German high court bans electronic voting

by DoDo Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 09:01:02 AM EST

Before and after the 2004 elections in the USA, bloggers discussed the dangers of electronic voting to death. Yet, after all the scoffing from us Europeans that Americans can't conduct an election properly, some of our election authorities disregarded all warnings, and electronic voting machines began to appear in Europe, too.

But now, the criticisms have been reinforced from rather high up: the highest German court, the Federal Constitutional Court, ruled yesterday that electronic voting without a paper trail breaks the constitutional requirement of a transparent and public vote.

The practical consequence: the voting machines must now be put out of service until they are retrofitted (if at all). The case, filed on occasion of the 2005 federal elections, was explosive because an invalidation of the 3 million e-votes could have meant the invalidation of the entire election -- however, the court ruled that for lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, those results will stand.

Finally, I note something missing from most reports on German TV: the lawsuit was initiated by a computer scientist and his political scientist father, and its support was coordinated by a non-commercial website, Wahlrecht.de.

German high court bans electronic voting | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Seed comment/Tip jar (4.00 / 8)

Even the electronic voting machines in question are European: they were made by N.V. Nederlandsche Apparatenfabriek (Nedap).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 09:04:19 AM EST

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (none / 0)

Do you know of the arguments for bringing in electronic voting in the first place?

I just wouldn't trust placing my vote electronically.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:16:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (4.00 / 2)

You may find this interesting...

The Open Rights Group » May 2007 Election Report (20 June 2007)

Findings of the Open Rights Group Election Observation Mission in Scotland and England
The Open Rights Group cannot express confidence in the results for areas observed
The Open Rights Group (ORG) believes that the problems observed at the English and Scottish elections in May 2007 raise serious concerns regarding the suitability of e-voting and e-counting technologies for statutory elections. E-voting is a `black box system', where the mechanisms for recording and tabulating the vote are hidden from the voter. This makes public scrutiny impossible, and leaves statutory elections open to error and fraud.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Finaldn electronic voting (4.00 / 3)

E-voting was tested at the last municipal elections. Electronic Voting Cases Appealed to Supreme Court

The municipalities of Karkkila, Kauniainen, and Vihti piloted the electronic ballot system last autumn. Voters choosing the electric method used a special console at the polling place instead of a paper ballot.
However, confusion over the proper use of the console resulted in 232 ballots being disqualified. In each of the three towns, this could theoretically have been enough to change the outcome for a few city council seats.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 10:33:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (4.00 / 2)

Generally it tends to be that it will be cheaper, faster and mroe exact. According to the sales persons anyway.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 11:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (none / 1)

And last but not least, less work for election officials.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 12:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (none / 1)

I still don't understand why you don't just bring a set of scales, and a set of certified, sealed and calibrated weights.

Most ballots are easily within a mass range that a set of mechanical scales can resolve. Just weigh them - say - twenty at a time, and the resolution on the measurement is easily an order of magnitude or two better than it needs to be in order to count the votes properly. And of course, any attempt to gimmick the weight of the ballots would be discovered because the total weight of the used ballots would be tabulated before the election starts.

That's bound to be simpler and less error-prone than manual counting. And harder to gimmick, too.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 12:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (none / 0)

There are inexpensive machines for high-speed counting of banknotes. Those could be used to count stacks of ballots once they have been classified by humans.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 03:24:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (none / 0)

They contain software.

Or even if they don't, they contain hard-to-observe hard-wiring.

For transparency reasons, that's not acceptable.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 01:44:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seed comment/Tip jar (none / 1)

Nedap's voting machines were found to be wanting in an earlier court decision in the Netherlands, and the Dutch government has decided not to use voting machines anymore (in May 2008). See the website of the Dutch campaign against the machines.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 06:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 4)

Ireland had a similar fiasco some years ago and the electronic voting machines have been in (v. expensive) storage ever since.

Given that my job used to be computerising business systems you might have expected me to be an enthusiastic supporter. However computerising of voting and voting counting breaks all sorts of business and other principles.

Computerisation is most efficient for high volume high frequency events. Voting typically takes place once every few years... E-Voting therefore requires a very high investment for a very low frequency event
Elections require a high degree of transparency and trust. In the absence of a paper trail (which defeats many of the efficiency arguments) e-voting cannot achieve this - people have to trust the programmers/equipment suppliers that some kind of bias hasn't been built in - difficult in the US where the virtual monopoly supplier has strong Republican leanings.
Voting is a social and human activity, taken in consultation with others. In many jurisdictions the actual vote count is an important celebration of democracy.
Voting most be ubiquitous and simultaneous. Electronic systems are prone to breakdown and communications problems.

Ultimately I don't have a problem with some sort of fault-tolerant internet based voting system provided there is a reliable way of uniquely identifying the voter to avoid multiple voting and identity theft and a way for voters to check that their vote has been counted. There are some benefits to being able to vote at your convenience without having to return to your voting district - especially if you work or currently live elsewhere. Postal voting is also susceptible to similar vote theft problems. But buying specialised equipment from one supplier which will only be used once every few years simply makes no sense.

Irish vote counting is notoriously complex because of the multiple seat transferable vote system used, but that just means the counting process becomes almost like a suspense filled sporting event which can take days to resolve. Looking at the Al Franken Senate vore in the US, it appears those problems can apply to all systems..

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 11:57:59 AM EST

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 2)

Almost all the computer science people I know were horrified by the electronic voting stuff here.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 11:59:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 2)

Imagine my surprise and paranoid suspicion when I first encountered the ATM machines at my local Sparkasse clearly labeled Diebold.

"Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 12:47:29 PM EST

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 2)

It's even worse when you encounter the machines at a branch of Unicredit in Italy (as I did)...

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 12:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 3)

At least you can count the money afterwards . . .

by Humbug (mailklammeraffeschultedivisstrackepunktde) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 02:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 1)

It's not the cash coming out I was suspicious about, but the fees.

It was a half snark comment anyway, but I was still surprised to see Diebold in Germany.

We can all rest assured now that they only have ATM machines here now and no voting machines... I guess...

"Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 02:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 1)

Same here, in Spain.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 03:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely! (4.00 / 2)

And if Diebold can make a machine that counts money properly, why can't they make a machine that counts votes properly?

Answer: They don't want to.

Now turn it around: What happens when the banking collapse REALLY gets going?

Say, the machine takes $60 out of your account. The paper receipt agrees--$60. But it has only put two $20 bills in your hand. NOW what do you do?

CAN'T HAPPEN, you say . . .

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 12:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely! (none / 1)

I eat the $20 loss and go find a different bank. Oh, and from that point on, they get to have the pleasure (and expense) of seeing my face at the teller every time I need cash.

And if there's any more bullshit, I take out all my money and put it in the Bank of Serta.

Yay! Bank runs are fun!

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 08:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course. Hence my phrase (none / 1)

REALLY gets going.

Final spiral.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 10:18:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course. Hence my phrase (none / 1)

[Gaianne's Crystal Ball of Doom™ Technology]

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 11:10:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gaianne's Crystal Ball of Doom (none / 1)

Exactly.

In many ways, the banking crisis resembles a Mafia bust-out. In a bust-out, an enterprise that has been taken over by some means--intimidation, extortion, blackmail, or even (gasp) purchase--is looted out. Physical assets are sold off, while a massive credit-funded buying spree of appropriate business goods ensues. The goods are sold for cash, the creditors--who lent based on the company's previous volume and reliability--are stiffed.

In this banking crisis, many things will go. But what will be the LAST thing to go?

Your checking account and your savings deposit.

And Diebold will be there, earning its executive bonuses.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 06:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course. Hence my phrase (none / 1)

I don't buy it. Why would they risk a bank run, just to steal a couple of hundred thousand dollars from their depositors? Of course they're going to steal from their depositors, but if they do it in such obvious ways, people will just change to the Bank of Serta. No matter how desperate they are, I really can't see any scenario where it would make sense.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 06:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Absolutely! (none / 1)

And if Diebold can make a machine that counts money properly, why can't they make a machine that counts votes properly?
Answer: They don't want to.

Well you could argue that field testing for banking machines has been going on 24/7/365 for 40 years, whereas field testing for voting machines only gets to happen 1 day in every 4 years, so problems are bound to show up.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 06:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 3)

This is very interesting and >I'm greatly relieved that Germany has gotten rid of e-voting for now.

I note that the decision reportedly was based on the lack of a paper trail.

In Italy it appears that the paper trail is irrelevant in the final analysis. Votes indeed can be recounted but what counts before the law is the proclamation of voter results, regardless whether fraudulent or not. Even in the unlikely case the matter ended up in court, it would not change the results.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 05:19:53 PM EST

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 0)

In Spain, apparently, judges are involved in the certification of vote counts on election night...

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 03:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 0)

In Italy it is the president of each precinct that officializes. Any citizen may be a president. The Porcellum law attempted to radically change the criteria of assigning presidency but generally- and fortunately- messed up the process. I described what happened in one of my diaries a few years ago.

Psarty representatives may oversee the vote count.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Fri Mar 6th, 2009 at 01:09:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (4.00 / 3)

One could argue that a paper ballot, read immediately by machine, and rejected if the machine detects an invalid vote, should be an acceptable method of counting votes.

However:

by asdf on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 at 11:54:55 PM EST

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 1)

Why "however"? If the rejection is immediate, and the voter can try again, there should be no problem, except for the absentee ballots.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 02:50:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 1)

Because in this case it would not be rejected by the machine, which only looks at the oval spaces. Since one oval space is filled in, and the other is not, the machine ignores the little arrow drawn by the voter and accepts the ballot.

by asdf on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 at 08:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 0)

I thought that was a vote for Franken with a smudge that should be ignored... You're telling me the smudge is clearly an arrow intended to move the vote?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 11:12:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

:D (none / 1)

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 06:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: :D (none / 0)

Vote-counters should count votes, not determine voter intent

Any ballot where the voter intent isn't obvious is a void ballot. For instance, the one at the top of this thread.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 10th, 2009 at 07:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

*sigh* (none / 1)

This is why you want people to go out of the polling booth and get a new ballot when they make a mistake like that. And you want them to do it as many times as they need to. (And then you want to keep track of the extra ballots, of course...)

The more I learn about the hows and wherefores of 'Murican elections, the more scared I get.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Mar 10th, 2009 at 06:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: German high court bans electronic voting (none / 0)

To me it looks as though the arrow does go through some of the oval, which may well count as an overvote, though it might depend on the machine (my favourite example of a rejected optical ballot in Florida was one where the voter wrote "Jesus Christ" for president. It was rejected not for plausible reasons, such as the requirement that the president be, er, "naturally born", but because the voter wrote the "J" with a large flourish, that passed through one of the ovals...)

In this case, though, one could imagine a similar ballot where the arrow just missed the oval. If the machine gave immediate feedback as to who the voter was voting for, this might solve the problem (though with voters like this, sometimes nothing will help...)

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 04:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

German high court bans electronic voting | 35 comments (35 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

German high court bans electronic voting

Top Diaries

No More Equality Under the Law, the End of Isonomy in...

Generating a toxic discourse that's not really about ARINS

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - May 2025

Recent Diaries

Stop Bloodshed, Invest In Peace

Trump: Sanctions Are Self Defeating

City Agriculture - May 13, 2025

Major Shift Powers in Mena - West Asia

China Trade Deal: Repair 4 Years of Biden Neglect

Trump: Zelensky Should Agree to Direct Talks w Putin

IDF Sniper Murderer of Shireen Abu Akleh Named

Rift Trump w Netanyahu Deepens

MAGA Freaked Out on Election Leo XIV

A Deal of the Century In the Making .. Again

Israel Aims a Political Ban on Dutch Institutions

Nakim Terror: Taking the Holocaust to Palestinians

PMQ House of Commons and Israeli War Crimes

Bill Bradley on Russia and NATO

Friedrich Merz Humiliated In 1st Vote

Rogue States Destroying the United Nations

Last Resort: Trump Slaps Erdogan On His Shoulder

Trump Hard Work Reversing JCPOA Decision

WWII Commemoration and Today's Genocide

VE Day Winston Churchill 1945