number9 on January 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM

uh, that’s the guy i was talking about. the man who claims he was paid money by an associate of a gop politician to rig florida’s voting machines in 2000. florida didn’t have electronic voting machines in 2000.

BTW, (off subject) why has no one ever challenged her about all of her accomplishments during her “35 years of experience”? Why can’t just one of the TV interviewers ask her to list all of the many things she has done during those 35 years. That ain’t gonna’ happen either.

essentially, any system can be corrupted to a degree, but the custom of preventing

That’s basically my point. I understand the distrust of the voting machines, but when I looked into it, I didn’t see how they were any more vulnerable to fraud than any other system.

re: 1) diebold and the other major vendors, do not release their source code to outside parties, including academic institutions.

I’m not sure whether or not representatives of the state are allowed to see the code, but I would have to think if there was a case that fraud may have occurred, they would be forced to allow a rep to audit the code.

re: of course, i’m not addressing dead people, pets, or illegal residents who vote and commit fraud. but that’s a whole ‘nother oprah…

Nicely put.

re: “you can check the paper record versus the electronic record”

——-

1) diebold and the other major vendors, do not release their source code to outside parties, including academic institutions.
.
2) you are correct – sort of. the paper trail is only secure if the original ballots are publicly secured. in the case of ohio, the paper ballots were destroyed, which was a criminal act at the time. also, the ballots, as is currently the custom in some places, are handled by third party contractors to the state.
.
essentially, any system can be corrupted to a degree, but the custom of preventing, or making it difficult for the first count to be a public hand count, at the whim of state election officials, sets the process of secrecy and the temptation for fraud in motion.
.
in nh, according to the secretary of state, the machines were not networked to each other, but that is not a limitation for self-executing code. i actually will be surprised if a significant difference in the recount pops up, as i feel the storage and possession of the physical ballots during the past two weeks is a far more susceptible link.
.
i have no opinion over the controversy. ron paul is not an advocate of the recount in spite of those who are zealous (perhaps with good reason or intentions) to follow through.
.
of course, i’m not addressing dead people, pets, or illegal residents who vote and commit fraud. but that’s a whole ‘nother oprah…

Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM

I’m not bouncing back and forth. I explained earlier that we were talking about two different things. You can prevent voting machine fraud by rotating the name on the ballot. Most voting machines pose a unique challenge because there is not a paper record of each individual vote. They are the ones considered most vulnerable to fraud for that reason.

You’re complaining about an election where they used a scantron ballot — considered by experts to be the most secure ballot. You have a paper record of each individual vote. It would be very easy to audit the machine count and see if it has been rigged. In fact, the counties should do automatic audits — count the ballots by hand and check against the machine count in random precincts. If they’re not, question those election officials. I’ve said all along that the machines have vulnerabilities, but they can be compensated with a procedure. You’re complaigning about an official who changed the procedure. That’s not an indictment against the machine. It’s an indictment against that official. I pointed out at the beginning every election is vulnerable to crocked officials.

What you’re failing to acknowledge is that, while someone might be able to hack a machine and program it to throw votes, it’s still much easier to stuff a ballot box as people accuse Kennedy of doing in Chicago.

They used scantron ballots, not voting machines.

Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 6:07 PM

You’re bouncing around the topic.

Your original point was that they rotate the ballots. They do not.

You then said you were referring to voting machines/touch screen ballots. I showed you evidence that touch screen ballots can be hacked.

You then again went to your rotation defense, which isn’t the case in New Hampshire because they DO NOT rotate the ballots.

Now you answer that by saying they used scantrol ballots instead of voting machines.

The facts remain that New Hampshire does not rotate ballots. All voting machines and electronic machines have been shown to be open to fraud.

Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 6:05 PM

They used scantron ballots, not voting machines.

But it has to be done on each machine where you want to rig the vote. And, if the right processes are in place (like rotating the candidate names) any attempts to rig a vote can be thwarted.

Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM

But that’s the point. Up until this year, New Hampshire rotated ballots. THIS YEAR THEY DID NOT. What a coincidence.

Gregor on January 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM

You shouldn’t put your faith in the machine. What the profressor said in your quote, I’ve heard that before. But it has to be done on each machine where you want to rig the vote. And, if the right processes are in place (like rotating the candidate names) any attempts to rig a vote can be thwarted. Unfortunately, it all comes down to the election officials and whether or not the can be trusted. And if you cannot trust them, than — as I’ve asked before and no one has ansered — what makes paper ballots more safe?

number9 on January 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM

You do realize he said you could check for fraud, right? He says you can look at the source code. Also, he said you can check the paper record versus the electronic record. Exactly what I said above. So you don’t have to guess or wonder if it was hacked… you can check.

Now… explain to me how paper ballots are more secure. If you can rig a machine, can’t you also stuff a ballot box? And with the latter… how can you detect the fraud?

They’re talking about optical scanners that count paper ballots. I was talking about actual voting machines like touch screens.

Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM

You mean like these?

“We can take a version of Sequoia’s software program and modify it to do something different — like appear to count votes, but really move them from one candidate to another. And it can be programmed to do that only on Tuesdays in November, and at any other time. You can’t detect it,” Princeton’s Professor of Computer Science Andrew Appel explains in New Jersey’s Star-Ledger today.

Look, I’m not saying the election was hacked. I’m simply saying that it’s absurd to just rule it out off-hand. As long as there are elections, there will be groups of people with large bank accounts who will spend millions of dollars toward figuring out how to fix an election. I simply don’t understand why citizens are so willing to put so much faith in a machine when it comes to something so important.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gocC_456PzI&feature=related

windansea on January 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Exactly. There’s a paper record. If Obama supporters suspect fraud, they can sue for a recount. In fact, they should audit specific counties regardless. That should be part of their processes.

p.s. the ballots in question in the video are the ones that were being promoted by the people against voting machines.

BlackBoxVoting.org yikes, do some research on these folks, lot’s of threads at DU and conservativeunderground

it’s my understanding that these are electronic scanners which can surely be hacked but they do have actaul paper ballots that can be checked.

a level headed summary can be found here:

http://www.correntewire.com/even_more_voting_follies_nh_ed

windansea on January 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM

I didn’t watch the film. Which film? Can you post the link.

Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Yes. HERE IT IS

there are processes to prevent fraud. Which candidates appear in which order is rotated by precinct and that order is not determined until after the cards are sent out.

Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

So much for THAT theory.

A Stanford University professor of political science and psychology claims a decision New Hampshire made to change the ordering of their primary ballot may have pushed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) over the top.

Clinton’s New Hampshire victory left pundits scratching their heads, citing polls that showed Obama with a relatively consistent lead. Writing Wednesday on ABC News, professor Jon Krosnick believes he has part of the answer.

Until this year, he says, the Granite State rotated candidate’s names on the ballots, citing a statistical analysis that showed those who were listed earlier generally did better.

“Without a doubt, a big source of the discrepancy between the pre-election surveys and the election outcome in New Hampshire is the order of candidates’ names on the ballot and in the surveys,” Krosnick wrote. “Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect — big name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last.”

“Until this year, New Hampshire rotated candidate name order from precinct to precinct, which allowed us to do that analysis,” he added. “This year, the secretary of state changed the procedure so the names were alphabetical starting with a randomly selected letter, in all precincts.”

Wait… I just re-read the Kansas site. It referred to printed ballots. Do they even use machines? Because if not, then it’s not a counter example.

p.s. Not I didn’t watch the film. Which film? Can you post the link.

there are processes to prevent fraud. Which candidates appear in which order is rotated by precinct and that order is not determined until after the cards are sent out.

Spolitics on January 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Really? I’m not sure about New Hampshire yet, but not true in Kansas:

Rotation of Candidate Names on Ballot

Note: Precinct Committee persons, 3rd Class Cities, Drainage District, and Presidential Preference Primary candidates are not rotated.