Computer scientists fear voter fraud with touch-screen voting

Associated Press ^ | 10-6-03 | RACHEL KONRAD

[Oldeconomybuyer]

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) --

[supercat]

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.

[supercat]

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].

[Truth666]

I agree. But

touch screen votin is the opposite of that

[supercat]

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.

[Truth666]

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.

[txhurl]

As a programmer, I have found myself asking accountants 'well what do you WANT this report to say??"

So I get you there.

[CyberAnt]

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.

[Salvation]

** 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??

[forester]

Check out this thread on black box voting machines....especially the last post. (This link found in post #56 of this thread) scary stuff!

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[Celtman]

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.

[steve50]

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.

[Truth666]

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.

[Truth666]

How Davis gathers "large" crowds. #1 He goes to schools teaching students to tell their parents how to vote.

Daisy Chu listens as Gov. Gray Davis pitches for labor support at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Hall in San Jose.

[forester]

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.

[Truth666]

Can I ask your profession ?

[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 ?

[forester]

Can I ask your profession ?

I am a licensed professional forester.

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[mollynme]

BTTT