Even if ecommerce transactions were safe, the security technology underpinning them would not suffice for voting. In particular, the voting security and privacy requirements are unique and in tension in a way that has no analog in the ecommerce world.
If banks loose billions online, why would we leave democracy to online voting?<.pdf>
This is a very fair question, and it deserves a careful, thorough answer because the reasons are not obvious. Unfortunately it requires substantial development to explain fully. But in brief, our answer is in two-parts:
It is not actually “safe” to conduct ecommerce transactions online. It is in fact very risky, and more so every day. Essentially all those risks apply equally to online voting transactions.
The technical security, privacy, and transparency requirements for voting are structurally different from, and actually much more stringent than, those for ecommerce transactions. Even if ecommerce transactions were safe, the security technology underpinning them would not suffice for voting. In particular, the voting security and privacy requirements are unique and in tension in a way that has no analog in the ecommerce world.
The rest of this essay expands upon these two points in order.
UPDATED: Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit.
Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit. The districts are listed in the Secretary’s Press Release <read> <CT-N Video>
Read the press release closely, and you will find only 72 districts selected along with 15 alternates. To make up for the miscounting, the 1st alternate will be included.
Update: We originally posted that 54 municipalities were selected. The correct number is 44 municipalities. We regret the error.
UPDATED: Representative Larson to introduce “Weekend Voting Act”. We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.
UPDATED: Our Representative, John Larson will be introducing a bill, “Weekend Voting Act” to move elections to the weekend. <read>
HARTFORD — With low voter participation across the nation at the polls this week, Congressman John B. Larson (CT-01), announced today that he supports an initiative to move elections from Tuesdays to the weekend to make it easier for all citizens to do their civic duty.
“As a representative democracy, voting is a fundamental responsibility for all Americans and the system should be as accessible as possible for as many as possible,” said Larson. “Unfortunately, the system we have now was designed to meet our country’s needs over 160 years ago and it no longer makes any sense. It’s time we stop making people choose between exercising their responsibility to vote, and meeting their everyday obligations.”
The current system, with national and local elections held on Tuesdays, was originally established in 1845 to accommodate the schedule of a largely agrarian society. Today, as an urban society, with many competing demands on everyone’s time, taking the time to go vote during a busy workday is a large impediment for many Americans. In fact, voter turnout has decreased in almost every presidential election since 1965.
The solution is simple, Larson says, “moving our elections to the weekend would make it much easier for everyone to get out and vote.” That is the goal of the ‘Why Tuesday’ Initiative, a non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 2005 to find solutions to increase voter participation.
‘Why Tuesday’ supports the Weekend Voting Act which will be introduced this Congress to move Congressional and presidential elections to weekends. “Bill Wachtel and the folks at Why Tuesday are right,” Larson noted. “Even one American voter disenfranchised because of an outdated scheduling policy is too many. I will be working to make this change in how we vote so that more Americans can participate without having to choose between work, or their families, and their desire to vote.”
Reading the details we find some voting integrity implications and we are skeptical of the benefits:
We question if weekend voting would actually increase turnout, decrease it, or be a wash. In Connecticut we have about half the turn-out in municipal elections as in Federal elections – clearly some of the voters are less motivated for municipal elections. Would elections on weekends motivate those same and other voters to interrupt their weekend activities or mini-vacations to vote? We see arguments for weekend voting but no rigorous argument at WhyTuesday. The overall effect seems difficult to predict.
Which days would we vote? Saturday and/or Sunday? I am a big supporter of separation of State and Church, but staffing elections might be challenging because many voters and potential election officials hold Saturday or Sunday as days reserved for their religion. Most might be willing to vote, but many might pass on working the polls or participating in get out the vote efforts – some might reasonably be expected to be offended by such efforts culminating on their day of worship.
On the other hand it might be possible to attract other individuals without strong religious or other weekend commitments to be poll workers. Once again, perhaps a wash as some people prefer taking a vacation day to work the polls rather than sacrificing “their time” on a weekend. Retired folks might prefer during the week and keep the weekend for visiting children and grandchildren. Once again, it might be difficult to predict.
With weekend voting we might find more volunteers on election day around town and around the polls holding signs encouraging everyone to vote. Especially if the election were Saturday, much of the flyering activities now largely accomplished on the weekend before the election would have to be accomplished during on the weekdays prior.
Would it have an effect on the demographics of who votes? Once again, hard to tell. On the surface it would seem to favor those whose work makes it impossible to vote during polling hours – those that are not out of town all day (those out of town all day are eligible to vote by absentee ballot), or so busy working and driving children around that voting before or after work is just too much of a hassle. It should have little effect on the unemployed, or the many who work on weekends.
The system needs to be upgraded to accommodate the needs of all American citizens. That’s why Rep. Israel introduced The Weekend Voting Act, H.R. 254 in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), which would move Election Day to the weekend. Rep. Israel is planning to reintroduce the legislation during the 112th (2011-2012) Congress. His bill would require polling places in the continental United States to be open on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. EST and close on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EST during a presidential election.
Update: Representative Israel’s description is inexact. Here is the summary of the previous bill, our comments are updated accordingly:
Amends the Revised Statutes with respect to the time of election to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every even numbered year, as the days for the election, in each state and territory, of Delegates to, or Members of, Congress. Amends federal law with respect to presidential elections and vacancies to establish the first Saturday and Sunday after the first Friday in November, in every fourth year, as the days for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Amends such federal laws to establish the same polling place hours in the United States for both congressional and presidential elections, namely from 10:00 a.m. EST on Saturday till 6:00 p.m. EST on Sunday, with polls allowed to close between the hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m. local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the state in which the polling place is located.
Looks like it would only apply to Federal elections, the ones that currently have the highest turnout.
One thing for sure, variation between Presidential, other Federal, Primaries and all other elections would increase voter and official confusion, with may changes required in other deadlines along the way.
We also note that while 10:00am to 6:00pm might be fine for many voters and would be hailed by election officials, those hours would make it much more difficult for retail employees required to work on Saturday and inconvenience those voters who would like to vote early and late avoid interrupting their normal Saturday or Sunday activities.
With Sunday undefined for hours, would States take into account religious services in setting polling hours? If they did, would that provide opportunities for constitutional challenges?
We do find that there are Integrity challenges, at least in Connecticut. Currently we have only one day of voting, thus securing the ballots, machines, and the polling place would be a new challenge to integrity.
At least in Connecticut, it would likely almost double the election day costs for election personnel, building rental, campaigns, and volunteers.
Weekends would also present challenges and complains where elections are held in facilities that are currently used during the weekends for other activities.
One positive aspect would be an end to long pollworker days. Starting later and ending at earlier would provide for more rested officials opening and closing the polls.
We do not find a compelling, complete case for this particular change. Our own suggestion would be to make election day a holiday, and even better change it to Wednesday, to get the election as far from the weekend as possible, reducing the temptation to use it as convenient four day extended vacation.
We were just too optimistic, yet prophetic when we suggested the founders might not be happy with anything but their type of candidate.
In July we posted about Americans Elect a new third party aimed directly at the center of politics as defined by Tom Friedman: Friedman predicts 2012 Presidential candidate via Estonia-like Internet voting system <read> Sadly we were just plain too optimistic when we said things such as:
This is reminiscent of the article on Estonian voting we covered yesterday. No mention of any transparency in the development, testing, and operation of the actual system. Rather than quoting independent technical experts, we see the system pronounced safe by the architect. Did Ronald Reagan say “Trust Me”? Of course not. Actually it sounds like something Bernard Madoff might have said. President Reagan actually said “Trust But Verify”…
Or maybe the process is not “hijacked” but the people create a party platform close to some of the results we have seen in some recent polls? A platform of banning guns, protecting Social Security, universal health care, and decriminalization of pot? (Remember when Obama asked his supporters to vote on initiatives after the election? Not much publicity after they voted pot decriminalization as the top priority). What is scary is the potential for insiders to actually hijack the process by disqualifying or discrediting such votes. Or outsiders successfully attacking the system undetected.
No mention here of the possibility of candidates being chosen such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or, Pat Roberson forbid, Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, or Ralph Nadar.
It does not sound transparent financially or electorally. Yet, I can see why almost everyone would want to sign-up to promote their favorite type of candidates and party platform.
We were just too optimistic, yet prophetic when we suggested the founders might not be happy with anything but their type of candidate. So now we have an article from Politico confirming our worst fears and them some. Democracy deficit at Americans Elect? <read>
Rather than gush about this group, I fear many aspects of it: its secrecy; the uncertain security for its Internet election and, most important, the lack of democracy in its system for electing a presidential nominee.
While it is providing voters a path to choose a presidential ticket through the democratizing force of the Internet, the process can, in fact, be overruled by a small board of directors, who organized the group. This board is to have unfettered discretion in picking a committee that can boot the presidential ticket chosen by voters if it is not sufficiently ?centrist and even dump the committee if it doesn’t like the direction it’s heading...
Campaign finance reformers have already condemned Americans Elect for switching its organizational status under the Tax Code from political organization to 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. This change allows an organization to shield its donors…
Kahlil Byrd, the president of Americans Elect, told NPR that the group does not disclose donors because they fear retribution…Who is going to throw a Molotov cocktail through the window of a radical centrist?
Perhaps one reason Americans Elect is hiding the names of its donors is that people might draw conclusions about the group’s interests based on the contributors — especially given the rumor that most of its money comes from the hedge fund industry...
Despite the veneer of democracy created by having ?delegates? choose a presidential candidate through a series of Internet votes, the unelected, unaccountable board of Americans Elect, funded by secret money, will control the process for choosing a presidential and vice presidential candidate — who could well appear on the ballot in all 50 states.
Update: 05/01/2012 Yet another silent majority of almost none starts biting the dust. We are not surprised.
Americans Elect Cancels its First Primary Ballot — not enough Actual People want their Candidates <read>
Well, most Americans don’t agree. As the Pew Research Center documented in a poll last December, most Americans don’t buy centrist talk. Most Americans — three out of four of them — believe there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations”. Most Americans believe the “country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” Most Americans “believe Wall Street hurts the economy more than it helps.” These are not centrist positions. They’re not Americans Elect’s positions. The few financiers of Americans Elect whose names have been leaked out are Wall Street money managers and hedge fund operators. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel last week declared of her organization: “No one at AE can dispute that Mr. Peterson’s message is the right one.” “Mr. Peterson” is billionaire Pete Peterson, who wants to cut social security, cut medicare, cut medicaid and make this country safer for big business.
[Senator] Kane was unable to attend the Oct. 27 panel discussion, but dismissed the warnings from computer scientists. We hope he at least took the time to review the videos of the symposium online.
On October 27th, the Secretary of the State held a Symposium on Online Voting with experts from around the country and the world. Not in attendance was the Senator who sponsored this year’s Online Voting bill, Senator Kane. The Senator continues to dispute the arguments of the computer scientists. Today’s report from the Waterbury Republican-American: Online voting on minds of lawmakers – Secretary of the state scraps idea; cites security concerns<read>
We hope he at least took the time to review the videos of the symposium online.
Lawmakers came close to requiring that state election officials implement online voting this year, with an eye toward allowing military personnel overseas easier access to the ballot box.
A Watertown lawmaker plans to make a fresh attempt in the next regular session.
Computer scientists who took part in an Oct. 27 panel discussion organized by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill said, unanimously, such a system cannot possibly be secured…
Sen. Robert J. Kane, R-Watertown, said in a telephone interview Friday he remains a proponent to online voting, and plans to introduce new legislation that would require the state to open an electronic ballot box accessible over the Internet.
Kane was unable to attend the Oct. 27 panel discussion, but dismissed the warnings from computer scientists.
“We, as you know, transfer millions of dollars every day via the Internet, via the computer,” Kane said, referring to the use of online systems by banks and financial markets. “Just think about all the commerce that gets done. If we can do that, why can’t we allow our military personnel who are fighting for our country, serving oversees, the ability to vote online for the elections they are defending when they defend our country?”
Shvartsman said banks generally accept a 2 percent loss to online fraud, and there are other key differences between banking and voting systems.
Rivest said the most important difference is the fraud can be identified in a banking system, because there are statements and other records that can be used to verify transactions after the fact, and identify errors or malicious intrusions. That is not possible in a voting system designed to protect the secrecy of each individual’s vote.
As I said in the first comment on the article:
Sad that in the name of serving soldiers we risk the very democracy they serve to preserve.
Also overlooked in [Senator] Kane’s approach are many non-military overseas voters including: State Department staff, Volunteers serving in places such as Haiti or Darfur, Peace Corps volunteers, business people, oil rig employees, missionaries, and military contractors.
There is a much better, more cost effective solution with much lower risk. Provide military and overseas voters with ballots and absentee applications online that can be printed and mailed in a single envelope. The military even provides free express mail, and a special $25 rate is available in most countries for all overseas voters. This system has proven to be effective.
Hopefully, the legislators who attended the Symposium or view it online will understand science or trust the scientists.
The Secretary of the State and election officials have worked out some good ideas and strong cooperation to support the municipal elections on Tuesday.
The Secretary of the State and election officials have worked out some good ideas and strong cooperation to support the municipal elections on Tuesday. <press release>
If the governor has such powers, perhaps in election emergencies, the governor could be called upon or even expected to do what the Secretary of the State cannot do – order polls to stay open late in an emergency, choose extra voting districts for audit, or order discrepancy recanvasses in districts with questionable results!
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has issued an executive order extending voter registration until noon on Monday, Nov. 7.
The original deadline was tonight at 8, but the change was made to accommodate voters who would have trouble getting to municipal offices because of the power outages and damage from the weekend storm, according to the Secretary of State’s office.
Residents can obtain voter registration forms at www.sots.ct.gov or by visiting town offices or the Division of Motor Vehicles.
If the governor has such powers, perhaps in election emergencies, the governor could be called upon or even expected to do what the Secretary of the State cannot do – order polls to stay open late in an emergency, choose extra voting districts for audit, or order discrepancy recanvasses in districts with questionable results! Se our earlier post: <Bysiewicz: Secretary of the State powerless to enforce election laws, count ballots>
An excellent panel of experts on voting technology and the challenges of overseas voting. Credit is due to the panelists, the Secretary, and those who contributed behind the scenes in making this event possible. John Dankowski, of Connecticut Public Broadcasting did an exemplary job of moderating a very civil, thorough debate. If only typical panels and Legislative hearings could be more like this format, interactive, civil, and informative.
On October 27th, the Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill held an ‘Online Voting Symposium’ at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) in New Britain. We were there with our amateur video. The Connecticut Television Network (CT-N) was also there. When CT-N videos become available we will also post them here.
Summary
This is was an exceptional panel of experts on voting technology and the challenges of overseas voting. Credit is due to the panelists, the Secretary, and those who contributed behind the scenes in making this event possible. John Dankowski, of Connecticut Public Broadcasting did an exemplary job of moderating a very civil, thorough debate. If only typical panels and Legislative hearings could be more like this format, interactive, civil, and informative.
On a rainy/snowy night with competing demands at the State Capitol, we were pleased that several Legislators attended. In total about eighty people attended with a good mixture of registrars of voters, town clerks, and advocates. We expect many more will watch our videos or the videos and replays on CT-N.
Secretary Tennant of West Virginia, a proponent of online voting, was outnumbered four to one by the other panelists. Dankowski provided her a fair opportunity to respond and challenge the other panelists.
The Panelists
Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat
President & Co-Founder of Overseas Vote Foundation
The Overseas Vote Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in 2005 that helps overseas and military voters participate in federal elections by providing public access to interactive web services. 4.75 million individuals visited OVF’s 17 voter services sites in 2008.
Natalie Tennant
West Virginia Secretary of State
In 2010, West Virginia launched a piloted an online voting initiative for military members and overseas citizens for the primary election. Tennant has testified before Congress on the success of the state’s pilot program and her office has recently issued a report detailing the ways in which voters benefitted.
Halderman, a computer science professor, led a team from the University of Michigan to successfully penetrate and manipulate the internet voting system Washington D.C. planned to use for military and overseas voters for the general election in 2010
Ron Rivest
Professor, M.I.T.
Rivest is a cryptographer and a member of the Election Assistance Commission’s Technical Guidelines Development Committee. In 2006 he published his invention of the ThreeBallot voting system, which incorporates the ability for the voter to discern that their vote was counted while still protecting their voter privacy.
Alex Shvartsman
Director of UConn Center for Voting Technology Research
The mission of the VoTeR center is to advise state agencies in the use of voting technologies and to investigate voting solutions and voting equipment to develop and recommend safe use procedures for their usage in elections.
Videos (may take a bit to load into post) (click video to go to page allowing larger views)
My Two Cents
The panel covered most issues surrounding online voting during close to one-hundred minutes. The time flew by, well focused, and engaging. There is always more that could be said, more details, and additional important points which could have been discussed. Here are some additional points that I would like to have seen raised or had more emphasis.
Voting challenges and solutions should not be limited to military voters. As a veteran I appreciate the service and the challenges to voting for soldiers. All overseas voters should have effective access to voting. Many face similar challenges, many deserve our thanks, while all should be able to have their votes counted. Consider some examples: Volunteers and NGO staff in Darfur and Hati; Business representatives in China, South America, and Africa; Oil rig workers; Merchant Marine; State Department employees; Military contractors; and Peace Corps volunteers.
Insider attacks are easier and more effective than external threats. Like most panels the focus was on outsider attack, yet the risk of a single insider is likely greater. An insider likely needs much less sophisticated means, has more opportunity, and ready means to attack, in less detectable ways.
The government believes, a singly Army Private could have accessed and stolen government documents from many agencies. Whether they have the correct suspect or not, they seem quite convinced that it is possible. Many election officials, government technologists, contractors, and vendor employees would have similar opportunities to compromise online voting systems.
Ironically, driving home I caught snippets of the rebroadcast of the day’s John Dankowski show, Where We Live. The subject was Art Theft. One of the main contentions was that almost all museum art theft is accomplished by unsophisticated insiders – typically low paid security guards with access, using unsophisticated means.
The possibility of error. Online voting systems could have errors which lose votes irretrievably or mis-classify them. Without the paper records votes can be lost or changed, with or without detection, yet without recourse.
The confusion of the possibility of a ‘secure’ government network, with reality and what is on the table. Panelists discussed the possiblity of a non-public Intenet, a highly secure, government network for online voting, using highly secure computers and servers as well. Even though a perfect system is impossible, such a network would be much safer than systems using individual’s computers, the public Internet, or a regular government Internet – many of us might agree such a system was ‘good enough’. Yet we should not confuse that possibility with what was actually the subject of the symposium, what is being actually proposed around the country, or what is reasonable:
Neither the Federal Government, Connecticut, or any state is actually seriously considering such a system. For starters it would be hugely expensive, require agreement to let the military handle all such voting for every jurisdiction, along with huge investments and operating expense on the part of the Federal Government and each election jurisdiction.
It would likely have to be a huge network with a huge number of locations and secure computers, separate from other Military networks, especially if it were used to serve all overseas voters.
Remember that anecdotal extreme cases of voting challenges include front line troops in Afghanistan, relief workers in the most challenging conditions, Peace Corps volunteers in remote villages etc. It is hard to imagine a secure, expensive, network reaching in all such environments. We cannot lose sight of realistic means to solve the real challenge we started out to address.
Complaint Cited ‘Numerous Applications’ For Ballots By Engel Before Police Chief Referendum
Complaint dismissed, 3/27/2012, from the Hartford Courant:
The state Elections Enforcement Commission has dismissed a complaint against former Republican councilwoman Melissa H. Engel concerning the alleged misuse of absentee ballots for a referendum more than a year ago.
The March 21 decision by the commission concerned the fiercely fought November 2010 referendum in which Police Chief Matthew Reimondo won back his job.
Engel, a critic of Reimondo’s, had been accused of mishandling absentee ballots in the weeks preceding the referendum, according to a complaint filed with the commission last September by East Hampton Sgt. Garritt Kelly.
Kelly was investigating concerns raised by a citizen over Engel’s request for at least 11 absentee ballots for residents of a seasonal campground she owns known as Markham Meadows, according to the complaint.
At issue was whether Engel and Douglas Logan, a campground resident, could act as official designees of the residents for whom ballots had been sought. State election law requires that only family members or a health care provider can serve as an official voter designee.
The commission concluded that either Engel or Logan was related to the individuals for whom ballots had been requested and therefore met the larger definition of “family.”
The commission also looked at whether Engel had sent two residents, Richard and Donna Kelly, “unsolicited” absentee ballots, and concluded that the ballots had been requested.
“I’m not surprised by the decision,” Engel said Monday. “I knew that I had done nothing wrong and this confirms that.”
Engel decided not to seek re-election last November after serving six terms on the town council. The Chatham Party, which had backed Reimondo, won four out of seven seats on the council in November.
************
Hartford Courant: State Investigating Possible Misuse Of Absentee Ballots – Complaint Cited ‘Numerous Applications’ For Ballots By Engel Before Police Chief Referendum <read>
The state Elections Enforcement Commission confirmed Monday that it is investigating possible misuse of absentee ballots by Councilwoman Melissa H. Engel during last year’s referendum reinstating Police Chief Matthew Reimondo…
Engel on Monday denied any wrongdoing in the matter. “I’m not sure what the basis of the complaint is,” she said. “I think there is nothing here and, I think the SEEC will determine that.”
Kelly said that Reimondo asked him to look into the matter in April of this year after concerns were raised that Engel had sought “numerous applications” for absentee ballots, according to the affidavit. His complaint states that voting records in the town clerk’s office revealed that Engel made 11 separate applications for absentee ballots. The handwriting on many of these applications appeared to be Engel’s, Kelly stated.
The complaint further states that Town Clerk Sandra Wieleba “became suspicious” after learning that two of the applicants for absentee ballots, Donna Kelley and Richard Kelley, “apparently had not requested the applications” and had “received them unsolicited.”
If these allegations are proven true the voters of East Hampton should appreciate the integrity and vigilance of officials for noticing and pursuing the matter. How many times do things like this happen and go undiscovered or not pursued?
We believe that a good case can be made for Connecticut to require signatures of voters at the polls and compare signatures on submitted absentee ballot envelopes, as many states do. It may not provide detection before votes are counted, but aid in post-election investigations and serve as a deterrent to skulduggery.
Today we assisted the Secretary of the State in randomly selecting 10% of the districts in the November election for the post-election audit.