• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

E-Voting: The Next Florida?

subgenius

Illuminator
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
4,785
I'm not paranoid (and who's going around saying that I am?) but I have a big problem with the so-called solution to the hanging chad.
No paper back-up even though there's millions of verifiable lottery tickets sold every day.
If there's a question in the next "selection" I believe this is going to be it.
What can we do at this point to insure that your vote counts this time?
 
This was back last November:
Eugene Volokh reports on the latest troubles with electronic voting machines in California.
From this article:

State and county officials were dismayed last week to learn that Diebold Elections Systems Inc. altered the software running in Alameda County's touchscreen voting machines yet neither submitted it for state testing nor even notified state authorities of the change.
http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1284
 
more and more evidence mounts up of the vulnerability of electronic voting systems to fraud and manipulation. The systems most insecure and prone to rigging are touch-screen systems known as DRE (Direct Recording Electronic), in which there is no paper trail, and no ability to audit or verify the results. There is not even any way to conduct a recount!
To make it worse, the company which is most prominent in marketing DRE machines, Diebold, is closely tied into Republican circles. Its chief executive, Wally O'Dell, is a frequent visitor to the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas, and he hosted a $600,000 fundraiser for Dick Cheney last June. He is both a Ranger and a Pioneer--the designation for top fundraisers for the Bush-Cheney campaigns.

The second-biggest company, Election Systems and Software, has ties into Nebraska Republican circles around Sen. Chuck Hagel, as well as ties to financier and Schwarzenegger backer Warren Buffett.

The third major company, Sequoia, boasts that its parent company works closely with the FBI, Homeland Security, and Interpol.

Georgia touch-screen voting results questioned

Where touch-screen systems have been used, just one example being the Georgia 2002 elections, not only were there numerous irregularities, but the overall results came out very differently from pre-election polls and forecasts.

Was it fraud? There is no way to tell, because with touch-screen systems, you can't do a recount. In fact, local election officials don't even know how the machines work; it's the voting-machine companies that program the machines and run the elections.

Touch-screen systems have been mandated to be installed in all states, and are being subsidized by the Federal government, under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed by the Republican-dominated Congress in 2002--but also with a lot of Democratic support.

http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...egory_desc=E-Voting Machines / Vote Integrity
 
subgenius said:
What can we do at this point to insure that your vote counts this time?
Well, it just so happens that I am now in the vote insurance business. Send me $5, and I will insure your vote. If it's not counted correctly, I will send you a replacement vote, minus a small deductible of course. Proof of loss is your responsibility. :p
 
Increasingly, investigative writers seeking an explanation have looked to Diebold’s history for clues. The electronic voting industry is dominated by only a few corporations – Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S) and Sequoia. Diebold and ES&S combined count an estimated 80% of U.S. black box electronic votes.

In the early 1980s, brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich founded ES&S’s originator, Data Mark. The brothers Urosevich obtained financing from the far-Right Ahmanson family in 1984, which purchased a 68% ownership stake, according to the Omaha World Herald. After brothers William and Robert Ahmanson infused Data Mark with new capital, the name was changed to American Information Systems (AIS). California newspapers have long documented the Ahmanson family’s ties to right-wing evangelical Christian and Republican circles.

In 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported, “. . . primarily funded by evangelical Christians – particularly the wealthy Ahmanson family of Irvine – the [Discovery] institute’s $1-million annual program has produced 25 books, a stream of conferences and more than 100 fellowships for doctoral and postdoctoral research.” The chief philanthropists of the Discovery Institute, that pushes creationist science and education in California, are Howard and Roberta Ahmanson.

According to Group Watch, in the 1980s Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. was a member of the highly secretive far-Right Council for National Policy, an organization that included Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, Major General John K. Singlaub and other Iran- Contra scandal notables, as well as former Klan members like Richard Shoff. Ahmanson, heir to a savings and loan fortune, is little reported on in the mainstream U.S. press. But, English papers like The Independent are a bit more forthcoming on Ahmanson’s politics.

“On the right, figures such as Richard Mellon Scaife and Howard Ahmanson have given hundreds of millions of dollars over several decades to political projects both high (setting up the Heritage Foundation think-tank, the driving engine of the Reagan presidency) and low (bankrolling investigations into President Clinton’s sexual indiscretions and the suicide of the White House insider Vincent Foster),” wrote The Independent last November.

The Sunday Mail described an individual as, “. . . a fundamentalist Christian more in the mould of U.S. multi-millionaire Howard Ahmanson, Jr., who uses his fortune to promote so-called traditional family values . . . by waving fortunes under their noses, Ahmanson has the ability to cajole candidates into backing his right-wing Christian agenda.

Ahmanson is also a chief contributor to the Chalcedon Institute that supports the Christian reconstruction movement. The movement’s philosophy advocates, among other things, “mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards.”

http://www.independent-media.tv/ite...egory_desc=E-Voting Machines / Vote Integrity
 
No voting method now or in the future will ever be error-proof, IMHO. You can't mandate a minimum IQ score to be allowed to vote.

Anyway, if you're illiterate the Dems here in Chicago have a method to help you. The nice precinct captain who drove you to the polling place will be happy to tell you what number to punch. ;)
 
WildCat said:
You can't mandate a minimum IQ score to be allowed to vote.

I'm sure you're grateful for that.

The issue is not "error proof". Its "non error prone enough to preserve the utter sanctity of a vote and maintain the people's faith that they have some power and say in their destiny so they don't resort to violence."
Clear enough?
 
subgenius said:
Why can't we get paper verification of a vote like lottery machines?
I think we should! I've previously suggested the idea of a "voter's receipt" that would show the voter: "Your vote has been counted!"

A receipt could show the voter the issues on which he validly voted and those on which he did not. If the voter found an error (such as his reciept saying that the voter did not register a vote for the office of U.S. Senator, when in fact the voter intended to do so and thought he did so), the voter could correct the error. The voter could also have some assurance that his vote had not been thrown away as an "overvote" or an "undervote."
 
It is not rocket surgery.
Like the appearances of impartiality in judicial proceedings, it is very important in maintaining a civil (non-violent) society.
 
Brown said:
I think we should! I've previously suggested the idea of a "voter's receipt" that would show the voter: "Your vote has been counted!"

A receipt could show the voter the issues on which he validly voted and those on which he did not. If the voter found an error (such as his reciept saying that the voter did not register a vote for the office of U.S. Senator, when in fact the voter intended to do so and thought he did so), the voter could correct the error. The voter could also have some assurance that his vote had not been thrown away as an "overvote" or an "undervote."

No, we need a paper ballot that says how we voted, so we can be certain that our vote is counted correctly. That ballot would then be deposited in a ballot box, so it could be checked against the computer count if the need arose.
 
subgenius said:
Here's a whole bunch of links......

http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=3

But whatever you do don't read or consider them, they're from nutbag sources.

Why can't we get paper verification of a vote like lottery machines?
Good luck w/ that lotto claim if your paper doesn't match your ticket. Only the ticket counts. If it doesn't match you must immediately report the error, before you leave the counter (you couldn't make a claim on your paper after the drawing, only the ticket), it would be the same way w/ voting. You couldn't go back after the election and start counting the papers, why have electronic in the first place?

And the problem in Florida was stupidity. Don't vote for 2 candidates for the same office, line up the holes, punch all the way through, etc. Remember, those ballots were designed by Democrats!

No voting method will make up for stupidity or illiteracy. Both of which are, sadly, too common in America today.

And I know all about butterfly ballots, it's all we've ever had here in Chicago since I've been of voting age. They're really not that difficult.

And if you're saying you merely want a receipt that lists who you voted for for which office, this won't help at all if you're a believer of that wild conspiracy theory. You could just program the machine to give a receipt for the real vote, while the vote the machine sends to the election officials is the altered votes.

Do you really believe all this nonsense?
 
Subby... what makes you think we can't have the system you want?


The various municipalities that have already purchased voting machines won't want to spend even more money to make you happy, though.
 
aerocontrols said:


No, we need a paper ballot that says how we voted, so we can be certain that our vote is counted correctly. That ballot would then be deposited in a ballot box, so it could be checked against the computer count if the need arose.

That sounds reasonable. Also this would insure we would never have to hear about hanging chads.
 
Brown said:
I think we should! I've previously suggested the idea of a "voter's receipt" that would show the voter: "Your vote has been counted!"

A receipt could show the voter the issues on which he validly voted and those on which he did not. If the voter found an error (such as his reciept saying that the voter did not register a vote for the office of U.S. Senator, when in fact the voter intended to do so and thought he did so), the voter could correct the error. The voter could also have some assurance that his vote had not been thrown away as an "overvote" or an "undervote."
This is already done here in Cook County.
 
aerocontrols said:


No, we need a paper ballot that says how we voted, so we can be certain that our vote is counted correctly. That ballot would then be deposited in a ballot box, so it could be checked against the computer count if the need arose.
Human error in a hand count will guarantee the numbers will never match precisely. And give more fuel to the fire for conspiracy theorists.
 
aerocontrols said:
Subby... what makes you think we can't have the system you want?


The various municipalities that have already purchased voting machines won't want to spend even more money to make you happy, though.
You seem to answer the question you pose to me, but I don't think its impossible to achieve. You have expressed your agreement to the simple solution.
That feral feline seems resistant to a simple concept.
What is the objection to verification, specifically (not directed to you aero)? Especially in light of the enhanced faith in the system after the last bit of confusion.
 
WildCat said:

Human error in a hand count will guarantee the numbers will never match precisely. And give more fuel to the fire for conspiracy theorists.

I didn't say anything about counting by hand. Ballots printed by computers won't be at all ambiguous in what is printed on them. Get machine A to check the work of machine B.
 
subgenius said:

You seem to answer the question you pose to me, but I don't think its impossible to achieve. You have expressed your agreement to the simple solution.

You asked why we can't have X.

I indicated that "can't have X" isn't accurate.

"Won't have X" is our situation.
 
aerocontrols said:


You asked why we can't have X.

I indicated that "can't have X" isn't accurate.

"Won't have X" is our situation.
Man you are one precision oriented SOB.
OK, I'll ask why won't we have X?
 

Back
Top Bottom