GOP Urges Investigation of Voting Machine Performance

ABC News ^ | January 10, 2004

[GregD]

"follow on discussion with the sidebar moderator"
Since I don't visit here, I have no idea what this refers to. Translation please?

"You can't re-count the votes, verify them at a later date, or anything."
And that is the root of the problem, and the basis of our campaign. It is a fundamentally flawed solution, absolutely unacceptable in any other application. Can you imagine going to the ATM and not having a receipt? This is insane!

VerifiedVoting.org needs your help rallying support and communicating to the rest of the country. Please let us know how we can work with you.

[GregD]

Avi Rubin's report suggests that a kid in a garage with $100 of materials (or something like that) and a set of simple instructions couild easily assemble smart cards that could (potentially) allow multiple votes in a single machine. You just plug in the counterfeit card, vote, and vote again...

[Outraged]

What I would say is that voter fraud is theft at a grand scale.

I'll say, it almost cost the country dearly when Al Whore was trying to overthrow the gubmint in 2000...And you just gotta love when the dead, felons and illegal aliens cast their ballots overwhelmingly for the socialist side of the political aisle.

[kingu]

VerifiedVoting.org needs your help rallying support and communicating to the rest of the country. Please let us know how we can work with you.

I would suggest concentrating on Los Angeles County which is looking to go to electronic voting in the future. The comment that so goes California, so goes the nation is not entirely without truth. And by picking a single target, all the resources that you, and FreeRepublic, can muster can be aimed at a single target. Once you have one of the largest voting populations using a system with back up verification, then you can use that as leverage to convert others to the same system.

Beyond, Los Angeles makes a good target because the Registrar of Voters here has been holding off going to an electronic system to see how the machines develop over time, and to take into account what fraud is uncovered.

It also doesn't hurt that you could line up an interview on KFI, because John and Ken are rather interested in the topic, and how to prevent fraud, and the Los Angeles Times has multiple articles in their archives on the issue.

[Outraged]

I just had to get that outta my system GregD...Otherwise, we here at FreeRepublic are much more reasonable and rational than the lib websites who found their message boards on hate and deception.

Welcome aboard, and I do agree with you...But realize your theoretical enemy is the party you claim loyalty to, hence you attack yourself in your mission.

[GregD]

I'd like to respectfully request that we stay on topic, as others in this thread have endorsed.

We all have our opinions of those who choose public service, and as I mentioned earlier, I have little use for most of them. We can get into a debate as to the characteristics of these folks, or we can try to focus on the issue at hand: how does America retain confidence that these voting systems won't vote for us.

This used to be looked at as a "theoretical problem". Today there are real examples, proven cases, where the systems messed up. Was there fraud? Probably not. Did the systems simply fail? That's what it appears to be. What is there to be done about it? Require a voter-verified solution.

I'm not here to debate your politics or mine. I'm here to seek support to pass legislation that is important to all of us. If we can get that one done together, maybe we will find something else we can agree on. www.verifiedvoting.org

[F16Fighter]

"In my opinion, the internet and these anonymous message boards (Yahoo for example) has allowed for a fundamental breakdown in social conduct to become the norm. That has been further decayed by the bitter partisan politics that exist in the US today.... If we were sitting in a restaurant, a theater, or a camp site - how would we conduct ourselves? Would be explode into bitter accusations? I know I do not!

We have too much at stake to permit impolite behaviour to impact this issue. We are talking about the core of our democracy..."

Please save us the sanctimony and whining, please??

I indicated I was joking -- even welcomed you to FR, but you ignored my obvious cues and overreacted in Democrat fashion -- you became a victim.

And suddenly personal capitalism supercedes politics? On the heels of your typically Democratic-styled condescension and kumbayism of in the name of melodramatically saving the "core of democracy," I quite frankly find your need to come to Free Republic ONLY for support of your enterprising project suspect to say the least.

At least you know enough to realize where the REAL brains are -- at a conservative website.

[GregD]

I agree that Los Angeles (but really, California as a whole) needs to be turned. We are making progress, I think. We'll know more Thursday.

In the Diebold audit, they found 3 counties (including LA - the largest county) were using software (I'm pretty certain it was actually firmware) that was never submitted to the ITA (Federal Independent Testing Authority) for certification. As far as I can determine, firmware could ONLY be installed by burning ROMS and installing them. That is NOT something that county staff (unless they have serious techs onboard) would have done. More likely this was Diebold staff that did that. So ya have Diebold purposely and knowingly installing uncertified software that was used on at least 2 elections. That broke the law, and there should be a strong penalty.

Now go here and look at this: http://tinyurl.com/3g4wh

In that thread we have this: Strictly adhering to our release policies, the California change should also require a major version number bump to GEMS (because of the protocol change). We can't reasonably expect all of California to upgrade to 1.18 this late in the game though, so we'll slip the change into GEMS 1.17.21 and declare this a bug rather than a new feature. What good are rules unless you can bend them now and again.

That was the March 2002 election, so now we have illegal software running back for 3 elections.

Want to make a difference? Californians need to be in Sacramento Thursday morning and demand the decertification of Diebold.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=978

[GregD]

Look, I am very tired, and frankly a bit defensive. Thanks for your welcome.

[Outraged]

Hey Greg, a lot of the momentum for this issue was a byproduct of the 2000 butterfly ballot straw-man, constructed for the purpose of validating intentional election theft by the DNC machine...This issue was a constructed artifice that is supposed to correct a problem that was a total fabrication to begin with.

I am not picking on you, or a fight...I am simply opening the door and letting some light in.

[MattAMiller]

You won't find a lot of people here who support computerized voting. In fact I don't think I've heard anyone anywhere argue in favor of it besides some initial optimism when it first started to be a big issue.

[F16Fighter]

"Well if you are really honest about fighting voting fraud, you'll fight to clean up your own party. You say both parties engage in vote fraud....

AT LEAST 80% of vote fraud cases that I've run across have been Democrat schemes. Systematic corruption, most prevelant in big cities or single-party dominated areas, which are almost always dominated by the Dems."

Greg (the Democrat with a financial stake who cares about America) is here at Free Republic ON BUSINESS.

Don't try to inject reality or politics into the equation -- especially when the issue at hand is peddling a voting system at a conservative political forum.

As to the "political" part of this post, we know that the efficiency of voting system will NOT matter -- regardless of method, the Democrats will moan and groan that it was patently "UNFAIR" due to a "GOP conspiracy."

[kingu]

Want to make a difference? Californians need to be in Sacramento Thursday morning and demand the decertification of Diebold.

How in the world does the decertification of Diebold get a verified audit trail? That is what you're seeking, right? I'm by nature a suspicious person, and such a goal really makes me wonder. I also take exception at your assumption that the county registrars in California don't know how to hire technically competent people. We pride ourselves in this state in making sure our voting equipment works on election day, unlike some other locations in the country.

I understand you're tired, but perhaps your goal and my goal are completely different. I want a print out of the vote, and that print out to be put into the ballot box by the voter so that there is an audit trail. De certifying a voting machine maker doesn't move toward that goal, in fact, it might even be contrary to it.

[GregD]

I want a print out of the vote, and that print out to be put into the ballot box by the voter so that there is an audit trail.
And I have made that my mission for the past 6 months. We are in complete agreement on that point.

I also take exception at your assumption that the county registrars in California don't know how to hire technically competent people.
I said nothing about our state's ability to hire competent people. It is my impression (which may or may not be correct) that hardware upgrades (firmware) is installed by Diebold techs. I could be wrong, perhaps State/County techs do that. Regardless:

My point is that it appears that one (or perhaps all) of the following events took place, based on the results of the California audit, and based on their internal e-mails which have been widely distributed on the web:

• Diebold provided uncertified software and firmware to CA state or county employees for installation, and those employees proceeded to install that uncertified code, failing to observe state/county procedures and laws
• Diebold employees installed uncertified software and firmware on California's election systems
• Diebold lied to and/or misled the Federal ITA as to the nature of software/firmware security, and in doing so, managed to skate through an ineffective certification process. I would leave it up to legal authorities as to whether that consisted of a crime, and hope that very question is raised at some point in a court of law.
  Refer to: http://www.equalccw.com/sscomment.html
• Diebold lied to and/or misled the State of California (and various counties) as to the database modification which was falsely represented as a bug fix (see previous post for link)

This brief list only begins to scratch the surface of the wide range of questionable actions that have been recognized over the past several months. Needless to say, there has been no trial, nor a conviction. But in the face of grievous abuse of this nature, what part of this does not appear to warrant severe repurcussions? Good grief, the Asst. Secretary of State has already started talking about referring this to the Attorney General or District Attorney. Where do we draw the line any longer, and instead of "slapping their hands" we say "that was illegal, you broke the law, and their are penalties!".

Serious man, where do we draw the line any longer? Are we a country that rules by "expediency"? Or do we draw the line, and anyone that crosses it has to suffer the consequences?

My bet is that the next kid that gets rolled into court for a pocket full of pot will do more time than anyone that defrauded the State over election law.

[exDemMom]

Broward (just in the past week or so) is a total meltdown. They had a single race in which 7 Republicans were seeking a state legislative seat. 134 votes were not counted by the touchscreen machines.

I question this. I do not know how it is possible to know that 134 votes were not counted, when the only verification of the vote is the machine's tally of the vote. Could it be that 134 people showed up to vote, but just did not enter a vote on that particular race? Not everyone votes on every question...

I don't mean to give the wrong impression. The only way I can accept machine voting is if I vote by touch-screen, the machine shows me a picture of a voted ballot at the end and gives me the option of revising or accepting it, then prints out the ballot, which goes into the locked box for counting. In my scenario, the only use for the machine is to verify the number of ballots voted, and maybe record a vote tally for verification purposes.

[GregD]

Easy... There was only one race. No other reason to come to the polls other than to vote on that one. It was a special election. And this happened in a "well-bred" precinct where voters were educated, and supposedly knew WTF they were doing.

[kingu]

*scratches head* I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point here. Does decertifying Diebold put printers on these electronic voting devices or not?

If I haven't made it clear, let me restate it: I don't care what Diebold may or may not have done. What I do care about is that these voting machines are, in my opinion, useless if they do not have an independent audit trail.

I want a printer that spits out a copy of the ballot, clearly marking my choices so I can make sure that they match with my intentions, and I want a box where that print out goes into that will count as my vote. Does this match the goals of your organization?

[Thebaddog]

So did they not come into the room or were their votes invalidated by stoopidity?

[spacewarp]

Having been a techie for 23 years, and a conservative for 13 years, I'd have to say, I've met a lot of conservative (and a chunk of them Republican) techies out there. Mostly, bits and bytes don't carry a partisan tone, so we don't usually talk politics.

Paul