4 ms·

There's basically an independent part of the administration that oversees elections. Voting points are manned by volunteers and counting happens by volunteers a

There's basically an independent part of the administration that oversees elections. Voting points are manned by volunteers and counting happens by volunteers as well. Every citizen is allowed to witness the counting and visit the voting point. Since it's all paper ballots, this doesn't require any knowledge beyond mostly simple math (local elections can have some more elaborate rules on what constitutes a valid vote, but federal elections are fairly simple in that regard.) The tally is announced locally before transferred to the regional and higher offices. I'd be surprised if someone manages to slip in an invalid count and not be detected: Most crucial voting points are monitored by people from polling institutes that want results as early as possible. Significant differences would likely raise flags. (I did that a few times for infratest, it's actually fairly ok paid for sitting there and watching). n.B.: The software seems to be an absolute clusterfuck and it's probably possible to sow discord and confusion, I just don't believe that you can actually change the election result with these issues - just make people question it, which is bad enough.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
It's kind of "volunteers", as the adminstration sends you a letter and asks you. It's sometimes not easy to get out of that.
- k__ 9y ago
  My uncle did it for years and he was a member of the SPD, so I guess parties are involved quite a bit.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Yeah, but there are also members of all the other parties there. Also, when I volunteered, I got the feeling that most (if not all) election assistants take their duty seriously and emphasize their neutrality while performing it.
    - k__ 9y ago
      Yes, he was very neutral and forbade every political activity in the election rooms. But what can I say, politically interested people are more likely to be party members, so it's more likely that they work there.
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
      I had the same impression.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      Whenever I've been observer I never had the slightest feeling that any of the volunteers would place party allegiance over diligent work. But that's exactly why we're all invited to go and observe.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  This happens if there are insufficient "real" volunteers. Before every election, there are calls for people to staff the voting places and do the vote counting. Only if that doesn't bring enough people, you'll get drafted. (same as with the volunteer fire brigade by the way. there, too, you can be volunteered)
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    "same as with the volunteer fire brigade by the way. there, too, you can be volunteered" Do you have any information? Counting votes is easy, fire fighting isn't :-)
    - germanier 9y ago
      It's called Pflichtfeuerwehr and I think we currently have five of them. Before you actually fight fires you have to take part in mandatory courses. I don't think those five brigades have problems, a team of conscripts is still better than no fire fighters at all.
majewsky 9y ago
> I'd be surprised if someone manages to slip in an invalid count and not be detected: Most crucial voting points are monitored by people from polling institutes that want results as early as possible. That particular part does not protect from rigging. What the polling institutes do is taking a very small representative sample of voters and conducting an exit poll (they essentially have another voting office set up where people can vote a second time in secret for their exit poll). However, if you're clever about how you rig the election, exit polls won't notice that because of the small sample size.
- pfg 9y ago
  You're right about exit polls not being particularly effective here, unless you're being very obvious with the rigging. Luckily, the published results can also be cross-checked by the volunteers - often, but not exclusively representatives of parties up for election - that actually count the paper ballots and observe the process. This process ensures that a very large number of people from diverse political groups would have to be in on it in order to rig the election. Any attack via this software would be detected with very high likelihood. However, the bigger problem would be the impact on the public's trust in the voting process. It's very likely that such an election would have to be repeated (as has happened recently in Austria, due to procedural reasons).
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Your last paragraph is essential to making sense of this whole story. The same sentiment is also present in the original report, on page four. The institutions who bought that software were like aware of those safety nets, which is why they had no problem buying from a vendor that basically looks like a two-man Delphi shop (no idea what they actually used). Had the system been more critical, we would probably be talking about a whole different set of shocking security problems, in some absurdly overengineered T-Systems monstrosity. Personally I feel less unsafe with paper and the obvious insecurities of a glorified excel sheet than with a titanic money-sink twenty layers deep that is feeding an army of salespersons and lobbyists paid to silence every voice of concern. What the institutions who bought this thing underestimated is the terrible impact a caught manipulation (and even this preemptive disclosure, despite being orders of magnitude preferable to only finding out after a caught manipulation) would have on trust, and the spring time for radicals that would follow. A caught manipulation could destabilize the country more than a cruise missile hitting the Reichstag.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

It's kind of "volunteers", as the adminstration sends you a letter and asks you. It's sometimes not easy to get out of that.

k__ 9y ago
My uncle did it for years and he was a member of the SPD, so I guess parties are involved quite a bit.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Yeah, but there are also members of all the other parties there. Also, when I volunteered, I got the feeling that most (if not all) election assistants take their duty seriously and emphasize their neutrality while performing it.
  - k__ 9y ago
    Yes, he was very neutral and forbade every political activity in the election rooms. But what can I say, politically interested people are more likely to be party members, so it's more likely that they work there.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    I had the same impression.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    Whenever I've been observer I never had the slightest feeling that any of the volunteers would place party allegiance over diligent work. But that's exactly why we're all invited to go and observe.
Xylakant 9y ago
This happens if there are insufficient "real" volunteers. Before every election, there are calls for people to staff the voting places and do the vote counting. Only if that doesn't bring enough people, you'll get drafted. (same as with the volunteer fire brigade by the way. there, too, you can be volunteered)
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  "same as with the volunteer fire brigade by the way. there, too, you can be volunteered" Do you have any information? Counting votes is easy, fire fighting isn't :-)
  - germanier 9y ago
    It's called Pflichtfeuerwehr and I think we currently have five of them. Before you actually fight fires you have to take part in mandatory courses. I don't think those five brigades have problems, a team of conscripts is still better than no fire fighters at all.

majewsky 9y ago

> I'd be surprised if someone manages to slip in an invalid count and not be detected: Most crucial voting points are monitored by people from polling institutes that want results as early as possible. That particular part does not protect from rigging. What the polling institutes do is taking a very small representative sample of voters and conducting an exit poll (they essentially have another voting office set up where people can vote a second time in secret for their exit poll). However, if you're clever about how you rig the election, exit polls won't notice that because of the small sample size.

pfg 9y ago
You're right about exit polls not being particularly effective here, unless you're being very obvious with the rigging. Luckily, the published results can also be cross-checked by the volunteers - often, but not exclusively representatives of parties up for election - that actually count the paper ballots and observe the process. This process ensures that a very large number of people from diverse political groups would have to be in on it in order to rig the election. Any attack via this software would be detected with very high likelihood. However, the bigger problem would be the impact on the public's trust in the voting process. It's very likely that such an election would have to be repeated (as has happened recently in Austria, due to procedural reasons).
- usrusr 9y ago
  Your last paragraph is essential to making sense of this whole story. The same sentiment is also present in the original report, on page four. The institutions who bought that software were like aware of those safety nets, which is why they had no problem buying from a vendor that basically looks like a two-man Delphi shop (no idea what they actually used). Had the system been more critical, we would probably be talking about a whole different set of shocking security problems, in some absurdly overengineered T-Systems monstrosity. Personally I feel less unsafe with paper and the obvious insecurities of a glorified excel sheet than with a titanic money-sink twenty layers deep that is feeding an army of salespersons and lobbyists paid to silence every voice of concern. What the institutions who bought this thing underestimated is the terrible impact a caught manipulation (and even this preemptive disclosure, despite being orders of magnitude preferable to only finding out after a caught manipulation) would have on trust, and the spring time for radicals that would follow. A caught manipulation could destabilize the country more than a cruise missile hitting the Reichstag.