Ghost in the Machine: a collection of e-voting facts

Why should more people be scratching their heads when looking at electronic voting?  Well, let's put it this way... If it was found that Wawa's (an East cost convenience store) touch screen kiosks were misreporting the sandwiches and hoagies people ordered or were completely failing at levels between 5-15%, wouldn't Wawa get upset and stop using them?  Also, if ATM machines misreported the amount of money in accounts, made in withdrawals and deposits, or were completely failing at a rate of 5-15%, would they still be in use today?

I think not.

Below is a collection of facts about e-voting companies and voting irregularities that are attributed to e-voting.  Is this evidence of a conspiracy?  Of course not, but it does at least raise eyebrows.

More below the fold (and this is only the tip of the iceberg - there's a ton out there on the net)...

To sum up, in a general sense, why carefully looking into e-voting in this country is important, let us keep in mind the words of Josef Stalin who said "Voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything."  And also let us remember that it was Congressman Peter King (R-NY) who said: "It's already over. The election's over. We won. It's all over but the counting and we'll take care of the counting." (The video of King making this remark can be seen at www.velvetrevolution.us)

Diebold and Electronic Systems & Softway (ES&S)

• ES&S and Diebold count 80% of all votes in America. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00127.htm)
  
• Diebold also makes ATM machines. Their ATM machines, unlike their electronic voting machines during the 2004 election, provide paper receipts.  (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-03-15-advanced-atms_x.htm)
  
• ES&S managed many aspects of the 2004 election, including voter registration, printing of ballots, the programming of their voting machines, tabulation of votes (often with armed guards keeping the media and members of the public who wished to witness the count at bay) and the first reporting of the results -- for 60 million voters in 47 states.  Actual counting of votes by citizens is very rare in the U.S., except for a few counties in Montana and other states, where paper ballots are still hand-counted.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• The largest investors in ES&S, Sequoia (another voting machine company), and Diebold are government defense contractors Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the software security in their voting machines. A majority of officials on SAIC's board are former members of either the Pentagon or the CIA including (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5517):
  

     - Army Gen. Wayne Downing, formerly of the NSC
     - Bobby Ray Inman; former CIA Director
     - Retired Adm. William Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
     - Robert Gates, another former director of the CIA.

• The U.S.'s largest voting machine company, ES&S, is owned by The Omaha World Herald.  (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00127.htm)
  
• Diebold has its corporate headquarters in Ohio.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• Diebold chairman, president, and C.E.O., Walden O'Dell, is a prominent Bush supporter and fund-raiser who proclaimed in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." (See "Hack the Vote," by Michael Shnayerson, Vanity Fair, April 2004.)  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• The vice president of E.S.&S. and the president of Diebold are brothers.  (http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html)
  
• Diebold and ES&S's other major "competitor", Sequoia, is owned by a partner member of the Carlyle Group, which has substantial ties to the Bush family and friends.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of AIS, which later became ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines in Nebraska in what was a major upset.  (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html)
  
• Senator Hagel, who was on the short-list of G.W. Bush's VP candidates, was caught concealing information about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee, even though he was officially absolved of improperly hiding information.  (http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx and http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.htm)
  
• One of the longest-serving Diebold directors is W.R. "Tim" Timken.  Since 1991 the Timken Company and members of the Timken family have contributed more than a million dollars to the Republican Party and to GOP presidential candidates such as George W. Bush. Between 2000 and 2002 alone, Timken's Canton-based bearing and steel company gave more than $350,000 to Republican causes, while Timken himself gave more than $120,000. In 2004, he was one of George W. Bush's campaign Pioneers, and pulled in more than $350,000 for the president's reelection bid.  (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html)
  
• In 2003, a cadre of computer scientists showed that the software running Diebold's new machines can be hacked with relative ease.  (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html)
  
• On a CNBC cable TV program, Black Box Voting (which opposes electronic voting) executive Bev Harris showed guest host Howard Dean how to alter vote totals within 90 seconds by entering a two-digit code in a hidden program on Diebold's election software. "This is not a bug or accidental oversight," Harris said. "It is there on purpose."  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• Managers of a subsidiary of Diebold once included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records.  The programmer, Jeffrey Dean, wrote and maintained proprietary code used to count hundreds of thousands of votes as senior vice president of Global Election Systems, or GES. Diebold purchased GES in January 2002.  According to a public court document released before GES hired him, Dean served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."  He left when Diebold acquired GES.  (http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61640,00.html)

Voting irregularities in Maryland:

• According to a report to the Montgomery County Election Board, dated December 13, 2004, there were two broad levels of problems with Diebold machines. 7% of units (189) failed. This included failure to boot up, screen freezes and a variety of other problems. Screen freezes, which occurred on 106 voting units were "the most serious of errors" because many "froze when the voter pressed the Cast Ballot button." As a result "election judges are unable to provide substantial confirmation that the vote was in fact counted." In addition there were "122 suspect units (5%) were identified because the unit had few votes captured compared to other voting units in the polling place.  (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0503/S00147.htm)
  
• Also in Montgomery Co., computer memory cards where vote totals are stored inside each voting machine were unreadable in multiple counties.  (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0503/S00147.htm)

Voting irregularities in Ohio

• More than 35 Ohio counties used electronic voting machines made by Diebold and up to 50,000 Diebold touch-screen machines and 20,000 scanners of paper ballots were used in 38 states during the November 2004 election. (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• In Butler County, a Democrat running for the State Supreme Court chief justice received 61,559 votes. The Kerry-Edwards ticket drew about 5,000 fewer votes, at 56,243.  This judicial candidate also outpolled the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 11 other counties.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• In Cuyahoga County, which includes the city of Cleveland, two largely black precincts on the East Side voted like this: In Precinct 4F: Kerry, 290; Bush, 21; Peroutka, 215. In Precinct 4N: Kerry, 318; Bush, 11; Badnarik, 163. Mr. Peroutka and Mr. Badnarik are, respectively, the presidential candidates of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties.  By way of contrast, in 2000, Ralph Nader's best year, the total vote received in Precinct 4F by all third-party candidates combined was eight.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• In Montgomery County, two precincts recorded a combined undervote of almost 6,000. An "undervote" means the voter made selections for lesser offices, but did not vote for President.  In these two precincts alone, that number represents an undervote of 25%, in a county where undervoting averages out at just 2%. Democratic precincts had 75% more undervotes than Republican ones.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• In Precinct lB of Gahanna, in Franklin County, a computerized voting machine recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there are only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• In Miami County, the Concord Southwest and Concord South precincts boasted incredibly high 98.5% and 94.27% turnouts, respectively, both of them registering overwhelming majorities for Bush.  Miami County also managed to report 19,000 additional votes for Bush after 100% of the precincts had reported on Election Day.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• In Mahoning County, Washington Post reporters found that many people had been victims of "vote hopping," i.e., voting machines highlighted a choice of one candidate after the voter had recorded a preference for another.  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, arranged for ample voting booths in GOP areas and a shortage in liberal college towns and minority precincts. Despite the huge increase in new voter registration (91% of which was Democratic), Blackwell provided fewer total voting machines than were used in 2000.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• Christopher Hitchens: "In practically every case [in Ohio] where lines were too long or machines too few the foul-up was in a Democratic county or precinct, and in practically every case where machines produced impossible or improbable outcomes it was the challenger who suffered and the actual or potential Democratic voters who were shortchanged, discouraged, or held up to ridicule as chronic undervoters or as sudden converts to fringe-party losers."  (http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5359)
  
• At least of 40 of 798 ES&S machines that were personally monitored in Ohio shut down and flashed a message that repair was needed during the 2004 election.  These machines could not be made to report a final printed vote tally.  (http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html)

Voting irregularities in Florida

• In the 2000 election, in Volusia County, Florida, a Diebold-made central ballot-counting computer showed a Socialist Party candidate receiving more than 9,000 votes and Vice President Al Gore getting minus 19,000. Another 4,000 votes poured into the plus column for Bush that didn't belong there.  (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html)
  
• ES&S voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to a statistical analysis conducted by University of California, Berkeley graduate students and a professor. The total number of excessive votes ranged between 130,000 and 260,000, depending on what kind of problem caused the excess votes. The counties most affected by the anomaly were heavily Democratic.  A sociology professor said the chance for such a discrepancy to occur was less than 1 in 1,000. (http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65757,00.html)
  
• While the approximated Florida discrepancy would not overcome a reported 350,000 vote Bush lead, no meaningful recount can ever be carried out because Diebold machines do not leave a paper trail of any sort. (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65563,00.html)
  
• Kathy Dopp examined the State of Florida's county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered by party affiliation in the days immediately following the election. Tthe numbers Dopp looked at showed widespread election anomalies in 47 of the state's 67 counties. The discrepancies did not occur so much in the touch-screen counties, where public scrutiny would naturally be focused, but in counties where optically screened paper ballots were fed into a central tabulator PC, which is highly vulnerable to hacking.  Colin Shea of Zogby International analyzed and double-checked Dopp's figures and confirmed that optical-scan counties gave Bush 16% more votes than he should have gotten. "This 16%  would not be strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly," Shea explains, but it is not. In 11 different counties, the "actual" Bush tallies were 50-100% higher than expected. In one county, where 88% of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote -- three times more than predicted by Shea's statistical model.  "In 21 counties, more than 50% of Democrats would have to have defected to Bush to account for the results," Shea says. "In four counties at least 70% [defection] would have been required. These results are absurdly unlikely." (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• In 47 Florida counties, initial vote tallies showed that the total number of presidential votes exceeded the total number of voters who showed up at the polls. Palm Beach County recorded 90,774 more votes than voters and Miami Dade had 51,979 more, while relatively honest Orange County had only 1,648 more votes than voters. Overall, Florida reported 237,522 more presidential votes (7.59 million) than citizens who turned out to cast ballots (7.35 million). These anomalies evaporated, without explanation, when Florida issued its last set of poll numbers.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• In Broward Country, the central tabulating machine was incorrectly programmed to expect only 32,000 votes from each precinct; when more votes were received, the machine started counting backwards. The problem existed in the 2002 elections in Broward County but was never fixed. Throughout Florida, as in most tossup states, poll monitors saw prospective voters leaving because of long lines. There were numerous reports of sub-par facilities and faulty equipment in minority neighborhoods.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• Several dozen voters in six states -- particularly Democrats in Florida -- said the wrong candidate appeared on their touch-screen machine's checkout screen (i.e. they voted one way and the result which appeared was the opposite).  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• Keith Olbermann demonstrated on MSNBC's Countdown program that many Florida counties where Democrats allegedly "crossed over" were voting Republican for the first time.  He also poked another hole in the theory that these voters were "Dixiecrats" when he noted, "On the same Florida Democratic ballots where Bush scored big, people supported highly Democratic measures -- such as raising the state minimum wage $1 above the federal level. This indicates that only the presidential voting was rigged." (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)
  
• Moreover, the 18 switchover Florida counties were not in the panhandle or near the Georgia border, but were scattered throughout the state. For instance, voters in Glades County (Everglades region) registered 64.8% Republican but cast 38.3% more votes for Bush than for Kerry. Hardee County (between Bradenton and Sebring) registered 63.8% Democratic but officially gave Bush 135% more votes than Kerry.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)

The discrepancies between exit polls and vote tabulations where electronic voting was used:

-    Concerning the discrepancies between exit polls and the final vote tally in 2004, Dr. Steven F. Freeman, faculty member of  the University of Pennsylvania determined that the likelihood of Kerry receiving only 47.1% in Florida, given that the exit polls indicated 49.7% is less than 3 in 1,000. Although Kerry did carry Pennsylvania, the likelihood of his receiving only 50.8% given that the exit polls indicated 54.1% is less than 2 in 1,000. Similarly the likelihood of Kerry receiving only 48.5% in Ohio, given the exit polls indicated 52.1% is less than 1 in 1,000 (.0008).  Freeman says, "The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to 1. As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states could have been due to chance or random error."   (http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/ThreeResearchStudiesBushIsOut.htm)
- In 10 states where there were verifiable paper trails -- or no electronic machines -- the final results hardly differed from initial exit polls. Exit polls and final counts in Missouri, Louisiana, Maine and Utah, for instance, varied by 1% or less. In non-paper-trail states, however, there were significant differences. Florida saw a shift from Kerry +1% in the exit polls to Bush +5% at evening's end. In Ohio, Kerry went from +3% to -3%. Other big discrepancies in key states were: Minnesota (from +10% to +4%), New Mexico (+4 to -1), Nevada (+1 to -3), Wisconsin (+7 to +0.4), Colorado (-2 to -5), North Carolina (-4 to -13), Iowa (+1 to -1), New Hampshire (+14 to +1) and Pennsylvania (+8 to +2). Exit polls also had Kerry winning the national popular vote by 3%.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)

Miscellaneous:

- On November 10, 2004, Keith Olbermann reported that computerized balloting in North Carolina was so thoroughly messed up that all statewide voting may have to be recounted. A Craven County, N.C. district recorded 11,283 more votes than there were voters, overturning the results of a regional race.  (http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:91516)

•  EXCELLENT

  I hope all those people who have "moved on" after the election take the time to read this throughly.  

  It's disheartening for me to remember and relive it all but I truly believe voting reform is the MOST IMPORTANT issue the democrats should be addressing now.  Nothing else counts, literally, if we don't.

  by Southern Bird on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:31:52 AM PDT

  •  Democracy

    is the antidote to violent revolution. Electronic voting is the antidote to democracy.

    by TocqueDeville on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:30:37 PM PDT

•  There's a real problem now and the problem is $

  With all the obvious problems linked to these e voting machines, something will have to be done to rememdy it.
  Where i live, the counties are now being forced to buy these e machines for the first time at great tax payer expense. What's going to happen if and when we are able to enact legislation to either provide paper ballots or machines with paper reciepts? The counties are going to say the economic burden to either buy new, or have machines altered will be too great. And unfortunately they will be right.
  This is not only a voting rights issue but a huge economic issue, between the monye currently being spent on these faulty machines and the monye that will be required to fix the problem or provide alternative ballots the costs could be crippling.
  We must make sure that the potential financial burden of reform is addressed in any legislation. If not, I guarantee that in order to avoid reforms, some counties will argue extreme financial burden, and in many cases the argument will be justified. We have to come to the table prepared with a plan for these arguments.

  by comeon on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:42:35 AM PDT

  •  PAPER ONLY!!

    Voting on paper ballots, without the aid of a machine, is cheap!

    We need to get back to paper-only voting. The machines just muck it all up.

    Cheap.
    Easy.
    Transparent.
    Verifiable.

    It's a brand new technology called paper and a pen.

    Concerned that the vote will get altered after the voter leaves? Laminate the vote. Voters should be able to laminate their paper ballot, re-inspect it, then cast it. Then volunteers physically count the vote and see the votes with their own eyes, and phone in the results by voice to the county head quarters. Case closed.

    by bejammin075 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:57:01 AM PDT

    •  I agree with paper ballots

      but i don't want to be the one to tell these counties you just spend millions of dollars on these machines as required by law, now you can just store them away and go back to paper.
      Besides, you may not be considering the costs associated with tabulating paper ballots.

      by comeon on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:11:17 AM PDT

      •  Give it to the poll workers

        Pay poll workers a decent wage to tabulate.  Direct the money to these folks and not to the companies.

        by maxschell on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:04:38 AM PDT

      •  how much is democracy worth?

        PMJI - but why is COST the only factor American's ever consider.  

        Why don't we ever consider the cost of doing nothing?

        by servantsavant on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

        •  Hey Unfair

          It is hardly the only consideration, but money it real and comes out of peoples pockets. Poor peoples pockets as well as wealthy, and the fact is when you ask a poor county to come up with  millions of dollars for these machines then turn around and tell them oh never mind sorry you spent the money, you better have a better reply to those people than a condescending "is cost the only thing that matters to you people?"

          That'll win you friends real goddamned fast.
          This is real money out of real peoples pockets, money that now can't be spent on education, or infrastructure, or community centers and programs, etc. etc. etc.

          I hope your response to this will be a little more considerate than "well don't you care about democracy?"

          by comeon on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:57:46 AM PDT

          •  truely sorry

            my comment was not meant as an ad homenim response, nor was it meant to trivialize your comment.  Of course cost is an important consideration.  But it's just one factor when you do the risk analysis.  

            Compared with all other things that we fund as a nation -- multi-billion dollar submarines and battle carrier groups and aircraft to go with them, and all manner new wizbang technology that people in the Pentagon put on purchase orders on a daily basis -- this seems to me to be a national priority.

            IMHO it is too important to be left to local jurisdictions to select which technology they want to subscribe to based on the cost to their local jurisdiction.  

            I'm sure we wouldn't ask individual counties to chip in for say a Strategic Missile Defense system.  That would be silly.  But when it comes to defending the country against vote fraud, cost just doesn't come to mind as the most important consideration.

            The cost of voting machines was not born entirely by local jurisdictions either.  The Congress of the United States allocated funds to pay for the upgrades, and the people of the those united States therefore have a say in how the money is spent.

            This is not a new idea by any means -- it's all in the would-be, proposed Boxer/Clinton bill  -- but we definitely need a national standard for how voting is conducted.  Period.  

            We can put a man on the moon but we can't ensure fair and transparent elections?

            This country has satellites that can read news print anywhere on the globe but we can't ensure fair and auditable elections?

            This country has laser guided cruise missiles that are are accurate to within a foot from thousands of miles away - but we can't ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote gets to vote and that their vote is counted.

            Come on?

            by servantsavant on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:42:03 PM PDT

            •  Hey, don't ger me wrong, i wish we had not been

              forced to buy the damn machines in the first place. I have allways believed in the paper ballot. my only point is if we want to push this, after we have taken literally millions in my county of dollars out of the tax payers pockets,
              we're gonna have some splanin to do.

              by comeon on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:03:33 PM PDT

              •  you're absolutely right

                That's the way we do things in America.  We throw good money after bad on the wrong things.

                If we could have the money back that we spent on half baked plans it would be a good thing.

                by servantsavant on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:12:22 PM PDT

        •  These $ donations show what it's worth

          — money plowed to politicians by the companies that TEST the voting machines, program voter registration entry, and code the counters. Donations are linked to below.

                Republicans run also the co's that –TEST– the voting machines,  Ciber Inc. and  Wyle Labs.   And   here are their campaign $ donations.

             Not to mention some of the firms that are building county and statewide voter registration databases  (Accenture, Covansys, ES&S). Their share in this and donations can be found on the same site above, if you scroll up thru it.

                     By the way, who was the database company that began handling voter registration for Cuyahoga County, Ohio in 2004?  It was Diebold. The county flash-cut over to the new Diebold/DIMS electronic-registration system in September.

          The map shows that minority voters in Cuyahoga had to overcome more hurdles to cast a vote; were more likely to have to vote by provisional ballot. This map reflects provisional ballots accepted and counted, by census tract indicating the racial composition; these are not rejected votes, they are 'higher hurdle' votes because voters' names did not appear on the electronic registration rolls.

          

          The map is thanks to jmknapp.  It says to me that in minority areas, even where voters were legitimately registered voters, they faced more difficulties to prove they were entitled to vote. Explained here: http://ohiovigilance.org/Counties/Cuyahoga/Analysis/CuyProblemDIMS.htm

          [Diebold acquired DIMS (very heavy presence also in California voter roll management) in January, 2003.]

               According to the FEC, here are the soft money donations made by the parent company of Diebold Elections Systems (the soft money summary shows only for 2002 and 2000, not yet for 2004 on the opensecrets.org site).

          And the Ohio company responsible for the voter registration system in 45 Ohio counties, (and vote tabulation in most of those) is Triad GSI/Rapp Systems, run by Tod Rapp.

          I've cross-posted this info from the Maryland/Diebold diary.
          

          by joan reports on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:07:13 PM PDT

          •  Wow!

            Thanks for adding all this great info to this discussion!!!!

            by LITBMueller on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 05:59:35 PM PDT

      •  Time to challenge the law?

         These Counties should be in court getting their money back.  I doubt they expressed a desire to spend millions on defective equipment.  And even the most right wing judge would have trouble declaring caveat emptor when the issue at hand is voter disenfranchisement.

         Or am I hopelessly naive?

        by therion on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:52:51 PM PDT

        •  yes, but getting it back from who?

          who is going to give them the money back? the company that produced the machine? they delievered a product as ordered and can't very well be forced to return the money because the order was a bad idea.
          the government? well, again that money comes from the tax payers pockets.
          unfortunatly this is just a loose loose situation.

          by comeon on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:58:44 PM PDT

          •  Purchases are based on performance expectations

             Buyers generally have rights. If you buy a new car, and it only works 85% of the time, there are recourses. It would be a sad commentary on the procurement processes of any local government if it doesn't have some kind of performance specification built into any purchase agreement of significant size.  I imagine they get better warranties on their fleet purchases than you and I get from the auto manufacturers.  

             The Controller of any County that buys defective equipment, and does nothing about it, should have first an internal audit, and then a voter revolt on his hands.

            by therion on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:23:59 PM PDT

            •  Sure, but we are not talking about faulty machines

              if that were the case. they could just offer to fix the machines free of charge. What we want is a paper ballot and no machine. They are too easy to tamper with even if they do work perfectly, too easy to fix it so they do not.
              And saying we don't want no stinkin machines does not justify a refund.

              by comeon on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:43:42 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      Paper ballots also reduce possibilities for voter suppression.  Voting machines can be maliciously limited at polling places to cause long waiting periods.

      Just say no to machine voting.
      

      by baxxor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:14:32 AM PDT

      •  Paper is the best, but only part of a system

        Benefits:
        

        • Permanent marking.
        • Pen makes a depression on surface to make tampering evident.
        • Unambiguous.
        • Vendor-independent backup & archival methods
        • Massively parallel voting possible, limited only by supply of pens.

        However, most paper ballots are also tabulated by machines made by the same vendors who make the paperless machines. A chain of custody must be maintained from voter to manual counting, in plain view of impartial observers.

        The machine tabulation should only ever be considered a prediction of the expected outcome of the hand count.
        

        by chimpy on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:33:59 AM PDT

•  Interesting

  A lot (but not all) can be explained on a case by case level, but it is still an impressive listing of circumstancial evidence

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:44:46 AM PDT

  •  Circumstances can lead to a pattern

    It may very well be possible to explain these problems.  But, it's when enough circumstantial evidence is gathered to suggest a strong pattern of harming one cadidate over another that things get dicey.  I'm not saying I've done that here, but I hope more and more people look into it. Remember, Scott Peterson just got sentenced to death on a circumstantial prosecution.

    by LITBMueller on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:40:39 AM PDT

    •  If circumstantial evidence is enough to convict

      a person of murder and sentence them to death, then why isn't it enough to prove vote fraud?

      by LionelEHutz on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:29:40 AM PDT

•  Again with the Diary Whoring

  I still feel it's important to point out that a secure, reliable, verifiable electronic voting system is possible- we just haven't done it.    I propose just such a design in this diary.

  by bhurt on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 07:52:33 AM PDT

  •  Great diary!

    Thanks for showing me the link.  I agree with your design.  The funny thing is, this is what goes on in Wawa's on the East coast every day when you step in to buy a fresh made hoagie!

    What is vital is some sort of human element in the e-voting process.

    by LITBMueller on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:35:56 AM PDT

  •  It's possible.. but what's the point?

    Any secure, reliable e-voting machine will have a paper trail... in which case it's essentially an expensive printer. I dislike John Howard, the aussie PM. He is a fucking liar. But I never once thought that he didn't genuinely get voted in, cos the Aussie voting system is bulletproof. Put a Big Red Tick next to your candidate. Put paper in a box that's identical to all other ballot boxes. Election run by people who are non-partisan.

    by The little blogger that could on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:55:48 AM PDT

  •  Have you read about Athan Gibbs' TruVote system?

    If not, check this out: After the 2000 election debacle, Athan Gibbs designed an e-voting machine with a double paper trail AND online voter individual voter verification. Here's an article on TruVote published about a year before his untimely death last March.

    Synopsis and other references, including more description of the TruVote system, can be found in my comment posted earlier today.

    by wont get fooled again on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:47:20 PM PDT

•  Excellent! Thanks

  for all the research.  I'm going to print everything up and send it Priority to Hillary.  She's working on voting reform.

  FYI:  There was another story about how somebody attempted an external link into a machine in Florida.  It was later demonstrated (I think I saw this at Brad Blog) that it was very easy to link into these machines from a remote location.  Hence, you don't need a vast conspiracy to mess with the results.  Just one lunatic (Karl Rove) with a laptop.

  by joodleboodle on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 08:39:05 AM PDT

•  Yes, it's good to have an update

  on what happened and a reminder that the numbers are still being investigated.

  But, one central problem is not being addressed.  Most legislation having to do with voting is directed towards fraudulent behavior by the voter. That the electoral process or the machines employed are currupt hasn't been addressed and there is no procedure in place about what to do about it.

  Keep in mind that once a person is sworn into office, that person is entitled to that office, has an ownership right, of which it is not possible to deprive him/her, absent a showing of evidence beyond a doubt that the person has violated an oath of office.
  While it might be possible to remove a person if there is a finding by a court that the person, through his/her own actions gained the position fraudulently, if another person did it without the office holder/candidate being aware or complicit, there's no way to get him/her out.

  Electoral mistakes cannot be "fixed" after the fact.  Punishing an election official for negligence or malfeasance won't fix it either.

  So, the electoral process has to be transparent, accurate and verifiable the first time around.
  A paper ballot back-up won't work, if there is no provision in law that the back-up be checked BEFORE the candidate selection is certified.

  And, please, remember that elections are not about the candidates.  The electors or voters are the entities whose ability to make a choice and have it accurately recorded and tabulated is important.
  That's why a candidate has virtually no standing in a court of law.  He has no "interest" in the position he is seeking, until he's actually selected to hold it.  Individual voters have an interest, but since a single vote is not likely to be determinative of the outcome, that interest is so minimal as not to merit much court attention.

  So, again, the fix has to be in before hand.

  by hannah on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:08:07 AM PDT

•  RIP America

  If we don't fix this we can go shopping for another democracy. Ever wonder at the absolute boldness of bush and friends? It's based on the fact they've violated the most fundemental law of representitive government: They represent us by force.

  Having defied our voting choice - Kerry, it's nothing for them to defy the will of the majority on everything else. You don't like social security private accounts? Fuck you. I'm not budging. You don't like torture? Fuck you, I'm making Torture Man Attrorney General. You like the UN? Fuck you, I'm making our ambasador a guy who thinks the UN shouldn't exist. You don't want a war in Iraq? Fuck you you got one. Fake news from the government is wrong? Fuck you, we support it. Male hookers in the White House press room wrong? Fuck you, no invstigation. Environment? Fuck you. World Bank? Fuck you. The list of fuck yous is endless. You can read about 'em on kos and in the papers every day.

  After fuck you number one on November 2, the fucks yous are gonna just keep on rolling in.

  by moon in the house of moe on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

  •  Fucking love your comment!

    The only thing I don't like about it is that it's all so correct.... America's fucked.

    by Southern Bird on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:46:21 AM PDT

  •  Fuck!

    Great comment.

    I need, like, 25 orifices & holes to handle all the different ways I'm getting fucked by the Bush administration. Even Jeff "The Bulldog" Gannon-Cannon can't dish out that much fucking.

    by bejammin075 on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:37:13 PM PDT

•  Count Every Vote Act

  I read in mid Feb that Boxer & Clinton had introduced legislation that addresses many of these concerns, as well as other aspects of vote suppression not having to do with electronic voting. Is it correct to assume that this kind of Democrat-initiated legislation is always automatically DOA?

  To me, the most sinister aspect of electronic voting is the lack of oversight as to the code itself. I can't even imagine how such a thing can be logically consistent with fair and free voting.

  Allowing corporations to control the people's vote is really the final stroke in their wholesale abduction of our democracy. I agree this is THE issue that must be addressed before the next election. There is no logical argument against this kind of reform. None.

  Thanks for putting this together in a comprehensive way. It is only when you look at it all together like this that you realize the enormity of the disaster we are dealing with.

  by Hrubec on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:30:20 AM PDT

  •  Life for count every vote

    This vital piece of legislation doesn't have to be DOA.  In fact it could be the linch pin of the revolution. What if we mobilized millions to cosponsor Boxer, Clinton, and Conyers' legislation?  All we have to do is go to their websites to sign up.  Then we deluge the Repugs with messages, speeches, letters to the editor, etc. framing this in such a way that you have to be against fair and free elections to oppose it. We bombard the media.  We meet and march and make our will unbeatable.  We make it so any who do oppose it, have to face that as their major issue in reelection.  This could be the mobilizing cry of the coming together of the netroots, grassroots movement!

    by duncanidaho on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:20:30 AM PDT

    •  Don't understand

      I agree letter writing, petitions, etc. are at least doable. I think it could even be a project done at the school level, in social studies classes.

      How can a vote be fair unless we know exactly who is counting it and how? And how can you have a democracy without a fair vote?

      This is actually, for all the complex mysteries within the voting machines themselves, one of the simplest issues facing the nation. Even a little child understands the idea of a free and fair vote. There is nothing partisan about it, and it need NEVER be presented in that light.

      by Hrubec on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

•  The US is not a democracy

  The next time anyone claims something remotely like them, ask them if they live in a spider hole.

  This rigged election business is outrageous. Thanks for keeping the subject alive.

  by DrReason on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:19:13 AM PDT

•  Stalin quote fabricated

  Unfortunately, by starting with a fabricated quote a diary that rests on integrity is spoiled.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Did Stalin Really Say That Thing About Votes?
  Almost certainly, no. Let's just say Joseph Stalin is not known to have waxed forth on the nature of voting and was singularly unconcerned with elections. Well, there was that time in 1936 when the central committee of the Communist Party gave three more votes to a Stalin opponent than to Stalin. Within three years, two-thirds of the members had been murdered...
  Tammany Hall boss William Marcy Tweed: "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?"
  http://slate.msn.com/id/1006678/

  or....

  I also explored the possibility that Stalin has been wrongly credited with someone else's witticism, but the closest matches I could find...[is the Tweed quote and] this line from Tom Stoppard's philosophical play, Jumpers, produced in 1972: "It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting."
  http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa121800a.htm

  Hal C.

  by Hal C on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:25:50 AM PDT

  •  The quote has been attributed to Stalin....

    ... in many sources.  Here are a few:

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html
    This site states that the quote's first line was "It is enough that the people know there was an election."

    Others:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
    http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_stalin/
    http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Joseph-Stalin/1/
    http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/quotes/j/joseph_stalin_604.php

    Is the Stalin quote fabricated?  Couldn't tell ya.  I'm not a historian and Uncle Joe is dead.

    But, the quote from Rep. King is real, and, frankly, that is even more scary.

    But, is my diary "spoiled?"  I wholeheartedly disagree.  The inclusion of the quotes was only to get people to start thinking about the ramifications of allowing two companies that build e-voting machines count 80% of the votes in this country.  The following info is meant to further that thinking.

    How about this quote, instead?: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin  (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes.nsf/QuotesByCat?ReadForm&RestrictToCategory=Election, which also inludes the disputed Stalin quote)
    

    by LITBMueller on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:56:51 PM PDT

    •  No sources there

      I do not see how starting with a faked quote adds to a diary on integrity.

      Boss Tweed actually had the real quote most similar to what you wanted, so why not use that?

      None of the links that you cite are sourced or provide dates, much less context.

      They even disagree on the wording.

      A widely repeated fabrication is still a fabrication and should not be used in any serious scholarship, which seems silly to explicitly say except that the fabricated quote is still there.

      Hal C.

      by Hal C on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:09:33 AM PDT

•  Dems don't care: "Kerry lost"

  Hell, Kerry himself conceded.

  The same damn thing is gonna happen in 2006 and 2008. Any Democratic Party strategizing that does not include vote security as its number one priority is just waisting our time and our money.

  Unless something changes in the way we approach elections, I will be putting my money and effort into emigration planning.
  

  by TrainWreck on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:33:55 AM PDT

•  Regarding Lockheed Martin

  According to this article by Ceara Donnelley and William D. Hartung in August 2003
  

  Vice-Presidential spouse Lynne Cheney is a former board member of Lockheed Martin, and used to receive $120,000 per year from the company for attending a handful of semi-annual board meetings.

  
  

  by Jill Lehnert on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 10:51:07 AM PDT

•  Calling Kos, DHinMI, Armando and others

  Make sure you read this ENTIRE diary before it slips into oblivion....

  Then if you STILL remain quiet and refuse to acknowledge the very real possibility of fraud, then you are just one of "them."

  And I give up here.

  by Southern Bird on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:33:14 AM PDT

  •  Damn, the deafening silence continues

    from Kos, Armando, DHinMI, Delaware Dem and many other "head honchos" here. There were a couple of excellent diaries on voter fraud today and NOT ONE RECOMMENDED or even a COMMENT from any of them. Wow, that says a LOT....

    by Southern Bird on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:41:19 PM PDT

•  Who cares about Kos, etc?

  .. you are preaching to the converted, or at least the open-minded. These facts need to be presented in a form that's accessible to non-Daily Kos readers..the Mainstream (whatever that is). Nor do minority voters need to be told they have been screwed. My suggestion? Put it in a glossy brochure and send it to every fucking suburb in America. If you can get brochures for Fucking Big Televisions on wide distribution, why not for blatant fraud?

  by The little blogger that could on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 11:50:40 AM PDT

•  Georgia's 2002 election

  If you could add similar anecdotes for the huge upset in GA's 2002 election, the first in the state conducted entirely on Diebold DREs, it would make this just that much more comprehensive. It would also help us defeat Cox's  2006 Gubernatorial bid.

  by retired on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 12:57:40 PM PDT

  •  RoxanneJ gave up here

    RoxanneJ knows what happened during the lead up time to the GA 2002 midterms, when Diebold was installed.  She also followed some of the problems afterwards, but  became frustrated with the deafening silence from the so-called "leaders" at Daily Kos and has since stopped posting.  She, like me, thought the progressive alternate media wouldn't wimp out on voter fraud, but we were proven wrong, they refused to discuss it .... and if NOT the alternate media, WHO?

    by Southern Bird on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:35:47 PM PDT

•  Why is the following section of

  ...your excellent and recommended diary not considered a conflict of interest?

  Why, in short, is a company (SAIC) run by veteran CIA and military-industrial insiders, overseeing the production of the software security that is counting (or miscounting) our votes?

  from your diary:

  The largest investors in ES&S, Sequoia (another voting machine company), and Diebold are government defense contractors Northrup-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and Accenture. Diebold hired Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of San Diego to develop the software security in their voting machines. A majority of officials on SAIC's board are former members of either the Pentagon or the CIA including
  

  • Army Gen. Wayne Downing, formerly of the NSC
    
  • Bobby Ray Inman; former CIA Director
    
  • Retired Adm. William Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
    
  • Robert Gates, another former director of the CIA.
    

  by gnat on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:18:16 PM PDT

•  Saxby Chambliss GOPsob

  I've written probably 15 letters to our congressmen in the last 3-4 years, and Chambliss's office has never once so much as acknowledged or responded to any of them.

  Then suddenly after the Nov 2 election, just before Christmas, I received a mailer from his office touting his stance on conservative proposals and congratulating everyone for the GOP wins in the election.

  After briefly looking it over I threw it away and thought nothing more about it. But the more I realize how often the GOP ignores its constituents, especially if their opinions are different from the GOP, the more that mailing didn't sit right with me. He has absolutely no reason to reach out to me, and should know (if his databases are reliable) that I've opposed everything about him since he entered politics and would NEVER support him in any efforts he takes in office.

  Since it's been nagging at me for some time, I've finally come to the conclusion that he apparently sent the mailing to all registered voters in GA - normally an innocent and respectable action for our representatives to take - using federal dollars to pay for it, to determine whether voters are at the addresses they're registered to.

  He has no other reason, despite being given over a dozen chances in the last 3 years, to communicate with me. So was this his way to use federal dollars to scrutinize voter registration lists for future political purposes, or is my tin foil hat on too tight today?

  by retired on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:24:02 PM PDT

  •  I received the same material

    And not only from Chambliss, but also from George and Laura, thanking me for my past support and giving me a glossy signed photo of them at their "farm."  Some other Rethug propaganda also was sent to me, I think one was explaining where I was supposed to vote.

    And never, NEVER in my democratic life have I ever voted for a Republican!

    by Southern Bird on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 01:43:28 PM PDT

•  thanks for a great compendium

  Has anyone here read Clinton-Boxer yet?  

  by nailbender on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:59:34 PM PDT

•  My fellow Americans

  On the Morning After (election night), I sunk into a long-term depression about those I share the label "American" with.  If even the photos from Abu Ghraib didn't move their fingers half an inch across a touch-screen, I am from a nation of monsters.

  As the days went by, I focused on the narrow margin.  See?  Many non-monsters and maybe some confusoids and... I am from a nation of monsters.  

  Since November, I've been to few films and no concerts.  Almost never eat out.  Not in protest, I just... don't care.  I don't want to be around... monsters.  I'm home.  I'm quiet.  I'm sad.  I'm angry.  I'm afraid.

  And then one night I hit a dKos thread -- and I so wish I could remember the name of the Kossack who posted this -- but there was one message, one message I took in in a flash.  I haven't been the same since.

  Maybe, suggested the Kossack, the exit polls WEREN'T wrong.  Y'know how Bush's ratings went down after the elections?  Y'know how polls don't show he carries the country on his flagship issues?  

  And I began to write in the air around me: Y'know how the cronies and Bush himself strutted the nonexistent "mandate" like someone might show off a car only borrowed to impress someone?

  Maybe his only success on election day was stealing the election more subtly than he stole the previous one.

  Not exactly a concept I invented, but one I hadn't taken seriously until that night.

  I have no proof, and yet my fellow Americans have been pretty consistent -- other than on election night.  

  Yes, I've read lots of articles about people telling pollsters one thing and doing another.  But how strange enough so many would vote for him but not say they had, would give him four more years to wreck this nation and as much of the planet as he wishes but would still low-rate him month after month.

  I have no proof, but I think my fellow Americans have been betrayed by the mechanics of a "democracy" that has ceased to exist.  

  And as I watch the GOP relentlessly shut down or pervert every avenue of free discourse and fairness and shared well-being, I feel more and more certain of the fact that even they know they rule by deceit alone.

  by LaurasLamp on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:23:03 PM PDT

•  Yes, this is excellent

  I wanted to drive this point by the fact that Safeway occasionally is in the paper for skimming pennies  that adds up quickly to a whole lotta money.  I've googled to find the source, but never can find it.  This is exactly what I've been looking for.  THANKS!

  by Einsteinia on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 06:50:07 PM PDT