Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on October 29, 2008, 07:51:34 PM
-
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/10/the-vote-grab-1.html
The Vote Grab: Voting machines are unreliable and inaccurate
By Peter Tatchell
As early voting in the US presidential elections gets underway, ES&S iVotronics touch-screen electronic voting machines have been observed in four separate states flipping the votes – mostly from Barack Obama to John McCain but sometimes to third party candidates too. This has already occurred during early voting in the states of West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas.
A county clerk in West Virginia invited a video crew to watch his demonstration of the reliability of the disputed voting machines but instead he saw the machine flipping the votes, as critics claimed. He put this down to the faulty calibration of the voting machine. However, even after he recalibrated the machine it continued to flip votes. Watch the video here:
This is further evidence that the electronic voting machines that will be used in the 4 November election are not reliable and accurate – that they are prone to malfunction and may not record the actual vote winner.
Democrats are not the only people who are worried. Stephen Spoonamore, a Republican security expert, explains why electronic voting is inherently unsafe in an eight part series of interviews. You can watch Part 1, and access Parts 2 to 7, here.
Writing in the New Statesman way back in 2004, reflecting on criticisms of the electronic voting systems used in the presidential election that year, Michael Meacher MP pointed out that statisticians, academics and political analysts had highlighted significant voting differences between electoral districts that used paper ballots and those that used electronic systems. These cannot be explained by random variation. The investigators found a much larger variance than expected and in every case it favoured George W Bush over John Kerry. In Wisconsin and Ohio, the discrepancy favoured Bush by 4 per cent, in Pennsylvania by 5 per cent, in Florida and Minnesota by 7 per cent, in North Carolina by 9 per cent and in New Hampshire by a whopping 15 per cent.
Research by the University of Berkeley, California, revealed election irregularities in 2004 in Florida. These irregularities, all of which were associated with electronic voting machines, appear to have awarded between 130,000 to 260,000 additional votes to Bush.
The discrepancies between paper and electronic voting could be the result of simple technological glitches. But some experts detect something more sinister: outright vote fixing by interference with voting machine and tabulation software.
Meacher reported that Diebold company voting machines and optical scanners may not be tamper-proof from hacking, particularly via remote modems. Diebold machines were used in counting a substantial proportion of the 2004 votes and will be used again in next week's presidential poll.
Two US computer security experts, in their book Black Box Voting, state that "by entering a two-digit code in a hidden location, a second set of votes is created; and this set of votes can be changed in a matter of seconds, so that it no longer matches the correct votes".
This is entirely possible, according to Clinton Curtis, a Florida computer programmer. He has confirmed that in 2000 he designed an undetectable programme for Republican congressman Tom Feeney. It was created to rig elections by covertly switching votes from one candidate to another to ensure a predetermined ballot outcome. See a video of his sworn testimony here.
As Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of JFK, has exposed, the US is one of the few democracies that allow private, partisan companies to secretly count votes using their own proprietary software.
Moreover, the vast majority of western democracies have independent Election Commissions to oversee voting methods and corroborate the results. The US does not.
Most election ballots next week will be tallied or scanned by four private companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic.
According to Kennedy:
Three of the four companies have close ties to the Republican Party. ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former company. Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over. And according to campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush in 2004."
Is it right and proper for partisan pro-Republican companies to count the votes? It is certainly not objective and impartial.
Kennedy recounts how computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice universities conducted an analysis of the Diebold voting machine software source code in July 2003. "This voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts… (it is) unsuitable for use in a general election," the scientists concluded.
"With electronic machines, you can commit wholesale fraud with a single alteration of software," Avi Rubin told Kennedy. He is a computer science professor at Johns Hopkins who received $US7.5 million from the National Science Foundation to study electronic voting. "There are a million little tricks when you build software that allow you to do whatever you want. If you know the precinct demographics, the machine can be programmed to recognize its precinct and strategically flip votes in elections that are several years in the future. No one will ever know it happened."
Electronic voting machines not only break down frequently, their security and integrity is also easily compromised, says Kennedy:
"In October 2005, the US Government Accountability Office issued a damning report on electronic voting machines. Citing widespread irregularities and malfunctions, the government's top watchdog agency concluded that a host of weaknesses with touch-screen and optical-scan technology 'could damage the integrity of ballots, votes and voting-system software by allowing unauthorized modifications'…Locks protecting computer hardware were easy to pick. Unsecured memory cards could enable individuals to 'vote multiple times, change vote totals and produce false election reports.'
An even more comprehensive report released in June by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank at the New York University School of Law, echoed the GAO's findings. The report - conducted by a task force of computer scientists and security experts from the government, universities and the private sector - was peer-reviewed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Electronic voting machines widely adopted since 2000, the report concluded, "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections." While no instances of hacking have yet been documented, the report identified 120 security threats to three widely used machines - the easiest method of attack being to utilize corrupt software that shifts votes from one candidate to another.
There is no evidence that the voting machine malfunctions, flaws and security risks identified in the 2004 ballot have been fully corrected in time for the 2008 vote. This calls into question whether the 4 November ballot will reflect the will of the American people.
As Kennedy concludes:
"You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to fear for the integrity of our electoral system: The right to vote is simply too important - and too hard won - to be surrendered without a fight. It is time for Americans to reclaim our democracy from private interests."
To contact Peter Tatchell and for more information about his human rights campaigns visit www.petertatchell.net
Appears that voter fraud is getting easier all the time.
-
We need some of these machines in Ohio. Heck, it might even cancel out the bogus Dem votes...
-
These voting machines are silly.
Now I say this as someone who has spent the last 8 or 9 years fighting to get calculators into Calculus class. I believe technology has its uses, this is not one of them. The risk/reward ratio is way out of whack.
Only the government could come up with a solution to "hanging chads" which costs tons of money and makes the problem worse instead of better.
-
I'm to believe that the voting machines are secret Republican sympathizers?
Don't we have enough real voting irregularities in this election to worry about?
-
Chocolate News had an AMAZINGLY funny take down on voting machines voting Republican.
-
Is it right and proper for partisan pro-Republican companies to count the votes? It is certainly not objective and impartial.
Oh gee, another unbiased rant.
As if there aren't any partisan pro-Democratic companies within the same business either. Give me a break.
-
I like plain paper ballots, each with its own serial number, myself.
Not foolproof, but beats the heck outta computerized voting machines.
-
Why not have electronic voting machines that COUNT paper ballots?
And then if anything goes wrong you still have the ballots to go back to.
-
They do.
They're called optical scanners, and they're subject of their own particular set of foibles.
-
They do.
They're called optical scanners, and they're subject of their own particular set of foibles.
Yes, but if somethnig goes wrong there, can't you just recount by hand?
-
Why not have electronic voting machines that COUNT paper ballots?
And then if anything goes wrong you still have the ballots to go back to.
Then you get Democrats claiming voter fraud because their own constituents are too stupid to operate the paper ballot properly, just like in 2000.
Personally, I think the electronic machines have a lot going for them. If done properly, they can produce a verifiable, auditable record. You could have the machine issue each voter a receipt, indicating who they voted for, along with a randomly generated anonymous serial number. After the election, the election agency could publish each ballot in some sort of registry, searchable by that anonymous serial number. Everyone would be able to check that their own ballot was entered correctly, and that the vote totals are correct based on the published anonymous ballots.
-
Then you get Democrats claiming voter fraud because their own constituents are too stupid to operate the paper ballot properly, just like in 2000.
If you're too goddamned stupid to fill out a ballot, you're too goddamned stupid to vote.
-
In TN, some of the machines were counting any vote as a vote for Obama.
-
In TN, some of the machines were counting any vote as a vote for Obama.
CURSE those Republican voting machines!!! <shakes fist>
-
Here, we have machines that read the paper ballots, and then store the ballots in the base of the machine in case a recount is needed.
-
In Nevada, they got the Gaming Commission to help design the electronic voting machines. As in, the guys who make sure that the casinos don't rig their machines to never pay out, and make sure the machines can't be tampered with by casino patrons to pay out more often.
Nevada has some pretty damn secure machines because of it. They have paper trails and aren't supposed to be easily hackable.
-
I like the idea of a paper trail as well. It allows representatives to count say a 10% sample of the ballots in an area and insure the sample is similar to the total. Total electronic counting doesn't allow that. It only allows you to check that the correct number of votes were cast.
-
I don't see what the problem is :angel:
November 11, 2004
Dude, Where's My Votes?
Posted by Frank J. at 06:31 AM | View blog reactions | Comments (42)
Man, I was so happy with our win, but then I found out that places like Democratic Underground are arguing that Bush stole the election once again. What? But what about all those votes? Well, Wikipedia even has a page up about how the election was stolen with charts and everything. Is something up? Well, I contacted my local wing of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who patched me into the national arm of the VRWC. Then I got to talk to two people I shall refer to as Hacker1 and Hacker2. Here is the conversation:
Frank: So, did we steal the election this time?
Hacker1: Yeah, totally. We like rigged all the machines so there was no way we could lose.
Frank: Why didn't you tell me we had it in the bag? I was like totally worried about this election!
Hacker2: Sorry, dude, but we were like told not to spread it around too much.
Hacker1: Yeah, we needed everyone to act like it was close and worrisome so no one would know we like totally hacked it. That Karl Rove is smart, dude; he knows how to run things.
Hacker2: Yeah, Rove is totally evil and totally cool.
Frank: So did you hack voting everywhere?
Hacker1: Yeah, otherwise it would look weird if we only improved in the battleground states.
Hacker2: Rove was completely in charge of all that. He even came in last minute and said, "Give them New Hampshire," and we were like, "Whatever."
Frank: So was it hard hacking the vote?
Hacker1: Sorta, but Diebold gave us easy to follow instructions.
Hacker2: We totally owned all the votes.
Hacker1: Totally.
Hacker2: It was funny to see the Democrats try and cheat the old-fashioned way. They can bring in all the dead people they want to vote, but we'll just change their votes to Republican in the end.
Hacker1: (laughs) I bet you didn't know this, but Michael Moore voted for Bush.
Hacker2: (laughs) He doesn't know it either.
Frank: But aren't people going to find out about this eventually?
Hacker1: Not if we're careful, dude.
Hacker2: First off, we're not going to hand out many landslides. It's going to be a bunch of real close ones so we can say to the Democrats, "Oh, that was so close. You really should try again."
Hacker1: (laughs) We're going to drive them nuts.
Hacker2: Anyway, the VRWC will save money in the future as we cut back on commercials and campaign appearances, but Rove will make sure we don't cut back so much that it looks suspicious.
Frank: Except to the Democratic Underground.
Hacker1: Yeah, there's no fooling those guys. They're on top of everything. Luckily, Rove had a plan for them too.
Hacker2: What he did was get all these mental patients - total schizos - and brainwash them about how evil the Republicans are. Then he gave them internet connections.
Hacker1: Now the schizos that Rove planted totally rule the Democratic Underground discussion forum. They�re the most prolific posters. Instead of getting anywhere on all the evil plans we have, they waste time blaming a Democrat event being rained out on Karl Rove.
Hacker2: Which is stupid because our weather machine is only 60% complete.
Frank: What about bloggers talking about voting malfeasance?
Hacker1: Dude, Rove totally owns the blogosphere. Most of the popular bloggers write only what Rove tells them.
Frank: Like who?
Hacker1: Well, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, half the people at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Scott Ott of Scrappleface.
Frank: I knew it!
Hacker2: The phrase "Axis of Weasels" was all Rove's idea.
Frank: So he controls the bloggers to combat the left-wing blogs like the DailyKos?
(both hackers laugh)
Hacker1: Dude, Rove personally writes DailyKos.
Hacker2: Yeah, he wants to control what the left are whining about.
Frank: Whoa! That Rove is one sinister, evil dude!
Hacker2: Totally.
Frank: Hey, has Rove ever mentioned my site?
Hacker1: Uh... yeah, once. He asked me, "What's this site 'IMAO'?" And I told him, "Remember, it's the one with the moon exploding." And he said, "Oh yeah, it's the stupid site about the angry dog."
Frank: Cool! He knows my site! So, back to the main subject, what's in the future of voting now that we own it?
Hacker1: We'll only keep fixing elections for so long. Eventually we'll dissolve the Democratic party and turn the U.S. into a one-party ruled dictatorship.
Hacker2: That's Rove's long-term plans.
Frank: Neato. Well, thanks for talking to me.
Hacker1: You're not going to publish this, are you?
Frank: Uh... well... er... uh... no.
-
Various machines out there. One I've seen is nothing more than an expensive pencil.
Insert ballot
make voting selections on screen
hit 'mark'
machine bubbles in your selection and spits out ballot
you drop ballot in box
Ballots are then scan counted. (oops...theres the spot!)
But, if needed, there IS a paper trail.
-
Heck, why doesn't Bush just declare all Democrats to be "enemy combatants" and have them all arrested on Nov. 3 ? :rolleyes:
=D
-
Personally, I think the electronic machines have a lot going for them. If done properly, they can produce a verifiable, auditable record. You could have the machine issue each voter a receipt, indicating who they voted for, along with a randomly generated anonymous serial number. After the election, the election agency could publish each ballot in some sort of registry, searchable by that anonymous serial number. Everyone would be able to check that their own ballot was entered correctly, and that the vote totals are correct based on the published anonymous ballots.
I like that idea. I also propose a hybrid of electronic and paper ballot that you use a computer, WITH BUTTONS, not a stupid ass touchscreen. Select your vote, have confirmation, before you leave, review and confirm/edit. Finalize your vote. You get a receipt with an anonymous serial number and so does the paper ballot that gets punched when you final it out. This way, you have 1) an electronic record, 2) a paper record easily read by computer, and 3) a paper record easily read by a person.
-
If the republicans "own" the vote and control all the Diebold machines how come the dems got a majority in the house and senate? Or is it fraud only when the Dems loose?
-
We are at a point of inflection in terms of the history of suffrage. Between voting machine and ACORN and millions of uninformed voters it's clear, at least to me, that the legitimacy of the voting process has hit a wall. To believe that the winner of this Election will find general acceptance is naive. We are going to have to completely re-think the process, on all levels.
-
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Or is it fraud only when the Dems loose?
BINGO!
-
Heck, why doesn't Bush just declare all Democrats to be "enemy combatants" and have them all arrested on Nov. 3 ? :rolleyes:
=D
Works for me.
-
I think I've voted at least 3-4 different ways...
What was wrong with the old fashioned clunky things, where you flipped a bunch of levers, and flipped the big "I'm finished, so record everything" dealie to finish? Seemed to work okay...
-
I think I've voted at least 3-4 different ways...
Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? You're supposed to vote the same way each time :laugh:
-
What was wrong with the old fashioned clunky things, where you flipped a bunch of levers, and flipped the big "I'm finished, so record everything" dealie to finish? Seemed to work okay...
They're relatively expensive, prone to wearing out, and unfortuantly designing and/or maintaining them is a more or less lost art. With wear you get the hanging chads that caused this whole mess in the first place.
Reminds me of the candy machines on a 'how stuff is made' episode - the candy makers are having to get parts for many of their tools made by machinists. *GASP* - I remember thinking at the time 'wasn't that how they fixed stuff back when the thing was made?'. Still, it's more expensive to get a gear made at a machine shop than to simply order a mass produced one.
If I was them I'd pay to have the things patterned. Shouldn't be too much that can't be made by a CNC machine today.
Personally, I like the #2 pencil. Heck, I proposed THAT back when I was in school - and taking standardized tests several times a year. My solution was simple: Do a print out of the ballots, then run them through the frequently used, reliable, and relatively trustworthy scanners the school system had. Pull some random samples for verification.
If they need more machines - great, more for the school to use to avoid delays on our test scores.
Now, more than a decade later, they have scanners that fit over individual bins - which are perfectly fine. Just, after that, run some of the boxe's contents through the school scanning systems for verification.
-
Personally, I like the #2 pencil. Heck, I proposed THAT back when I was in school - and taking standardized tests several times a year. My solution was simple: Do a print out of the ballots, then run them through the frequently used, reliable, and relatively trustworthy scanners the school system had. Pull some random samples for verification.
If they need more machines - great, more for the school to use to avoid delays on our test scores.
Now, more than a decade later, they have scanners that fit over individual bins - which are perfectly fine. Just, after that, run some of the boxe's contents through the school scanning systems for verification.
what about these
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwebpages.charter.net%2Fjet776%2FZEH_10.jpg&hash=8fbab182d1d257f7ce69fc3ae85f15936f42b872) :O
please let's at least use (maybe indelible =|) ink :laugh:
-
What was wrong with the old fashioned clunky things, where you flipped a bunch of levers, and flipped the big "I'm finished, so record everything" dealie to finish? Seemed to work okay...
They're relatively expensive, prone to wearing out, and unfortuantly designing and/or maintaining them is a more or less lost art. With wear you get the hanging chads that caused this whole mess in the first place.
Reminds me of the candy machines on a 'how stuff is made' episode - the candy makers are having to get parts for many of their tools made by machinists. *GASP* - I remember thinking at the time 'wasn't that how they fixed stuff back when the thing was made?'. Still, it's more expensive to get a gear made at a machine shop than to simply order a mass produced one.
If I was them I'd pay to have the things patterned. Shouldn't be too much that can't be made by a CNC machine today.
Back on voting machines, personally, I like the #2 pencil. Heck, I proposed THAT back when I was in school - and taking standardized tests several times a year. My solution was simple: Do a print out of the ballots, then run them through the frequently used, reliable, and relatively trustworthy scanners the school system had. Pull some random samples for verification.
If they need more machines - great, more for the school to use to avoid delays on our test scores.
Now, more than a decade later, they have scanners that fit over individual bins - which are perfectly fine. Just, after that, run some of the boxe's contents through the school scanning systems for verification.
Sanglant - a pencil allows people to adjust their votes during deciding, saves paper/ballots. You simply don't allow any erasers in the counting areas.
-
personally, I like the #2 pencil
Simple wins again!
In fact, that is what I used the other day when I voted early.
Reminds me of the story (don't know if it's true) about all the R&D that was done by our folks here in the good ol U.S. of A. when hunting for a writing implement to use on space missions. Lots of time and $$ involved. Russia sent their cosmonauts up with a pencil.
-
Turns out, the Machine's don't like either one of the candidates!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of
-
Turns out, the Machine's don't like either one of the candidates!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of
Everything is proceeding according to plan...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7451867.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7451867.stm)
-
Sanglant - a pencil allows people to adjust their votes during deciding, saves paper/ballots. You simply don't allow any erasers in the counting areas.
True, and yet(head to bad to finish that thought). =)