Computerized Voting Box Issue

[Faggot the Hutt]

The following is a very long and very dull, but VERY important analysis of the current situation regarding our nation's computerized voting system. Essentially, the two largest producers of computerized voting boxes are owned/operated by two brothers, and they are both Republican contributers. (The article specifically discusses Diebold.)

Now, that alone may give the appearance impropriety, however the kicker is that the voting machines being produced by said brothers are easily cracked and their voting records can be deleted, altered, doubled or entirely replaced. And, voting committees are unwilling to discuss the issue publicly.

Whether you are a Democrat, Republican or other, we all deserve an answer, and solution:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

[Maeve_Mari]

The following is a very long and very dull, but VERY important analysis of the current situation regarding our nation's computerized voting system. Essentially, the two largest producers of computerized voting boxes are owned/operated by two brothers, and they are both Republican contributers. (The article specifically discusses Diebold.)

Now, that alone may give the appearance impropriety, however the kicker is that the voting machines being produced by said brothers are easily cracked and their voting records can be deleted, altered, doubled or entirely replaced. And, voting committees are unwilling to discuss the issue publicly.

Whether you are a Democrat, Republican or other, we all deserve an answer, and solution:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

Oh, and don't forget this other tidbit of discretionary caution: The capability to audit or track computer registered votes to actual vote made has not been implemented. Votes will not and cannot be verified back for correctness or assurance! These machines have been designed for blind results. No checks on the validity of the response.

[telkanuru]

ooh, those companies making the electronic voting machines make me so angry. No accountability, leaked source codes, no way to detect tampering... Gah! The stupidity hurts my brain and makes baby jesus cry. In soviet russia, voting machine vote for you!

[Maeve_Mari]

In soviet russia, voting machine vote for you!

And we knew it too. But it didn't matter, we were only the proctors then, not the recipient of deficient voter box testing!

[Faggot the Hutt]

ooh, those companies making the electronic voting machines make me so angry. No accountability, leaked source codes, no way to detect tampering... Gah! The stupidity hurts my brain and makes baby jesus cry. In soviet russia, voting machine vote for you!

The boxes were programmed using MS Access, and the programmers didn't bother to encrypt the template, so anyone can gain access to it and alter it at the most basic level. Plus, the password used to gain access to some of the machine-level stuff is known by all staff and employees within the department responsible for developing the voting system. What's worse is that if you look at the Diebold employment page, you'll see that NONE of the people responsible for installing the voting system are required to have a security clearance- that means no indepth background checks for anyone that's installing the voting hardware. How can the voting techs not have a security clearance?!

[jeff]

Wow, a serious post from FTH, and a really good one too - I'm impressed. Good for you, FTH (I never thought I'd be typing that).

For more idiocy with computer voting, the Missouri Secretary of State says he will be allowing electronic votes from soldiers via *unencrypted* e-mail. Votes will not be encrypted, they'll be processed by a contractor who won't have the usual polling observers, and they won't be private votes. Just due to the first of those, it will be trivial to change any vote.

Vote fraud possibilities on a massive scale. As we say in the computer biz "to err is human, but to really foul things up it takes a computer"

[Maeve_Mari]

Wow, a serious post from FTH, and a really good one too - I'm impressed. Good for you, FTH (I never thought I'd be typing that).

Notice his dot, Jeff. He has turned himself green and is quite proud of it too!

[Faggot the Hutt]

Notice his dot, Jeff. He has turned himself green and is quite proud of it too!

I keep telling you people that Craig is my woman. Why don't you listen?

[Army Fencer]

I know that in some countries (I can't remember which right now), they have electronic voting, with a twist. They have an electronic receipt for every vote that they keep in the voting box. It doesn't solve everything, but it helps with the recount issue, at least.

[Gav]

Well done FTH another fine thread!

I can't believe - or should that be I really do believe - that people are daft enough to accept these boothes without any guarentee's of verification or accountability. I would find myself in a pretty awkkward position if these were to be introduced in the UK (and judging by the present incumbents in Downing Street it is likely). On the one hand I firmly believe that everyone must vote - even if that means voting for fringe parties or spoiling their ballot. On the other, with these boothes, I would not have any confidence that my electronically counted vote would be registered for the party that I wish to vote for? And how do you spoll an electronic voting card? This indicates to me that I would be less likely to vote and, were these concerns about accuracy to become widespread, that there would be a further drop in voter turnout ... which is counter productive to the 'published' reasons for introducing the damn things in the first place! Phew. Glad I go that off my chest.

Given governments history of implementing and paying for new IT systems the idea of introducing such e-voting schemes fills me with dread. Anyone for a spot of 1984?

[Inquartata]

I'm more worried about 14-year-old hackers than Big Brother, myself...

[Gav]

I'm more worried about 14-year-old hackers than Big Brother, myself...

ok "anyone for a spot of Little Brother..."

[esskreemr]

Pessimists or realists?

I had a friend send me a couple of links on this very issue.

Here's a couple that will raise some hackles (or heckles):

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

Of course, the Floridian Repubs didn't help much (or maybe the did help) by passing a law that prohibits manual recounts of touch-screen machine printouts.

Here's a clarification of that:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...7951666.htm?1c

Perhaps Kerry should start trying to reach the /dev/null vote!

[jeff]

/dev/null

For those among us that are not Unix techies, /dev/null is Unix idiom for 'black hole' or 'bit bucket'

[Maeve_Mari]

For those among us that are not Unix techies, /dev/null is Unix idiom for 'black hole' or 'bit bucket'

And for those of you who still don't understand. It's the category where all the unprocessable votes fall into, leaving them uncast and not counted.

Remember the story of the bank software programmer who had the rounded out penny fall into the "/dev/null" account? What'd he get away with - something close to $20 million before they caught him?

It becomes a significant count if programmed rules are coded for it!

[jeff]

Remember the story of the bank software programmer...

A classic, and instructive fraud: the fractions of a penny from interest calculations go to the bank, not to your savings account - and an enterprising programmer added up the fractions and directed them to a special account he created for himeself. Fractions of a penny for a few million people adds up pretty quickly! Customers never noticed any loss (since they wouldn't have gotten that money anyway), and the bank didn't know for a long time either.

Just shows how there are many risks with computer systems, especially when there's an inside job. The application of this example for voting systems should be obvious...

[jeff]

From the RISKS (ACM FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) mailing list:

Sum of a Glitch, by Bev Harris

In the Alabama 2002 general election, machines made by Election Systems and Software (ES&S) flipped the governor's race. Six thousand three hundred Baldwin County electronic votes mysteriously disappeared after the polls had closed and everyone had gone home. Democrat Don Siegelman's victory was handed to Republican Bob Riley, and the recount Siegelman requested was denied. Three months after the election, the vendor shrugged. "Something happened. I don't have enough intelligence to say exactly what," said Mark Kelley of ES&S.

When I began researching this story in October 2002, the media was reporting that electronic voting machines are fun and speedy, but I looked in vain for articles reporting that they are accurate. I discovered four magic words, " voting machines and glitch," which, when entered into a search engine, yielded a shocking result: A staggering pile of miscounts was accumulating. These were reported locally but had never been compiled in a single place, so reporters were missing a disturbing pattern.

I published a compendium of 56 documented cases in which voting machines got it wrong.

How do voting-machine makers respond to these reports? With shrugs. They indicate that their miscounts are nothing to be concerned about. One of their favorite phrases is: "It didn't change the result."

Except, of course, when it did:

In the 2002 general election, a computer miscount overturned the House District 11 result in Wayne County, North Carolina. Incorrect programming caused machines to skip several thousand party-line votes, both Republican and Democratic. Fixing the error turned up 5,500 more votes and reversed the election for state representative.

This crushing defeat never happened: Voting machines failed to tally "yes" votes on the 2002 school bond issue in Gretna, Nebraska. This error gave the false impression that the measure had failed miserably, but it actually passed by a 2-to-1 margin. Responsibility for the errors was attributed to ES&S, the Omaha company that had provided the ballots and the machines.

According to the Chicago Tribune, "It was like being queen for a day--but only for 12 hours," said Richard Miholic, a losing Republican candidate for alderman in 2003 who was told that he had won a Lake County, Illinois, primary election. He was among 15 people in four races affected by an ES&S vote-counting foul-up.

An Orange County, California, election computer made a 100 percent error during the April 1998 school bond referendum. The Registrar of Voters Office initially announced that the bond issue had lost by a wide margin; in fact, it was supported by a majority of the ballots cast. The error was attributed to a programmer's reversing the "yes" and "no" answers in the software used to count the votes.

A computer program that was specially enhanced to speed the November 1993 Kane County, Illinois, election results to a waiting public did just that-- unfortunately, it sped the wrong data. Voting totals for a dozen Illinois races were incomplete, and in one case they suggested that a local referendum proposal had lost when it actually had been approved. For some reason, software that had worked earlier without a hitch had waited until election night to omit eight precincts in the tally.

A squeaker -- no, a landslide--oops, we reversed the totals -- and about those absentee votes, make that 72-19, not 44-47. Software programming errors, sorry. Oh, and reverse that election, we announced the wrong winner. In the 2002 Clay County, Kansas, commissioner primary, voting machines said Jerry Mayo ran a close race but lost, garnering 48 percent of the vote, but a hand recount revealed Mayo had won by a landslide, receiving 76 percent of the vote.

http://www.progressivetrail.org/arti...25Harris.shtml

IP Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/ar...esting-people/

[Faggot the Hutt]

I've been forwarding this information to the press for a while, and none of ever gets picked up. You'd think a story this big would get attention, and for a little while it did on 60 minutes, but a voting committee stone-walled the effort and so the story was killed. What bothers me the most is that I can post this information to as many sites as I want, and none of will make a difference because people are too busy with their own lives to care about the elections.

[gojujay]

I suppose the axiom of you get the government you deserve applies...

[mrbiggs]

I think that most people who support the computerized voting are the people who beleive that their computer is a sort of magic box, that does your work for you. When something happens not as a direct result of their input, they call up someone to fix it. They're all for these magic boxes becoming a part of our electoral process. After all, the computer people will make it good, and if something happens, they can fix it.

Right?