Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are vote counting machines reliable?

Posted on 06/12/2003 11:31:00 AM PDT by agooga

-Are the companies that make and program the machines tamper-proof?

-Is the code that runs the machines really 900,000 lines long?

-Can the code be tweaked to "shave" votes one way or the other?

-Is there a need to reform the system?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: faq; votefraud

1 posted on 06/12/2003 11:31:00 AM PDT by agooga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: agooga
No. There's much discussion on comp.risks about this. There's also some stuff in the latest issue of "Statistical Science."
2 posted on 06/12/2003 11:32:53 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga
Ask this question: Are manual vote counting methods accurate? Answer is NO.
3 posted on 06/12/2003 11:39:53 AM PDT by PetroniDE (Kitty Is My Master - I Do What She Says)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
Are manual vote counting methods accurate? Answer is NO.

But in that case you usually have a numbered stub of some sort that can be matched up to its corresponding ballot. If necessary (theoretically) they could match you to your ballot and have you verify what you voted on.

The way our touch screen voting terminals worked last time was that they look up your name in their precinct book, draw a line through it, you sign next to it, then they take you to a machine and insert a card. You vote, they take the card out, you collect your “I Voted!” sticker and leave.

No receipt, no number, no nothing that I can see that could be used to match you with your votes.

4 posted on 06/12/2003 11:55:54 AM PDT by thatsnotnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
I agree that manual counting is a worse option than machine counting. But is there a credible threat of a hacker tampering with the code and manipulating elections? My bigger question is this: do folks here worry about this issue enough to do something about it, or is this a big "so what?"
5 posted on 06/12/2003 11:56:17 AM PDT by agooga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agooga
What scares me is that after the 2000 Florida mess every major election is going to full of the vote counting and re-counting crap.
6 posted on 06/12/2003 11:58:13 AM PDT by StoneColdTaxHater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga
Just on logic and the experience of the affliction of

Dillbo and her hideous heinous Shrillery Antoinette de Fosterizer de Sade

on the country . . .

I think this is a serious problem.

Just think--even IF the undynamic duo had 15% of their goons in critical positions . . .

the Republic could be unroyally shafted yet AGAIN!
7 posted on 06/12/2003 12:01:16 PM PDT by Quix (HEBREW VOWEL ISSUE DISCUSSED, SCHOLARS N JUNE BCD search for TRUE HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON CONTINUES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga
If the code is 900,000 lines long, it has to be the most inefficient code possible. I think it could be done in just a few lines:

for(all ballots){
if(ballot == BUSH){bushcount++;}
else if(ballot == CLINTON){clintoncount++;}
}
cout << bushcount << " " << clintoncount;
8 posted on 06/12/2003 12:31:31 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga
agree that manual counting is a worse option than machine counting. But is there a credible threat of a hacker tampering with the code and manipulating elections? My bigger question is this: do folks here worry about this issue enough to do something about it, or is this a big "so what?"

I think it's a big "so what?" It seems like it would be a lot harder to get access to the software and acquire the knowledge necessary to fix it in a way that both makes enough of a difference and remains undetected than it would be to cheat in the traditional Democratic way (ballot stuffing etc.).

9 posted on 06/12/2003 1:41:30 PM PDT by Modernman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thatsnotnice
But in that case you usually have a numbered stub of some sort that can be matched up to its corresponding ballot. If necessary (theoretically) they could match you to your ballot and have you verify what you voted on.

Not in Texas. We don't get to keep a stub. The ballot has a serial number on it, but no way to track serial number to voter.

The way our touch screen voting terminals worked last time was that they look up your name in their precinct book, draw a line through it, you sign next to it, then they take you to a machine and insert a card. You vote, they take the card out, you collect your “I Voted!” sticker and leave.

That task is done by the precinct clerks/election judge.

No receipt, no number, no nothing that I can see that could be used to match you with your votes.

That is GOOD. The last thing you want is a government agency looking up HOW you vote.

Just remember: "He who cast the votes say nothing; he who counts the vote say everything". Guess who said that?

10 posted on 06/12/2003 1:56:28 PM PDT by PetroniDE (Kitty Is My Master - I Do What She Says)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: agooga
I agree that manual counting is a worse option than machine counting. But is there a credible threat of a hacker tampering with the code and manipulating elections? My bigger question is this: do folks here worry about this issue enough to do something about it, or is this a big "so what?"

You are over-reacting. I was an election judge in the 2002 elections. We used e-slate computers for the first time. The are vote tabulations on both the master control machines and the individual e-slates. In addition, two manual printouts of vote totals (for each e-slate) is enclosed in the "end-of-day" package submitted. The paper printout totals are date/time stamped. If you "re-start" the machine in a car driving endlessly, the machine counts reset to zero.

The only way to "hack" the system is to alter the program, BEFORE it is installed on the e-slate machines.

11 posted on 06/12/2003 2:01:51 PM PDT by PetroniDE (Kitty Is My Master - I Do What She Says)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
"The only way to "hack" the system is to alter the program, BEFORE it is installed on the e-slate machines."

That's exactly what "some people" are afraid of. I have read scenarios which posit that bribes can be paid to a programmer that handles the code for the machines- and that this code with the "bug" in it gets distributed nationally to numerous machines.

Look, I'm the first to plead ignorance here. This could very well be a big ho-hum issue, but I'd just like to know what the facts are and what the consensus is.

12 posted on 06/12/2003 2:20:45 PM PDT by agooga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: agooga
That's exactly what "some people" are afraid of. I have read scenarios which posit that bribes can be paid to a programmer that handles the code for the machines- and that this code with the "bug" in it gets distributed nationally to numerous machines.

These people are over-reacting. A hacked machine would show a seismic shift in voting patterns in said precinct. That is one tip-off.

There is a test that election judges can perform for a "hacked" machine. The machinery is extensive enough that the system must be set-up the evening before the election. All the software is installed by this point so any "hacking" would be completed. Perform a sample vote or two on each machine and then printout the results. If they don't match, the election judge knows what to do. When you open the polls for real on election day, these sample votes are deleted.

My precinct did not perform this test for the last election, but this question did come up in our training.

OK - everybody calm down.

13 posted on 06/12/2003 2:27:38 PM PDT by PetroniDE (Kitty Is My Master - I Do What She Says)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: agooga
In Comal County TX they have a machine that you darken the dots of who you want to vote for then that paper ballot is put into a machine that will tell you if you have voted for 2 in the same race and spits it out and you can re-do. If the ballot is ok then it keeps it and that can be used for the re-count (it is numbered).

At the evening it spits out a tape of all ballots counted for each candidate. This method sounds just smart enough to count quickly and not hooked up to the web to be able to be hacked.

PLUS it has paper ballots that anyone can understand how they voted (computer screens can be left on straight dem ticket and if you don't know what you are doing....they have stolen your vote)
I would like to see our county get off the punchcard system to this one.

But if you want to get really scared, then get a book called VoteScam and learn all the ways to cheat, you should know these things before running your next election. If you don't know what to watch out for, you will miss it.

All good freepers ARE planning to work the election... RIGHT?
14 posted on 06/12/2003 3:03:46 PM PDT by The UnVeiled Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The UnVeiled Lady
In Comal County TX they have a machine that you darken the dots of who you want to vote for.

We use a similar system in my county in Illinois. I served on the Election Commission when we had a close vote in a mayoral race in the spring. The machine is not hooked up to the net and is a stand alone outfit. Ran the ballots for a couple different precincts. The vote came out exactly as election night. No change in any precinct.

15 posted on 06/12/2003 5:31:25 PM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (Never rent a room from a man named Bates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
If the code is 900,000 lines long, it has to be the most inefficient code possible.

If it weren't so big and bloated, any cheats would be too easy to find.

Optical scan ballot, with a couple of slight changes to make it proof against ballot alteration, is probably just about the best system. Anything using flash or battery-backed RAM should be considered suspect; OTP would be far better, and paper better still.

16 posted on 06/12/2003 9:41:52 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: agooga
voting machines are generally quite reliable and will produce the results desired by the programmer every time.
17 posted on 06/14/2003 3:28:18 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thatsnotnice
No receipt, no number, no nothing that I can see that could be used to match you with your votes.

And nothing to match you vote with the candidate you think you voted for.

18 posted on 06/14/2003 3:29:49 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
It seems like it would be a lot harder to get access to the software and acquire the knowledge necessary to fix it in...

With manual voting it is necessary generally to have several people in the employ of the voting supervisors in order to sway an election. With computer voting it is only necessary to pay one person- the programmer. Of course, programmers, being utterly incorruptible...

19 posted on 06/14/2003 3:35:39 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
A hacked machine would show a seismic shift in voting patterns in said precinct.

Programming only has to move a couple of percentage points over many machines to be effective. No seismicity need pertain.

20 posted on 06/14/2003 3:37:59 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson