Here's what scares me now: Diebold Voting Machines

[Maeve_Mari]

From Newsweek: It's now official: Walden O'Dell is no longer raising funds for George W. Bush. Why should you care? That was Walden O'Dell's attitude last year, when he promised, in his role as rainmaker for Ohio's presidential re-election campaign, to deliver the state to the incumbent. To his surprise, he learned that lots of people did indeed care—once they realized that his day job was running Diebold, a company that makes electronic-voting devices used by millions of voters. So it was prudent for Diebold to adopt a new policy that banned its executives from outside political work, adopted months ago but formally announced just recently. ... O'Dell claims to be "agnostic" on the necessity of providing voters with evidence that their choices are the ones reflected in the count. But the possibility that a future president can attain office mounted on a Trojan horse isn't a philosophical issue: it's a threat to democracy. It's nice to know that Wally O'Dell is no longer working to elect one candidate in particular. It would be even nicer to know, beyond any doubt, that his voting machines weren't, either.


From Mother Jones: October/November Surprise? Among Bush administration opponents -- and not just those on the Internet either -- there's a deep-seated, Florida-inspired, and not unreasonable fear of an October or even November 2nd "surprise." Over the last year, for instance, there have been spasms of Diebold-mania (in honor of one of the Republican-donor firms making the paper-trail-less, touch-screen-computer voting machines, considered quite capable of producing a Florida II).

The overhaul might be happening too quickly to assure accuracy. Nor does it inspire confidence that the main provider of e-voting systems is a powerful backer of the Republican Party. A GOP fundraising letter from Diebold Election Systems CEO Walden O'Dell last year boasted that he's "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

As Farhad Majoo of Salon put it, "What better way to deliver electoral votes for President Bush, some reasoned, than to control the equipment Americans use to cast their ballots?"

The strong smell of a Diebold conflict of interest came up after close Senate races in Georgia and Nebraska in 2002 prompted scrutiny of digital voting systems, especially by Democrats surprised by Republican victories. Accusations of dirty tricks are sure to surface again in the Bush-Kerry contest, especially if a Bush win again secures executive and legislative control by Republicans. Diebold's GOP support is especially key to note because as the corporation is private, so are its records. The equipment, software, and employees tallying votes are not subject to public scrutiny -- so any suspicion of a skewed election can neither be proved or disproved.

IMHO - We (as a nation) are still arguing over the Florida I counts. No way are we ready for an electronic Florida II !!

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

IMHO - We are still arguing over the Florida I counts. No way are we ready for an electronic Florida II !!

That's the truth. If only people would have read the papers, they would have seen the results of the media recounts (eight of them , I believe).

But those nasty right-wing papers, (like the NY Times) who did the recounts, buried the results way back in the back to make them harder to spot.

Gotta keep the true believers believing, you know.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Tireur

That's the truth. If only people would have read the papers, they would have seen the results of the media recounts (eight of them , I believe).

But those nasty right-wing papers, (like the NY Times) who did the recounts, buried the results way back in the back to make them harder to spot.

Gotta keep the true believers believing, you know.

Either you have misposted to the wrong thread or the subtlety of your sarcasm is too evanescent for me to grasp.

[Tireur]

uh, she mentioned, uh tallking about, the, uh , arguing over the, uh, ballot counting in the uh, Florida election.

I thought.

Did I read wrong?

[jeff]

I think you misread: this is about *future* elections, using voter automation produced by a company with close ties to Republicans, and without adequate audit trails for proving that votes haven't been massively forged. Getting a little closer to my professional line of business, for once, there have been a number of computer scientists who are deeply alarmed by these machines and feel that they are nowhere near being safe ways to reliably conduct elections. They feel that it will make it easy to rob elections. The fact that the CEO is a Republican fundraiser doesn't help, not to say that it would be one iota better if he were a partisan on the Democrat side.

[Maeve_Mari]

What I am saying is that I don't care WHO wins the election this November if the win's because of voting discrepancies facilitated by these boxses! Ess and Jeff are right there on topic - I'm not arguing the Florida board handing the election over to Bush anymore. I gave that one up at Gore's concession. I'm talking about not wanting our elections decided by accidental security access failures or unreliable software code.

Though, the deletion of blacks voterson the rolls in Florida do cause me heightened concern, but off topic for the moment.

[Tireur]

Sorry, I was responding to this part:

IMHO - We (as a nation) are still arguing over the Florida I counts. No way are we ready for an electronic Florida II !!

Uh, I'm with you guys on the election stealing bit, tho.

[jBirch]

Uhhh, can someone educate me as to why placing a mark on a piece of paper doesn't work?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Uhhh, can someone educate me as to why placing a mark on a piece of paper doesn't work?

Uhh, can you say hanging chad?

For some reason there seems to be problems with a mark on a piece of paper, a hole punched in a card, an X on the spot, and a raised hand cry of 'Aye!' And now unverifiable electronic collection.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but it sure isn't ready for a technology solution for 2004.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Uhhh, can someone educate me as to why placing a mark on a piece of paper doesn't work?

Because many people are incompetent gits?

Seriously, the security issue has always been my argument against electronic voting, whether for regular elections or for the system of national referenda which sometimes gets suggested as a way to "increase real democracy". That's all we need, is some 15-year-old genius hacking in and giving us Britney Spears as President, or lowering the drinking age to 12...

[Schiavona]

What do you think some anarchist with a powerful magnet could do?

[scrapinpeg]

Am I still supposed to fear and loathe these electronic voting machines without paper trails, made by Republican-leaning companies? Or is everything okay now...

[DHCJr]

In Ohio, there is still a Representative seat that has not been Officially decided. Since it is so close, there is a requirement that they have to have a recount. If there is no paper trail, how do you have a recount? Ask the same machines to say again how many votes.

Has anyone seen 'Man of the Year'? It is really makes you think about this very subject. If you have not, you should.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Am I still supposed to fear and loathe these electronic voting machines without paper trails, made by Republican-leaning companies? Or is everything okay now...

Hmm dunno.
You do gotta wonder what might happen if your Bank decides to upgrade it's machines too...

and its not a fear of eletronic tallies... but what's the objective of a process that doesnt provide for validation, audit or correction?

[DHCJr]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Am I still supposed to fear and loathe these electronic voting machines without paper trails, made by Republican-leaning companies? Or is everything okay now...

Here's an article from this week with a Repulican complaining about the electronic voting machines. See the part on Florida at the bottom of the article where there is a difference of 0.02%.

Razor-thin margin prompts recount in Ohio race - CNN.com

[scrapinpeg]

Shouldn't this be in the Politics section?

Anyway, here's another editorial on the subject, from today's WSJ:

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal, Dec. 1, 2006

Sore Winners
Democrats try to steal an election in Florida.

Democrats whomped Republicans in last month's midterms, but oddly enough they're still calling in the legal cavalry to contest one of the few races they narrowly lost.

That would be Florida's 13th Congressional District, which runs along the Gulf Coast from just south of Tampa to just north of Fort Myers. The certified winner is Republican Vern Buchanan, who beat Democrat Christine Jennings by fewer than 400 votes out of more than 237,000 cast. Two recounts, which were demanded by Democrats and required by law, have reconfirmed Mr. Buchanan's victory and slightly increased the margin.

Unbowed, the Dems are now suggesting that defective voting machines cost them the race. They point to Sarasota County's 18,000 "undervotes," or incidences where voters cast ballots in other races but not the Buchanan-Jennings contest. Ms. Jennings--along with such liberal partisans as People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union--has filed a lawsuit contesting the results based on "statistical and eyewitness evidence of significant machine malfunctions" in Sarasota's iVotronic touch-screen system.

They want a court to declare Ms. Jennings the winner by--get this--using statistical models to extrapolate that she would have received most of the undervotes. Short of that, they'll settle for nullifying the November results and holding a new election. But among the many things that are strange here is that if anyone ought to be complaining about undervotes, it's the GOP. Sarasota is the largest and most Republican county in the district, yet the Democrat, Ms. Jennings, carried it handily. In fact, it's the only county in the district that she did carry, which makes it more likely that it was Republicans who declined to vote in the Congressional race, not Democrats.

And there are reasons so many voters might have taken a pass on this race while voting in others on the ballot. For starters, the Republican primary featured an exceptional amount of mudslinging. The primary was also a five-man race with four candidates from Sarasota County. Mr. Buchanan won the GOP nomination with just 32% of the vote, and some of his primary opponents either waited until the last minute to issue a public endorsement or never got around to it. So it's entirely possible that voters were turned off by the negative campaigning and chose neither Mr. Buchanan nor Ms. Jennings in silent protest.

By the way, undervoting isn't uncommon in the district. Two years ago, there were more than 12,000 Sarasota County undervotes in Democrat Jan Schneider's House race against Republican Representative Katherine Harris. The 2000 race for the 13th district seat, which predated the use of touch-screen voting machines, also featured a high number of undervotes.

This week, Florida election officials began auditing the voting machines, which is the very thorough and transparent process for determining whether they worked properly on Election Day. There is still no evidence that the machines malfunctioned.

But never mind. Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi allowed Ms. Jennings to vote in House leadership elections last month, and Democrats could attempt to disallow the Florida certification and vote to seat Ms. Jennings in January unless a new election is granted. Democrats did precisely that in a contested Indiana House race 20 years ago when they last held Congress.

All of this underscores how anti-Bush hatred has unhinged the political left. They still see Karl Rove lurking outside every voting booth. The Buchanan-Jennings contest has become a particular rallying point for fears about electronic voting, and liberals now want the machines to provide paper trails in the event of a recount. This might be a reasonable request if it were made in good faith. But back during the Florida debacle in 2000, before touch-screen voting was widely used, the same Democrats and liberal columnists deplored the inaccuracy of paper ballots and those "hanging chads."

All of which suggests that their real problem is the outcome of the race, not the integrity of the voting process. Some liberals are so paranoid nowadays that they aren't happy even when they win.

[Gav]

I think you guys should read this:

E-vote systems certifier de-certified

I really don't understand why you guys are willing to use an electronic voting machine...

What's wrong with pencil and paper?

And look here for more on using voting machines.

[jeff]

I'm not willing! These systems are deeply flawed and open to all kinds of vote-distorting abuse.

When the experts say it's ready (people like Avi Rubin) then I'll change my mind. In the meantime, this is a disaster-in-progress.

Oooh, if the computer says something, it must be right! -

[jBirch]

I've been looking into this issue a little more deeply and I'm not convinced that it is theoretical to steal an election if the system is implemented correctly.

1) Each voter is assigned a GUID by the machine when they start the voting process.

2) After they have entered all their votes, the machine produces two paper records of the GUID and their votes: one goes to the voter, another goes to a paper ballot box.

3) Third party firms collect these papers and ballot boxes to confirm that GUIDs reported conform to the paper record.

4) The database used to tabulate the results is open to public scrutiny and simply shows GUIDs and recorded votes.

James.

[jeff]

I don't understand your proposal. You want 128-bit hex GUIDs to be printed to hard copy, and then typed or scanned to compare to a stored version when a voter checks that his vote for Mr. Smith was tabulated for Mr. Smith?

For those who've never heard of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Unique_Identifier

For sure, it should be impossible to steal an election if the "system is implemented correctly", but how does one establish the correctness of that statement. I think this a fairly hard problem.