He had 0 chance of winning, and will -always- have 0 chance of winning.
Exactly the same reason that Buchanan went and destroyed the RP, BTW: neither of these men can stand not having their names in lights.
Incidentally, I'd rather the uneducated masses stay home and not vote, since odds are, they are going to vote for the people who are willing to ignore the Constitution.
Re:That's not a good method, and there's none. (Score:1)
--
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Voting isn't just a right, it is a duty (well-informed voting, that is - abstaining from voting due to ignorance is also a duty).
--
Re:concorde vote counting (Score:1)
It's probably just as good, or maybe even better than what we have now.
----------------------
Re:concorde vote counting (Score:2)
So, for example, if half the people [loved Bush & hated Gore] and half the people [loved Gore & hated Bush], but everone kinda liked McCain - we'd always have the McCains.
How is this a bad thing? You think it's better to have a president that half the country hates than one whom everyone kinda likes?
--
concorde vote counting (Score:3)
Imagine how much easier it would be for third parties to actually have a chance in elections! There would be no allegations of "throwing your vote away" or picking the lesser of two evils, and a candidate couldn't win by dividing the opposition, because everyone in the opposition would prefer BOTH of their candidates to the guy on the other side. (ie. Nader wouldn't have "stolen" the election from Al Gore, because anyone voting for Nader would prefer Al Gore to dubya.)
--
Voting in Australia is compulsory (Score:2)
i) Voting in Australia is compulsory. If you don't vote you can go to prison.
ii) Voting is always on a Saturday, not a weekday.
Re:Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:2)
Candidate A gets 40% of the vote but doesn't prefer B or C.
Candidate B gets 35% of the vote and directs all preferences to C
Candidate C gets 25% of the vote and directs all preferences to B
In a US system, A would win even though 60% of the people would have preferred B or C. In a preferential system, B would win as he is the one most people prefer in power over all the others even though A got more of the primary vote. B was the least disliked of all the candidates.
Re:Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:2)
I should have said - nothing stops you voting for no one (ie don't write on the card at all, or write crap on it). The point is you have to vote, even if it is not for anyone. As for people that don't have an opinion shouldn't be voting, it is interesting that the percentage of people who don't vote for anyone is less than 1% for most electorates in Australia. I'd say there is significant evidence that almost everyone has an opinion.
This is also stupid. I hated Al Gore and Bush(the Environmentalist vs. the Asshole) but I really didn't want Nader in Power. Who am I going to choose. Probably the one who would do the least damage and I wouldn't even touch the one who would do the most damage or had an ideal against mine.
So that's what you do. You give preferences in the order that you like the person. If you don't like any of them at all, just leave the card blank.
If normal people can't count it, it's too complex and too easily corrupted. If only
Unlike the rest of Australia, the ACT system is strange because of the extremely low population. The system is designed to give fair preferential voting with multiple candidates in each electorate. Just about everyone in the ACT understands it because of the media blitz - corrupting it is impossible given the media has access to the raw numbers.
On the whole, computer voting is the way that things almost certainly must develop. However with large countries (ie USA or Australia) you have problems with time zones. It would make more sense to stagger the voting so that the polls close at the same time GMT across the whole nation - thus avoiding the problem of Californians (or West Australians) knowing the results before they vote.
Re:Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:2)
Sure, but you've got a government that will happily take the fines from 50% of the population.
Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:5)
First, all Australians MUST vote in an election. If you do not vote then you will be fined, or put in prison. This means the voter turnout and load on the system tends to be much higher.
Second, ACT elections allow you to vote preferentially. This means you not only select the first person you want, but order all the candidates in the order you'd prefer them in power. This prevents the problem in the US of Nader stealing votes from Gore (all Nader's preferences would go to Gore) and so instead of the most popular person winning, the LEAST UNPOPULAR one wins. This is a significant improvement.
Third, the system used to actually count the votes in the ACT is hellishly complex and only really understood by statisticians. I find it quite bizzare, but it seems to work.
Fourth, the ACT tends to have dozens of candidates for the positions. Partys with names like "Surprise Party" and "Party Party Party" are running and even get quite a few votes.
Fifth, less than half a million people live in the ACT so the system can really be quite inexpensive and small. The ACT itself is only a few dozen miles across so the whole logistics are incredibly differnt to the USA.
So, to summarize, the ACT elections are very different from US elections. Consider all the facts before you make a generalization about whether this would be good for all of Australia, or even the USA.
Love the panel... (Score:2)
A quick eye scan spotted 4 or 5 people from internet voting startups, one venture capitalist, and couple of reps from big software companies.
Yep, nice and unbiased.
Re:That's not a good method, and there's none. (Score:1)
Face it, online voting would only simplify things for lazy middle class people, and possibly the handicapped. While the latter is quite important, I believe that there are already allowances made for them as it stands. As far as the those who don't really feel like getting to the physical voting center, I don't think they should be voting to begin with.
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
You are also making the assumption that all the liberals who have not voted in the last election would if they were forced to vote, take the time to familiarize themselves with the candidates and their agendas. I doubt that this will be the case. I cannot say that everybody will just go and punch a random hole in the ballot on the election day, but can you really expect a lot of these people who have made a choice to not vote, to suddenly go and educate themselves as to the candidates beliefs and proposals? I consider that unlikely.
Not Online. (Score:3)
But as a person who was the only one of all my friends to vote in the last presidential elections, because noone else could be bothered to go and pull a bunch of levers, I think that restricting voting to offline only is a good idea. It serves to give the control of the government to those people who care enough to get their ass out of a chair and walk to the voting center. I honestly don't think that I would like all the people who didn't vote out of lazyness to be able to do so online with a few mouse clicks, because they are probably just not interested enough to make an informed decision, and might just randomly click on the boxes that they're not sure what they mean.
Something so serious as selecting your government should require the small barrier of entry that getting to the physical voting booth represents.
People are still stupid (Score:1)
Maybe they should put up a screen at the end of all the questions showing the their votes and asking the voter if they are correct. Maybe then people will be able to vote the way they want, or at least not be able to claim they made a mistake.
Re:Not open source? (Score:1)
Great. (Score:1)
If you don't like the candidates (Score:4)
Open Source Votes? (Score:1)
"Invalid Page Fault: Microsoft certified candidate not found on ballot, please reboot the booth and vote again"
hmm... (Score:2)
the best part about an open source system is that by definition, it'll have an open architecture that lets it interoperate with other systems...not to toe the slashdot line, but the last thing we need is a proprietary voting protocol run by a big company.
last i heard as well, california and arizona were implementing this the way it sounds, i.e. voters can actually vote over the internet...i think it was using some sort of shared public-key security to encrypt the ballots, and the key for decrypting the ballots is shared among election officials, so that no one party can view the actual ballot.
Re:hmm... (Score:2)
California Internet Voting Task Force [ca.gov]
Re:I'll just stick my finger in this electric sock (Score:1)
More than 50% of people in the ACT have a computer.
The ACT at some stage in the last few (5)years, had more ISPs per capita than anywhere else in the world.
Australians familes are more likely to have a computer than American families. (Smaller population, more spread out.)
====================
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
A fair bit of background. (Score:1)
Firstly.... Australian Capital _Territory_ [act.gov.au]. :-)
Secondly, and this one's good: The actual project site. [samba.org] GPL requirements mean code's open source. And it is!
Software Improvements is a key player in a very good spot here. One of the principals of SI, Clive Boughton, is an associate Lecturer (or visiting lecturer) at the ANU, where he currently convenes the Software Engineering course. Last year, as well as teaching Software Analysis and Design and Project Management to the 3rd year cohort, he was strongly connected with the 3rd year Software Engineering Group Project.
The group project was to produce an online, web-based voting system. The project was targeted at Federal elections, but apart from the preference counting system, the principle holds.
Out of the project (after 1 academic year) came 12 seperate online voting systems. One of these systems was apparently pitched to the ACT government in response to the Request For Tender they released near the end of the year, which looked an awful lot like the Request For Proposal the teams were given at the beginning of the year.
Amongst the requirements for the project, was that the system be utterly open source (except for the RDBMS) and be delivered as a set of RPMs and SRPMS against Redhat 6.1.
Another important requirement of both projects (and the Australian electoral system) is that a person be able to vote just once, and that once a vote is recorded, it must not be able to be linked to a specific person.
The group project had tougher requirements than the ACT's project, in that the group project was for use in Internet voting, not just computerising polling booths.
Software Improvements can (and in fact has, I am given to understand) draw upon this unique pool of experience to produce what I confidently expect will be a successful product which I look forward to using come the election.
Some trivia:
How do I know all this?
I was one of the group leaders for the 3rd year group project. I hold the distinction of having the only RedHat 6.1 computer in the project room which the system testers could not break into without getting a screwdriver from upstairs to clear the bios.
Mind you, that wasn't part of the testing. They just wanted to see our developement machine and figured it would be easier than calling me. Fooled 'em good!
====================
Paul "TBBle" Hampson
Re:Not Online - and compulsory voting (Score:1)
The ACT is not technically a State...I'm not sure what the difference is though.....
Re:Uh-oh (Score:1)
Re:Not open source? (Score:2)
I would have thought that the sentence you quote, "with all source code released un the [...] GPL" would have been a bit of a tip off.
--
Re:Can an .AU slashdotter help me out (Score:2)
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/hare.html [act.gov.au]l arke.htm [abc.net.au]
http://abc.net.au/public/elections/2001act/hare_c
http://polisci.nelson.com/electsys.html [nelson.com]
and, of course,
http://www.google.com/search?q=Hare-Clark+electora l+system [google.com]
--
Re:concorde vote counting (Score:1)
Its fine to read stories glazing your eyes over, but dont post anything unless you actually read carefully, this is from the furst article:
[the A.C.T] uses the complex Hare-Clark preferential voting system
A quick search on google shows what it is:
Source [abc.net.au]
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
"Both candidates"? Funny, I was sure there were more than two. In fact, I voted for one [phillips2000.com].
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
That's why they have absentee voting. I've voted up to two months (IIRC) ahead of time in years past. There's really nothing holding you back from voting if you care to do so.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
Elections are not a horse race. You don't put a bet on which one you think will win, hoping for a big pay off when he does. Your "bet" is what determines the winner of the race! Buck the trend, don't be a sheep, vote third party. If you don't vote for what you believe, you'll never get what you want.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Electronic Voting on Open Source (Score:2)
I know California did electronic (i.e., touchscreen) voting in several voting districts last year, but I'm fairly sure it was a closed-source project.
The only problem is... I do support. User support. Luser support, in fact. I have users who can't double-click because their reflexes, numbed by years of sitting in front of the television eating Sara Lee cheesecake, have slowed down to the point where inertia takes all their strength to overcome. These users are NOT computer literate. Yet they're supposed to be able to figure it out? Florida elections will become the low bar for new heights of stupidity.
Wait, let me be original! I'll make a joke about using apt-get during the vote!
Zaphod B
Re:hmm... (Score:2)
I don't know about Arizona, though I doubt it, but I know California was doing touch-screen voting at the registrar of voters' offices and some other random places (Riverside, Beverly Hills, etc.). Certainly not Internet voting.
Besides, don't you think you would have read about Internet voting in the U.S. on /.?
Zaphod B
Re:Not Online. (Score:1)
The first and foremost human right, the right to live. No man has the right to judge another to die. There's much more on right to a fair trial. Treatment in prison, etc... The US has never signed the human rights convention and is not even close to living up to it..
Am I the only one (Score:1)
Am I the only one that found that extra funny?
Uh-oh (Score:3)
Re:Not open source? (Score:1)
I didn't want to be a karma whore, but nobody else seems to have posted that link... and there's not much point talking about a wonderful, new, GPL'd program without also telling people where to get it from.
Terrority? (Score:1)
Re:Terrority? (Score:1)
Internet voting (Score:2)
Main Flaw #1: DOS attacks.
Rigging an election is as simple as DOSing servers in counties that tend to vote for your opponent.
Main Flaw #2: Virii.
While encryption can ensure a secure channel, there is nothing to prevent something at an up-front level like key filtering. A virus could easily propogate that would ensure only a certain candidate gets voted for (or another candidate doesn't get voted for).
For remote digital voting to be feasible, a) it can't run over the net, and b)it can't involve a modifyable system. You'd need a fixed-hardware platform with hardware-level encryption, which establishes a secure PPP link straight to the voting server. Sure, phone lines could be cut or whatnot, but that's on the level of complexity of blocking roads to polling places, and isn't self-propagating.
Everything else is a social nightmare that would make the last US election look like it ran smoothly.
-= rei =-
Re:Internet voting (Score:2)
-= rei =-
Perfect for GPL... (Score:2)
It's this type of situation that code should unarguably be forevermore open and available for study.
Re:Online voting (Score:2)
Re:hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Can an .AU slashdotter help me out (Score:2)
In short, the Territory is divided into 3 districts, each with around six seats in the assembly available.
As 100/6 is 16.666% thats how much of the vote you need to win a seat in the Assembly. It means strong voices like the greens aren't excluded and tends to produce minority government's that have to gather broad support for their policies.
The preferential stuff cascades votes for candidates that already have their "quota". The math is a little complex but the system gives solid results and responsible governments.
The downside in the past has been it takes a couple of weeks to figure out the bottom of the piles where preferences are all over the shop (I for instance start by numbering those i hate most last and work my way up the ballot to gove a "1" to my least hated candidate, or a fruitloop want to encourage, safe in the knowledge that my real vote will end up going to someone else.)
Re:Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:2)
Well done on a very well thought out post.
one small reply though. I do find that when you force a vote, there is a better quality of vote generally than a no-vote. I find that a lot more people "give a damn" (for want of a better expression to show the emotion). I was of the same opinion as you until I moved here to the USA (that voting should actually not be compulsory). But when I saw how many people voted here (or didnt, rather), and how many people just *didnt* care... it kind of hit home to me that if that is the only way you can get people to care, then it really is worth it... Its kind of commi in a way, but
Respectfully,
CyberKnet
---
Re:Almost essential for ACT elections! (Score:4)
Let me also start off by saying I have NEVER seen a more unorganised election than the last presidential election, where people waited so long to find out who their new leader was. So you just arguing that the USA system is superior is not going to cut it with me. So lets start this, shall we?
Well, that's stupid. People who don't have an opinion shouldn't have to vote. If you are just going to pick one because you don't have an opinion, you are helping no one. Those who have a strong opinion one way or another are going to vote and those who don't, well they'll just let things go.
Let me clarify (having lived there). You CAN "donkey" vote. Its still anonymous, and entries incorrectly marked (all ones), or using ticks and crosses etc etc will invalidate your vote. You *can* (in essence) vote for "nobody". HOWEVER, given that everyone HAS to vote, you have a whole lot more people who actually CARE about what it is they are voting about. Vastly more people have informed opinions, and smarter decsions (on the whole) are made.
This is also stupid. I hated Al Gore and Bush(the Environmentalist vs. the Asshole) but I really didn't want Nader in Power. Who am I going to choose. Probably the one who would do the least damage and I wouldn't even touch the one who would do the most damage or had an ideal against mine.
This is *not* a two party system, as such. There are MUCH more than two candidates! Stop thinking so US-Centric when you are talking about another countries voting system!!!
If normal people can't count it, it's too complex and too easily corrupted.
Bullshit. In 90% of situations, only number 1 and 2 votes are counted. The average of the populace can understand it, and even if they cant, there is STILL the news. Remember Decision2000? Why in the hell would you assume there wasnt soemthing like that there?
No system is perfect. I firmly believe that; so I am not saying the system in australia is better. But aimlessly saying "That's stupid" is HARDLY going to convince anyone. Not having researched your point of view or your source of information, or even the persons you were replying to is a bad move. I lived there for 18 years. I know quite a bit about the system used there, and personally, I never had a problem understanding it. I always thought the outcome was fair in most cases. In a lot of ways, it quite similarly represents the model used in the USA, but in quite substantial ways, it differs. I like those differences. You might not. But that doesnt give me the right to call your system stupid, or you the right to call mine stupid.
Please sit in the corner and catch your breath before posting about subjects you dont anything about...
---
Online voting (Score:2)
GNU Internet Voting Project (Score:3)
From their homepage:
Welcome to the FREE e-democracy project's website. We are a project dedicated to creating the GNU.FREE Internet Voting system and also advocating Free Software in e-democracy. To understand why we think it's important for e-democracy software to be Free Software which is non-partisan and non-commercial in origin see our Writings Section. GNU.FREE software is written in Java and is available from the Download Section. There is more information in the Users' Section and considerable technical detail in the Developers' Section. The GNU.FREE software suite is an official package of the Free Software Foundation's GNU project and is supported by FreeDevelopers.net and OpenElection.org. More affiliates, related sites and people are available from the Connections Section.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
If you don't like the outcome of the election ... (Score:2)
Re:People are still stupid (Score:2)
User Preference (Score:2)
I've never had a huge aversion to paper ballots, and in fact prefer something that has a tactile presence that can be recounted later.
Re:Online voting (Score:2)
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
As for Nader having no stance, check this [votenader.org] out.
And here's a serious example of how our voting system hurts America. I had just turned 18, and wanted to vote for a fellow high school senior for city council. About a week before the election, I looked and found that I had to register TWO WEEKS before the election to vote. That's rediculous. I hadn't even been given any information regarding voter registration despite the fact that I payed state property and income taxes. This is quite simply the disenfranchisement of the youth vote. I live in a borderline conservative area (usually votes republican, but last election voted in a democratic rep because the republican was essentially a nazi
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
The death penalty. Easy enough.
I could also go into better standards on freedom of speech, assembly, etc. As an example, look at the Guerrila Drive-In [carschoolfilms.com] event in Minneapolis. This has been a successful event for two years and this year, because a movie entitled "Vampire Hookers" was to be shown, the city stepped in claiming a lack of proper permits, etc, when the organizers had made sure to get the proper paperwork completed just as in the two years prior. Now, in Berlin, some guy just dropped a headless cow from a helicopter [canoe.ca]. Another guy is displaying dead bodies that have been sealed in plastic and set dancing around a float in the love parade. Would these acts of speech be allowed in America?
I could go into the various social reforms - better education, universal health care, public transportation, environmental protection (actually living up to the Kyoto treaty), etc. And, more on topic, isn't voting one of the most basic rights in a democracy? America's high barriers to voting (registration is enough of a hassel) compared to mandantory registration in many European nations would be a good example there.
Of course, I haven't even touched on the human rights violations of American corporations, but since these are largely aimed at non-Americans, I'll leave them for another discussion. The fact that businesses, thanks to the 14th amendment, have the exact same rights as individuals, is proof enough that the United States has some problems with its human rights policies. For further review, I would direct you to Amnesty International [amnesty.org]'s page on US human rights violations, but it seems to be down at the moment.
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
*Cough*Stem-cell research and cryptography*Cough* - not to mention that innovation by a multi-national corporation that fields its talent from around the world can hardly be claimed domestic.
You simply asked how the US can be seen as lacking in human rights compared to Europe. Our declaration of independence said we all had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property). Well, the death penalty certainly disbars the first. Europe is certainly far ahead as far as freedom of speech, and thus, liberty. Note that you don't have to watch Vampire Hookers or the headless cow being dropped from above, just because you disagree with assembly doesn't mean the first amendment goes away. I doubt San Fransicans wanted protests at Berkeley in the 60s, but that didn't stop them.
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
And you're absoultely right about the dillema. I would claim that you have no obligation to watch the cow falling from the helicopter. Many also have the same dismay for simply consuming cows as dropping them from helicopters (indeed, judging by stories like the Seattle meat processing one, the helicopter drop was probably more humane). If you read the article about the cow, you'll find that many who viewed the event saw definite artistic merit. Clearly, the artist did. Free speech, in art, science, politics, etc, should not be restrained by popular thought. If that were the case, there would be no hard feelings against the Inquisition for essentially condeming Gallileo to death. Now if free speech causes direct, unavoidable harm to others (threats, the fire rule, etc) that is a different story. Unless you happen to be hit by the falling cow, splattered by its blood upon impact, or held with your eyes pried open "Clockwork Orange" style, I'd like to think that the artist has the right to the performance. I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree on all of this, but that's just my opinion. As far as claiming "not in my town" regarding cow dropping, vampire hookers, or whatever, I'd like to think that the rights of an individual trump those of a municipality. Just like the rights of an individual should be greater than those of a corporation - but unfortunately, in the United States, aren't.
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Re:Not Online. (Score:2)
Do you really think that your frineds would have voted if they could do it on line? I really doubt it. Things like voting seem to take on less meaning for people when they are less difficult to do. After all, what can be worth taking 5 minutes out of your day for?
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
Re:concorde vote counting (Score:2)
A candidate wins by being preferred to the others the most often, as opposed to having the most votes
The problem with that method of voting is that you ALWAYS get the compromise candidate.
So, for example, if half the people [loved Bush & hated Gore] and half the people [loved Gore & hated Bush], but everone kinda liked McCain - we'd always have the McCains.
Note: I'm not making a political statement here, I'm just using examples.
Re:concorde vote counting (Score:2)
A good point, and I've wondered before if we would be better off with the compromise candidate. However, we'd probably get what we saw with McCain, which was NO support from the right or the left, and therefore a lame duck president.
Of course, since there is essentially no chance of a major overhaul to the voting system - the whole thing is a moot point.
Re:Great. (Score:2)
Adding a printer adds a magnitude of complexity, nuless it's a high-end printer like those used in manufacturing houses. But then, you add a magnitude of cost.
No argument about the benefits of your suggestion, but I pity the fool that has to support it.
GPL help insure code integrety (Score:3)
Perhaps the States of the US will go this route too to help count our ballots. I never got a look at the machine code that counted those Florida ballots after all. I know there are plenty in the GPL community that would love to have a shot at the code, and to submit suggestions to the state equivalent of the NIST for enchantments of the code. Its nice to see a national government recognize the GPL can be a great asset to their problems, and they get all that code for free to boot! Save a dime and get better software! Perhaps Australia will donate a little cash to a GPL project to give back to the community as well? I am happy Australia has picked up on the GPL solution.
Can an .AU slashdotter help me out (Score:2)
THX in advance
D - M - C - A
The system covers all bases! (Score:2)
Seems to me the American system could do with being easier to vote in. I'm used to it being easy to vote; elections on saturdays, every primary school a polling place, pre-polling centres in all city centres for if you're going to be busy on the day, and postal voting for when even pre-polling isn't practical. When it's compulsory to vote, the constitution makes sure it is easy to vote; no four hour queues for me!
Rachel
Re:don't mean shit (Score:2)
I don't honestly think this will happen, but something to think about...
I agree - this is something that needs to be thought about. I'm confident in Australia's electoral methods (as a whole) because issues like this form the core of our electoral system.
In Australia, all elections are run by the Australian Electoral Commission - a completely apolitical, independent body. I believe (though IANAP, I'm not sure about this) that party representatives are at every count, and have the right to query any vote as it goes through. And I reckon that no-one with active membership of a political party would be allowed to work in the Australian Electoral Commission.
As far as I know, America has no independent apolitical body responsible for the standard running of elections - hence the ludicrous situation where affirmed members of political parties (let alone the BROTHER of one of the candidates) have a say in how and why votes count.
So while this situation is possible, I would hope that this is one area where Australia can't screw things up. (Now digital copyright law, that's a whole different kettle of prawns)
--This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
Re:Online voting (Score:3)
Bah! I'm waiting for the day when I can actually vote online.
This is a bad idea, people need to goto a voting station where the can be have some security and privacy. If voting is moved to the internet, security becomes a major issue, it has been proven many times now, when Hackers decide to break something, it ususally breaks. Also if everyone is voting online, how many people will have their spouses looking over their shoulders, or Bosses or Union Thugs ?? I don't even like the idea of electionic voting systems, because there is no paper trail, just because I click on Nader, does not mean the program will register Nader and I will have no way to prove it later.. I say go back to the printed ballot and a ink pen.
Re:Here in .BE, it was DOS software :-( (Score:2)
It didn't go that smoothly. There were numerous delays because of hardware problems, software errors, power surges,... Especially elderly people ran into trouble, despite the fact most cities and villages organized a few courses to teach them how to use the computer. And you have to admit, navigating around was time-consuming. The software was crap. The screen resolution was so poor (640x480 I guess) only 10 candidates could be listed on each page. On several computers, the "nationalists" (some people prefer to call them fascists) were not listed. However, I have to admit it wasn't that bad after all. The first results came in really fast (3 hours after closing time).
I hope they get it right down under. Learn from the mistakes made over here. Here are my thoughts on how to improve on our system:
1) Konqueror (or any other user-friendly browser) would do very nicely as a browser to navigate through all candidates. A Java-based program would benefit those who are already comfortable with a PC.
2) Use a screen resolution which is easy on the eyes, with smooth large fonts.
3) 3 words: uninterruptable power supply.
4) The voting-training was a very good idea to get everyone comfortable with electronic voting.
5) append "goatse.cx 127.0.0.1" to
I'm not flaming my government, it's a great system which needs some minor tweaking. Now, if the AU government uses GPL-ed code, will they publish their voting software under the GPL so we can use (and improve on) it here too?