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

[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.