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]

By RACHEL KONRAD
Associated Press Writer
December 18, 2003


SAN FRANCISCO -- A manufacturer of electronic voting machines has
employed at least five convicted felons as managers, according to
critics demanding more stringent background checks for people
responsible for voting machine software.


I brought the information about the felons to light. It is a real problem and again only takes 1 rogue programmer. Sham elections are already happening. Republicans have sued over these things.

Some people would rather stick their heads in the sand over this though.

Glad your not one of them.


http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2003/Dec/0078.html

[Cboldt]

"not a technology problem."

I see what you are getting at. There is no "technical solution" (software, data redundancy, checksums, serializing of ballots, etc.) that is as reliable as a paper system, when it comes to proving vote count and integrity via audit.

[sweetliberty]

[Andy_Stephenson]

Now...the next lesson to learn...Is to always speak about the "audit trail" in terms of Ballot. Ballot has a legal and intrinsic meaning. Paper trail...Audit Trail...or whatever else they call it...gives them wriggle room. We must always call it a "voter verified paper ballot." All our legislators, Democrat or Republican must now get on board. Or they need replacing.

[Andy_Stephenson]

great toon!

[Andy_Stephenson]

Embezzlers, Drug Dealers & Uncertified BBV Voting Systems In 10 States
Press Statement from Bev Harris & Andy Stephenson: Bev Harris, author of Black Box Voting, and Andy Stephenson, Democratic candidate for Washington Secretary of State, have uncovered information that brings concerns about electronic voting to a new level. This information affects both optical scans and touch-screens; it also affects the security of absentee ballots.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:sPWkGOZICS4J:www.verifiedvoting.org/newsfeed.asp%3Foffset%3D180+%22Andy+Stephenson%22+voting&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=REAL-tb

[bearkat]

I've used touch screen voting the last 2 or 3 times I've voted. In our city of over 4 million, we've never had any problems.

You'll never hear about the numerous accounts of successful e-voting in the news.

Perhaps the other cities should come here to find out what we're doing differently, instead of whining.

[Andy_Stephenson]

How do you know it was sucessful? Can you be sure? Did you see your vote? Or just an image on a screen?

[bearkat]

I am certain that if the Democrats could have found something wrong they would have by now. I'm also sure that they've looked.

I think that is why they like the paper ballots and their hanging chads. If the election does not go the way they want it to, they can find a reason to contest the election.

No system is perfect and neither are the people in charge. That is why I vote... to try my best to keep the idiots from getting into power, no matter what party they are in.
If someone hacks into the system, they will eventually be caught and given their day in court... whether they are democrat or republican.

[Andy_Stephenson]

In all cases...evidence can be erased. So no...they won't be caught. But if you have faith in these machines...then you are either too trusting or technically ignorant. Wether you believe it or not, these machines are a clear and present danger to Democracy....

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/1103/109073.html

Fairfax (AP) - Republicans are taking the malfunctions of several Fairfax County (website/news) high-tech voting machines to court.

Local GOP leaders are seeking a court order to hold up the final results of Fairfax elections because machine glitches delayed the posting of results from county board elections for more than an hour after the polls closed.

[Andy_Stephenson]

School Board member Rita S. Thompson (R), who lost a close race to retain her at-large seat, said yesterday that the new computers might have taken votes from her. Voters in three precincts reported that when they attempted to vote for her, the machines initially displayed an "x" next to her name but then, after a few seconds, the "x" disappeared.

In response to Thompson's complaints, county officials tested one of the machines in question yesterday and discovered that it seemed to subtract a vote for Thompson in about "one out of a hundred tries," said Margaret K. Luca, secretary of the county Board of Elections.

http://pfaff.tcc.virginia.edu/pfaffenblog/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=13

[Andy_Stephenson]

And From Ft Worth Texas...not a left leaning place by any means this tidbit.

"For private corporations to count the votes and tell us who won and who lost is unacceptable, unconscionable and blatantly stupid."

"If there are reasonable doubts about the accuracy of computerized voting machines -- and I believe there are reasonable doubts about them -- we should do whatever it takes to dispel those doubts."

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/local2/8178614.htm

[bearkat]

We can do this by simply mandating that computerized voting machines produce old-fashioned paper ballots that would be available in case of questions about the election or if a recount becomes necessary.

That's not a bad idea... but the politicians are too busy running around complaining to listen to a citizen's good idea. A combination of the two voting styles would be fair... and hopefully would put an end to being dragged into court to defend an election outcome. At least in a perfect world; some prefer to take all arguments into court, no matter what.

[Andy_Stephenson]

the legislative route is not working...The only option left IMHO is lawsuits.

"We can do this by simply mandating that computerized voting machines produce old-fashioned paper ballots that would be available in case of questions about the election or if a recount becomes necessary. "

Your a quick study grasshoper :-)

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Andy_Stephenson]

BTTT???

[gitmo]

You have valid points. But there are real and big dangers to electronic voting.

Software errors can pile upimmense errors in data. This will be code that is used rarely (every few years). Someone once described software development like building an interstate highway. The only difference being that you can forget to finish a bridge and have thousands of cars pile up beneath the unfinished end of the bridge before anyone realizes the mistake. I've seen this happen. This week, in fact.

It IS more difficult to cheat with electronic voting. But it is easier to cheat with huge numbers with electronic voting. With a paper ballot, you might get by with cheating on a hundred ballots. With digital systems, it's no more difficult to create thousands of bogus votes than it is to create one.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Your post #32 isn't helping your credibility one bit. The Fort Worth Star Telegram, especially its editorial board, are leftist hacks, former home to Molly Ivins.

BTW, I too am against electronic voting. Adding a paper printout is not enough, Democrats could still go into precincts they control and stuff the ballots electronically, they'd just get a receipt that they'd soon shred. An audit or recount is not going to be able to get 100% of the voters to return their printouts for recounting, and the courts would throw out as unconstitutional any attempt to nullify votes that weren't verified with return receipts.

[Andy_Stephenson]

My credibility is not in question. The voting machine's is. Reciepts are not the answer. Paper ballots with proper auditing is.

[Diddle E. Squat]

You're trying to convince us of something, but in your arguments put forth a statement that was refuted, so you're credibility may be questioned. Why should we believe you? You can provide evidence, examples, and arguments, but if some of your arguments are easily seen to be false and refuted, then it undermines your credibility, and thus makes others skeptical about whether the other things you advocate are as you present them. Doesn't mean that you are wrong, but it weakens your position, at least temporarily.

Hey, if I'm not from Ft. Worth, I might not know what the paper's true political leanings were either.

And like I said, I too am against electronic voting, its just another tool the Democrats can exploit for vote fraud. But one apparently that they are also afraid might be exploited against them. Why do I focus on Democrats? Because 90+% of the cases of vote fraud that I've come across have been attempts by the Dems.