1
   

electronic voting...potential for abuse

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 03:57 pm
(I just wanted you to know I don't think it's ALL conspiratorial. Sometimes it's just show-off middlemen who screw up our lives.)
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 04:46 pm
I have NO problem with being wary of any vote counting system-----I have no problem with wanting a verifiable system-----I have no problem being suspicious of politicians because we already know that EVERY POLITICIAN LIES but I've never seen a politician serve any hard time for lying. Vote rigging however is a different matter---that is not to say some LOCAL election official hasn't tried it. Suggesting however that a political strategist at the national level would advocate and implement such an activity is ------ a little "over the top" don't you think.

Besides---from what I can see Howard Dean will be the Dem candidate and that is the "Kiss of death" for any hope of replacing Bush so why should Rove risk going to jail? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:08 pm
Keep on thinking that, Perc. It helps our cause.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:21 pm
perc

I truly don't see a difference between local and national levels here, except as regards the chances of being observed and caught out. The moral failing is the same in either case. All it takes is someone/s who, for whatever set of reasons, think it not immoral.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:30 pm
Blatham is correct in his statement that elections can be fixed. I don't know if he is familiar with the outrageous and blatant stealing that went on in the election in Illinois when Kennedy was elected but it has been documented that "dead people" voted for Kennedy in many Chicago wards.

I would opine that the statement that the companies who make the machines are rather idiotic. I would challenge anyone to show evidence that those "companies" enabled vote fraud in the outrageous fashion recorded in Chicago in 1960.

There is a lot of "blah-blah" about the companies fixing the machines. I have never seen any evidence. Does any one have any??????
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:33 pm
Carl Rove was a piker compared to King Maker Daley in Chicago. But the left wing will never admit that.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:35 pm
Blatham

Of course technically you're correct but there is a considerable difference in dimension. Also I won't attempt to deny what you suspect is a lack of morality in Mr. Rove but then I don't know for sure and neither do you.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:38 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Keep on thinking that, Perc. It helps our cause.


Laughing How much of my money would you like to try for?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:38 pm
I feel voting integrity will be a big issue the next election, not so much because the system will be any more or less fallible than in the past, but because the media will make it the issue.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:39 pm
Brand X wrote:
I feel voting integrity will be a big issue the next election, not so much because the system will be any more or less fallible than in the past, but because the media will make it the issue.

For which I would think all Americans should be thankful.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:47 pm
Perception says: "I don't know for sure and neighter do you"( Blatham).

Perception is quite correct. Sometimes people like Blatham( from their professiorial platforms) come to think that they are Godlike gurus.

As a matter of fact, most of them are tendentious and unbalanced purveyors of left wing bias. The real problem is that they don't realize it.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 05:54 pm
Italgato wrote:
There is a lot of "blah-blah" about the companies fixing the machines. I have never seen any evidence. Does any one have any??????


Quote:
"A defective computer chip in the county's optical scanner misread ballots Tuesday night and incorrectly tallied a landslide victory for Republicans," announced the Associated Press in a story on Nov. 7, just a few days after the 2002 election. The story added, "Democrats actually won by wide margins."

Republicans would have carried the day had not poll workers become suspicious when the computerized vote-reading machines said the Republican candidate was trouncing his incumbent Democratic opponent in the race for (Scurry) County (TX) Commissioner. The poll workers were close enough to the electorate - they were part of the electorate - to know their county overwhelmingly favored the Democratic incumbent.

A quick hand recount of the optical-scan ballots showed that the Democrat had indeed won, even though the computerized ballot-scanning machine kept giving the race to the Republican. The poll workers brought the discrepancy to the attention of the County Clerk, who notified the voting machine company.

"A new computer chip was flown to Snyder [Texas] from Dallas," County Clerk Lindsey told the AP. With the new chip installed, the computer then verified that the Democrat had won the election. In another Texas anomaly, Republican state Senator Jeff Wentworth won his race with exactly 18,181 votes, Republican Carter Casteel won her state House seat with exactly 18,181 votes, and conservative Judge Danny Scheel won his seat with exactly 18,181 votes - all in Comal County. Apparently, however, no poll workers in Comal County thought to ask for a new chip.

The Texas incidents happened with computerized machines reading and then tabulating paper or punch-card ballots. In Georgia and Florida, where paper had been totally replaced by touch-screen machines in many to most precincts during 2001 and 2002, the 2002 election produced some of the nation's most startling results.

USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, "In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss." Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because "Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them."

Just as amazing was the Georgia governor's race. "Similarly," the Zogby polling organization reported on Nov. 7, "no polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes. Perdue won by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. The most recent Mason Dixon Poll had shown Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent last month with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points."

Almost all of the votes in Georgia were recorded on the new touchscreen computerized voting machines, which produced no paper trail whatsoever. And nobody thought to ask for a new chip, although it was noted on Nov. 8 by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal that in downtown Atlanta's predominantly Democratic Fulton County "election officials said Thursday that memory cards from 67 electronic voting machines had been misplaced, so ballots cast on those machines were left out of previously announced vote totals." Officials added that all but 11 of the memory cards were subsequently found and recorded.


The Theft of Your Vote is Just a Chip Away
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 06:04 pm
It will suffice here to cite a couple of specific examples - these are excerpts from the soon to be published " Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century". These examples of actual events are consistent with the existence and use of an electronic vote counting hack described at this website.

Quote:
November 1990, Seattle, WA - Worse than the butterfly ballot, some Democratic candidates watched votes alight, then flutter away. Democrat Al Williams saw 90 votes wander off his tally between election night and the following day, though no new counting had been done. At the same time, his opponent, Republican Tom Tangen, gained 32 votes. At one point several hundred ballots added to returns didn't result in any increase in the number of votes. But elsewhere, the number of votes added exceeded the number of additional ballots counted. A Republican candidate achieved an amazing surge in his absentee percentage for no apparent reason. And no one seemed to notice (until a determined Democratic candidate started demanding an answer) that the machines simply forgot to count 14,000 votes.

November 1996, Bergen County, NJ - Democrats told Bergen County Clerk Kathleen Donovan to come up with a better explanation for mysterious swings in vote totals. Donovan blamed voting computers for conflicting tallies that rose and fell by 8,000 or 9,000 votes. The swings perplexed candidates of both parties. For example, the Republican incumbent, Anthony Cassano, had won by about 7,000 votes as of the day after the election but his lead evaporated later. One candidate actually lost 1,600 votes during the counting. "How could something like that possibly happen?" asked Michael Guarino, Cassano's Democratic challenger. "Something is screwed up here."

November 1999, Onondaga County, NY - Computers gave the election to the wrong candidate, then gave it back. Bob Faulkner, a political newcomer, went to bed on Election Night confident he had helped complete a Republican sweep of three open council seats. But after Onondaga County Board of Elections staffers rechecked the totals, Faulkner had lost to Democratic incumbent Elaine Lytel.

April 2002, Johnson County, KS - Johnson County's new Diebold touch screen machines, proclaimed a success on election night, did not work as well as originally believed. Incorrect vote totals were discovered in six races, three of them contested, leaving county election officials scrambling to make sure the unofficial results were accurate. Election Commissioner Connie Schmidt checked the machines and found that the computers had under- and over-reported hundreds of votes. "The machines performed terrifically," said Bob Urosevich, CEO of Diebold Election Systems. "The anomaly showed up on the reporting part."

The problem, however, was so perplexing that Schmidt asked the Board of Canvassers to order a hand recount to make sure the results were accurate. Unfortunately, the touch screen machines did away with the ballots, so the only way to do a hand recount is to have the machine print its internal data page by page. Diebold tried to recreate the error in hopes of correcting it. "I wish I had an answer," Urosevich said. In some cases, vote totals changed dramatically.

November 2002, Comal County, TX - A Texas-sized lack of curiosity about discrepancies: The uncanny coincidence of three winning Republican candidates in a row tallying up exactly 18,181 votes each was called weird, but apparently no one thought it was weird enough to audit. Conversion to alphabet: 18181 18181 18181 ahaha ahaha ahaha

November 2002, Baldwin County, AL - No one at the voting machine company can explain the mystery votes that changed after polling places had closed, flipping the election from the Democratic winner to a Republican in the Alabama governor's race. "Something happened. I don't have enough intelligence to say exactly what," said Mark Kelley of ES&S. Baldwin County results showed that Democrat Don Siegelman earned enough votes to win the state of Alabama. All the observers went home. The next morning, however, 6,300 of Siegelman's votes inexplicably had disappeared, and the election was handed to Republican Bob Riley. A recount was requested, but denied.

November 2002, NY - Voting machine tallies impounded in New York. Software programming errors hampered and confused the vote tally on election night and most of the next day, causing elections officials to pull the plug on the vote-reporting Web site. Commissioners ordered that the voting machine tallies be impounded, and they were guarded overnight by a Monroe County deputy sheriff.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 06:37 pm
Now, there's a very good reason why I twice cited the Comal County results -- the three Republicans who each tallied 18,181 votes -- and it's not because it happened here in Deep-In-the-Hearta.

I'm only an amateur mathematician; I'm always adding and subtracting and multiplying and dividing numbers in my head to pass the time.

Like, for example, when I'm sitting on the stationary bike at the gym, hoping and praying that the time will go by quicker. If the timer is set for 10 minutes, I start counting down the fractions, thinking: at 1:00 I'm 10% done, at 2:00 I'm 20% done, etc. When I'm 20% done, that's one fifth, but even better, I can tell myself I just have to do what I did *four* more times. ("One-fifth" doesn't sound as good as "four more times"to me).

What's my point? The point is, when you're starting from a round number (a multiple of ten, say, like 10 or 100 or 1000), and you chop off a tenth or you add on a tenth, you end up with math problems involving numbers one away from 10 -- ninths or elevenths. When you start off with a nice round number and you chop off or tack on a fraction, you no longer have that nice round number to work with any more; the original nice round number is bigger or smaller by that fraction, and all your previous fractions are out of whack now.

A typical situation is where you bump up a number by 10%, like when you go from 100 to 110. Now if you've used up 10 units of that, you're looking at 1/11, not 1/10.

OK, so what's my point? My point is that ninths and elevenths come up a lot when you're starting with a multiple of ten and bumping it up or down by 10% -- something we do in a lot of situations --budgeting, for one example.

When you write out 1/11 as a decimal, you get 0.09090909... which looks really cool. The fraction 2/11 looks like 0.1818181818... which also looks pretty cool.

Which brings us to the mysterious 18,181 which cropped up in those suspicious elections in Comal County. Some, like the source I quoted above, have ventured an explanation by noticing that a=1 and h=8 in the alphabet, giving "ahaha".

I think there might be a more mathematical way of looking at it. 18,181 is 200,000/11 (if you truncate it, instead of rounding it. Rounding would give 18,181.81 = 18,182.)

That, in my opinion, is what's so special about 18,181. It's not a weird number because it's a palindrome or because it maps to ahaha -- it's an important number because it results when you're dividing a nice round number by 11 -- a situation that often happens when you're incrementing or decrementing some starting number by 10%.

Did I mention that 18181 is a dihedral prime? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 04:30 am
I most profusely thank P Diddie for his effort in giving me an instance in which Republicans have used Machines to steal votes.

However, and I am sure that it was inadvertent, he does not say whether someone was indicted for the "crimes". Was this another "cover-up"?

I am loathe to go back so far in time but P. Diddie gives us such minor discrepancies. The Republicans really don't know how to steal.

In his book-"It Didn't Start with Watergate" by Victor Lasky, he reports:

quote

"Even Ted White has been forced to admit that perhaps enough votes were stolen in Texas and Illinois to have won the presidency for Kennedy. In his new book, Breach of Faith...he states: Democratic vote stealing had definitely taken place on a MASSIVE scale in Illinois and Texas( where 100,000 big city votes were simply disqualified."

and

"Daley's powerful machine employed virtually every big-city trick to bolster the vote. These included the usual spoiling of Republican ballots; the voting of floaters and tombstones; and the tallying of "votes" of those who had once lived on streets bulldozed outof existence by urban renewal."

I would respectfully point out to Mr. Diddie that if he thinks that the big City Democratic Machines that operate in Watts, Harlem and the other inner cities do not steal HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTES FOR THE DEMOCRATS, he is completely unaware of the realities involved in inner city voting rolls.

Mr. Diddie doesn't really want to say that there are any bonafide Republican judges in most of the inner-city wards, does he?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 07:14 am
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today
I wish I wish he'd go away.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 08:33 am
PDiddie wrote:
It will suffice here to cite a couple of specific examples - these are excerpts from the soon to be published " Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century". These examples of actual events are consistent with the existence and use of an electronic vote counting hack described at this website.


They may very well be consistent with the exsistence of tampering but they aren't proof of tampering. From the very WWW site you pointed to:

"CAVEAT: It is important to note that the research into this subject has not established that the files we have been working on were in fact in situ in County Election Supervisors offices at the last election - nor have we proof that the back door we have discovered - which might enable the rigging of elections - was actually used in any recent election."

What they've come up with IS interesting but no where near any level of proof.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 09:17 am
tartarin

Great poem...great context!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 07:00 pm
Like in brazil, we've used computerized voting in Holland for a while now. Not in every town, but in most. No print-outs. Thus far no suspected abuse has been alleged or observed.

PDiddie, in your post repeated below, there is an odd division into two sections.

First, you mention very localised and concrete anomalies - in Scurry and Comal Counties. That seems plausible - that with this or that computer, in this or that county, something went wrong.

But then you suddenly switch to state-wide level: Cleland's loss in Georgia. Of course, saying voting machines had a hand in that electoral upset implies a little more than some local computer's mishap: achieving that would have required quite a nifty, large-scale fraud, I think.

But then that bit of the post lacks any of the 'hard' evidence of the first half. Basically, the argument here seems to be - all the polls predicted a significant margin of victory for Cleland - so if it turned out the other way round, there must have been fraud. But thats a total non-argument. There have been countless examples of actual election results differing drastically from immediate pre-election polls, involving both Democrat and Republican victories - and many things can have caused such surprise outcomes.

PDiddie wrote:
Quote:
"A defective computer chip in the county's optical scanner misread ballots Tuesday night and incorrectly tallied a landslide victory for Republicans," announced the Associated Press in a story on Nov. 7, just a few days after the 2002 election. The story added, "Democrats actually won by wide margins."

Republicans would have carried the day had not poll workers become suspicious when the computerized vote-reading machines said the Republican candidate was trouncing his incumbent Democratic opponent in the race for (Scurry) County (TX) Commissioner. The poll workers were close enough to the electorate – they were part of the electorate – to know their county overwhelmingly favored the Democratic incumbent.

A quick hand recount of the optical-scan ballots showed that the Democrat had indeed won, even though the computerized ballot-scanning machine kept giving the race to the Republican. The poll workers brought the discrepancy to the attention of the County Clerk, who notified the voting machine company.

"A new computer chip was flown to Snyder [Texas] from Dallas," County Clerk Lindsey told the AP. With the new chip installed, the computer then verified that the Democrat had won the election. In another Texas anomaly, Republican state Senator Jeff Wentworth won his race with exactly 18,181 votes, Republican Carter Casteel won her state House seat with exactly 18,181 votes, and conservative Judge Danny Scheel won his seat with exactly 18,181 votes – all in Comal County. Apparently, however, no poll workers in Comal County thought to ask for a new chip.

The Texas incidents happened with computerized machines reading and then tabulating paper or punch-card ballots. In Georgia and Florida, where paper had been totally replaced by touch-screen machines in many to most precincts during 2001 and 2002, the 2002 election produced some of the nation's most startling results.

USA Today reported on Nov. 3, 2002, "In Georgia, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll shows Democratic Sen. Max Cleland with a 49%-to-44% lead over Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss." Cox News Service, based in Atlanta, reported just after the election (Nov. 7) that, "Pollsters may have goofed" because "Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by a margin of 53 to 46 percent. The Hotline, a political news service, recalled a series of polls Wednesday showing that Chambliss had been ahead in none of them."

Just as amazing was the Georgia governor's race. "Similarly," the Zogby polling organization reported on Nov. 7, "no polls predicted the upset victory in Georgia of Republican Sonny Perdue over incumbent Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes. Perdue won by a margin of 52 to 45 percent. The most recent Mason Dixon Poll had shown Barnes ahead 48 to 39 percent last month with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points."

Almost all of the votes in Georgia were recorded on the new touchscreen computerized voting machines, which produced no paper trail whatsoever. And nobody thought to ask for a new chip, although it was noted on Nov. 8 by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal that in downtown Atlanta's predominantly Democratic Fulton County "election officials said Thursday that memory cards from 67 electronic voting machines had been misplaced, so ballots cast on those machines were left out of previously announced vote totals." Officials added that all but 11 of the memory cards were subsequently found and recorded.


The Theft of Your Vote is Just a Chip Away
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2003 08:58 am
(We're continuing my rebuttal to Scrat from another thread here...fish, nimh: I'll get to your questions momentarily.)

It is certainly a hard slog (accurate, yet poorly timed analogy, considering its recent use by Don Rumsfeld to refer to Iraq) to understand in the simplest and shortest way what happened in Florida and why. Here's my take:

The Supreme Court ordered the hand-counting of ballots (specifically, ballots in four counties that recorded 'undervotes', or no obvious vote for President) stopped in Florida because, and I'm quoting their opinion:

Quote:
The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to "participat(e) fully in the federal electoral process," as provided in 3 U. S. C. Sec. 5. That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court's order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.


In essence: there wasn't enough time left to count the votes.

Now hopefully that leaves out all of, or enough of, the partisan diatribe to be acceptable to everyone.

We can discuss the systemic disenfranchisement of African-American voters in FL prior to the election by Katherine Harris, Clay Roberts and Choicepoint if you like; I've documented this in the forum previously, using the fine research of Greg Palast available at his website and published in his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy".

We could discuss the fact the federal election laws require that voting equipment is serviced and used only after it is certified to be in correct working order (sidebar here: the fact that the punch card machines had full chad baskets, had not had the slots cleaned, and did not have new styluses was enough to cause a new election in those precincts that used those machines. These were and are important things that must be done prior to each election. If the chad baskets are full, the chads will hang or dimple. If the slots are not clean the stylus will not push the chad so it cuts on the slots; same result. If the styluses are blunt from use you get the same result again).

However (and this brings us back to the topic of this thread), all the hanging or dimpled chads only stole the spotlight from the real problem. An optical scan machine in Volusia Co. read 16,203 minus votes for Gore and 4000 plus votes for Bush BEFORE any ballots were put through the machine. An observant poll worker found the problem, but it was not fixed until after all ballots were counted.

You can read about this in Bev Harris' book -- an online version is at the website I cited above twice already.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 10:30:59