GOP Urges Investigation of Voting Machine Performance

ABC News ^ | January 10, 2004

[GregD]

I would eagerly support getting rid of touchscreen systems, but that is not the reality of the landscape, so somehow we need to force them to be improved.

Folks,I may check back on this thread later. But I have work to do, and I think that all of my points have been made in this thread.

My sincerity, I pray, is clear to you who will read.

Please, any and all of you, come to www.verifiedvoting.org and help us get this done - it is for ALL of us. Thanks!

[Dead Dog]

This is where we disagree, I don't think both partys suck. I think the Democrat party sucks and has sucked since slavery.

Trying to claim equivalence while talking about corporations is misguided, just look at the patterns of corporate support for the Dem's vs. GOP. Corporate Board rooms are heavily left leaning. Just because it wears a suit doesn't make it conservative. Socialism has always been pushed by the elite.

However, I agree, about casinos.

[Xthe17th]

Bumping for later study & read. I agree that paper reciepts ARE needed. In fact, I would like to see a return to complete paper ballots. Anyone know what happened to the Voting Integrity Project?

[TheSarce]

Major electronic voting ping for you...

[GregD]

And that is exactly why I will remain focused, on-topic, for the remainder of my visit.

If we can feel certain that our votes are properly counted, then we can forward our political views through the electoral process.

[skeeter]

When it comes to voting, I'm a veritable luddite. IMO voters should be made to actually write the name of their candidate on a piece of paper in big block letters and have it notarized.

[ntnychik]

Glad for your post, GregD. Please do not say you do it, we do it, let's move on. Read the Vote Fraud threads provided you, and use your common sense (Operatives in blue states openly BRAG about their vote fraud). There was nothing wrong with the butterfly ballot machines in any other state than Florida. The Gore campaign "close election" plan employed PR firms to plant the notion of disenfranchisement among the gullible. The Gore campaign reduced to memorandum their plan to disenfranchise the military. That said, I share your concern about computer voting, and applaud your effort to raise significant questions before it is too late. Your problem is NOT that Diebold is run by a purported Republican.

[not-alone]

I don't trust the new machines in Palm Beach CO.

[GregD]

Great. Will you join us and help make them trustworthy?

www.verifiedvoting.org

[GregD]

Vote Fraud

I didn't come here to exchange slams about vote fraud, and who does what or more often. I came here to ask for support "across the aisle" to get a bill passed that a lot of folks here seem the believe is a good idea.

Look, I could easily go over to DU and ask them to find a comparable post with Republican vote fraud, and if you tell me that a Republican has never done such a thing, I would ask you to check your pulse.

And I'm not some Dem operative with all sorts of high-level connections and know where all the bodies are buried. I'm a guy, probably a lot like other people here, who is sick of the crap and decided to take action on something that I felt had "crossed the line". So I am working really hard on this and trying to make a difference that will benefit all of us.

I don't have a prayer, or frankly any intent, to make any efforts to change either Party as to their efforts to conduct vote fraud. (How the hell would any of us have the ability to influence that? At this point, I'm astonished the bastards listen to us at all. It's not like it's our country or anything is it?) I can just imagine: OK, we're going to the Dem Department of Vote Fraud today and we're sitting there and until they all agree to behave. Right...

Can we begin to limit vote fraud by fixing these machines? Yeah, I think we can. Are there other ways to ram through elections (which both Parties know just how to exercise?) We would be fooling ourselves to deny that.

Let's get this e-voting threat solved so that at least we have the notion that we have a voice in this system, then we can see if anything else can be accomplished.

Who will help?

[Tall_Texan]

Bump for later reading.

FWIW, I appreciate you coming here and trying to talk about the issue without trying to take sides. I, too, am concerned not just with the potential for fraud with some of the new voting machines (and the lack of reviewability in some) but also with voting by mail, internet and other means that have been proposed or are in practice.

I'll provide you some feedback after reading further.

[maica]

Regardless of who wins in November, remember what Florida 2000 did in terms of how it strained the Nation. These paperless systems could result in such disasters nationwide. I don't look forward to that, and I doubt anyone else does. Please help us get these laws passed early in the new session.

If this issue is important to you, please join us.

I applaud your efforts to get this issue discussed and corrected. I agree with you that a software-based voting system with no paper backup is not in the best interest of our country.

I would like to add to the discussion that Dem spokesman such as Clinton and Gore are already inserting in their routine speeches that Republicans are getting ready to steal this election "again," because of the Diebold machines. That kind of talk is so destructive, it has no place in the speeches of 'leaders.'

BTW, you said (about 100 posts ago) that you thought that voting cheating was probably equal on both sides. I would really appreciate it if you could share with me some of the locales where you believe that Republicans regularly achieve their wins by cheating. I live in Baltimore where Rs are endangered species.

[PetroniDE]

The problem is NOT the voting system (punch cards, e-slate, whatever). It is the people in charge of the polling place on election day.

Put honest and competant people in charge of the election procedures and things will run smoothly. Put dishonest or imcompetant people in charge, and fraud will happen, regardless of voting system.

I am an election judge that has worked with e-slate computers and punch card systems.

[I got the rope]

You're right GregD...otherwise the moderators would have kicked you out just for admitting you're a Demonrat. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I'll send another letter to my RINO congressman.

BTTT.

[I got the rope]

How do we know that the votes tallied are the actual votes? How do we check so that no one slips in code that deletes or changes every 5th vote?

[Chu Gary]

"It should be a pulled thread.
Not likely either

This thread does not look to the moderators like most self-promoting threads do. We feel the poster has brought in a legitimate topic for discussion and that he is not the typical leftist troll or disruptor. Should we be proven wrong on this, appropriate action will follow.

For now, let's see if those on both sides of the political spectrum can work toward getting this shared problem corrected.

Thanks for your cooperation"

Bravo for a great response. FR is lucky to have moderators with great judgment.

[ArmstedFragg]

I'm all for machines for making voting easier, but they should print a ballot which is what is counted for the results of the election.

You've nailed the solution exactly. The proposed "receipt" solution can be hacked by the simple expedient of printing a receipt that doesn't match the vote that's actually reported. Any attempt to resolve that in some way results in the individual voter losing anonymity. The solution is to print a ballot that goes into a locked, sealed, box.

Of course once you do that, the only difference between the multi-thousand dollar machines and a one dollar "X" ink stamp is that the machines give you instant, though unofficial, results.

And, for what it's worth, receipts without a paper ballot provide a way for anyone who wants to cast doubt on the election results to do so with ease.

[GregD]

The problem is NOT the voting system (punch cards, e-slate, whatever).

I disagree flatly. For starters, our campaign to demand a voter-verifiable audit trail is not about voter fraud. It is based on the recognition that computers and their programs are subject to failure, and these systems DO NOT have the necessary safeguards established in them.

However, the resolution we propose, by its very nature, helps eliminate fraud by requiring random, mandatory audits.

Dave Dill is professor of computer science. I'm a 30-year career programmer. Here are some talking points that I would ask you to consider, which I present strictly from the perspective of a geek that has written more programs, and introduced more errors into said programs, than I care to acknowledge:

• We have not invented the means by which an error-free program can be written. At least not one of the sophistication needed to configure and run elections.
• Current law does not REQUIRE that the source code for these COMPLEX applications meet any level of quality control standards other than the "ITA Certification" process that appears to be completely flawed.
• The SOURCE CODE is not available for scrutiny during the certification process. As such, it is not possible to detect all the flaws that may lurk (purposely or not) within the programs
• Based on the examples of flawed election code that the Johns Hopkins study looked at, the certification processed missed hundreds of security flaws that should have been caught through (a) proper software development methodologies and (b) systematic source-code walkthroughs as is performed in any other serious mission-critical application development process.
• Certification procedures have been knowingly circumvented by Diebold. I make that assertion based on the wealth of knowledge and insight gained by a review of the Diebold e-mails. (My point here is that even if the certification process were more-robust - then we have to worry about a breakdown in the ethics of the individuals who are required by law to comply with that certification process.)
• Overlooking the entire certification process, then we have to look again at "ethics" and "a commitment to follow established procedures" on the part of the manufactures as well as state/county employees. Witness the situation in California, where an audit of Diebold equipment in 17 counties revealed ZERO instances of properly certified software (and 3 counties including Los Angeles where the software was never even submitted for certification.

  What is not currently evident is whether other manufacturers have done the same. We may know more about that on Thursday after California reveals the next phase of the statewide audit.

To recap, the certification process must be looked at and refined, the ethics of the manufactures have to be scrutinized, controls on all of the above need to be strengthened, and YES - we need a paper trail.

The failures that have been detected in VA, MD and FL provide ample evidence that simply having properly trained election workers simply does not bring us a solution.

[tomakaze]

good post. these receiptless electronic so-called voting machines are tailor made for fraud.

[GregD]

If you will, we are carefully tracking in our database who is working with what legislators, and what the legislators are saying. Check in with us at contact@verifiedvoting.org - we will be thrilled to hear from you.