E-voting: The death of democracy?

Politics International Politics
1

I made mention of this in another thread, but not one person responded. I feel it deserves its own thread.

The vendors for electronic voting machines are: Northrop Grumman (through an alliance); Diebold (ties to Bush administration); Diversified Dynamics (a weapons manufacturer; its machines created by SAIC); General Dynamics (defense contractor); ES&S; Hart Intercivic (alliance with Accenture); Sequoia, and VoteHere which is seeking to provide a new “vote verification” software which will go into every machine made by every vendor.

Does it not concern anyone else that the new “gold standard” of VoteHere “verification system” uses cryptography instead of a voter-verified paper ballot providing NO evidence except for bits and bytes?

Never again will there be evidence to trail a vote, in the USA, England, Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, and Asia.

[quote]EFF E-Voting
The 2004 presidential election might not be flawed like the last one was; it might be even worse. Communities across America are purchasing electronic voting (e-voting) machines, but the technology has serious security problems that aren’t being addressed. Most of the machines use “black box” software that hasn’t been publicly reviewed for security. Almost none provide voter-verifiable paper ballots to detect fraud. A recent analysis by several academic researchers outlines the many and varied ways that anyone from a technically proficient insider to an average voter could disrupt an e-voting system to defraud an election.

The response of some of the companies that make e-voting machines has been even more upsetting. Instead of embracing close technical review and public interest in its products, one of the three major manufacturers of these machines has embarked upon a campaign of sending cease-and-desist letters to those who criticize it. The company first sent one to the academic researchers and then later sent many to individuals and groups who republished internal email messages that reveal both the problems with the systems and employee attempts to cover up those problems.

E-Voting technology is promising, but its benefits should not obscure its dangers. Without basic auditing checks, these machines dramatically increase the chances for undetectable election fraud. This archive is a resource in the fight for accountable elections and responsible voting technology.
[/quote]
eff.org/Activism/E-voting/

onlinejournal.com/Special_Re … arris.html

dissidentvoice.org/Articles7 … iebold.htm

scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0308/S00175.htm

americanfreepress.net/08_25_ … _over.html

[quote]

2

Good point Alien.

Diebold, Inc. is one of the largest distributors of electronic voting machines, with over 33,000 terminals nationwide. . . .

These systems provide no “barometer for judging accuracy,” says computer science professor Edward Felten. He contends that since all tallying takes place inside the system, voters have no way of knowing if their vote was truly registered. “A programmer could put malicious code in the software, or there could be a bug,” Felten said, explaining how the software itself is the greatest vulnerability.

On July 30, Diebold agreed. The company posted on its homepage that “a combination of malevolent insiders and unscrupulous voters could tamper with [election] results.” . . .

southend.wayne.edu/days/2004 … ceton.html

Scientists Say Unreliable Software Exposes California Recall to Fraud
Rachel Konrad Aug 19 2003

. . . A team led by Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins, examined the machines’ source code, which a Diebold worker anonymously published on the Internet earlier this year. His conclusion: Any clever 15-year-old could rig Diebold’s system, which is based on Microsoft Windows, and vote multiple times.

govtech.net/news/news.php?id=64603

Diebold is a blue chip voting software company responsible for programming about 33,000 ballot casting machines across this land of ours. In the first large test of its software “by recognized computer security experts,” reports the New York Times , “serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected” were discovered.

“‘We found some stunning, stunning flaws,’ said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States.”

sover.net/~auc/voting_machine_fraud.html

3

Yes, it could be a concern but just because businesses support Republican candidates is hardly a sign that they will get away with Shanghaiing votes for one candidate or another. In fact, when it comes to officials flout the law, it would appear that Democrats come up with the greatest regularity because they are so “concerned” about their “issues.” Or is your concern for “rights” only apparent when those you “feel” deserve protection are involved but not for those that you dislike? Have you read the Constitution recently? Do you know what it entails? Do you know what “rights” are? Do you know how amendments to the Constitution are arrived at?

This might be a good start before you get actively involved in discussions about these types of issues so that you will understand how and when “rights” are to be protected as opposed to what sounds good now. This is why so many were against hate crimes legislation, though I suspect that you favored it. Why? Because once you start opening the gate for special protection based on groups, then where is the universality of your legal system? Now, you may find that marriage is a benefit that should be granted to gay marriages and I would support that or something similar but you must remember here that tax privileges are not a right. Marriage is not a right. Adoption is not a right. Though as overall legal behavior towards individuals and groups is concerned you have a very strong case for discrimination but how you are going to argue it before the Supreme Court will have to be different than just yelling and screaming discrimination. You are going to have to show how your argument is legally and constitutionally sound. Also, remember that you are going to lose a lot of support from Blacks for example (again that should not be an issue when it comes to right and wrong) for the simple reason that gays are nowhere near being discriminated against the way blacks were. They can vote, they are protected at the work place, they are not prevented from assembly or labeled as 3/5ths of a person. Good luck in your fight. I believe that it is a worthy cause but one that you can only win by smartening up a bit on the Constitutional side and controlling the emotional outrage that will only serve to alienate any would be supporters that you try to attract.

But back to the machines and the paranoia regarding these machines, most laughably by Democrats who perceive a conspiracy. Yes, the butterfly ballots were designed by a Democrat, in a Democrat county and the Florida supreme court behaved with shocking irregularity by calling for vote counting to be done over in only four counties. Had they done so for the whole state, I do not believe that the Supreme Court would have gotten involved. Also, a Democrat federal judge in St. Louis allowed the polls to stay open later. This is highly irregular but hey if you have the right cause…

So yes, here is another example Alien about the flouting of laws by civil servants that had me so concerned. Now, perhaps some Republicans and Democrats may decide that they have the right of civil disobedience (despite the fact that it would be illegitimate as opposed to legitimate) civil disobedience to rig the outcomes to serve the “right” causes. That’s right. Keep opening that Pandora’s Box just a bit farther. I am not taking issue with your commitment to the right for gays to marry only to your methods and now you may just be starting to imagine the wonderful ways in which similar “protest efforts” may be turned against the very causes that you espouse. Congratulations.

4

Stick to the topic, Fred. You only show us how close to the mouth of madness you are when you start rabbiting on like this.
If you want to discuss Bush’s hate-filled constitutional ammendment, take it back to SF marriage thread.

This thread is to discuss the flaws and merits of Evoting/Blackboxing.

[quote]

5

I encourage you to click the link above and read on…

6

Alien:

Let me re-explain in greater detail. You have started a thread regarding your fears that evoting will result in (Republican companies are mentioned only) votes being lost for political reasons. By inference, we can assume that your fears are that Republican companies will use their control of these companies to do so.

Voting and tampering with votes are major offenses that legal authorities have been very successful in preventing and prosecuting in the US in my humble opinion.

Second, given your lack of concern over the actions of officials in San Francisco to remain out of the partisan fray, I am surprised that you now view this with concern since they would appear to be linked in my mind, hence my reference to the gay marriage thread (or are you picking when and how you will respond to outrages?)

Third, in answer to your post (again only mentioning Republican companies) and your subsequent quoting of the article in your post, I believe the linkage implies that Republicans who control these companies will naturally be more likely to disenfranchise Democrat voters, I responded in a partisan way. Or are you suggesting that the post fairly and with great balance suggests that disenfranchisement by Democrats is also a concern? I see you added that in your second post.

Fourth, given that these companies only make the machinese and that such machines are monitored by local officials, in this context, I referred to the previous history of local Democratic officials in Palm Beach and St. Louis as well as the 9-0 domination of the Florida Supreme Court which ruled that only revotes would be held in four counties, and also referred back to the actions of Democrat civil servants in San Francisco to show that what the US needs to fear most is actions by “concerned” Democrats. Given that in the Alabama Supreme Court, the ten commandments have been removed and the judge essentially fired, I would also suggest that when examples of Republican partisanship have entered the official realm inappropriately, they have been dealt with most effectively. Hence what appears to be “rabbiting” to you is an attempt by me to show that IF you are implying that Republicans would be the problem in this case by stating that all these companies favor Republicans, I think that I can open that door a bit farther by showing that this has not historically been the case, but rather has in the case of Democrats.

Back to you.

The frothy mouthed rabbit

P.S. In addition, your concerns about officials acting inappropriately (in this case willfully tampering with voting procedures and vote tallies also goes to the issue that was raised in the gay marriage thread). There you were thrilled to see officials engage in acts of civil disobedience despite my concerns about where this would lead. Now, you post a thread about the possibility of civil servants acting inappropriately (it is local officials not companies with Republican ties after all that monitor these machines) and so I have to come back to the other thread and say. See this is what I meant. This is why I was so worried about these officials taking it into their own hands to determine the course of law. Get it now?

7

And Fred:::::::: (COLON !)

Your immediate (speaking of KNEE JERK) defense of this issue is the assumption that this is purely a partisan issue, when in fact I’m afraid it’s far more sinister.

I’m glad you profess to thinking so highly democracy (especially in the mideast), but could you please explain to me how it (democracy) could possibly continue?

But, please, even you must admit there’s something very fishy about all this. :

[quote]First, there are the three companies that make computer voting machines: Diebold, Sequoia and Election Systems and Software (ES&S), all of which are owned by big GOP contributors. Walden O

8

Alien::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Our justice system is well equipped to fight abuses. These paranoid visions you are having are just that for now: paranoid visions. Notice that Halliburton supposedly the best connected company through Cheney to the White House is facing a CRIMINAL trial for allegedly selling gas at prices far above market. AND rightly so. If there is any proof, it should be prosecuted and fined and any officials jailed if that is what the law stipulates, not punished in greater degree, just punished as the law calls for. AND again, just how the hell are manufacturers of voting machines or these email balloting programs supposed to rig them when they will be MONITORED by civil authorities? I don’t see the reason for such hysterical alarm, does anyone else?

What you so frequently fail to understand about our justice and legal systems is that they provide very well for systemic investigation and punishment of infractions all without the zest of outrage and feeling that frequently flows through your veins. AND isn’t it a good thing to know that the same law that will protect your paranoid ramblings ALSO protects my ability to rebut to them with fascist fervor? That is what the system is all about and why I am not afraid. Such cynicism and unfounded suspicion only shake the pillars of that very system and are unworthy and uncalled for.

Finally, what does this have to do with democracy in the Middle East. Is there any PROOF that votes are being tampered with? Is there any PROOF of intention by adminstation officials or company executives that such a plan exists? NO. BUT it could so this is what keeps you up at night? We have a solid justice system and media and well-educated populace (at least on the Republican side :smiling_imp: ) so I feel confident any such violation would be dealt with appropriately. The day I see the actual violation is the day I will start to worry to such a degree.

BUT you fail to see that in the Middle East, there is no freedom of the press to even print such stories? There, gays do not worry about whether they can fing file their taxes jointly or collect partner social security benefits, they f*ing worry about being imprisoned and beaten and shot or put next to a wall and have it pushed over on them. This is where women have no rights not even to an education and are forced (often) to marry who their families choose be it an 85 year old or a fascist general and get circumcised and stoned. So you rave uncontrollably about the POSSIBILITIES of such actions occuring no matter how unlikely in the US but nary a word about FLAGRANT and REGULAR and EGREGIOUS violations on a MASSIVE scale in the Middle East, which DOES have a direct bearing on the security of the US ---- as opposed to all the other benighted nations that suffer equally.

9

Not greatly. Standards can be set for the keeping of all voting information. I doubt the security of the system is any less than using paper - think how easy it would be to flush a million votes down the toilet or stick 'em in the incinerator.

Given that ballots are supposed to be secret. Who has an interest in “trailing a vote” anyway. After having argued for corporate interests and protectionism on another thread, are you now protesting an erosion of the rights of the security services?

To be slightly less obnoxious, though, i ask: What mechanism is there at the moment?

All the bits of paper are kept, for sure, but (in the UK at least) I understand it is possible merely to look at a candidates’ vote pile and count it. Since the ballot does not have your name on it, its hard to know what tracking is possible…

So what is lost?

Not much in terms of security, i imagine. No need for recount fiascos… generally a plus, I’d say.

The question for civil liberties is surely this:

Electronic databases are probably easier to get information out of than doing a “paper chase.” So, the secrecy of the ballot may be compromised. Its a question of too easy access to too much information that should concern anyone, rather than too little access to too little information.

10

Easy.

  1. He had a strong core of support, but didn’t win over the undecideds. So his early poll figures flattered him.

  2. he made too many gaffes and got painted as a hot-head

By the way, who do you think burned Dean’s votes? Bush? Hardly likely. he’d have loved to go up against Dean. Kerry?

By the way, Dean’s comments about want a paper output of the machine were so that the voter could check it themselves to make sure they hadn’t cocked it up - not so that other people could check how they voted!!!

11

You’re probably right, IYBF, it’s probably just paranoid democrats. If the government says electronic voting is reliable then it must be. They wouldn’t lie to us would they?

An election held in Houston just a few days ago was marred when election judges incorrectly set up twelve eSlate voting machines, resulting in a malfunction. . . voters simply left without casting their ballot. Some voters were told that they should come back later in the day, when the machines would be working, thereby casting their ballots twice.

The Oakland Tribune reported last week that several thousand voters in Alameda County used electronic voting machines made by Diebold that were never certified for use by state and county voting officials. Diebold altered the software running on the machines prior to the election, but never bothered to submit the software for testing or even notify the state that the software update had been made.

Another election last week also displayed troubling irregularities. After Rita Thompson, a school board member who lost a close race in Fairfax County, Virginia, complained, tests were performed . . . Lo and behold, one out of every hundred votes for Thompson actually resulted in a subtracted vote for the candidate. But there’s more. Ten machines broke down during the day, so they were brought to the county government center, repaired, and sent back to be used by voters … with no oversight. But there’s still more. At 7 p.m., most of the 223 precincts in the county attempted to report tallies. At the same time. The system, overworked, crashed.

In Georgia during the 2002 elections, some voters using Diebold machines tried to vote for one candidate, but the machine would instead register a vote for the opponent. It got weirder in Georgia in 2002. There were six electoral upsets in that election, including one in which the incumbent senator, who was far ahead in the polls, lost by 11 points. Diebold had changed the software used by the voting machines seven or eight times, without anyone examining it, and then after the election the company immediately overwrote the flash memory of all the cards used by those machines, so it is now impossible to know what the vote counts really were.

Also during the 2002 elections, machines made by Omaha-based Election Systems & Software erroneously reported that no one in several large Florida precincts had voted for governor. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

theregister.co.uk/content/55/34051.html

12

MT:

First, I see no INTENTIONAL disenfranchising of anyone occurring here. Mistakes happen. The system is not perfect.

The software was not approved but was it proved that such software was installed with the intent to disenfranchise voters or lead the vote a certain way?

BUT also, you must recall that with the present system such blunders can occur as well, thanks to which, we now have Bush sitting as president in the White House.

So the system we have now is not perfect, nor will the next one and surely not the one to follow, but as long as no one is intentionally disenfranchising voters AND such discrepancies are investigated as they apparently were in these cases, where’s the beef? where’s the need for some hysterical paranoia that America is becoming Stalinist Russia or Hitler’s Germany or any nation in the Middle East bar Israel? Better to focus your feverish and overwrought sense of injustice toward those nations truly deserving such scrutiny. I have a list. Shall I share it with you?

13

Thank you Fred. :slight_smile:

14

Actually MT:

I meant: See, even something amazingly miraculously wonderful can happen from blunders! It’s like a God given sign or something that we have truth and virtue on our side and once again the infidel has been cast down like a false idol from its flower petaled and blood splattered pedestal to reveal the existence of the ONE TRUE GOD!

15

Ehhhhh???

Its hard to see how machines would be biased against one particular party. Maybe all machines are republicans, who knows?

Sure, there will be cock-ups with the new system. As there were with the old. Remember Florida? Some of your comments - machines incorrectly set up, no oversight, non-certification are clearly human errors. Others - machines incorrectly registering votes for one candidate as votes for another - ISN"T THIS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN FLORIDA?

Democrats appear unusually maladroit. If you really want to make a party political point out of it, then what kind of system would democrats feel comfortable using?

Pinning the tail on the donkey, perhaps?

16

IYBF:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

17

Thank you Fred. :slight_smile:[/quote]

:laughing:

But alas, there’s no reason not to trust these things because Republicans make them and sell them, so they must be sound, yes?

I can hear the outrage now if the cards were reversed. :unamused:
98% of American votes are cast using this technology and it’s spreading around the world–fast.

BUT

[quote]
Even a single individual with access to the software running the voting machines could insert malicious code that would change election outcome.

If computers lose our votes, if our votes can be manipulated, American citizens will lose confidence in our electoral system and our nation will become a very different place than the one it has been for the past 228 years.

Elections are the lifeblood of democracy. If citizens don’t trust that their votes are being counted fairly and accurately, voter apathy

18

E-voting: I am against it. I don’t believe people should be allowed to vote when under the influence of drugs.

19

I’d like to see voting made easier for the voter. Is that one of the purposes? Then again, I doubt easier voting is going to reduce voter apathy.

20

In a world in which billions of dollars are transferred daily via electronic means and most of us do all of our personal banking electronically, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would question the viability of electronic voting.

Apparently the security of our finances is far less important than the security of our ballots.

The arguments against e-voting sound similar to the trial balloon arguments that the big three t.v. networks and major newspaper chains sent up a few years ago when the internet first reared its head: the sky is falling. Bigotry and anarchy will reign supreme if we ‘gatekeepers’ lose control of the flow of information.

All of those transitory ‘sky is falling’ arguments turned out to be a smokescreen for their real concern: information was power and they would lose control of it in this new democratized electronic market place of ideas and information.

How right they were. Major city newspapers and the big three networks are fast on their way to extinction.

It’s no wonder now that the Democratic Party feels viscerally threatened by e-voting and concocts arguments to beat it back. The Democratic Party far more than the Republican Party owes its modern existence almost entirely to special-interest circumventions of the democratic process and realizes that anything which promises to make the process of governing more accessible – less amenable to centralized control – will eventually eliminate its last source of political leverage over a heretofore often hapless body politic.

A better rhetorical question then might be: E-voting – the end of the Democratic Party?