HBO Documentary: "Hacking Democracy"

[cartman]

Has anyone else seen this the past couple of days? Unbelievable how easy it is to hack these machines and not leave a trail. It's not just the usually mentioned Diebold systems either. I thought that maybe the documentary was just going to be a slam of Diebold, but it is not. It shows just how pitiful these electronic voting machines are. No paper trail, no backups, databases that can manipulated without entering a password, the list goes on an on. I have zero faith in the accuracy and integrity of these systems as they stand now.

[Warhammer]

Its not like the other forms of voting that we have are bulletproof either. What's keeping anyone from taking a bunch of punchcards and punching them, or invalidating other ballots for the competition by punching another hole on the same ballot, etc.?

[Dutch]

Has anyone else seen this the past couple of days? Unbelievable how easy it is to hack these machines and not leave a trail. It's not just the usually mentioned Diebold systems either. I thought that maybe the documentary was just going to be a slam of Diebold, but it is not. It shows just how pitiful these electronic voting machines are. No paper trail, no backups, databases that can manipulated without entering a password, the list goes on an on. I have zero faith in the accuracy and integrity of these systems as they stand now.

Does the documentary offers solutions or just complaints?
:)

[albionmoonlight]

I have not seen the documentaries, but the fact that these machines don't leave a papertrail amazes me. And the fact that, somehow, even after the 2000 debacle and allegations of fraud in 2004, legislation has not been passed to make sure that a papertrail is left.

Also, local elections are run by volunteers and partisans. Which may be traditional, but certainly does not give me faith that humans are going to uphold the integrity of the system.

Maybe if the Dems take control of Congress, one of the things that they can pass is legislation to make sure that a papertrail is left in all federal elections. Nothing more or less. It would be hard to see the White House be able to veto that bill.

[SunDevil]

I think its more informative than anything. Once you recognize a problem, you can then diagnose it. This is the first step. Which is a shame considering its siz years after the whole Florida debacle.

[cartman]

Its not like the other forms of voting that we have are bulletproof either. What's keeping anyone from taking a bunch of punchcards and punching them, or invalidating other ballots for the competition by punching another hole on the same ballot, etc.?

Agreed, but that is something that would take time. For each paper ballot you modified, you would have to touch each ballot. To change a few hundred ballots would take quite a bit of time, increasing your chances of being caught. To change a few hundred votes with the electronic system could be done in 30 seconds.

They also showed bugs in the systems. One even caught them by surprise. They took a voting machine at random and set up an election. The choices were "This machine can be hacked" and "This machine cannot be hacked". They were going to use this to show how votes can be manipulated. They showed on camera 8 people voting for, and 2 against. Before they started their hacking, they looked at the results produced by the machine, and the tally was 9 to 1.

[cartman]

Does the documentary offers solutions or just complaints?
:)


The bank:
I'm sorry Mr. Dutch that the ATM machine shows that your account is empty after you only withdrew $20. Do you have a solution on how to fix this, or are you just going to complain?

[SirFozzie]

If it didn't.. here's a solution. REAL, VERIFIABLE Paper Trails.

You choose your candidates, it confirms on screen who you're voting for, you say ok, and it prints out a paper with your choices, you turn it in on your way out. If there's any suggestion that there was a problem with the votes, you got to the paper copies.

Right now, the only copy is in the voting machine's memory in a lot of machines.

[Dutch]

The bank:
I'm sorry Mr. Dutch that the ATM machine shows that your account is empty after you only withdrew $20. Do you have a solution on how to fix this, or are you just going to complain?

Okay, let me rephrase. Did they have any suggestions on how to fix the problem?

[cartman]

Okay, let me rephrase. Did they have any suggestions on how to fix the problem?

Yes. Not use the electronic machines until the issues that were revealed are addressed. The problems are so fundamental that the current crop of machines are basically not fixable.

[Dutch]

If it didn't.. here's a solution. REAL, VERIFIABLE Paper Trails.

You choose your candidates, it confirms on screen who you're voting for, you say ok, and it prints out a paper with your choices, you turn it in on your way out. If there's any suggestion that there was a problem with the votes, you got to the paper copies.

Right now, the only copy is in the voting machine's memory in a lot of machines.

If it gets people to trust voting machines, I'm all for it.

[Coffee Warlord]

If it didn't.. here's a solution. REAL, VERIFIABLE Paper Trails.

You choose your candidates, it confirms on screen who you're voting for, you say ok, and it prints out a paper with your choices, you turn it in on your way out. If there's any suggestion that there was a problem with the votes, you got to the paper copies.

Right now, the only copy is in the voting machine's memory in a lot of machines.

Agreed, with going a step further. Every state randomly selects a few polling locales and checks the paper vote against the electronic results. If the results do not match up, straight to the paper for the whole state.

[CraigSca]

Businesses go through this crap everyday. This isn't rocket science. Encrypt the database, create secure crytographic audit trails, etc. It's not like they're re-inventing the wheel.

[Dutch]

Yes. Not use the electronic machines until the issues that were revealed are addressed. The problems are so fundamental that the current crop of machines are basically not fixable.

If the system in place right now is broken, it needs to be fixed and we need real viable solutions in order to do that.

Saying the one in place right now shouldn't be used isn't a solution. It's simply identifiying the problem, which we should commend HBO for researching and identifying (although this sounds vaguely familiar). If people don't believe in it, I agree, it shouldn't be used. But the elections are coming up now. What's the replacement method we need to use?

[Dutch]

Agreed, with going a step further. Every state randomly selects a few polling locales and checks the paper vote against the electronic results. If the results do not match up, straight to the paper for the whole state.

Can we get this in place by election day?

[Arles]

Has anyone else seen this the past couple of days? Unbelievable how easy it is to hack these machines and not leave a trail. It's not just the usually mentioned Diebold systems either. I thought that maybe the documentary was just going to be a slam of Diebold, but it is not. It shows just how pitiful these electronic voting machines are. No paper trail, no backups, databases that can manipulated without entering a password, the list goes on an on. I have zero faith in the accuracy and integrity of these systems as they stand now.
Election fraud has been a staple of American politics for a century. Just read up on history and you will see numerous examples ranging from almost every Chicago election from 1940 to 1969, numerous national elections at the turn of the century and both Southern and midwest elections in the 70s.

The systems we have now are about 100 times more effective than those we had 20-30 years ago. Paper trails offer nothing since they are very easy to manipulate. Plus, the sheer volume of paper trails for elections means that it is highly unlikely even obviously questionable paper trails ever get caught. Going electronic is the right way to go. But, like every major improvement, we need time to refine the process and setup more error checking. The end result will be that we may eventually have a system where error checking is possible (as opposed to the paper process where old men stare through coke-bottle glasses to see if there are dangling chads).

I don't really see how this electronic system is any more risky than the paper ballots often managed by the "local government machine" throughout the past 30 years. Just look at the Illinois results that have been since published on the JFK-Nixon election. You had people voting multiple times, dead people voting and even animals voting ;) Not to mention the numerous inaccuracies from having 70-year old ladies trying to punch a hole in a piece of cardboard. Atleast now, there is some measure of validation from the voter. Still, no system will be perfect and all you can do is continue to try and improve. The main problem here is that local governments are often years (if not decades) behind the private sector in technology because of all the red tape involved. But, at some point, you have to start moving toward electronic voting if voter accuracy is a concern.

[NoMyths]

Can we get this in place by election day?
If it were important to the folks in charge, they certainly could have.

If, on the other hand, many of their jobs depended on the at-best faulty voting from previous elections, I can't see that they'd be too motivated to poke into the mess. I mean, after years worth of articles and columns and investigations, we're less than a week away from using broken technology to 'elect' the folks in charge. They've had six years to resolve the issues; little has been done. That's not a warning flag?

It's sad that people's memories are so short.

[Dutch]

If it were important to the folks in charge, they certainly could have.

If, on the other hand, many of their jobs depended on the at-best faulty voting from previous elections, I can't see that they'd be too motivated to poke into the mess. I mean, after years worth of articles and columns and investigations, we're less than a week away from using broken technology to 'elect' the folks in charge. They've had six years to resolve the issues; little has been done. That's not a warning flag?

It's sad that people's memories are so short.

Ah, so now we get to the point. The Republicans are evil. I got that point already. The beautiful thing is, when the Democrats win the House and Senate, they can reform it. Or is this a pre-emptive strike in case the Republicans win? Hmmm...

[cartman]

Election fraud has been a staple of American politics for a century. Just read up on history and you will see numerous examples ranging from almost every Chicago election from 1940 to 1969, numerous national elections at the turn of the century and both Southern and midwest elections in the 70s.

The systems have now are about 100 times more effective than those we had 20-30 years ago. Paper trails offer nothing since they are very easy to manipulate. Plus, the sheer volume of paper trails for elections means that it is highly unlikely even obviously questionable paper trails ever get caught. Going electronic is the right way to go. But, like every major improvement, we need time to refine the process and setup more error checking. The end result will be that we may eventually have a system where error checking is possible (as opposed to the paper process where old men stare through coke-bottle glasses to see if there are dangling chads).

I don't really see how this electronic system is any more risky than the paper ballots often managed by the "local government machine" throughout the past 30 years. Just look at the Illinois results that have been since published on the JFK-Nixon election. You had people voting multiple times, dead people voting and even animals voting ;) Not to mention the numerous inaccuracies from having 70-year old ladies trying to punch a hole in a piece of cardboard. Atleast now, there is some measure of validation from the voter. Still, now system will be perfect and all you can do is continue to try and improve.

Agreed on the voter fraud counts. Any new system introduced should do what it can to decrease the chance of voter fraud. But the way these new systems are just makes it that much easier for fraud to be committed. There seems to be a general mindset that if it is computer-based, then it must be more secure and accurate, which for these machines is simply not the case.

And I agree that so system is perfect. But the main problem here is that the manufacturers are not trying to improve the products. They are continuing to deny that there are any security holes in their products, even when presented with them in person. And the technical jargon to explain it flies right over the heads of most people, so they don't really understand the issue, and many chalk it up to the ramblings of "tin foil hat" wearers.

[Leonidas]

Paper was crap because people couldn't figure out how to knock the thing out of its hole. So we declared a state of emergency and knee jerked our way into a series of computer systems with zero security, so that's crap. Maybe if we just got everyone into an arena and asked them to raise their hands when they heard the name of the guy they want to vote for.

[albionmoonlight]

The systems we have now are about 100 times more effective than those we had 20-30 years ago.

Why?

Paper trails offer nothing since they are very easy to manipulate. Plus, the sheer volume of paper trails for elections means that it is highly unlikely even obviously questionable paper trails ever get caught.

It seems like common sense to me that keeping the data in two separate places and in two separate formats will make it much harder for a small group of people to manipulate that data.

I can see that there are problems with "Just electronic" or "Just paper." But how could anyone be against keeping a record in both formats?

[cartman]

Ah, so now we get to the point. The Republicans are evil. I got that point already. The beautiful thing is, when the Democrats win the House and Senate, they can reform it. Or is this a pre-emptive strike in case the Republicans win? Hmmm...

No the point is not that, as you put it, "Republican are evil". It might make it appear to make more sense to you, since that seems to be the slight you need to give your arguments more weight.

It doesn't matter if 'Republicans are evil', 'Republicans are awesome', 'Democrats are wishy-washy', or 'Democrats are evil'. The point is that these machines have been an issue for sometime, and little has been done to address their shortcomings. That is one of the things addressed in the documentary, that many of the problems found with the machines in the 2004 election (names appearing wrong, voting for someone then having another name appear before confirming a vote) are still there in the machines to be used for the 2006 election.

[Arles]

There seems to be a general mindset that if it is computer-based, then it must be more secure and accurate, which for these machines is simply not the case.
Secure? No. But they are certainly more accurate than hand-created ballots.

But the main problem here is that the manufacturers are not trying to improve the products. They are continuing to deny that there are any security holes in their products, even when presented with them in person. And the technical jargon to explain it flies right over the heads of most people, so they don't really understand the issue, and many chalk it up to the ramblings of "tin foil hat" wearers.
This is why the US is such a great country. If one company (or set of companies) refuses to improve a voting machine, another will step right in to try and get more market share. The onus is on local governments to demand a higher quality of machine and the beauty of that is that local governments are run by elected officials. I honestly don't know what the issues are with these systems from the show (I'll have to watch the show when I get a chance), but I'm honestly not all that worried about it given the info I've seen to this point.

There's always going to be a certain amount of voter fraud, but I look at it like driving the roads. There are always going to be serious car accidents, but they are such a small percent of overall drivers that it doesn't mean I want all cars removed from the road and we go back to horse and buggy transportation. We just have to keep trying to make cars and roads safer (much like keeping voting machines accurate and secure is a main priority of these companies). There are numerous makes and models of voting machines out there and it makes no sense for the individual makers to not care about accuracy and security (unless they don't care about losing business).

[Arles]

Why?
It seems like common sense to me that keeping the data in two separate places and in two separate formats will make it much harder for a small group of people to manipulate that data.

I can see that there are problems with "Just electronic" or "Just paper." But how could anyone be against keeping a record in both formats?
I would guess the answer is expense. I'm sure there are "super duper redundant data voting machines" out there, but they are much more expensive than the current ones being used in many precincts. Not every community can afford (or chooses to afford) the higher priced machines. Again, that's something people in those communities can prioritize. However, I could certainly understand if a local precinct decided it was better to spend money on improving law enforcement or education over reducing the extremely small chance some hacker comes in to Timbucktoo, Alabama to hack a small precinct's election.

[NoMyths]

Ah, so now we get to the point. The Republicans are evil. I got that point already. The beautiful thing is, when the Democrats win the House and Senate, they can reform it. Or is this a pre-emptive strike in case the Republicans win? Hmmm...
Dutch, no American can reasonably examine the problems with electronic voting and its history over the past six years without concluding that there are serious problems that demand attention if we are to use the technology. The people who have the ability to analyze and solve those problems have not done so. Though I know well the futility of discussing any issues of this nature with you, let's pretend you aren't going to continue chalking all of this up to a bad case of Bush-hating, and address the matter at hand: the technology is unreasonably vulnerable to attempts that could subvert our country's government. Every citizen should demand that we do the very best we can in protecting a fair vote, regardless of past problems.

[cartman]

I honestly don't know what the issues are with these systems from the show (I'll have to watch the show when I get a chance), but I'm honestly not all that worried about it given the info I've seen to this point.

I'll be interested in your feedback after watching the show.

As I stated earlier, I thought this documentary was just going to be a slam of Diebold, but the problems run much deeper than just their machines.

[Arles]

I'll definately check it out. To be honest, registration fraud and voting under a different identity are much more concerning issues to me. It is much easier to do by the masses and offers little chance of detection if missed by the local poll places. If I had money to spend, that's where I would start when it comes to election fraud.

[Ryche]

Minnesota specifically requires a paper trail in law. I'm amazed that more states do not have that requirement. There are many other ways to get around the system though if you are determined to do so.

[Dutch]

No the point is not that, as you put it, "Republican are evil". It might make it appear to make more sense to you, since that seems to be the slight you need to give your arguments more weight.

It doesn't matter if 'Republicans are evil', 'Republicans are awesome', 'Democrats are wishy-washy', or 'Democrats are evil'. The point is that these machines have been an issue for sometime, and little has been done to address their shortcomings. That is one of the things addressed in the documentary, that many of the problems found with the machines in the 2004 election (names appearing wrong, voting for someone then having another name appear before confirming a vote) are still there in the machines to be used for the 2006 election.

That sounds good, but I was responding to NoMyths who initiated this dialogue.

"...the folks in charge..."
"...their jobs depended on the at-best faulty voting from previous elections..."
"...I can't see that they'd be too motivated to poke into the mess..."
"...using broken technology to 'elect' the folks in charge...."
"...They've had six years to resolve the issues..."

Which was the "Republicans are Evil" dialogue I was referring to, just in case you missed that post and figured I just brought it up out of thin air. :)

[gstelmack]

Dutch, no American can reasonably examine the problems with electronic voting and its history over the past six years without concluding that there are serious problems that demand attention if we are to use the technology. The people who have the ability to analyze and solve those problems have not done so.

You are correct. I blame the Democrats in charge of voting in my state (of course, given what our Democratic State House Speaker has been doing, I doubt it's getting any better).

Remember that LOCAL officials control voting, or at best respond to state mandates. It's ludicrous to blame the presidential administration for this mess; they have ZERO control over it. States elect their electors, and it's the states that have to fix this for Presidential and State elections, and local election boards have to fix it for local elections. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian (hi Jesse!), they have all contributed to this mess.

(now to remember to get back out of these political threads; should have known better than to poke my head in here).

[TroyF]

No the point is not that, as you put it, "Republican are evil". It might make it appear to make more sense to you, since that seems to be the slight you need to give your arguments more weight.

It doesn't matter if 'Republicans are evil', 'Republicans are awesome', 'Democrats are wishy-washy', or 'Democrats are evil'. The point is that these machines have been an issue for sometime, and little has been done to address their shortcomings. That is one of the things addressed in the documentary, that many of the problems found with the machines in the 2004 election (names appearing wrong, voting for someone then having another name appear before confirming a vote) are still there in the machines to be used for the 2006 election.

He was responding directly to the comment made that they won't fix em because that's how they got their jobs and they want to keep them. As if the Republicans are the only ones who are cheating and that's the way they've been able to win elections.

I have no problems with his comments there.

[NoMyths]

That sounds good, but I was responding to NoMyths who initiated this dialogue.

"...the folks in charge..."
"...their jobs depended on the at-best faulty voting from previous elections..."
"...I can't see that they'd be too motivated to poke into the mess..."
"...using broken technology to 'elect' the folks in charge...."
"...They've had six years to resolve the issues..."

Which was the "Republicans are Evil" dialogue I was referring to, just in case you missed that post and figured I just brought it up out of thin air. :)
Good job of ignoring my follow-up post and continuing to attempt to rebrand my concerns as mere "Republicans are Evil" rhetoric. Care to try again?

*reminds self why I don't discuss political issues with Dutch any longer*

[SirFozzie]

There are places where the Republicans are using this and the Democrats are protesting.

There are places where the Democrats are using this and the Republicans are protesting.

I don't fall for the strawmen arguments.

To me, the question is not IS it being hacked, but CAN it be hacked? If so, and this documentary is an unqualified, YES it can be... then fix the problem.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Dutch]

Good job of ignoring my follow-up post and continuing to attempt to rebrand my concerns as mere "Republicans are Evil" rhetoric. Care to try again?

*reminds self why I don't discuss political issues with Dutch any longer*

WTF are you talking about? I have stated my support for reform multiple times in this thread. I didn't start this into a political pointy fingered debate. So don't pull out the "Dutch is Evil" rhetoric in hopes to diffuse your own ignition of partisan hackery.

[cartman]

In no way is this a partisan problem. Some people would like to turn it into one, but it is not. Any attempts to turn it into a partisan problem are just smokescreens.

[Dutch]

To me, the question is not IS it being hacked, but CAN it be hacked? If so, and this documentary is an unqualified, YES it can be... then fix the problem.

Agreed. As the world's leading Democracy, we cannot have embarrassing voter controversies. I'm willing to spend the tax dollars neccessary to ensure we vote properly. Whether that be Federal, State, or Local funds, doesn't matter to me.

[NoMyths]

WTF are you talking about? I have stated my support for reform multiple times in this thread. I didn't start this into a political pointy fingered debate. So don't pull out the "Dutch is Evil" rhetoric in hopes to diffuse your own ignition of partisan hackery.
The "Dutch is Evil" rhetoric has nothing to do with the points I was making, all of which were careful to avoid assigning blame to one political party. Partisan hackery sickens me. The fact is, Dutch, after years of talking about these issues, you still haven't gotten past accusing everyone who argues that there are problems with the system of merely being anti-Republican. And frankly, considering how poorly the last six years have gone, it's disappointing to discover that you haven't changed.

Moving back on topic: the machines don't work as we need them to. Because of their problems, we will not have a just election this year. To me, that's a problem that goes beyond partisan hackery, and forces us again to evaluate the people who refuse to correct the problem.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Because of their problems, we will not have a just election this year.

What a load of horseshit.

Because machines are capable of being hacked, we're guaranteed a unjust election? Pretty much anything ever invented can be hacked, given ample time & resources. Or given a well-placed backdoor.

As long as people are involved in the process, there's no such thing as a fraud proof voting system.

[Dutch]

The "Dutch is Evil" rhetoric has nothing to do with the points I was making, all of which were careful to avoid assigning blame to one political party. Partisan hackery sickens me. The fact is, Dutch, after years of talking about these issues, you still haven't gotten past accusing everyone who argues that there are problems with the system of merely being anti-Republican. And frankly, considering how poorly the last six years have gone, it's disappointing to discover that you haven't changed.

Let me roll up my pant legs, it's getting pretty deep in here. :)

[BrianD]

What a load of horseshit.

Because machines are capable of being hacked, we're guaranteed a unjust election? Pretty much anything ever invented can be hacked, given ample time & resources. Or given a well-placed backdoor.

As long as people are involved in the process, there's no such thing as a fraud proof voting system.

True, but considering how easy these thing appear to hack, even if we have a just election, there will probably be plenty of people claiming fraud.

[JonInMiddleGA]

True, but considering how easy these thing appear to hack, even if we have a just election, there will probably be plenty of people claiming fraud.

That's going to happen regardless of what method is used.

[BrianD]

That's going to happen regardless of what method is used.

It is, but there is a matter of believability based on the ease of fraud. It is true that anything can be hacked, but if it is quite difficult to do, people will feel relatively secure and won't put too much stock into the fraud complaints. If it is very easy to hack, people are going to put much more stock into the fraud complaints.

[larrymcg421]

Let's clear something up. Nobody is suggesting that these machines should be 100% unhackable. That is most likely an impossible goal to achieve. What we're suggesting is that the current machines being used are far too easy to hack.

The idea that many people seem to think it isn't worth the effort or money to make these machines more secure is pretty scary. It seems like in a Democracy this is one of the most important things to do.

[CraigSca]

Unfortunately, money isn't free and it will take a full-scale disaster in order for things to change.

[SirFozzie]

The ONE thing that does make it political, is the Diebold CEO being stupid at a Republican Party fundraiser during the 04 election run-up. and promising "We're gonna deliver Ohio's electoral votes to you guys".

Just like what happened with Kerry recently, what he meant and what others took out of it was two completely different things.

What he Meant: "With the grass-roots, fundraising, and Get Out The Vote apparatus we have in Ohio, we will win."

What those inclined to believe the worst of folks heard "I control the company that makes the voting machines for Ohio, so if need be, no matter what the votes say, we control what the machines say".

Was it stupid? Yes. Was it an indication of some deep/dark conspiracy to steal the election? No.

Hopefully this puts the political part of the thread to bed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The ONE thing that does make it political ...

... is that liberals consistently fight against other attempts to reduce voter fraud, such as requiring proper identification at the polls while consistently wringing their hands over the spectre of something that hasn't even occurred (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I'm missing an example). That leaves their "concern" about electronic balloting ringing extremely hollow.

Sorry Fozzie, but I believe the majority of concerns expressed about this subject at the national level are almost entirely political in nature. It isn't about ensuring the accuracy of returns, it's misdirection away from the long-standing & documented methods of voter fraud that have been going on for decades (if not longer), hoping people will spend their time looking for the possible appearance of a 2000 pink gorilla and overlook the nest of angry cobras sitting over there in the corner.

FTR, please note that I said at the national level, I'll steer clear of assessing the motivations of anyone commenting here. It's a fairly narrow subject that doesn't get that much play & I don't think there's enough on the record stuff to make a solid judgement about those motivations (although there's certainly some possible situations where some reasonable assumptions could be made ;) ).

[SirFozzie]

As I said earlier, there are places where the Demos want it and the Repubs don't, and others where the Repubs want it and the Demos don't.

I don't give a flying fuck about either. I just want election results I can trust.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Its not like the other forms of voting that we have are bulletproof either. What's keeping anyone from taking a bunch of punchcards and punching them, or invalidating other ballots for the competition by punching another hole on the same ballot, etc.?

The difference is, it's much more difficult to do something like what you mention without leaving a trail. With the electronic recording, particularly the paperless systems, a single individual with the right kind of access can alter the vote without leaving a trace.

[Mr. Wednesday]

What a load of horseshit.

Because machines are capable of being hacked, we're guaranteed a unjust election? Pretty much anything ever invented can be hacked, given ample time & resources. Or given a well-placed backdoor.

As long as people are involved in the process, there's no such thing as a fraud proof voting system.

So because we can't totally prevent fraud, we should just give up? Bullshit. Even if a fraud-proof system is not an attainable goal, we can strive to make wholesale fraud expensive in manpower (the more conspirators required, the more likely someone is to leak it) and effort, and difficult to perpetrate without leaving evidence.

The problem is not that the electronic systems can be gamed, it's that it's easy for a single person to game them undetectably.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So because we can't totally prevent fraud, we should just give up? Bullshit.

I would assume that you know that's not my point. I'm saying that I believe the amount of concern expressed is disproportionate to the threat, particuarly in light of the absence of attention paid to more pervasive & existing types of voter fraud.

[Warhammer]

Supposedly there are reports of voter fraud here in Shelby County for Harold Ford, Jr. Interesting to see if this is true or not. But, there was voter fraud in some precincts in an election this summer to replace his uncle in the state senate after he (John Ford) was indicted in the Tennessee Waltz scandal.

[Glengoyne]

Yes. Not use the electronic machines until the issues that were revealed are addressed. The problems are so fundamental that the current crop of machines are basically not fixable.

DING! DING! DING!

I am solidly opposed to the touch screen voting systems. Not because I'm afraid of the "problems" being discussed. I haven't seen the above discussed program, but I largely believe the problems with security/reliability in the current machines are being over stated.

The biggest problem I have with them is their cost and reliability. We have perfectly good voting technology that has been proven over time. The scantron voting forms. They immediately tell you that there are problems with the ballot, not accepting the ballot until the issues are corrected.

I simply think that the computerized touch screen voting machines are wasteful, and probably not near as fool proof as other technologies that exist today. High tech isn't always the best solution, but not enough people with common sense are making these decisions in counties using this equipment.

[JPhillips]

Well Glen and I agree, how about that.

Optical scanning is the most reliable and secure voting method in the country. Its easy and verifiable. It should be the nationwide voting system.

Computer voting is currently like running Windows without a firewall or virus protection. Nobody on this board would suggest that setup, yet some of you are willing to say that voting booths without security are fine. When you can use a flash memory card to change voting tallies something is terribly wrong.

Something should be done ASAP. My hope is that the uproar over Venezualan ownership will finally get something done. Compared to other national expenditures it wouldn't cost much to switch to optical scanning.

Finally, is it partisan to say these machinces aren't secure or is it partisan to say it doesn't matter because Democrats are complaining?

[Mr. Wednesday]

I am solidly opposed to the touch screen voting systems. Not because I'm afraid of the "problems" being discussed. I haven't seen the above discussed program, but I largely believe the problems with security/reliability in the current machines are being over stated.
The fact is, many of the systems in use can be hacked by a single knowledgeable person, undetectably, to alter tabulation on a single machine or in an entire precinct. The amount of access required to do this varies from that of the average voter (attack on a single machine) to that of an average precinct worker (attack on a precinct). The attack requires readily available equipment.

Your average Joe off the street wouldn't be able to do this, but it's within reach of any sufficiently motivated computer hobbyist or professional who can get involved in election administration.

I don't think the problems are overstated at all.

[Airhog]

I think a big problem is there is no money in safe election machinces. The people who make these machines are more crooked than the officals running for office

[Glengoyne]

The fact is, many of the systems in use can be hacked by a single knowledgeable person, undetectably, to alter tabulation on a single machine or in an entire precinct. The amount of access required to do this varies from that of the average voter (attack on a single machine) to that of an average precinct worker (attack on a precinct). The attack requires readily available equipment.

Your average Joe off the street wouldn't be able to do this, but it's within reach of any sufficiently motivated computer hobbyist or professional who can get involved in election administration.

I don't think the problems are overstated at all.

I guess what you are describing is possible. I just think that very minimal protections that almost have to be in place could prevent fraud. Now the loss of data would be another matter. I'll watch the show, and see what there is to see. It just is that what I've heard on NPR and from other media outlets doesn't jive with what you've described. In that, yes some things are possible, but the possibility of something happening are pretty remote.

So color me skeptical of both the computerized voting machines and the conspiracy theories surrounding them.

[SirFozzie]

Skeptic no more

http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.68972.html


Just how easy is it to hack into a Diebold voting machine? Pretty easy, according to a demonstration video posted on the internet by researchers at Princeton University. They pick the lock on the side of the machine in less than 10 seconds. Then, they introduce a computer virus using a standard PC memory card.

The virus tricks the Diebold machine. Votes originally cast for pretend candidate George Washington are later printed out and recorded as votes for Benedict Arnold.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I guess what you are describing is possible. I just think that very minimal protections that almost have to be in place could prevent fraud.
At the precinct tabulation level, I'm not sure what (if any) protections are in place, nor how difficult it would be for an insider to gain the necessary access to game one of them. At the individual voting machine level, there are supposed to be locks -- which reportedly have ridiculously insecure keys that anybody interested could obtain -- and tamper-evident tape -- which testers have bypassed with little difficulty.

[Glengoyne]

Skeptic no more

http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.68972.html


Just how easy is it to hack into a Diebold voting machine? Pretty easy, according to a demonstration video posted on the internet by researchers at Princeton University. They pick the lock on the side of the machine in less than 10 seconds. Then, they introduce a computer virus using a standard PC memory card.

The virus tricks the Diebold machine. Votes originally cast for pretend candidate George Washington are later printed out and recorded as votes for Benedict Arnold.

See, I don't know. If you read the article, it clearly says that the machines in use are utilizing encryption. There are absolutely trivial measures that would identify if a memory card or the imbedded software has been modified. I'd estimate that there is a much greater danger that someone could cause the loss of electronic votes, but actually tampering with them seems highly improbable.

Again, all of that said, I'm no fan of the computerized voting systems. There are better cheaper technologies that should be used instead of these systems. Cost, Security, and audit capabililty are elements of my concern. Security just isn't as big a hole in the idea as the other two in my opinion.

NPR did a report on this type of thing a couple of weeks ago.
On the virus thing, yes they did infect a machine, but it wasn't an actual voting machine used in any elections, and the tampering was easilly detected.
On the hacking into a card or the system...Some state provided a few dozen hackers with the design specifications of the machines in advance, and gave them the opportunity to tamper with the machines. None of the hackers were able to pull off anything resembling a success.

[cartman]

There's still an accuracy problem with them outside of any hacking issues. There was an article in the paper this morning that Williamson County in Texas is probably not going to use their electronic machines after they failed a dry run for a second time. Here's the article:

hxxp://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/04/4voting.html

[Glengoyne]

There's still an accuracy problem with them outside of any hacking issues. There was an article in the paper this morning that Williamson County in Texas is probably not going to use their electronic machines after they failed a dry run for a second time. Here's the article:

hxxp://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/04/4voting.html

This is the kind of thing, that seems like it is a much bigger problem. The computerized machines have added complexity, and introduced a myriad of vulnerabilities to the system. Common sense told me that back in 2001, after Florida, but I wasn't consulted.

[cartman]

It appears that finally a paper trail is going to be required for electronic voting machine. Still a ways to go, but this is a great step in the right direction.

hxxp://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3646231

A federal agency is set to recommend significant changes to specifications for electronic-voting machines next week, internetnews.com has learned.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is recommending that the 2007 version of the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) decertify direct record electronic (DRE) machines.

DREs are currently used by more than 30 percent of jurisdictions across the U.S. and are the exclusive voting technology in Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina.

According to an NIST paper to be discussed at a meeting of election regulators at NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., on Dec. 4 and 5, DRE vote totals cannot be audited because the machines are not software independent.

In other words, there is no means of verifying vote tallies other than by relying on the software that tabulated the results to begin with.

The machines currently in use are "more vulnerable to undetected programming errors or malicious code," according to the paper.

The NIST paper also noted that, "potentially, a single programmer could 'rig' a major election."

It recommends "requiring SI [software independent] voting systems in VVSG 2007."

The NIST is also going to recommend changes to the design of machines equipped with paper rolls that provide audit trails.

Currently, the paper rolls produce records that are illegible or otherwise unusable, and NIST is recommending that "paper rolls should not be used in new voting systems."

The lack of software independence has reared its ugly head in Sarasota's Congressional race, where 18,000 fewer votes were cast than in other races on the same ballot.

A recount was futile in that election because Sarasota uses a DRE-type machine.

This has provoked concerns that someone tampered with that election.

County officials told internetnews.com that the machines themselves are now being examined by a team of computer security experts and that they will finish their work by Friday.

Congress has also been on the case.

Hearings were held throughout the summer and fall, and legislation was introduced that would require the use of some form of voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT).

These efforts have gathered steam in response to reported machine malfunctions during the March 2006 primaries, as well as studies by the Brennan Center and Princeton University professor Ed Felten, as well as pressure from advocacy groups such as VotersUnite.org.

But evidence is emerging to the effect that paper trails may not be of much help.

For instance, a study of the 2006 primaries in Ohio commissioned by Cuyahoga County, Ohio, showed that the results of that election could not be verified despite the presence of VVPAT.

The study concluded that "the election system, in its entirety, exhibits shortcomings with extremely serious consequences, especially in the event of a close election."

Many former advocates of VVPAT, including John Gideon, executive director of VotersUnite, now favor requiring that all votes be recorded on paper ballots.

"DREs are unacceptable as voting devices and ... the addition of a VVPAT on a DRE is only a placebo to make some voters feel more comfortable," Gideon said in an e-mail.

Computer scientists and election experts such as Roy Saltman disagree with the idea of going back to paper ballots. "If you insist on paper you're tying elections to an old technology," he told internetnews.com.

Doug Jones of the University of Iowa suggested that election officials consider implementing new technologies that enable independent auditing of votes.

He pointed to a system devised by Ted Selker, co-director of the CalTech-MIT Voting Technology Project. "The state of the art systems aren't even on the market."

[wade moore]

Agreed, step in the right direction.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Without knowing the exact details of the implementation, I like the system in St. Joseph County in Indiana. We voted on paper ballots, and cast them into what appeared to be a point-of-submission scanner. Paper ballots plus optical scanners seem to me to be the sweet spot of fast counting plus optimum verifiability.

[Glengoyne]

Agreed, step in the right direction.

I'm not so sure. More like a false sense of security. Some of the places with "receipts" and paper trails, wound up with 10% plus of the receipts being blank. This was due to a variety of reasons. Paper jams, lack of ink/toner, lack of training and or incompetence on the part of precinct workers. Oh my favorite was the place that had eighteen thousand ballots where no one voted in a Congressional district race(I think it was a Congressional race). The cause? Poor ballot design within the touch screen. People just over looked it without knowing it was there.

The smart folks are in the districts throwing away their touch screen machines, and returning to more traditional tried and true methods.