Jolted Over Electronic Voting

Washington Post ^ | August 11, 2003 | Brigid Schulte

[listenhillary]

The Virginia State Board of Elections had a seemingly simple task before it: Certify an upgrade to the state's electronic voting machines. But with a recent report by Johns Hopkins University computer scientists warning that the system's software could easily be hacked into and election results tampered with, the once perfunctory vote now seemed to carry the weight of democracy and the people's trust along with it.

An outside consultant assured the three-member panel recently that the report was nonsense.

"I hope you're right," Chairman Michael G. Brown said, taking a leap of faith and approving Diebold Election System's upgrades. "Because when they get ready to hang the three of us in effigy, you won't be here."

Snip.

Continued http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42085-2003Aug10.html

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Seems that continuing problems plague Boards of Elections. What is the problem?

[Robert A Cook PE]

Easy way to tell if fraud is possible with this (new, electronic) voting system:

If the Chairman (who only can "hope" that fraud can be/will be avoided) is a democrat (or who works in a democrat state political environment) then FRAUD IS ASSURED.

If fraud were to be reduced or eliminated by the new system, then the democrats (and their national press corpse) would be crying "racism" and "prejudice" all the way to headlines in the next paper.

If no complaints about racism, then FRAUD IS ASSURED.

[listenhillary]

Idiot programmers?

The only secure way to vote is with fingerprint or retinal scan ID matched against an ID database.

Gaack! shudder!

[swilhelm73]

At a minimum I would suggest that if they are going to try an electronic system that they run a test election and notify the hacker community. Offer say a thousand bucks or such to anyone who can hack the system while in operation.

This is a simple solution, and while a test run has some costs to it I'm sure, this would really get at the heart of how safe this system really is.

Of course, the push for electronic voting seems to be a part of the Democrats Vote Early Vote Often strategy so this won't happen, especially with craven Republicans who refuse to press the issue.

Let's hope the computer science field is PO'd enough about this to keep it as a visible issue so that we don't have to deal with when Howard Dean gets over 100% of the vote in Democrat controlled precincts in 2004.

[Paleo Conservative]

The only secure way to vote is with fingerprint or retinal scan ID matched against an ID database.

Cross indexed with your votes.

[Pontiac]

The only secure way to vote is with fingerprint or retinal scan ID matched against an ID database.

Cross indexed with your votes.

You better think about this bit a little more.

Johns Hopkins University computer scientists warning that the system's software could easily be hacked into and election results tampered with,

A good hacker with programming skills would simply write a program to randomly change a small percentage of Republican votes to Democrat. Just enough to overcome an automatic recount.

Any voting system without a hard copy of the votes cast created at the poling place is easily tampered with.

Pure electronic voting makes voter fraud exponentially easier.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

If the Chairman (who only can "hope" that fraud can be/will be avoided) is a democrat (or who works in a democrat state political environment) then FRAUD IS ASSURED.

If the Washington Post is laying the foundation...then fraud is assured.

Republicans have one real advantage, imho. We're better at math. (^;

[boris]

It can never be ensured (security). "He who controls the count controls the vote."

--Boris

[Publius6961]

Seems that continuing problems plague Boards of Elections. What is the problem?

The problem is that elected officials are dumber than rocks in certain areas, and they refuse to educate themselves to the potential abuses.

The only way that there can be some assurance of tamper-free electronic voting is to track two simultaneous totals, one at the voting place and another at a remote location, and ensure that the totals match at the end of the process.

Safeguards for illegal voters, of course, is a whole different story. Without a bulletproof ID process, all bets are off.
Illegal voting and multiple votes can render all other safeguards meaningless.