You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #9: I agree with your basic premise but may quibble with some details. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
9. I agree with your basic premise but may quibble with some details.
I'm also a programmer of over 20 years and agree with your point about plausible deniability. It would be very easy to write code that looks innocent but does the job. It wouldn't have a handy comment that says:
// Fraudulently switch votes to pre-selected winner

Just like the chaotic mess of an election system we have in this country is perfect for hiding fraud, a mess of a software program would be an easy place to hide a vote-switching algorithm through some combination of complicated functions that each look innocent but work together to switch votes. This kind of code, if caught, could be explained away as an innocent bug even if it were in fact an intentional hack.

Where I don't agree with you is your conclusion that this points to DREs as the culprit and exonerates tabulators. Tabulators could have a plausibly deniable error in them just as easily as DREs. Either hack is as prone to detection by examination of code as the other. I take your point about the paper trail making it trickier for them to steal paper votes than e-votes but it looks like that is what they did. Maybe they sized up the situation, realized they owned all the important governmental functions in some key places (like Ohio) and also knew there weren't enough DREs being used to let them steal the election by stealing votes in just DREs.

There also was some measure of old fashioned low tech fraud and also fraud that crossed the low tech / high tech boundary, like stuffing paper op scan ballots and physically altering op scan ballots with markers and stickers.

When you get down to it, every aspect of our election system is effed up. Even paper ballots, hand counted won't solve the problem if the ballots are hauled around in some dude's van for hours or sit around in boxes in the hallway without effective controls to avoid ballot stuffing, ballot defacing, ballot theft, ...

And what good are any control mechanisms in the system if the judiciary branch at the state and/or federal level refuses to address blatant violations in a timely way?

So, innocent looking code that steals votes with plausible deniability? Agreed. That being the only way they stole votes and only in DREs? Disagree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Plausible deniability & Election eTheft yowzayowzayowza  Oct-16-05 03:45 PM   #0 
  - The only hope we have is to create a spread so wide that any  rzemanfl   Oct-16-05 03:58 PM   #1 
  - I agree.  mirandaod   Oct-16-05 04:10 PM   #3 
  - My thought is that all the people who intend to vote Democratic  rzemanfl   Oct-16-05 06:51 PM   #21 
  - How is it that we've come to this?  Der Blaue Engel   Oct-16-05 04:13 PM   #4 
  - Yes, but once the Dems get subpoena power, etc. won't the fraud  rzemanfl   Oct-16-05 06:46 PM   #20 
  - There will be no spread wide enough  GuvWurld   Oct-16-05 05:30 PM   #16 
  - I would have submitted to you...  Blue Shark   Oct-18-05 09:57 PM   #44 
  - bingo yowzayowzayowza; E-fraud or Glitch Switch; the media will never know  Land Shark   Oct-18-05 10:45 PM   #46 
  - Until somebody in on the scam comes forward it's all speculation:  Stevepol   Oct-16-05 04:00 PM   #2 
  - well, since you ask  Febble   Oct-16-05 04:14 PM   #5 
  - why can't they both be wrong?  foo_bar   Oct-16-05 05:01 PM   #11 
     - Careful!  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-16-05 05:05 PM   #12 
     - Actually, I think we are at the stage  Febble   Oct-16-05 05:58 PM   #19 
        - Wait a minute, what's the difference between  Bill Bored   Oct-17-05 06:30 PM   #27 
           - Read my lips  Febble   Oct-17-05 06:54 PM   #28 
              - sElection 2k eTheft switch oops ...  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-17-05 07:33 PM   #29 
              - Yes but this was a 14% undervote rate!  Bill Bored   Oct-17-05 11:13 PM   #31 
                 - Man o man.  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-18-05 01:54 AM   #37 
              - Let me get this straight...  Bill Bored   Oct-17-05 11:02 PM   #30 
                 - Well, I have to say  Febble   Oct-18-05 01:46 AM   #36 
                    - OK, let's step back for a moment, shall we?  Bill Bored   Oct-18-05 03:17 AM   #38 
                       - Well, sort of  Febble   Oct-18-05 03:38 AM   #39 
                          - But what are we trying to prove?  Bill Bored   Oct-18-05 12:46 PM   #40 
                             - OK  Febble   Oct-18-05 04:18 PM   #41 
                             - I didn't say they were impossible did I?  Bill Bored   Oct-18-05 07:38 PM   #43 
                                - OK Bill  Febble   Oct-19-05 09:41 AM   #48 
                             - Regarding outliers: anecdotal evidence might be useful.  kiwi_expat   Oct-18-05 06:58 PM   #42 
                                - The big WPE for Cincy4M was probably not the result of rBr, per se.  kiwi_expat   Oct-18-05 10:17 PM   #45 
                                - consensual correction  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-21-05 03:43 PM   #85 
                                - I'm afraid I used the term "sampling bias" incorrectly.  kiwi_expat   Oct-19-05 07:08 AM   #47 
                                   - I think it could be right either way, depending...  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-19-05 09:41 AM   #49 
                                      - Really?  BeFree   Oct-19-05 10:40 AM   #50 
                                      - Do you think we might  Febble   Oct-19-05 11:04 AM   #51 
                                         - Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-19-05 11:54 AM   #52 
                                            - The "early" data  Febble   Oct-19-05 12:14 PM   #53 
                                               - Accuse?  BeFree   Oct-19-05 12:22 PM   #54 
                                               - Well, I try to tell the truth as I see it  Febble   Oct-19-05 12:37 PM   #55 
                                               - I couldn't agree more, Febble  BeFree   Oct-20-05 07:52 AM   #64 
                                               - Well, see my post below  Febble   Oct-20-05 08:51 AM   #67 
                                               - I'm sure we appreciate the advice  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-19-05 01:04 PM   #58 
                                               - You're welcome  BeFree   Oct-20-05 07:19 AM   #62 
                                               - No, there was no audit  Febble   Oct-20-05 07:50 AM   #63 
                                               - your facts are still confused, as far as I can tell  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-20-05 08:08 AM   #65 
                                               - OTOH  BeFree   Oct-20-05 08:50 AM   #66 
                                               - The people who commissioned the exit poll  Febble   Oct-20-05 08:56 AM   #68 
                                               - hmm...  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-20-05 11:04 AM   #69 
                                               - that's pretty Raw  BeFree   Oct-20-05 06:16 PM   #70 
                                               - nope, sorry, still wrong  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-20-05 06:34 PM   #71 
                                               - Almost certainly weighted?  BeFree   Oct-20-05 07:36 PM   #73 
                                               - the national surveys? certainly weighted  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-20-05 08:01 PM   #74 
                                               - Ah, yes, the midday data  BeFree   Oct-20-05 08:24 PM   #75 
                                               - no, the midday data were almost certainly weighted  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-21-05 05:24 AM   #76 
                                               - Adjustments, weightings, program errors  BeFree   Oct-21-05 07:25 AM   #77 
                                               - I quote Freeman here  BeFree   Oct-21-05 08:02 AM   #78 
                                               - not an iota of support for your use of "raw" and "weighted"  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-21-05 08:35 AM   #79 
                                               - I don't need support  BeFree   Oct-21-05 09:16 AM   #80 
                                               - how can you sway people if you insist on using your own terms?  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-21-05 10:13 AM   #81 
                                               - Are you referring to the term 'RAW'  BeFree   Oct-21-05 10:37 AM   #82 
                                               - Forget the terms  Febble   Oct-21-05 11:10 AM   #83 
                                               - Is that right?  BeFree   Oct-21-05 06:21 PM   #86 
                                               - And furthermore...  BeFree   Oct-21-05 06:50 PM   #87 
                                               - Actually I don't  Febble   Oct-21-05 07:18 PM   #88 
                                               - Here ya go & edited  BeFree   Oct-21-05 07:59 PM   #90 
                                               - OK  Febble   Oct-22-05 03:50 AM   #91 
                                               - well, it depends on the context  OnTheOtherHand   Oct-21-05 12:15 PM   #84 
                                               - In answer to your last question  Febble   Oct-20-05 06:37 PM   #72 
                                      - Thanks! Here is my little list of possible contributions to a WPE.  kiwi_expat   Oct-19-05 08:28 PM   #59 
     - Well, I think they both CAN be wrong,  Febble   Oct-16-05 05:15 PM   #15 
  - Thank you for discussing DRE fraud *vs.* tabulator(GEMS) fraud!  kiwi_expat   Oct-16-05 04:39 PM   #6 
  - Naw, naw.  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-16-05 04:48 PM   #8 
     - I have always wondered why a DRE paper trail couldn't be rigged also.  kiwi_expat   Oct-16-05 05:34 PM   #17 
        - And me.  Febble   Oct-16-05 05:40 PM   #18 
        - The term "paper trail" does...  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-16-05 11:05 PM   #24 
           - I'm rooting for the 'Stros and here's why:  Bill Bored   Oct-17-05 11:20 PM   #32 
              - So how does...  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-18-05 12:09 AM   #33 
  - And by playing games with new technology - not stealing votes - but  applegrove   Oct-16-05 04:41 PM   #7 
  - I know what ya mean.  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-16-05 04:51 PM   #10 
     - Get your "little speech" ready for the bully matron "rule-maker" you  applegrove   Oct-16-05 05:13 PM   #13 
  - I agree with your basic premise but may quibble with some details.  eomer   Oct-16-05 04:49 PM   #9 
  - The difference between...  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-16-05 05:13 PM   #14 
  - Tabulators...Diebold Plausible Deniability  autorank   Oct-18-05 12:31 AM   #34 
     - Innovative?  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-18-05 01:34 AM   #35 
  - Contrarian gibberish.  BeFree   Oct-16-05 07:52 PM   #22 
  - No Way!  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-16-05 10:51 PM   #23 
  - Cow Bell.  btmlndfrmr   Oct-17-05 04:54 PM   #25 
  - Agree completely.  Bill Bored   Oct-17-05 06:17 PM   #26 
  - Thank you yowza -- it seems that this contains some important clues, but  Time for change   Oct-19-05 12:49 PM   #56 
     - Oh, wait a minute -- maybe I get it from reading some other posts  Time for change   Oct-19-05 12:55 PM   #57 
        - Two points:  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-20-05 12:46 AM   #60 
        - yowza(x3) explains his use of the term "paper trail" in post #24  kiwi_expat   Oct-20-05 02:12 AM   #61 
        - FYI: Even tho I'm obviously not privy to ...  yowzayowzayowza   Oct-21-05 07:55 PM   #89 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC