Skip to comments.
Computer scientists fear voter fraud with touch-screen voting
Associated Press ^
| 10-6-03
| RACHEL KONRAD
Posted on 10/06/2003 3:25:35 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) --
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: chad; electronicvoting; fraud; lockbox; recall; recount; riskyscheme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 last
To: Your Nightmare
Computer-based voting is a HUGE disaster waiting to happen. As someone who uses and loves computer technology, I am not so naive to think that computers can solve every problem. This is one where the situation is too important to leave to the machines. Actually, computers can do a lot to improve things, if they are used properly. For example, use the optical-scan ballot boxes, but (1) have each ballot marked with a unique machine-readable ID(*); (2) have the machine keep a record of all the ballots cast; and (3) publish for any interested parties a list of all ballots cast. It then would be a simple matter for any interested party to compare the ballots cast against the count posted.
(*) To prevent vote-buying or extortion, the ID should not be visible to the person casting the vote
After the election, representatives of each party could select at random a number of ballots from various precincts to physically inspect. If 100 ballots selected at random all match perfectly, odds are very good that the recorded counts are within 2% of being correct. If 1000 ballots selected at random all match perfectly, odds are very good that the recorded counts are within 0.2%.
If ballots are uniquely marked and trackable, full manual recounts like the Florida circus are unnecessary. Spot-check audits would provide better verification at much lower cost.
61
posted on
10/06/2003 4:18:45 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
To: truthkeeper
There was nothing wrong with the punch card system. Unless there's some sort of verifying mechanism at the ballot box which will reject invalid ballots, a punched-card system is too succeptible to "gang manipulation" [take a stack of cards and run a long needle through a particular hole to convert non-votes into votes for your candidate, and opposition votes into spoiled ballots].
62
posted on
10/06/2003 4:21:41 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
To: supercat
I agree. But
touch screen votin is the opposite of that
63
posted on
10/06/2003 4:25:19 PM PDT
by
Truth666
To: Truth666
touch screen votin is the opposite of that As I said, computers can improve things if they're used properly. But most touch-screen systems use them decidedly improperly.
64
posted on
10/06/2003 4:31:28 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
To: All
Can someone post an overview photo of one of the pro-Davies rallies ? Some proof of the unprecedented extent of fraud in polls, overweighting Davis. It's impossible that 43% want to keep Davis (SURVEY USA, 10/6/03) .
For instance a total of 35 supporters showed up to hear Davis at Long Beach.
65
posted on
10/06/2003 4:44:29 PM PDT
by
Truth666
To: Truth666
As a programmer, I have found myself asking accountants 'well what do you WANT this report to say??"
So I get you there.
66
posted on
10/06/2003 4:47:02 PM PDT
by
txhurl
To: Miss Marple
I'm thinking that way too. They certainly have the infrastructure to do it .. and even then people still weren't paying attention. I don't think we learned enough from 2000. Now .. these people are even more desperate. Hillary has to have CA in order to win .. we repubs just cannot allow this.
67
posted on
10/06/2003 4:52:51 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: Celtman
** Hard drives are erasable and rewritable.**
I am aware of this possibility.
But it takes awhile. How, pray tell, during an active election, could this be done? A phantom voter who hacks the program and reprograms the hard drive instead of voting??
68
posted on
10/06/2003 5:03:49 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Carry_Okie
Check out this
thread on black box voting machines....especially the last post. (This link found in post #56 of this thread) scary stuff!
69
posted on
10/06/2003 9:53:06 PM PDT
by
forester
To: Miss Marple
There is nothing to stop a computerized voting machine from displaying one thing and printing it, while reporting an entirely different count. The Diebold machines operate on Win-95, which is notoriously easy to hack.
70
posted on
10/06/2003 10:21:16 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Salvation; steve50; Carry_Okie
But it takes awhile.
About 10 milliseconds.
How, pray tell, during an active election, could this be done? A phantom voter who hacks the program and reprograms the hard drive instead of voting??
See post 18. With wireless access, it could be done from a car parked nearby, by someone who never set foot in the polling place, who could then drive to the next place. See also post 70.
It could also be done in advance of the voting, by subtly altering the program, or even afterwards, between the time voting stops and results are reported (Yes, this would take corrupt voting officials.)
Without a secure audit trail, there would be no trace of the fraud.
71
posted on
10/06/2003 11:51:53 PM PDT
by
Celtman
(It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
To: Celtman
These machines are the final piece. I don't think we've had honest elections for decades, but once these are in enough high density voting areas the chance of getting caught is over.
Only one option left after the ballot box. If I were a betting man I'd bet on a renewal or even a more severe version of AWB.
72
posted on
10/07/2003 4:57:37 AM PDT
by
steve50
(Principles are useless if applied selectively)
To: forester
Touch-screen is scary. But I find at least as scary that people believe manufactured polls like "43% want to keep Davis" (SURVEY USA, 10/6/03) . I mean any idiot should be able to see from the rallies (for instance a total of 35 supporters showed up to hear Davis at Long Beach) that this is
IMPOSSIBLE
. But it is the tacit acceptance of such polls that lays the basis for the coming fraud counting the votes.
73
posted on
10/07/2003 5:09:56 AM PDT
by
Truth666
To: All
How Davis gathers "large" crowds. #1 He goes to schools teaching students to tell their parents how to vote.
![](http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/10/06_t/mn_davis02_t.gif)
Daisy Chu listens as Gov. Gray Davis pitches for labor support at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Hall in San Jose.
74
posted on
10/07/2003 5:18:18 AM PDT
by
Truth666
To: Truth666
But it is the tacit acceptance of such polls that lays the basis for the coming fraud counting the votes.The liberal media has smeared my profession for years with false accusations, misleading stories, and selective reporting. Having had first hand experience with this, I know that I can't believe what I read in the paper, or see on T.V. To be honest with you, the thought of manufacturing public opinion through manipulating polls has not occurred to me. This is scary stuff alright.
75
posted on
10/07/2003 7:47:39 AM PDT
by
forester
To: forester
Can I ask your profession ?
76
posted on
10/07/2003 9:41:04 AM PDT
by
Truth666
To: Truth666
Time to resume what I wrote in prophetical form
California witnesses the largest fraud ever in a democracy
Polls : Polls help scripts come true. Example : "43% want to keep Davis" (SURVEY USA, 10/6/03) .
Facts about Davis rallies : Davies is not able to gather anything that even slightly resembles a crowd in his rallies. For instance a total of 35 supporters showed up to hear Davis at Long Beach. From footage I estimate that there were no more than 300 people at his final rally.
Facts about the electoral process :
machines to make even the most unbelievable of scripts come true Prediction : we are about to witness the largest electoral fraud that ever took place in a democracy.
Explanation : I also think that it is the tacit acceptance of such polls that lays the basis for the coming fraud counting the votes.
Question : Schwarzenegger is actually not that different from Davies. So what's the reason for the Democrats to push the fraud to this extent ?
77
posted on
10/07/2003 12:19:47 PM PDT
by
Truth666
To: Truth666
Can I ask your profession ? I am a licensed professional forester.
78
posted on
10/07/2003 12:21:32 PM PDT
by
forester
To: Oldeconomybuyer
BUMP!
79
posted on
10/07/2003 12:45:40 PM PDT
by
Publius6961
(californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
BTTT
80
posted on
10/07/2003 4:03:43 PM PDT
by
mollynme
(cogito, ergo freepum)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson