EVOTING Machines, Touch Kerry, Goes To Bush

[IAMREALITY]

We have heard the multiple reports of people who touched the Kerry choice on the machine but multiple times flipped back to Bush, and that this happened in several states. What I haven't seen yet is anything more investigative on that issue. I think we may be overlooking an opportunity. The above anomaly can only be explained with a few theories:

1. It only happened due to voter error and has nothing to do with fraud or code

2. It was something in the source code that tried to alter the voter's intention.

Let's go with theory 2. Let's say it was in fact an attempt at disenfranchisement. What I'm initially thinking is that whoever coded it this way made a mistake. I don't think the code was supposed to act in such a way that the voter, upon confirmation messages, would so easily see the change. For those who know coding language I am thinking maybe a misplaced or defined variable?

What my challenge is, to any programmers joining us, what kind of code or coding flaw could be present that would cause the machines to act in such a way? Keep in mind, in some cases it took multiple tries for it to finally react correctly. Can any of you put your gears to work and think of a feasable coding example of how this could've been pulled off? It would be interesting to see what the possibilities are.

Hey, any time we can not only come up with something suspect, but even offer a way of which is was actually pulled off, the more legitimate the issue becomes.

[Eric J in MN]

1. The touch-screen itself being calibrated wrong (nt)

nt

[IAMREALITY]

2. Ok, but

Didn't most of the reports say that the Kerry X was in fact chosen, but upon the confirmation it changed? That wouldn't seem like a calibration issue I don't think, but then I'll be honest, I don't really understand the machines that well to begin with.

[Eric J in MN]

3. I think that when they touched Kerry, the machine went

on to the next screen, and near-the-end of voting, the confirmation screen with their selections showed Bush.

[David Dunham]

4. That is the way it happened in machines in FL, OH, and NM

[yourout]

5. Calibration errors in several states all favoring Bush...I dont hink so.

I work with industrial touch screens on a regular basis and rarely have calibration issues after the initial setup. If in fact the x next to Kerry appeared only to say Bush later that would have to be intentional or a incredibly inept programmer. A straight Dem ticket that selects Bush is in my eyes PROOF of fraud. This can not happen by accident unless the programmer designates Bush as Dem(fat chance).

[Eloriel]

6. EXCELLENT information -- thank you

:kick:

Oh, and welcome to DU!!!

[peekaloo]

11. same problems reported and ignored during the 2002 mid terms

in one Houston precinct comprised of predominantly black voters, a straight D ticket eliminated the Dem Senate candidate. Same thing in South Florida with Gov. Pumpkinhead vs. McBride.

Golly Gee Auntie Em but it sure does seem the Repukes reap the benefits from these fancy voting thingees.

x(

[Guava Jelly]

7. would be nice to see some video proof of this

did anyone get jhard documentary proof of this??
I aint trying to poo poo it .
I believe it happened but video is stronger then words

[riffnraff]

9. I am amazed at how something so simple can be messed up

In our county in Wisconsin, we get paper ballots and we have to complete the arrow pointing to your candidate selection with a pen. We put the completed ballot in the machine and your vote is counted. Simple, easy, even a chimp could do it. Papertrail, no problem.

Why the hell do we need high tech gismos with flashy, colorful screens to count votes with no paper? It just baffles me that this is even legal. These machines are hackable, expensive, unnecessary.

I look at things from a standpoint that you should keep it simple and verifiable.

Whoever bought those machines should get a collective kick in the ass from everyone.

[fasttense]

8. IF THE MACHINES WERE DOING IT DURING THE ELECTION

Then they are still doing it. Couldn't somebody get the machines and test them? Just wondering

[riffnraff]

10. Impound those machines!

[jsascj]

14. Don't yo think they would have 'fixed 'the machines by now?

[EndElectoral]

12. The source code may have had a counter or a random function that only

made it occur occasionally. You'd have to view the source code.

[noserotonin]

17. There is also the possibility that

The machines were programmed to do this only when computer clock said Nov. 2nd or when the machines were on for long periods of time, which would most likely only occur on only election day.

With this sort of hidden code, you could test all you want before the election and never find it. And then all of a sudden, the machine begins to register Kerry votes for Bush.

What might be particularly nasty, is that the program could be written to erase itself when the polls close, so when the machine is examined later it looks okay.

Finally, there is no guarantee that the source you examine matches the program in use, especially if the software is later patched. You'd have to compile the source, check the size of the resulting program or perhaps hash to ensure the software is the same. Even then, a really talented programmer could fool this test.

This is all academic, since we can't see the current source code. :(

[GingerSnaps]

13. Programmers have trials runs over and over again

They make sure that everything is running perfectly before letting their customer install their products.

[Trahurn]

15. Well That Would Explain What I Read

Some time back during the gearing up of the election and the use of E-voting was going to be used and more specifically when the provider for electronic voting machines had become officially Diebold, I read something that continues to bother me. It was on one of the Email news reports of Democrat.com but it was quoting executives from or with Diebold where they had guaranteed to deliver Bush a victory in 2004. Other than the appropriateness of a neutral supplier making such a statement how and why would these executives make such a guarantee to George Bush. Seems I also read soon after the election was presumably for Bush that the Diebold executives were celebrating big time. Once more. Why would an uninterested third party manufacturer of very controversial voting equipment make such a provocative statement? Wouldn't common sense dictate that officially any way that Diebold guaranteed the election on Diebold machines to be fair and above board. But they didn't say that. They said the promised Bush a victory and it seems they delivered on that promise.
I've been hearing whistles and bells for days now on this election.

[mary195149]

16. Major bugs found in Diebold Systems

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041112-112037-7263r.htm

[HEAVYHEART]

18. Interesting..