Legislators Urge E-Voting Halt

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,62627,00.html ^

[Andy_Stephenson]

SACRAMENTO -- California legislators said on Thursday they want to stop the use of all paperless electronic voting machines in the state, fearing the same type of fiasco that plagued Florida in the 2000 election.

State Sens. Don Perata (D-Oakland) and Ross Johnson (R-Irvine), the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate election committee, sent a letter to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley urging him to decertify all paperless touch-screen voting machines before the general election.

[Andy_Stephenson]

I think we owe a big ol heap of thanks to Jim March for this.

http://www.equalccw.com/voteprar.html

[bearkat]

Hahahaha... The Kalifornia legislature doesn't think that its citizens are smart enough to e-vote !!!!

They're right !!!!

[WVNan]

Amen. Computer voting is really a dumb idea. I like the system in place in our little town. You get a paper ballot, color in your choices and drop it in a locked box. Then the electon officials are the only ones with a key. It's not fail safe, but it beats anything else out there.

[rottndog]

Next to giving illegal aliens drivers licenses and thus the ability to vote and through Motor Voter registration, I can't think of a more dangerous threat to our democratic process than unverifiable electronic voting. This must be changed to provide a verifiable auditable paper trail.

[Andy_Stephenson]

Not an "Audit Trail" call it what it is...a ballot. We must always speak in terms of a ballot.

[Andy_Stephenson]

You may want to get up to speed on the dangers of paperless voting before you make blanket statements like that.

[alloysteel]

The 2000 fiasco in Florida was not because the ballots were "paperless". On the contrary, there was way too MUCH "paper" involved, in the form of the "hanging chads". The objection being raised is that it is much harder to insert a little vote fraud into the newer systems, and this does not bode well for future Democrat vote challenges. Because of the "secret ballot" in wide use in this country, in which it was made difficult to determine exactly which voter selected exactly which candidate, it became harder to apply individual pressure on the voter one way or the other. It also made it difficult to determine if a particular vote had been cast by a legitimate and authorized voter, or was a ballot box stuffer.

Electronic voting maintains the anonymity of the voter, while making it possible to declare a particular ballot either valid or void. You voted after you were assigned a particular number, and if you were ineligible, that vote number is automatically invalidated.

That is the part Democrats don't like.

[Andy_Stephenson]

Hanging chads was a ruse. If you don't ever clan a hole punch...what happens? Same thing with the punch card system. Johns Hopkins University found the punch card system more accurate than touchscreens.

[Andy_Stephenson]

What state and county do you live in?

Bet I can hack your system if you have Diebold or Sequoia...How can I...well both companies left their software on unprotected web sites and it is even now out in the wild for anyone to lean...including the attack points.

[Cboldt]

Hanging chads was a ruse. If you don't ever clan a hole punch...what happens? Same thing with the punch card system. Johns Hopkins University found the punch card system more accurate than touchscreens.

The recounts in precincts that used paper and ink systems came off quickly, with a high degree of confidence and reliability. Better than punch card systems. Optical scanners can count these ballots quickly, and if the contest is close, a manual recount is much easier than a manual accounting of punched holes.

E-voting, be it touch-screen or other, will produce more uncertainty and doubt -- not good things in elections.

[Madame Dufarge]

Great!

This runaway train has to be stopped.

[Andy_Stephenson]

"E-voting, be it touch-screen or other, will produce more uncertainty and doubt -- not good things in elections."

I concur...However...In my investigations over the last 2 years...I have discovered that optical scans can be as fraud prone as DRE's. It is not a technology problem...it is an audit problem. After all counting votes is accounting.

[Andy_Stephenson]

I am trying to stop it. But we all have to band together to stop it. It is a double edge sword and it cuts both ways.

[Andy_Stephenson]

I am trying to stop it. But we all have to band together to stop it. It is a double edge sword and it cuts both ways.

[Cboldt]

I have discovered that optical scans can be as fraud prone as DRE's. It is not a technology problem...it is an audit problem. After all counting votes is accounting.

I'm not familiar with the acronym "DRE," and don't grasp what you mean by "not a technology problem."

My high opinion of ink/paper ballots may be misplaced. I admit and expect errors in the optical scan process, but when the contest is close, there is less interpretation of an ink/paper indication than of a hole-punch indication. That is, the audit is more reliable.

As for gross, outright fraud (adding a stack of punched ballots, or a stack of marked ballots, "voted" by one individual), all systems have weak points that require guarding.

[Andy_Stephenson]

"Frozen screens and malfunctioning computers plagued some primary voters who tried to cast electronic ballots, and experts predict such problems will be repeated on a national scale in November."

http://www.pti.org/profile.asp?pref=http://pti.nw.dc.us/elib/publish/article_1665.asp


"Advocates of electronic voting say paperless ballots save money and eliminate problems common to old systems. But the technology brings a new breed of security concerns, like software errors and hackers that could make the results unreliable. "


http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,62505,00.html?tw=wn_story_top5


"OAKLAND - Voting equipment in at least 43 polling places around Alameda County failed for parts of the morning, requiring many voters to use paper ballots and -- when those ran out -- making it hard for some to vote at all."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/8089999.htm

[Andy_Stephenson]

DRE stands for Direct Recording Electronic Recording or "Touch Screens". Paper ballots have their problems. But unlike the old days where you had to pay a lot of people off to rig an election now all it takes is 1 rogue programmer and a few lines of code that disappears when the machine is turned off.

[Andy_Stephenson]

""not a technology problem.""

What I mean is...getting rid of the paper ballot is likegetting rid of fireescapes because we have elevators. We need to beef up our Audit proceedures and getting rid of the record makes auditing impossible.

[telebob]

The California rats lost Prop 56 on a 3 to 1 margin. Blame it on the computer.

They loved it when it looked like they could stuff polling places with illegals. "Push that one. Now push that one. Good...here's your canned ham."

[Cboldt]

DRE stands for Direct Recording Electronic Recording or "Touch Screens". Paper ballots have their problems. But unlike the old days where you had to pay a lot of people off to rig an election now all it takes is 1 rogue programmer and a few lines of code that disappears when the machine is turned off.

All balloting systems have "problems" of one sort or another. But I'm a firm beliver in the KISS principle, Keep It Simple, Stupid. Most people can handle paper and ink, and illiterate voters can obtain qualified assistance.

The DRE method lacks a means of audit that is sufficiently transparent and reliable to satisfy the voting public (if they bothered to peek behind the curtain), and I agree, set the stage for sham elections.

We aren't very far removed from third-world election practices, that is, adopting DRE, in conjunction with an efective ministry of propaganda (already in place) would facilitate the perpetration of sham elections in this country. It is possible, and will happen eventually if the people allow it.