Skip to main content

How can we rely on voting results when the cases of voting machine problems are so hugely widespread?

There are over 200,000,000 million registered voters.  It would take a huge amount of voter fraud to tilt an election.  However, an entire county's votes can be compromised by voting machine problems, and they have, many times over.

The GOP is yelling about Voter Fraud, when the real problems are the well-documented problems with voting machines?  You never hear them yelling about this reality.

Ironically (the GOP are the Kings of Irony), the only VOTER FRAUD CONVICTION I could find with a Google Search for "CONVICTED OF VOTER FRAUD" was a REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE!

And this is all the GOP can dig up to prove voter fraud, although the cases listed are not all voter fraud cases.  And trust me, they are eager to prove voter fraud.

DEMOCRATS Arrested and/or Convicted of Voter Fraud  Apparently, there's something going on with absentee ballots.  I question whether this is a Briebart-like sting operation.  I could be wrong.  Hardly enough to tip the scales of an election.

Two pics from VerifiedVoting.org show where voting machines are used, and almost 100% of the votes will use voting machines:

Voting Methods, USA 2012 Voting Machines, Paper

Percent of Votes Using Machines in USA 2012

You will notice that a large percent of vote counts will rely on Optical Scanners.  This article clearly shows how unreliable the optical scanners are:

NOVEMBER 2011 - UT Paper Ballot Op-Scan 'Recount' Halted, Results Found 'Extremely in Favor of Opposite Candidate'

For those unfamiliar with DRE voting machines I recommend

Frequently Asked Questions about DRE Voting Systems

Just for fun, Google Search "voting machine problems" - I got 81,600 hits.

There are two websites devoted to this issue:

Black Box Voting

The BradBlog

The BradBlog's search engine is robust if you want to find voting machine problems for a specific state or election.

For some voting machines, it takes a little more than 6 minutes and less than $5.00 to compromise a machine.

Oddly, in an effort to show HOW voting machines CAN be hacked, ARE Election Fraud Criminals inadvertently trained on HOW TO STEAL VOTES?

Princeton shows us how:

Go Princeton!  Another Princeton team shows how to take a few seconds to install a virus to hack Diebold votes, used by 5%-10% of the population (go to minute 3:51 to learn how machine is criminally compromised:

This is quite low tech, very clever, and wrong on so many levels.

Special Sequoia-Dominion Ballot machines for people with special needs:

Ballot Stuffing Holes, Illegal USB Ports Add to Sequoia/Dominion Voting System Flaws

Diebold and Sequoia have been purchased, consolidated, by Dominion Voting Systems,  Canadian company that moved offices to Colorado.

America's New E-Voting Goliath

Given the enormous share of the U.S. voting "market" now potentially controlled by Dominion ---

and the now-customary revolving door between public and private officials in the "election industry" which now places former Diebold/Premier officials, former Sequoia officials, and even former state election officials at the helm of the private, little-known Canadian firm ---

it comes as no surprise that Dominion would hope few in the public actually noticed their sudden acquisition of e-voting assets from some 50% of the U.S. "voting market".

That's right.  This fall, 50% of the voting machines will be products of DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS.

In this article, The BradBlog demonstrates the all-too-familiar revolving door between public officials and the voting machine companies.

Which brings us back to those Princeton Researchers exposing just how UNSAFE AND EASILY HACKED voting machines really are:

Dominion had hired away Sequoia's VP Edwin Smith.

Readers of The BRAD BLOG may remember the woeful Smith as the one who'd first sent threat letters to Princeton computer scientists, promising legal action if they independently reviewed Sequoia's voting machines after the systems had been found to have miscounted in a New Jersey election.
So, you might think that all these security problems would be fixed by now.

Nope.  And yes, we can thank Palm Beach County Florida for letting us know that voting machines don't work properly.  It's irony overload, imo!

MARCH 2012 - Palm Beach Elections Overturned After Hand-Count Reveals Op-Scans Mistallied Results

Palm Beach announced some possible fixes:

The county this year planned to start using modems to electronically transmit vote totals, but in March dropped those plans because many of the polling site phone lines were incompatible with the modems.

Instead of using modems, Bucher has opted for software improvements and setting up satellite vote-tabulation sites throughout the county.


I'd love to hear what the Princeton Voting Machine Hacking Exposers think about Ms. Bucher's Palm Beach County Florida solutions to the debauched Dominion Voting Machines lack of security and accuracy.

THE WEEDS:

It's not difficult to find areas that could be problematic.

Hat's off to VerifiedVoting.org for a complete analysis of how elections are handled in the USA.

Do drop into VerifiedVoting.org to see which states are using the most reliable/unreliable systems.

Keep in mind, most states are controlled by Republican Governors who often get to choose who will be charged with assuring vote counting integrity.

States Governors 2011

Often, vote integrity is affiliated with the Secretary of State.  Here's a map showing the GOP and DEM Secretaries of State

Secretaries of State GOP vs DEM 2009

SO, WHEN WILL WE ALL BE YELLING TO MAKE SURE OUR VOTES COUNT THIS FALL?

AND ABOUT WHO'S COMMITTING ELECTION FRAUD:

This just in

NY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN UNDER INVESTIGATION SPENDS $321,000 OF CAMPAIGN CASH FOR LEGAL FEES

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY), who is under investigation for alleged illegal campaign fundraising, reported spending more than $321,000 from his campaign account on legal fees between April 1 to June 6, according to Roll Call. Grimm continues to serve despite House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) promised “zero-tolerance” policy on ethical scandals.
Poll

I trust voting machines accuracy.

5%32 votes
94%571 votes

| 603 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks! (8+ / 0-)

    One of my local political contacts has been on this issue from day one. So few people listen to her.

    My focus has been the Secretary of State Project, figuring if we have honest secretaries of state in as many states as possible it will help. But ultimately the machines are a big, big issue. And too few people are willing to pay attention to the details to make a difference.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

    by mole333 on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:43:14 PM PDT

    •  Well this is a problem, isn't it? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mole333, rebel ga

      Do you have a map showing the breakdown by state of the GOP and DEM Secretaries of State?

      Thanks.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:47:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Need a tour bus, like McCain had, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      War on Error, My Name Isnt Earl

      and take it around, and demonstrate how, without touching the machine, you can make it vote either way.  Or something that would work to educate and convince people that those machines can't be depended on to count correctly. This should to be started now.  It takes time to educate people.

      Ideally, no machines should be allowed.  Or, there needs to be a way to recount.  Otherwise, all the effort is wasted.

      Democrats - We represent America!

      by phonegery on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:48:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I watched the videos. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe wobblie

        I was thinking, why not have election officials keep the computer chips and memory cards in a locked place and not install them until they opened right before the voting started. This seems simple enough.

        As for those diebold machines. They terrible. Govt surplus no doubt. A bunch of old computer parts, recycled into voting machines.

        In Hudson County, NJ they have those click levers. Little bars you push down to indicate whom you want to vote for.

        When you open the curtain to leave the large lever at the bottom of the booth clicks your vote into place.

        Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

        by rebel ga on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:05:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think those are AVC Advantages (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, rebel ga

          (I'm going by Verified Voting's Verifier (link for Hudson County), the same source cited in the diary.)

          Those are Direct Recording Electronic machines -- quite possibly the same ones that were hacked in the Princeton videos in the diary, although I may be confusing my hacks. It would make sense, since Mercer County (Princeton) also uses AVC Advantages.

          New Jersey supposedly has a voter-verifiable paper trail requirement, but it has never been implemented. Not a good situation.

          •  In Utah, under a sheet of plexi-glass (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rebel ga

            We can see a paper print out that is on a large paper roll.

            I wonder what happens to those rolls?  Is there another roll hidden in some remote WiFi accessible location?

            The recorded proof of problems makes it easy to view odd alternative situations IF a state wanted to hijack an election.

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:33:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  mmm (0+ / 0-)

              I definitely can't speak authoritatively to conditions in Utah. If I've ever even been in Utah, it was before the age of 3.

              I know that Utah has a 1% manual audit provision, including the paper records from the DREs. So, the rolls are used for that -- but I don't know whether or how well they are secured in the interim.

              I'm not sure what scenario you're envisaging with a roll "hidden in some remote WiFi accessible location." To make the time stamps as realistic as possible?

              The recorded proof of problems makes it easy to view odd alternative situations IF a state wanted to hijack an election.
              I agree with that, although some systems lend themselves to "odd alternative situations" more than others. (It's a continuum, not a binary.)
      •  OCCUPY CARAVAN (0+ / 0-)

        Sadly, we don't havea Fox News Team to run stories about theOccupy Caravan 24/7

        Occupy Caravan

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:31:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's the thing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error, jennyp, phonegery

    assuming all machines are not systematically making the same error, random errors cancel out.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:19:41 PM PDT

    •  That would be true if none of the machines (6+ / 0-)

      were tampered with, I think.

      There's enough evidence that voting machines make larger than random errors.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:30:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Remember Ohio in 2004 over votes and under (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        War on Error, blueoasis, Sandino

        votes at polling places.  Also people voting and pushing the name of one candidate to see it flip before their eyes to Bush.

        These machines can be pre-programed.

        If you would never put a deposit in the bank machine without getting a receipt - why would you do so with your "precious" ballot?  they can make double sided receipts - one that stays in the machine and one that the depositer gets.  Same company makes both the machines for banks and voting.  Why do voters get cheated?

        i remember election night 2004 - the talk was that Papa bush left the White house and flew back to Texas because his son lost and then walla in the middle of the night between 1 and 3 am Eastern time - the MNSBC came on and said we just got word that Bush took Ohio and thus won.  No more debate - nothing - just Bush won - end of story.  it was so surreal.  in fact his nephew, Billie Bush, made the announcement.  The story goes that Ohio sent the voting counts to Mike Connell (now Deceased in a single plane crash 12/19/2008 after testifying in Ohio v Blackwell) in Tennessee - they were post election massaged and "walla" sent back to Ohio to be forwarded thru the SOS and Bush won.

        In fact i also heard SOS Ken Blackwell said that "if  Kathryn Harris could get a house of representative job after the work she did on voters in Fla - he could do the same in Ohio."

        •  And he lost. (0+ / 0-)

          Check out the IRONY OF Ken Blackwell and Ed Meese comment below.

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:33:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Harvey Wasserman 2004 Election Stolen 2007 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, Sandino

          We had to wait for Democratic Secretary of State to spend almost $2Million to get the truth

          "The 2004 Election was corrupted"

          "You could have manipulated the 2004 election with a Blackberry"

          "A driveby with WiFi"

          "Pushed button for Kerry, and Bush came up"

          "56 of 88 Counties destroyed their election ballots/records, making a recount impossible.  No one has been prosecuted"

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:38:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  doesn't make much sense (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error

            Wasserman's work on Ohio 2004 has been riddled with non sequiturs, and that seems to be true here as well -- although I'm relying on your points, not the whole video.

            If it was possible to change all the vote counts with a Blackberry drive-by, then there doesn't seem to be much point in rigging machines so that Bush would display when people tried to vote for Kerry. For that matter, it obviously would be far preferable to rig machines so that Kerry came up, yet the votes were counted for Bush. Also, the vast majority of Ohio voters didn't use machines that could show Bush when people pushed a button for Kerry.

            That "56 of 88 Counties" is a figure from 2007 -- when a recount (in the legal sense) was already impossible -- referring to a variety of records, not just voted ballots. If Wasserman thinks that miscount abounded in those 56 counties (or some of them?) and not in the other 32, some further analysis would be in order. If he thinks that miscount was rampant even in the other 32 counties, then, well, what really is the point?

            •  I believe Wasserman is quoting the $1.9 Million (0+ / 0-)

              research done by the new, Democratic SOS in 2007 OF the 2004 election.

              It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

              by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:35:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes, I think that is right (0+ / 0-)

                Again, 2007 obviously was too late for a legal recount. If the notion is that every or almost every county that destroyed voted ballots did so in order to avoid exposure of fraud as the lawsuit played out, is that borne out in the election results in any way?

                The frustrating thing about this discussion over the past seven-odd years is that folks like Wasserman seem to assume that the pieces must fit together somehow, but don't seem very interested in figuring out how.

            •  Why wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

              multiple efforts be made?  

              What makes you think that a group determined to change data wouldn't use different methods in different places? Why would you think that they would limit themselves to your view of what would be 'sensible' in your eyes?

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:59:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what is the hypothesis? what is the point? (0+ / 0-)

                If you honestly believe that Connell could steal the election with the click of a mouse, or whatever, then why mess around with any other methods? And what do you think he did, anyway?

                We can trade rhetorical questions indefinitely, but if rhetorical questions are all you have, we're nowhere.

    •  independent statisticians looked at 2004.... (12+ / 0-)

      .... and found that errors favoring Bush exceeded errors favoring Kerry at a level that was millions to one above chance.

      That's the extraordinary evidence needed to support the claim that the voting machines were hacked.  And if I'm not mistaken, that's what got "voting machine hacking" removed from the DKos list of CT no-nos.  

      Beyond that, even the appearance of impropriety is intolerable in elections.  We can't run a democracy on voting systems that are known susceptible to hacking, per the Princeton tests and other well-documented tests by independent computer experts.  

      Bottom line: Paper ballots counted by live humans.  As we say in the industry: "good, cheap, fast, choose two."  Paper ballots are good and cheap.  We can wait a day or two for results if that means the results will be rock-solid.  

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:12:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, and Yes, and Yes. (4+ / 0-)

        There should be no chance of a missing 5,000 ballots discovery at 3am after the polls close.  

        Democrats - We represent America!

        by phonegery on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:56:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sounds like you're on it. (4+ / 0-)

        [explaining the problems, that is]

        I can't believe all the arguments I had with posters on this site who insisted that there was no way, not no way, no how, that vote counts could be manipulated via the machines.

        And now we hear about how it can happen all of the time now.  I suppose that is some progress.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:57:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dunno about that (0+ / 0-)

          I saw a lot more people insisting without good evidence that the machines must have been hacked, than insisting that the machines couldn't have been hacked. It was pretty frustrating.

          •  Wasn't my experience (4+ / 0-)

            at all.  People who thought that there could be a problem with voting machines were labelled CT and generally dismissed.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:34:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  and this time, paranoia turned out to be right. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error, blueoasis, Sandino

            That's why paranoia persists as a trait in humans: sometimes it's right.

            "See the smoke coming out of that mountain?  Something's not right, I think our tribe ought to head over to the other side of the ridge!"

            "Oh phooey, you're being paranoid."

            "Well, me & my family are going, and we've got six other families coming with us."

            "Suit yourself, I'm going to stay."

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:39:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  the 2004 election. (5+ / 0-)

                The people who asserted that voting machines were hacked, turned out to be right: all of the evidence from software analysis to independent testing by computer experts, to the statistical analysis that made it into one of the top peer-reviewed journals in statistics, all supports the conclusion that voting machines were hacked in 2004.  

                The perception by the public that an election has been or could be stolen, is poisonous to democracy.  

                And BTW, I have zero tolerance for CT.   9/11 CT, Bilderburger CT, all the rest of that stuff is easily falsified bullshit.  One of my slogans in life is "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed instead to herd behavior or mere stupidity."  I have friends who indulge in the usual varieties of left-wing CT, and routinely get into arguements with them.  Including one the other night over whether the decline effect in medication test results is due to Big Pharma somehow corrupting large numbers of independent scientists.  (Really!  If anything, Big Pharma has an interest in the decline effect not being real.  But when someone's out to prove nefarious intent, black is white and red is green.)

                Given all the evidence to date, there is NO excuse whatsoever for retaining software-controlled voting systems.  

                And there is NO excuse whatsoever for not going immediately to a full paper ballot system counted by live humans.

                The place for "technology" in that mix, is with live webcam broadcasts of everything:
                = the polling places.
                = close-ups of the ballot boxes.
                = the entire chain of custody of ballot boxes.
                = the entire process of counting ballots.
                = close-ups of each ballot-counter's worksheets.
                = the tally boards where the totals are posted.
                = close-ups of the mechanical adding machines used to get the totals.
                = close-ups of the paper print-outs produced by those adding machines.
                = overnight webcams guarding the ballot box storage rooms with lights on, with mechanical analog clocks visible to prevent injection of false signal to cover for burglars.  

                The whole thing can be done with 1940s voting & counting technology and modern webcams and internet broadcast technology.  There is no excuse to do otherwise.    

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:07:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  what journal are you referring to? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek, War on Error

                  This is my field of research. With regard to the 2004 election, this is a pretty odd conversation for me so far.

                  With regard to getting rid of voting machines, I doubt we'll go that far, but I won't weep if we do.

                  •  i'd have to go dig... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joe wobblie, HudsonValleyMark

                    A quick search of the logical place on my HD didn't turn it up, so it may be on an earlier machine.  (I keep my obsolete laptops as a kind of "library", yeah bad practices, I should have a terabyte backup array, oh well!)

                    This can probably also be found with a keyword search for terms such as  2004 election hacking statistical analysis.

                    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:25:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  the problem with that is (0+ / 0-)

                      I probably literally read reams of papers that were statistical analysis of 2004 election hacking. If you can't find the paper, it might help to know one of the authors' names, or the journal name, or something a bit more specific about the method used.

                      Maybe the next comment would fit better in the other branch of our conversation, but I'm puzzled because I don't know of a true national database of reports to election officials. They could have done an analysis of reports to the Election Incident Reporting System, but there is no reason to assume that EIRS reports are representative of the electorate at large. There was one paper set primarily in Snohomish County, WA -- if it was ever published, I didn't notice -- but it wasn't about 2004 and wasn't persuasive in the form I read it. Mebane and Dill(?) did an interesting study of equipment logs in FL-13, 2006, which I think was published in some form in Chance.

                      I do have a 1.5 TB hard drive on which I copy docs from my various computers from time to time. Actually finding docs on that drive isn't necessarily easy!

                •  See Harvey Wasserman Interview above PROOF (0+ / 0-)

                  Ohio was a disaster in 2004

                  It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                  by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:40:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  How about: That coach and those priests (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, War on Error, blueoasis

              would never touch a child!

              Or Margaret Colson is crazy!  [that's the right name, isn't it?]

              The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:46:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Of course these machines can be pre-programmed. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error, Sandino

            In Georgia when they first started voting machines the rumor was that the Atlanta black voting districts had "patches put on the machines as tests". Any computer can be pre-programmed and manipulated.  especially if you only want to skim off every x vote and have it go to your candidate.

            it seems that in US Rep house in district 1 - the incumbent always has the same % in his wins.  If more dems vote it seems the gop votes go up the same percentage.  where do one live where for every democrat that moves in a GOP does also?  Just saying.  Look at the statistics for the last 3 or 4 US reps voting totals and percentages in Distict 1 of GA.  

          •  The fact that most of those complaining (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, War on Error

            couldn't cite the actual evidence most of the time is no surprise. Hardly anybody can do credible citations on any subject. But I knew then and know now where genuine evidence is accumulating, as at Black Box Voting.

            I'm just sorry I wasn't around to provide the data at the time.

            Busting the Dog Whistle code.

            by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:38:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I am one of those involved in the demonstrations (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, War on Error

          Not theoretical arguments, not just statistical evidence, but actual, irrefutable hacking of machines. There have been demonstrations on TV. There have been papers by respected Computer Scientists (and pseudoscientific papers by shills for the industry) about the quality of the code and the lack of physical security. Hacking was and is real.

          Also, the voting machine companies were organized by Religious Righties who hired known criminals as developers. All documented. SoS Debra Bowen of California conducted a review of all of the available machines, which concluded that all of them should be decertified, except that nothing would be left, and they were not prepared to go back to hand-marked paper everywhere.

          I also grew up on hacking of the old mechanical lever voting machines, ballot-box stuffing, losing ballots, and much more. Look up "Landslide" Lyndon Johnson, or the Mayors Daley of Chicago, among others.

          Busting the Dog Whistle code.

          by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think you're confused (0+ / 0-)
        * [new] independent statisticians looked at 2004.... (1+ / 0-)

        .... and found that errors favoring Bush exceeded errors favoring Kerry at a level that was millions to one above chance.

        That's the extraordinary evidence needed to support the claim that the voting machines were hacked.  And if I'm not mistaken, that's what got "voting machine hacking" removed from the DKos list of CT no-nos.

        I don't think so.

        "Voting machine hacking" per se isn't on any list of CT no-nos -- but some number of people have been banned as "fraudsters" for harping on supposed evidence that Kerry won in 2004. In my impression, there's a lot more tolerance on this issue than there is on 9/11 -- on both sides, really. But I don't think that the findings of "independent statisticians" have swayed kos in the manner you suggest.

        I can't be sure what or who you have in mind. Usually when people talk "millions to one" in this context, they're talking about the exit poll results. Exit poll discrepancies beyond random chance could be caused by vote miscounts, or they could just mean that the exit polls were wrong. One of several topics that were sort of done to death back in the first six months after the 2004 election.

        I haven't seen any good evidence of voting machine hacking in 2004, but there's good evidence that the voting machines in New Mexico performed abominably and may have cost Kerry victory there.

        As you say, the case against electronic voting machines doesn't depend on whether there was fraud in any particular election. I think kos's own position has been that scanners are OK as long as the results are checked, but paperless DREs have to go -- I really don't know what he thinks of DREs with "paper trails," or whether his position has changed.

        I don't expect the country to move back toward 100% hand counts, but if we were willing to invest in them, we could probably get results on election night. As you know, it's more complicated in the United States than in other countries because we often vote in many contests in one election.

        •  i have the statisticians' paper on my hard drive. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, Sandino

          When it was published, in a peer-reviewed journal, I downloaded it.  

          At issue were the number of instances where a voter reported to the election personnel that the machine wasn't taking their input correctly.

          As for exit polls, never before have the discrepancies been so large, and that's corroborating evidence.  

          As for 9/11, the answer to that is Occam's razor.  The number of additional things that would have had to be true in order for 9/11 to have been a case of LIHOP, much less  MIHOP, is so large as to be completely untenable.   And none of those additional things has been supported by evidence in the form of facts that are measurable.  

          The number of additional things that would need to be true to conclude that electronic voting machines were tampered with in 2004, is minimal.  And a number of those additional things have been supported by facts that are measurable.  

          And yes, we could get results same-night from hand counts if we were willing to invest in having enough election workers to do that.  But the additional investment is only for the sake of gaining one or at most two additional days.  We can live with waiting one or two additional days if we have to, in order to ensure the integrity of the results.  The national addiction to speed is the problem.   As the DFHs used to say in the 1960s, "speed kills!," and nowhere is that more true than with elections.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:48:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  mmmmm (0+ / 0-)
            At issue were the number of instances where a voter reported to the election personnel that the machine wasn't taking their input correctly.
            Really questionable to infer hacking from that -- but I still don't know the paper to which you refer, so there is no point in saying more. (Are you sure you mean "election personnel"?)
            As for exit polls, never before have the discrepancies been so large, and that's corroborating evidence.
            Not really, given that many of the exit poll results were facially implausible.

            Look, if you think you have the goods on this, you really ought to be publishing in the political science journals. I'll freely admit that I doubt you do.

            Again, I'm separating that issue from the question of what we should do going forward.

          •  Volunteers with STIFF ENFORCED, JAIL TIME (0+ / 0-)

            for ANY tampering, 0 tolerance laws.

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:51:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Steven Heller, a national hero. (4+ / 0-)

          EXCLUSIVE: A 'Thank You' from Stephen Heller The Diebold Whistleblower Looks Back with Gratitude and Forward with Hope...

          Heller's felonies were reduced to misdemeanors

          Stephen Heller: Felonious Punk No More

          The 'Diebold Whistleblower' Sees His Charges Reduced to a Misdemeanor, But Unlike Republicans Who Have Committed Far More Serious Crimes, Heller Continues to Pay
          Reflections on Selective Criminal Punishment in Bush's America...
          I am no longer a felon.

          In brief, I became known to some as the "Diebold Whistleblower" when, in January of 2004, I stole and exposed legal documents [PDF] proving that Diebold Election Systems, Inc. was using and planned to continue using illegal, uncertified software in their California voting machines. (By the way, Diebold recently changed its name to Premier Election Solutions, but don't let that fool you; it's still the same bunch of idiots.) Details about my case can be found here and here [PDF].

          Uncounted - The Ballad of Steve Heller

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:59:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  India Engineer Proves Voting Machines Bogus (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            Information Technology Act

            Right to get a paper receipt, hand paper receipt to voter, and have voter submit the paper receipt into ballot box for a backup.

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:06:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Paper ballots prepared by machine (0+ / 0-)

        and then verified by the voter and counted by humans, using Free/Open Source Software and the best security we can design.

        Voting on machines prevent all overvoting and most undervoting, guarantee correct marking, and support voting for the disabled. Not letting the machines do the counting, but having them print paper ballots with mathematical security features prevents much mischief, and makes the results auditable and publicly verifiable.

        Open Voting Consortium

        The Web site is inactive, but contrary to what it says we are discussing reviving the program. I work with One Laptop Per Child, and would dearly love to give a functioning voting system to millions of schoolchildren around the world to use and learn to administer.

        Busting the Dog Whistle code.

        by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:29:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

        as much as I despise conspiracy theories.

        Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

        by dadadata on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:01:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, so now explain why the Right loves voting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      War on Error

      machines, but is on such a witch hunt over "human voter fraud". Wouldn't those votes be even more likely to cancel each other out (I mean if you could actually find any)?

      But the war cry is "Why would anyone have any problem with making sure that not even one vote is invalid?"

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:49:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Typical GOP tactic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, dadadata

        They get FOX News & their demented minions to tell people, who can't vote for Dems because of abortions,  to "look over here at this fraud" while they are commiting there frauds "over there"

        See Wasserman expose of 2004 election in comment stream.  Video w/Amy Goodman.  

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:53:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry. Are you asking why Republicans (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, War on Error

        are so hot on voter suppression against likely Democrats, and also so hot on voting machines that let them steal elections? And while we are at it, police intimidation in minority neighborhoods, sending out e-mails and robocalls with false information on voting, and giving poor and minority districts not enough of the least reliable, most hackable voting machines?

        It's getting a little late, otherwise I would have provided a link for each point above.

        I believe that the question answers itself.

        Busting the Dog Whistle code.

        by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:47:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This issue is HUGE and I can't believe we haven't (8+ / 0-)

    remedied the situation since the national trauma of previous elections.    We know how to fix this, why aren't we screaming for action?    Seriously.   This is our democracy at stake, quite literally.   All software codes should be public, paper trails mandatory, multiple random audits, etc.   I'd much prefer to wait a day and hear results that I know are accurate and reliable.  Butthatsjustme....

    •  worse than that: ever hear of boot-loader viruses? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phonegery, oldpotsmuggler

      There is NO way to assure that ANY type of software-driven voting system remains honest.  Even a machine running open-source software that's been vetted by independent experts, is susceptible to boot-loader viruses, that cannot be detected without a detailed examination of each piece of hardware.

      The ONLY assurance against voting machine hacking is the use of paper ballots counted by live humans.  The counting process can even be put under close scrutiny of webcams and broadcast so everyone who chooses to watch can do so.  

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:15:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is a boot loader virus? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, blueoasis

        And, what would happen if some other country decided to play games with our election?

        A verifiable paper trail might be the only way to prove that there was interference by outside entities.

        Democrats - We represent America!

        by phonegery on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:00:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a boot-loader virus is one that's.... (4+ / 0-)

          ... coded into the hardware or the BIOS, that is not part of the "application" that runs on the machine.  Thus it starts in motion when the machine is turned on, and there is no way to detect its presence by looking at the "application" such as the voting software.  

          Yes, other countries could tamper with our elections, though there are far more tempting targets such as our power grids and water treatment systems.  

          The most straightforward verifiable paper trail is to use paper ballots, counted by live humans.  

          Speaking as a technologist all my life, professionally: there are some problems for which the best solution is not a tech-fix, but a return to an older method that is provably viable.  

          "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:37:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Las Vegas wouldn't let individual dollars be (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marty marty, War on Error

        counted the way that we count the precious currency of true voter preference.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:53:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Las Vegas has proven to be vulnerable (0+ / 0-)

          to inside jobs where a gaming machine programmer and a gaming commission employee collude. Also Atlantic City, where one pair of ganefs was picked up because one of them forget to take his wallet with his ID along when trying to collect his winnings, and security recognized the other one in the hotel room when they went together to get the ID.

          We must assume that others have gotten away with it.

          Also card counting gangs and numerous other attacks.

          Busting the Dog Whistle code.

          by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:57:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Open Voting Consortium has a design (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        War on Error

        that begins by verifying the boot loader using code on a CD-ROM. There is more to it, of course, but we have our best Computer Science/security people on this and the other threats. Before we would release any software, we would take it to the Black Hat and other security conferences and let all of the real-world experts bang on it, and fix whatever they found.

        Then we print paper ballots recording the voters' choices. Verifiable by the voter and auditable afterwards.

        Busting the Dog Whistle code.

        by Mokurai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:52:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even OVC has controversies (0+ / 0-)

          For a complete picture of the possibility of
          "fixing" these machines and OVC, The BradBlog has the whole history for those who are interested.

          Most interesting are the conversations that follow the articles.

          The conclusion, as of the end of 2009, seems to be

          E-Voting Code to Receive 'First-Ever' Public Scrutiny Following Public Records Request

          The software and firmware doesn't matter in this light. I know OVC means well but they got to understand in the world of physics, code becomes irrelevant.
          From The BradBlog, that has NO horse in this race, apparently a member of OVC staff hasn't followed the rules, which isn't good for the image of OVC

          {Ed Note: "Sam Wiseman" is Brent Turner of Open Voting Consortium, posting yet again as a different identify despite having been warned multiple times that that is against our few commenting rules here. Mr. Turner has been banned here for refusing to follow the rules and posting under multiple identities, spamming his advocacy for his voting company, Open Voting Consortium, in every post. If you are unable to follow the few simple rules for posting here, Mr. Turner, I can't why anybody would think your company, OVC, should be entrusted with counting anybodies vote, open source or otherwise. - BF}

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:58:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  They would have stolen 2008 if they could have (6+ / 0-)

    Two things stopped them.

    1) the margin of victory was too large. If it had been a close election, the Republicans would have used the voting machines to steal it. With such a commanding lead, they could not steal it from Obama without getting caught.

    2) the day before the election, their chief theif, who stole the 2004 votes in Ohio, Michael Connell, was in court, trying to explain why vote totals where sent to his offices a state away before being tabulated.

    Incredulously, the press never fully examined this story nor looked inot why Michael Connell may have been killed when his plane went down or who he visited in the Washington area just before his death (Karl Rove, perhaps?). There is no legitimate reason I can think of for those votes to be routed through his office.

    The Republicans will steal this election for sure, just like a three year old left alone with a cup cake.

    •  Wow... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devis1, phonegery

      I didn't know about #2.  TY for sharing.  

      •  The irony of Ken Blackwell & Ed Meese (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mokurai

        Blackwell gained national prominencefor his dual roles as Chief Elections Official of Ohio and honorary co-chair of the "Committee to re-elect George W. Bush" during the 2004 election. Allegations of conflict of interest and voter disenfranchisement led to the filing of at least sixteen related lawsuits naming Blackwell.

        So the Ohio indicated in at least 16 voter disenfranchisement lawsuits,   and the Attorney General indicated in the Iran/Contra scandal team up to prevent the almost NON-EXISTENT voter fraud.

        You really can't make this stuff up.

        2012 Protect Your Vote U.S.

        Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III (a board member of Capital Research Center) and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell recently initiated a new campaign to support measures like photo identification requirements to protect the integrity of voting. Their campaign, a project of the American Civil Rights Union, is named Protect Your Vote U.S. [http://protectyourvote.us/]. The practical argument for the campaign is clear:

        “Over the last few years, we have seen a jump in the number of closely-decided elections—some so close that a fairly small number of illegally cast votes have denied victory to the true winner.”

        Protect Your Vote U.S. will serve as an advocacy group urging states to pass model legislation to prevent vote fraud. In addition it will be an online resource of information on laws that already exist to protect the integrity of the ballot. And the group will identify pending legislation and current legal battles and offer suggestions for citizen involvement in stopping vote fraud.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:29:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mike connell Republican IT Guru dies in plane (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        War on Error, Mokurai

        crash.  On Friday, December 19, 2008 (a month before Obama is inaugurated). "Neighbors told The Canton Repository that they heard what sounded like an engine sputtering before the crash and that the noise sounded like it was coming from a plane." ... The plane he was piloting crashed near a vacant house in Uniontown while attempting to land at nearby Akron-Canton Airport. ...    WOIO correspondent, Blake Chenault, also reported that twice in the past two months Connell, who was an experienced pilot, canceled flights because of suspicious problems with his plane."

        "CBS Affiliate WOIO reported that Connell, who had recently been subpeonaed to testify in relation to a lawsuit alleging vote rigging in the 2004 Ohio election, was warned at least twice about flying his plane because his plane might be satotaged."

        All of these quotes are found in: http://www.cbsnews.com/...

        It is a whole 3 page story and not CT.

        The CBS article also talks about King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell where US Judge Soloman Oliver refused Connell's request to quash a subpoena connected the lawsuit.

        I have a whole large file on Mike Connell - it is not CT

        Back on Oct 31, 2008 NBBooks wrote a blog on dailykos.com : GOP IT guru rdered deposte MONDAY!  
        Rove may be next!

        •  working link (0+ / 0-)

          CBS News

          Dunno, we have anonymous allegations of warnings and suspicious problems, but we don't have a clear motive. Connell had indeed been deposed. Was he about to confess to something? What? Why? How do we think we know?

          •  The articles spoke about Connell being very up- (0+ / 0-)

            set that Bush did not go after Roe v. Wade.  As a Catholic he felt he had been duped.  He was turning state's evidence.

            Connell was the guy who fixed the white house computers of Rove, etc killing their hard drives, e-mail accounts, etc.

            Since Connell's death - his wife says that he wasn't turning state's evidence.  Perhaps she was afraid after her husband's timely death (one month before bush left office and on a Friday night - slow news night.)

            The tapes etc. from his deposition have not been made public to my knowledge.

            •  well... (0+ / 0-)

              Connell may have felt duped by Bush, but as far as I can tell, the speculations that he "was turning state's evidence" were never accompanied by any lucid explanation of what he was turning state's evidence about.

              I don't know about the tapes from his deposition, but the transcript is actually available on BradBlog.

              Oh, I forgot something. Arnebeck says during the deposition, soon after he asks Connell whether he has been threatened and Connell answers no, that "we attached the declaration of Brett Kimberlin, part of which he recited the series of tips that had come into him, anonymous tips that had come into him." When an argument relies on Brett Kimberlin, that isn't really a good sign.

              Since Connell's death - his wife says that he wasn't turning state's evidence.  Perhaps she was afraid after her husband's timely death (one month before bush left office and on a Friday night - slow news night.)
              That's the thing about CT: everything and its opposite is consistent with the cover-up. (A slow news night? Are you seriously suggesting that Connell's death would have been more controversial if it had happened on Thursday instead of Friday?)

              The whole story seems pretty far-fetched to me. An "IT guru" receives death threats, twice finds suspicious problems with his plane, yet blithely takes off for a third time, talks with ATC without mentioning any suspicions of sabotage, makes no known effort to get out the damning information that he supposedly had. I suppose it's possible that somebody told him that if he didn't fly that plane into the dark and ice, and put up a good front, his wife would be killed slowly and painfully. Or maybe he just made a fatal mistake.

    •  you are squarely in CT land with #2 (0+ / 0-)
      2) the day before the election, their chief theif, who stole the 2004 votes in Ohio, Michael Connell, was in court, trying to explain why vote totals where sent to his offices a state away before being tabulated.
      The SoS arranged for out-of-state website hosting. That doesn't mean that the vote totals were "sent to [Connell's] office," or that they were sent anywhere "before being tabulated," or that Connell "stole the 2004 votes in Ohio." Folks on DKos have had this discussion many, many times. Yes, I know Stephen Spoonamore thinks that there was a "man in the middle attack," and that it explains the "Connally anomaly" -- but since there was no Connally anomaly, most of us don't think the argument holds up. Don't blame it on "the press."
      The Republicans will steal this election for sure, just like a three year old left alone with a cup cake.
      See, I think there's sensible concern about verifying electronic vote results, and then there's misinformed, unvarnished defeatism.
      •  Can you provide us (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        My Name Isnt Earl, marty marty

        unequivocal evidence that absolutely none of the data flowing anywhere was tampered with?

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:41:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  why should I? (0+ / 0-)

          It's up to the other commenter to support his or her claim, not up to me to support a claim I never made.

          Do I know of any evidence that "data flowing anywhere was tampered with"? Nope. I know of evidence that some votes in Cuyahoga County were misrecorded.

          •  Perhaps. . . (0+ / 0-)

            . . .I did get some details wrong. Perhaps I have wandered into CT territory. But we do know this much is fact. . .

            Michael Connell was, in fact, being investigated for voter theft. His attorney reportedly asked for protection for him as his life and that of his family was threatened. He was warned not to fly. His plane went down, apparently running out of gas and his pilot friends stated that he would never run out of gas. And finally. . .

            as far as I know, there was NEVER an investigation into who he was visiting in the Washington DC area.

            I don't think it is CT area to suspect foul play in this incident.

            •  I'm not averse to suspecting foul play, per se (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              matador

              Connell was subpoenaed in a lawsuit against Ken Blackwell. From a legal standpoint, I don't think it's accurate to say that he was "being investigated for voter theft," although I assume that the plaintiff's attorneys suspected him.

              I think the NTSB investigation concluded that Connell became disoriented, and icing may have been a factor -- the weather was poor, as it often is in northeast Ohio in mid-December. I don't remember any serious suggestion that Connell had run out of gas.

              To me, the evidence that Connell could have been engaged in stealing votes was always pretty flimsy. If one assumes that the machines were hacked, then there is no need for Connell to be involved. (One could argue that it was necessary to know exactly how many votes to steal, but I can't see why that would be true, nor how anyone would conclude that exactly that number of votes was stolen.)

              •  Maybe you need (0+ / 0-)

                to read up on fraud in general.

                People will do what they can get away with.  It's just that simple.

                If someone wants to manipulate data, they aren't going to be telling themselves, "I'm an IT guru, but HudsonValleyMark says it makes no sense for me to do anything if the machines were already hacked, therefore, as the data flows through my office, I won't do anything with it.  I'm just going to do what HVM thinks is sensible."

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:11:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no, it isn't that simple (0+ / 0-)
                  People will do what they can get away with.  It's just that simple.
                  No, it isn't. People, in general, do a heck of a lot less than they could get away with. Even evil people do a heck of a lot less than they could get away with, if only because it is expedient to choose.
                  If someone wants to manipulate data, they aren't going to be telling themselves, "I'm an IT guru, but HudsonValleyMark says it makes no sense for me to do anything if the machines were already hacked, therefore, as the data flows through my office, I won't do anything with it.  I'm just going to do what HVM thinks is sensible."
                  What's missing here is any glimmer of a coherent hypothesis about what Connell might have done, how, and why. If you actually give a damn what happened in 2004, I don't understand why you aren't trying to figure it out. That mystifies me -- much as I'm mystified by 9/11 truthers who trumpet supposed evidence of explosive squibs on one hand, and supposed evidence of nanothermite on the other, without even trying to figure out how anyone would bring down a building using a combination of squibs and nanothermite, or why anyone would want to, never mind whether there is reason to believe that someone did. I don't think I'm evil for asking questions like that. I don't understand why everyone doesn't ask questions like that. Isn't asking questions supposed to be the whole point?
                  •  your comparison sucks (0+ / 0-)

                    The 2004 election hinged upon Ohio. The final vote tallies seemed to differ from the polling. Connells life and that of his family was threatened by Karl Rove according to the official record and the testimony of his attorney, Shortly thereafter, after being warned not to fly, his plane crashed. That's a whole helluva lot of smoke, bud.

                    The 9/11 conspiracy is nothing but a manufactroversy, one created to make a lot of money and predicted by me as the buildings were falling. I am sure I wasn't the only one that saw this one coming.

                    •  evidence? (0+ / 0-)
                      The final vote tallies seemed to differ from the polling.
                      Malarkey. All but one of the late Ohio polls put Bush ahead; the average was very close to Bush's official margin. Lots of people thought that Kerry might pull it out through monster GOTV, but not that Kerry was ahead.
                      Connells life and that of his family was threatened by Karl Rove according to the official record and the testimony of his attorney,
                      Connell's attorney testified that Connell's life was threatened?!

                      Interesting if true, especially given the number of articles on Connell's mysterious death that say no such thing. If you can't demonstrate it to be true, would you reconsider your reasoning?

                      Shortly thereafter, after being warned not to fly, his plane crashed.
                      If there were a credible source for that warning, I might be more impressed. Where is this warning supposed to have come from? Did someone overhear Karl Rove gleefully cackling that "Connell is going down, and I mean that literally," and have a pang of conscience? Again, interesting if true, but it sounds like a straight-to-DVD movie plot.
                      The 9/11 conspiracy is nothing but a manufactroversy, one created to make a lot of money and predicted by me as the buildings were falling.
                      I don't think the line between 9/11 conspiracism and 2004 election conspiracism is nearly that clear. Actually, I think most people in both cases are sincere.
                      •  IS YOUR GOOGLE BUTTON BROKE? (0+ / 0-)

                        I simply typed in "Michael Connell lofe threatened'. . .and yes, I even mispelled "life" and I came up with lots and lots of information including but not limited to the following. v. .http://www.sourcewatch.org/...

                        •  including this. . . (0+ / 0-)

                          In July 2008, the lead attorney in the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association v. Blackwell case, Cliff Arnebeck, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey seeking protection for Connell as a witness in the case, saying he had been threatened. Arnebeck wrote,

                          “We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations.[10]

          •  Why should you? (0+ / 0-)

            Because you essentially counter claims of potential data tampering with the following:

            I saw a lot more people insisting without good evidence the at the machines must have been hacked,

            And you do this without even giving credence to the potential threats that exist for tampering with the data.

            For example, how would you know that the 'web hosting,' as you call it, used by that republican didn't include someone sitting there manually changing data?

            How would you know that that did not happen?   What are you relying on for assurance that no tampering with data happened?  The republican's honesty?

            Business' systems get hacked into all of the time--even though businesses have layers of protections to prevent the hacking--yet it happens.  And somehow, we are to believe that voting systems are impervious to hacking or that custodians of the data would never, ever tamper with the data.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:46:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  huh? (0+ / 0-)
              And you do this without even giving credence to the potential threats that exist for tampering with the data....

              And somehow, we are to believe that voting systems are impervious to hacking or that custodians of the data would never, ever tamper with the data.

              I never asserted or implied that "voting systems are impervious to hacking," or that "custodians of the data would never, ever tamper with the data." Why not deal with points I actually made?

              This is how so many discussions went off the rails back in 2004-05.

              •  The bottom line is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                War on Error

                you do not know.

                And you won't admit that you don't know.  And you cast doubt on the whole issue by dancing around, "I read this...I studied that....I didn't see evidence of......" and so on.

                But you do not know.

                The simple fact is there are multiple vulnerabilities related to the voting machines.

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:23:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that's an odd double standard (0+ / 0-)

                  What is it that I won't admit that I don't know? Are you challenging anyone making allegations of fraud on that basis, or just me? Are my claims of knowledge more sweeping than theirs, or not really?

                  I mean, really, can we be serious? I reply to a commenter who says,

                  The Republicans will steal this election for sure, just like a three year old left alone with a cup cake.
                  and you tee off on me for false certainty?
                  •  Very credible scientists disagree with you (0+ / 0-)

                    which is why this diary was compiled.

                    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                    by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:03:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  about what? (0+ / 0-)

                      It's fine to disagree with me, but I wish you would be explicit about what you think we are disagreeing about.

                      If you're saying that "very credible scientists" think that Mike Connell stole the 2004 election, I'd appreciate examples. If I made a top-ten list of credible scientists who have sounded the alarm about electronic voting machines, I seriously doubt that any of them thinks that Connell stole the 2004 election.

  •  It's the count! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    War on Error, luckylizard

    'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'
    Attributed to Josef Stalin

    even with paper ballots, electronic ballot tabulators can be crooked.  Here in my small county in Washington State our mail in paper ballots go through an optical scanner.  We're too small to bother with a rigged vote, and I trust our Republican Secretary of State and Republican county auditor.

    It should be illegal for any voting officer in any state to be involved with any election campaign except their own.

  •  The machine I run is not hackable . (0+ / 0-)

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:41:23 PM PDT

    •  Thanks, I can't find this vid on YT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mokurai

      Will you please provide the link.  I'd like to check the year it was uploaded.  Thanks.

      This is from 2008
      UC Computer Scientists Release Video on How to Hack a Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine

      Experts from CA's 'Top-to-Bottom Review' of E-Voting Systems

      Demonstrate How to Insert Virus,

      Access Machines Without Disturbing 'Security Seals' in Hack Which Would Not Be Discovered Even in 100% Audit of 'Paper Trails'

      Single Malicious Individual Shown Flipping Entire 'Touch-Screen w/ Paper-Trail' Election in Seconds...

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:00:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I watched the videos (0+ / 0-)

        and I laughed at them all .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:35:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What happens to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error

          the machine and the software before and what happens to the machine, software, and data after delivery to the voting site?

          I don't know if you are serious about the unhackability of the machine, but you've got some huge holes if you aren't considering what happens to the software before and after the machines are delivered to the voting site and what happens to the data after it's collected.  There are easily muliple opportunities to manipulate the software and data.

          The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:52:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I run the machine , (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error

            software is not a problem .

            There are no "huge holes" .

            The "data" you speak of is black and white print on a piece of paper .

            I dare anyone to hack the machine I run .
            For every possible hack , there is in place already a trump .
            Every way they suggest its hackable , it isn't .

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:34:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't run ALL the voting machines, Indycam (0+ / 0-)

              And the entire diary counters what you claim.  Who are you?

              It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

              by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:01:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I never said I run all machines , (0+ / 0-)

                so why say that ?

                And the entire diary counters what you claim.
                so therefore I am wrong ?
                Who are you?
                What would you like to know ?

                Are you so invested in the idea that all electronic voting machines are bad that the reality of one being fine and dandy bothers you ?

                I have told people not to vote on bad machines
                I can explain to people why other machines are untrustworthy and I can show how the machine I run is trustworthy and unhackable .

                If you would like , we could do a hack / counter hack on line war-game .
                You try to hack my machine and I will defeat your efforts .
                Try your best to steal a vote .

                I have run this machine for more than a few years now , I have thought long and hard about it , about any weakness it might have , about any way to defeat its safety measures .

                People have paid me big bucks to figure out and fix up complicated electro / mechanical / optical / chemical machines .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 10:49:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As if voters can determine a bad machine. (0+ / 0-)

                  Or a true vote count.

                  Again, my proof is in the diary and the comments.  Scientists with as much credibility as yours don't agree with you.

                  And hats off to The BradBlog.  Use the search feature there to find the huge proofs of problems.

                   

                  It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                  by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:00:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So my hands on knowledge (0+ / 0-)

                    means nothing to you ?

                    You want all electronic machines to be bad ?
                    You don't want any of them to actually work ?

                    Scientists with as much credibility as yours don't agree with you.
                    Send me one and I will show them the machine I run , then I will challenge them to steal a vote .  

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:27:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  yikes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  War on Error

                  Dunno if I'm supposed to sit through the 22-minute video to try to figure out what voting machine you're talking about.

                  The person in the video says he's from Santa Cruz County, and the video is called "Touchscreen," so maybe it's an AVC Edge II?

                  I assume you know that an AVC Edge has been hacked from soup to nuts. You say you've seen all the videos, presumably including the one where the computer science professors program the Edge to play Pac-Man. I can't tell whether you're asserting that the Edge II is improved and hack-proof, or that the hacks that have been done aren't practical, or what.

                  I know a bunch of computer scientists who work on voting machine issues. There is some range of opinions among them, but I can't imagine any of them saying that any electronic voting machine in use "is not hackable." Moreover, I know and can review their rationale for their opinions. You're not giving us much.

                  •  My case is in the diary & some comments (0+ / 0-)

                    To counter my case, I think you will have to pick each item above and address it specifically.  I purposefully included several types of machines to demonstrate the vulnerabilities of each.

                    Broadly dismissing the proven vulnerabilities of voting machines of any type and demanding a rebuttal is creating a round robin here.

                    So, it will be helpful to choose a vid or research above, and if you disagree, make a specific case for why you disagree.

                    I'm just the messenger here, reporting what experts have found.

                    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                    by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:18:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  As they are set up here , not hackable . (0+ / 0-)

                    I challenge your professionals to steal a vote on the machine I run .
                     

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:30:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  they'll have to find you first ;) (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      War on Error

                      Even if it's true that the machines you run aren't hackable "as they are set up here," it isn't very useful if you say nothing about how they are set up there. You might think you can teach a thing or two to the computer scientists -- and for all I know you're right, or perhaps you've implemented what they would recommend as the best security practices -- but a pseudonymous challenge doesn't seem to help.

                      There's a further complication. Even if you are in some sense correct that your equipment isn't hackable as it is set up, why should anyone take your word for it? Why should anyone have to? If you could prevent "[my] professionals" from hacking your equipment, would that prove that you couldn't hack your own equipment? Beyond your equipment, how would we know whether the identical equipment in other places is equally unhackable?

                      In short, how do we get past dueling assertions to election verification? I think that is the most important question, and it seems to get short shrift here.

                      •  You don't have to take my word for it . (0+ / 0-)

                        I challenged , if your experts can't steal a vote on the machine I run here ...
                        If on the other hand they can't ...

                        Send your experts on line or in real life .

                        I didn't make the set up , the set up was done by others ,
                        I run the machine , I see what they have done re the set up .

                        how would we know whether the identical equipment in other places is equally unhackable?
                        Identical equipment set up the same way has the same protections .

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:39:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

                          What, you think I have a stable of experts that I can send to Indycam County? If you think you have something to teach computer security experts, maybe you should contact some yourself, instead of issuing a pseudonymous challenge through me.

                          I didn't make the set up , the set up was done by others ,
                          I run the machine , I see what they have done re the set up .
                          You seem to be assuming what you set out to prove. How do you know that you see what they have done? I'm not for a moment suggesting that election techs in Indycam County are doing anything wrong; I do question your confidence that you can see what they (and, perhaps, others) did.

                          Incidentally, if you think the equipment is secured by tamper-evident seals, you might be right, but I've seen some harrowing demonstrations of such seals being almost undetectably defeated, or being evaded entirely.

                          Identical equipment set up the same way has the same protections .
                          So far I don't think you've said anything about how it is set up. If you've read any of the security assessments, they tend to be very specific -- except that they are often intentionally vague about the details of attacks.

                          Assuming for the sake of argument that the security measures you've seen are indeed rock-solid, how would you know if they are equally rock-solid everywhere else?

                          •  OK , security seals (0+ / 0-)

                            how and when did they get tampered with and to what end ?

                            I'm willing to take on any challenge .

                            Lets say you are the person trying to hack the machine I run , you got around the security seals in such a way that I can't see that you did , what did you do once you got beyond them and what did that do towards stealing a vote ?

                            And when did you do this ?
                            Before the day of the election or day of the election ?
                            It can't be after the day ...  

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:17:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Listen to the Engineer from India above (0+ / 0-)

                            Interesting.

                            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

                            by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:57:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Got a link for this technician ? (0+ / 0-)

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:22:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is this what you are talking about ? (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            If so I laugh , the machine I run has a printer , it prints on one role of paper , the voter never gets to touch the paper .
                            My machine is ahead of what he wants in the future .
                            He should have a look see at what we are doing .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:39:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I'm willing to take on any challenge" (0+ / 0-)

                            Excellent. I challenge you to drop the trash talk, read the literature on voting system security, and then write a serious, non-polemical diary on the topic. Between the "we're dooooooomed!" posts and the "hey, no problem" posts, I'm feeling pretty lonely (sniff).

                            Perhaps I should stop there, but I'll try to address the rest of your comment.

                            If the attackers can program your system to play Pac-Man, they can program it to do pretty much anything else one can imagine a (not very powerful) computer doing. Maybe some people miss the point because Pac-Man is easy to detect -- but the hack wouldn't have to be visible on screen in any way.

                            If the system has VVPAT, the attackers have to deal with that somehow. They can change some votes on both the system and the VVPAT and see if the voters notice. In experimental studies, most voters don't -- and even those who do notice may correct their votes without reporting the problem to authorities, so there is no assurance that the hack will ever be detected. Or the attackers can change some votes on the system only and see if the discrepancy between the system and the VVPAT is detected -- far from a sure thing in a state with a 1% manual tally, never mind a state where there is no routine audit whatsoever. Or they can arrange for the VVPAT not to print at all (or intermittently not to print at all), leaving a bad choice between unverifiable voting and taking the machine out of service.

                          •  "Trash talk" ? (0+ / 0-)
                            and even those who do notice may correct their votes without reporting the problem to authorities
                            The vote that was corrected shows on the tape . The report is made .
                            Or they can arrange for the VVPAT not to print at all (or intermittently not to print at all), leaving a bad choice between unverifiable voting and taking the machine out of service.
                            If it does not print , no vote is cast . That's not stealing a vote . If the printer has problems , the machine is down . The voters are then told to vote on a paper ballot with an ink pen .

                            If you keep claiming it can be done , I challenge you to show step by step how . Not just vague claims that others can .
                            Please , show me how on my machine , how a vote is stolen .

                            For every attempt I will have a trump .
                            But if you refuse to attempt I can not show you the trump .

                            Do your best to hack , I will stop you .
                             

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:53:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes indeed (0+ / 0-)
                            Do your best to hack , I will stop you .
                            You're not insulting my parentage, of course. But you're personalizing an issue that has very little to do with the two of us.
                            The vote that was corrected shows on the tape . The report is made .
                            And that helps the voters who didn't correct their votes how?
                            If it does not print , no vote is cast .
                            How could anyone possibly prove that, always and everywhere? You just don't seem to be thinking about this from a security perspective.
                          •  I'm talking about the machine I personaly run . (0+ / 0-)
                            And that helps the voters who didn't correct their votes how?
                            If you make a mistake on our paper ballot , you may correct it or you may not .
                            You as the voter may bring your miss-marked ballot back and request another .
                            You as a voter may bring your miss-marked ballot back to me not knowing that you have miss-marked the ballot .
                            If I run your ballot into the scanner and it reports a problem
                            you as a voter may take another ballot and try again or you may say run it as is . This last election I had a few people miss-mark and then say run it as is .

                            On the touch screen , they get to see the printed out ballot , they get to review the printed out ballot in black and white , they get the choice to redo their vote or run it as is .

                            The printed out ballot is easier and faster to review for accuracy . The traditional ballot takes longer to review and is more difficult to review .

                            How could anyone possibly prove that, always and everywhere?
                            I am talking about my machine and how it is set up here . The paper ballot is the ballot , if it is not printed it can not be counted .
                            A blank piece of paper is not countable .
                            You just don't seem to be thinking about this from a security perspective.
                            If you think that is the truth , you are grotesquely mistaken .

                             

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:36:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I'm talking about the machine I run" (0+ / 0-)

                            OK, but you seem to be talking about two different systems at once -- one a ballot scanner, the other a DRE with VVPAT. And you haven't actually identified either one, so I'm working pretty hard just to make educated guesses.

                            Obviously, on an opscan system, if there isn't a ballot, there isn't (or shouldn't be!) a vote.

                            Here, for reference, is the SoS's description of the security review and consequent mitigations in effect as of December 2009 for systems including the Sequoia Optech 400C, which may or may not be the scanner to which you refer. Are you familiar with this document?

                            I don't think anyone has programmed an Optech to play Pac-Man, but as this document describes in some detail (and other documents describe in more detail), it has plenty of security vulnerabilities in its own right, at least as of December 2009. The mitigations were designed to address those vulnerabilities.

                            I don't know anecdotes about the Edge II in particular, but it certainly is possible for VVPAT printers to malfunction. I want to underscore that the VVPAT paper trail is essentially irrelevant unless it is actually used.

                            I'm not alleging that you don't care about the security of your machines. To me, "thinking from a security perspective" entails some familiarity with security analyses -- which you may have, but you haven't evinced it in your comments.

                          •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                            I want to underscore that the VVPAT paper trail is essentially irrelevant unless it is actually used.
                            It is used . It is the ballot . It is the ballot that is counted .

                            Yes there are two machines that I run .
                            You can clearly see the touch screen that I run in the video I posted above . At 1:35 they give the name / model .
                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            This electronic voting machine is used to fill out a paper ballot . The voter does not touch the paper . The printer hold the uncast blank ballots / blank paper , the ink and the cast ballots .
                            It is the ballot box .
                            The cast ballots are what is counted .
                            Just as with the optical scanner , it is the paper that matters .

                            You have yet to provide a real method of hacking a vote on my machine , you have not even come close to doing so . Until you can come up with a real scenario that shows that you are really trying to steal a vote from my machine , I'll stay away .

                            Lets say you were planing a bank robbery and you wanted to explain to me how you were going to do it . I would want to see the whole thing from start to finish . Not just a report that someone had once open a safe somewhere else .
                            Please give me a step by step , start to finish , on how a vote is stolen on my machine . Please don't repeat the story about pong or any other game .

                            If you can do it in such a way that I don't have a trump ,
                            I'll stop running the machine until there is a trump for the problem .
                            You have read reports and books all about this subject , you are very concerned , you know whats what , so you should be able to steal a vote from my machine seeing as I'm just some no nothing bumpkin who doesn't read the books and papers etc .

                            If you would like , I could ask the election clerks office to let you have access to a machine in its sealed container .
                            I'll do all the normal paperwork and set up the machine right in front of you and then let you do whatever you are going to do . But of course if you do anything to my eye that looks funny , I'll get on the cell phone and get you for tampering with my equipment .

                            When , where , what .

                            A) When will you do it ?
                            B) Where will you do it ?
                            C) What will you do ?

                            A)
                            1-When the machine is stored away in the warehouse before the election clerks get them .
                            2-When the machines are being fixed up and such by the election clerks .
                            3-After the election clerks have them all ready for the poll workers .

                            B)
                            1- In the warehouse .
                            2- In the election clerks office .
                            3- In the poll workers homes .

                            C)
                            1- Change the software to print out the wrong name .
                            2- Change the software to print no name .
                            3- ????

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:12:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  jeebus (0+ / 0-)
                            This electronic voting machine is used to fill out a paper ballot . The voter does not touch the paper . The printer hold the uncast blank ballots / blank paper , the ink and the cast ballots .
                            It is the ballot box .
                            The cast ballots are what is counted .
                            Just as with the optical scanner , it is the paper that matters .
                            I don't know why you don't answer my questions. (This is just weird: "At 1:35 they give the name / model"? And then I should take three big steps to my right? What on earth is that about?) Were you familiar with the document I linked to, or weren't you?

                            If your county is still doing 100% manual tallies of the Edge VVPATs -- the December 2009 conditional approval is still in effect as far as I know -- it isn't because the Edges are unhackable. It's because the Secretary of State's office commissioned a landmark study that demonstrated that the Edges (among many other systems in use in California) are very much hackable, and the 100% manual tallies are one of the required mitigations. Rest assured, Sequoia did not market the Edge by saying, "It's great, it produces paper ballots and then you hand-count those." The electronic counts govern unless they are superseded by hand counts -- and hand counts aren't required under California law, apart from the provisions of the conditional approval (and the 1% manual tally).

                            If you aren't familiar with the Top To Bottom Review and why Debra Bowen took the step of requiring 100% manual tallies for the touchscreen VVPATs, I encourage you to read more about it. Maybe things will go better if I challenge you to read more about it. Maybe you know this stuff and just don't like to write about it for some reason. Dunno.

                          •  I ask you to hack the machine (0+ / 0-)

                            I say is unhackable .
                            You say it can be done .
                            So do it or admit that you can not .
                            If you can not come up with a real way to hack the machine
                            then I stand correct .
                            You maybe need to actually get in touch with someone who actually has real experience , hands on , over multiple years , with the machine and the set up used here .

                            Maybe once you talk with someone who has real experience , hands on , over multiple years , with the machine and the set up used here you will start to understand , or maybe not .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:00:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's your rebuttal of the Top-To-Bottom Review? (0+ / 0-)

                            Dude, I freely admit that I personally couldn't even sink the Titanic. Does that make the Titanic unsinkable? Or is it completely irrelevant?

                            If you really want to know the security issues with the equipment you're using, the TTBR is a phenomenal resource. If you have some useful comments about it based on your multiple years of hands on experience, that's fine. But if you think that your experience and confidence somehow refute a report you don't seem to know anything about, then all I can say is, not so much. I'm trying to meet you halfway, but you're not moving.

                          •  I know why the Titanic sunk (0+ / 0-)

                            I know who's fault it was
                            I know what was done post the sinking to the other ships that were built in that yard before and after the sinking of the titanic .
                            I had a relative go down on the titanic .

                            If you really want to know the security issues with the equipment you're using
                            You read the report so you know the " security issues" , right ? Now use your knowledge to hack in to my machine and steal a vote , please . If you can not even after reading about the " security issues" , why is that ?
                            a report you don't seem to know anything about
                            You read it , right ? So you know how to hack the machine I run , right ?
                            So you should be able to do the trick , right ?

                            Just do it !

                            If after doing all the reading you have done you still don't know who to hack my machine , then you need to find more to read , maybe like what someone with real hands on experienced has to say ?

                            Is the machine I run hackable ?
                            Or is it not ?

                            You have not shown that you know how to do it in real life .
                            You haven't even come close to stealing a vote on my machine .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 03:43:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes, your machines are hackable (0+ / 0-)

                            And if you learned about the issue, you would know how, just as you know why the Titanic sank.

                            You haven't disputed any portion of the TTBR's analysis of how the Edges (and Optechs, for that matter) can be subverted. You haven't even disputed that most voters never check the VVPATs, so even the extreme mitigation of hand-counting the VVPATs isn't failsafe. You really don't have an argument here. It's an interesting spectacle, but it's rapidly getting less interesting.

                          •  If you claim its hackable (0+ / 0-)

                            prove it by hacking my machine .
                            Its just that simple .
                            If you want to be taken seriously ,
                            do what you claim can be done .
                            Until you show that you can do what you claim ...

                            And if you learned about the issue
                            Are you claiming I don't know ?

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:04:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I can only judge by what you write (0+ / 0-)

                            You didn't even say whether or not you had read the document that details the Secretary of State's policy on the systems you've been talking about. I don't know how much you know about the TTBR; I only know that you haven't addressed its substance in any particular.

                            I don't know how I can make this any plainer. Suppose I told you that I don't believe in climate change, but maybe I would accept it if you come to my town and show me that temperatures are rising. Hey, the Hudson is an estuary, so maybe you can show me changes in the tide marks, or something.

                            And maybe you would think to yourself, "Well, maybe he's just confused," so you would point to some studies that explain the evidence for climate change. No, no, I would say, don't tell me to read stuff. My challenge is clear. Come to my town and demonstrate to me that the river is rising.

                            At what point would you just shake your head and give up?

                            I imagine you think that's a terrible, terrible analogy, because after all, your machine is nothing at all like my town. I could probably come up with a more exact analogy, but maybe this one captures the extent to which we are talking past each other.

                          •  Ok (0+ / 0-)
                            You haven't even disputed that most voters never check the VVPATs,
                            You think my voters do not check the tape , is that what you are claiming now ?
                            From real life hands on experience I can tell you that you are mistaken . I ask every voter to read the tape to make sure it is recording their choices correctly , once I see them read the tape and tell me that it has recorded their choices correctly , only then do I tell them to hit the last button .

                            What else you got ?

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:10:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but it's not about you (0+ / 0-)

                            Look, if you manage to get every voter to check the VVPAT, that's commendable. Truly. However, there is no way that I could possibly verify it, so while your belief that you accomplish that may help you, it doesn't do much for anybody else.

                            Moreover, you aren't the only poll worker in California, so for most verification purposes, it really doesn't matter how much or little success you have in getting voters to check the VVPAT. We need to know how well everyone else is doing.

                            If you think most California voters are checking the VVPATs, I sincerely hope you are right. I'm not against VVPATs. But their mere existence doesn't render the equipment unhackable.

                          •  Once again (0+ / 0-)

                            the machine I run is unhackable .
                            If you think you can steal a vote from the machine I run , do it . Prove you can do it or admit that you can not .

                            it really doesn't matter how much or little success you have in getting voters to check the VVPAT.
                            I as a poll worker am part of the system that keeps the elections / votes from being stolen , no matter if its electronic or paper . For you to claim it does not matter shows your mind set . Have you ever been a poll worker ? Have you ever run an electronic voting machine yourself ?
                            Do you know what an armchair pilot is ?
                            However, there is no way that I could possibly verify it
                            Have you verified everything you have read in your researching of my electronic voting machine ? Or do you just take their word for it ? Has anyone you have read on the subject , other than myself , ever seen what is what here in Santa Cruz re the set up of the security surrounding the touch screen voting machines ?  

                            On a traditional paper ballot , people do not review their voting , they don't mark their ballots correctly , they miss-mark them . The scanner picks up some of their mistakes and spits out the ballot and prints up a very short report of why its spitting out their ballots . I have seen it over and over . The voter gets a 2nd chance to vote . And then they get a 3rd chance if they need .

                            If the machine was not looking over their shoulder , their vote would not count or would be for what the voter did not want .
                            The scanner helps people vote better .

                            The touch screen I run helps voters even more and is hackproof .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:25:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the machine you run has been hacked (0+ / 0-)

                            What next? Do I need to fly a jumbo jet into the Pentagon to demonstrate that it can be done?

                            For you to claim it does not matter shows your mind set.
                            Actually, it shows that you quoted me out of context. Meh.
                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)
                            If the attackers can program your system to play Pac-Man, they can program it to do pretty much anything else one can imagine a (not very powerful) computer doing.
                            When , where and how ?
                            They have to do it .
                            When do they do it ,
                            where do they do it ,
                            and how do they do it ?

                            These are very important questions ?
                            Unless you can come up with a real
                            when , where and how , you have just failed to hack the machine .
                            You as a hacker need to have access to the machine I run .
                            You can't steal a vote from my machine in theory from afar .
                            You need to get your hands on my machine .

                            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                            by indycam on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:03:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and again (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, it's true that if no one can gain access to the machine, no one can hack it. It's also true that if no one can gain access to the machine, no one can program it to function correctly.

                            It seems that what you're saying isn't actually that the system you use is unhackable, but rather that the procedures in use in your county assure that no one can hack it.

                            I have no desire to trivialize the security procedures used in your county, whatever those procedures might be. But looking at the problem from 30,000 feet, it doesn't seem that challenging me to send experts to hack your machine really gets at the problem of convincing people (even sensible people) around the country that voting systems are secure.

                            One thing that makes this topic hard to discuss is that some critics of the systems have a weirdly totalizing approach. The questions you're asking about how I would go about hacking "your" machine are similar to the questions I ask about how Mike Connell is supposed to have stolen the 2004 election by providing web hosting for the Ohio Secretary of State. I don't claim to know how all 88 Ohio counties set up their vote counting, but I can tell that a lot of the critics haven't given a moment's thought to what would be necessary to alter the vote counts from a central server. Voting and tabulation systems in general aren't totally secure or totally insecure. Many DKos discussions don't rise to even that level of nuance.

                            I don't recommend learning about these issues from BBV or BradBlog. The California Top-to-Bottom Review, Ohio's Project EVEREST, and EVT/WOTE conference papers are among the more reliable sources.

                            In my opinion, more rigorous auditing of the VVPATs could go a long way toward resolving the security concerns. Many people forcefully disagree, in part because, as I pointed out, voters don't necessarily verify the VVPATs. (Also, audit trails raise their own security issues. For that matter, so do hand-counted paper ballots.) In general, I don't think thermal-paper VVPATs are a great solution, and I'm glad we don't use them in New York -- but I think they can be part of a viable solution.

  •  I just don't see this as a problem. (0+ / 0-)

    As is the case with claimed voter fraud by Republicans, there simply are no documented cases of this happening.

    Why fix a problem where none exists?

    •  I don't think those are commensurable (0+ / 0-)

      Unlike many posters here, I basically agree with you that there are no documented cases of voting machine fraud -- although there are some documented cases of voting machines apparently altering election outcomes. I don't think that means that there isn't a problem. There is no documented case of nuclear war, but I think it is a legitimate policy concern!

      With voter fraud, there is a tradeoff: protecting election integrity without unduly discouraging legitimate voters. Part of the reason people don't routinely vote dozens of times is that systems are in place to make that relatively difficult. Also, lots of people would have to coordinate in order to affect a large number of votes.

      With voting machine fraud, there also are tradeoffs -- but there is at least the possibility that one or a small number of people could shift large numbers of votes. Using verifiable voting systems, and following through on verification, makes sense to me. (In fact, I spend a lot of time advocating it -- I suspect more time than most of the people who slam me for being soft on the machines. ;)

      •  No evidence? (0+ / 0-)

        I'll begin by reitering, there are many, many recorded incidents of bogus vote counts derived from voting machines.  Enough, you would think, to stop using them until all is fixed and secure.

        Continuing their use, therefore, is tantamont to election fraud.

        Look at the first map in the diary.  Lots of states are still using paper ballots with NO voting machines.

        Just go to The BradBlog and search "voting machine fraud"

        You will find 2,020 hits for the search.

        Here's one

        VIDEOS: Vote Flipping on Touch-Screens in WV Failure Seen Persisting Even After Election Official 'Recalibrates' Failed Machine!

        San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is the author of the lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court against Election Systems & Software (ES&S) alleging fraud and breach of contract. Herrera charges that ES&S intentionally sold uncertified machines to the city and is seeking to recover $300,000 in damages

        HBO to Premier 'Hacking Democracy' Just Prior to November Election!
        Landmark Documentary Will Feature Exclusive Footage of First Known Hack of Diebold Optical-Scan Voting System!

        Monterey County, CA Registrar Admits New E-Voting Machine Technology 'Faith-Based'!
        In Radio Interview, Demonstrates New Sequoia Touch-Screens, Secret Software, Asks Voters to 'Trust Him' on Accuracy and Reliability!

        The Monterey official was a crook, btw

        13-Year California Election Official Facing 43 Criminal Charges!

        If you want to split a symantic hair, I'd suggest your argument could be with the word "FRAUD"

        To which I will respond

        If it is easy to detect voting machine fraud prior to the vote, I posit that we would never have seen their invention by Right Wing business owners.

        That said, again, the evidence that the voting machines have not, cannot, and probably never will be able prevent election fraud, referring to the machines so tested and about to be used in the 2012 Presidential Election.

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 02:01:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not a single instance of electronic voting machine (0+ / 0-)

          fraud.

          And all of your links go to BradBlog.

          Sorry, but that's as credible as linking to World Nut Daily in support of the birther crap.

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
          I'll begin by reitering, there are many, many recorded incidents of bogus vote counts derived from voting machines.  Enough, you would think, to stop using them until all is fixed and secure.

          Continuing their use, therefore, is tantamont to election fraud.

          OK, I've counted to 100.

          Depending on what you mean by "many, many" and "bogus," we may agree. For that matter, I think that we should fix voting systems regardless of how many recorded incidents there are. But I don't really see the point in picking a fight with me on the grounds that using the machines at all is tantamount to fraud, and that I'm 'splitting a semantic hair' by using the word in any other way.

          Just go to The BradBlog and search "voting machine fraud"
          Look, a bunch of us lost patience with Brad Friedman years ago. He isn't always wrong, he sure as heck isn't always right, and he and Bev Harris have done a lot to marginalize serious discussion of election integrity on Daily Kos. It's a damn shame.

          I'm happy to discuss specific issues regardless of whether Brad is the one raising them, but counting the hits for "voting machine fraud" on his website isn't my idea of evidence or a good time. I don't see the relevance of your links to my comment.

          If it is easy to detect voting machine fraud prior to the vote, I posit that we would never have seen their invention by Right Wing business owners.
          I'm not sure what you have in mind about "prior to the vote." Part of the problem has been that many people have claimed to have detected voting machine fraud after the vote (fine so far), that their evidence has been poor, and that their behavior often has been atrocious.
          That said, again, the evidence that the voting machines have not, cannot, and probably never will be able prevent election fraud, referring to the machines so tested and about to be used in the 2012 Presidential Election.
          We may agree about that, but I'm not sure what it means. I don't think that any voting machine in use is guaranteed fraud-free.
          •  We agree (0+ / 0-)
            I don't think that any voting machine in use is guaranteed fraud-free.
            Perhaps the US can have International Observers.  : ))

            It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

            by War on Error on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 08:00:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site