I, for one, welcome our saudi and chinese overlords
Posted by toady at May 26, 2005 08:31 AMThis is an outrage. Even if it was only 171 votes. To think that John Kerry got more votes than he deserved, because of some rigged election scam!
Posted by muckdog at May 26, 2005 09:00 AMI wonder which candidate benefitted from the error? A cursory look at the last election results showed virtually every time there was an "error",it hurt Kerry and benefitted Bush.
Posted by T2 at May 26, 2005 09:25 AMThis news is not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. The problem with the use of these voting machines is that the results cannot be verified with a paper trail. Why Diebold and the other voting machine manufacturers did not think to include a paper receipt in the first place, which a voter one could then hand over to an elections official (the way we have done it for over 200 hundred years), makes little or no sense. But the voting machine makers have grown large enough to have formed a lobby, which was successful last summer in turning back efforts to freeze use of the machines until the machines were fitted with paper receipt mechanisms. So someone, hopefully both Democrats and Republicans, will ensure the integrity of the voting system and our democracy--this is, in fact, what so many of us have fought and died to preserve here.
This one machine is not an isolated case. There was one machine in Ohio that counted over 600 votes for the President in a voting precinct that had only 450 registered voters. There were other instances in places like North Carolina, New Hampshire where people voted for John Kerry and showed up as a vote for George Bush. And this is only what we found out about, which was probably a fluke in itself. Since most of the voting information is electronic and proprietory to the voting machine makers, doing a full-scale recount would be next to impossible--indeed, we cannot verify the results with a paper receipt. In short, we might never know the extent to which the voting machines were reliable during the 2004 election.
This is not a democrat or republican issue. The integrity of our democracy has to be guarded with our country's life. The Democrats would have had a case, no matter how much they would have been crucified in the press, for demanding an audit of the election, given the suspect reliability/integrity of the machines. If this had happened to Republicans, Republicans would have had an equally strong case to call the results into question. We cannot allow this uncertainty to happen again. Who among our courageous leaders is going to press forward with this?
Posted by TripleT at May 26, 2005 09:49 AMOk I am a Software Engineer. I have a B.S. in Computer Science and I am working on my M.E in Computer Engineering, so I think I have a pretty vaild opinion about touch screen voting.
I have a really big problem with how the machines are currently. There is a big possibility that someone COULD (I am not saying they DID) manipulate the votes. We have no idea, and the is no way to verifiy the correctness of the software.
I really believe that the voting software needs to be Open Source and leave a paper trail. A Open Source voting system would allow anyone to read the code and make sure that is is correct, and there is no way to exploit the system. It would put an end to the rumors(Truth?) of fraud. It would also save untold millions of dollars because you would not have to pay Diabold to get the software. The paper trail would allow people to get used to the idea and allow for recounting later on, and it could eventually be eliminated for a more managable recording method.
I am very uncofrotable with the current system. How can we vote in a unverfied system? Would you fly on a plane who's control system was verfied and ok'd by the FAA?
I don't even see this as a Red State, Blue State debate. I think everyone should demand this. Open Source the software so we know that every vote is counted. Then we can reduce the cost of these machines(no reason they should cost more than a few hundred dollars apiece) and put them everywhere, even the poorest communities.
Posted by Jon at May 26, 2005 09:57 AMOpen source? Freeware or shareware? Can you imagine freeware with embedded spyware on voting machines?
You'd be voting, and get pop-up ads.
"Man, this die-bold machine is really slowing down. I better run ad-aware and get rid of the spyware."
hahahhahahaahahahahahahhhhhah
Posted by muckdog at May 26, 2005 10:22 AMI was a poll watcher in Hillsborough County, Florida on election day. The Supervisor of Elections didn't get around to our precinct until afternoon with the list of early voters from the day preceding the election. (Some people could have voted more than once because of this.) I'm sure it wouldn't have made THAT much difference, but just goes to show how careless they are with the procedures.
Posted by Susan S at May 26, 2005 10:26 AMThat expression of stupidity is breathtaking, muck. I mean, I'm absolutlely amazed.
So do you also stand up in the middle of classes, fart loudly, and then expect the instuctor to treat your utterance as relavent to the discussion?
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 26, 2005 11:03 AMPosted by muckdog, "Open source? Freeware or shareware? Can you imagine freeware with embedded spyware on voting machines?"
I guess you do not understand what Open Source is. Yes, there are a lot of shareware programs that have spyware, but not Open Source software. Go to www.sourceforge.net and download any program there. Not a single one will have spyware. Heck, find one I'll pay you 10 bucks! Also to keep the cost down even more you would not use Windows, you would use a Open Source operation system, like linux or Sun's Solaris 10.
Open Source is not the same as Freeware or Shareware. Please if you are going to wax intellectual, do some research first.
Posted by Jon at May 26, 2005 11:06 AMOpen source? Freeware or shareware? Can you imagine freeware with embedded spyware on voting machines?
You'd be voting, and get pop-up ads.
Damn, muckdog is displaying an impressive level of ignorance here. It must take a lot of work to stay this ignorant.
I salute muckdog for his valiant fight against knowledge and wisdom. Many would have given up by now, and tried to learn something. They are cowards! muckdog is a true Republican hero!
Posted by paperwight at May 26, 2005 11:08 AMThe game playing in all states was disgusting. Florida and Ohio advertised constant margins throughout the evening advertising their ability to manufacture votes.
You want to win florida and ohio. Take down blackwell and jeb. Both have low hanging fruit scandals that can easily bring down their respective administration. However in Florida the zealotry is quite nasty, so come to florida prepared for Capone style knife fight.
Posted by patience at May 26, 2005 11:24 AMOh, good grief, I know what Open Source is. I already have my MS in CS, along with a few other undergrad degrees. Open Source would be a horrible idea for our elections.
The way to ensure accuracy is via independent testing and certification, not by Open Source. Good grief. Ridiculous idea.
I was just trying to have some fun with your paranoia here. I still think the idea of pop-ads coming up while one is voting is kind of funny.
Posted by muckdog at May 26, 2005 11:44 AMPosted by muckdog, "Open Source would be a horrible idea for our elections."
Ok, I'll give you a chance, Please tell us why Open Source would be bad?
Posted by Jon at May 26, 2005 12:00 PMOh, good grief, I know what Open Source is. I already have my MS in CS, along with a few other undergrad degrees. Open Source would be a horrible idea for our elections.
Excellent! Unsubstantiated assertions of skill and training which are not borne out by prior statements. And then unsubstantiated assertion of a value judgement without anything to back it up other than the aforementioned unsubstantiated assertions of experience. [One also has to love the classic playground backtrack of "Just kidding! What, can't you take a joke?" One would hope that everyone would grow out of that sad little ploy, but it keeps showing up in RTPTroll comments.]
The only meaningful difference between open source voting machines and proprietary voting machines is that secrets can be hidden in the latter, but not the former. Also, it so happens that private companies can charge more for the latter.
The argument for open source is pretty simple: everyon knows how a pen and paper works, and it's a verifiable and fairly permanent record. If a voting system is less open and verifiable than pen and paper, it's a failure.
muckdog is a true Republican hero.
Posted by paperwight at May 26, 2005 12:11 PMYeah, I am disturbed about the lack of paper trails with these "touch-screen" machines as well. And as far as I can tell no one has done anything to change this going into the '06 elections. Not only that but let's not forget about the "exit polling" flipping. Exit polling is one of the most accurate ways to poll people since you poll them AS they are leaving the voting center. The exit polling is what flipped the Ukrainian election. Hmmm. All I'm saying is that something stinks about the '04 election.
Posted by James at May 26, 2005 12:25 PMi aint sure if i am left right or center but i do know that victory the next time will not come from obsessing about losses in 04 and 00.look ahead. this guy is about to enter terminal lame duck status.his power will ebb away and the only power which will still reside with him is the ability to be reactive in foreign affairs.he will have no ability to proactively promulgate a foreign or domestic agenda. but singleminded focus sure as hell wont lead to victory in 08.
Posted by john jansen at May 26, 2005 01:00 PMi aint sure if i am left right or center but i do know that victory the next time will not come from obsessing about losses in 04 and 00.
The problem is that without confidence by everyone, of all sides, in the basic fairness and integrity of the vote, the next election doesn't matter. It's a precondition of any form of democracy that the vote be handled fairly and transparently. As a nation, we've been failing that standard for some time, and the DRE voting machines are particularly egregious black boxes in the middle of what should be a completely transparent process.
Posted by paperwight at May 26, 2005 01:06 PMJames is correct. As far as I can tell, resolving the current reliability of these voting machines--which accounted for over 30% of the US voting population--is an urgent matter that cannot wait until after 2006. I saw 'voting reform' as one of Senator Reid's Top Ten pledges a while back. Are voting reform advocates simply waiting for someone else to take the lead? Is the possibility of a 'rigged' election to much for people to bear or contemplate? More public pressure needs to be put on the voting machines to have Open Source or install ATM-receipt paper mechanisms into the machines. Somebody HAS to force the issue.
What's more, if Republicans try to insist that 'voting reform' is some partisan issue, they need to explain how and why this would be. Why would anyone, Republican or Democrat, be against insuring maximum integrity of our system? Whoever is needs to be ready to explain.
As US politics is becoming more 'winner take all,' 'winners' tend to be very organized. It might not be long before the voting machine makers actually develop a powerful lobby and align their interests with those members that protect them from public scrutiny or extra manufacturing costs. And then how easy will it be to get reforms passed then?
This is no joking matter and is not going away until we act. If its up to us on the ground level, so be it.
Let me guess. All those multiple votes went for Bush, right?
Posted by Judith at May 26, 2005 03:14 PMIn reality, there is nothing wrong with the traditional paper ballot that has been used for decades. We still use them in Missouri's elections, and it never has been a problem, as far as I know. I suspect all the bs in Florida was a well orchestrated move to introduce the Diebold voting machine into our elections.
Posted by Judith at May 26, 2005 03:42 PMIn the first filing in the Gray Davis Recount case with the California Supreme Court. The one heard by onlly three judges. There were statistics testified to for each type of machine or device. The old punch read paper ballot had the lowest error rate, about 2.5. Touchscreens were higher by almost a point, 3.4. Yet everybody wanted to throw out the cards. Too many chads.
Posted by peter at May 26, 2005 05:39 PMPaper. End of problem.
Posted by richard at May 26, 2005 06:38 PMPeter and Richard, you can't steal an election as easy with the traditional punch card. That's why they want to throw them out. I agree that our biggest problem in 2006 and beyond is touch screen voting. Demanding a paper copy is not an option.
Posted by Judith at May 26, 2005 07:30 PMCalling muckdog! It's been > 8 hours. When will the 'master o' computers' document the negitives of Open Scorce?
Posted by rlprather at May 26, 2005 07:41 PMI already have my MS in CS,
I certainly bet you have an advanced degree in C.S.ing.
I really think it would be difficult to hack the vote since the source code is so difficult to get. I had to type "hack the vote" in Google and look at two websites to download it.
What we'uns do: Big paper ballot. Bingo markers. Splotch the marker on the name you want. Feed paper ballot into tabulation doo-hickey (I'm ABD in these doo-hickies, so excuse the technical jargon). Electronic tabulation gives quick results, paper trail certifies the election.
Posted by phidipides at May 26, 2005 07:53 PMIrregardless of the type of software used, there are quite a few other criteria that must be met in my opinion to run a clean election.
Namely, 3 or more election officials of all parties involved. The officials need to be attendant with the systems at all times.
These 3(or more) officials need to verify the software installed on the system works correctly before the morning of the election. They must check off on this.
The checksum of the executable needs to be checked before and immediately after the election results are tabulated so it can be verified the same piece of code was used to vote with.
The systems should not be connected to a live network or download system of any type until these 3 officials tabulate the results and report those to the local election officials/commission board prior to the data being sent to a central tabulating office.
Once the results are received in the central tabulating office, the results need to be verified with the local results.
No representative of the company that makes hardware/software for the machines should be allowed to do any type of maintenance or software patches without an understanding by the elected officials. No software updates should be allowed within 10 business days before and 90 days past the election.
Posted by ent at May 26, 2005 08:28 PMthank you ent
that's the way it should be.
The group does not say that there was a defect in the machine that caused it to count one vote three times. The problem was that the broken machine's count was added 3 times into the total.
Here is the actual report, not the AP summary:
http://www.reformcoalition.org/Ressources/GetItRightTheFirstTime.pdf
In Precint 816 (where this error occurrred), the incorrect vote total was:
http://elections.metro-dade.com/ele110204/canvas110204.pdf
Bush: 270
Kerry: 834
Sure you want to pursue this?
Precint 816 is located at the Church of The Ascension.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5984
Hint: The report is from a non-partisan group concerned about sloppy election procedures.
Posted by artstone at May 26, 2005 09:49 PMMuckWad said:
Oh, good grief, I know what Open Source is. I already have my MS in CS, along with a few other undergrad degrees. Open Source would be a horrible idea for our elections.
a good deal of western europe votes on opensource systems running flawlessly.
Posted by JDM at May 27, 2005 12:19 AMNo really guys, I totally have a CS degree.
It's an honorary one actually, they gave it to me for inventing computers.
I did it as a hobby in between building the first automobile and writing the US Constitition.
PS I am also secretly a ninja. No serious, I mean it.
Posted by muckdog at May 27, 2005 11:43 AMI live in Florida and was surprised last week by a voter registration notice saying that since I haven't voted in 2 years or because they think I've moved I had to confirm information and mail back the card. Since I voted last year and hadn't moved I called them and 4 people later learned that according to their records I hadn't voted last year.
Upon my insistance, they are retrieving the sign-in books from their warehouse to verify I signed in to vote. They informed me that those records are scanned in after the election and it was possible I was skipped. When they call back (takes a week or so to get the records) with the proof I voted I intend to ask how if I was skipped did the number of voters match the number of ballots for my precient and what the total were.
I'm not big into conspiracies by it also amazes me that my other non-Democrat registered family members don't vote for a decade and remain on the voter roles but they try to drop me when they think I skipped 1 election.
Posted by LP at May 27, 2005 01:04 PM> 26 hours and counting.
Posted by rlprather at May 27, 2005 02:13 PMartstone, please expand upon your point.
Posted by Steve Soto at May 27, 2005 03:47 PM