close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20070401051349/http://www.dailykos.com:80/story/2005/6/1/20201/90005

Daily Kos

FL: Optical Scanners WERE Hacked? Proof? You decide!

Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 05:20:01 PM PDT

Well I guess this is really no surprise....

OPTICAL SCAN MACHINES HACKED IN FLORIDA: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5921.html

Tallahassee, FL: "Are we having fun yet?"

This is the message that appeared in the window of a county optical scan machine, startling Leon County Information Systems Officer Thomas James. Visibly shaken, he immediately turned the machine off.

Diebold's opti-scan (paper ballot) voting system uses a curious memory card design, offering penetration by a lone programmer such that standard canvassing procedures cannot detect election manipulation.

The Diebold optical scan system was used in about 800 jurisdictions in 2004. Among them were several hotbeds of controversy: Volusia County (FL); King County (WA); and the New Hampshire primary election, where machine results differed markedly from hand-counted localities.

New regs: Counting paper ballots forbidden

Some states prohibit elections officials from checking on optical scan tallies by examining the paper ballots. In Washington, according to former supervisor of elections Julie Anne Kempf, Secretary of State Sam Reed declared such spontaneous checkups to be "unauthorized recounts." New Florida regulations will forbid counting paper ballots, even in recounts, except in highly unusual circumstances. Without paper ballot hand-counts, the hacks demonstrated below show that optical-scan elections can be destroyed in seconds.

A little man living in every ballot box

The Diebold optical scan system uses a dangerous programming methodology, with an executable program living inside the electronic ballot box. This method is the equivalent of having a little man living in the ballot box, holding an eraser and a pencil. With an executable program in the memory card, no Diebold opti-scan ballot box can be considered "empty" at the start of the election.

The Black Box Voting team proved that the Diebold optical scan program, housed on a chip inside the voting machine, places a call to a program living in the removable memory card during the election. The demonstration also showed that the executable program on the memory card (ballot box) can easily be changed, and that checks and balances, required by FEC standards to catch unauthorized changes, were not implemented by Diebold -- yet the system was certified anyway.

The Diebold system in Leon County, Florida succumbed to multiple attacks.

Ion Sancho: Truth and Excellence in Elections

Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho and Information Systems Officer Thomas James had already implemented security procedures in Leon County far exceeding the norm in elections management. This testing, done by a team of researchers including Black Box Voting, independent filmmakers, security expert Dr. Herbert Thompson, and special consultant Harri Hursti, was authorized by Mr. Sancho, in an unusual act of openness and courage, to identify any remaining holes in Leon County's election security.

The results of the memory card hack demonstration will assist elections supervisors throughout the U.S., by emphasizing the critical importance of accounting for each and every memory card and protecting access.

Findings:

Computer expert Harri Hursti gained control over Leon County memory cards, which handle the vote-reporting from the precincts. Dr. Herbert Thompson, a security expert, took control of the Leon County central tabulator by implanting a trojan horse-like script.

Two programmers can become a lone programmer, says Hursti, who has figured out a way to control the entire central tabulator by way of a single memory card swap, and also how to make tampered polling place tapes match tampered central tabulator results. This more complex approach is untested, but based on testing performed May 26, Hursti says he has absolutely no reason to believe it wouldn't work.

Three memory card tests demonstrated successful manipulation of election results, and showed that 1990 and 2002 FEC-required safeguards are being violated in the Diebold version 1.94 opti-scan system.

Three memory card hacks

  1. An altered memory card (electronic ballot box) was substituted for a real one. The optical scan machine performed seamlessly, issuing a report that looked like the real thing. No checksum captured the change in the executable program Diebold designed into the memory card.

  2. A second altered memory card was demonstrated, using a program that was shorter than the original. It still worked, showing that there is also no check for the number of bytes in the program.

  3. A third altered memory card was demonstrated with the votes themselves changed, showing that the data block (votes) can be altered without triggering any error message.

How to "Roll over the odometer" in Diebold optical scan machines

Integer overflow checks do not seem to exist in this system, making it possible to stuff the ballot box without triggering any error message. This would be like pre-loading minus 100 votes for Tom and plus 100 votes for Rick (-100+100=ZERO) -- changing the candidate totals without changing the overall number of votes.

A more precise comparison would be this: The odometer on a car rolls over to zero after 999,999. In the Diebold system tested, the rollover to zero happens at 65,536 votes. By pre-loading 65,511 votes for a candidate, after 25 real votes appear (65,511 plus 25 = 65,536) the report "rolls over" so that the candidate's total is ZERO.

This manipulation can be balanced out by preloading votes for candidate "A" at 65,511 and candidate "B" at 25 votes -- producing an articifial 50-vote spread between the candidates, which will not be obvious after the first 25 votes for candidate "A" roll over to zero. The "negative 25" votes from the odometer rollover counterbalance the "plus 25" votes for the other candidates, making the total number of votes cast at the end of the day exactly equal to the number of voters.

While testing the hack on the Leon County optical scan machine, Hursti was stunned to find that pre-stuffing the ballot box to "roll over the odometer" produced no error message whatsoever.*

*We did not have the opportunity to scan ballots after stuffing the ballot box. Therefore, the rollover to zero was not tested in Leon County. This integer overflow capability is discernable in the program itself. We did have the opportunity to test a pre-stuffed ballot box, which showed that pre-loaded ballot boxes do not trigger any error message.

Simple tweaks to pass L&A test and survive zero tape

Though the additional tweaks were not demonstrated at the Leon County elections office, Hursti believes that the integer overflow hack can be covered up on the "zero tape" produced at the beginning of the election. The programming to cover up manipulations during the "logic & accuracy test" is even simpler, since the program allows you to specify on which reports (and, if you like, date and time of day) the manipulation will affect.

The testing demonstrated, using the actual voting system used in a real elections office, that Diebold programmers developed a system that sacrifices security in favor of dangerously flexible programming, violating FEC standards and calling the actions of ITA testing labs and certifiers into question.

In the case of Leon County, inside access was used to achieve the hacks, but there are numerous ways to introduce the hacks without inside access. Outside access methods will be described in the technical report to be released in mid-June.

Security concerns

Putting an executable program into removable memory card "ballot boxes" -- and then programming the opti-scan chip to call and invoke whatever program is in the live ballot box during the middle of an election -- is a mind-boggling design from a security standpoint. Combining this idiotic design with a program that doesn't even check to see whether someone has tampered with it constitutes negligence and should result in a product recall.

Counties that purchased the Diebold 1.94 optical scan machines should not pay for any upgraded program; instead, Diebold should be required to recall the faulty program and correct the problem at its own expense.

None of the attacks left any telltale marks, rendering all audits and logs useless, except for hand-counting all the paper ballots.

Is it real? Or is it Memorex?

For example, Election Supervisor Ion Sancho was unable to tell, at first, whether the poll tape printed with manipulated results was the real thing. Only the message at the end of the tape, which read "Is this real? Or is it Memorex?" identified the tape as a tampered version of results.

In another test, Congresswoman Corrine Brown (FL-Dem) was shocked to see the impact of a trojan implanted by Dr. Herbert Thompson. She asked if the program could be manipulated in such a way as to flip every fifth vote.

"No problem," Dr. Thompson replied.

"It IS a problem. It's a PROBLEM!" exclaimed Brown, whose district includes the troubled Volusia County, along with Duval County -- both currently using the Diebold opti-scan system.

This system is also used in Congressman John Conyers' home district, in contentious King County, Washington, and in Lucas County, Ohio (where six election officials resigned or were suspended after many irregularities were found.)

Diebold optical scans were used in San Diego for its ill-fated mayoral election in Nov. 2004.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Optical scan systems have paper ballots, but election officials are crippled in their ability to hand count these ballots due to restrictive state regulations and budget limitations.

The canvassing (audit) procedure used to certify results from optical scan systems involves comparing the "poll tapes" (cash register-like results receipts) with the printout from the central tabulator. These tests demonstrate that both results can be manipulated easily and quickly.

Minimum requirements to perform this hack:

  1. A single specimen memory card from any county using the Diebold 1.94 optical scan series. (These cards were seen scattered on tables in King County, piled in baskets accessible to the public in Georgia, and jumbled on desktops in Volusia county.)

  2. A copy of the compiler for the AccuBasic program. (These compilers have been fairly widely distributed by Diebold and its predecessor company, and there are workarounds if no compiler is available.)

  3. Modest working language of any one of the higher level computer languages (Pascal, C, Cobol, Basic, Fortran...) along with introductory-level knowledge of assembler or machine language. (Machine language knowledge needed is less than an advanced refrigerator or TV repairmen needs. The optical scan system is much simpler than modern appliances).

The existence of the executable program in the memory card was discernable from a review of the Diebold memos. The test hacks took just a few hours for Black Box Voting consultants to develop.

Nearly 800 jurisdictions conducted a presidential election on this system. This system is so profoundly hackable that an advanced-level TV repairman can manipulate votes on it.

Black Box Voting asked Dr. Thompson and Hursti to examine the central tabulator and the optical scan system after becoming concerned that not enough attention had been paid to optical scans, tabulators and remote access.

Thompson and Hursti each found the vulnerabilities for their respective hacks in less than 24 hours.

"Open for Business"

When it comes to this optical-scan system, as Hursti says, "It's not that they left the door open. There is no door. This system is 'open for business.'"

The question now is: How brisk has business been? Based on this new evidence, it is time to sequester and examine the memory cards used with Diebold optical scans in Nov. 2004.

The popularity of tamper-friendly machines that are "open for business" in heavily Democratic areas may explain the lethargy with which Democratic leaders have been approaching voting machine security concerns.

The enthusiasm with which Republicans have endorsed machines with no paper ballots at all indicates that neither party really wants to have intact auditing of elections.

The ease with which a system -- which clearly violates dozens of FEC standards going back to 1990 -- was certified calls into question the honesty, competence, and personal financial transactions of both testing labs and NASED certifiers.

Revamp and update hand-counted paper ballot technology?

Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea of hand-counted paper ballots, printed by machines for legibility, with color-coded choices for quick, easy, accurate sorting and counting. We should also take another look at bringing counting teams in when the polls close, to relieve tired poll workers.

This report is the "non-techie" version of a longer report, to be made available around mid-June, with more technical information.

Discuss this article here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/5936.html

* * *
NEW INFORMATION POSTED SEVERAL TIMES A DAY at http://www.blackboxvoting.org - Comprehensive updates from mainstream news sources, new documents in the archive, video clips from investigations, new consumer reports

To participate in discussions, go to:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/discus.cgi

To donate: Send check to 330 SW 43rd St Suite K, PMB 547, Renton WA 98055 or donate by credit card: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html

* * * *
NEWS REPORTERS:
Contact info - 425-793-1030, 206-354-5723, or 206-335-7747 bev@blackboxvoting.org  or Kathleen@blackboxvoting.org

* * * *
If you prefer not to receive any updates, hit reply and put "REMOVE" in subject line.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED AS LONG AS YOU PROVIDE A LINK. This is one of the most important stories in two years. Please forward to your lists.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink | 240 comments

  •  although I followed (3.66 / 3)

    votergate closely, I've never been a big Bev/BBV fan (she could have come to the Conyers hearing, and I also think she is too disorganized), but I am definitely wowed by this diary. Recommended.
    •  votergate.org (4.00 / 2)

      film there gives anatomy of a hack...that guy yobie benjamin from votewatch gives a great summary of the broad and deep "attack surface" in touchscreen voting systems....

      i think "swiss cheese" was the term another computer security expert used...

      check it out...

      •  This doesn't make sense (4.00 / 2)

        In the aftermath of the 2004 election there was a huge amount of diary space given over to Bev and BBV.  What I got from it was that the group was probably well-intentioned, but was unwilling or unable to "put up or shut up" when it came to proving many of their claims.  Unfortunately, alot of money was sent to this group by Kossacks and others in the blogosphere.

        Now we have a diary that provides a bunch of interesting content with a number of links to show the legitimacy of the content, but guess what? All the links are to BBV.  It's deja vu all over again.

        It is very hard for me to take any of this seriously, given the history I just described.  For the record, I am probably what Addison below describes as a fraudster.  I believe the 2004 election was not legitimate and that the results were probably tampered with.  I have generally been on the fraudster side in most of my posts in the election diaries and I do think there is a core group of longtime Kossacks who seem unreasonably unwilling to consider that results fraud/tampering could have occurred.

        Sub Hunter may be a troll, I don't know, but I agree that this diary is sadly lacking in verifiable content.  I say "sadly" because I think this diary (without any non-BBV links) hurts the cause.

        Hey ... get up ... and remember ... 9/11 changed nothing.

        by CalbraithRodgers on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:38:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  see my post below (2.50 / 2)

          the claims are bogus.

          read joshua frank's "Left Out: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush"

          by format flip on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:40:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not taking sides, but... (4.00 / 3)

            ... the mere fact that many states/precincts use non-verifiable voting techniques is the real problem. As you point out, optical scan is a verifiable system. I worry much more about the unverifiable touch-screen systems. Until those are supplemented with a voter verified paper trail, I wont be satisfied and every election will be questionable.

            Of course, if we could just get minorities and youngsters voting in the same proportion as white males, the results would likely be a democratic landslide.

            •  No. the tabulators for opti-scans can be (4.00 / 5)

              corruptible.

              If the state laws discourage or impede hand counts of the paper ballots as a check (like Washington state), then opti-scan tabulating needs the same scrutiny as touchscreens.

              Opti-scans make sense as long as they're watched, audited – and not black-boxed.

              •  Obviously... (4.00 / 2)

                ... if the law is prohibiting hand/eye verification of the optical scan ballots, then it doesn't fit my criteria of being verifiable and is still of concern. But the fact a paper record does exist with opti-scan places it one step closer to being verifiable than a system with no paper record. No doubt, we do need to eliminate those laws preventing verification of opti-scan, but overall I am much more concerned with paperless touchscreen.
              •  Do you want PROOF? (4.00 / 3)

                Or at least suspicion?

                Check out the slots voting in November in Broward and Pinellas County. It doesn't smell right.  Passions ran high about the pro-gambling constitutional amendment. It was covered by the Thoroughbred Times and the Florida Baptist Witness.

                The link is a new diary about it that is easily a companion to hummingbird's great post here.

        •  No (none / 1)

          No, you are clearly not a fraudster. First off you learned your lesson vis-a-vis BBV. Fraudsters can't differentiate between the possession of facts and the possession of speculation. When you point out their lack of facts they don't respond directly but merely spit out more speculation at you.
        •  No (none / 0)

          No, you are clearly not a fraudster. First off you learned your lesson vis-a-vis BBV. Fraudsters can't differentiate between the possession of facts and the possession of speculation. When you point out their lack of facts they don't respond directly but merely spit out more speculation at you.
        •  I agree with much of your assessment... (4.00 / 2)

          regarding the evidentiary support for statements made by many activists.

          Nonetheless, the votergate.org site and the VOTERGATE film is not associated with activist groups.  It looked solely at how easily the machines could be hacked.  In particular, the concern there seems to be that tech support (or other folks with access) hacks of the central server on election night is a real problem.

          Last point: A Federally-legislated mandatory audit protocol of 5-10% of paper ballots would significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful election night hack.

    •  this diary is bogus ... (2.54 / 11)

      first, i live in new hampshire. there has been no "hotbed of controversy" with the optical scanning machines in our state. in fact, secretary of state bill gardner has performed numerous recounts and the results from optical scanning machines are usually the same as the hand recounts correct. the problems usually stem from human errors on the ballots - not rigged optical machines. this has been proven again and again and again, recount after recount. gardner has said in interviews that the recounts in the state have proven the machines complete mistake proof. gardner, by the way, is a registered democrat. ralph nader also proved that the machines are correct when he went and had a number of precincts around the state recounted. again, the machines were accurate; the only new votes gained for nader, bush, and kerry were human errors and marks on the paper ballots.

      from the boston globe, 12/4/4:

      If recounts are the skeptics' best hope to uncover systemic irregularities, they got off to a rocky start in New Hampshire. Completed yesterday at the request of independent candidate Ralph Nader, the Granite State re-tally of 50,600 votes in 11 towns and city wards that use optical scanners increased Kerry's total by 87 votes and Bush's by 62.
      Secretary of State William M. Gardner said scanned ballots have worked well in New Hampshire. Indeed, the largest discrepancies found this year were in a legislative race involving hand-counted ballots, he said.

      volusia county problems? does the bev harris conspiracy clan mean the same volusia county where the miami herald had all the paper ballots recounted and found the hand count almost exactly the same as the machine count?

      again, from the boston globe:

      Much of the postelection focus on Florida resulted from a pair of analyses that claimed Bush's vote totals in the state were inflated by two vote-counting technologies.
      The first analysis originated on the Web and cited results in rural, overwhelmingly Democratic counties in Florida's panhandle, where Bush crushed Kerry. All use optical scanners. What the analysis failed to note is that Bush routed Gore by nearly equal margins four years ago in the same conservative counties that have been tilting Republican for years in national elections. A team of Miami Herald reporters reviewed 17,000 ballots in three of the counties, basically confirming the election results.

      again, get over it. move on.

      read joshua frank's "Left Out: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush"

      by format flip on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:31:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which ballots, which machines with which software? (4.00 / 2)

        Of course, any computerized ballot system can be honest.

        But since they're now all programmable, and apparently highly insecurely so, it's as dumb as saying "all computers protect people's privacy", which isn't true if they've been intentionally hacked and sabotaged.

        New Hampshire wasn't a critical state.

        And suppose the hacked machines made printed ballots which are incorrect as well?   How many people physically inspected them, and are they human-readable?

        Fascism is indistinguishable from any parody thereof.

        by mbkennel on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:32:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, (4.00 / 4)

        and as Jon Stewart just finished mocking when Tom Delay's supporters brought out your same argument, there are a number of laws that Tom Delay didn't break.

        The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

        by Thumb on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:17:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (3.60 / 5)

        Don't you even get it that it's not really about being honest but about knowing that it was honest.

        I'm possibly making a mistake here by thinking that a rational thought might get through.

        Suppose that five guys walked by you and one of them picked your pocket of your wallet which has $10,000 in cash in it. You catch 4 of them but one gets away. You ask them "did you take my wallet"? They all say "no". Do you say "Oh, okay it must've been the one who got away" or do you demand a strip search?

        Why do we have laws? Why are there rules in games? Because there will always be some people who want to break the laws or rules to win.

        -4.25, -6.87: The next great step will be taken from here.

        by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 11:04:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Verified spoilage with optical scanners (4.00 / 10)

        verified.  

        In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.

        This year, it could get worse.

        These ugly racial statistics are hidden away in the mathematical thickets of the appendices to official reports coming out of the investigation of ballot-box monkey business in Florida from the last go-'round.

        How do you spoil 2 million ballots? Not by leaving them out of the fridge too long. A stray mark, a jammed machine, a punch card punched twice will do it. It's easy to lose your vote, especially when some politicians want your vote lost.

        While investigating the 2000 ballot count in Florida for BBC Television, I saw firsthand how the spoilage game was played -- with black voters the predetermined losers.

        Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."

        By contrast, in neighboring Tallahassee, the capital, vote spoilage was nearly zip; every vote counted. The difference? In Tallahassee's white- majority county, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners. If they added a stray mark, they received another ballot with instructions to correct it.

        In other words, in the white county, make a mistake and get another ballot; in the black county, make a mistake, your ballot is tossed.

        The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.

        But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.

        Philip Klinkner, the statistician working on the Edley investigations, concluded, "It appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the U.S.A. --
        about 1 million votes -- were cast by non-white voters."

        This "no count," as the Civil Rights Commission calls it, is no accident. In Florida, for example, I discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote- count procedures.

        •  You have hit the nail on the head (4.00 / 3)

          The fact that every precinct doesn't have its own scanning machine to "check" the validity of the ballot is the real problem with optical scan voting.

          What I'd like to know is why hasn't every precinct demanded they have a scanner?

          Who decides what assistance is given by the state to buy them?

          Leveling the playing field on that issue in Florida alone would have changed the outcome of the 2000 election.

          Rarely is the question asked "Is our President learning?"

          by j4k on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 08:54:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for reminding us about the other ballots (4.00 / 3)

          Greg Palast did a great investigative piece, which you've linked. I think a lot of people have forgotten that there were still lots of paper ballots that never got counted.

          I have tried contacting a number of parties involved in the Ohio recount and not one of them can confirm whether the media has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to examine the paper ballots that were not counted. If anyone here has info about that, please respond to my comment.

          As for touch screen machines that can be fixed without a paper trail, based on what I've read from a number of sources, it's possible. But whether it's provable remains to be seen.

          How in the world did people in the affected states allow their elected officials to pass laws banning recounts? The GOP is doing everything it can to prevent recounts, paper trails, accountability, etc. What do they fear?

          If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten--George Carlin

      •  NH PRIMARY, not election (3.66 / 3)

        is what the diarist mentions up above.

        And I do remember some post on some site (back in my pre-dKos, DFA days) after the primary about the optical scan machines and how the Kerry votes were way out of whack with paper ballot counties.

        (Not mentioned to bash Kerry (who would have been a fantastic President), but there are those of us who feel that the GOP schemer's dream candidate was Kerry, and thus it was in their best interest to tinker with the primary in his favor if possible)

  •  Why did I know (none / 1)

    this was going to be a REALLY LONG diary?

    Must be my hat.

    Today's Special: Chickenhawk, slow-baked in its mother's basement.

    by Earl on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 05:29:36 PM PDT

  •  Tip Jar (3.93 / 30)

    'nugg said.  

    Actually i'm not a bev fan either but this is a story that Kathleen did, not Bev... :)

  •  All this proves is the possibility of fraud. (4.00 / 3)

    To prove fraud, you must show who, where, what, when, and how.
    •  There Are More Questions Than That, Actually (4.00 / 44)


      1. Can these machines be hacked?

      The answer appears to be yes.

      2. Were these machines hacked in 2004?

      Strong circumstantial evidence indicates yes, but no definitive proof has yet appeared.

      3. Will they be hacked in the future?

      Everything we know about human nature says yes.

      4. Given all of the above, can these machines be trusted in the future.

      No.

      No tin foil is necessary to reach this conclusion, even if your reasoning method is not empirical, but simply a classical Political Science 101 Weberian "perceived legitimacy of governance" rule of thumb.

      •  Imagine a group of Citizens (4.00 / 6)

        ...going to Washington in the fall of 2005 with a long banner or scroll containing hundreds of different computer subroutines, and claiming that each line of code - if written in the proper program language - could conceivably be used to alter the output of a voting machine.

        How dramatic would that be?

        The aim of such a demonstration would be simply to highlight a widely-held suspicion that IT'S NOT VERY DIFFICULT-HELLO? to accomplish electronic fraud in a black box.

        I think a lot can be done in this area even without inside knowledge of current voting software.

        Only 2 things are needed:

        1. A familiarity with the linear and logical flow of code in a program.

        2. Knowledge of the rules of the game currently in place in each state (which an engineer or technician contemplating vote fraud would easily be able to identify for himself).

        I agree with you, greenskeeper, it's about the never-ending un-scrubbable, un-stoppable potential for abuse.

        Don't give Machines a Vote.

        Electronic voting is simply not the wave of the future.  It's far too easily convertible into a totalitarian tsunami.

        Be all that you can be: Work for peace - - Jesus (Mt.5:9)

        by Upstream Review on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:01:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or, (none / 0)

          we could allow multiple parties to provide redundent machines at polling places to count the same physical ballots.

          The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

          by Thumb on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:22:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or (4.00 / 6)

            ditch the electronic machines and ahnd count the votes, like they do everywhere else on the planet.

            Yes, it would require many employees, but Canada and Australia and the UK do this, and they have a new leader by midnight. In America, with all the machines and problems associated with them, you still don't know who won four years later.

            Hand counts - only. Democracy requires it.

            "The traditional media is still predicated on the passive consumer model. You sit back and watch. I'm not beholden to anybody." - Kos

            by HollywoodOz on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 01:09:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (none / 1)

              that this would be the prefered method but there are too many millions of dollars involved at this time to try and go back now. Technology marches on. I just believe it would be easier from a logistical standpoint to open up the tallying to more than just an exclusive couple of partisan activists and their closed source coding machines.

              But really, if I thought it was possible to have our elections go back to paper ballots hand counted in front of multiple witnesses I'd love to see it.

              The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

              by Thumb on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 05:59:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  HAVA money is just more Federal waste (4.00 / 4)

                Think of that Federal funding as just more money thrown down the drain by the Republican majority -and I don't care how many Dems supported it.  Who wants to have their political opponents shouting at their constituencies that they were against "helping America vote"?

                You sound like a person who's livelihood depends on the voting industry.  If not, don't fall for what that industry is spoonfeeding the media - it's just a different version of the "too many lives already lost" rationale for eternal war.

                Picture instead a free and informed citizenry, even in the far distant future of advanced technology and worldwide peace, gathering together on the appointed day of election, in sober mood and with reasonable understanding of the candidates and issues, and solemnly marking their ballots by hand in accord with an time-honored and almost sacred tradition.  Picture these noble citizens then going out from that place to abide peaceably in the truly accounted voice of the people...

                Be all that you can be: Work for peace - - Jesus (Mt.5:9)

                by Upstream Review on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 07:15:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  um... (none / 0)

              how NOVEL!
    •  adlkfj (4.00 / 21)

      It is just unconscionable, however, that spot-checking paper tallies against computer tallies is against the rules in some states.

      If a nonpartisan elections official believes there might be something with the electronic count, they are prohibited from checking it against the actual data.  That's just awful.

      Check out my podcast of piano improvisations.

      by tunesmith on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 05:54:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wholeheartedly agree. (4.00 / 4)

        THAT is the scam.  THAT is the outrage.  Preventing verification of the count, which is SO EASILY done?  MAKES ZERO SENSE.
        •  there's more to it than that (4.00 / 2)

          yes its outrageous that hand recounts are illegal in some places, namely Florida, but lots of good that first recount did us in 2000 when Gore was catching up to Bush's tally and about to overtake him.  courts can stop the recounts if need be.  the way recounts are done if they are ever done is a huge problem as well, as you pick some representative sampling and if there are problems with that small sample, then more counting can be done.  its so easy to just give a sample you know weren't messed with as long as you know people are coming to check.  

          bottom line, anyone who thinks that the US doesn't need major election reform is just batshit crazy.  you're nuts.  if you think what we've got now is good enough, straight up, you're crazy.

          ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

          by itsbenj on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  unfortunately, (4.00 / 2)

            ohio showed us that even spot-checking rules would be abused.  you're supposed to pick a random representative sample totalling 1% (or whatever) of the vote.  So rather than random, they cherry-picked ballots totalling 1%.  We just didn't have the strength to put a stop to it.

            Check out my podcast of piano improvisations.

            by tunesmith on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 01:09:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  No proof without an investigation. (4.00 / 12)

      You don't need proof in order to have an investigation. Investigation is the process in which proof is discovered. Reasonable suspicion is enough to warrant an investigation.
      •  joeliberal (4.00 / 14)

        That is TRUE.  All you have to do is have a sufficient amount of proof to launch an investigation.  I think we have it.  OH alone is more than enough to prove a theft, with all the manipulations of the voters, etc, especially with the discrepancies in the exit polls to the actual votes.

        I KNOW the 2004 election was stolen.  Just like the 2000 election was.  

        Everyone is aware that a consortium of newspapers revealed on Sept. 12, 2001 that almost every way they looked at it, Gore won in 2000?  The Supreme Court ordered the state of FL to stop counting.  John Bolton was involved....

        And he will probably get confirmed... GRRRR

        •  One of my pet peeves about the naysayers. (4.00 / 17)

          People who don't think that the election was stolen are always saying that they need proof. Well, how do find proof without an investigation? Do the police have to have proof before they investigate a crime? No, they investigate in order to find proof.
          •  We will never have proof (3.75 / 4)

            As the Daily Show just wisely said, Watergate taught government officials not to tape their conversations about crimes.  Unless whistleblowers start bringing evidence forward we will never have proof.  They aren't going to leave trails anymore.
            •  We don't need whistleblowers. (4.00 / 7)

              We need an investigation. There is already more than enough oddities surrounding the numbers in the last election to make an investigation the only right thing to do. While I believe that the election was stolen, I would love more than anything to be proven wrong. As for the absense of any trails, we won't know if there are any until we look. It doesn't make sense to just assume that nothing can be done when the future of our democracy depends on it.
              •  Whistleblowers are important (4.00 / 3)

                They can talk about human "intent," which a computer analysis may not show. They can produce doments a computer won't have. They can refer to other sources (human and otherwise) a computer can't. There's no substitute for a flesh-and-blood whistleblower.

                The recent revelations about "Deep Throat" in the Watergate scandal demonstrate just how important whistleblowers are. Mark Felt was/is a hero. He knew he had no place to go with the information he had other than the press, which, at that time, was doing its job: investigating.

                We need more "Deep Throats"...talking about election fraud, campaign finance corruption, lobbyists, polluters, the Iraq war, ad nauseam. And we need to applaud their efforts and blast back at the people who try to bully them.

                Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now--always. (Albert Schweitzer,1875-1965)

              •  Investigation? (none / 0)

                By who?  The Right Wing controlled House, Senate or Dept. of Justice?  I'm not saying nothing should be done, I'm just saying the institutions we rely on to do something are corrupted.
          •  funny (4.00 / 12)

            "Fraudsters" are dismissed for lack of proof.

            Even though there is absolutely no proof that the vote is correct.

            That's the point.

            If it can't be PROVEN that one side won, then there was no democratic election.

            And I'm sorry to say...we did not have one.

            We DO NOT have a democratic process.

            •  exactly (4.00 / 2)

              the "proof", all ANYONE should need anyways, is so simple.  the sheer lack of proof that the election results are correct is PROOF that something needs to  be done to change the situation.  

              WHO is this not obvious to?  Arrgghhh!

              ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

              by itsbenj on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:42:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  So: (none / 0)

          When you say, "I KNOW," you mean this doesn't pass the smell test. That doesn't mean you have proof. Yet. Correct?
          •  Well, (4.00 / 4)

            considering that the people counting our votes in secret are a Bush pioneer who pledged in writing to do everything in his power to insure a Bush victory and the other is a billionaire financier of right-wing causes who espouses a theocratic takeover of the country I think a better way of stating it would be; "I TRUST" the election was stolen.

            The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

            by Thumb on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:27:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  How fortoonate (none / 1)

          Foor Coomrade Boolton, yes?

          The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

          by Shapeshifter on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:34:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No need to prove fraud (4.00 / 20)

      The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that our elections are fair, open, and verifiable.  Nobody needs to prove fraud.  Any party should have the right to see behind the current, no reason necessary.  In a democracy, at least.

      It's a little bit like conflict of interest.  The appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to cast suspicion, and thereby invalidate the whole, so that appearance itself must be avoided.

      •  Maybe technically. (4.00 / 2)

        But they won't. So we have to prove our case just like they did with Watergate. And hopefully come up with a new Deep Throat if these allegations are true.

        We've made progress since December on the Florida front, but there is a long ways to go, yet.

        If someone can get a hold of one of those machines and demonstrate how it can be hacked rather than provide a long technical explaination, that would really help our case. Many computer experts can tell there are problems with the system, but some people are not written learners; they are visual learners. If they see the hacking demonstrated, then they will get it.

    •  We don't have to prove it. A court does that. (4.00 / 10)

      After an investigation and inditement.  Get it straight.  I'm growing weary of election fraud debunkers saying you didn't prove it.  That would be like the police going around saying, "But madam, you didn't prove your husband beat you senseless.  Afterall, those bruises could be from anyone.  We can't do anything until you prove it."  Rediculous

      There is an overwhelming pattern of evidence, statistical and empirical, that points to a major effort to suppress votes and provide ineffective, insecure, and substandard equipment that was subject to manipulation.

      Get off of the "proof" bandwagon.  We need to say clearly and without any hesitation that there is a strong case for an intense investigation; after which, I'm quite sure there would be an inditement.

      •  yes, yes! (none / 1)

        "There is an overwhelming pattern of evidence, statistical and empirical, that points to a major effort to suppress votes and provide ineffective, insecure, and substandard equipment that was subject to manipulation.

        Get off of the "proof" bandwagon.  We need to say clearly and without any hesitation that there is a strong case for an intense investigation; after which, I'm quite sure there would be an inditement. (sic - it's indictment)",

        Thank you .  YOU are right on target.  I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.

    •  Just the possibility of fraud is enough! (none / 1)

      We need to fix this and we need to fix this yesterday.

      We may never know for certain whether or not fraud via the hacking of these machines has already occurred, but it is our responsibility to do everything we can to prevent it in the future.  How can we ever trust an election again?  And not being able to trust an election, how is this democracy?

    •  You're a smart person (none / 1)

      I've read your other comments.  So why are you so insistent on requiring proof before the investigation?  I think some people  have so bought in to their own arguments that there was fraud that they see everything through that lens.

      You have done the same thing, but in reverse.  You have too much invested emotionally into your prior viewpoint and can't see that your demands for proof, proof and more proof can't be met without taking the allegations seriously enough to investigate.  

      I don't understand at all the unwillingness to investigate.  I would be happy, happy, happy to find that the elections were clean.

      Well, except for that whole outcome thing, of course.

      The chips are down. Find your outrage.

      by sj on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 11:19:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, who would want to steal an election?! Geez! (none / 1)

      A thug will mug an old lady for her $800 Social Security check. A junkie will kill a poor old man to get his food stamps. Politicians will legislate pork into contributers' accounts receivable. Executives will manipulate markets to make billions off of the suffering of millions of people.

      But no, nobody would want to steal an election, right?

      Motive. Means. Opportunity. That's what you need for criminal suspicion.

      The means and opportunity have been demonstrated. It boggle the mind why so many people are so afraid of the reality that the motive is there, too.

  •  Is the (none / 0)

    opening about "Are we having fun yet" in reference to something that was part of the demonstration, or did it happen during the election?

    Mother Nature bats last.

    by pigpaste on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 05:33:08 PM PDT

  •  Hypotheticals are NOT proof. (3.80 / 10)

    Ok, the only piece of information pointing to an actual election hack -- that I saw anyway, it was a long diary and I'm easily distracted -- was the "are we having fun yet?" bit. And that's dubious until there's confirmation or some hard proof that such a message was displayed or was on a hard drive.

    The rest of this was the same "could of, might be" stuff that fraudsters have been tossing out -- happily with less frequency over the past few months -- for ages now. We know the machines aren't secure, that doesn't prove anything as far as actual election fraud. If the title of this diary is referencing the fact that the machines WERE hacked after the election I think that's pretty disingenuous.

    The findings here are of course important in our attempts to prevent future fraud. Pre-stuffing ability and the lack of a paper trail both bode poorly for the chances of having a fair and accurate count the next time.

    Hypotheticals, even plausible ones, are not proof. Here's hoping Kid Oakland checked out once his diary lost steam, because otherwise you picked some bad timing to post this.

    •  Hypothetical, but extremely damn suspicious (4.00 / 17)

      From a system design standpoint, leaving a hook for an executable program on a memory card that's supposed to be for tally purposes in an application where security is an issue stinks to high heaven. It should not be easy for an end user to change the behavior of the system. The fact that it is that easy is a lot like finding needles, scorched spoons, and rubber tubing in someone's bedroom.

      Economic Left/Right: -5.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

      by Kaleja on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 05:49:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  agreed. (4.00 / 4)

        It's a compelling bit of fact- that the software goes to a removable card for code.  It's sure a good answer to why someone would think they could get away with it.  It would leave no trace behind.
        •  True (none / 1)

          And any speculation would be nothing more than a "Conspiracy Theory".  Of course, putting somthing like a backdoor into a large volume release would involve a conspiracy by its very nature.  And there would be nothing to prove it even happened, only that it was possible.
      •  "like finding needles, scorched spoons" (none / 1)

        Bingo. There is no legitimate reason for that hook to be there, and no half-way competent code review could miss it. The only reason to give control to a removable card is to subvert the machine's internal programming.
    •  I think (4.00 / 2)

      We may both be reading this a little differently.  I interpret this as one of the election officials discovering this when they started the demonstration, and being visibly shaken enough to turn the machine, implicating the machine HAD been hacked.  Maybe I read it wrong.

      Still it's worth the read and ya it's long, I read it, but I haven't even deciphered everything in it, yet.  If need be I can delete it.

    •  Dearest Addison (4.00 / 10)

      A little critical thinking coupled with some actual reading before bandying about labels like "fraudsters" is the least you owe your fellow citizens.  Undoubtedly, you know the definition of the word "hypothesis", yes?

      1 : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
      2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

      Proof is the fruit of investigation.  Let's look at our logical consequences.

      If we have evidence that the optical scanners are unreliable for any reason, that is sufficient evidence to demand reliable, verifiable voting.

      If we have evidence that the optical scanners were unreliable and unverifiable in 2004, and we have evidence that exit polls were unreliable and unverifiable for the first time ever in 2004, we have no fixed data set and no basis for assuming the exit polls were incorrect.

      If we have no fixed data set, and of any number of unprecedented mathematical anomalies, we have some mighty good reasons to make tentative assumptions in order to draw out what the hell happened in 2004.

      •  Then this should have been in the title (none / 0)

        The Diary title at the time I read this is "FL: Optical Scanners WERE Hacked? Proof? You decide!"  This seems to offer proof that the scanners were hacked. The commentor in this case is saying that there is no proof provided - which is totally true - and being criticized for not recognizing that there could have been fraud - which is irrelevant to the question of proof.  "Fraudsters" have a deservedly bad reputation for exactly this kind of shenanigans.  Most of us recognize that the election could have been hacked, and are more than willing to fight for verification. But I can see what would happen right now.  We'd walk through the door with a careful plan about how to argue to make the vote more fair, and our associates would start spouting off about how the last election was stolen, destroying our credibility and changing the subject from voting security to unproven allegations of election theft.  

        Stop changing the subject. If you want to talk about the unreliability of the voting machines, then stop framing it as a stolen election issue.  In reality, this is more important than a single election anyway. This is about every election that will ever happen, and if we can't get over the (possible but unprovable) idea that the last election was stolen then we are never going to make a case for requiring better election security.  

        What happened in 2004 is irrelevant to the issue of increasing election machine security.  Obviously, if the election were stolen, it would be critical - but We Have No Proof. So, right now, our best hope is to talk about what "could" be done to steal elections.  Believe it or not, the republicans are just as paranoid about election theft as we are.  There is a widespread meme on the right that democrats steal elections. Use that.  

        •  Spout off? Shenanigans? (4.00 / 4)

          excuse me miss, your bias is showing. I'm assuming that you did get to vote and maybe your vote got counted.  Many Americans, with a majority of them minorities, did not have the same luxury as you because of verified election "shenanigans".

          Worst Voter Error Is Apathy Toward Irregularities

          By Donna Britt
          Friday, November 12, 2004; WaPo

          Is anyone surprised that accusations of voter disenfranchisement and irregularities abound after the most passionately contested presidential campaign in memory? Is anybody stunned that the mainstream media appear largely unconcerned?

          To many people's thinking, too few citizens were discouraged from voting to matter. Those people would suggest that not nearly enough votes for John Kerry were missed or siphoned away to overturn President Bush's win. To which I'd respond:

          Excuse me -- I thought this was America.

          Informed that I was writing about voter disenfranchisement, a Democratic friend admitted, "I'm trying not to care about that." I understand. Less than two weeks after a bruising election in a nation in which it's unfashionable to overtly care about anything, it's annoying of me even to notice.

          But citizens who insist, election after election, that each vote is sacred and then shrug at hundreds of credible reports that honest-to-God votes were suppressed and discouraged aren't just being hypocritical.

          They're telling the millions who never vote because "it doesn't matter anyway" that they're the smart ones.

          Come on. If Republicans had lost the election, this column would be unnecessary because Karl Rove and company would be contesting every vote. I keep hearing from those who wonder whether Democrats are "too nice," and from others who wonder whether efforts by the mainstream media to be "fair and balanced" sometimes render them "neutered and less effective."

          Perhaps. But the much-publicized voting-machine error that gave Bush 4,258 votes in an Ohio precinct where only 638 people cast ballots preceded a flood of disturbing reports, ranging from the Florida voting machine that counted backward to the North Carolina computer that eliminated votes. In Ohio's Warren County, election officials citing "homeland security" concerns locked the doors to the county building where votes were being counted, refusing to allow members of the media and bipartisan observers to watch.

          ------

          So darlin'.  You go ahead and sashay your lil' ass through that mutha friggin' door with your mutha friggin' carefully crafted plan. Look past the mutha friggin' evidence and close that door on the millions of Americans whose votes didn't mutha friggin' count in 2000 or 2004 because you're tired of hearin' 'em spout off 'bout "fraud" and "wantin' their rights".

      •  Here Come The Warm Fraudster Jets (none / 0)

        Yeah, fine. Way to call me out.

        There could have been fraud. There was an ample chance for fraud, just as in districts using paper ballots there was and remains the chance that someone will forge ballots and pre-stuff the box when the volunteers aren't looking. It doesn't follow that there was fraud in either place.

        Look, when I wrote my response there was no goddamn question mark after "Optical Scanners WERE Hacked," ok? The title has since been changed to make it speculative whereas before it was declarative. Don't lecture me on "critical reasoning" when the one great hallmark of the fraudsters has been the utter lack of it. Hummingbird posted a good diary, but that it will likely last 24 hours on the rec list is unfortunate and indicative of a lasting afactualism and false hope.

        •  Which is it? (4.00 / 3)

          I think you could use a lecture on critical thinking particularly since your whole argument falls apart when you look at your posts.

          First, while admitting you did not even READ this diary you jumped into the "fraudsters among us!" posture.  I take offense at your label particularly from someone who slaps it on without bothering to look at the content.

          Second, you say today that this diary is good,  while yesterday you called it "the same 'could of, might be' stuff that fraudsters have been tossing out -- happily with less frequency over the past few months -- for ages now."

          Third, today you say that your objection is not about the content of this diary at all, but the length of time it's had a "Recommend" status. What kind of critical quantifier is that?

          Fourth, in supporting your attack on a diary you admit you had not read, and in "fraudsters" in general, you give the mother of wild statements:

          "There was an ample chance for fraud, just as in districts using paper ballots there was and remains the chance that someone will forge ballots and pre-stuff the box when the volunteers aren't looking. It doesn't follow that there was fraud in either place."

          You have just personally certified the election results in districts with and without paper ballots with "ample chance for fraud" based on what known facts?  Are you rolling the dice here because if you are, based on what is known about the patterns in the 2000 and 2004 elections, the probability that fraud did occur is higher than the probability that it did not.

          Let me give you another definition:

          FRAUD:

          1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK

          •  Response (2.00 / 2)

            Don't be daft.

            (1) I admitted that I might have missed something in this very long diary -- NOT that I hadn't read it. Anyone can see what I wrote and see your distortion.

            (2&3) This is a decent diary for what it offers via a test after the fact, but absolutely (esp. given the original title that omitted the question mark, the title which headed the diary as I responded to it) it provides the same could be might of stuff and doesn't deserve its placing on the rec list since it's not proof at all but more speculation.

            (4) Again you repeat your pathetic distortion. As far as whatever your point is about me certifying, I was pointing out that as long as we're speculating, why not go whole hog? Speculation isn't bound by reasonableness, that's its problem. Clearly it doesn't follow that fraud occurred, but the usage of speculation and hypotheticals as proof means that ANY voting system could be subject to fraud. So what we need to actually prove fraud is evidence. This diary provides nothing of the sort. Just to be clear though I have almost no idea what you're talking about in point number 4, and I just made my best guess in this response.

            Thanks for the definition of fraud. It'd be awesome if fraudsters would read it sometime and couple that up with a definition -- any will do -- of "evidence" and "proof."

            Look, I understand the defensiveness of the fraudsters. When what you have to go on is that you know fraud occurred, you're naturally going to flip out whenever anyone challenges it. The tenuousness of your belief system -- as grounded in actuality and evidence -- is such that the lack of facts must be made up for in strength of faith. But all that isn't my problem, so don't expect acquiescence; to the unsupported claims of fraud or you thrashing distortion of my views.

            •  There is amble proof of fraud (none / 1)

              That is why I gave you the handy definition.  You seem hellbent on name calling rather than discussing the evidence of fraud I put on your plate.  Perhaps you only skimmed it.

              Read the Conyers report and any of Greg Palast's reporting to see the evidence and the proof that fraud occurred.

              •  Whatever was on my plate I'm still hungry (none / 1)

                What was put on my plate? That Greg Palast article? Uh. First off, look at his other articles, the man isn't the most credible source -- though I realize that doesn't matter since he gives some what they need, their fraud fix.

                Second, this diary isn't about racist "spoiling" of votes, it's about widespread optical machine fraud, stop pulling a switcharoo.

                Third, and thanks for tacitly acknowledging your lie about my not having read the article by reversing course and accusing me of
                merely "skimming." A backhanded acknowledgement of dishonesty, but I'll take it.

                Look, clearly if there were actual evidence of fraud -- widespread, result-changing, Republican initiated, ballot tampering, electronic fraud -- it would get to the top spot on the rec list and never fall off it until Bush had resigned. I haven't seen that yet. There is no proof, only speculation and faith.

                •  Skim, read, whatever you call it (none / 1)

                  you either don't do it or it isn't sticking to your brain pan.

                  The "spoiling" of votes, IS about widespread optical machine fraud, if you'd bothered to read or skim the article.

                  Again with your wild assertions, this time against Greg Palast:

                  Palast won Britain's highest journalism honors for his 1998 undercover investigation of influence peddling within Tony Blair's cabinet - by Enron and other US corporations.  He then turned his sleuthing skills on to the Bush money trail: uncovering for BBC and The Observer the uncomfortable truths of how the Bush Administration quashed investigations of Saudi financing of terror -- and Poppy Bush's extraordinary methods for stuffing his bank account and his son's campaign coffers.

                  Palast, winner of the Financial Times David Thomas Prize and Nominated Business Journalist of the Year (UK) for his exposing "Reverend" Pat Robertson's legally dodgy business scams, has appeared in Salon.com ("Politics Story of the Year" 2000), Harper's and The Washington Post ... yet he remains to most Americans, "The world's greatest investigative reporter you've never heard of." (Cleveland Free Times)

                  •  Tragic nonconversion (none / 1)

                    Boy, if only he could somehow translate all those accolades into proof of fraud, huh? Can't convert that currency though.

                    Anyway, I recognize that Palast has produced good work, and has worried the Brits so much they're suing him (right?). But his reporting about fraud has been a little, uh, loose with the facts and while not nearly as bad or misleading as Bev Harris it hasn't been the most proof-oriented bunch of articles. If they had contained actual evidence of election-changing fraud the Cleveland Free Times article would become obsolete.

                    •  You're playing Calvinball again (4.00 / 3)

                      When called on your own statements your accusations shift slightly to impugn to something else.  

                      The chips are down. Find your outrage.

                      by sj on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:29:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Whatever (none / 1)

                        Uh, I responded to the "appeal to authority" present and I responded (below) to the claim that the fraud Palast noted was optical scanner based fraud.

                        My accusation is that the fraudsters are sad faith-based folks; overly defensive as a mechanism to protect themselves against the tenuous nature of their claims which are -- as of this point -- almost entirely devoid of proof, evidence, or substance. The shape that accusation takes may change, but it hasn't shifted a bit.

                        In any case, you'll get over your defensiveness, and you'll eventually want facts and evidence for fraud claims too too. You may have to give me a thousand vindictive and unfounded "2" ratings before it happens, but you'll get over it...

                  •  More distortion (none / 0)

                    Additionally, the Palast article doesn't include optical scanning fraud as it related in this diary. The fraud Palast notes is NOT about an executable file nor about any sort of active optical machine based fraud. The fraud Palast notes stems from a natural flaw of the optical machines (it read "Al" as a stray mark, presumably it also read "George" as a stray mark) and -- here's the fraud -- the fact that election workers in black areas didn't catch the errors and give black voters new ballots. Palast's fraud is sociological and human based, this diary's is systemic and machine based. Apples and oranges with what is being discussed in this diary.
                    •  you sir (none / 1)

                      are full of shit. And I expect having been given ample evidence of that fact, you prefer to base your opinions on something else entirely.

                      Show me where in the reporting that "natural flaw" is mentioned? Show me where election workers didn't "catch the errors"? Did you only skim the quotes from the Civil Rights Commission, or do you dismiss them on the same vagaries and wild accusations as you do Greg Palast?  Do you have any idea on who has brought suit against Greg Palast?

                      "The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.

                      But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.

                      This 'no count,' as the Civil Rights Commission calls it, is no accident. In Florida, for example, I discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote- count procedures."

                      This peach is just flat embarrasing. "Palast's fraud is sociological and human based, this diary's is systemic and machine based. Apples and oranges with what is being discussed in this diary."  Are you actually making the assertion that somehow "machines" taken over our voting "systems"? Wow, talk about your tin foil hats, Addison.

                      Let me take you through some critical thinking exercises again.  When optical scanner tally the votes, and these optical scanners reject the ballots of black voters at a rate 10 times greater than white voters, would you conclude that a) optical scanners are biased against black voters, b) black voters are inherently less capable of using optical scanners than white voters, c ) precinct workers in black districts are inherently less capable than their counterparts in white districts in spotting possible errors, d) optical scanning machines in black precincts are flawed, or, e ) black voters were intentionally deceived into believing their votes were counted by the optical scanners that tally the votes.

                      Now, considering that black Democratic vastly outnumber black Republicans, show me your evidence for your pet "natural flaw" theory.

    •  If only BBV had (none / 0)

      done something to earn creditibility.  
    •  We don't need proof... (none / 1)

      .. that fraud already occurred.  As I stated upthread, just the possibility of fraud is enough to compel us to act.

      We need to fix this!  Without verifiably fair elections, we have no democracy.

  •  "proof of concept" hack (4.00 / 2)

    does not prove a malicious hack took place out in the field...
    •  Just postulating here... (4.00 / 2)

      but, since most people are rather nervous with, and ignorant about, computers, whoever trained them could just tell the poll workers that they needed to switch out the cards at the end of the day or whenever, and the worker would do it and think nothing of it.  As far as they know, that's what you're supposed to do with computers.  Just an out of the blue thought....

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

      by TracieLynn on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:00:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you're absolutely right (none / 0)

        I think the original title was misleading - all good now...
        •  Thanks (4.00 / 3)

          I guess it's gonna fly.  I really hadn't understood the post in the first place... I had to read it carefully for a while... I"m NOT a geek. :)

          I talked to Kathleen.  Evidently there are only two people in Black Box Voting now.  They are both older people now and have no help.  Andrew is sick and evidently not involved (I will not talk about how he is or is NOT involved).  They have no time to check blogs and they are traveling to FL all the time to check stuff.

          I know that many people had criticisms of Bev, in fact I had them too, but on talking to Kathleen, I came to understand a lot of things about Bev that was misrepresented and misunderstood by Randi Rhodes.  She never called Bev, she just assumed the worst.  I don't think either of them did willfully wrong info.  What we had is people who don't get the "media".

          Either help them, or give them the benefit of the doubt.  I was quite convinced by Katheen tonight that they are working their butts off on this and they are ALL INDEPENDENT.  If you have a question, CALL them.  They do answer the phone, and the two of them will respond if they are available.

          They are two middle aged+ women that are more than willing to explain their point of view.  There are only two of them now.  They need help to show the evidence and they do NOT need to be trashed by people.

          Laters,
          Joy

    •  But an inside hack can't be proven (2.00 / 2)

      when its inbedded in the code
      •  Nothing to see here, eh? (4.00 / 4)

        And now that it's been proved, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, that such a thing is possible...please return to your regular broadcast day.  Stick your head back in the sand, cover your ears with your hands and sing "la la la," tap your ruby red slipper heels together and think about Toto.  Sleep well knowing you successfully argued that fraud cannot yet be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, therefore we ought not to bother calling for an investigation that could prove such things, and let's all get back to shopping.

        </bitter snark>

        Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

        by ubikkibu on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 11:10:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is not what I said. (none / 0)

          I said that a good backdoor can't be proven. Nowhere did I say it hadn't happened.  You can try and prove it all you want, all you will get is a "Proof Of Concept".  Noone looking for "Proof" will ever believe you, only hold to there own belief in its possibility. Until this is understood, we will continue to have circlular arguements.
    •  Do you need 100% proof (4.00 / 2)

      to even begin to consider the likelihood of a tampered with election?

      Is it that W&Co is so trustworthy and never did the slightest to raise your eyebrows?

      We've got Motive, Means and Opportunity. And with these revelations the Means and Opportunity parts just skyrocketed.

      Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (Georgie's Orwellian Party)!

      by high5 on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:06:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  could be test code (4.00 / 2)

    "Are we having fun yet" is no proof of hacking.

    Programmers frequently put in special messages to be displayed during the development process to debug the code. and very frequently they forget and leave the messages in there, espeically where there's a hard deadline like the elections breathing down their necks.

    •  Suppose (4.00 / 11)

      you went to an ATM and it took your bankcard, gave you no paper receipt and flashed you a message:

      "Are we having fun yet?"

      And then suppose the bank refused to apologize and said that there was no way they could retrieve your bankcard or verify if your account had been accurately credited or debited! From this, someone makes a living?

      I think that optical scan tallies just are not such a difficult programming problem and that the deadlines cannot have been such as to warrant ANY excuses for that kind of thing.

      There should have been an investigation and someone should have been fired or fired upon.

      "The American people now understand we have a problem." George W. Bush, Galveston, Texas, April 26, 2005

      by BornOn911 on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:49:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But counting from 0 to 65,535 (4.00 / 5)

        is hard work. And think how much harder it would have been to test the counters for rollover, or to add vote-counts into a 32 bit word instead of a 16 bit word? It boggles the grade-school mind. At most.

        Paper ballots, counted by hand: Cut the technobullshit.

    •  True (none / 1)

      I've done that sort of thing myself.  And if that message showed up in the final product I would know that both Development and QA totally screwed up doing their jobs.  If that was still there, the product had no business being certified.

      The chips are down. Find your outrage.

      by sj on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 11:27:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've been saying this for months (4.00 / 11)


    Revamp and update hand-counted paper ballot technology?

    Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea of hand-counted paper ballots, printed by machines for legibility, with color-coded choices for quick, easy, accurate sorting and counting. We should also take another look at bringing counting teams in when the polls close

          ...with the addition of one Rep and one Dem counter each keeping separate counts, watched by
    two (one Rep, one Dem) US observers and two international observers.

                            SR

  •  ONE PROGRAMMER (4.00 / 34)

    All the idiots who kept screaming about how you'd need a conspiracy of thousands to pull this off need to be forced to re-read that line a few hundred times.

    One programmer who writes the code. One election official who drops the code (possibly without knowing what it does) into whatever central machine is normally used for programming these cards. One Republican party official to instigate the operation.

    Total "mind-bogglingly massive conspiracy" size: three people.

    There's no good reason for the program to make this call to the memory card. None at all. Either Liebold's programmers are totally incompetent... Or this was designed to be easy to crack.

    •  I've been doing computers for 35 years (4.00 / 23)

      and in my experience, the is no legitimate reason for that much flexibility in a design.  It's clearly an open system design (snark) for no good purpose.

      IMNTHO, every county/state/city that got Diebold machines should return them and sue their asses off.

      Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

      by groggy on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 06:54:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Legitimate Reason (4.00 / 2)

        Well, on a piece of consumer electronics hardware, you'd want that kind of flexibility, so you could put expansions, plugins, or patches on memory cards. It'd be limited somehow, or have access to a restricted API, or something. But you'd want that kind of thing.

        But for a voting machine, where the code and machine are supposedly certified and sealed? Where the integrity of the machine is of paramount importance? No fucking way. You do not want that kind of open access unless you want someone to be able to trivially insert uncertified, unverified code into the machine.

        •  Like updating your BIOS, yes but (4.00 / 3)

          from what I read, the programmer could replace an executable module.

          Vote tabulation is not rocket science, sales forecasting, or payroll.  The only flexibility required is the number of rows and choices to be counted, and the verbage associated with each.  No logic changes should be required.

           

          Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. --Will Rogers

          by groggy on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 06:04:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  See: Office Space. (4.00 / 4)

      Also: All of Diebold's programmers had been convicted of computer fraud before. Notably ATM fraud and embezzlement.

      All of them were required to inform potential employers of their convictions.

      But of course, this time they wouldn't possibly do bad things, right? They have to be honest enough to not want to mess with Presidential elections, right? Diebold's "We'll deliver Ohio's EVs to Bush" line was just an isolated slip of the tongue, right? Boss Tweed is just an old wives' tale used to scare children, right?

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:23:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's just not true (none / 1)

        Far be it from me to defend Diebold here, but this is the kind of misinformation that discredits us all.

        ONE of GLOBAL'S (pre-Diebold) programmers was convicted of EMBEZZLEMENT using computers.  But it had absolutely nothing to do with Diebold or ATMs.

        DESI (Diebold Election Systems Inc.) has done a great deal of damage to democracy and voting, but don't exaggerate like Ms. Harris does.  You serve no purpose except to allow them to discredit us all with a broad brush.

  •  you know what line scares me the most? (4.00 / 7)

    in the third graph:

    "...and the New Hampshire primary election, where machine results differed markedly from hand-counted localities."

    differed markedly in whose favor, I ask?

    •  the democratic state rep. won that race (4.00 / 2)

      that was the race in francestown with a super liberal woman ran against a moderate republican. the woman won by four votes. however, the problems were not with the machines; francestown has handcounted paper ballots and NO machines. the mistake was with the hand recount. the result went to the woman after the second hand recount.

      read joshua frank's "Left Out: How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush"

      by format flip on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:37:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But: (none / 0)

      Not according to the New Hampshire SOS. In the New Hampshire recounts, they were almost exactly the same as the machine counts.
    •  Well, in the WA governor's race (none / 1)

      the hand count of ballots swung decisively to the Democrat.  Therefore, if the discrepancy between the machine count and the hand count was due to hacking, the hacking was done such that the net advantage was to the Republican.

      Of course there were other issues in that recount--mostly due to votes un-counted in the first tabulation.  The second machine count, however, included some of the undercounted votes and still came out in favor of the Republican.

      Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:42:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is fewer than 100 votes decisive? (none / 0)

        If the Republicans fixed it they didn't do a good enough job. Lepore had the same problem.

        "Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton"--CBS News headline.

        by Thistime on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:15:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Decisive in that the declared winner changed. (4.00 / 2)

          The actual vote differential was greater (+ Rossi) in the first count than in the final count (+ Gregoire)  So Gregoire picked up 219 votes in the first (machine) recount and then another 171 in the hand recount.

          Now, it is also entirely possible that tampering went on in both Rossi's and Gregoire's favors, but that one effort was slightly more effective than the other--thus my use of the word 'net' in my previous post.

          Keep in mind also that those vote gains/losses are taken on a statewide basis--and that different counties had different voting methods.  So the net  gain/loss due to theoreticall possible vote tampering would have been diluted by the results in other districts.

          Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

          by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:54:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  differed markedly in whose favor, I ask? (none / 0)

      My hunch is it would differ markedly in favor of the candidate who would lose markedly in legitimate circumstances.

      "Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace." - Albert Schweitzer

      by commandercuckoobananas on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 08:45:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The obvious question..... (4.00 / 2)

    Just how many times can we impeach George W. Bush? I look forward to the day when the news has to be really specific about this sort of thing:

    "In vote fraud-impeachment news, congress continued to hold hearings. The Iraq-impeachment vote will be next Tuesday. The 9-11 inside job impeachment has yet to be scheduled....."

  •  IT guys (4.00 / 9)

    Four IT (network) guys (myself included) sitting around sipping on a couple of beers in a small town in northern Wisconsin BELIEVE that the election was manipulated to Bushes advantage. We each have a scenario or two on how. None of the scenarios involves having the resources available that the repugs had. But all would be transparent UNLESS you knew exactly where to look AND you could look while the evidence still existed.

    One question. Who would go to an ATM machine and enter into a transaction unless you EXPECTED to get a receipt? Diebold does ATMs. ATMs give receipts. Diebold does voting. Why no receipts?

    No receipts equals no verifiable audit. Election or bank transaction.

    •  There isn't much question (none / 0)

      that it happened.  The problem is that BBV cries wolf then proves nothing. It harms the cause, which may be the point.
      •  The idiom you use is not quite fair... (4.00 / 2)

        The expression "to cry wolf" means that someone deliberately raises a false alarm over something when there is no reason to do so (except maybe to attract attention), with the risk that they will not be believed when the feared episode finally really does happen.

        In BBV's case, it might be better to say that their claims are often unsubstantiated, or not substantiated enough, and that they have to show more hard proof to back them up.

        But their claims are not necessarily false. Not at all.

        "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

        by Donna in Rome on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 04:25:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  True Enough (none / 1)

      Except that receipts can also be falsified, unless there's a reliable chain of custody or banknote-equivalent security features in the receipts....
    •  OT (none / 0)

      but where in N Wisconsin?  I grew up in Rhinelander.  Other than Madison and the occasional Milwaukee, you don't see America's Dairyland referenced much on dKos.

      Hey ... get up ... and remember ... 9/11 changed nothing.

      by CalbraithRodgers on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:08:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  not that I care too much (none / 0)

      but I think rethugs use the excuse that a receipt for voting would infringe on peoples personal privacy of whom or what they voted for.

      WESCLARK 2oo8 Everyone else sucks.

      by desiunion on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:37:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you are talking about a receipt (4.00 / 2)

        that you take with you, out of the polling place, then THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  It also opens the door to vote-buying and coersion.

        The "receipt" needs to be a paper-recorded vote, verified by the voter, that is put into a ballot box, to be used to verify whatever electronic count is being made. This can be used for a recount, and should be used to "spot-check" the machines in some prescribed manner.  The laws written about above (I'm not familiar with them) that prevent these checks can have no other purpose than to hide problems. I think the FIRST thing to investigate is who wrote these provisions and find out WHY.

    •  Count altered afterward? (4.00 / 6)

      Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but I got the impression that these hacks altered the gross count on the machine, the cumulative result.  If that is the case, then the machine would be accurately recording an individual voter's data input and print ing a reciept to verify that, but such receipts would be irrelevant.

      I, too, did system and network admin/security stuff for several years, specializing in countering viruses and detecting/patching vulnerabilities.  I worked with (or tried my best to work with, but that's another story) the FBI on a case in which a hacked customer listserv was spewing virus-laden emails to thousands of people across the country.

      Anyway, I'm convinced that there's no practical way to produce a 100% failure-proof, 100% accurate, 100% tamper proof, 100% verifiable electronic voting system and that Diebold et al didn't even come close to trying their best to do so.  

      I believe the quickest solution is to force all of our state legislatures to officially ban the use of any voting method other than paper ballots, hand counted, and to allocate whatever funding it takes to do that properly.

      "You are coming to a sad realization. CANCEL or ALLOW?"

      by sxwarren on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:41:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How to get to the bottom of this (4.00 / 11)

    In my opinion there is only one way to solve this issue.

    Democratic officials in a blue state need to sue Diebold for providing faulty machines.  Then they need to depose every possible person involved in the development of the code.  Once you find the smallest evidence of wrongdoing, you bring criminal charges until someone starts talking.

    There is ZERO doubt in my mind that these machines were designed to be hacked.  The sloppy code merely exists for plausible deniability.  And it is working.  See how many fucking Democrats demand PROOF before they get off their asses to do anything.  Despite the fact that the machines were clearly designed to erase the evidence of wrongdoing.

    My God, there is a REASON that ATM machines and slot machines don't make "mistakes" like this.

  •  I understand... (4.00 / 6)

    the criticisms of BBV, but we also can't choose our potential patriots and heroes.

    Frankly, the BBV folks are the ones putting their lives on hold and taking the time to investigate this for all of us.  Do I wish they were more organized and professional?  Definitely.  But I can't help but root for them and tip my hat in appreciation for their time and efforts.  They may never find the "smoking gun", but I salute them for literally flying down there and trying - it's more than most of us will do.  

    "W" - the Homer Simpson Presidency...DOH!!

    by Needa Bigger Pretzel on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:17:07 PM PDT

  •  King County? San Diego? (none / 0)

    Here in King County, WA, the problems don't seem to so much have been with the Diebold optical scans as with questions over handling of ballots by elections officials.

    In San Diego, the issue was whether or not votes for a write-in candidate counted even if the bubble next to the write-in line was not filled in.

    Not sure that your claims are supported by referring to those areas as supporting evidence.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:28:31 PM PDT

  •  You had me until here... (4.00 / 2)


    Modest working language of any one of the higher level computer languages (Pascal, C, Cobol, Basic, Fortran...) along with introductory-level knowledge of assembler or machine language. (Machine language knowledge needed is less than an advanced refrigerator or TV repairmen needs. The optical scan system is much simpler than modern appliances).

    I don't know what planet Bev is from, but my TV and refrigerator repairmen couldn't program in assembly or machine language.  Matter of fact, in order to know what to program in machine language you'd need to know what the registers to and what memory addresses point to at the very least.  You'd need to know the specifics of the hardware, which would require some sort of technical printout of the layout of the machine.

    Could it be done by a Diebold systems programmer?  Of course.  Could it be done by a super-intelligent hacker?  Maybe.  Could it be done by a rogue Republican staffer with a GED?  Maybe, if they cared enough. But it would be awfully hard and take a lot of study.

    It's statements like this that make me disbelieve everything about the diary.  If your facts aren't straight, then for Gods sake don't publish it.

    •  I dunno... (none / 1)

      TV and refrigerator repairmen do need to understand machines to a certain degree. Reprogramming an optical scanner can't be that hard. Not a skill your average person has at their fingertips, but i'm guessing one that could be picked up pretty easily.

      And don't forget: every programmer Diebold hired had been convicted of electronic fraud of some degree--mostly ATM fraud and embezzlement. We're talking professionals.

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:15:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read that several times too (none / 1)

      The passage is misleading though the original passage did include the adjective "advanced" to describe refrigerator or TV repair people.  Knowing a bit about firmware, I pictured "advanced" in this case to describe a factory-based technician doing intensive diagnostics.

      But I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Though the passage seems to be a oversimplification of the technical skills needed to effect a hack, I deem that it was a bit of literary license employed for effect.  Meanwhile, the theme of unsecured software remains very plausible and concerning.  Diebold should be in the spotlight on that issue.

  •  Yes... (none / 0)

    It seems that from reading the posts, there are several issues:

    1. The fact that a funny screen popped up could have been programmer fun and not malicios. Or not. But it doesn't matter in the end. What matters is that this technique (digital) is wide open to manipulation.

    Thus we need to use a time-test/proven system. Many point to Canada and color-coded paper ballots counted on the night by lots of workers. This sounds like our best bet to me anyway. So we need Dems in strong power to propose it (since Rethugs having nothing to gain from proper Representation).

    2. It'd be great to prove there was fraud. It'd really help our case to get #1 above taken care of. But it doesn't seem like it'll happen at this point... since the people in charge (Rethugs) want proof before they issue an investigation. Here we have our Catch 22.

    Therefore, are there any other ways to accomplish #1 without #2?

    Anyone? It'll take brains smarter than mine. I think Boxer/Clinton introduced legislation per voting but I don't think it goes very far, yes? Is it just a matter of first winning in 2006? Which seems to be another Catch 22, right? Are there any very specific actions we can take as a broad coallition (non-Rethug) community to push a very specific idea for voter reform?

    After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

    by Jeff Gannon on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 09:46:50 PM PDT

    •  I agree (4.00 / 4)

      we should do what Canada does, vote on paper and count by hand.
      •  What's the best way to get there... (none / 0)

        d'ya think? Is it Senate legislation?

        After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

        by Jeff Gannon on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:08:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Petitions to state legislatures (none / 0)

          As I said in an earlier comment, force state legislatures (through petition drives) to ban any voting method OTHER than paper ballots, hand-counted, and require them to allocate sufficient funds to get this done properly (sufficient numbers of well-trained local elections officials, etc.).

          "You are coming to a sad realization. CANCEL or ALLOW?"

          by sxwarren on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:47:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds good. (none / 1)

            I know Barbara Boxer would be a good person to go to in California. I wonder if MoveOn or Center for American Progress would lead such a campaign in each state such that it is all organized Nationally as well? Although I understand it probably needs to address each state's Attorney General's Office? In some places it's also a matter for the Board of Supervisors? But a general set of state-wide Petitions seems to be the way to go.

            I've thought for a number of years that if we could create a centralized depot for such Democratic Party petitions online, it would be a smart move. Maybe even smarter if it weren't party based... as my suspicion is that the mainstream is actually much more liberal than we all see from voting based on abortion, gay marriage, and National Security anxieties.

            I suspect we have Kossaks with connections to such groups that could move things along? I really think we need to FOCUS here on what STEPS we can start to take. Because it really seams to be "step 1" to get the people in office we need to really turn back the clock on the Neocons... Voter Reform that is.

            After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

            by Jeff Gannon on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 11:04:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  It's fixed (4.00 / 3)

      Anecdotally, for the last few years, non-voting passengers in my cab have unanimously answered when I asked "Why don't you vote?" "It's all fixed, your vote doesn't matter". Since 2000, I haven't  argued.

      It is not that the voters need to make a case for vote fraud, it's the elections officials need to convince voters the elections are honest.

      The reason Democrats loose election is not that voters are defecting to the GOP, but that fewer Democratic voters are bothering to vote.

      "Think this through with me, let me know your mind." - Hunter/Garcia

      by epcraig on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 04:35:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why are the Repubs acting guilty? (4.00 / 3)

    I understand little, if any, of the technical aspects of this post.  I nonetheless suspect that there was foul play in Ohio and that it cost Kerry the election.  Some of this foul play was obvious - i.e., Blackwell's denial of election resources to predominantly Democratic areas and the disproportionately long voter lines that ensued.  This belief is also based on the credible statistical analysis that has been done essentially indicating that the exit polls could not have been so wrong... especially in Ohio.  

    Also, I am struck at the aggressiveness with which Rethugs respond to voter fraud claims.  It's as if they know these claims are real and that they hope to stamp them out before there is a possibility for widespread public dissemination.  You see this with David Korn and his gang, Rush and O'Liely.  They treat these claims like a real threat.

    •  Unbelieveably, some of the major posters at dkos (4.00 / 2)

      act the same way.  Not sure why they refuse to call for transparent voting methods -- how can they not see that if nothing changes by 06/08, there are only two possible scenarios -- 1, the election is stolen again and 2, even if it's not, a lot of people who don't trust the machines will not vote.  Both are disasterous.
      •  I agree. (4.00 / 3)

        I think that some people would rather accept the horrific fact of another Bush term than deal with the even more horrific idea that the election was stolen. Realizing that the election was very likely stolen leads to very dark, frightening, helpless feelings and many people will fight tooth and nail to keep from going there.
  •  Instant voting reform: (none / 1)

    What if we just 'confessed' to tampering with votes ourselves? What if the Democrats publicly declared that electronic vote manipulation is so easy, they've been doing it all over the country and have never been caught?

    Then we concerned citizens call up every Republican member of Congress and demand that they pass voting reform legislation now to keep the evil Democrats from stealing elections!

    •  funny... (none / 1)

      But 1) we'd be lying (or would we?) and, 2) any legislation passed by Republicans probably wouldn't do us all that much good. That's why I guess 2006 has to be the first step?

      After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

      by Jeff Gannon on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 10:49:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Legislation passed by Republicans (none / 0)

        If they try to pass ineffective legislation, the Democrats can just say: "That'll never stop us! We figured out how to beat that ages ago. You'll need to try harder than that, if you want to keep your seats!"
        •  Hardcore! (none / 0)

          I dig it, but 1) I don't see John Kerry and Reid standing up and bragging about how easily they can personally rig whatever "machines" the Rethugs propose in Congress. Dems wouldn't want the image tarnish. And 2) I don't see Rethugs in power ever proposing paper ballots or anything even-handed (as they'd inevitably lose elections in that scenario). Plus the whole argument would come up around obstructionist Dems if we keep poking holes in their legislative proposals.

          I'm thinking more of a media-campaign... people would be fascinated with stories on computer-hacking. If we could just get through all that to the logical conclusion of Paper Ballots as in Canada.

          I do think Dems just need to start bringing in hackers and computer tech guys onto t.v. shows and talking about each system and it's vulnarabilities... inevitably it should only strenghten the natural distrust we all have about computer Voting. That part of your plan makes much sense.

          Howard Dean started doing this and it was pretty effective. He did a laptop demonstration on air about how easy it is to rig the machines. But it all comes down to coverage... and when the Rethugs say jump, the media says... "please sir may, I have another" (or something like that). It just isn't the bread and butter issues the media thrive on... it's too substantive.

          I think we need the Fairness Doctrine and media legislation reform and Voter reform. These are our first baby steps toward a working Democracy. But we all know that...

          Maybe it's just organizing the biggest midterm election liberal groundswell in history... maybe that's our best avenue?

          It's all so circular and Catch 22... damnit!

          After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

          by Jeff Gannon on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 11:28:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Heh! (none / 1)

      I thought the same thing: "Why don't we just make Florida, or some other state, produce totally bogus results?"

      "Bogus" as in seventy billion votes for Obi-Wan Kenobi "bogus". If someone was feeling particularly mean it could be that and no other votes. With no ability to recount they would have no option but to accept the result.

      Of course, that would not really be very effective. Highly amusing, but not very effective.

      The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

      by Shapeshifter on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:04:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It wouldn't be very believable... (none / 0)

      or else it would be obvious they're not very good at it, because otherwise why haven't the Democrats been winning?

      It would have to come down to a bragging contest, with the Republicans saying: "Yeah, but we obviously do it better than you do, because WE win!"

      "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

      by Donna in Rome on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 04:33:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I still don't understand why it tool so long (none / 1)

    to announce the results in Florida.  Every vote was counted/added automatically. There couldn't have been any time needed for tallying.

    When I put this question here, some of you guys said it was because of the long line.  It dosen't make sense.  If people were still voting, the election authorities could not have annoucned how much percentage was tallied (the total was not known, ergo there couldn't have been a ratio over the total, i.e. percentage).  

    •  Simple (none / 0)

      The "percentage counted" isn't the percentage of the total votes counted.  It's the percentage of precincts reporting their results so far.  Some precincts use different machines, and a handful still use hand-counted paper ballots.  Most precincts are roughly the same size, and there is a maximum size (usually something like 1500 voters, depending on the state).
      •  A follow-up (none / 0)

        So, as soon as the polls were closed, electronic tallies were completed in the precincts using machines. How did they report them? By the phone? Or on-line? If it was on-line, they must have had the total tallies simultaneously. There must be some reporting procedure which takes time to complete.
        •  Yes, there is (none / 0)

          Some precincts don't have the machines, or have different machines.  Some locations close at different times, or have longer lines.

          There is a procedure at the end of the day where the ballots have to be sealed, tapes have to be printed, stuff has to be signed, things have to be moved around and cleaned up, books have to be double-checked, etc. and it takes some time (a couple hours total at the precinct I was at).  The actual procedure for sending in the totals varies depending on location and the type of equipment used.  I believe at my location, they were phoned in, but I didn't observe that process (my precinct captain did).  I did observe the tapes being printed.

          You'll notice that the percentage of precincts counted jumps up pretty quickly, then stays in the 90-some% range for a while.  There's always a few straggler precincts because a few rural ones have paper ballots and such that have to be counted by hand, or there's a snafu at a few locations with absentee ballots, or something.

  •  Huge Outcry Needed (4.00 / 5)

    1.  If the Republicans haven't stolen the last 3 elections using this technology (among other means) clearly they now have enough of these machines in place around the country to do so in coming elections.

    2.  As these machines are all made by corporations with far-right connections, and indeed have been promoted for use abroad by military-industrial types (including DARPA and a number of weapons manufacturers) as "election solutions" (hah!) AND as very nearly all anomalies have swung the Repugs' way, well I don't think they're intended to secure Democratic victories.

    3.  OK, let's recap.  The machines help enable corrupt Repug wins, are favored by the Pentagon, and at present the Repugs control the White House, Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress.  (Not to mention the Gestapo, er, Homeland Security, most major media -- the remainder merely being cowed, when not enthusiastically supportive -- and a worldwide network of secret prisions to which people are whisked in unmarked jets in the dead of night).  Oh, and very possibly, the Repugs have already used this technology to steal, or to help in stealing, elections in the last 3 biennial cycles.  THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC OUTCRY.

    4.  What do you reckon the chances are that devotion to truth, democracy and Fair Play will motivate Republicans to ignore threats of vivisection by Dr. Frist and the administration of huge doses of comercial pesticides by tomDelay, strut right across that aisle and vote to go back to paper ballots?  I'd reckon about the same as FDR rising from the dead, throwing off his leg braces and sweeping to victory in the 2008 election.

    5.  The rich have found the means to have a play "Democracy" in twhich their candidates lose only in sufficient numbers to maintain an illusion, while guaranteeing them victory whenever they want it.  Oh, perhaps after some horrible scandal or calamity they'll give a "neutered" Dem a crack at the White House (perhaps one on whom they have some juicy sex blackmail) but really, absent a large public outcry, and soon, the game is over and elections are a joke.

    6.  As with 9-11, which was almost certianly an out-and-out Inside Job, few of us want to consider the implications of the probability that the elections can be stolen at will by the Republicans.  It means either (a) we are living under something quite like fascism; or (b) we soon will be, unless we find a concrete way to pose a threat to the people who are implementing fascism.  Perhaps blogging and continuing to vote in crooked elections will not be enough.

    "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

    by proudtinfoilhat on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 11:53:31 PM PDT

    •  I agree... (none / 1)

      I think however that blogging and the internet can go a long way toward an organized demonstration(s). I think it's long past time that we had national days of coordinated demonstration on particular issues... boycotts.

      I don't understand why Dems like Dean and groups like MoveOn and even Kos haven't called for such things. I know that large demonstrations have been dismissed as minority or fringe... but we really need to be more forthright.

      As you suggest. It really is our moral responsibility to make the 70's look like childs-play. And it's not outside of our reach... in fact it would be quite simple to organize such things online.

      I really want to push the idea among Kossaks of a unified website for Progressives from all camps to:

      1. Be a central repository for petitions by state and nationally for specific policies/actions. As this is normally what legislators require in order to proceed on Progressive issues. Let's quite waiting for them!

      2. For organizing a geographically hierarchical tree of "Progressive" groups that can organize collaborative demonstrations, actions, and activities themselves at many different levels.

      The time has come that we really need to push what we've begun to create here online to the next level.

      I think it's about organization... unionizing and coallescing if you will. DLC not invited. Quite frankly, we don't need them. We've got the Sierra Club instead for example. We need a well organized broad umbrella. I'd propose someone in systems science and new technologies to develop a systemic organizational system for the Progressive Party... a simple, high-tech graphically appealing website that both organizes and makes accessible all the varoius facets of the Progressive Movement.

      But at the same time, we need to be in the streets and in the streets in a coordinated, smart way!

      The People United Can Never Be Defeated.

      After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

      by Jeff Gannon on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:30:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Matewan (none / 1)

        Sorry...

        all the union/coallescing theory was inspired by my recent viewing of Matewan. A great movie...

        But I think part of the Right's ability to coordinate does stem in part from their use of system's theory. They get it from the corporate world, where in the 60's-90's along with computer tech. really allowed global corporations.

        We liberals are the "People's Party" and so far, haven't really had as much first-hand exposure to this thinking except through the environmental movement and computer tech.

        Anyway, I think someone at MIT Medialab or Los Alamos (or both) should be in touch with Kos (since he's been the most successful in generating debate and productive web research) and other groups like MoveOn, MediaMatters, CFAP, Boxer, Kerry2004, Dean, etc... all have huge emailing lists.... the beginnings of our "Liberal Union."

        After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

        by Jeff Gannon on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:50:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I regret... (none / 0)

    ...That i have but one "recommend" to give for this story.

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Wed Jun 01, 2005 at 11:57:52 PM PDT

  •  ya know what? (none / 0)

    screw it!  How 'bout we just BUY Diebold?  If someone is going to rig an election best it be us and not them.

    Not that rigging an election is right or even honorable.  It is not, but there does come a time when you have to bite the bullet and get some mud on you.  

    If it is possible for these machines to be hacked, and it appears that it is.  And if it appears that an election has been hacked, and it appears that it might...

    Come on!  Buy the damn company, and screw any investigation.  Given the arguments presented by the fringe right about the only results that matter is the ballot... they will not have a single bit of ground from which to argue fraud.

    Buy the companies, rig the election and not have a single GOP candidate win office anywhere in the country.  And watch the pundits' heads explode on TV.

    Then we put into place a REAL system that works and can't be hacked.

    But as long as a certain party is in control of the hardware and the congress that is not going to happen.  So get in power first to fix it.

    •  I like... (none / 0)

      the direction of your thinking. It means working from the inside and that's smart. Yes, if voting is up for sale (which it seems it is), we just need to buy it.

      Unfortunately, it seems that part of the liberal/conservative divide is very much about money. And they've got it. I dunno if we can get into a bidding war with Republicans? At least I know my wallet isn't going to help much...

      But from earlier posts (and this is kind of "out there," I admit...), I do think it'd be worthwhile if someone from the liberal camp who knew how and who could be smart enough about it to stay out of jail... did go ahead and hack the machines come voting day. There needs to be proof of their succeptibility and it's more likely people will prosecute a liberal.

      After a lot of counseling, I've left James and am pursuing a new more fulfilling life in the liberal blogosphere. (psst, I'm not really Jeff Gannon...)

      by Jeff Gannon on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:37:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  or how 'bout (none / 0)

      we just hack the machines.
      •  thats (none / 0)

        the cheaper way to go about doing it.  But it is not as solid as actually owning them.

        And it is not like liberals don't have money... come on between Soros and Buffet (who is a liberal democrat) there is plenty of cash to do the deal.

        It is a dangerous and wrong thing to do but like I said there is point to doing it.  You can bet your butt that if it happened there would be an exhaustive investigation...

  •  i'm pretty exhausted (none / 0)

    Next post will be about the lovely dinner I decided to make today with a RECIPE.  This drained me.  I'll do that tomorrow :)

    Sorry, this has DRAINED me. take care all.

  •  What baffles me most is this: (none / 1)

    How, when a company is designing vote counting machines, do they get away with limiting the vote count to 65,536?

    What, we can't afford to add another digit or seven in there?

    Imagine if Windows refused to allow Excel to count past 65,536 - there'd be a shitstorm of outrage.

    But counting our votes... feh, just chuck 256kb of RAM in there and it'll do.

    "The traditional media is still predicated on the passive consumer model. You sit back and watch. I'm not beholden to anybody." - Kos

    by HollywoodOz on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 01:16:47 AM PDT

    •  It's an elementary programming error. (none / 0)

      The programmer forgot, or didn't know, that in the particular programming language he was using to develop the Diebold system, an integer could not be greater than 65536. It's likely that Diebold was using an obsolete development environment.

      - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google. - 11/7 changed everything.

      by Jon Meltzer on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 01:32:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's clear that it happens.. (4.00 / 3)

        wow,
        What an obvious thing!
        BERJAYA
      •  Do you really think (none / 0)

        They FORGOT?
        Don't be naive.
        •  Yes, I do think they "forgot" (4.00 / 4)

          or never knew in the first place, because the company, trying to maximize its own corporate profits, hired incompetent programmers and gave them obsolete tools.

          The 65536 error is the kind of mistake that very inexperienced people make. The programmer didn't have a clue, and no one bothered to test the finished product - because testing costs money, and that expense once again detracts from corporate profit. And everyone expects that the magic code should work all the time, under every condition, without any kind of verification or testing.

          Every programmer I've talked to about this knows exactly what happened - and all of them know the number without my having to tell them. And none of them think that electronic voting is a proper use of the technology.

          - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google. - 11/7 changed everything.

          by Jon Meltzer on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 02:26:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  husband is looking for new job (none / 1)

            Since the old one is fading.  I suggested he work for Diebold.  He replied "I have my standards.".

            BTW - He's telecom and data systems in case anyone is head hunting.

            We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

            by Fabian on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 02:59:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Natural limit (none / 1)

          65535 is the natural limit for an unsigned, 16-bit integer.  Most small processors and microcontrollers for this type of device at 16-bit proccessors (some are even 8-bit).  Each voting machine never counts more than a few thousand votes (most states have a maximum precinct size of like 1500).  It's an elementary programming error and a very common one, and is not likely to be found when testing under ordinary circumstances, because you'd never count that high.

          It is an error, and an oversight, but by itself, is not evidence of malice.  An intentional security flaw (i.e. a back door) would look much different.

    •  Uh, how big is the biggest precinct? (none / 1)

      The notion of the 65k vote limit crossed my mind briefly but then I remembered these machines count votes at the precinct level.   For example, I think my densely populated precinct has about 10,000 registered voters and there were 10 touch screens operating at the last election.  Actual voter turnout was about 55%.  The math is easy to do.
      •  a nit (none / 1)

        <geek babble>
        It's 64K, not 65K. 1K is 1024.

        So 64. * 1024. = 65536.

        65535. is the largest integer that can be represented in a "16-bit" memory location (all 16 bits are set to 1).  Adding one to it causes all bits to flip to 0, thus restarting the counter.

        </geek babble>

        "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

        by cyberKosFan on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 05:59:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct. (4.00 / 2)

          And the reasons why this is true date back to the 1960s when one didn't have the computer capacity to represent integers larger than 2 to the 16th. Unfortunately the limitation got built into some computer languages and remained there way past the time when it was needed (it was in 1990s versions of Microsoft Access, for instance).

          Nowadays, any computer development environment that limits integers this way is hopelessly obsolete.

          If you run into a problem like that in released software it means that the manufacturer is not competent. It doesn't matter whether or not the flaw was deliberate; even if it isn't it still must disqualify the manufacturer from consideration - just from the technical aspects alone, leaving out any political ones.

          - What happens on DailyKos, stays on Google. - 11/7 changed everything.

          by Jon Meltzer on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 06:20:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Raises a whole new question... (none / 1)

        ...if these machines are only getting a few thousand votes a piece, what sort of bizarre botlenecks must have been occuring in Ohio in 2004 to cause people to wait for nine hours to vote?

        And if there's no paper trail to worry about, what's the freaking hold-up? It should be easy to go in, make your vote, come out again, in 20 seconds.

        "The traditional media is still predicated on the passive consumer model. You sit back and watch. I'm not beholden to anybody." - Kos

        by HollywoodOz on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 12:00:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why can't we just scrap those damn machines (4.00 / 2)

    and count the votes like we used to do? For the sake of democracy and legitimacy.... It's not that we cannot afford it (it probably costs more with the lawsuits following each and every election).

    Oh I know. Diebold wants their profits, and GOP want their power.

    Fucking Banana Republic(an).

  •  Help, I can't decide. (none / 0)

    However, I can't bear to call this proof, because I don't see any confirmation. What would help me a lot would be some footnotes, citations, confirmations... is that already out there, or is it forthcoming, or is Black Box Voting actually just a black box?

    I was especially interested in the opening hook, about Leon County Information Systems Officer Thomas James -- it sounded professionally written, and yet when I searched, Black Box Voting was the only primary source that I could find. How did they get this ashamed information systems officer to talk--is there an interview with him somewhere? Did someone observe him doing this? Don't hold back, now.

    •  You would be wise (none / 1)

      to ignore anything the Freeper BevHarris has to say:

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=BevHarris

      Not to mention there isn't one piece of supporting documentation in that piece.

      •  Oh, isn't this just charming. (none / 0)

        Here's what "BevHarris" has to say to the freepers:

        "DU mods chose not to do anything about this thread until I posted the problem on Free Republic. After they deleted it, Pitt came in and pretended the thread never existed (9 hours and 37 replies later).

        Now, since the teenage incident was posted here at FR: Between my husband and I, we have raised four teenagers and looked after three foster children. There was an incident, which was reported incorrectly in the gay press. One of our children, while a teenager, was in a very opinionated phase with his personal Christian beliefs. He showed poor judgement and for some reason got into a shouting match with an employee of a gay church -- not desecration of a sanctuary, but shouting. Very stupid. Our child was cited for disturbing the peace, not desecrating anything, though it was incorrectly reported in the gay press as such. We let the police scare the heck out of our child to teach a tough lesson."

        •  Accused Kerry Team of Fraud, too (none / 0)

              For a long time, I could not understand why Volusia was hitting such a nerve with certain factions of the Democratic Party (i.e. the Kerry operatives). They wanted us to leave Volusia alone. Made no sense at the time.

              Shortly after the Keith Olberman (MSNBC) smear, where he said I was "making up news" about Volusia County, and Democratic Underground went on an I-hate-Bev rampage, I was called by someone who works for a highly placed cog in the Kerry campaign wheel. He said they feel really bad about what happened with Olbermann, but (and I quote) "we should have told you to stay out of Florida."

              According to Andy, Randi Rhodes told him that Air America had forbidden her from mentioning the Volusia incident. This is corroborated for me because I was interviewed by Thom Hartmann on Air America shortly after Thanksgiving, and the second I mentioned Volusia he changed the subject and ended the show.

              We were told by a lower-level guy, who was the Kerry lawyer in Volusia, to get out of the county and that nothing but trouble would come of our investigation.
          http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1409301/posts?page=77#77
          ------------------------------------
          Now, let's consider this allegation shall we?  Even IF the Kerry folks were trying to pull off some election fraud, why in the hell would they pick Jeb Bush's FLORIDA in which to do it??????????

  •  You're so right (none / 1)

    A lot of us who didn't trust the machines voted in the last election because we were hoping Kerry and others were on the ball and watching for fraud.  Ha, were we fooled.  

    Next time, I just don't know if some of us will bother to vote if the privately owned machines are in use, and seeing that more and more states are installing tham every day, that appears to be what may happen.  

    So we may never be able to prove the election is fixed, but if we don't try to establish a way to prove our vote really counts, why vote?  

  •  exactly (4.00 / 2)

    I just don't understand why the "officials" are against doing all they can to prevent ANY type of manipulation in this critical process.  I have lost all confidence in these machines, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one. Without the confidence of voters, democracy cannot, and does not work.

     I am amazed, and ashamed at the "ho-hum" approach to the safeguards of our elections by the officials in charge of protecting them. Our HISTORY PROVES that elections were and are being tampered with all the time, acting as if this is not the case is not only foolishness but dangerous.

  •  I have a mechanism of "fraud" to suggest (4.00 / 2)

    Optical scanners can be adjusted for sensitivity, that is, read this circle as being filled even if there is only a slight mark there/or don't read it.  Now couldn't this sensitivity be set to select against particular groups?  
    First you would need to do some basic research and confirm that certain groups fill out the circles with different efficiency.  For example, I imagine that the elderly may fill in circles less completely either due to arthritis or less experience than the younger generation in filling out this sort of "test" form.  Since elderly often vote in favor of Democrats, they would have a bias towards being unread.  
  •  They are pretty confident- (none / 0)

    As long as it's THEIR hackers, but what if Kerry had "won"?
  •  Couldn't preloading votes be prevented by a simple (none / 0)

    printout of totals before voting starts for the day?

    Up here in NJ in my county we use machines with raised buttons that you push, a green "X" lights up next to the candidate you are voting for and then you push a large "Record Vote" button at the bottom when you are done. You get a "beep", the screen goes blank and your vote is recorded (hopefully).

    But before we begin voting for the day every machine must print out a report showing its totals at zero in the presence of a Dem and Rep poll worker.

    Why wouldn't that prevent pre-loading votes on optical scan machines as well?

    •  Good question (none / 1)

      I was a poll observer in November, and that's exactly what happened with the optical machines in MI.  My precinct captain observed the check out of the machines at the beginning of the day to be sure they contained no ballots, and that they showed a zero total.

      The article basically claims "Oh, they can get around that."  OK, so give me some details.  Is there a buffer overflow that lets you overwrite the code that prints the zero tape?  How does it then not misprint the final tape at the end (which is printed in the same way)?  If it's a buffer overflow, how did they develop the hack in "a few hours"?  Even for a good cracker, that is unlikely, espescially to get the fix tape to match a real one.  And then they said they tested one part, and not another.  Why not?  They don't say, or it's really unclear.

      •  A little time spent (none / 0)

        I'm not a programmer, but I am fairly technically proficient.  My sense of your questions is that you are throwing out a lot, and you are pretty sophisticated, but you need to go to the key web sites and review the technical documentation on the vulnerabilities of these machines and the credentials of the highly acclaimed computer scientists who have put their names behind those technical critiques.

        I don't have time to research it and explain it myself.  All I can say is, if you spent some time reading those documents, and if you were sincerely concerned about having a fully transparent and accountable voting system - there is no doubt in my mind that you would be able to either find an answer to your question, or someone able to answer it.  

        You make some interesting points, but points that likely are not intended to generate answers here, but only to nibble around the notion that people pursuing these issues are not credible or are not as informed as you are.  I know the credentials of those seeking answers through these other sites, but yours are not presented.  I fail to see how this process furthers your own pursuit of these issues or furthers the discovery of answers to the questions you raise.  I would think, given your interest and sophistication, that you'd likely be involved with the efforts of the activists to determine what can be done to solve the problem of perception that now exists regarding the process of unverifiable voting and vote counting by machines only.

        •  I *AM* a programmer (none / 0)

          I'm a programmer and I have a degree in CS.  There are real, serious CS people who've pointed out flaws in the machines, and they are flawed.  But mixed in with those, at a lot of these sites, are paranoid rants and delusional junk from crazy people.

          The conspiracy theorists are clouding the real issues raised by serious people.

          Though the additional tweaks were not demonstrated at the Leon County elections office, Hursti believes that the integer overflow hack can be covered up on the "zero tape" produced at the beginning of the election. The programming to cover up manipulations during the "logic & accuracy test" is even simpler, since the program allows you to specify on which reports (and, if you like, date and time of day) the manipulation will affect.

          The testing demonstrated, using the actual voting system used in a real elections office, that Diebold programmers developed a system that sacrifices security in favor of dangerously flexible programming, violating FEC standards and calling the actions of ITA testing labs and certifiers into question.

          In the case of Leon County, inside access was used to achieve the hacks, but there are numerous ways to introduce the hacks without inside access. Outside access methods will be described in the technical report to be released in mid-June.

          Here's another example.  There is a bit requried here to hide your rigging, but they didn't test it.  Why?  They don't say, and as far as I can tell (I don't have time to go over it with a fine tooth comb), the supporting documents don't seem to say either.  And they mix in what appear to be real and tested holes, with speculation.

          So, they're basically saying "it should work, but we didn't try it, and this other problem does work.  There's some more methods that we'll tell you about later."  They've been promising that for a good while now.

          So, there are security problems with some of the machines.  We've known that for several years now.  But, of course, the title of the diary is "Optical Scanners WERE hacked?  Proof?  You decide!"  The article contains little new information, and has NO evidence they were hacked.  Only some evidence (old news, as far as I can tell) that the machines are less than secure.

          •  We See Two Different Realities - Links Here (none / 0)

            I don't like to give personal details, but I appreciate your background.  It doesn't make you an expert, but it gives you some sophistication to argue either way certainly, though it also may cause you to be somewhat blind to real issues.  I don't know which it is, but you certainly have a strong point of view, and I respect that.

            I see the facts absolutely differently than you do, and though I won't give you my personal details, I'm higly educated enough and sophisticated enough to know what is bs and what is not.  I disagree strongly that the election reform movement is talking bs right now.

            First off, let's start with the "conspiracy theorist" accusation.  I don't know what that is.  The scholarly criticisms regarding the exit polls are far from conspiracy oriented.  Steven Freeman's multiple papers ( http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep ) on the subject as well as USCountvotes.org's documentation ( http://uscountvotes.org/ )are far from conspiracy oriented.  They point out facts and question various theories, demanding proof and appropriately disinterested skepticism of the currently accepted mainstream media theories re the election and exit poll discrepancies.  Mitofsky's own analysis of his own exit polls points out problems, but offers no appropriately solid statistical proof for his own explanation - and the statistical proof in fact suggests the opposit of his hypothesis, according to the statistical rebuttals that I have read carefully.  There are also some trash statistical papers put out by some top schools claiming to prove there are no discrepancies.  Unfortunately, you have to be able to read those reports critically in order to see how specious they are - even though they have big names behind them like MIT/Caltech.

            We could go in circles on this.  Does this make me or anyone who argues differently from you a "conspiracy theorist"?  Obviously not.  Moreover, the "conspiracy theorist" charge is bogus.  It is the belittling term used to those who focus on circumstantial evidence to discuss a particular situation or outcome.  This happens every day in courts of law (and even in science) and good convictions are usually acquired with the use of circumstantial evidence.  Almost NO cases could be prosecuted without circumstantial evidence that discusses motive, opportunity, etc.

            Flat earthers once belittled those who theorized that the earth was round, because they based their theories on abstract evidence they perceived as indirect or circumstantial based upon the reality they "knew".

            In addition, there are those who would have accused the anti-war segment  of the populace as being "conspiracy theorists" - because they asserted facts based upon a variety of evidence perceived to be indirect.  That evidence turned out to be the truth - profoundly so, and yet, they were accused of being "conspiracy theorists" because they chose to challenge the dominant belief system. Being correct may still not be enough to challenge the dominant belief system, and that may also be true with regard to voting and voting reform.  People don't want to believe that we are not the best democracy ever - their self-definition depends on that belief being firmly adhered to.

            Are those who say that Novak intentionally printed Vallery Plame's name, to assist the White House in its efforts against Wilson - conspiracy theorists simply because Novak has not yet been charged with a crime, imprisoned or convicted?  I doubt it.  They do see a conspiracy, but should such a loaded word be used to describe real differences of opinion and different interpretations of fact?

            I think it is unproductive.  I'd like to see you agree on this, but I won't hold my breath.  You might find the below articles worth your time however.

            See also (some sites require registration - all are free),
            http://uscountvotes.org/
            Steven Freeman:  http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep
            http://election04.ssrc.org/research/electionirregularities/
            http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10509
            http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=30826&ntpid=1
            http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0310-32.htm
            http://nightweed.com/3_november_2004.html
            Conyers Report: http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml
            Future of the Voting Rights Act:  http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/local.cfm?ArticleID=381

            http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/currents/Content?oid=oid:69132
            http://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/surveys/
            http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/5/27/18502/5421/32#32
            http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Academic_Papers_on_2004_Election_Results

            The argument that election questions are democratic disniformation is consistent with this GOPUSA.com contributor's arguments:
            http://wrenncom.com/CommentaryArchives/2005/20y05m01d31-01.asp

  •  Totally deceptive article (none / 0)

    Though it's alarming that there is the possibility that the machines are insecure, I have my doubts about this article.  Why?  Because they are very deceptive, and intentionally so.

    Some states prohibit elections officials from checking on optical scan tallies by examining the paper ballots. In Washington, according to former supervisor of elections Julie Anne Kempf, Secretary of State Sam Reed declared such spontaneous checkups to be "unauthorized recounts." New Florida regulations will forbid counting paper ballots, even in recounts, except in highly unusual circumstances. Without paper ballot hand-counts, the hacks demonstrated below show that optical-scan elections can be destroyed in seconds.

    The article implies ulterior motives here.  In fact, these rules exist for VERY good reasons.  At the end of the voting day, all the ballots are sealed and signed by the election officals present.  Both parties can (and do) have observers present to be sure no extra ballots are stuffed in.  Likewise, if you were to break that seal to do a recount, you must have observers present, so you best not do it without good cause.  If you want to reseal them, you'd have to have observers present to make sure nothing happened while they were unsealed, and to sign the newly sealed package.  You don't EVER touch ballots without good reason.  The more they're handled, the more they are likely to be misplaced, or mangled, or tampered with.  Just look at what happened to those repeated incidents of lost absentee ballots in Florida!

    To not mention this in the article is completely dishonest.

    They also bring up the problems that occured in King County, WA.  Those problems had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the security of the machines.  The counts were not exact because some ballots were mismarked or had ambigious markings.  There are always a certain number of people who don't mark their ballots clearly, or circle things instead of filling in the bubbles, or (counter to instructions), erase a mismarked vote and fill in another bubble (you'ere supposed to ask for a fresh ballot).  Some people actually vote for two candidates!  The vote in WA was VERY close, so the error rate actually mattered.  It had nothing to do with security.  The error rates were well within the expected error rates of the machines, and could be accounted for by the number of ballots with incorrect marks.

    To use this example as "evidence" that the machines are unreliable is dishonest.  In fact, the Washington situation is an example of the system working.  A close election is the best opportunity to rig an election, and the recount (and subsequent taking of office by the Democratic candidate) showed that this did not occur, and the recount system worked and found the correct winner.

    In fact, hand counting has an error rate MUCH HIGHER than machine counting (assuming the machine isn't rigged), and optical scan machines have lower error rates than other types of machines.  Humans are very error prone beings.  Ask a computer to do a billion math problems, and it will get every single one right.  Even the "bugged" pentiums had error rates much, much less than one in a million.  Ask a person, even a savant, to do even a few hundred and they'll miss a few, even if they're easy.

    The most accurate count, is a machine count combined with a hand count.  If there is a small difference, it is easy to determine which ballots were miscounted by the machine, and which were miscounted by the people by checking the results against eachother.  If there is a big difference, you know one count or the other is rigged.  A hand count, by itself, is not the best system.

    Furthermore, any good cracker will tell you that social engineering is almost always the easiest route.  It's easer to get a person to tell you their password than it is to get a computer to give it up.  Most of the more successful viruses rely on tricking users to do something (e.g. run a program) - much fewer rely on actual security holes.  Back before computer were used, there were plenty of rigged elections.

    I don't mean to be a pollyanna, and I don't want to say that fraud can't happen with these machines, or didn't happen with these machines.  I don't know for sure.  But this still isn't positive evidence that fraud did happen, and now I know for certain that BBV is a dishonest source.

    •  Good Points - But Overstated (none / 0)

      I don't have any beef with either you or the poster.  I think you make some good points about details, but to suggest that the entire article is "dishonest" or comes from a "dishonest" source because you picked on the fringes of what seems to be a very good article - that seems a bit too far to go conclusively.

      I would suggest that you'd be better off working together than throwing such accusations around.  Don't you think?  If your arguments have validity, I'm sure they will be taken into account.  If, in the end, some compromise has to be forged to ensure that machines can be verified while they are in use, than after - when it is impossible to correct the result or react to stop the election - you might need to consider a variety of procedures which it appears you are not willing to consider or think about.  

      You make good points about observers and sealing counts.  There is no reason why such procedures cannot be followed while simultaneously, audits, even random ones, are performed in the field.  There are all sorts of fixes that can be implimented to deal with this corruption.  You appear to have no solution and to be unsupportive of people who are indicating, quite intelligently, the level of problems that currently exist.

      I'm curious, with your knowledge, if you are connected to the voting process in any way?  That would be a good disclosure.  You seem well informed.

      •  Elections (none / 1)

        Yes, I was a democratic observer for a precinct in Michigan in November (I've mentioned this in more detail in other posts and some of my diary entries).  They used optical Deibold "ACCU-Vote" machines, which are used state-wide (actually, there are a couple precincts that don't use them yet, but are going to soon.)  I observed all kinds of security procedures that didn't even occur to me, and gave me some confidence in the system.  Now, I know not every place is as well run (I heard of some issues - which were resolved - in Detroit, for instance,) but I know the volunteers at my location did a damn fine job and ran a clean ship.

        I'm all for voting reform.  I'm a big booster of that.  I think things can be made better, and I think politicians are dragging their feet.  I think there should be random inspections, and the barriers for recounts should not be too high.  The whole process should be more open, and there should be higher standards for the integrity of the machines.  But even if we do get higher standards, great standards, these same people will come back saying there's this flaw, or that flaw every time a Republican wins a race for dog catcher.

        I see no reason to work with cranks.  I don't care if they're on our side.  Bev Harris, from all indications, is a quack.  You can't work with people like that.  They're crazy.  When there was the serious of diaries that said the exit polls were evidence of tampering, I said that was wrong.  They were only evidence that the exit polls had systematic bias, not the result of random chance, and in one case, they ruled out one alternative hypothesis.  They didn't provide any confirming evidence of fraud.  But I was told that I was a troll, or a GOP plant, or other nonsense.  Dealing with irrational people is too exhausting for me to bother with.

        Serious, real concerns about these voting machines have been transformed into tin-foil hatted loonery.  I want the machines fixed, and these people are only hurting that cause!

        Now, some will say I'm being harsh, and they're right.  I think I'm justified in doing so.  The points I picked on in my post weren't just errors - they're outright mendacities, and they're only examples.  There are others in the article.  If somebody lies to me about one thing, why should I trust them to tell me the truth the rest of the time?

        •  Bev is not the issue, verifiable voting is. (none / 1)

          But even if we do get higher standards, great standards, these same people will come back saying there's this flaw, or that flaw every time a Republican wins a race for dog catcher.

          Citizens demanding accountability of their local elections?  Sounds like progress to me.  I can't imagine you're actually arguing for keeping low standards of accountability.

          Sure, it makes for a lot of headaches for County Clerks and their staff.  Boo hoo.  Democracy is important enough to be done right, even if that involves tossing a lot of technology and sitting down with your neighbors to hand-count your precinct's ballots.

          We either fix this shit county by county, or we give up and lose forever.  I don't see a choice.

          Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

          by ubikkibu on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 11:18:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Personal agendas (4.00 / 3)

          Funny how people will bellow about a need for "proof" when it comes to potential election fraud, but will turn around and hang an individual based on rumors and innuendo and speculation.
  •  All politics is local (none / 1)

    All politics is local.  Don't let this happen near you.

    we can fight this at the local level from the ground up.  New need local people demanding fair balloting for all levels of government.

    One person. One vote.  Without it, the U.S. is toast.

    •  Start with Democratic precincts (none / 1)

      Since the voting systems are chosen on a state-by-state basis, with local input, a start at this would be to get those states that are clearly controlled by Democrats to use manual counting.

      When I last voted in Massachusetts, they were using optical scan machines. Has this changed?

      There's no chance of getting the swing states in line with this if states we control have the same problems...

  •  Excellent Article On Hacking - Scannable Diebold's (none / 0)

    http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/11811936.htm

    Posted on Sat, Jun. 04, 2005
    Test shows voter fraud is possible

    Machines are vulnerable to manipulation

    By Tony Bridges

    DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER

    All it takes is the right access.

    Get that, and an election worker could manipulate voting results in the computers that read paper ballots - without leaving any digital fingerprints.

    That was the verdict after Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho invited a team of researchers to look for holes in election software.

    The group wasn't able to crack the Diebold system from outside the office. But, at the computer itself, they changed vote tallies, completely unrecorded.

    Sancho said it illustrates the need for tight physical security, as well as a paper trail that can verify results, which the Legislature has rejected.

    Black Box Voting, the non-profit that ran the test and published a report on the Internet, pointed to the findings as proof of an elections system clearly vulnerable to corruption.

    But state officials in charge of overseeing elections pooh-poohed the test process and dismissed the group's report.

    "Information on a blog site is not viable or credible," said Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the Department of State.

    It went like this:

    Sancho figured Leon County's security could withstand just about any sort of probing and wanted to prove it.

    He went to one of the most skeptical - and vocal - watchdogs of election procedures. Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, had experience with voting machines across the country.

    She recruited two computer-security experts and made the trip to Tallahassee from her home in Washington state three times between February and late May.

    Leon County is one of 30 counties in Florida that use Diebold optical scanners. Voters darken bubbles on a sheet of paper, sort of like filling in the answers on the SAT, and the scanners read them and add up the numbers.

    So the task was simple. Get in, tamper with vote numbers, and get out clean.

    They made their first attempts from outside the building. No success.

    Then, they sat down at the vote-counting computers, the sort of access to the machines an employee might have. For the crackers, security protocols were no problem, passwords unnecessary.

    They simply went around them.

    After that, the security experts accomplished two things that should not have been possible.

    They made 65,000 votes disappear simply by changing the real memory card - which stores the numbers - for one that had been altered.

    And, while the software is supposed to create a record whenever someone makes changes to data stored in the system, it showed no evidence they'd managed to access and change information.

    When they were done, they printed the poll tapes. Those are paper records, like cash register tape, that show the official numbers on the memory cards.

    Two tapes, with different results. And the only way to tell the fake one?

    At the bottom, it read, "Is this real? Or is it Memorex?"

    "That was troubling," Sancho said.  (read the rest at the above link...)

  •  test n/t (none / 0)

    for the animals | for the earth | for yourself :: go vegan

    by kennyt on Sun Jun 05, 2005 at 07:30:39 PM PDT

Permalink | 240 comments