GOP Urges Investigation of Voting Machine Performance

ABC News ^ | January 10, 2004

[GregD]

Hello. I’m the webmaster of www.verifiedvoting.org.

I’m a Democrat, and you folks presumably will want to flame me on that point alone. But if you would bear with me, perhaps we could avoid that. I need to talk about an issue that affects all of us, and I am not here to pick a fight. I need your help.

VerifiedVoting.org is NOT about conspiracy theory. We are NOT about screaming about “Wally O’Dell delivering the votes to GWB”, but I do have to admit that his remarks were about as ill-conceived as they might have possibly been, and have made it a lot easier to recruit activists to this issue from certain segments of our population. And we certainly are NOT about “one party or the other is trying to rig the machines or steal an election.”

What we ARE about is looking at this situation from a non-partisan, academic, computer-science perspective. Our goal is to see that legislation and procedures are established and enforced to make sure that elections are counted properly; them may the “real” winner prevail, and we can all rest assured that the win was indeed valid and fair.

OK, so let’s frame the situation: we have systems which run proprietary code that nobody gets to look at. At the certification stage there is no organized code review, at the development level there are no standards that have to be met. As such, the certification process appears to be completely lame. When I developed mission-critical applications for a major international retailer, we had team walkthroughs that senior members of the tech staff participated in. Each line of code was inspected, each module carefully discussed. So when you look at the observations of the Johns Hopkins study http://avirubin.com/vote/, along with other studies, it is clear that the Diebold code completely sucked but that it was not rejected by the ITA. (Sure, the code that was reviewed by Rubin was not current at the time of the review, but it was likely “current code” at an earlier point, and the certification process has NOT substantially improved since then.) Why did this get past the ITA? Because they (the ITA) don’t get to see the code – all they do is run some (undisclosed to the public) tests, give it a kiss and tell it “ya look pretty, have a nice day… See ya…” If I presented that crap to a senior manager in my former shop, I’d get canned – plain and simple. Boom, outta there, have a nice life…

So, we have these systems running secret application code that stores our votes, our precious and irreplaceable votes, without so much as an audit trail. Buy gas? Get a receipt. Buy food? Get a receipt. Get cash or make an ATM deposit? Damn right we get a receipt! Our vote is more valuable than any of those things, and do the machines print anything that allows verification of our votes? Nope, sorry – don’t think so… What? And with no audit trail, be that paper or whatever other technology might be is verifiable in the future, there is no means of verifying the results of an election. If the computer malfunctions, we can’t prove it. If a bug creeps in, we won’t know. Can we do a recount? Absolutely not – all we can do is re-print the same totals that were questioned in the first place.

A common arguement that frequently comes up is related to cost. My response is "what is the price of democracy". Also, if the vendors want the business, make them find a way to build that into the product at a reasonable price. They stand to sell tens (hundreds?) of thousands of these at around $5k-6k a pop. And in San Diego, CA one vendor already committed to throw them in for free. So as far as I'm concerned, forget the cost question - it just does not seem to apply.

Is this a partisan issue, from one side or the other? Not the last time I checked, although some would like to frame it that way… VerifiedVoting.org refuses to – it simply is NOT a partisan issue…

Has this caused problems in elections? Yes, for both parties, in recent state elections we have problems in (at least) Maryland, Virginia and (of all places) Broward County Florida...

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. The race was won by 12 votes, well under the .25 percent level for a mandatory recount (state law). But you cannot recount the vote with paperless touchscreen systems. They are not designed for that.

A number of these instances are listed here: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=997

So that’s the issue – we have these machines running programs that are NOT REQUIRED to achieve the sort of levels of quality control expectations or scrutiny that any corporate mission-critical software application currently demands, the security on the systems appears to be TOTALLY out of control, yet this is how we are supposed to run our democracy. This just is not right!

It gets worse... We have procedures that are not being followed. How do we know? Because people made a big enough stink that California decided to audit Diebold in 17 counties. (In case you don’t know, all hardware / firmware / software needs to be certified at the Federal level, assigned a NASED number, then approved by the State.) So they run an audit and what percentage of the randomly selected systems are in compliance? NONE! ZIP! NADA! Whose fault? Not sure yet, we will start to determine this on January 15 when the VSP meets again – but it looks like Diebold breached the public trust by supplying (or installing) software that was not certified, and the counties allowed the installation of non-compliant code (or installed it and didn’t check to make sure it was good to go.) http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=978

So what do we do about it? Well, thousands of our fellow Americans have spent the past 6 months (or more) calling Congressmen and asking them to support HR2239. That bill is ok, could be stronger, but it will have to do for now – time is running out. Frankly it would be nice if there was a stronger automatic recount (right now it calls for .5 percent, and that really needs to go up, just to make sure these beasts aren’t hosed.) It would be nice to boost this in conference committee, assuming we get that far, and before the bills become law.

Currently, we’re looking at just under 100 Democrat cosponsors and 3 or 4 Republicans. I’m sorry, but I really don’t understand those numbers. I’m glad we have a few Republicans that have joined in agreeing that a fairly counted election really still is the core of America’s democracy. But we need more, and that’s why I am here. I need your help, and I need it pronto please…

How can you help? Call your Congressmen (ask for their support of HR2239) and Senators (ask for support of S1980 which is a duplicate of HR2239). Help us get organizations to endorse this important legislation. Here are organizations that already stand behind these important bills: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/endorsers_s1980.asp

There are other action items on our site. I beg you – in respect for what our forefathers left for us – please help us get this done and protect the core of our democracy.

Here is what your own people are saying:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Back in August, lelio said
“I'm more scared as Diebold's engineering staff sounds like a bunch of clowns. An MS Access database on Windows 98? Are they asking to be hacked into?” He referred to this story. I completely agree with him.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

And in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973667/posts, Timesink said:
There is little question, though, that we can never totally trust the results of any election conducted via computerized voting, and such machines should not be allowed to be used (and indeed, I give it less than ten years until they start being outlawed state by state as various scandals pop up, real or imagined). For all the mess that Florida 2000 turned out to be, at least we had actual physical ballots to deal with. The optimal solution, of course, would be going back to something along the lines of the old standards: Paper ballots in sealed boxes; monitors from both parties (and anyone else that wants to watch) at every precinct; multiple police officers riding along as ballot boxes are delivered to the county courthouse; all boxes opened and all votes counted in front of cameras from the news media, local government and any public citizens that wished to make their own records ... along with laws requiring proof of identity in order to vote
-------------------------------------------------------------

Whoever lelio and Timesink are, I’m with you 100 percent. How can we TOTALLY trust these systems, simply looking at it from the programming perspective? Programmers make mistakes, and with the current certification procedures, those mistakes will NOT all get caught. You would be amazed if you looked at the modification logs and bug lists for the Diebold stuff. These are NOT simple programs, and complicated programs are prone to error.

The only practical solution is to demand visibility into the programs, a verification procedure that allows each citizen to check their vote, and a robust automatic (random) recount to make certain that there is no program errors, and no fraud (on EITHER side).

Help us get this done – Please! Come to our site, have a look, and write to us if you have comments or questions.

www.verifiedvoting.org

[savedbygrace]

Good post. I agree with your stated goal of mandating a printed copy of each vote.

The people who are advocating that this thread be pulled need to grow up.

[PGalt]

Statistical differences in voting trends or total votes cast in any given precinct that is switching over systems will tell you something. After that information is digested zoom in on individual precincts. Talk to the voters of that precinct.

[Thebaddog]

For the next crusade, how about tax reform? There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in vote fraud. Come here to Chicago for some examples.

[Darksheare]

"Imagine if WE had a line-item veto which WE would vote on and take the crap out of the bills they pass... That would certainly straighten a few things out."
That makes too much sense, therefore it won't be done!
*chuckle*

Here in New York there's the problem with both parties being..
Well..
Pretty much they act like fourth graders or worse.
Nothing specific to point to, it pretty much has to be seen to be believed, but a few people have stood up to try and change the status quo.
Jake Gunther, he recently died and his widow was elected to fill his seat in our last round of elections, he'd tried to break Sheldon Silver's stranglehold on his party.
He payed for his supposed coup within his party, unfortunately.
He was pretty much persona nn grata in the workings within his party here.
Now, he really was a jerk but he was at least respectable as a political opponent and didn't play power trip games on people.
Sheldon Silver.. Silver tends to be vindictive towards anyone who he sees as a threat to his personal kingdom.
He's also been tied to corruption, but this is nothing new to NY at all.
If Gunther had succeeded in his attempt, the Democratic party in NY state wouldbe very different.
For starters, Silver wouldn't have total control over his party in the state assembly.

[princess leah]

Well, as long as there are dirty politicians, you're going to have dirty politics which unfortunately includes vote fraud issues! I can honestly say that I am glad I don't live in Calif/Florida/New York/Illinois where we all know voter fraud is rampant and out of control...We have to connect the arrows here in Arizona and that's just fine with me - I can use the #2 pencil for voting!

[Darksheare]

True.
And.. how can we send your states common sense to this state?

[AFPhys]

I was really hoping to see your reply to this post of DS's., Greg. Whether I get involved with your quest heavily depends on your response.

[GregD]

Hi Matt, that is just what I'm anxious to hear.

If you will, I hope you and others that agree with this position will come to our site and sign up as volunteers. Time is drawing close, we have efforts underway that can be as simple as phone calls and e-mails.

For those willing to take the time to do so, we need people to go to your legislators offices and talk to their staff. One of our actions is called "Adopt a legislator".

Also, we need conservative organizations who will endorse the bills.

[I got the rope]

Goodpost. You're proof that Democrats have already figured out how to cheat. We discussed it here:

Democrats air concern on vote fraud

Pardon me for being a skeptic...but I think all democrats are liars. This is all smoke and mirrors in my opinion. The same crap happened in 2000...just before democrats claimed they were "disenfranchised" and the votes were not counted. BTW, just because 134 votes are not counted does not mean that people intended to vote. They may be protest non-votes...something I have done on occasion.

I do agree that there needs to be a paper trail.

I question your honesty and motive.

[GregD]

decertifying Diebold

I am not the first to raise the possibility that if their wrongdoing is substantial, that there could be significant penalties. I refer you to our SoS who spoke to that issue on Dec 16th:

Now the audit is not complete. We don't have all the findings as yet, and we don't know what's occurred comprehensively. I would hope that the end result sanction that we suggested we might make today, pursuant to this hearing taking place, won't be the suggestion of de-certification of Diebold systems. I would hope that won't be the case. I certainly hope that won't be the case with other vendors as well. But if we find that there are gross discrepancies and violations, I am prepared to go down that road, and so this needs to be taken very, very seriously.

And later in the meeting, Asst. SoS Carrel discussed referring this to the AG and District Attorneys. If they take it that seriously, why should we not support them?

I spent too many hours reading the famous Diebold e-mails, and am far too suspicious of their ethics, to simply "pat them on the head and say don't do it again." http://diebold.f-451.net/

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/kevinshelley2003dec16.asp

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?

Unequivocably, yes.

We have a "Resolution On Electronic Voting" on our site that was written a year ago, and resulted from discussions including the computer science community. It acknowledged the possibility that future technologies could introduce the use of a TRUSTED technology (which may not be defined or available as we talk today - maybe a write-only CD, DVD or similar) in the future. However, in today's environment, we recognize the reality that the only TRUSTED solution for this is paper.

There have been discussions, in which concerns were expressed that allowing the voter to touch the ballot could facilitate vote selling. So to defend against that, some proposals were offered.

Scenario 1 - Prevent the voter from physically touching the ballot. Show it to them "under glass" and spoil ballots that are not accepted as final. In this scenario, it sounds like we use the voting system to tally the vote, and only use the paper for "mandatory random recounts for system validation" and "recounts in the case of a close or challenged election".

This introduces paper jam and other prospective issues, so it may not be the optimal solutions.

Scenario 2 - Allow the voter to handle the final printed ballot, but they must surrender that document which is then scanned (for tallying votes) and retained for recounting purposes.

There may be other examples, and approaches, but the concept is we don't want the voter marching down the street (having turned in a counterfit ballot) and exchanging the real one for payment (vote selling.)

So correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe we are in agreement on your point.

[GregD]

BTW, just because 134 votes are not counted does not mean that people intended to vote. They may be protest non-votes...something I have done on occasion.

This was a 1-race, special election, in which only Republicans were running.

There was no reason to go to the polling place other than to vote. If they wanted to protest, they would not have signed in at the precinct.

And it is my understanding that this was an "upscale area" with educated people who were "not too stupid to know how to vote". It appears that these "educated voters" simply neglected to hit the final button. And the absence of a paper trail resulted in the inability to comply with state law because there is now less than a .25 percent margin in the final results.

I'm not really concerned about whether you or anyone else question my honesty or motive. If you read my orignial post, my responses to the various questions and statements, and visit our site - you should be able to clearly understand our sincerity. We didn't spend the past 6 months pursuing this in order to somehow "create an opportunity to cheat". We are trying urgently to find a way to PREVENT cheating, and more-so, to resolve the fact that computers are not error-free.

Please help us pass HR2239 and S1980.

[GregD]

Some of the revelations about DIEBOLD's algorithms, processes, controls and behaviors have been astounding. Voting machines should not be plugged into the Internet!

I agree completely. Nor should they be build upon an unsecured MS Access, rely solely upon Windows "security", receive vote tallys transmitted by cellphones, or a number of other poor security implementations.

Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator linked to DIEBOLD

Actually, I need to correct you. Hagel was the CEO of ES&S. Look at these articles. I don't care what party he belongs to, the whole thing stinks

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=hagel+ES%26S+ethics

[Dead Dog]

Why, without voter fraud your party has no future. Just ask Dashole. Better get those Casino building permits pushed through, your going to need all of the reservations stuffing ballots in '04.



Like posted above: "Vote Early and Often".

[GregD]

Tax Reform

I would strongly endorse anyone else but me pursuing that in the most tenacious manner. I am sick of spending hundreds of dollars annually to pay for an "expert" to determine "how much more" I owe.

But I am also shocked at how much effort it has taken to simply get these e-voting bills passed. When I am done with this campaign, I'm heading out on a long fishing trip - far away from computers and telephones.

And frankly, we need a citizens movement to demand that all the bullshit be taken out of the various spending bills which does nothing but cost EACH OF US money we worked hard for. I'm tired of paying the share of corporations that have moved their headquarters offshore, and refuse to pay their fair share.

But this is generally off my topic, so that's my final word unrelated to electronic voting. :)

[GregD]

That appears to be the case. I only base this on the news articles.

[GregD]

I replied now. If further questions, please contact me at www.verifiedvoting.org

[Dead Dog]

All vitriolic comments aside, I do agree that electronic voting is a bad idea.

We used a simple card ballot with two horizontal black boxes to the side of the selection. The voter simply connected the boxes with a black felt tip pen, and the ballot could still be tabulated by machine. No chads to cry about, and no certification of compiled software written by techies of unknown integrity.

[GregD]

My personal opinion is that BOTH parties suck. They are both totally corrupted as a result of corporate influence. I really don't feel our system is doing a good job of serving WE PEOPLE but it is doing a helluva job serving the corporations.

AND I FREAKING HATE CASINOS

[js1138]

At the moment the only voting apparatus I have confidence in is the optically scanned paper ballot. This ballot survived the Florida 2000 election (30 counties) with an error rate approaching zero. It is cheap and easy to read and understand.

The only real improvement I can think of would be to require a "No Vote" choice in each race, to prevent filling in blank ballots at the end of the day.

For computerized voting I would have the votes recorded at the time of voting on a continuous paper tape, using some form of optically scannable encoding that would be impossible for humans to read or modify.

Nothing less than paper is required for audit purposes.

[Dead Dog]

Don't forget the Linda (White girl who adopted a Hispanic Name) Sanchez vs. Bob Dornan (sp)