It's a no go on new voting machines

[BBond]

Please take a read through this short story from Essex County, N.J. on their refusal to approve Sequoia's glitchy-no-receipt-easily-hacked voting machines.

There is a bill in the NJ legislature that will make paper receipts mandatory. Yet the Help America Vote Act (another Orwellian example of double-speak) requires updated voting machines by January 2006. If they don't comply, counties and states could lose millions in subsidies for the new machines.

So the ultimate result is that the federal and state governments are creating laws that force counties to adopt flawed voting systems. Systems which pring no record for the voter to verify their vote and are proven to be easily hacked and glitchy. Machines whose vote tallies can easily be changed with NO record of those changes ever being made.

Why not just delay HAVA a few months and use the old machines until a verifiable, more secure electronic system can be devised rather than force a system with known flaws on the American voters that HAVA is supposed to help?

This is what we have to look forward to in our future elections. County election boards being forced to accept machines that leave it up to whoever has the best hackers to choose the winner.

And the Bushies wonder why we insist they stole the last two elections. :roll:

Thanks to Essex County NJ for taking a stand.

It's a no go on new voting machines

County declines to make $7.5M purchase for update

Friday, June 10, 2005
BY JONATHAN CASIANO
Star-Ledger Staff

The Essex County freeholders voted against allocating $7.5 million for the purchase of new electronic voting machines last night, bucking state and federal laws requiring all voting machines to be updated by January 2006.

The vote came after more than four hours of passionate, and at times raucous, testimony from voters' rights advocates, election officials, computer experts and representatives from Sequoia Voting Systems, a California-based company that had negotiated to sell Essex County 700 machines.

Though the machines are certified by the state attorney general and used in Morris, Bergen and Union counties, they have been criticized for lacking the ability to print a receipt that voters could use to verify their vote. Critics also said the electronic machines are vulnerable to computer hackers and technological glitches.

Confronted with such fervent opposition, five of the nine freeholders said they could not go ahead with issuing bonds for the purchase.

"People have a lot of concerns with these machines," said Freeholder Ralph Caputo, who voted against the bond ordinance. "We need more time to look at this thing."

While machines that print receipts are surging in popularity around the country, they are not certified for use in New Jersey. Another machine favored by the activists tallies paper ballots using optical scans, much like the Scantron machines used to grade standardized tests. Yet, these machines are only certified in New Jersey for absentee ballots, not poll voting.

If Essex County were to purchase either type of machine, the state Attorney General's Office has said it would enjoin the county from using them. In addition, Essex would not receive the 75 percent reimbursement offered under the 2002 Help America Vote Act.

Alternative machines may gain certification in New Jersey as early as this fall, and bills are pending in both Congress and the state Legislature mandating that all voting machines print paper receipts.

But HAVA, and the supporting state statute, requires all voting systems to be upgraded by January 2006. If Essex is not in compliance by that date, the Attorney General's Office has said New Jersey could be forced to forfeit millions in federal reimbursement funds or be hit with other penalties.

Essex County Superintendent of Elections Carmen Casciano said that by voting not to issue bonds last night, the freeholders make it much more difficult to meet those deadlines.

"I'll have to talk to the attorney general because the bottom line is that we can't use the machines we currently have," Casciano said, noting also that 2,500 election workers have to be trained on whatever new machines are ordered before next April's elections. "We have to have machines that are compliant and now we have no money to buy them."

But Freeholder Muriel Shore said the legislation regulating voting machines is in a "state of flux" and she would not approve any expenditure "sitting here with a gun to our head."

"While the law is the law, we have not really attempted through any formal correspondence to request special consideration," said Shore, who voted against the machines. "No one can force you to make a bad a decision."

As cheers rang out through the Hall of Records in Newark, South Orange activist Roger Fox said the vote at the very least buys him and other advocates some time.

"Hopefully, this will give us an opportunity to work with the attorney general to get some other equipment certified and give and the freeholders a real choice," Fox said.

 

[MidasKnight]

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

Keep your cookie. And please choke on it.

 

[Stunt]

I don't know how i feel about the voting machines...I see benifits and problems with both systems of ballot counting. Voting machines (in theory) should be more accurate, faster results, easier user interface, but have questionable hacking problems and lack of a first hand record of vote. Traditional voting methods are slow to count, have a human error in counting and voting, and are subject to claims (like in WA) where whole voting boxes claimed to be missing or made.

I guess the way I figure is if you are a conspiracist and think the voting machines are evil for changing votes, you might as well buy into current widespread voter fraud as well.

I don't think the voting system will ever be unbiased...considering how uninformed the vast majority is, no matter how accurate the votes are, results will be skewed.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how i feel about the voting machines...I see benifits and problems with both systems of ballot counting. Voting machines (in theory) should be more accurate, faster results, easier user interface, but have questionable hacking problems and lack of a first hand record of vote. Traditional voting methods are slow to count, have a human error in counting and voting, and are subject to claims (like in WA) where whole voting boxes claimed to be missing or made.

I guess the way I figure is if you are a conspiracist and think the voting machines are evil for changing votes, you might as well buy into current widespread voter fraud as well.

I don't think the voting system will ever be unbiased...considering how uninformed the vast majority is, no matter how accurate the votes are, results will be skewed.

how are voting machines "hacked"? are they hooked up to the internet? how would a hacker gain access to a machine to alter results? it would seem if the machines were isolated to some degree that it would be pretty easy to avoid hacking issues. perhaps manual spot checks would be a good method but unfortunately it seems like if some group really wanted to mess up the vote they could accomplish it - nothing is foolproof.

 

[Stunt]

Well, hacked as in pre-coded with biased result processing...I consider that hacking...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how i feel about the voting machines...I see benifits and problems with both systems of ballot counting. Voting machines (in theory) should be more accurate, faster results, easier user interface, but have questionable hacking problems and lack of a first hand record of vote. Traditional voting methods are slow to count, have a human error in counting and voting, and are subject to claims (like in WA) where whole voting boxes claimed to be missing or made.

I guess the way I figure is if you are a conspiracist and think the voting machines are evil for changing votes, you might as well buy into current widespread voter fraud as well.

I don't think the voting system will ever be unbiased...considering how uninformed the vast majority is, no matter how accurate the votes are, results will be skewed.

how are voting machines "hacked"? are they hooked up to the internet? how would a hacker gain access to a machine to alter results? it would seem if the machines were isolated to some degree that it would be pretty easy to avoid hacking issues. perhaps manual spot checks would be a good method but unfortunately it seems like if some group really wanted to mess up the vote they could accomplish it - nothing is foolproof.

Some have appeared to be networked during the time of the election. Some of the tabulators had been hacked. I have a program on my computer that is run on touchscreen voting machines that is able to "flip" the votes at any point with just 3 touches on the screen.

Optical scanners can be hacked to record every 6 or 7 or whatever votes for one's opponents as their own. Plus tabulators can be hacked inside MS Access.... blek and then have votes altered. This can be done remotely as well.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Well, hacked as in pre-coded with biased result processing...I consider that hacking...

that should be pretty easy to avoid i would think - how complicated can the software in these things really be?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Stunt
Well, hacked as in pre-coded with biased result processing...I consider that hacking...

that should be pretty easy to avoid i would think - how complicated can the software in these things really be?

See my post above to see what program tabulators are being run on.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Stunt
Well, hacked as in pre-coded with biased result processing...I consider that hacking...

that should be pretty easy to avoid i would think - how complicated can the software in these things really be?

BBond is happy they aren't being implemented most likely because of the left's perception these machines are hacked as the only makers heavily fund federal US Republicans...
They are not hard to code, but I said "have questionable hacking problems" as noted by the Democrats and the like. That doesn't mean I believe that, but I wouldn't FULLY rule an instance of this.

If Delay runs for pres, Illinios gets the machines, and it goes Red you KNOW there's issues

 

[Jhhnn]

HAVA? Just more rightwing doublespeak.

With traditional methods, fraud is localized, and detectable. With current electronic voting methods, it can be generalized, rendered undetectable. Instead of a few hundred fraudulent votes here and there, the whole election can be rigged with a few keystrokes...

I'm not opposed to electronic voting methods, at all- so long as it's done on open source hardware and software, with verifiable papertrails- millions of geeks worldwide will examine the whole deal in minutiae, jump on the chance to expose any vulnerability. Can't hold back, because somebody else will figure it out, as well, steal the limelight...

As BBV has recently shown, even the long-trusted optical scan machines are vulnerable, not to mention the purely electronic systems. Apparently, they're not designed as voting machines, but rather to serve as implements of fraud...

Something realized long ago is that the mere possibilty of fraud means that fraud will occur, human nature being what it is...

 

[RightIsWrong]

This should answer a lot of the questions that are being asked. I think that the best method, is the Aussie way of having open-source apps running on a linux machine to ensure that there isn't any funny coding going on.

Link

The Problems

What about e-voting machines makes people so nervous?

To many experts like Rubin, the machines' biggest vulnerability is simple: There's no way for a voter to know what the machine records when they cast their vote and no voter-verified physical record available for recounts. If the software goes awry or is tricked into flipping votes, no one will be able to tell as long as the total ballot count stays the same.

What types of problems have occurred?

The November 2003 election in Fairfax County, Virginia, was a showcase for e-voting bugs. When polls closed at 7 p.m., many of the county's 223 precincts tried to transmit their results to the election center at once, tying up the line for hours. Many precinct judges gave up and drove their tallies to headquarters. A software problem delayed some results for 21 hours. Voters claimed that some of the booth machines crashed and had deleted some votes before their eyes. Election officials repaired ten broken machines off-site, with vote data inside, then returned them to service--a violation of state law.

Wasn't the software on these machines certified before the election?

Yes. But according to Harvard research fellow Rebecca Mercuri, a computer scientist who has worked elections for two decades, the certification tests look for logic errors and vote-counting mistakes, not security holes. Much of the testing is automated, and layers beneath the voting applications--compilers, OSs, firmware on the machines' chips--are not examined. Technically, she says, "The certification process is a joke." What's more, voting machine vendors have distributed uncertified code upgrades to their machines after the certification process was complete, but before an election.

Is e-voting more or less error-prone than other methods of voting?

The Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project was established in December 2000 to study voting machine reliability and generate guidelines for future voting systems. The project's 2001 report--still considered the definitive study of machine accuracy--found that in elections from 1988 to 2000, touch-screen (also called DRE, for direct record electronic) machines fared worse than paper ballots in many cases (see the project's report here). But generally, their margin of "residual votes"--those thrown out because of error--was within the range of other voting technologies. In presidential elections, for example, punch-card machines had the highest percentage of residual votes, at 2.5 percent. Touch-screen voting machines were slightly better, at 2.3 percent, and optically scanned paper ballots worked best, at 1.5 percent.

Where does e-voting break down?

Closed source code: According to Rubin, "The biggest potential [for election fraud] is when the original code is being written." Mercuri, Rubin, and Selker agree: Since the public can't inspect the code these machines run, a programmer who's been bribed or threatened, or a manufacturer willing to rig an election, would have the best chance to hack the vote. And while open-sourcing the code of e-voting machines (as the Australian Capital Territory did in its 2001 e-voting pilot program) would help fix security holes and put people's minds at ease, it's not a panacea (see "Is Open Source the Answer?").

Poorly implemented security: Independent consulting firm RABA Technologies audited the Diebold machines used in Rubin's Maryland precinct during a simulated vote. They found ample holes for hackers who could get time alone with the machines. One tester was able to pick the physical locks securing the PCMCIA flash memory card that stores the votes in about 10 seconds and gained access to a keyboard port. By attaching a standard keyboard to the voting machine, RABA's team was able to invoke supervisory functions that let them overwrite election results without leaving a trace.

But pulling off any of those hacks without some type of inside access to the voting machines would be extremely difficult. Rubin, whose 2003 report made the machines sound like Swiss cheese, told PC World that his experience at the polls changed his mind: "I'm becoming more and more convinced that the risks of a voter walking in off the street and throwing the whole election are pretty small."

PCs in the mix: Most touch-screen systems run proprietary operating systems in the booths, though Diebold's machines run on Windows CE. But nearly all systems collect votes on PCs at election headquarters. The PC in the system RABA evaluated hadn't gotten the latest Microsoft security upgrades, which left it vulnerable to the Blaster worm and other viruses should it be connected to the Net.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how i feel about the voting machines...I see benifits and problems with both systems of ballot counting. Voting machines (in theory) should be more accurate, faster results, easier user interface, but have questionable hacking problems and lack of a first hand record of vote. Traditional voting methods are slow to count, have a human error in counting and voting, and are subject to claims (like in WA) where whole voting boxes claimed to be missing or made.

I guess the way I figure is if you are a conspiracist and think the voting machines are evil for changing votes, you might as well buy into current widespread voter fraud as well.

I don't think the voting system will ever be unbiased...considering how uninformed the vast majority is, no matter how accurate the votes are, results will be skewed.

how are voting machines "hacked"? are they hooked up to the internet? how would a hacker gain access to a machine to alter results? it would seem if the machines were isolated to some degree that it would be pretty easy to avoid hacking issues. perhaps manual spot checks would be a good method but unfortunately it seems like if some group really wanted to mess up the vote they could accomplish it - nothing is foolproof.

From what I've read on the subject, yes, the machines have to be connected to a computer with internet access at each polling place to transfer data to central repositories.

Nothing is foolproof. But that doesn't excuse using know shoddy, glitchy, easily hacked, and NON-VERIFIABLE methods to determine who will win our supposed free and democratic elections.

 

[BBond]

And what about little problems like this?

E-Vote Software Leaked Online

:roll:

The possibilities are endless. KKKarl Rove is having a field day with this, I'm certain.

 

[BBond]

And Sequoia isn't even an American company!!!

British firm buys controlling interest in Sequoia Voting Systems