What Can Be Done To Make A Better Computer Voting Machine?

[InfoMinister]

We've been talking a lot about voter fraud lately. However, I think that this type of story just isn't going to get very far and so far it hasn't. Even the news stories about some of the irregularities have been put into question(On CNN one show basically went through several of them and claimed to explain all of the irregularities). I've heard about one story about a programmer who claims that he created a program that he says was used to rig the elections. Haven't heard much more about it.

Anyway, I wanted to create a topic where we can brainstorm about what can be done to make a more secure computer system for voting so at least in 2008 we may have something that people may actually feel is more dependable.

Here is a documentary about some of the flaws in the current machines:
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater268.html

From what I've heard on some tech forums a lot of people are concerned with MS Access being used. Since I don't fool around with database stuff can anyone shine some light on how flawed this program actually is? Also, people are concerned with a Microsoft OS being used in the first place, prefering Linux or a BSD OS instead(This is something that the people over at MSNBC would be reluctant to even talk about, BTW). Having an Open Source program has also been talked about as well. Also, should there be a standard around the US of one type of voting machine?

I think that actually compiling some info about the flaws in the voting machines and sending that to our representatives may be more beneficial than the idea of a conspiracy. A lot of people just don't respond to conspiracy theories no matter how much evidence you claim to have. I think we should still look into the idea that the election may have been rigged. However, actually taking a moderate stance that both parties could agree on (The machines are flawed and here is actual documented proof that cannot be disputed, lets fix them before the next presidential election to increase voter confidence in the system) would actually bring more people to the cause and potentially prevent fraud from happening as much in the future.

[Gothmog]

1. Paper trail is a must

Any system has to be subject to some sort of audit so that it can recounted if need be

[InfoMinister]

2. Forgot About That One

That's a major one people have talked about. However, I think that there are bigger problems in the software of Diebold machines. Check out that documentary as well. I think it was already posted on DU awhile back anyway but worth a look if you haven't seen it.

[w4rma]

89. Not only a paper trail but paper BALLOTS.

I think that voting should stay low tech, however. I used to be in favor of touch screen machines that printed out paper ballots, but after hearing about touch screens that were set up to make it hard to touch the Kerry button without hovering your hand over the Bush button, thus selecting Bush, instead, I'm now in favor of whatever it is that Canada does (which I think is optical scan), now, which appears to work perfectly.

[Career Prole]

3. I'd much prefer low-tech nationwide when it comes to voting.

Paper ballots with a hand-count...same format universally.
It'd take longer to determine a winner and we'd have to pay some overtime to the counters and witnesses but there would be no doubts and no mistakes.
I don't think technology serves us well in the electoral process.

[InfoMinister]

9. Also, Lets Restrict This To The Original Topic

Lets try to keep it a little more on topic. I think we're stuck with computers for the future. I don't think we can really do anything about that except make sure what we're going to have is more secure than it is right now.

"What Can Be Done To Make A Better Computer Voting Machine?"

[Silverhair]

11. Humans make counting mistakes too.

Paper trail should be mandatory for audit purposes, but let machines do the first count.

Randomly pick some precints for audit to hunt for problems. If no problems are found, then the other precints should be OK.

The problem is that when you are counting 120 million votes, there is no way to avoid some errors. If the winner wins by a large enough margin, the errors don't matter. In a close election it becomes a major problem. In 2001 Scientific American did an excellent article about it.

[InfoMinister]

22. People Here Don't Seem To Trust the Computer At All

I have more distrust for the people counting than a well-programmed computer that is open to public scrutiny. That's why I'd prefer the actual program to be open source so computer experts can take a look at it.

[Silverhair]

29. Me too.

Whether one thinks this election was stolen or not, (I don't) there absolutely needs to be election reform with total transparency and greater access. Long waiting lines are absurd.

Since we seem to be going to a national ID anyway, make that your voter registration card. Include a thumbprint on it, and bar code your SSN onto it. Have voting to be a two week period. Terminals can be set up in high traffic locations, (Super markets, malls, etc.) with paid staff to assist. Terminal compares your thumbprint, verifies your ID. You would not even need to be at the right precinct as the system could bring up the correct ballot for your precinct. The parties can provide their own watchers. Person uses touch screen, (Eliminates chads, spoiled ballots, etc) when finished touches "Print", ballot is printed for person to inspect, the hits Yes/No. Electronic ballot is saved, but the paper ballots are counted too, by machine, but are available for manual recount.

Hacking. This month's issue of Scientific American has excellent article on absolutely safe encryption that can't be broken at all. (Uses quantum physics wave/particle duality for encryption. Attempts at tampering leave tracks.) Besides, the paper ballots would be the real vote and they would be guarded, so the incentive to hack the vote is lost.

That would take care of both the Left's concerns and the Right's. Many of us claim they tampered with the machines and they claim that we had the graveyards voting.

Refinements would be needed to my idea. In a few paragraphs one can't describe a complete system. But I think the above is a good general concept. Transparent democracy is worth the price.

[rman]

34. hand counting hasn't caused the problems there are now

it's not like hand counting hasn't been tried, as you probably know. it isn't perfect but it's much harder to rig.

people don't so much "not trust computers" as they don't trust the way in which the computers work are secret. people don't trust the people who keep it a secret.

[InfoMinister]

44. We're Talking About Ways To Make It Open Source

It seems that even after it's open source some people here still wouldn't trust a computer.

[Silverhair]

54. LBJ & Daley did very effective jobs at rigging hand counting. NT

[rman]

36. it's not about counting mistakes, it's about rigging the system

these black boxes make it so easy to rig the system.
solution: the boxes shouldn't be 'black' - it should be open source.

[leftchick]

52. I agree and...

No SoS should be allowed to work for the campaign of a candidate for president. (blackwell, harris etc.) In addition the partisanship of all electtion officials in each state should be looked at as well. NC has a terrible record.

[radwriter0555]

101. Incarcerate all the PNAC loyalists first.

Then MAYBE this nation could return to real, genuine, open, free and honest elections.

[LibertyorDeath]

4. It already exists unlike the Inventor.

The subject line on yesterday’s email read: “Another mysterious accident solves a Bush problem. Athan Gibbs dead, Diebold lives.” The attached news story briefly described the untimely Friday, March 12th death of perhaps America’s most influential advocate of a verified voting paper trail in the era of touch screen computer voting. Gibbs, an accountant for more than 30 years and the inventor of the TruVote system, died when his vehicle collided with an 18-wheeled truck which rolled his Chevy Blazer several times and forced it over the highway retaining wall where it came to rest on its roof.



“These machines are set up to provide paper trails. No business in America would buy a machine that didn’t provide a paper trail to audit and verify its transaction. Now, they want the people to purchase machines that you can’t audit? It’s absurd.”
More http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/853




Gibbs’ TruVote machine is a marvel. After voters touch the screen, a paper ballot prints out under plexiglass and once the voter compares it to his actual vote and approves it, the ballot drops into a lockbox and is issued a numbered receipt. The voter’s receipt allows the track his particular vote to make sure that it was transferred from the polling place to the election tabulation center.

[nascarblue]

7. The fact that they killed off the maker of a paper trail machine....

..shows you how serious these people are at keeping our country a fascist regime. What's amazing is that Diebold bought Gibbs company and got rid of his paper trail machines. Why doesn't that seem odd to the FBI or the Cops? In the span of a few months the guy dies and Diebold buys the company? I dont think so.

[InfoMinister]

12. Avoid The Conspiracy Theories, Please

I'd rather not get into detail about conspiracy theories. Lets just stick with the machines that are here right now and what would make a better compuerised voting machine.

The intent behind this is to create a legitimate list of ideas and concerns that can be validated beyond a shadow of a doubt. That way more people would be more willing to listen that are actually part of government.

[shance]

58. Please stop attempting to stifle/suppress helpful posts by using the

conspiracy excuse.

It's counterproductive, not to mention controlling, when people try to suppress others from posting answers that they may not necessarily like.

You might want to look up the definition of conspiracy by the way.

When someone is trying to offer helpful information to a question you asked, don't pull the conspiracy card. Its inaccurate, demeaning, and rude.

[Carl Brennan]

94. I don't think you are up to doing anything about anything.

Anybody that would shitcan the answer to the question asked as you have done because of the conspiracy theory boogaboo is not worth talking to IMHO.

[LibertyorDeath]

40. Thanx for the info I didn't know

"Diebold bought Gibbs company and got rid of his paper trail machines"

This is unreal.
How much more of this shit is America going to take?

[DireStrike]

5. Paper. Pen. Hand counts in every precinct. Public Witnesses.

That's it.

[shraby]

6. With the ballot boxes in the middle of the room

in full view at all times. When one gets full another is stacked on top of it. The ballot boxes at the end of the day are emptied in full view of observers and the ballots are counted in full view and the tally is signed and posted. Then the ballots are put back into the boxes and the boxes locked and sealed.

[InfoMinister]

8. Problem Is A Lot of People Prefer The Touchscreen To The Older Methods

Not to mention the money already spent on the machines to begin with.

Just talk to some of the voters that just voted. Most of them I talked to liked the touchscreen method better than the older methods. I don't think people are going to want to throw away the computers they just purchased. They're going to have to be used and it wouldn't be that hard to covert over to a new OS and install a free program unless there are restrictions on upgrades to these computers. Linux and FreeBSD can pretty much be installed on any computer. What I don't know is whether or not these machines have some restrictions on the hard drives or hardware where this cannot be done.

That also brings up another issue. I think there should be some restrictions on the machines when they get to a level where people can depend on them. Restrict them so hardware cannot be removed from the computers and there is some sort of seal somewhere that shows that they have been opened that cannot be replaced after this happens.

[DireStrike]

10. This is all just so ridiculous.

There have to be sweeping changes to make all of those "investments" worthwhile and acceptable. Who the hell is watching this stuff?

[InfoMinister]

15. Yes, I Think There Should Have Been More Research

All around the country these communities got these new computers and nobody did enough research to actually see that these computers had some major security flaws and had no audit trail. I think people were more concerned with having something easier to use rather than having something that was secure.

This is the majory problem we're going to have with reforming all of that. People who aren't tech savy and don't know what on earth you're talking about when information about an OS, hardware, and software security flaws are revealed are going to start raising cain about the removal of machines for new ones.

"These machines already work! You're wasting all of our tax dollars! I liked those machines and I didn't see a problem with them! Linux? What the hell is that? You're not going to spend my tax dollars to mess with a perfectly good machine by opening it up and putting a Linux in there!"

[bpilgrim]

14. paper trail

then open source.

the seals will mean nothing to crackers who access the machine virtually not physically.

if we don't get audit-able paper trails the rest is moot.

peace

[InfoMinister]

16. It Would Be Better To Do Both

Physical security is just as important as preventing a remote hacker from getting in.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. Dude, it's EASY. But paper accountability is key.

Take your current Diebold touchscreen. When you generate your vote, it creates a paper ballot which you inspect to make sure it's correct, and place it into the ballot lock box for that polling location.

Every vote generates a paper ballot like this. I personally prefer the option where the voter inspects their paper ballot for accuracy and places it into the lock box themselves, to the version where it automatically falls into the box.

Key is that a NONPARTISAN third party organization would randomly appear and audit some percentage of polling locations, show up and count their lock box votes and compare them to the reported electronic count. Any significant discrepancies between paper count and electronic count would result in a the election result being held up pending a thorough investigation. In the event of a total fiasco the paper vote would be considered the gold standard determining the outcome.

The computers could add nice wrinkles to the paper ballot such as making them color coded for straight ticket, printing party symbol or even the candidate's face on the ballot for people with poor English.

Assuming the electronic vote is honest/accurate, it would still provide more rapid returns, but a really good system would require MANDATORY, RANDOM auditing such as I have described, by a nonpartisan organization.

[rman]

37. "money already spent"

much of that went to profits for the corporations that made the machines. it would be a lot less costly if it would be open source.

[Junkdrawer]

30. And a simple spreadsheet as the tabulator...

The very complexity of GEMS is, in and of itself, a big clue.

[Sirveri]

13. it would be simple

make a computer that printed out a standard paper ballot. Make sure all those ballots are hand counted and not scanned thru a machine. Make sure they were counted three times, once by a independant state person and then once by the repukes and democrats. That's about as close as one could get to fair elections.

[InfoMinister]

18. Could Someone Tamper With The Machines By Actually Printing Fake Papers

I'm thinking that it would be better to use both a paper and store it on the computer so it can be compared. I think there is a possibilty of tampering with the computer database as well as fake paper printouts.

[Sirveri]

24. If they print out fake copies then people should check the printout

Basically if it prints out wrong have a mechanism whereby you can feed your vote back into the machine and reprint.

I don't trust automated vote counting machines, because those can be rigged, and if the computer stores it then most states will just print out what the computer says it has and not bother to count.

[InfoMinister]

25. I'm Talking About An Individual Intentionally Printing Some Papers Out

I'm talking about a person intentionally printing out the papers on their own and putting them in the box somehow. I'm thinking that there would be less focus on what was actually printed out on paper and more focused on what's actually on the computer instead.

[Sirveri]

26. Then you make it so they can only print one copy.

Unless they feed their original ballot back into the machine. But I get what you're saying, people could in theory come from home and do it, so yeah, put tracking numbers on each of them and have the compare to the computer logs.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. With my tinfoil hat securely in a lockbox, I say

paper printouts ..... one in a secure way to stay with the election commission and an exact NCR to the voter, split right there in the voting booth by the printer.

Let the machine count the votes, but use the paper for any recount.

[Cleita]

20. You should do both for proper accounting procedures.

The electronic machine should only be used like a calculator. The source documents, the votes, should be hand counted against the machine totals.

[Cleita]

19. Maybe the wrong guys are making them.

Perhaps we should take this problem to the guys who make Nevada slot machines. Believe me, there are no failures in those machines that aren't repaired quickly and all of them have oodles of backup documentation.

[Silverhair]

31. Slot machines have weaknesses too.

As a professional gambler, I know how to ID a particular type of slot machine failure and how to exploit it. (I haven't done that since 1999 so I am assuming they are still made the same way.) It isn't easy, but it can be done. No, I won't tell on the internet how it is done. I will say that it is legal, but that's all.

I once worked in a casino slot department for a few months before I quit to play poker professionally. It has been some years ago, but once a casino in Biloxi, MS made their slot programmer real angry. So before he was fired, he reprogrammed a row of slots and let his friends know about it.

[Cleita]

39. You have made the best case for getting legislation in

to outlaw all voting machines in favor of old-fashioned pencil and paper voting with a hand count. You just made the case that no machines that have a sorting and counting function are tamper proof.

Probably the only reason ATM's work reasonably well is because each individual account holder audits their monthly statement for accuracy, so it's humans that keep down the error and cheat rate, not the machines or those who service them.

This is the problem. Each voter needs this statement of their votes for them to audit and report to the election officials any discrepancies. Still it doesn't change the fact, they stil could be tampered with after the fact.

[Silverhair]

41. Thank You. Yes, and auditable paper trail is a must. NT

[InfoMinister]

21. Any Computer Experts Here

A lot of people agree with the paper trail idea. However, I was thinking of going into more technical detail here. Are there any computer experts in the area of security out there that may know of some major security flaws with the Diebold machines?

I know that they use Windows but I'm not sure of the version. Anyway, I know some security issues with Windows 2000 and XP that I've gone through and messed around with. I'm assuming they're using one of those.

Do they use encryption, NTFS permissions, are unneeded services turned off, have registry edits been made to security flaws in Windows such as anonymous logins, is POSIX turned off, is the guest account disabled, do they have smartcards for logins, do they use the ctrl+alt+del method to prevent people from using password cracking programs, is a firewall used, are they connected in any way to the outside world to require a firewall in the first place?

[nascarblue]

23. Theres no protection at all.

There's no encryption. Supposedly the tabulators sending the votes to the central tabulators is protected in a private network, but that's been proven unsecure. As Chris(not Bev) wrote in the Blackbox Voting Book (www.blackboxvoting.com ) this is "a misperception". It's just plain Microsoft Excel with a password. And from what they found out in 2002 elections, the password is really basic.
So there's two problems, the machines themselves...and the tabulators.

[rman]

33. no way to know since it's a trade secret

that's a problem inherent to a privately owned election system.
it's why these things should be open source.

[InfoMinister]

42. We Are Sure That It's Windows, Though

I've read MS Access is being used so I assume they're using the latest version of Windows. That's one major issue that needs to be brough up. A security flaw is found in Windows all the time. There are considerably fewer in other open source OS's (There still are some but not nearly as many). Like I've said before MSNBC is the only news organization that I've heard that has looked into the rumors of rigging. However, I don't trust that they would say anything negative about the OS or dig deep enough into some of the issues of security and computer uptime(Some of these computers actually didn't work propery during election time. They probably just crashed because of issues such as memory usage and other issues that can hang up computers when too many background programs are running. Go to blackviper.com and see some of the services that are on in 2000 and XP that aren't even needed if you want to know what I'm talking about). I don't really trust a news organization that has direct ties to the software being used on these machines because it can make their software look bad when they go into the flaws. They can always blame somebody else rather than blame their own software.

[rman]

49. doesn't tell you much

as long as the source code is closed and the auditing procedure is closed, there's no way of knowing exactly what the vulnerabilities of the system are.

[InfoMinister]

56. We Already Know Several Flaws That Are Just In Windows Alone N/T

[Occulus]

28. A serious response

The code needs to be public. Our fifth graders should be able to run an election for class president on the exact same software.

The software needs to be able to run on a "normal", non-touchscreen, PC. Also, it needs to be open-source and have the tools available to set up an election, much like PC games have editors these days.

It needs to have the capacity to generate a preliminary printout of the intended vote, and that 'receipt' needs to be tied to a flag corresponding to that particular vote. This all needs to be encrypted to a fare-thee-well.

Finally, we need a verification system by which the code running on each precinct's hardware can be checked against a static, national standard minutes before the polls open so we can be assured that the code running on the machine is the code that is supposed to be running on that machine. The static copy verification server would have to be held in secure facilities at the FEC, and those static copies would have to be themselves verified against the accepted and released code, which would previously have been disseminated to the general public.

This isn't hard; it only requires careful thought. I'm NOT against electronic voting per se; I'm against unverifiable electronic voting.

[rman]

32. not privately owned, open source software and - hardware

so that the election process is verifiable, transparent, accountable.

elections are the people's business.

[OneTwentyoNine]

87. You got it,electronic voting shouldn't be subcontracted.....

The machines,the code everything should be open source for Dems and Republicans alike to insure accuracy. The should and could VERY easily print out actually results from each machine.

Face it folks,we vote on electronic machines made by corporations that donate HUGE sums of money to Bush and Republicans. Tin Foil hat or not,it doesn't take a genius to figure out this crap is RIGGED.

[jmowreader]

35. The whole thing should be done in 4th Dimension

4th Dimension is a database with some very handy features:

* You can set records to read-only. A vote is a record. When the voter presses the "vote" button, this would set a record to read-only.
* You can password-protect the databases. Certainly any database can be password-protected, but 4D's got various levels of password security--write-only passwords (for voting), read-only passwords (for tabulating) and full-access passwords (for forgetting in this case because we want these records to be sealed!).

Also, very few hackers have 4th Dimension skillz. Lots of them have Access skillz because Access is a very common program.

You could also set the 4D DRE up to print the ballot for approval. It's a very good program.

[rman]

38. the hacking of this election was an inside job

It doesn't even qualify as hacking, it's rigging the system.
So it doesn't matter how few outside people have skills to hack the software used.
If an MS Access database can be made so that records can be changed without it leaving a trace, so can a 4th Dimension database. Anything can be done without it ever coming to light if there's no public accountability of the system.

[jmowreader]

45. There are databases that are rig-proof

Most of them are on mainframes--IBM's DB2 was pretty fucking unriggable. IIRC 4D comes very, very close to this level of tightness.

What we want is not one database but two. And preferably a client-server system with the two databases on different machines. (What I am going to describe will NOT work unless the program files are all GPL'd. Also, 4D apps can be compiled so they run without 4D on the machine, which will be the best route.) There has got to be a way to set up servers so a client can see both of them on the network but the servers can't see each other. And what's the dumbest client we can get?

In database 1, which is write-once, read-many (WORM), a voter cast a vote on terminal x at time y. As we go through the day, we will compile a complete list of the times voters pushed the "vote" key, which will also tell us how many votes were cast at that precinct.

Database 2, another WORM database, will contain the ballots themselves. They will also be timestamped.

4D pulls the timestamp off the system clock; you don't manually enter it.

At this point, you have a fairly secure voting system--if a ballot doesn't appear on both databases, it's not a vote. (This is to prevent the Repugs from simply adding extra Republican votes to Database 2.)

4D has another feature that will come in handy: it makes backups of its databases. Using some kind of system-level scripting, the two servers will duplicate the last backup then write it to a CD-R every hour on the hour. These CDs will have been serialized before the election, counted, the count certified and all that. They will also be a relatively exotic-looking CD-R; the ones that look like 45-RPM vinyl singles come to mind. IOW, something that the Repugs can't just go to Staples and buy. When the polls close, the poll workers will be responsible for turning all of these CD-Rs in to the elections board.

Now at this point we have a headcount on a sheet of paper. We have one computer counting the number of times someone presses Vote, and we have a second computer tabulating the ballots themselves. Attached to each terminal is a printer which spits out a ballot for review; when the Vote button is pressed, it drops into a box. Plus, we have the CD-R copies of the vote databases. If we really want to get nit-picky about it we could put a pedestrian counter in the door to the polling machines. There is probably a way to rig all of that at one time, but I can't see how.

[rman]

50. the people who design, administer the system

can have full access to is.
as long as their actions go unchecked - as it is with a closed system - there no way of knowing what is done to the system.

are you opposed to making it open source?

[jmowreader]

59. I think I said they need to open-source the software

If I didn't I'm saying it now.

I also think they need to use a highly robust database as the foundation of this effort--something like Oracle, DB2, 4D, Informix...hell, use Promis, it can be used for everything else!

[InfoMinister]

43. Can You Tell Me Some More About This Program?

I'd like to read up on it a little.

[Junkdrawer]

46. Turn it into the world's most expensive paper ballot marker...

Aside from that, they introduce too much temptation for fraud.

[InfoMinister]

47. I'd Think It Could Actually Decrease Fraud

If someone corrected all of the problems with these computers and made them as secure as possible. Election fraud has happened in the past with paper ballots so you can't say that the old way is going to solve all of the problems. You also need to face reality and realize that the machines are going to be everywhere eventually. If you want to change things for the better you're going to have to work with what we're going to have in the future because it's all going to computers whether you like it or not.

[Junkdrawer]

48. I beg to differ, I think the world's legitimate democracies...

are going to see what can happen with punchcards/touchscreens/optical scan ballots and cling even tighter to their paper ballots - as they should.

As for this "Election fraud has happened in the past with paper ballots", as history will demonstrate, ballot box stuffing schemes require a fairly extensive conspiracy and are usually exposed. And simple countermeasures such as glass ballot boxes can mitigate much of that risk.

Punchcards/touchscreens/optical scan ballots, on the other hand, can be rigged with only a modest number of conspirators. Which is, of course, the most frightening aspect of them.

And leave us not forget the central tabulators. As long as the precinct numbers make their way to proprietary central tabulators with little or no transparency, they will also be sources of fraud.

[InfoMinister]

62. But It's Not Going To Happen Here In The US

The US is going toward the computers so we're going to have to tell them what is wrong with these computers and how they fan be fixed without resorting to conspiracy or saying that the money has been wasted and the computers will have to be thrown away. What's really scary is that some of the people posting here are wanting to demand something that is completely unreasonable. Asking the government to upgrade the computers with free software such as Linux is a lot more reasonable than telling them to throw out their computers and go back to paper ballots. They have to satisfy the other people too. Not just you and the fiscal conservatives aren't going to like the idea of computers being thrown away and their tax dollars being wasted.

[Junkdrawer]

71. No, the whole structure is riddled through with corruption.

Conspiracies are occurring. Offhand, I'd say that a good 60% (likely more) of the nation's top election officials are involved at some level.

We have moved from "Representative Democracy" to "Fascism with a Democratic Face". And we fool no one - neither friend nor enemy.

No, Democracy's last hope is a HUGE scandal that exposes the whole rotten structure. Without said scandal, I can guarantee "election reform" will be more meaningless window dressing.

[rman]

51. "Election fraud has happened"

"in the past with paper ballots"

sure. but far less so then now with e-voting.

your argument is like saying that car accidents happen and people die in spite of wearing seatbelts, so we might just as well not wear seatbelts. never mind that wearing a seatbelt greatly reduces the chance of fatal injury.

never mind that an open systen would be less prone to rigging.

[Gin]

53. Open source software. Proprietary software should never be allowed.

Even with a paper trail....the software can be rigged for results to never have a recount.

Random checks during the voting period. (IMHO)

[InfoMinister]

55. You Think Fraud Has Happened

The analogy doesn't work since I feel that the computer is the seatbelt to reducing error in voting if done properly and open to everyone so they can see how the computers work.

However, there is no legitimate proof that voting fraud has happened, which is why I said to steer clear of the conspiracy theories. The counties in Florida that keep on being brought up have a history of voting for Republicans in the past. There may be a lot of registered Democrats but that doesn't mean that they actually voted Democrat. I live in Georgia and I know that in South Georgia a lot of those people vote Republican based on religious values even though they may be Democrats. They agree with a lot of what the Democratic party may say. However, the negative PR about religion has worked and they're going to vote for the Republican that shares their religious values. The public just isn't buying the voting rigging story and I'm trying to propose something that people would be more willing to agree with. Instead you keep on going off into conspiracy territory. In order to get something done with these voting machines you're going to have to tone down the message and only provide information that can actually be validated. Hearsay and rumors are just going to be thrown out when you write to your representatives.

[rman]

93. of course the analogy doesn't work if you spin it

I think you commit severe civic irresposibility when you want to have the integrity of elections depend on blind trust in a private entity.

"legitimate proof" can only be found by means of an official investigation.
There is plenty of evidence to warrant an official investigation.

[Career Prole]

57. Germany has it right...but then they were right about Iraq, too.

Of all the violations of the commons – all of the crimes against We The People and against democracy in our great and historic republic – this is the greatest. Our vote is too important to outsource to private corporations.

It's time that the U.S.A. – like most of the rest of the world – returns to paper ballots, counted by hand by civil servants (our employees) under the watchful eye of the party faithful. Even if it takes two weeks to count the vote, and we have to just go, until then, with the exit polls of the news agencies. It worked just fine for nearly 200 years in the U.S.A., and it can work again.

When I lived in Germany, they took the vote the same way most of the world does – people fill in hand-marked ballots, which are hand-counted by civil servants taking a week off from their regular jobs, watched over by volunteer representatives of the political parties. It's totally clean, and easily audited. And even though it takes a week or more to count the vote (and costs nothing more than a bit of overtime pay for civil servants), the German people know the election results the night the polls close because the news media's exit polls, for two generations, have never been more than a tenth of a percent off.

We could have saved billions that have instead been handed over to ES&S, Diebold, and other private corporations.
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20416/

[ngant17]

60. computers and voting

jmowreader (1000+ posts)      Thu Dec-23-04 02:35 AM
"In database 1, which is write-once, read-many (WORM), a
voter cast a vote on terminal x at time y. As we go through
the day, we will compile a complete list of the times voters
pushed the "vote" key, which will also tell us how
many votes were cast at that precinct. 
Database 2, another WORM database, will contain the ballots
themselves. They will also be timestamped."

No matter how sophisticated you make the system, it can be
re-worked and reverse-engineered.  You can counterfeit money,
slot machines, you can counterfeit anything, electronics,
hardware, software, it doesn't matter, it can be fixed, it can
be duplicated with fraudulent intent as easily as honest
intent.

InfoMinister (252 posts)       Thu Dec-23-04 03:50 AM
"You also need to face reality and realize that the
machines are going to be everywhere eventually. If you want to
change things for the better you're going to have to work with
what we're going to have in the future because it's all going
to computers whether you like it or not."

Just because something exists and it is widespread, it doesn't
mean we have to accept it for any reason.  We don't have to
accept diseases and injustices just because they exist and are
widespread.  That's reality. Computers will always be here,
that's not the issue or the problem, but we don't have to
accept a computer for vote-counting.  That's not the same as
being a Luddite, either.

The oral tradition is much older and more 'old-fashioned' than
the written tradition, but does that mean that writing is more
hi-tech and thus better qualified for communications than
speaking?  Definitely no.


Junkdrawer  (1000+ posts)     Thu Dec-23-04 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #47
"I beg to differ, I think the world's legitimate
democracies... 
 are going to see what can happen with
punchcards/touchscreens/optical scan ballots and cling even
tighter to their paper ballots - as they should.
As for this "Election fraud has happened in the past with
paper ballots", as history will demonstrate, ballot box
stuffing schemes require a fairly extensive conspiracy and are
usually exposed. And simple countermeasures such as glass
ballot boxes can mitigate much of that risk."

Poster got it right for sure.  I don't see why something as
low-tech as paper ballots should be outright rejected as a
current solution for accurate vote-counting today. The simpler
you make the vote counting, the less problems you will have. 
K.I.S.S. Keep it Simple Stupid. Using thousands and millions
of transitors on a motherboard for vote-counting is not the
KISS philosophy we need.

Career Prole  (1000+ posts)      Thu Dec-23-04 07:54 PM
"When I lived in Germany, they took the vote the same way
most of the world does people fill in hand-marked ballots,
which are hand-counted by civil servants taking a week off
from their regular jobs, watched over by volunteer
representatives of the political parties. It's totally clean,
and easily audited. And even though it takes a week or more to
count the vote (and costs nothing more than a bit of overtime
pay for civil servants), the German people know the election
results the night the polls close because the news media's
exit polls, for two generations, have never been more than a
tenth of a percent off.

We could have saved billions that have instead been handed
over to ES&S, Diebold, and other private corporations.
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20416 /"

Good point here.  For the mechanically-inclined who are
hell-bent on automating the process of vote-counting beyond
paper ballots, you can just build a very large abacus, so
every white or black bead of the abacus can visually be
monitored at all times.  No 'black boxes' to hide the
manipulation.  If someone tries to play with the beads and
shift them to the other stack, it could be seen and recorded
on realtime video.

Maybe you can envision a society of robots using our computers
to count their own electronic votes. It would be interesting
to see what kind of society they might build.
Artificially-intelligent vote-counting machines might even
deserve as much rights as human beings/US citizens, they could
have a right to vote, and we could even help them design an
android or a robotic computer standing outside the voting
booths to survey their exit polls after the citzen robots have
finished voting.  

All of that's Disney-esqe daydreaming.  I am a human being and
NOT a robot, I question the wisdom of counting votes with
integrated, miniturized electronic circuitry. I have NOT been
assimilated by the Borg. Resistance is NOT futile.  

We should emphasize our "human" part of the process
of counting votes, and we should NOT alienate this process by
depending on electronic machines and hi-tech to do the purely
human task of voting and vote-counting.  Granted Congress
screwed it up after 2000 with their so-called 'election
reforms'.  A knee-jerk reaction at best.  Nonetheless let's
get more people involved in the process, and less computer
tech.  It's all about public confidence in a human society.  

We all know that technological progress doesn't imply ethical
progress. Example.  Computers, digital photography and the
internet (tech progress) has made it more convenient for child
pornography to go networking all across the world. I assume
that most would agree that the sexual exploitation of children
is unethical.  Tech progress always seems to lag behind our
ethical progress. That's one reason why I am not optimistic
about computers and vote-counting.  It's a moral issue as much
as an efficiency issue.  

Modern computers and networking technology make it easier for
child porn to operate, likewise this same technology
facilitates the creation of election fraud on a larger and
more sophisticated scale.  These people in Diebold and
Sequoyia systems, they are as unscrupulous as the internet
child molesters that are running a mafia operation, they know
what they are doing is very illegal and extremely immoral, so
these people have to hide their business out of sight, out of
mind. They have to work behind a wall of secrecy or
quasi-legitimacy, like these sexual predators. They have no
other choice. The public would drag them thru the streets and
hang them to the nearest light pole if they were ever exposed.
This disgusting, filthy work is all about using their
propietary machinery and copyrighted source code to rape our
honest votes.  Every honest vote in every election is up for
grabs, it is like having a fresh piece of meat to rape. The
more they can do it, the better. That's how they get their
kicks. They will never be satisfied.

I don't want anyone using a computer to molest or rape our
children, and I don't want anyone, especially a large
corporation, using their computers to steal something as
virgin and innocent as our votes. This is outrageous to me.
Take away the computer and all these scumbags are defanged and
are much less of a collective threat to our democracy.

[InfoMinister]

65. I Don't Think You're Getting The Bigger Picture Here

I think you need to go do some searching on the web and see what other people are saying. I found one forum where one of my friends posts. You may remember him because he talked about his grandfather awhile back and the medicare he grandfater was going to lose. Anyway, they were talking about the same subject.

http://www.burningsoulsforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10744

If you read it you basically realize that people believe that it could happen. However, it has always happened since we've been voting. They have come to accept election rigging as just another reality of the system and they basically conclude that bringing charges or going to court is a waste of tax dollars. In order to make changes you have to work within the confines of everyone and their opinions on the issue as well. You have to learn to compromise in order to make social change for the better or at least to make it as good as it can possibly be with what we have. You can't always have it your way and you sometimes have to work with others in order to at least make things better.

- People like the ease of use of these machines.
- People concerned with how their tax money is being used will raise a huge shitstorm if we advocate the destruction of pre-existing computerised voting machines.
- It will be a struggle to even convince people to upgrade the machines in the first place to make them more secure.

If you are concerned with the machines being used elsewhere it may be beneficial to start campaigns in places that do not have the machines and encourage them not to buy them. You may have more luck with that than actually telling people not to use them while they're already using them right now.

[ngant17]

73. the bigger picture?

I worked my way thru the entire thread and digested what I thought were the main points or the big picture.

the KISS philosphophy, which you should know if you are a programmer, it favors simple solutions over complex ones. Your idea of computers for voting and vote-counting, although probably workable and even desireable in the near future, it won't happen in a vaccuum of the ethical questions involved.

It's not a big deal, counting votes in a manual operation. The time factor can be addressed by extending voting dates, that's what Early Voting is doing. A KISS solution. We cam try to keep the voting-line queues to a managable level this way. All with manual counts, if necessary. It is unnecessary to wait 4 hours in line to vote. Manual counts aren't that inefficient.


What about transparency in the process? How are the hi/low voltage signals inside a gigahertz computer going to be physically monitored when a number is added electronically? Cyclical Redudancy Checks?

Linux OS and open-source software isn't my point. An abacus would do the same thing as a vote counter. We can see the math operators recording the place-values as the votes are counted. You can't see anything inside a transistor. I want total, absolute accountability. The computer wizardry is not my priority in the vote counts.

I don't want to put the cart before the horse. Sure, get the computers into the process later, after we have gotten manual counting down to a predictable level. But don't abandon manual counting. Never. We have to address manual counts and paper trails before we can even think about the computer issues.

[InfoMinister]

77. I Said That The Computers Are Already Being Used

My point was that people are already using the computers and are used to the interface. They've been using them here in Georgia since 2002. If we all of a sudden stopped using them the people would be pissed. My point wasn't that we shouldn't be skepital about it all. My point was that you have to take into account how other people would feel about it as well and try to do something that the largest amount of people would agree with.

If the computers already exist make them the most secure that they can be because they aren't going to successfuly be destroyed in these areas because of the negative outrcy from the fiscal conservatives. Remember that in Georgia the majority voted for Bush anyway. All polls show that. They're not going to be as angry at the results and there's no way you can convince them to just throw them out.

In areas where the computers aren't around convince the people there that there are problems with computer voting right now and it would be better to wait until the other areas have successfuly created something that actually has the trust of the public.

[ngant17]

81. computers and counting

I think one poster mentioned to me that Canada manually counted all their paper ballots in approx. 4 hours. 14 million ballots. By hand. 4 hours.

Again, just because something is commonplace and widespread, such as computers, that doesn't mean we have to resign ourselves to the use of a computer in the voting process.

Make them "the most secure"? We have difficulty doing that with printed paper. The Feds have been trying to make paper currency "secure" since it was printed. You either try and mimic the individual workings of a banknote, ie litho , intaglio etc., or you try and reproduce the note using the commercial half tone technique.
It justs get a little more expensive for the theives to counterfeit. But as long as the investment can pay off, some one will try it.

If someone can counterfeit paper, they can do computers. Counterfeit the hardware, the motherboard, an array of transistors. Or they will hack the software. It's harder to detect because the systems are more complex. You really can't visually inspect everything, either inside the transistors or in the executable binaries. It just gets too complex. That's why I'd want Xtreme simplicity. Paper, pen, abacus, or maybe chads and punch-card machines.

[Kurovski]

61. Nothing

Not a thing can be done to make them better. They will always be prone to fraud greater than more traditional methods.

So over the side they must go.

Additionally, it is cost prohibitive to have the entire nation vote with these machines. And the economy isn't getting better anytime soon.

The money already spent on these machines that have failed our Democracy can just be written off.

It's not like we haven't wasted money before on failed ventures in this country.

[InfoMinister]

63. So What About The People That Don't Want Them Thrown Away?

Do you think your representatives would go with the person who wants to throw tax dollars out the window or the person who wants the free Linux of FreeBSD/OpenBSD upgrade to existing computers instead?

[Kurovski]

66. The amount of computers still needed

throughout America will cost, what, billions?

So far the only states that seem sure to get them are "battleground" states.

Illinois doesn't use them. Illinois went heavily for Democrats for president in 2000, 2004.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky and other Illinois Reps. would likely be more than happy to not have to find funding for such a costly program

It is cheaper now to NOT use the machines--which will always be immensely prone to fraud--then it would be to let go of the lemons taxpayers have already bought.

Look at the new threats to home computers that come up on a regular basis. It's just too risky to use these machines for something as important as voting.

Maybe one day, but I seriously doubt it.

[InfoMinister]

68. Yes, You Hear About An Exploit Every Day...For Windows

But how about the free operating systems such as Linux? There are hardly any viruses for them and according to most articles there will never really be any even if a majority of the people started using Linux. If you never log in as Root on a Linux system you can't really do much of anything.

Also, we don't have to add the computers everywhere if people don't want them. If you insist on not wanting the computers then encourage the places that don't have them to never get them if you're that afraid of it. However, an upgrade to a free OS isn't going to cost nearly as much as getting Windows on every system and having to go through all of the licensing fees that MS has for networked computers. There are ways to upgrade them at an extremely low cost. Especially if software developers through the Internet created the voting program themselves and made it open source. Everything would be free except for the people that have to upgrade the computers which would probably be done anyway by a company like Diebold with the current machines right now.

[Kurovski]

70. Would the corporations

who provided the machines and systems already in place allow such a thing?

I still hold that the maintenance alone of these machines make them cost-prohibitive.

There are less costly alternatives, Linux or no. And more than that, I cannot say.

You have however, created an interesting post raising interesting questions.


EDIT: My understanding is that Linux and other less widely used platforms have fewer threats created for them because they simply won't do the same widespread damage as those created for a more widely used platform.

So, if it was "worth" the time to create something malicious or insidious for Linux run vote machines, what's to stop someone, and stop them with a great amount of certainty from doing so?

[InfoMinister]

76. An Article Written About This

basically said that the way Linux was developed a virus or trojan horse wouldn't be as effective and couldn't spread in the same way as it would on Windows.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

This means there's no real way that someone could release something on the voting machines from one location on a network unless someone else is on each individual voting machine and is a Root user during that time to give it rights to execute and execute it.

As for the companies I have no idea about the contracts they have with the government. That's something important to look into. If they wanted to change those computers or get new ones would the be able to?

[SoCalDem]

64. The thing is... We don't NEED machines at all. It's a "high-tech solution"

to a "low-tech problem"..

All we need to do is to separate the Nationally-held offices from the State-Local elections..

Most states have yearly elections anyway for lots of different things, so all we need to do is to make EVEN years Natioinally held office elections.. Congress/Senate and presidential every 4 years.

Odd years would be for state/local issues and office holders.. They could use whatever method of votiing they choose.. Diamond-encrusted Diebolds, Electroplated ES&S's, Silverplated Sequoias.. It does not matter in the least to me, in California, if Iowa's proposition F passes or not, or if Lucille Brown is elected city coouncilwoman from DesMoines..

EVEN years would be a SNAP..

Cardstock ballots (easy to store, durable for recounting, and easy to handle by voters)

Each card would have a maximum of 3 races in presidential years...only 2 in off year elections..

Simple instructions:

VOTE FOR ONE IN EACH CATEGORY...3 columns should do it..

President.......Senate.......Congress

each name has a checkbox IN FRONT of the NAME ..RIGHT NEXT TO IT

and each column has a "None of the Above" option too..If someone checks that box at the bottom, we KNOW they declined to approve any of the choices :)

Each precinct could hire LOTS of "counters" and each party would be able to have their poll watchers too.

Lines would move very fast, with only 2 or 3 choices.

Voters sign the book (and show whatever ID is required)..They vote.. they leave..

When the polls are closed, the cards are totalled before any counting is done and the number of cards should equal the number of people signed in to vote...(provisionals would be set aside for later verification)


A chalkboard with names listed, and tick-marks under each should do it.

It's way cheaper and better too, to just hire more people to count than it is to install worthless machines that cannot be verified or recounted with any real accuracy.

When the cards and the votes are totalled, both party reps "sign off" on the count, and since there is a video camera recordiing the whole counting session, the numbers are called into the central accounting area...ON CAMERA...all materials are bundled up and sealed...ON CAMERA...and secured ...

[Obviousman]

67. Make it bipartisan

And include paper trails. Anyone who doesn't support this should be tried for treason.
William Donohue

[RoyGBiv]

69. Pen meet Paper n/t

[chicagiana]

72. Physical record and Physical verification

The truth is that you have no way of knowing what is placed in the database once you press the button. There is no physical record.

Some people would favor punching out cards, but that has the same problem.

The solution for those who want to be high tech is to select on the screen and verify a PRINTED paper ballot. The ballot would be have no "computer writing" that a human cannot read. Basically all that shit you see on UPS packages would be banned on ballots.

All automated forms of communicating results would be banned. Multiple humans (both/multiple sides) would be involved in every step to authenticate and verify the results.

All counts would be hand tabulated. Either on paper or on industry standard spreadsheets with multiple eyes (and video cameras) watching the process.

Audits would be performed at random. The audit targets would be chosen by throwing dice. Any aberation in the audit would trigger an automatic manual recount.

There would be no "hanging chads" because the ballots themselves would be printed by machine. The results would be non-ambiguous.

Why not OCR the ballots to get results???

Because the OCR machines are just as hackable as the voting machines. The only possible exception would be to scan ALL the ballots (anonymous) and allow all parties to authenticate the results.

[twenty2strings]

74. paper...paper...paper!

Nationwide absentee ballots for everyone. This system's already in place. Fuck the polling place.

[ChairOne]

75. Open-source is a big part of the solution.....

... but people are too stupid to accept it..... I.e., it's too easy to FUD.....

[JohnOneillsMemory]

78. 1) Get educated voters 2) Destroy TV 3) Back to paper and pen. n/t

[Deja Q]

79. Countable, notarized paper trail. PERIOD. Of course,

that will cost money.

Won't happen. Our "society" prioritizes profits well above people.

[Cheswick2.0]

80. not a damn thing

Paper ballots and hand counts are the only way to go not matter what " people prefer".

[Digit]

82. I love computers, but would prefer low tech for voting

So, in answer to your question...You can't.
Are you trying to create a computer that does this?
Just wonderin'

[Angry Girl]

83. Let's copy the reliable, elegant, & transparent Swiss system

It's really very sweet. You can check out its details in a short Adobe Acrobat report

http://www.swissvs.org/pdf/SwissVS-Report_2004-09-13_Short.PDF

Their main website is http://www.swissvs.org/.

[eridani]

84. We don't vote often enough to do it by computer

The reliable programs that process credit card and bank account data are tested millions of times a day, 24/7, 365 days a year. This insures that all the bugs that matter get fixed, and that the systems(though not bug-free) are robust and stable. That we don't vote often enough for this kind of intensive real-world testing to occur essentially makes every election a beta test. This is flat out unacceptable.

This reasoning applies to any complex system. How badly would cars suck if people only drove them for an hour, twice a year?

[Lost4words]

85. replace the junk with paper and pencil,

with the money saved hire counters, human counters.

I will never trust any processor based machine with my vote ever again, last election I voted absentee for the first time.

My advice to all is to do the same.

[OneTwentyoNine]

86. LOL,Two brothers who are Republicans control the voting process...

With their electronic voting machines. If Al Franken and his brother(if he has one)were responsible for 80-90% of all tabulated results do you think that Repukes would sit by and wring their hands?????

[sweetheart]

88. Make your computer sans-electricity

For all of you whining, here is the formal website to bitch on:
http://vote.nist.gov/ECPosStat.htm

It is the national institute of standards, related to voting standards.
Open public commentary... go for it.

Anyone who's been in the computer profession, knows that without
tremendous expense, computers are fallable. Power outages, a massive
electromagnet brought near a voting comptuter could likely wipe it.

But the REAL problem, is not the voting booth system, as much as the
human resources around the polling place. In this regard, i hope you
read this post #1 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=194x235

It frankly explains that when the humans involved are corrupt, no
technology is safe... none.. paper, computer or 5th dimension star trek.

I am involved, in founding a mechanical voting systems company
that uses computers as a secondary record. We have a prototype
design and are in the process of applying for patents. It is, by
my standards, which are "that left alone in a prison, the machine
would record the votes of the inmates, securely, without failure,
without violating the secret ballot, and survive the election to
run 1000 more."

That said, i view the market for computer voting as a crap market.
It is not trustworthy, and never ever will be... but some chappies
at Cal Tech have it right, when they suggest that a physical record
must be kept, but that insisting that this be paper is going too far.
It should be physical, that if an EMP bomb were to blast the polling
stations, the record would remain not corrupt. No computer can
pass that test. The VVAT (Voter Verified Audit Trail ) and demanding
that this be paper is a mistake... legislate function, not technology.

http://openvotingconsortium.org/history.html
http://www.electionline.org/index.jsp

You might also research Election Markup Language:
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-11-10-a.html
for the false digital utopia nobody can trust. ;-)

Some of the issues, you'll discover as you embark on the voting
systems market, are that your system must provide for the exception
conditions of people in wheelchairs, mail-in ballots, some weird
jurisdictions in chicago where there are 80! races on the ballot,
multiple languages, people who can't read, pre-voting many precincts
on a single precinct machine, and finally, a purchasing team that
is simply cost-focused.

In this regard, computers are cheap as hell, compared to any
physical alternative... no ballot printing... lightweight, no
transport to achieve a secure count, and such.

As well, budgets for voting are generally spread 1/3rd equally between
registration/databases, voting machines, and counting. It is the
first of the 3 where the most meddling happened in the last poll.
As well, when certain areas are given too few machines for the people
in the giant line, what technology can fix that? The ways the
repukes fiddled the last poll, were insideous, and mostly less to do
with meddling with the machines directly, and more with the less
direct methods of making sure black and poor areas are empowered with
the right stuff.

I hear your software genius, but its a lie. The ancient romans
and greeks used clay balls in a box. That was true, secret balloting
safe technology. Computers may indeed have improved some things,
but the ancient greeks were right.

P.s. Sorry for posting. I was gonna not post for a few months,
as a sorta new years resolution not to spend time getting hated by
repbulicans... but WTF. :-) happy boxing day.

Pss.. if you're interested in being involved in the world's most
accurate voting systems company (based in scotland)... PM me...

[ngant17]

90. assassination by ballot box

I wrote the following short essay and posted in a different thread on DU recently but I think it bears worth repeating here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The art and science of a bloodless regime-change: Assassination by ballot-box.

With the increase in the complexity of organizing a coup, there may be a consensus among the would-be plotters that well-orchestrated executions of the public officers in the opposition are not absolutely necessary or desirable. Even the best of plans go awry. Sooner or later, a gaping hole of discrepancies and lies becomes exposed in the subsequent investigations, most of which are done is spite of the official conclusions. Thus, public confidence quickly erodes the facade of the democratic process, it weakens that bastion of stability in their maintenance of political power over the masses.

For a coup d'etat of convenience, one only needs to control the machinery which is used to count the votes.

For over a century, since the 1890's to our present day, mechanical tabulators have proven to be so consistently accurate and so resilient to error that no one would have dared to try and manipulate the democratic process this way. Yet with the great debacles of the Nov. 2000 elections and beyond, it yielded enough negative publicity in the operation of the tabulators, the punch-card machines and the paper chads, that the plotters now found a timely excuse to do away with them in most states. Rather than attempt to examine the real problems for the failure of the democratic process, the tabulators became the patsy and fall-guy, blamed by Congress, and those innocent machines were condemned as technologically obsolete and are now being consigned to the graveyard of nostalgia.

In their places arose a new and menacing dinosaur: the transistorized computer. The beast was omnipotent and its prey was completely helpless. It devoured all their apprehensions in one instant. No traces or evidence of its vicious gorging of votes would ever appear, the paper was all consumed electronically and nary a drop of blood would ever be left to attest to its rapacious gluttony of stolen votes.

The monster is conscious of any attempt to control it from afar. It allows no fetters to bound itself before public scrutiny. It roams freely in the jungles of corporate law, it sleeps in those comfortable lairs and the beast emerges only when its belly rumbles and becomes empty again, to feed once more off the teeming votes which the public innocently supplies for it every 2 years.

We can tackle this vote-dragon. No, it can't be slain outright but it must be driven from the villages of the public precinct. Why so? Because if its life in the public elections is ever going to be tolerated, because if it simply is going to be shackled for the sake of the public's amusement, to try and control it with open-source software and embedded hardware, to make it behave like it was only a penguin in a suit, then we will face its vengeance again. It will soon grow back into a King Kong, it will burst free from those little chains, no matter how strong the links are made. The reason is that the beast has a super-complex mind of its own. It operates only according to the laws of physics, which is not at all democratic. It continues to evolve every new day and no one person can grasp the whole of it. It does not want to be controlled, that is its inherent nature, whether it is in open-source or proprietary code, it matters little to the nature of this beast. Let it roam somewhere, but not in the domain of a democratic election.

[susierock]

91. What's VoteGuard?

This company, Democracy Systems, has a product called VoteGuard which claims to be "The first stand alone verification solution for electronic voting. Easy to use, VoteGuard is used to independently verify the integrity that every ballot is counted as cast."

Given all the turmoil surrounding our voting systems, these claims seem sort of bold. Does anyone know anything about it?

[sweetheart]

92. surveillance video

It seems the idea is to video your fingers pushing the buttons, and
then to re-play it as evidence if needed.

Sounds better than "nothing", but still it is unreconcilable with the
diebold counts... so its just another electronic voting system, except
video taping instead of a paper receipt.

If they really wanted to use video to protect voters rights, they should
mount the pinhole camera at the registration desk. That way, the
people turned away, the "provisional ballot push" can be seen on camera.

The hack methods are beyond the voting booth... and all these reassurance
technologies dont change a thing. The voting administration people
must be replaced with non-partisans. Until then, there will be a new
catherine harris in every election, cheating for the nazi party.

[hyphenate]

95. The only way we could make

truly reliable voting machines is to have a foreign company make them, and then make those foreign company's workers available to monitor ALL elections here so that we truly have someone objective supervising the elections. Perhaps even a side-arm of the United Nations, which we know for positive fact the GOP despises because it won't kowtow to their whims.

In any further elections, the United States of America needs to be considered the same as any other third-world country that had a despot at the helm, in the context of holding its first "democratic" election. It's the only way the next election will be fair.

[jayctravis]

96. "Obscure" ballot instead of "Secret" ballot.

When you cast a ballot you are handed a random 16 digit pin number. This will activate the voting machine. You make your vote.

The results are published on a searchable website showing pin numbers and every vote. You can verify your own pin number to see if it reflects your vote. Nobody knows how you vote unless you tell them what pin you got. Anyone with access to the internet can visually count the results, and they would also be published each year like an almanac.

1000.2903.9283.2039 pres-KERRY-D stsenate-OBAMA-D PROPX-NO PROPZ-YES
1000.2903.9283.2040 pres-BUSH-R stsenate-KEYES-R PROPX-(n/a) PROPZ-YES

[ngant17]

98. obscure ballot

Great idea. Sounds workable. If fact, an idea like this might have the Repugs starting to get scared, like maybe they really can't pre-select the winners with their software anymore.

Needs to beta-tested on the Internet. Maybe if you can set up a website and make a demo run of it to convince the sceptics, I'd want to take part.

Granted that they can fix the computers and play with final vote tallies, I wouldn't see how they could fix 16-digit random pin numbers and public access to everything, as you suggest.

A simple statistical sample of a few sets of voter-numbers ought to be as effective as, and tend to match the results of, the exit polling. Very easy to do, I would think.

[sweetheart]

99. Who will find the false entries?

Such a system won't protect anything, as extra entries won't be
verified by anyone. Say "x" percent verify their votes. 100-x will
not, and all the stuffed ballots will be in that other set.

Already, the voting machines use rotating key RFID keys, so whilst
your vote may not be published, it is logged with such a key...

True Vote, the company who's CEO died in a car accident not long
back, had a receipt where there was the possibility of dialing in
to verify that one's vote had been cast... just like mentioned,
except without the public list.

To be frank, i think the secret ballot has already been comprimized
by having people register by party. Methinks a true secret balloting
system should have no party registration, and no footprints, none
whatsoever, that some maverick nazi 20 years hence can not trace
the opposition voters, and members, to wage hate crimes. This is why
secret ballot is a universal human right in the first place, to
prevent partisan strife.

That partisan strife is rife, dividing the public by public lists of
who contributed to whom, and where their addresses are, suggests
the secret ballot is a concept in name only these days.

[ngant17]

100. verifying votes with the obscure system

It seems like the Obscure proposal is workable to me. You really couldn't verify every single vote. Even with recounting paper ballots, I don't think anyone is planning to contact every single voter in every district, in person, to verify that his/her ballot was correct. Impractical at best.

Statistical sampling for quality assurance is used to maintain quality control in industrial mass-production operations. You only need to sample on a regular basis to see if there is a consistent pattern of defects in the process. The idea is not to check every single widget that is produced. Just to pull out random samples and see if there are defects. The same idea could be used in voter records.

Again, this Obscure program seems to tackle the problem of vote-fraud taking place in the voting booths IMHO. Tagging each voter with a unique pin number, and everything can be independly verified. Anyone should have the option of submitting their own random number without having the system generate it for them, to increase the field of random-number generation. A $1.95 calculator would work. Or your imagination. You really don't need much processing power for getting random or psuedo-random numbers. The only need for a bigger computer would be to sort the database after all the pin-numbers are issued.

For real people making real votes, I suspect they will never allow it to get implemented in a computerized voting system. They want the Diebold/Sequoyia/ESS computer monopoly to stay. This kind of proposal would be frightening to them.

The question I would have is, and I think that is the one you are addressing too, is that how are voter registration lists going to be verified for accuracy? Who controls that database? Whoever controls the supervisor of the local Board of Elections?

With the example you mentioned, assume the Repugs invent a phony list of newly-registered ghost-voters to get extra pin-numbers. If 1000 extra pin-numbers are generated out of thin air and added to the database, the ghost numbers having a tendency to vote Republican, could we catch that fraud?

Obviously, their strategy would be to target key electoral states, so they would only need to generate their ghost-voters in selective districts. Like the fraud which took place in Ohio.

Elections now are always termed "too close to call". Even though the exit polls don't always jive with these kind of so-called '50/50 razor-thin' margins. It is much more difficult to detect small quantities of vote fraud in a large population of voters. But these small shifts in the vote happen at the last minute, in those instances it almost always seems that the shift goes to the Republican candidates. That's what we need to be monitoring.

Because that is really suspicious to me, it hardly seems to be random. Like a supposed random coin-toss that keeps flipping up on 'heads' time and time again.

Could a ordinary citizen walk in the the Board of Elections and ask for a random sample of registered voters for verification? Are there lawyers that can do this? Do they tend to be Democrat or Republican?

[sweetheart]

102. the root: ending corporate personhood

Everything else is fluff on the core problem. We need election
reform in several areas:

A total end of the gerrymandering practice, that makes over 90% of
the House seats safe seats.

An end to financial campaign slosh from corporates, (by losing their
citizen's right to free speech with cash)

An end to corporate rights to privatize elections, by ending their
rights to be considered citizens.

An end to felony disenfranchisement.

An end to corporate media being able to subvert the public mind for
profit as with the sinclair broadcast before the poll... there should,
like in healthier democracies, be a blackout on media for weeks prior
to a poll, just like with stock markets and corporations today not
being allowed to make news announcemets before an earnings release..
to avoid upsetting markets... odd that we regulate corporates better
than democracy.

An end to registering voters by party, that all voters previous
records be purged, that trying to gerrymander become very difficult
as no records are kept of the partisan nature of communities.

Standardizing of federal elections on a separate date from local and
state polls.

I am even in favour of a constitutional amendment making it mandatory
for all citizens to vote. It strikes me the one single citizen
obligation in a democracy is to vote... and to shirk it is to
cheat us all, as there surely would be no rethuglicans in office
were we to hear the voices of the silent 50%.

Every state should be supplying a detailed guide to every voter on
each race prior to the balloting, that people might be educated
towards making choices.

If a poll comes in within the error of margin, it should be re-run
as a runoff election, like what recently happened in ukraine.

The HAVA act was such a load of crap, i can only be saddened by the
poor committment to democracy shown in what should be its staunchest
supporter.

So here, we are, concerned citizens wishing votes counted, when a
tsunami of fraud is overwhelming the few drops of goodwill. Gosh,
i wish it were different, and i genuinely believe that counting the
votes is a start... but until the corporate tap is cut off, there
is little point in pretending that there is anything but an
effective plutocracy.

This is why i support physical records... like the old lever machines.
You might be able to fiddle 1 machine, maybe 2... but to fiddle a
whole state would involve a level of conspiracy that computer voting
easily supports by its concentration of the counts in to the GEMS
boxes (diabold) and access databases.

One country in africa (botswana) uses marbles in a box, a colour
of marble for each candidate... and they are counted. I'd wager
that botswana has fairer polls than any jurisdiction in the US.
... how pathetic for the world's richest nation... its embarassing.

[InvisibleBallots]

97. physical ballots

that can be read by human beings. that's the number one priority

[ngant17]

104. obscure voting would seem to do that

It seems like you could print out everything, all the pin-numbers and the whole database would be open to the public. I don't see that would be the problem with this system. Maybe someone with more experience in this can fault his concept, it seems good enough to me.

I'm no fan of the computerized vote-machines, don't get me wrong. But all we're talking about is random-number generation, which acts as an individual pointer to each voter. You don't actually need a computer to pick out a decent random number, even one with 16-digits.

It reminds me a little of PGP software(Pretty Good Privacy), which takes a dedicated supercomputer to even begin to crack. We're not talking about privacy issues here, of course, but PGP uses large-digit random prime-numbers for its security.

[0007]

103. A paper trail

[Done]

105. No Trade Secrets Allowed.

The code should be open for all to see. Democracy must be completely transparent. If the manufacturer doesn't like it, get into another business.