November 18, 2005
The case against computer-based voting systems
Following the 2000 presidential election, the nation paused to reflect upon how poorly a modern-day election could go so wrong, so quickly. Instead of the nation focusing their efforts on the hard questions surrounding the all-important human angle, Americans focused on the technology associated with managing elections. That little deviation set us on a potentially devastating disaster for democracy.
Instead of identifying the obvious human element that created the fiasco in Florida, 2000 and later in Ohio 2004, the media pushed forth its opinion that technology was the culprit. For days, months and years that followed the elections, those paper ballots or more specifically, those butterfly, paper ballots became the root of all that was wrong in the election process. And the solution came in the form of electronic or computer-based voting. As if to say, the guy with the shaved head, soul-patch and loose pants that created your website is more credible than the simple elegance of a stylus poking through a perforated ballot.
The human element, we forget, whether it's the person counting the ballots, punching the ballots or tallying the ballots, is always the chink in the chain, not the technology.
Since technology solutions are put forth as the panacea for the savior of our election process, let's break down that actual way that such a transformation would take place. We all know, by know, how computerized systems function. Computerized systems function by a complex relationship between independent platforms working together to produce a desired result. Whether the result is a spreadsheet tallying your expenses or a greeting card for your niece's birthday, all systems behave in a standard systematic way.
Software is installed onto a medium that the hardware system acts upon to produce and deliver the final result. If we break down a greeting card: software is installed onto the computer's hardware, usually a fixed disk or hard-drive that is recognized by both the hardware operating system (CMOS) and the operating system of the particular environment (for example: Window XP). A person uses the installed application through a user interface to create the greeting card. Once the person has accepted the result and the results meets their needs; they print the greeting card for distribution. In order to print the card, the application uses the operating system to talk to a subsystem managing peripherals, such as printers, for the actual printing. The result is: the digital version of the greeting card is electronically sent from the operating system subsystem to the printer and the printer acts on the data that the particular peripheral (printer) receives and prints the card.
Sounds simple; right?
Now let's examine the greeting card application if we apply a couple of standards, say accuracy and secrecy to how the application must behave.
That would complicate and already complicated process. You would have to verify that the greeting card was exactly as the person created. That there was absolutely no difference between what was developed, on screen, to that was printed via the printer. The font size, color and camber would be exactly the same. The content, both in placement of text and graphics would be an exact match as bit by bit comparison. Then after you were clear of the accuracy, you would need to see that the privacy standard had been met. And that there were absolutely no copies of the data existing after the printed result. Making sure that all cache, whether in active RAM or video RAM or serial cache or printer cache or anything that related to the spooler files that the printer subsystem uses to manage the transportation of the material, is completely gone. Anyone that knows anything about fixed disk drives, know that one can always retrieve data from a storage medium such as a fixed drive.
And that's just with a greeting card application. How about your right to vote?
A computer-based voting system that manages the process of recording, tabulating and disclosing the results of the tabulated votes cannot succeed. Here's why:
First we have to breakdown the system in the very same fashion we broke down the greeting card application.
Hardware
One would have to make the assumption that standardized hardware platforms will be used in the gathering or recording of votes. For, it would be much too cost prohibitive to develop an entirely new hardware platform that uses proprietary CPUs, memory and storage devices, as well as video display devices. Not only is there significant research and development costs to develop such a hardware platform, but the support requirements would be cost prohibitive as well, requiring a specialized hardware support group for this system. It's for that reason that I believe any voting system developed would be done so on standardized hardware platforms such as motherboards, CPU, memory, video display controllers, fixed-disk controllers and a host of other readily available hardware platforms.
Since it's now plausible to believe that the election system applications would be developed on these standardized hardware platforms, we must believe that these hardware platforms are not secure by any possible measurement. For these standardized platforms (video cards, fixed-disk storage and associated hardware, CPU, RAM, etc…) have evolved over the years through a community and standards-based process. Volumes of recorded documentation pertaining to the schematics of both the specific hardware platforms and the architecture are available for anyone smart enough to understand them. These volumes are not secret, they are just complicated. And inherent complication is not a method to protect the secrecy of a voter's ballot.
So let's for the sake of discussion assume that the extra smart people developing these systems have devised a method to protect these hardware platforms so much that when data is stored onto the storage device, no unsuspecting individual can hack the hardware platform and retrieve and manipulate its results. Let's say they got past this hurdle.
Software
Software is developed through various levels of abstraction away from the hardware. Gone are the days that computer scientists develop machine language to crunch numbers. No, applications are developed now in a way that gives a tremendous amount of control over to the environment to which it is developing. To be clear, the applications will have to be developed to a standardized operating system for the very same reason that standardized hardware platforms will be used; cost and resource availability.
So it's perfectly okay to assume that the applications will be developed in common operating systems currently commercially available. In fact, if you add a little bit of capitalism to the mix, you'll see some active competition for this market. Microsoft and desktop Linux will battle for the business ensuring that a common operating system will be used.
Pick one: Microsoft or Linux on Intel. It really doesn't matter the same reasons will abuse will still apply. Each environment, more so on Microsoft than Linux, have robust development environment ripe and ready for the application to be built upon.
If the governing body picks Microsoft, the application will live within Microsoft's popular Windows development environment. They will reuse years and years of readily available code for everything from form processing to database connections to on-screen display. This repository of reusable code libraries called Microsoft Foundation Classes has evolved over the course of many, many years with volumes of documentation. In fact, Microsoft was sued a few years back by competing software development companies complaining that Microsoft wasn't releasing enough application libraries that exploit the full capabilities of the Windows operation system, thereby creating an unfair competitive advantage. Microsoft was forced by the court to release all application programming interfaces (API) for the Windows operating system. The release of these internal APIs opened up the guts of the operating system including many key areas locked from third-party developers before.
So now Windows developers gained access to everything that Microsoft Windows operating system had to offer. Gaining access to underlying code to communicate to the various peripheral devices, display controls and the guts of how Windows deals with data and its cache.
Storage
Now let's look at the raw data. How and where would the data be stored, if it in fact were stored onto the computer? It's obvious that a fixed drive will be used to store the voting data. This storage mechanism will be standard; that's absolutely for sure. And one thing that's also for sure, the data stored onto the computer can be retrieved no matter how much you think you deleted the data.
But let's say that the application use a database. Normally applications are built in a tiered architecture, each functional layer abstracted from one another. Usually the user interface is separate from the business logic which, in turn, is separate from a data access layer. If we dissect where the data would be stored we will find, for all of the same reasons about proprietary designs, that a standardized platform for the storage of the data will be used. As in many databases, whether they are multi-user relational databases, like Oracle or single-user desktop solutions like Microsoft Access, all have significant problems with regards to the safety and security of the data stored within its system. All rely on standard networking protocols and integrate system services for authentication. This would mean that if you can break into the security subsystem for the platform, it's easy to break into the security subsystem for the database management system. Additionally, all common relational database management systems (RDBMS) use a common way to access their database system and provide APIs for developers for such access. If a person wants to hack into the database, there's plenty of ways to do so; just do a Google search on the subject. This is simple because all RDBMS are to adhere to a level of government security known as C2 level security. C2 level security is the watermark for which they are to match for protecting the data contained within the machine and the database. But the problem is that C2 was developed in 1985 and hasn't been updated since. Sound's secure, no? The point is that any database that the voting application uses will most likely be a common platform with plenty of supported documentation. In other words, it's open because it's designed that way.
But that's just what the problem with casting the vote electronically. We have to tally and report that vote, don't we?
When tallying and recording the results of the election, we must make certain that the ballots that we are counting are, in fact, the ballots that are actually cast. With paper ballots, we have that level of expectation. For once the ballot goes into the ballot box; the ballot is sealed until it is tallied. And when the ballot is tallied, it is done so under the eyes of the election officials. In a computerized solution, it's assumed that the tallying portion of the process would be done from the system itself, removing a necessary check and balance. By streamlining the process you relinquish ever important checks for accuracy.
So let's say we have tallied the results, now what? As part of the process we have to record and publish the results. How do you publish the results of the election?
Is the publishing going to take place to an electronic audience, say a larger computer for further computation? It's safe to say that the system would transfer the results electronically in a digital format. I'm sure that most people would feel it a futile exercise to record the tallied results of an election and create a report and present the report to be entered into another computer system. No. That's just plain dumb.
Because it's safe to say that the counties that receive the precinct results would like the process streamlined as well. They would like to have the election officials merely validate the results and distribute the results electronically. That's what is commonly referred to as an 'integration point'. This integration point is the county's computer system receiving the digital precinct data and feeding into a larger county election system.
Since larger county-wide computerized election systems already exist (they take the paper ballots and count them) the new system would have to be developed to integrate the two. It would be implausible to believe that anyone would go to the extent of computerizing the precincts and not integrate the results with a larger computerized system.
So how would this happen? Would this happen the same way that most computers talk to each other, through Internet technologies? It makes sense. The infrastructure is large. There's a large install base and all the available hardware for this communication is readily available at any office superstore. But that produces a significant security risk. Using the public network to transfer these results would be down right insane. There's the initial Internet service provider that would be needed to provide the hookup. And with all of the same competition, companies like AOL, Earthlink and NetZero would be salivating for this business. But would they be ready for this type of traffic? Could say, Earthlink, provide this service without caching any data as it passes through their computer systems? That's improbable. The Internet Service Providers would have to cache everything and therefore would retain a copy of everything that passes through its servers. Let me reiterate that point. Once a precinct uses an Internet connection to upload its data to the main computer, a copy of that data will be retained onto hardware and software platforms of the Internet Service Provider. The servers and routers are designed to handle this for this event, because of the security risk they have for every customer that passes through their computer systems, not just the precinct.
So if they can't use the Internet, how about another method to transfer the data. How about if they use the little, USB jump drives to transfer the data and just hand it off to the county when the precinct arrives? That sounds slick, but would it work. Well, not really. Those devices, although inexpensive are known to fail. Published failure-rates for these jump drives vary from 5% to 30%. So I can't imagine disenfranchising a host of voters, 50,000 to 300,000 per million, because the technology method chosen happen to fail. The point being that any method for the transmission of the election result data must be secure and safe and when you're dealing with technology, nothing is 100%.
We must ensure that every vote has had the opportunity to be cast, counted and published. Real-time financial systems have this level of fault-tolerance, but they used a hard-wired network to communicate and transmit their results. This gives them the ability to distribute the load of the request and have automatic failover systems in advent of a error. But even if your transaction doesn't go through, the person will not be adversely affected because they have a way of tracking the transaction and remedying the situation. In the financial transaction world there are audit trails; plenty of audit trails. Something that the electronic election system cannot, by design, have. For one of the fundamental principles of our voting process is the secrecy of the cast ballot. Audit trails, whether paper or electronic, must not exist to ensure the privacy of each vote and the voter who cast it.
Companies that design the electronic voting systems would have to verify, through computer forensic verification, that the votes cast are wiped clean after the ballot is cast. The companies would have to verify that there is no connection between the voter's identity and the cast ballot.
Ensuring that each company upholds the trust of every American voter is a daunting task. Given the allegations about companies like Diebold donating significant amounts of money to political campaigns, additional safeguards would need to be put in place to guarantee that the companies in charge of developing the applications have no political ties.
It's time we take the hard look at the human element of the election process and shy away from replacing existing voting methods. It is the human element that will always fail regardless of the implementation. No method, whether paper, mechanical or electronic ballot will protect against a person or a group of persons bent on affecting the outcome of an election.
It's time to look for a solution to the problem; not the symptom.
Posted by john trevisani at November 18, 2005 08:00 AMAnything done on a computer can and will be hacked.
Its NOT the resposibility of the government to make sure people vote.
We as citizens have few responsibilities, and one of them are learning and knowing how to vote. Its your duty as a citizen to know how to do this.
Posted by: MacIrish at November 18, 2005 09:12 AMJohn,
For once I agree with you. In my experience, government computer systems tend to be overcomplicated and outdated.
I don’t mind individual computerized voting machines. However, a nationwide voting network run by the federal government gives me nightmares.
For one thing, there would be no accountability, unless the system actually prints receipts as some have suggested. The trouble is we would have to count them as we currently do ballots, so there would be very little point in computerizing the system in the first place.
And what happens when part of the system goes down in a state that will swing a presidential election one way or another? We will have the same problems we’ve been having, just a different cause.
Posted by: TheTraveler at November 18, 2005 09:15 AMComputers are a tool, just as paper ballots and mechanical voting machines are tools. They can be good or bad depending upon who makes them, how they are programmed, etc. All forms of voting are subject to people tampering with the system.
In all cases, it is human error or fallability in play. There is no way to counter this. It is also the ability of the human to use reason to overcome any shortcomings of any tool.
There is no need to fear computer based voting, there IS a reason to fear people trying to manipulate elections. Which is why I take accusations thrown around without full context or facts very seriously. As should we all.
The truth is, we should count all legal votes. Votes that are not legal should not be counted. The rules for voting are simple and people should know them before they vote. If they don’t then the ‘ignorance of the law’ codicil comes into play. There is no reason to feel guilty or sad because someone didn’t know how to mark a ballot and didn’t ask for help if they knew they didn’t now. We also shouldn’t have dead people or illegal aliens voting. If you are a felon and the state you are voting in does not allow you to vote, that’s the law.
Now, let’s do what is really necessary and educate people, demand that they take responsibility for their own vote and not to complain if after voting they don’t know if they voted for the right guy or not.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 09:25 AMIs it the responsibility of the Government to follow provisions outlined in the voting rights act? That wasn’t done in 2004, I’m just wondering how we can make sure that that is done again? How about eliminating conflicts of interest, like with Diebold? Is that the responsibility of the government? Wasn’t there a 101 page report about the voting problems in Ohio that was ignored by Sec of State Blackwell in favor of an ad hoc list that he created at the last minute?
I know that voters in Ohio and California rejected voting changes in the 2005 elections, but isn’t it a conflict of interest to use the current system to tabulate votes to amend the system? Wouldn’t it be more “fair and balanced” to vote under both systems, then average the results together?
Who put the guy in charge that declared that it was all about the voting machines? Is that guy up for election, because I don’t think that he did his job.
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2005 10:39 AMOur Government here in Ireland tried to introduce a computer based voting system about last year. There was to be no paper trail to follow, and despite assurances that the system was secure, there was a public outcry. The independent commission on Electronic Voting concluded;
“the Commission finds that it is not in a position to recommend with the requisite degree of confidence the use of the chosen system at elections in Ireland in June 2004.â€
“The commission emphasises that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the system will not work, but on the finding that it has not been proven at this time to the satisfaction of the commission that it will work,”
The Governernment had to withdraw the proposal, despite having spend €55 million purchasing the equipment to roll out the system. That same equipment is now rapidly becoming obsolete while being privately stored at a cost of about €11 million per annum to the Irish taxpayer.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 18, 2005 11:05 AMWith regards to voting, we can make all the recommendations and comments we want to but it all comes down to those that vote.
The passion and civic mindframe, go hand-in-hand. If we want changes we have to make them happen. Too much talk and discussion goes on and on, yet very little or no action takes place.
Each year we face the same trials, each year we promise to make it better but the same resulta happen each time.
With all that happen in ‘00, voting ballots and machines should be at ideal operation here in ‘05. However as this blog demonstrates, somewhere our efforts and passions, gave way to to other things. Here we are still tossing this around, when we should be focusing on securing more seats in Congress and the Senate before election ‘08….
Ballots, voting machines etc. should be in tip top shape and not a continuous conversation piece for Dems and Libs, because Republicans, conservatives etc. are moving right along.
Let’s end this chatter and do things that matter.
Peace and a long life………
Posted by: Thomas at November 18, 2005 11:13 AMJohn,
You seem to negate that one of the biggest functional requirements you have “privacy” (which I’m assuming you mean of the individual), can be handled by process not by the system. All we have to do is not put any identifying information into the system. Wouldn’t that overcome the biggest hurdle?
As to hacking and tampering, I’m not sure that the liklihood is any higher than with paper ballots. You’ve made an assumption that there can be no closed or secured network, but the government’s been in that business for year, but if all else fails. Telephones of final talley’s can still work.
And the thumb drive failure rate, put 10 in the machine, not one and the possability for failure is now at better than 5 9’s isn’t it?
Posted by: Rob at November 18, 2005 11:55 AMWhat’s wrong with the paper ballot?
I know that all yaall have taken test in school in which you mark your answer in pencil then they run the test sheet through a computer that counts the correct answers. Maybe we could use something like that. They could still report the way they do now.
The truth is, we should count all legal votes. Votes that are not legal should not be counted.
Your right ALL legal votes should be counted. But the Democrats got ALL the overseas votes thrown out trying to win Flordia in 2000. I reckon the vote from our Military overseas is illegal.
I’m no expert on how the voting system works, but it seems to me that if the paper and computer systems were used hand in hand, one backing up the other, that would remove any security concerns.
As for the privacy concern, curently no voter identifiers are used on a paper ballot, why then would they be required for a computer system. If the vote couldn’t be placed with the voter then we wouldn’t need to worry about removing the data.
Scanning technology could also be used to counter hacking at the voter booth itself. Wouldn’t a hacker need access to a keypad in order to hack the system? I don’t know. If the voting device only had say two keys, accept and reject, would that make it more difficult to hack? What If the voter completed a paper ballot as they do now and fed the ballot into a scanner. The scanner could read the ballot and display the vote information on a computer screen. Voters would then have the option to approve the vote or reject it, in which case the ballot would be returned to the voter for clarification. The paper ballots would be kept as a back up.
Additional back ups could be a printed journal. If a simple cash register can keep a printed journal then certainly so could a voting machine. No?
There would be no reason to transmit the data over the public internet. As long as two computers have modems can’t the data be trasmitted along a private connection between the two computers? Also, why would their be a need for jump drives? Internal hard drives today are mostly tooless and just slide out. Couldn’t the drive itself be handed off to the county precinct along with the journal, and paper ballots?
I don’t think you can go from a pure paper system to a pure electronic system. One would need to be in place to back up the other.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 18, 2005 01:08 PMWhat I find funny is that people reference 2000 as the example of why we need voting reform, but they ignore the decades long battle with this very issue.
Anyone remember the voting dead in Chicago in 1960? Or the months long election in 1872 that ended with the democrats agreeing to drop their claim to the presidency for the agreement for the end of reconstruction and the beginning of the Jim Crow period?
Elections in the US, with the few exceptions of landslides, are always frought with issues and maneuverings. Try to prevent it, live with what we can do and quit trying to accuse either side of ‘stealing elections’ without hard proof and we’ll all be a long farther along.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 01:15 PMJayJay, you are correct, a computer voting system with a paper ballot ‘receipt’ that the voter can review before leaving the booth is the best way. We would get quick accurate vote counting and a verifiable way to recount and re-examine the vote in the case of an error.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 01:16 PMRhinehold,
I think people reference the 2000 election because it is the most recent example. I was not around in 1872 nor 1960, for that matter. I really don’t believe it has anything to do with partisanship. The voting method system needs to be reformed. The less the government has a hand in it, the better. I think the idea of a independant voting commission of retired judges is by far the best idea.
More people would vote if they thought their vote was actually counted.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at November 18, 2005 01:53 PMI think votes should be treated as a bank account. Everyone should be able to login to an online government site with their social security number to view every vote they cast. Banks rarely fuck up people’s money so we should treat votes the same way. Before someone goes off on privacy issues, how many people know what’s in your bank account?
Posted by: plastic peeps at November 18, 2005 02:08 PMRhinehold
I think only old farts like me would remember the 1960 election.
Kennedy won Illinois only by a few thousand votes. That gave him the election. And those votes were in Chicago. Go figure.
plastic peeps,
Banks rarely fuck up people’s money so we should treat votes the same way.
Which bank do you use? I no longer have a bank account because my last bank fucked up my account so badly.
In 1960 John F. Kennedy won 303 electoral votes. Illinois had 27 electoral votes in 1960. That means that John F Kennedy received 276 electoral votes in addition to the 27 in Illinois. Off the top of my head, I can’t remember if there were 535 or 538 electors, but it doesn’t matter, because 276 would constitute a majority in either case. Please refrain from repeating the lie that Kennedy would have lost in 1960 had he not won Illinois. It is simply a false statement. That is all.
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2005 02:21 PMPlastic Peeps,
BTW,
The bank Idea is an interesting one though. Drive up voting atm’s. Everyone could get issued a voting card and a pin number. Drive up and vote. Votes could be put into your account, that you could check for acuracy at anytime.
Ron Brown and Rhinehold. There were 537 total electoral votes available. I’ve had some pretty embarrassing debates with conservatives in the past, but I’ve never had one over Algebra before. Okay the quantity, 303 minus 27, divided by 537. Is that greater than or less than one half?
How the heck did you guys pass your SAT’s? In fact, let me rephrase that. Do colleges turn students into Democrats, or is it just that people who believe and repeat Republican talking points lack the cranial capacity to pass the entrance exams?
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2005 02:35 PMBtw, when I said 1872 I of course meant 1876. Sorry for the confusion I might have cauesd.
And Mike, it was Illinois and Texas that were the sore spots. Both were very close, as were many other states as well. In fact, Nixon actually lost Hawaii in recounting.
But it was Illinois were hundreds of people were jailed for voting irregularities, however none of them would show up in recounts and could not be used to change the official outcome. As the Tribune at the time put it : “once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen.”
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 02:49 PMRhinehold,
Are you suggesting that your doubts concerning an election in 1960 justify the sleeze of 2000 and 2004?
Posted by: Dave at November 18, 2005 02:57 PMRhinehold:
a computer voting system with a paper ballot ‘receipt’ that the voter can review before leaving the booth is the best way. We would get quick accurate vote counting and a verifiable way to recount and re-examine the vote in the case of an error.
IMO, a paper trail is not the way to go. A “paper trail” for voting can be extremely dangerous for the secrecy of the ballot. It provides no improvement in the accuracy of voting. Further, paper trails can only be used to undermine the existence of free elections in our society. There is no other practical use for a paper trail. The voter will have no valid use for the paper trail, only their detractors. It is imperative that we maintain the privacy of each and every voter. Posted by: john trevisani at November 18, 2005 02:59 PM
Mike,
1) I never said that Kennedy stole the election. I said that it was close and controversial.
2) There were 537 electoral votes available. The winner would need to get 269
3) Byrd got 15 of those electoral votes
4) 303 - 27 for Illinois give Kennedy 273. If Hawaii had not been called for Kennedy that would give him 270. At that point I think you would have seen some interesting jumping of ships by the electoral college. (That would have been VERY interesting)
5) Texas was very very close. The recounts in Texas didn’t come up with a Nixon win, but I think that they were of a similar nature as Florida’s in 2000, without the type of environment we have now.
In fact, if it would have been Gore instead of Nixon, I think we would have seen a much more rigorous post election legal fight. As it was, the federal courts refused to listen to any of the suits called because they were ‘out of jurisdiction’ to them.
It’s not quite as simple as you want to make it out, Mike. And you idiot statement about ‘democrats and republicans’ only leads me to come to some conclusions about your opinion on the subject. :(
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 03:00 PMRhinehold,
Were there charges of irregularities in Texas, or was it just the fact that it was close? I thought the whole 1960 sour grapes thing was based on the notion that foul play was involved in enough states to put Nixon over the top. Why do people only say “Chicago?” They also seem to imply that the aggregate popular vote determines the winner of a Presidential Election.
Look, I don’t expect you to answer my questions, since you’re just reading from a list of talking points. And of course, no one will respond to any of the 2004 Ohio charges that violated the voting rights act of 1964 like long lines or changing polling stations at the last minute. Isn’t it ironic that the voting rights act might not have been adopted were it not for the 1960 election? In case your talking points don’t understand this, all bills passed in 1964 would need to be signed into law by a man who was elected Vice President in 1960.
Do we need to debate about the 101 page list of voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004? Are you going to boast of your inability to find it? Do we need to debate whether 251 plus 20 is greater than half of 538?
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2005 03:03 PMRhinehold,
FYI, I voted for a Republican Mayor last week and 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans for City Council. Now, I’m sure that you’ll fight tooth and nail to disprove these claims, but it doesn’t change the fact that your ad hominem conclusions about my opinions are completely irrelevant. You’ve never met me, and if we ever would meet, your conclusions about my opinons wouldn’t matter, because we’re both using aliases. Focus on the content of the post, not the person who is doing the posting. If you make logic errors or leaps of faith in your logic, you may be called out on them. Just be glad that it happened anonymously.
Oh, and does anyone want to talk about the 101 page report about the 2004 Ohio voting irregularities? I didn’t think so.
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2005 03:21 PMI don’t see how anyone could advocate computerized voting machines. Just imagine this scenario: You go to vote and walk into a booth, and there is nothing there except a black curtain. Behind the curtain is a man sitting in a chair whom you can’t see and don’t know. You say “Hello?”, and the man says “Are you casting a vote for the republican candidate, or the democrat candidate?” You say “Republican”, and he responds by saying “Thank you for voting. Send in the next person please.”
Would you trust that your vote has been counted? Well, this is the way that today’s computerized voting machines work. Only behind the black curtain is not just one man, it’s several hundred people, perhaps even a thousand or thousands of people, who you can’t see and do not know. And instead of a black curtain, these many people have worked behind this whirring little metal box.
All computerized voting machines must go - no exceptions. There was never anything wrong with the simple light-mark counting machines (like the ones used to grade exams).
“Anyone that knows anything about fixed disk drives, know that one can always retrieve data from a storage medium such as a fixed drive.”
This is not necessarily true. Maybe an accomplished MIT can retrieve data after it has been overwritten with several passes of binary strings by subtracting the strings from the original space, but the likelyhood of that data survivng the corruption of a well-configured overwrite is extremely minimal. Espescially if you’re trying to retrieve data library code which has been designed to eat itself upon successful execution, and that is the likely method of an experienced programmer with malicious intent. This is reason enough not to trust any computerized voting machine, let alone network infiltration or physical apprehension of a central tabulator.
Computers are just too complex of a solution to a very simple problem. Their integration into the voting system is simply an overreaction to voter ignorance in Florida in 2000. You have to ask youself why these people had trouble voting with simple punch cards when you can bet that mostly all of them play the state lottery on a regular basis. ‘Put the stylus into the dot that corresponds to your intended choice.’ What the hell is so complicated about it? Again, Floridians do it every day or week with a lottery ticket.
I think though, that instead of nationally standardized ballots that don’t work for everybody, we should have a nationally standardized choice of severl different ballot styles that would work for almost everyone. So, if you choose a ballot that you like, and still screw it up, then tough titty.
Make lottery ticket style, SAT style, puchcard style, and write-in style all standardized, and ditch the unnecessary computers.
Posted by: subverter at November 18, 2005 03:26 PMlet me see, 2006-1960=46…things have changed for the better, right?
back to the topic of voter fraud in the 21st century. it really isn’t all that difficult to skew a voter count, just make the line long, the ballots run out or the machine malfunction so that the poor voter must wait in a line in the rain for 8-12 hours while his boss fires him, the child care provider closes and you lose your wages or your mom/dad/child misses their medication schedule. you really don’t need a poll tax or a corrupt software program, unless of course you need it as insurance.
all the flamers out there who thought it outragous that some were asking for united nations observers in 2004 should rethink the way our country holds elections both here and in our occupied territories.
Posted by: donna at November 18, 2005 03:29 PMMike,
I find it funny that you accuse me of making ad hominem attacks on you when your first comment to me was one. I’m not a republican or a democrat so I have no political interest vested in either the 1960, 2000 and 2004 elections. I simply mark them as controversial and examples of voting irregularities.
As for Texas, yes there were accused voting irregularities in Texas as well. In fact, there were recounts and legal action in several states, including New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Hawaii to name a few. It was Illinois that was the most obvious and damaging, hundreds of people actually going to jail for their actions.
How many people were jailed for voting irregularities in 2000 and 2004?
As for your 101 page report, we can talk about it all you want, just as we can talk about the democrats in 1876 making a deal to give up on the presidency for an end to reconstruction and the ability to enact Jim Crow laws and removing the voting rights for millions of black people in the ensuing decades, that’s fine with me. It’s just a little ‘off topic’ and doesn’t really get to the matter at hand that we have had voting problems in this country since its inception and the only real way to fight it is to educate the voting public and hold THEM responsible for making sure they cast legal votes.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 18, 2005 03:30 PMJayJay and Rhinehold:
JayJay, you are correct, a computer voting system with a paper ballot ‘receipt’ that the voter can review before leaving the booth is the best way. We would get quick accurate vote counting and a verifiable way to recount and re-examine the vote in the case of an error.
I agree with both of you. I think a paper trail is an absolute must, and the ability of the voter to confirm that what they thought they voted is what actually gets counted is also imperative.
The voter should get a printout before they leave the booth, so they can see how their vote was counted. If they didn’t agree with what was printed, they should get the chance to do it again so it agrees with their intent.
It would give them a chance to ask for assistance when they see what got entered is not what they intended. They would have to insert the paper printout in order to redo their vote, so they have only one printout which leaves the booth with them, which could then be placed in a box outside the booth, for the paper trail, in case of a recount or machine malfunction.
There also needs to be a better way for the military and absentee ballots, but I haven’t thought that through yet.
I agree that more people would vote if they thought they could be sure their vote counted.
Just MHO of course. I think our system stinks to high heaven, and for anyone who thinks the Florida ballots were just fine, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in. I saw those ballots, and am considered pretty intelligent, but I would probably have voted wrong on them too.
Posted by: womanmarine at November 18, 2005 03:37 PMMike
Illinois put Kennedy over the top. There were questions about Chicago. If it wasn’t for the vote in Chicago, Illinois would’ve gone to Nixon. And I believe, though I might be wrong, that would’ve put Nixon over the top.
As anyone who followed politics back then knew, Chicago had one of the most corrupt political machines at the time. In fact the jokes were that if you lived in Chicago you didn’t have to go to the polls to vote. You were already voted. And that Chicago was the only city that the voters were so set on voting that even the dead voted.
In any case it was a close election. And even though I never thought much of Nixon, I have to give him credit for not turning it into the the 3 ring circus that Gore turned 2000 into.
I’ll also give Kerry credit for not doing it.
I recently put these links up in another thread, but I thought I’d just give them again.
NON-PARTISAN GAO REPORT CONFIRMS CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES
REPORT: ‘Loss and Miscount of Votes in Recent Elections’
House issues BI-PARTISAN Press Release: Report ‘A Wake Up Call’, ‘Foundation of Democracy Rests Upon Security, Integrity of our Voting System
Link to a pdf of the report is located on that page.
Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005’s referenda defeats?
The most important points from this link:
Issues Two-Five were meant to reform Ohio’s electoral process, which has been under intense fire since 2004. The issues were very heavily contested. They were backed by Reform Ohio Now, a well-funded bi-partisan statewide effort meant to bring some semblance of reliability back to the state’s vote count.Posted by: Adrienne at November 18, 2005 03:42 PMIssue Two was designed to make it easier for Ohioans to vote early, by mail or in person. By election day, much of what it proposed was already put into law by the state legislature.
The November 6 Dispatch poll showed Issue Two passing by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided, an even broader margin than that predicted for Issue One.
But on November 8, the official vote count showed Issue Two going down to defeat by the astonishing margin of 63.5% against, with just 36.5% in favor. To say the outcome is a virtual statistical impossibility is to understate the case. For the official vote count to square with the pre-vote Dispatch poll, support for the Issue had to drop more than 22 points, with virtually all the undecideds apparently going into the “no” column.
The numbers on Issue Three are even less likely.
Issue Three involved campaign finance reform.
The Sunday Dispatch poll showed it winning in a landslide, with 61% in favor and just 25% opposed.
Tuesday’s official results showed Issue Three going down to defeat in perhaps the most astonishing reversal in Ohio history, claiming just 33% of the vote, with 67% opposed. For this to have happened, Issue Three’s polled support had to drop 28 points, again with an apparent 100% opposition from the previously undecideds.
The outcomes on Issue Four and Five were slightly less dramatic. Issue Four meant to end gerrymandering by establishing a non-partisan commission to set Congressional and legislative districts. The Dispatch poll showed it with 31% support, 45% opposition, and 25% undecided. Issue Four’s final margin of defeat was 30% in favor to 70% against, placing virtually all undecideds in the “no” column.
Issue Five meant to take administration of Ohio’s elections away from the Secretary of State, giving control to a nine-member non-partisan commission. Issue Five was prompted by Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell’s administration of the 2004 presidential vote, particularly in light of his role as co-chair of Ohio’s Bush-Cheney campaign. The Dispatch poll showed a virtual toss-up, at 41% yes, 43% no and 16% undecided. The official result gave Issue Five just 30% of the vote, with allegedly 70% opposed.
But the Sunday Dispatch also carried another headline: “44 counties will break in new voting machines.” Forty-one of those counties “will be using new electronic touch screens from Diebold Election System,” the Dispatch added.
Every vote in Ohio 2004 was cast or counted on an electronic device. About 15%—-some 800,000 votes—-were cast on electronic touchscreen machines with no paper trail. The number was about seven times higher than Bush’s official 118,775-vote margin of victory. Nearly all the rest of the votes were cast on punch cards or scantron ballots counted by opti-scan devices—-some of them made by Diebold—-then tallied at central computer stations in each of Ohio’s 88 counties.
According to a recent General Accountability Office report, all such technologies are easily hacked. Vote skimming and tipping are readily available to those who would manipulate the vote. Vote switching could be especially easy for those with access to networks by which many of the computers are linked. Such machines and networks, said the GAO, had widespread problems with “security and reliability.” Among them were “weak security controls, system design flaws, inadequate security testing, incorrect system configuration, poor security management and vague or incomplete voting system standards, among other issues.”
With the 2005 expansion of paperless touch-screen machines into 41 more Ohio counties, this year’s election was more vulnerable than ever to centralized manipulation. The outcomes on Issues 2-5 would indicate just that.
I agree with the womenmarine on the use of electronic voting followed by a paper trail
My first vote was for HST and I have never missed even though I have often felt it was useles.
Interestingly, this thread has only discussed the arguable voting discrepancies made by man and machine for the quantity of people who have voted in the last several elections.
Election victories and losses are being argued as questionable due to counts, illegal voters (how do you vote illegally BTW), etc.
What will happen when increasing numbers of the 100 million or so age eligible voters begin to come to the polls? If there is no accuracy resolution based on half the votes, I guess we will be in a world of hurt when the vote total exceeds half and, hopefully gets to 2/3 and 3/4.
Moreover, throw in the inevitible introduction of Third Party and/or write in votes brought about in part by efforts of groups like voidnow.org and you are forced to introduce a complete overhaul of the voting system IMO.
Posted by: steve smith at November 19, 2005 10:47 AMThe mass media is responsible for this! There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the good old fashioned paper ballot, except that the Media want to see the results NOW so they can keep their “market share”, and nobody is willing to wait for ballots to be counted. Since the new politician (I hesitate to use the word “leader” these days) doesn’t take office immediately anyway, where’s the harm in waiting a day or two? THERE ISN’T ANY! Certainly there is much less harm than the risk of having the election stolen….Voting is one part of our lives that should NEVER be computerized!
Posted by: capnmike at November 20, 2005 04:24 PM
To reply to the individual that made the accusation that this country violated the voter rights act of 1965 was absolutely wrong and way out of order. There is absolutely no evidence proving such a rediculous statement.
If any violations were violated during the elections, it was the false registrations of dead and illegal alliens. The abuse of absent ballots and the continued presents of Democtratic representives in the polling centers telling people who to vote for.
Our government does not have the ability to protect against such high tech abuses. They cant stop people from abusing current voting laws.
Posted by: MacIrish at November 21, 2005 01:11 PM
