Black Box activists -- now's your time to put up

Down in Florida, an epic battle is brewing over the electronic Diebold voting machines that ate 18,000 votes for Democrat Christine Jennings in FL-13 and cost her the election.

Not only is an expensive recount in the cards, but campaign and DCCC lawyers are flocking down, demanding the state freeze the machines for inspection.

These are the opening salvos in what will be the battle to end Diebold.

But only 36 people have given via our Blue Majority Act Blue page for the legal battles ahead.

To put it bluntly, to anyone who has ever complained about Diebold, this is your chance to put your money where your mouth is. No more talk needed. No more advocacy needed. This is a real-world, legal frontal assault on those electronic voting machines.

If we win this battle, you'll be able to kiss Diebold goodbye.

Update: No one will confirm, but word is that the DCCC and the Jennings campaign are considering suing for a brand new election.

Update II: Machines in FL-13 were made by ES&S. Same difference.

Race tracker wiki: FL-13

•  Wow, Kos....wow. Front paged!

  by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:57:42 AM PDT

  •  18% spoilage rates on electronic voting?

    obviously something went wrong. Even if it wasn't fraud, some sort of serious mistake has occured in those voting machines

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:14:07 AM PDT

    •  How many machines did not work correctly

      across the nation?

      by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:15:22 AM PDT

      •  We Don't Know

        There's no paper trail, so there's no way to know. It could be all of them, it could just be the machines in the FL-13 district where the 18 thousand votes disappeared, it could be none of them and just bad operation/instructions from the poll workers.

        by Rob M on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:19:47 AM PDT

        •  well, something like undervotes

          should be easy to determine. the machine should be able to tell you how many ballots are cast, and if you subtract how many votes for a certain office are made, you should be able to tell the undervote total.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:21:21 AM PDT

          •  Finally.

            The turtle has turned over and has begun to climb the wall.

            by Ma Joad on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:23:35 AM PDT

          •  Root Cause Analysis

            Getting the number of undervotes is easy. Determining why the undervotes occurred without access to the machines and circumstances identical to the election, difficult.

            Was it the programming causing the FL-13 race to be omitted? Was it bad ballot design making it easy to overlook? Was it poorly calibrated screens so that votes didn't register? Was it poor training of the poll workers?

            There's any number of possible ways this could have happened, and it's going to be difficult after the fact determining why. Access to the machines has to be the first step, but have they been tampered with since the election?

            by Rob M on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:25:33 AM PDT

            •  exactly

              by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:27:47 AM PDT

            •  And the problem is the same

              Whether the cause was technical or deliberate human manipulation, the same problem is this, that we can never know the truth because of the lack of a physical record.  There seems to me to be a bottom line there onwhich both "fraudsters" and "anti-fraudsters" can agree, that any election system that does not include a physical verification system opens up far too many cans of worms as a means for holding our elections when plenty of options that do provide for physical verification exist and are commercially available.

              by ActivistGuy on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:43:34 AM PDT

              •  Why your Math Teacher made you show your work

                There are many cases in real life where getting an answer isn't good enough. Knowing how you got the answer can be more important than the answer itself.

                by FishOutofWater on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:11:37 AM PDT

                •  This may be a brilliant parallel

                  that even some of those lesser members of Congress could understand -- the ones who seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the basics of budgets, too. :-)

                  by Cream City on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:17:04 AM PDT

              •  precisely

                That is the true meaning and reason for the importance of a voter verified ballot or voter verified audit trail

                I prefer "voter verified" to "voter verifiable" - the little paper add on rolls on the touchscreens are inadequate. partly because they are not visible by those who have bad vision (the very people the machines seek to help).  Partly because the paper can and does jam, and the vote is cast anyway, and the record is lost.

                Partly because state laws dont necessarily require what you do with that paper. In some states there is about as much chance that the paper is counted as there is it is used for toilet paper.

                I also prefer "voter verified ballot" to "voter verified audit trail" because if the machine count does not match the paper what then? which one is the "real" total. the law must make this clear. "ballot" has clear legal standing.

                We understand that the IRS can audit you if you dont keep good records, and prove your tax returns. Why dont we require the same of our voting system.

                by biscobosco on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:40:25 PM PDT

                •  The law in Ohio is clear

                  Every voting machine must have a paper ballot as well.  In case of a recount-automatic or requested and paid for-the paper ballot is the offical ballot.

                  I work for a county Board of Elections in Ohio and we use ES&S machines.  If the paper jams or runs out, the machine will not register a vote.  I don't know if this is the case in other counties.

                  We will be doing an audit over the next few days, comparing the vote on the paper ballot to the machine vote.  Teams of equal numbers of Repubs and Dems will conduct the audit.  

                  The major problem is that the paper is on a roll.  It must be rewound, then counted-it will be a nightmare just to do a audit.  I would hate to have a real recount-another example of the poor design of these machines.  It will interesting to find out the results.  

                  by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:31:24 PM PDT

                  •  you are lucky

                    Not all states are that clear.

                    In California there were recent cases where over 10% of votes were cast without paper trail - the machines were supposed to shut off when the paper jammed, or ran out of ink, but unfortunately it didn't.

                    Then what is the real count?

                    by biscobosco on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:53:44 PM PDT

                  •  Terry, please give us an update

                    on how the audit goes, what kinds of problems you find, etc.

                    The Music Room.

                    by madhaus on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:37:12 PM PDT

            •  An experiment could be interesting

              take a sample of the machines, with the ballot in question, to a location where a variety of people are available--maybe the mall--and recruit volunteers to "vote" the entire ballot making random choices and calling them out to the researcher.  See how how they function.  The trick is that it has to be a variety of simulated voters each coming to the machine and ballot for the first time.

              by enough on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:44:56 AM PDT

              •  Good idea

                Can people poke any holes in this approach?  If well designed and carefully done, seems to me it could be powerful and help to disentangle the various possible causes of undervotes.

                by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:58:25 AM PDT

                •  Not In FL-13

                  It's a good first step, but I'm not sure you could use it for an analysis that'd hold up in court.

                  If you try to do this in FL-13, everyone already knows about the voting machine issues as the media have made quite a fuss about it by the sounds of things - so everyone there would be predisposed to looking for the extra race that wasn't counted previously.

                  If you try to do this in another district, I would think you'd have to account for the prior voter prejudices - this new sample know nothing about the candidates, so they're not predisposed to voting one way or another. If they're just selecting candidates at random, that may not match the behaviour of the votors on election day. For instance, if, as previously suggested in one of the earlier conspiracy threads, the House race was left off if the user voted Democratic in the Governor and Senate races, how do you guarantee capturing that sample?

                  by Rob M on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:14:47 AM PDT

                  •  yes, that is the basic pitfall of experiments

                    The subjects don't necessarily care whom they vote for! Nevertheless, they can provide useful insight. A crew of folks have been doing usability testing on an NSF grant -- I saw some of the results at Midwest Political Science Association last April. I bet there are other projects I haven't even heard of. Of course none of them was designed to explain FL-13!

                    I don't know whether this matters to the immediate legal arguments. It's pretty clear that voter intent was frustrated. It may (or may not) be that under Florida law a crucial question is whether anyone deliberately made it harder for people to vote (I've seen no evidence of that). As for the exact mechanism by which intent was frustrated, we need to know that, but I'm not sure it matters to the legal argument.

                    by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:51:04 AM PDT

              •  We did that

                We took a group of temporary warehouse and office workers and some permanent BofE employees and tested the machines.  (Some of the temporary workers started that day.)  We voted various scenarios, including a "blank" ballot.  The machines were then closed down and the results read.  Never a problem.

                These tests were also open to observation and  participation by the public.  The BofE posted the testing date and time in its office, the newspaper and on its website.  Not a soul showed up.

                by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:37:09 PM PDT

          •  The Admiral had to go

            and get all "mathy" on us. :)

            by JohnGor0 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:01:45 AM PDT

          •   in CA, you manually override an undervote

            We used Sequoiah scanners, and they won't let an undervote or an overvote get counted without a clerk checking the ballot first and asking the voter if that's what they intended.

            Of course, the memory and its security trail are the issue with Sequoia  but our new SoS was elected on a platform of machine accountability. So we have light at the end of our tunnel.

            by MikeHickerson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:02:15 AM PDT

            •  In CA , at least L.A. you can override an

                  overvote, but undervotes don't show up unless it is an entirely blank ballot. I chose to abstain on some judges, no problem. If I voted both yes and no on a judge, that would have triggered a "ballot alert". (I was a pollworker running that machine, so I know of what I am writing).

              by Zack from the SFV on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:49:50 PM PDT

            •  I am not sure I like the idea of pollworkers

              asking me if I intended to skip voting on office(s) or issue(s).  What business is it of them?

              When you say

              a clerk checking the ballot first and asking the voter if that's what they intended.

              Do you mean a clerk physically reviews a ballot to see if you have voted on every race?  Or, do they ask you if you meant to skip the Attorney General's race and  the school issue?  Any privacy concerns jump out at you?

              by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:42:59 PM PDT

              •  I voted CA electronic in March, absentee Nov

                And when I didn't vote on some of the issues I knew little about, at the end it flagged that I had left some out and asked if this was what I meant to do.  So I had to acknowledge that I left some choices blank.

                I was never bothered by any pollworkers.  This is in Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley).

                The Music Room.

                by madhaus on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:40:18 PM PDT

                •  That's how the e-machines we use work

                  After you complete your ballot, a review screen appears.  If you're satisified, you press the "cast ballot" button.  If you have undervoted, a screen will tell you that you haven't voted for every race.  If that's your intent, you press the "confrim vote" button.

                  The way I read MikeHickerson's post, he implies that you hand a paper ballot to a pollworker, who looks it over and asks if you meant to undervote.  If I have misunderstood, please correct me.  Otherwise, I think I would have serious privacy concerns about this.

                  by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:54:25 PM PDT

                  •  Its not every ballot that gets reviewed

                    only the ones that get alerts. So YES, if privacy is a concern, that's out the window with this system.

                    by MikeHickerson on Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:08:26 AM PDT

        •  Tinfoil:

          Rove and Bush thought they were going to win because the machines could be fixed. But they were surprised. Diebold and ES&S was told to take the keys away from the kids.

          by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:25:22 AM PDT

          •  more

            more likely the fix was in for 3 to 5 % but the wave was to big for even the 5% fix to overtake.

            by pissedpatriot on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:31:15 AM PDT

            •  The fix was in for the key districts ...

              ... but "The Math" Rove did not realize that the key districts were most of them nationwide.

              by BruceMcF on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:43:54 AM PDT

              •  They were too focused on CT.

                by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:32:55 AM PDT

                •  And a big thank you to Ned Lamont ...

                  ... for sucking Republican resources into re-electing Lieberman, when they originally thought they were going to get the turncoat more or less for free.

                  by BruceMcF on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:52:38 AM PDT

        •  Some of the machines have paper trails

          Ours do.
          Electronic Voting Machines in Delaware

          They're easy to use, AFAIK they haven't had any problems with them in the 10 yrs they've been used.

          And if you check the company's website, they have a paper trail. How it works, I don't know, but I do know there haven't been any reported major glitches.

          by mmacdDE on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:50:37 AM PDT

          •  Just because it has a paper trail...

            still doesn't mean that the votes are being counted correctly. The machine could easily print one thing on paper and record the vote a different way on its memory card.

            by thecoolmacdude on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:30:10 AM PDT

            •  True

              but there haven't been any discrepencies that I know of.

              I prefer paper myself, but if you have to have a machine (which is debatable), these seem better than the others.

              by mmacdDE on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:02:00 PM PDT

          •  I used to be a big fan of EV that was open source

            ...but now I agree with kos...the oregan system is the way to go.

            by qkslvrwolf on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:47:00 PM PDT

        •  ES&S

          machines here in SW Nebr read paper ballots.  I'd be very interested in seeing what those paper ballots actually tally to by a hand count.  Otherwise, what do we really know?

          by larryrant on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:57:31 AM PDT

          •  HBO's Hacking the democracy answers

            Just saw this documentary on HBO the other night. The officials in Florida did this test with Diebold's optical scanners (which is what we're talking about).

            During preliminary questioning, Diebold officials were asked if you can change the votes by just tampering with the actual memory card of the machine. Their answer was "no way".

            The blackboxvoting.org folks hired a Finnish programmer. He changed the card to give one person -1 vote at the beginning and the other +1 vote.
            In the end, even though the test ballot of 7 yes's and 2 no's was inputted, the results were 8:1 for yes.

            The strangest part was the machine initialization. It never showed the +1/-1 number. According to the machine, all votes started at 0/0.

            So diebold flat-out lied, and it was clear they had the capability to ship out these cards with any initial vote tally they wanted.

            This is a must-see show!

            by orimk on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

          •  We need random audits and paper ballots.

            by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:36:06 AM PDT

        •  Does anyone know

          what legal remedy would be available if it can be established that the undervote was caused by the machines? Is a run-off possible?

          by Warren Terrer on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:08:29 AM PDT

          •  The House of Representatives is the final

            judge in cases of election of its memebers.  The new House, with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, can vote to not seat the certified victor of the FL-13 race.  

            IIRC, in the '80's, there was an extremely close House race in Indiana.  Couple of recounts, fraud accusations, the state certified the Repub as the winner.  The Dem appealed to the House, which refused to seat the Repub.  Eventually, the House ordered a new election and the Dem won.

            by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:49:01 PM PDT

            •  actually, the House just plain seated McCloskey

              instead of McIntyre (the Republican) in 1985, although the state had certified McIntyre the winner. There was no special election. But the House investigation found that McCloskey had won. The Republicans were unconvinced, and livid.

              by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:19:26 PM PDT

              •  Something to look forward to.

                by Warren Terrer on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:23:17 PM PDT

                •  I would prefer a special election...

                  The precedent of awarding seats based on statistical extrapolations of who woulda won makes me queasy, although I sure think Jennings woulda won.

                  But I still haven't figured out the answer to your question. I don't understand FL election law nearly well enough to understand whether someone in the state can order a special election. Nor do I know whether the House really has authority to do that, although some smart lawyers do seem to think so.

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:28:47 PM PDT

              •  I got this race confused with 1974 NH Senate race

                between Dem John Durkin and Repub Louis Wyman.  From the Cook Political Report

                In 1974, the morning after New Hampshire voted on the U.S. Senate race pitting GOP Rep. Louis Wyman against former state Insurance Commissioner John Durkin, Wyman held a 355-vote lead over his Democratic rival. New Hampshire's secretary of state recounted and found Durkin to have won by 10 votes. State law required the certified returns to be signed by the Governor's Ballot Law Commission. However, Republican Gov. Meldrim Thomson's commissioners investigated a select number of ballots and declared Wyman the winner by 2 votes.

                The U.S. Senate refused to seat either candidate, and instructed its Rules Committee to sort out the mess. By August 1975, Durkin and Wyman had agreed to a new vote. Durkin was the clear winner on September 16, 1975.

                So, at least in the Senate, a special election can be ordered.

                If these 18,000 votes can be found, a special election is probably the best solution.

                by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:13:14 PM PDT

                •  or I suppose strictly, probably...

                  the House or Senate can't actually order the state to administer a special election, but declares the seat vacant, whereupon ordinary state procedures for filling the vacancy apply. In the House, that would require a special election, as far as I know. (I'm not sure all states require a special election to fill a Senate vacancy -- initially, at least, the governor appoints. But anyway....)

                  Ah, some smart lawyers are trying to talk me out of a special election. Let's see what I think next week.

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:31:36 PM PDT

                  •  Yes, I suppose that's what I assume

                    the House would in essence do.  Refuse to seat either candidate, declaring the seat open.  I would guess then that Florida would have to declare the seat vacant and hold a special election.

                    But, you're right, a lot of bright election lawyers will be working on this.

                    by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:33:54 PM PDT

      •  well

        one should categorize failures?

        What machines didn't work because of user error? poll worker error setting up the machines? configuration errors for touch screens (you touch one place and it thinks you're touching somewhere else), etc.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:20:31 AM PDT

        •  Yes...but what will they be replaced with?

          by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:42:45 AM PDT

          •  Some form of paper ballot ...

            ... that records the voter's action in voting vote. Then even if there may be a scanner to vote them, what the voter did when voting is the official ballot, and they can be recounted by hand if there is evidence of problems.

            by BruceMcF on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:46:54 AM PDT

          •  Here's what I'd like to see them replaced with

            A computer that has the ballot as a PDF you can fill in. You make your choices, you print the ballot, you seal it and hand it to the poll worker or put it in a box.

            At the end of the election, they take the nice NEAT printed ballots, scan them, and the scanner spits out the results.

            Easy for everybody, auditable, doesn't require any special equipment (other than the scanner for totalling), if you want paper you can just print and mark it with a pencil/pen, the ballots can be distributed on CD, on flash drives, emailed, a sample can be put on the web - hell, you could even do it at home and just drop it off to the polling place.

            Plus you could make changes to the ballot until the absentee ballots were mailed out. Which, of course, wouldn't be necessary - they could be EMAILED out,  with a numbered/barcoded receipt like a return receipt on a certified letter.  

            by mmacdDE on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:59:22 AM PDT

            •  Should be two recepts. One for you and one

              goes into the box to be randomly audited.

              by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:56:13 AM PDT

            •  But couldn't the barcode on the

              ballot be fixed?  Or the scanners be fixed to misread, say every 15th vote for a Dem?

              by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:53:01 PM PDT

            •  What about the people who don't

              have computer access at home?  Could the e-mail server from the Elections office be hacked, maybe put the Dem near the bottom of the page where the name is likely to be cut off?

              by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 03:54:56 PM PDT

        •  You know, at this point

          I don't even care which of the myriad possible weaknesses was ultimately responsible. The point is that the fact that there are so many flaws/weaknesses means we should ditch the entire electronic model.

          Go back to paper, I say!

          by lanellici on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:49:44 AM PDT

          •  Hard to imagine why we have a deficit.

            by mattes on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:34:52 AM PDT

      •  in OHio

        in OHIO it was worse now then in that fraud-tastic 04 race.

        http://freepress.org/...

        by pissedpatriot on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:42:56 AM PDT

        •  Anything based on the Columbus Dispatch poll

          is not plausible.  That poll is a mail-in poll, not excatly the most reliable method.  Other polls in the state showed Strickland receiving 58-62% of the vote, he got 50%.

          We had very few problems in our county.  The biggest problems were by polling places that wouldn't let the pollworkers in early enough.

          by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:00:36 PM PDT

          •  you mean Strickland got 60%, right?

            Wow, what an awful Free Press article.

            The Dispatch poll predicted Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland winning with 67% of the vote. His actual percentage was 60%. The odds of this occurring are one in 604 million.

            When I read stuff like that, I want a trap door to open.

            by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:47:20 PM PDT

            •  Yes, I am sorry

              I meant 60% of the vote.  Which is what most of the polls other than the Columbus Dispatch's (a Repub paper, BTW) mail-in poll, said Strickland would get.

              BTW Fritakis, the author of the Free Press article, was the Green Party nominee for Ohio Governor.

              by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:59:22 PM PDT

              •  no problem

                Yeah, the pollster.com average was 58.4 (or +22.0), so one doesn't really get the impression that Strickland got robbed. It's mildly interesting that the mail-in poll had an especially bad year -- perhaps reflecting just how much more enthusiastic Ohio Dems were than Ohio Republicans (and who would have more reason to be unenthusiastic? golly).

                Fitrakis, Wasserman, and Baiman have done their share of fuzzy math in the last few years. Some of the Free Press stuff seems solid, but they have real quality control problems.

                by HudsonValleyMark on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:14:50 PM PDT

    •  Damn it Kos, you embarassed me!

      So I gave $50.01.  Never forget the netroots penny!

      The Music Room.

      by madhaus on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:20:46 AM PDT

      •  Now up to 180 donors ...

        I didn't give $50.01, but gave to both ...

        by besieged by bush on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:39:10 AM PDT

      •  Arrrgh! I forgot the penny!

        I'll give more

        by MikeHickerson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:03:48 AM PDT

    •  Do Republicans care about their lost votes?

      A greater percentage were obviously Democratic, but as Jennings' lawyer said: "this isn't a partisan thing. We're sure Republicans didn't get their votes counted, just like Democrats -- it's more than 18,000 votes we're talking."  See article here.  There was a 20% undervote in another Florida race, too.

      by ybruti on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:56:04 AM PDT

  •  Just gave!

    Only $25 (plus a $2.50 tip to act blue) - but every penny helps!

    by frogmarchbush on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:29 AM PDT

  •  Voting machines

    Say?

    Are there any such things as a 'good' voting machine. I do like the ability to edit and check my choices before submittal.

    That punched card thing was way to one-sided. I liked the ability to make sure that I did not make any mistakes when I voted.

    I do not like the thought of having my vote hacked though.

    by krwada on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:07:42 AM PDT

    •  Not right now...

      If you could take a look at the machine's source code (the code that tells how to count the votes)...then these machines could be trusted.

      The problem is none of these companies will release that info because they know they will get busted.

      by thecoolmacdude on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:34:49 AM PDT

      •  n/t

        If we can look at the source code, then the electronic voting machine would be viable.

        by thecoolmacdude on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:35:46 AM PDT

      •  yes and no

        If we could see the source code, we could see where it was vulnerable to hacking. But you would have to secure the machines and the installed code somehow to make the machines secure for the election.

        It's doable, otherwise we wouldn't have ATM machines.

        by racerx on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:05:34 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          If we made votes as important, (in my opinion votes are more important), as money, then most of the problems would dissipate away!

          by krwada on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:55:23 AM PDT

      •  Not so sure

        I am an embedded systems engineer. If you expose the source code, then you expose the guts that make the thing work, and thus expose the system to a potential for hacking.

        Independant verification of counts, to me, seems a better idea.

        At least, this is what is attempted by the 'paper trail'.

        by krwada on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:54:36 AM PDT

        •  You are full of crap

          Don't you understand how encryption works?  Security by obscurity is a real problem.  The code being exposed allows you to make sure that it is secure against hacking...knowing the code doesn't help you hack into it if its been secured properly.  

          I still gotta go with Kos, but you're full of crap.  Go read some schneier on security and get back to us.

          Better yet, read what he was to say about diebold.

          by qkslvrwolf on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:52:27 PM PDT

          •  more info

            http://www.schneier.com/...

            This is his essay on electronic voting.

            by qkslvrwolf on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 12:56:54 PM PDT

          •  Duh me no understan encryption!

            He who calls names first loses my friend!

            You obviously have been fed too much Kool aid.

            It is pointless to argue with you. There is absolutely no way to debate someone who already has his/her mind made up in such a stubborn/insensitive fashion!

            Cheers!

            by krwada on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 01:32:14 PM PDT

•  Question:

  Do you want to kiss Diebold goodbye?

  [ ] Yes.
  [X] No.

  Dammit! I'm pressing yes!

  by Kagro X on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:59:30 AM PDT

  •  Every time you press

    yes , another no goes in .

    by indycam on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:01:36 AM PDT

    •  I so want to troll rate that as a joke...

      and say I pressed Recommend.

      by Kagro X on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

      •  Same here

        But I couldn't resist a second time. I'll take the troll rate away in a few mins.

        by FishOutofWater on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:05:52 AM PDT

        •  Awww! Sonofabitch!

          I can't believe it happened again!

          by Kagro X on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:06:39 AM PDT

          •  Jesus Christ

            At least RobertinWisconsin is out of bullets now.
            Or were those really bullets? Maybe another kind of shot where you pull your own trigger.....

            by kestrel9000 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:31:22 AM PDT

            •  Hey, I clicked recommend all those times !

              And ESS/Diebold hacked Kos and turned those Recs into TR's !

              WTF !

              by RobertInWisconsin on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:32:35 AM PDT

              •  Oh, you too, huh? n/t

                by kestrel9000 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:33:21 AM PDT

                •  ROTFLMAO

                  by RobertInWisconsin on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:10 AM PDT

        •  So you

          troll-rated the post BEFORE you recommended it ?

          Flippity-floppity-floopity-flappity !

          by RobertInWisconsin on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:33:40 AM PDT

      •  Now

        some people would call that a waste of a donut.
        I say that user just couldn't help themselves.

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:06:15 AM PDT

        •  ADHD

          Impulsivity strikes again.

          by FishOutofWater on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:07:18 AM PDT

        •  You heard him.

          Donuts, help yourself.

          Party at kestrel's!

          by Kagro X on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:07:19 AM PDT

          •  Donuts for all who need them

            Dig in!

            

            The Music Room.

            by madhaus on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:22:27 AM PDT

        •  Donuts

          is there anything they can't do?

          by pattyp on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:07:27 AM PDT

          •  Donuts : not just for breakfast anymore

            They come in handy when you need to leave a whole bunch of stuff uncovered in congressional  medical and prescription progams foisted upon the American public.

            by MikeHickerson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:13:12 AM PDT

        •  argargargargargargargarg

          I suppose I brought that on myself......

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:27:32 AM PDT

          •  Whatsamatta

            to many donuts last night ?

            by indycam on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:58 AM PDT

      •  [[[[[[[[ EVIL CACKLES ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

        Rhhaa hhaaaaa haaaaaaaa

        by peeder on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:36:04 AM PDT

•  $10 to the effort!

  let's kick some democracy-killing diebold tail!

  by liberalsouth on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:59:31 AM PDT

  •  even $ 5 !

    There's enough denizen of Kos & other sites to make this happen!

    by MikeHickerson on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:14:06 AM PDT

    •  I'm so embarassed I gave $50.01

      Because I hate Diebold/ES&S even more than I hate Republicans.

      The Music Room.

      by madhaus on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:23:18 AM PDT

  •  $25 from me

    I got hooked on this site after 2004.

    It was one of the few places I could get information on the horrible state of our elections and the way they are run.

    Hopefully 2006 is the year that our democracy starts the course to truly fair elections.

    by 313to212 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:33:25 AM PDT

  •  i dropped $20

    n/t

    by bikko100 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:37:11 AM PDT

•  We're tapped

  The timing sucks - some of us are tapped heavily from the election...  

  That's some of us.  Not all of us.  36 people donated?  Bah...  

  by jpfdeuce on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:00:56 AM PDT

  •  I just made a paper mache boot from 50 singles

    put it on, and kicked Katherine Harris right in the nuts.

    by JohnGor0 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:09:38 AM PDT

    •  She has nuts? n/t

      by Donna in Rome on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:24:41 AM PDT

      •  Well...

        It may explain a lot.

        by bobcatgrad on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:26:44 AM PDT

        •  Oh, wait a sec...

          she has those coconut implants.

          Sorry, I forgot!
          Pretty high kickin' needed there, though.

          by Donna in Rome on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:32:34 AM PDT

      •  You ever see KH & Giuliani in the same place? n/t

        by JohnGor0 on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:34:39 AM PDT

  •  doesn't seem to be updating

    I just forked over twenty bucks but it still says 36.

    by Uberbah on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:10:27 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      Unless you click in just the right place your money goes to the Homeless Diebold Executives Support Fund.

      by Rob M on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:13:36 AM PDT

      •  Almost right

        Tthe biggest tragedy/embarrassment sweeping rethugs these days is being second homeless. Oh, the shame down at the country club.

        But serially, around 2001-2002, the Dallas Mourning Snooze had an article about how the Bush Recession was impacting the rich in Plano. Quoting one, "We had to let our gardener go." Oh, the Hannity!

        by armadillo on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

        •  It was for the gardener

          I know we all like to joke about times are so hard, the millionaire has to fire the servants.  Myself included.  But the servants are now out of a job-not real funny.

          by Buckeye Terry on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:08:15 PM PDT

    •  Updating is currently every 10 minutes

      Sorry 'bout that -- as things got super-busy during the election we throttled back the number update to run only every ten minutes.

      We'll get it back to real-time shortly.

      by brahn on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:57:50 AM PDT

  •  I'm passionately devoted to this issue

    I'm also passionately devoted to paying my mortgage, phone bill and utilities, and maybe spending a little on groceries once in a while. I can be there to do the work, but until someone steps forward to pay my bills, no money.