"New York Halts E-voting Machine Testing"

Computerworld ^ | 29 January 2007 | Marc L. Songini

[lifelong_republican]

"...The New York State Board of Elections has suspended the testing and certifying of electronic voting machines after learning of flaws in the test methods of the company it hired to do the job..."

[lifelong_republican]

The electronic 'voting' systems haven't been proven to be suitable for use in elections, mainly because they aren't. They're ideal for election subversion, though.

[xcamel]

I'm amazed we're not voting by chipping stone tablets here in NY - for all the good voting (C)(I) does....

[lifelong_republican]

Your "stone tablets" remark is both clever and signifcant.

There is something to be said for an actual physical ballot.

It's an important part of the American legacy for us to make our country the example of representation in governmenht for the rest of the world to follow.

[conservative in nyc]

There is something to be said for an actual physical ballot.

Well, we in New York DON'T vote using "actual physical ballots". We pull levers on antiquated (sometimes 50 years old or older) machines that provide absolutely no paper trail. NO PAPER TRAIL. No physical ballots. None. Nothing to recount but a counter inside the machine. And it hasn't been much of an issue.

But don't let pesky facts get in the way of an agenda.

[sam_paine]

Why can't voting machines just be what they were in the past....a uniform way to generate a paper ballot, which the voter looks at, verifies, and puts in a box?

The only problem was with Palm Beach confused about how to cast a ballot.

Fix that problem, and don't create more.

[mad_as_he$$]

Here in Nevada we have had electronic voting for about 8 years. It has been studied 8 ways from Sunday and nobody can find fault with it. One thing though it prints a PAPER ballot with every vote and that is audited for accuracy with the votes from randomly selected machines.

[lifelong_republican]

You are right about the use of lever machines in NY. They're not perfect, and, as you say, they don't offer a paper ballot verified by the voter, but it would be a lot more difficult to do, and easier to observe, for someone to tamper with them.

With the electronics, it's convenient to manipulate counts on multiple machines without risk of detection.

The most serious problem with the electronics is unreliability, though. The lever machines never failed to boot. The electronics are unsuitable for use in elections, and that's the real 'pesky' fact, here.

[lifelong_republican]

You are absolutely right. There has to be a voter-verified physical ballot for meaningful counts and recounts to be done. I totally agree.

[stylin19a]

Hey...good link...informative article....

[Mr_Moonlight]

Nothing to recount but a counter inside the machine. And it hasn't been much of an issue.

Exactly. I've been voting on those 'antiquated' machines every two years, or even every year, since 1978, and have yet to hear of tally problems with them .. (other than that one or two "jams" from time to time if not maintained properly).

While I am loathe to post a link to the Village Voice, they've got a bit of a point in this piece: Vote of No Confidence

Why change what works in NY just because Florida screwed up in 2000?

[lifelong_republican]

What you say is interesting. To what studies do you refer?

"...A 2004 survey of Nevada voters found that just 31 percent verified their entire paper ballot..."

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6349

Even if the voters did check the paper, it wouldn't necessarily match the final tabulations, anyway.

Nickel slots are scrutinized more thoroughly than 'voting' systems, in fact.

[lifelong_republican]

Sharing information is one of the highest and best uses of the human mind.

[conservative in nyc]

The most serious problem with the electronics is unreliability, though. The lever machines never failed to boot.

The lever machines are prone to breaking down, especially since they are getting old. The poll workers provide provisional ballots when the machines break down - and I'd expect the same thing if an electronic voting machine didn't boot. It's really not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

With the electronics, it's convenient to manipulate counts on multiple machines without risk of detection.

Manipulating counts is a potential issue with any system. Paper ballot boxes can be stuffed, and paper ballots can be changed after the fact by a cabal of unscrupulous poll workers. Miscounts can occur on lever machines (simple enough as the person responsible for the tallies "misreading" the count), and how do I know for sure my vote increases the tally in the back? I never see it.

I don't think electronic voting machines are any more or less subject to manipulation. No one-sentence excerpt posts are going to make me believe otherwise. As I said before, I'm sick of seeing one-sentence, agenda-driven posts.

[mad_as_he$$]

Absolutely every slot machine is monitored more than ANY voting machine.

When Dean Heller started the move to electronic voting systems he had several tests run by outside consultants; they could find no "statistical" problems with the tallied results. His own office conducted several dry runs and again found very good results. The league of women voters even got some licks in and decided it was ok. There were also some of the poverty and rights pimps in Vegas that tried to discredit the machines and got no where. The names of the players escape me but I could call Dean and ask him.

When there is a vote I see very few even looking at the paper which runs in a closed box on the left side of the machine and is about the size of a medium suitcase. Anyway there was a big flap in Washoe County last primary vote over of all things voting. Mostly because the Registrar of Voters didn't stress to the volunteers that they needed to open the polls on time. Dean Helller was running against Sharon Angle. The race was a mess due to some polls not opening on time. Sharon challenged the results and lost in court, the side story was that several OTHER races were very close demanding a recount which included auditing some machines with the paper print out. It was well within the human error factor.

I also think that one of the problems is very long ballots. Many people come to the poll not prepared and are faced with 20 - 50 things to make their mind up on. Then the next day the news or somebody tells them something about a candidate or an issue and they decide that they must of voted the other way than they actually did. Ballots need to become shorter and not have 20 questions or issues that need voters attention. Memories might be better for the average sheeple.

By the way if you want a bullet proof electronic voting machine somebody needs to go to IGT and ask them to make one. They know how to make data tight.

I have faith that all of my votes were counted correctly. In any case it's way better than hanging chads which we had in Kalifornia for years.

[lifelong_republican]

Thank you for the added information about unreliability in the lever machines.

Were the substitute items really provisional ballots, or were they emergency ballots?

The corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania don't want actual physical ballots at all, and for specific reasons.

No one, to my knowledge, tries to claim that any system of vote processing would be perfect, but there are very real issues with reliability and vulnerability with the electronics which make them impossible to secure and unsuitable for use in elections, according to such sources as the Brennan Center, the GAO, NIST, and thousands of computer scientists and computer security experts. The electronics are known to fail to work entirely (with unacceptably low MTBF rates), in polling places entirely without any alternative access to ballots. The electronics are also known to lose votes, switch votes, and generate false votes, in the thousands. They have wireless and internet connectivity allowing for widespread vote fraud with little or no risk of detection.

There are many resources available via a web search, and the effort to become informed and active on this issue is our duty as US citizens.

Here is a useful reference site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040820095302/http://sprout.stanford.edu/EVOTE/background.html

[lifelong_republican]

You are exactly right. You wrote:

"Absolutely every slot machine is monitored more than ANY voting machine."

It is unacceptable that gamblers get more protection than voters.

The paper printouts may not match the tallies and aren't checked by the voters as closely as self-prepared ballots.

You also make a very good point about the lengths of ballots. One solution would be to hold elections more often.

Your point about IGT is truly excellent, and it emphasizes a very important fact: those imposing the electronics on the voters never had any intention of making the software tight.

I have faith in God, and as an American I want absolute transparency and proof of accuracy in elections, with real ballots created and approved by actual voters. There is never any justification for putting any trust in computers designed in secrecy, built overseas, and accessible to anyone motivated to subvert elections.

[Reform4Bush]

Paper ballots haven't been proven to be suitable for use is elections either. They are ideal for election subversion , though.

Just destroy the ballot (if they haven't already run out) and all record of your vote is lost forever. It's the perfect crime.

[lifelong_republican]

Actually, hand-counted paper ballots, for all their faults, are indeed more reliable and less vulnerable than the electronics, per a study reported by "National Geographic":

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html

The destruction, alteration, or addition of physical ballots requires more work to affect fewer votes, and carries the risk of detection.

The electronics lose, change, and add fake votes by the thousands with the risk of doing so undetectably.

[Reform4Bush]

The destruction, alteration, or addition of physical ballots requires more work to affect fewer votes, and carries the risk of detection.

The electronics lose, change, and add fake votes by the thousands with the risk of doing so undetectably.

Perhaps, but you have to consider that only a very small amount of people who would have the technological knowledge to alter an electronic vote total.

Contrast that to 99+% of the population that would have the technological knowledge to stuff a ballot box or destroy paper ballots.

[lifelong_republican]

There are more than enough people with the knowledge to rig elections with the electronics, and they are emboldened by the knowledge that they can avoid being caught.