Posted on 01/17/2008 4:33:20 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts
Both New Hampshire primary elections are going to be recounted, since Dennis J. Kucinich has put up $27,000 to get the Democratic recount started, and Albert Howard (who was on the New Hampshire Republican ballot) has donated $56,000 to re-tally the Republican vote.
But the only reason these elections can even be recounted is because voting precincts in New Hampshire use paper ballots. And now some folks on Capitol Hill want to make it easier for other states to switch to non-electronic voting systems before the November election.
Rush Holt, a Democratic representative of New Jersey, introduced new legislation today that would reimburse all state and local jurisdictions that opted to convert to a paper ballot voting system, offer emergency paper ballots or convert audits by hand counts.
Speaking at a news conference in Washington this afternoon, Mr. Holt said there’s still time to make sure the 2008 presidential election doesn’t see the same voting controversy as happened in Florida in 2006, when some 18,000 electronically recorded ballots were marked “no vote,” and there was no accounting for what happened.
This bill, called the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008, is a modified version of a bill Mr. Holt introduced last year that would have required a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast, in addition to random auditing. Since that more all-encompassing bill is still awaiting the House floor, Mr. Holt introduced this one, which moves from a paper ballot mandate to a paper ballot enticement.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I couldn’t’t agree more. As an electrician that works with PLC’s and computer networks every day, I would trust a paper ballot cast into a taped-up empty beer case with a slot cut into it than any electronic device. It would take only ONE rotten apple and the whole country would be screwed...
1- Paper ballots, and
2- Absolute proof of photo ID to vote.
Recount them all you like.
And if you have no proper ID, no vote for you.
It has not been so far. If I put a box, certified sealed, in my truck, then drive to a warehouse where we read the number of paper ballots in the box and take a similar box with the correct number of paper ballots marked for my candidate, apply a certification sticker, and then deliver it to the central office for certification, where is your paper trail?
If that new box is part of a recount, there will be no way to tell if it’s been tampered with since, after all, it has the official paper seal on it with a signature and all of the tallies will match- number of voters at the precinct, number of ballots in the box. The correct box is out to sea.
Note that our Florida county had switched to the paper mark-sense ballots before the 2000 debacle and during those recounts, the count DID NOT CHANGE. Did the other counties follow our example? Hell no. Uncle Sugar ponied up megabucks and everyone bought the touch screen systems. Now guess what? we're paying for them to scrap the touch screens and buy ... mark-sense equipment.
I offer you $10 for each stub for my candidate, paid out after I see online that that stub was a vote for my guy.
Bring me seven, verified, and I’ll give you a carton of cigarettes (sorry no tax stamp but good tobacco).
What do you say, you game?
Or maybe I’m your shop steward, or supervisor, or “curriculum monitor” of your school.
“As I recall, in Azimov’s future (Foundation Series) computers were banned.”
Dune, I think, which is why there were mentats.
I read both series more than once.
I am still not sure, but you’re probably correct. I won’t be reading either series again I am sure.
So that box is fraudulent and dishonest. Is that going to be the case with every ballot box in the country? Is EVERYONE a crook? I don’t think so. With electronic balloting, it would only take ONE crook...
A digitally-signed copy of the contents is posted on the web for anyone to archive and examine. While a comparatively small number of people would have the expertise to make head nor tail of such a thing, a copy posted on the web could be inspected by people the world over.
As for ensuring that the particular cartridge matched the publicly-posted web copy, the judge from each party would plug the cartridge into a reader device and check.
The reader device could be constructed quite simply and cheaply, using readily-available plans and open-source software. The software could be written so that no particular technical expertise would be required for use in the field. Some expertise would be required for setup, but not too much.
Proposed method of use: each machine is pre-loaded with the proper pre-election ballot images, a list of public signature keys for the opposing party, and a private key for its owner's party. Before the election, the judges will insert the write-protected cartridges into their machines which will indicate whether they match the pre-loaded images. After the election, the judges will connect their machines together and insert the cartridges into each machine in turn. The two machines will communicate via an established protocol and digitally sign copies of the cartridges. Each machine will also check the validity of the other's signatures.
As a backup, it would be recommended that the judges bring printers, so that paper copies of the data could also be signed.
Doesn't seem too hard to me.
With a properly-designed electronic system, any fraud would be contained at the precinct level. I've posted numerous times a few simple things that can and should be done to provide such protection. For some reason, though, vendors seem to throw even common-sense measures out the window.
“If I put a box, certified sealed, in my truck, then drive to a warehouse where we read the number of paper ballots in the box and take a similar box with the correct number of paper ballots marked for my candidate, apply a certification sticker, and then deliver it to the central office for certification, where is your paper trail?”
So that box is fraudluent and dishonest. Is that going to be the case with every ballot box in the country? Is EVERYONE a crook? I don’t think so. With electronic balloting, it would only take ONE crook...
“Is that going to be the case with every ballot box in the country? “
No, only in certain counties. That’s all it takes in a close election, is a box or two here and there in late reporting precincts where the requirement, the need, for votes can be estimated.
With electronic balloting, it would take the same, a few in each county. But it is harder to mess up electronic votes, due to their immutability.
There is no national election, by the way, the constitution set up each state to be independent of the others.
One evil programmer could not influence the whole country. Maybe a state, but that would take some doing given all the audits and checks and special knowledge, codes, and access required.
Wonder when the Eco-Nut, Tree-Hugging, granola eaters start complaining about the trees that will die?
“There is no national election, by the way, the constitution set up each state to be independent of the others.”
Yes, you are correct there. But one state CAN swing an election. And who says that one programmer can’t effect the code for more than one state?
Unfortunately, I am unaware of even a single electronic system that does anything meaningful to make votes immutable.
Well, that is strictly true.
But you can design a system that makes changes apparent.
I work with an engineering documentation setup that is pretty unhackable. I can make a change, but no way can I hide the change or who did it.
Possibly I could hide who made the change, but the change itself is not hideable.
“And who says that one programmer can’t effect the code for more than one state?”
Unlikely, since each state will have its own electronic ballot. And maybe its own machine vendor, plus code vendor, and independent code auditor.
Even with electronic ballots, the PTB (powers that be) can always lie about results, no matter what is done.
If the government fears the citizens instead of the other way around, fraud will be minimized.
No politician wishes to deal with another Battle of Athens.
What does an average poll worker know about the circuitry and/or programming of that reader? Could the 'easy to use' software do anything unknown to the poll workers/watchers? Such as read some things but ignore others? Any high tech method requires high tech knowledge to understand it.
A paper ballot with boxes next to the choices with X's in some of them, folded and deposited into a transparent (lexan or plate glass) box, and counted by humans (with at least 1 observer for each candidate) doesn't require any special skills. That's the method that gets MY vote!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.