blob: 112011eb99c21e510e5ec819f72390f81fba2531 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
|
title: A Black day for democracy in Hesse - State Supreme Court allows voting computers
date: 2008-01-23 00:00:00
updated: 2009-04-18 19:07:50
author: erdgeist
tags: update
The State Supreme Court in Hesse has announced NEDAP voting computers can now be used in the Hesse state elections this coming Sunday. The Court justified its decision with jurisdictional reasons since, as a matter of principle, verification is only permissible after the election in an official ballot verification procedure. The Court consequently had no opinion on the constitutionality of the use of NEDAP voting computers. The Chaos Computer Club (CCC) regrets this because the by-elections are now threatened in Hesse in light of the close-run results forecast if a ballot verification procedure is contested after the election.
<!-- TEASER_END -->
With the aid of a Hesse voter the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) filed an
application for an injunction on January 4th, 2008 in order to prevent
the use of the contested voting computers in the Hesse state election.
In this application the CCC first and foremost cited the lack of
verifiability of the election result and consequently doubts around the
election's overall legality. German importers HSG Wahlsysteme have for
years assured local authorities that the pricey NEDAP voting computers
are secure.
Joint investigations by the CCC with the Dutch foundation "Wij
vertrouwen Stemcomputers niet" ("We don't trust voting computers")
demonstrated their susceptibility to manipulation. \[1\] Moreover, the
election observations subsequently launched at the CCC's initiative have
publicised major flaws in the use of voting computers by local
authorities.
The Court did not conduct a detailed appraisal of the technical facts of
the case in the urgent ruling since these would still be subject to
query in an official ballot examination. Due to this decision thousands
of voters in the state of Hesse are being denied the opportunity of
casting their vote using the traditional tried and trusted paper and
pencil method.
Election committees, campaign workers and voters will no longer have the
opportunity to examine the vote - a recount will consist solely of a
renewed printing out of the result stored in the tabulating computer.
The compliance to the published model design of the voting computers
used, or the error-free and tamper-free functioning of the computers'
software is impossible to reproduce or verify. These still remain the
manufacturer's commercial secret.
Rejection of the application reveals an enormous gap in electoral law.
For reasons of procedure voters cannot have the voting procedure
examined beforehand by the process even though they may have grave
misgivings. They are merely left with the option of appealing after the
election.
A number of voters who intend to challenge the ballot after the election
have already contacted the Chaos Computer Club. CCC and partner
organisations will be carrying out extensive election monitoring to spot
irregularities and procedural infringements in the conduct of the
election. Large-scale infringements of prescribed procedures have
already been observed in the test votes arranged as a "safety measure"
by the Hesse Ministry of the Interior.
The core argument of advocates of the NEDAP voting computers is that the
systems can indeed be manipulated but can be made sufficiently secure by
additional procedures. This assumption has been clearly refuted, as in
past election observations.
The ways in which the Hesse State Government and the local authorities
involved have argued during the legal proceedings reveal an appalling
attitude to democratic processes. Convenience and the speed of the count
seem to be the prime objective. Constitutional requirements for the
election's plausibility and legality plus the secrecy of the ballot have
now become minor concerns and critical voters are regarded as a source
of irritation.
An appalling example of disavowal of the democratic process was
exemplified in the statement from the district of Viernheim. The two
largest parties in Germany, the SPD and CDU, here have stated that they
would be unwilling to commit any staff to the counting process if voting
computers were banned. Some campaign workers even launched a petition
abandon the count in future. “In view of this attitude the politicians
in Viernheim should perhaps consider a career in some central Asian
dictatorship. A smooth running of ballots without recounts is also much
appreciated there”, commented CCC spokesman Dirk Engling.
A decision is expected in the next few months in other proceedings
before the Federal Constitutional Court on the admissibility of voting
computers in connection with the 2005 Bundestag elections. The Chaos
Computer Club has produced a detailed analysis of the possibilities for
manipulation and the principal problems of voting computers. \[2\]
The Hesse State Supreme Court's fast-track decision will not impede the
movement to abolish voting computers in Germany. The increasing doubts
of many voters of the trustworthiness of NEDAP voting computers should
even give progressive-thinking politicians pause for thought.
Summarising, CCC spokesman Dirk Engling stated: “In Germany perhaps we
will soon only be disputing whether a mandate was obtained without
manipulation. Holders of elected office should understand that a growing
number of citizens have legitimate doubts about the computerised voting
process.”
### Links
- \[1\] [Detailed information on the vulnerabilities of NEDAP voting
computers](http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/Es3b-en.pdf)
- \[2\] [Chaos Computer Club's statement of 9th June 2007 for the
Federal Constitutional Court
(German)](/press/releases/2007/20070609/nedapReport54.pdf)
|
