The Continuing E-Voting Saga
October 19th, 2006I was on Highland Radio’s Shaun Doherty show earlier today, contributing to a discussion on E-Voting. You can listen to my contribution by clicking play on the box below:
share your files at box.net
The discussion was started by Fine Gael election candidate Terence Slowey, who was out to attack the Government over e-voting. He was joined on air by (newly) Fianna Fail councillor Dessie Larkin, who also outlined his opposition to the scheme.*
I went on air with the intention of highlighting a different solution for Electronic Voting, which is being developed locally. Derry-based Opt2Vote are working on an E-Voting system which works very differently to the system that was selected for Ireland. With input from the research side of Letterkenny IT (more information from John Campbell’s website).
Their system works by scanning paper ballots, much like the existing ballots we use now, which have been marked by hand. These ballots are scanned and checked for the marks which have been made. Researchers at LYIT have contributed by working on the optical recognition to ensure accuracy in reading the marks on a ballot. The scanned ballots are then counted electronically.
This solves a number of problems. Most obviously, the paper ballots exist to provide a verifiable source, should there be a dispute or need for a recount. By focusing on the counting side, there would also be a need for less computer hardware, meaning less cost and less potential points of failure or interference.
Of course, while on the radio I got dragged in to discussing the system we currently have in Ireland. In one sentence, it doesn’t work and can’t be made to work. While I do believe there can be merits to using technology in the electoral process, I believe we have gone about this the wrong way from the outset.
There are problems which exist in the voting and election process. The biggest of these is voter registration, and with it voter fraud and personation. I believe any investment in Election-related IT should have started by focusing on the major problems associated with this.
A case can be made that there is a problem with counting; it is very time consuming, and as most recounts prove, can lack accuracy.
But there is much less of a problem with actual voting. Yes, some will highlight the number of spoiled ballots. But they ignore the fact that not all spoiled ballots are accidental. Spoiled ballots are often used as a means of protest, and I am a greater believer in the importance of allowing people to spoil their ballot. More importantly, accidentally spoiled ballots are a sign that education and information on the process of voting was deficient, a problem which e-voting would also have to overcome.
It has been said that E500,000 would be enough to solve the problems that exist with the current system. This is most likely true; E500,000 would probably solve the software problems we are currently aware of. As I say in the interview, the group who compromised the Dutch voting machines are a group of computer enthusiasts; it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a well-funded, well-resourced group wishing to hi-jack an election could use flaws we don’t even know about yet to do so. The removable memory modules, together with the lax security both on the machines and in their current storage, are major weak-points in the system.
A proper appraisal of the entire system needs to focus not on making the best from the E52 million invested to date, but on the right system for the integrity of our election process in the future. Yes, E52 million is a massive amount of money, which could do an awful lot of good in health care, education, or many other departments. But E52 million is a small amount when compared with the potential losses from an improper election process.
An economist addressing this issue would consider it with reference to the Sunk Costs Fallacy. This comprehensive WikiPedia article is worthwhile reading on that subject.
I believe we will see “electronic” elements in our voting in the future. I don’t believe that the current e-voting system can pass the test sent by Minister Dick Roche- that they would not be used until “there was public confidence in the machinery.”
Update: E-Voting is not just controversial in Ireland (or the Netherlands!). This is a great article from Wired in the US, called “Building a Better Voting Machine”. In it, they mention vote-scanning machines currently in use, much like the systems Opt2Vote are working on. The major difference is that Opt2Vote are working on a system to recognise the preferences in our PR-STV system of elections, which is exponentially more complex than the single-vote system used in the US, and for UK Parliamentary elections.
Update: From Colm’s website (see his detailed comment below), here’s a link to some detailed information in English from the Dutch group responsible for the recent exploit of the NEDAP-Powervote machines: Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet / We Don’t Trust Electronic Voting.
Update: Two very good articles on E-Voting in Ireland - from Colm McCarthaigh and a follow-up from Simon McGarr .
* Somewhat ironically, the advert immediately following the discussion was for KS Computers, advertising their “Spyware and Virus Removal” and Computer Maintenance services.
Related Entries
9 Responses to “The Continuing E-Voting Saga”
Comments are not moderated before posting. Every effort will be made to keep these clean, but I ask your co-operation. Please do not post any offensive or defamatory content below. I am not responsible for the content of comments below.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:00 am
[...] nts Fluffy links - October 19th 2006 Yes, he’s actually in Fianna Fail. Damien Blake on e-voting. Via Joel Cere. Nissan wins defamation la [...]
October 20th, 2006 at 5:14 am
E-voting as it currently being promoted is the end of democracy in Ireland.
It is unaccountable and has no verifiable audit system.
Ireland is heading for Germany 1933 and the notion of infallability that the current government portrays leaves us heading towards dictatorship and away from democracy.
E-voting is expensive and badly executed. I am using my paper vote in the Meath constituancy to vote for anyone other than Fianna Fail.
E-voting is the end of democracy and is open to manipulation by whoever sees fit - exactly like Burma, the group with the most money and power is in charge.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:17 am
500,000 is a gross under-estimation of how much fixing the current system would cost as is deliberate mis-information on the part of the Fianna Fail (the PDs have long exited this issue).
Firstly, this number is only based on the cost of the existing software - the same software that wasn’t written or tested properly and didn’t work, why are we to believe it would cost the same to produce working software?
Secondly the estimate ignores the costs required to implement the changes to hardware required by the commission on electronic voting, which the Government has committed to implementing. The machines manufacturers - NEDAP - themselves speculated last July that it would cost up to thousands per machine to retrofit the changes.
These changes do not even protect against the latest attacks, as the Dutch anti e-voting group recently discovered it is relatively easy to determine how someone voted remotely, there is currently no protection against this attack proposed for the Irish system. Good by to voter secrecy.
The estimate also ignores the costs to develop all of the additional procedural, training and security changes which the commission recommended. And even if implemented, elections run with this system still require more people and cost more money to run than the hand-counted paper system.
The Government have no intention of using this system, they have ignored the central issue - a voter-verified audit-trail - which was excluded from the terms of reference of the commission. They say the system will be used once confidence has been restored, but the machines are not deserving of confidence, it is political spin at it’s very worst. As best as can be determined, it appears to be an attempt at trying to neuter a painful issue on which they have blatantly shown utter incompetence.
To quote Minister Cullen - who authorised the contract for the machine AFTER being told they were unsuitable - this is just cynical politiking and mischeivous bullshit.
This is playing politics with out electoral system, that just is not acceptable from any party (and only one supports the system). We need an independent electoral commission now, to take decisions like this out of the hands of the self-interested and partisan ministers currently wasting our money.
October 20th, 2006 at 11:25 am
[...] just do not inhabit the real world if they think that’s feasible. Although there is some evidence that some in Fianna Fáil get it. Rather, what this looks much mor [...]
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Whilst I applaud their entrepreneurial initiative, it is hard to take opt2vote seriously as a vote counting system that might be used in the Republic. No details of its systems are available on its website. This is the sort of carry-on I would expect from the Irish government in its work on e-voting - only providing basic information once people have jumped through a load of hoops. This ‘closed-source’ model is just not suitable for technologizing elections in a modern democratic society.
From what I understand, opt2vote has an optical character reading approach. It is hard to see how this could be adopted to work with the PR-STV system. There is no benefit to this system other than speed, either, because there is still a possibility of an accidentally spoiled vote. Also, because the scanning process generally cannot have an accuracy much above 99 percent, close elections would still need a manual recount. It would literally take weeks to manually recount OCR forms at a European election.
October 23rd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Thanks for all your comments.
In particular response to Antoin, I use the example of Opt2Vote to highlight the fact that their are alternatives which would be a vast improvement over the Nedap system. I have attended presentations about the system (from LYIT researchers), so I know how it works, but I have not seen the system in usage directly. I am not necessarily advocating using their system nationwide, but I do believe they are approaching the problem of e-voting from a much better side.
For more discussion on e-voting, i’d recommend reading these articles from Simon McGarr and Colm McCarthaigh
October 23rd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Well done on the Today Fm
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Cheers Simon. I’m happy enough with how it went, but another minute or two would have been great.
May 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I like the excitement and count we have.
Banks spend millions keeping personal payments secure, do we really want to waste money keeping voting machines secure?
Why spend all that money on something that isn’t really a problem, maybe it is for a % of people who would like to be able to manipulate the machines.
Yes the register may need to be refined. Why local athorities talk to each other, and make sure people aren’t registered in several different places.