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
Google

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 05:49 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
 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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