While we’re a Wii household here, I think that this is a great idea. There is a huge demographic that is most easily reached through their video game systems — and I hope that Rock the Vote approaches Sony (the makers of the PS3) and Nintendo (the makers of the Wii) with the same idea.

The real question, though, is when they’ll bring the rest of the voting experience to a video game system near you.

Image Credit

Post from: EveryJoe

The Next Step For Electronic Voting: The Xbox 360

To be honest, I’m kind of surprised. Yes, I think that electronic voting is a major improvement over counting ballots by hand — or even having to run them through an optical scanner. But I know that plenty of people are worried about the various problems that seem to come along with electronic voting.

So, voters, an additional question: Why do you think electronic voting is an improvement over paper balloting?

Post from: EveryJoe

The Results: Electronic Voting

According to the suit, Premier provided faulty software that caused 11 counties to lose votes. Premier was also already involved in a legal suit with one particular Ohio county — Cuyahoga. That county’s election officials decided to mothball $22 million in Premier machines because of ongoing problems with counts. Premier actually instigated that suit, looking for a declaratory judgment that the company had met its obligations, before Cuyahoga County had decided on legal action.

Premier’s own analysis claims that human error is at fault, along with a glitch caused by anti-virus software. The state says, however, that Premier had certified the equipment after the anti-virus program was installed.

Brunner advocates that Ohio goes back to paper ballots, combined with optical scanners. There’s no way to make the switch before November, however. It’s practically guaranteed that Ohio will have problems with the general election, despite all announcements that election officials will work hard to correct any problems that arise.

What do you think about electronic voting? We’ve started a new poll, and you can vote in the sidebar.

Post from: EveryJoe

Ohio’s Electronic Voting Problem

Open source voting machines would require the code behind the software to be easily accessible — anyone could dissect it to find out where problems are. Many people assume that this also means that it would be easier for any person with a little computer knowledge to tamper with a voting machine. If that was true, though, why are so many governments comfortable using Linux to run vital systems full time? Even banks — like the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is comfortable using Linux machines for a number of tasks. That easy access to open source code is actually what makes Linux systems less likely to have security breaches: so many more people look at Linux’s code before it’s implemented that a much higher number of security flaws can be addressed. The companies producing voting machines simply can’t afford to hire a similar number of people.

While open source software is not a cure-all for the problems with electronic voting, I do think it could address a surprisingly large number of them, including the high cost of such machines. The real problem with adopting open source voting machines is one of the key issues with electronic voting: there’s a distinct lack of trust for both options. People trust paper trails, and so far, voters have not embraced electronic options, and until they are more comfortable with the idea, I’m not sure how successful an open source approach will be.

Post from: EveryJoe

Can Open Source Save Electronic Voting?

Electronic voting machines routinely have problems with the following:

• server crashes
• software interactions (most run custom software on top of a version of Windows)
• printer jams
• missing memory cards
• touch screen flaws (these range from whether a past voters greasy fingers interfered with your vote to the mysterious ‘drag and drop’ problem in which a certain way of touching the screen causes the machine to crash)
• reliability of printouts (they don’t always match up with electronic votes)
• computer bugs
• testing methods
• older volunteers’ inability to handle equipment
• civil rights (it’s theoretically possible to identify which voter voted for whom on an electronic system, if only by the order in which voters cast ballots)

There’s more beyond that, honestly. The article is essentially ten pages of the shortfalls of electronic voting machines. Theoretically, with enough effort, all these technical issues can be addressed.

But there is one crucial issue that no amount of technical improvements can address. At this point, the American public simply doesn’t trust the machines. It doesn’t matter how many billions of dollars both the vendors of electronic voting machines and election boards put into the problem — and it will take that sort of significant cash flow to improve the product and get it into able county hands —voters are still going to be wary of any voting mechanism that doesn’t allow for a physical recount.

With enough time, and perhaps a solid public relations campaign, I think that it is possible for voters to become comfortable with electronic voting. After all, ATMs (another Diebold product) have replaced huge numbers of tellers and automated checkout lines are doing away with many cashiers. But it’s going to take a while. People get upset over their candidates in a way that they would never consider for the price of a loaf of bread.

Post from: EveryJoe

Electronic Voting’s Long List of Problems

That’s where Tiffany Jastrzembski of the Air Force Research Laboratory and Neil Charness of Florida State University come in. In the Fall 2007 edition of the journal “Ergonomics in Design” (which is a real page-turner, lemmetellya), they present a great comparison of different types of electronic voting techniques. They focus specifically on reducing confusion and errors among the elderly, which have the highest voter turnout rate of any age group. (In 2004, for instance, turnout as 69% among those 65 and older, while for those ages 18-24 it was merely 42%.)

They tested four different methods of electronic voting:

1. A touch-screen interface on which the entire ballot was displayed. Voters used a light pen to record their votes, then confirm their choices by clicking on an Accept Vote box at the bottom.
2. A touch-screen interface on which only one office (President, Senator, etc.) at a time. This one also used the light pen, and each individual question had its own Accept Vote box.
3. A hybrid system that displayed the entire ballot at once. Voters used a keypad to record their votes, then used the light pen to click the Accept Vote box when finished.
4. A hybrid system that showed one office at a time. Again, voters used the keypad and finished up with the light pen.

They found that Method 2 caused the least confusion and fewest errors among all age groups. Being able to focus on and confirm one office at a time helped voters minimize their mistakes.

Can you guess which method was the worst?

So now we know how to design electronic voting systems that minimize confusion and errors. And you thought I was going to write about the Iowa Caucuses.

Post from: EveryJoe

4 Electronic Voting Methods – Which One is the Best?

Coffman has declared the fallibility of electronic voting, but the responses of the various county election boards, as well as the county clerks responsible for overseeing elections.

In an interview with Denver’s Channel 7 News, Denver Clerk and Recorder Stephanie O’Malley said the following:

This report is really just part of the larger equation for us. Once we feel we have the full picture of what the Secretary of State’s report means, we can move forward with choosing our systems and preparing for the 2008 election season.

To me, that sounds like Denver will still be using an electronic voting system, assuming they can find one that Coffman will okay.

The problems with the current selection of electronic voting machines are numerous. But we’re getting down to crunch time: the countdown to the Iowa primary is barely longer than the countdown to New Year’s Eve. For all those states hesitant about using voting machines that they have to plug in, they better make a decision and fast! After all, even Kinko’s isn’t up to delivering the 2.5 million ballots the state of Colorado needs.

Post from: EveryJoe

Coffman nixes Colorado’s electronic voting machines