Get Ready For Florida Vote Fraud Part II

[subgenius]

New Voting Systems Assailed
Computer Experts Cite Fraud Potential
...
Electronic terminals eliminate hanging chads, pencil erasure marks and the chance that a voter would accidentally select too many candidates. Under the new systems, voters touch the screen or turn a dial to make their choices and see confirmation of those choices before casting their votes, which are tallied right in the terminal. Recounts are just a matter of retrieving the data from the computer again. The only record of the vote is what is stored there.

Critics of such systems say that they are vulnerable to tampering, to human error and to computer malfunctions -- and that they lack the most obvious protection, a separate, paper receipt that a voter can confirm after voting and that can be recounted if problems are suspected.
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39241-2003Mar27.html

[NoZed Avenger]

Knowing a little bit about Florida voting, I would say its more like vote fraud XC, not II.


Take a deep breath. Let it go.


NA

[Ladewig]

Recounts are just a matter of retrieving the data from the computer again. The only record of the vote is what is stored there.

As someone who has worked in a computer consulting company, I have to confess to having very little trust in computers - or more precisely, having very little trust in those people operating, setting parameters on, or feeding inputs into computers. I cannot understand how anyone with even a passing knowledge of Bill Gates products can consider the proposed method an improvement.

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by Ladewig


As someone who has worked in a computer consulting company, I have to confess to having very little trust in computers - or more precisely, having very little trust in those people operating, setting parameters on, or feeding inputs into computers. I cannot understand how anyone with even a passing knowledge of Bill Gates products can consider the proposed method an improvement.
This is a subject that comes up frequenctly on the Risks Digest http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks. To summarise the concensus, any electronic voting system that does not incorporate paper records that can later be used for verification is wide open to fraud and other problems.

The Risks Digest is a good starting point for anyone interested in this topic. Enter "voting" or "election" into the search engine.

[corplinx]

Hanging chads aren't votes. That was the real fraud.

[LuxFerum]

in Brazil this system is already in use.

and I think that is much better than the paper system.

[Advocate]

It seems to me this change is more of a PR move than any attempt to actually make fraud more difficult. If anything, it makes it easier, but it is not perceived that way. Most people see computer technology and it makes them feel better.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by corplinx
Hanging chads aren't votes. That was the real fraud.

Thank you.

[Thumper]

Capital punishment for citizens named Chad? =)

Seriously now folks,...

Any voting needs a way of counting through a separate method. I would recommend a computer that spits out a ballot as a primary means of counting. That ballot would be then be tabulated most easily using OCR software. If a recount is mandated, then the computer results could be downloaded or the ballots could be counted by hand.

Two cents from Tennessee.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by corplinx
Hanging chads aren't votes. That was the real fraud.

Then I guess pregnant chads are right out?

:D

AS

[schplurg]

Besides the need for a change in the method of actual voting, I came across another potential problem in the last Pres. election.

Nobody asked me for my I.D! My town has a population of roughly 25,000 - 30,000. I walked into the polling center, told them my name (I could actually see it on the list and had to point it out to the woman handling it). They crossed off my name with a pen, and that was it.

I could have returned several times that day and voted under somebody elses name. That was a little unnerving.

As for the computerized voting terminals, I would be much more comfortable receiving a printed receipt showing my selections. As mentioned earlier, computers are not infallible, and the potential for fraud would be great, and possibly very hard to prove as well. I want a hardcopy!

[Lemastre]

It seemed to me that the Florida presidential vote might have been resolved a lot easier had more voters balloted properly in the first place. It appeared that the discovery of so many ambiguous and improperly done ballots gave all sides a shot at tilting the outcome their way, and away we went.

Punch-out ballots have been used enough that voters should be able to do them. Hanging chads and the confusing formats that were blamed for misplaced punches always plague punch-out ballots. Every voter should by now be prepared to overcome them. (The formats that were cited as confusing to Florida voters didn't appear all that confusing to me, however.)

Maybe voter training should be instituted, through the news media, at public libraries, etc., to familiarize voters with what the ballots look like and how to make them work, with the emphasis on how to make them work. And it wouldn't be improper, I would think, to do it right at the polling place so that each voter would be shown exactly what pitfalls to avoid before receiving a ballot.

Of course, if voting officials don't cooperate in ensuring proper balloting, there may always be problems.

[corplinx]

In punchcard counties in florida, voters get sent instructions, see them again in the voting area, and then again in the voting booth. Not to mention, it is very hard to create a hanging chad even intentionally. Having your vote disqualified because it isnt punched through is a good form of voting natural selection. ;)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Having your vote disqualified because it isnt punched through is a good form of voting natural selection. ;)
Its sad to see so many are willing to devalue the right to vote. Wealth, literacy, intelligence or physical coordination are not constitutional requirements. If you think they should be you should seek a constitutional amendment. But watch what you ask for you might get it. Wait until you're 80 or have Parkinson's.
Why should a voter's intention be discarded because of a failure of a system? There is no dispute that they intended to vote nor for whom. Just because your interests are served the fewer the votes are counted doesn't make it right.
The two non-violent checks on inevitable overreaching by the sovereign: the right to vote and the Bill of Rights.
Surely even you would at least claim that you would like a system with fewer errors wouldn't you?
That's what this thread is about.
If its so hard to even intentionally create a hanging chad why are you so willing to throw away that person's constitutional right when they obviously tried hard to vote? Who made the chad, a ghost?

[Pyrrho]

People who can't follow simple instructions shouldn't vote.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
People who can't follow simple instructions shouldn't vote.
Shouldn't is different than can't. That is not the law. If you want that you have to amend the Constitution.
Obviously I could make some remarks about the intelligence of some of the minority that voted in the last election.
Like Stewart Udall said when in response to his speech an admirer said, "Every thinking person in America will vote for you."

"That's not enough, I need a majority."

It is also elitist thinking, and just plain wrong to think that everyone who's vote was spoiled did not follow directions.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
People who can't follow simple instructions shouldn't vote. I suppose your remark is based on an assumption that spoiled ballots are all created by voters too stupid or mentally deficient to comprehend how to complete the ballot or make an informed choice. Indeed, there are probably some of those. I also think many older voters and others with various physical handicaps simply can't manage all the mechanics of balloting and need instruction, or maybe even physical assistance, at the polling place. Problems of manual dexterity or vision should not prevent voters from having their choices registered. I think there are even provisions for qualified assistants to visit impaired persons and help them fill out a ballot wherever they are.

[schplurg]

Perhaps all of the ballots should work and look the same from state to state, so that California's ballots look just like those in Florida, etc. If everyone could agree on a particular system and make that the standard throughout the nation, then voter confusion might be less of an issue. It would certainly be a weaker excuse.

There may be constitutional issues regarding individual states being able to choose their own methods, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't voluntarily agree on a national standard.

Then again, the fact that Florida and California may use the same system, wouldn't necessarily make it any easier for someone in either state to understand. It would, however, be harder for a state to claim "fraud" due to an improper voting method. Plus it might be easier to get voting instructions when the whole nation uses a similar system. For instance, I could explain the system to my aunt in Washington state, or direct her to a website that has instructions.

Funny how a problem that seems so simple at first glance can be so difficult to solve.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
[B]Critics of such systems say that they are vulnerable to tampering, to human error and to computer malfunctions -- and that they lack the most obvious protection, a separate, paper receipt that a voter can confirm after voting and that can be recounted if problems are suspected.
...

I would say that a paper printout backup would be an obvious necessity if you're going to consider computer tabulations. But as far as tampering etc., you do have one advantage with an election computer that ordinary computer systems don't: A hacker would have less than one day to compromise the system.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ladewig
As someone who has worked in a computer consulting company, I have to confess to having very little trust in computers - or more precisely, having very little trust in those people operating, setting parameters on, or feeding inputs into computers. I cannot understand how anyone with even a passing knowledge of Bill Gates products can consider the proposed method an improvement.

Anyone with any sense would make these embedded systems, not PCs.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek


Anyone with any sense would make these embedded systems, not PCs.

That is correct. However, we are talking about government. My guess is windows PCs with wireless networking to make 'em good and crackable.

[Ladewig]

Anyone with any sense would make these embedded systems, not PCs.

Given how contracts are awarded in some states, the phrase "anyone with any sense," may not apply.

But even if good sense prevailed, we must note that in Florida alone, there were incidents of boxes of ballots turning up in people's cars and voting machines being found in the posession of unauthorized people. These facts indicate that there is enough misfeasance and malfeasance to require some type of check or written receipt in addition to computer tabulated totals.

Lastly, even embedded systems require someone at some point to enter parameters. In the 2000 election in Florida, in some counties voters handed their punched ballots to voter registration clerks who fed the ballots through scanning machines. Some counties set the machines to reject ballots where two votes were cast for the same race and other counties set the machines to accept all ballots. Different standards in different counties using the same ballot violates the spirit if not the letter of voting laws.

[Ladewig]

Perhaps all of the ballots should work and look the same from state to state, so that California's ballots look just like those in Florida, etc.

Funny how a problem that seems so simple at first glance can be so difficult to solve.

This proposal was put forth immediately after the 2000 election, but all progress toward this solution ended as soon as discussions about who should pay for it began. The feds said to the states, "the law requires you to pay for elections," and the states responded with, "if you are making the requirements then you are footing the bill."

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by corplinx
Hanging chads aren't votes. That was the real fraud. Originally posted by Wolverine
Thank you. If you say so.

[Denise]

This happened to me on the last election here. Among the offices up for vote was US Senator, Governor, and there was also a large school board levy.

I work twelve hour night shifts 6 to 6, and the election day fell on a day that I was just coming off my shift, and still had to go in that night. When one works 12 hour shifts it is hard to get enough sleep, especially since I have to stay up until 9:30 to take my daughter to school, and get her at 4.

Anyheeew, I went to vote at about 7 am, right when the polls opened. Waiting... Waiting... poll workers frantically calling on cell phones. They had the wrong voter books, the books where we sign our name to vote! That meant that another polling place had our books! Yep, it was funny, but I was damn tired so I went home.

I called a local TV station to tell them that I had been "disenfranchised" because I thought it would be pretty hilarious. They didn't even put a blurb in the news. Dammit!!!! If this happened in Florida it would have been on CNN!!!!!

Anyways, I didn't really feel disenfranchised, but I thought it was pretty funny. And I did go and vote later in the day anyhow, of course.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise

I called a local TV station to tell them that I had been "disenfranchised" because I thought it would be pretty hilarious. They didn't even put a blurb in the news. Dammit!!!! If this happened in Florida it would have been on CNN!!!!!

Anyways, I didn't really feel disenfranchised, but I thought it was pretty funny. And I did go and vote later in the day anyhow, of course.

i think there is a difference between a stuff up and a systemic error.

[Denise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i think there is a difference between a stuff up and a systemic error.

I thought in the Florida debacle that the fault was irrelevent. Ie, there's a raid on a drug house in the neighborhood- disenfranchised! People are too stupid to punch a hole- disenfranchised! So, since those people were disanfranchised, I was for sure disenfranchised. Yep.:D

[Denise]

As a side note, I wonder how many parents had their kids vote with the infamous confusing Broward County ballot. Our paper printed the "confusing" butterfly ballot in our local paper to show what the uproar was about. I gave it to my daughter, who is nine now and told her to "vote" for Gore. She said she wanted to vote for Bush, but I said it's not a real vote, so vote for Gore. She had no problem voting for Gore on the butterfly ballot. Well, I thought it was humorous anyhow.

I also saw where they had classrooms full of grade school children voting on the same ballot and had no prob. Just thought I'd share.