NYtimes online covers Electronic Voting "foibles"

[Bread and Circus]

At least they are covering it a little bit (this is a start):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/business/yourmoney/28techno.html

Electronic Voting 1.0, and No Time to Upgrade

By JAMES FALLOWS

Published: November 28, 2004

I TRUST computers. When I first used A.T.M.'s, nearly 30 years ago, I carefully saved receipts in a folder and matched them with the bank's monthly statement. Now I sometimes stuff the receipts in my wallet, but I almost never look at them again. The only banking error I've encountered in all those years was when a human teller left a final zero off a deposit I had made.

I still pore over credit card statements, but mainly to see whether some person, not some machine, has issued the proper refund credit or made an improper charge. I've sent e-mail messages to the wrong people by mistyping an address or hitting the oh-so-dangerous "Reply All" button, but never because the system routes it where it shouldn't go. When I travel, I assume that the e-ticket I booked through my computer will be valid and that frequent-flier miles will show up in my account.

Yet when I went to my polling place in Washington on Election Day, I waited an extra half-hour in line to cast a paper ballot, instead of using the computerized touch-screen voting machine. Am I irrational? Perhaps, but this would not be the evidence.

A columnist in The Washington Post recently suggested that nostalgia for paper ballots, in today's reliably computerized world, must reflect a Luddite disdain for technology in general or an Oliver Stone-style paranoia about the schemings of the political world.

Not at all. It can also arise from a clear understanding of how computers work - and don't. The more you know about the operations of today's widely trusted commercial computer networks, the more concerned you become about most electronic-voting systems....

----

click the link and read more.

[intheflow]

1. Great that this was in the business section.

There are a lot of business types who never read anything else. Thanks for posting!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. You are seeing this in The Times because...

The story has legs. Now, that is not a prediction about where the story will finally walk to. I have my suspicions, but they are subjective at best. But that said, this story will not be tamped down.

This means that the people and organizations in what I like to call "The Voting Integrity Diaspora" are gonna have to make REAL sure that their data/evidence is nailed down tight. Also, relieving me of that word, diaspora, would be a good idea as well. You all have to work solidly together.

The Whole World is Watching. Quietly. Expectantly. Hopefully, for as real democracy with real integrity goes, as goes America...

You people accepted the fight. Now you know some of the rules. Blow it, and there goes serious press coverage and it all becomes a farce, and nothing improves.

[ailsagirl]

6. We need to get the rest of the world involved...

Or maybe it is-- I don't know if there are many stories from Europe re the "irregularities" encountered during this election.

I hope so. I hope the pressure builds up so strongly that people will start to come forward and the government will have to address our concerns.

[Road Scholar]

8. Absolutely!! US press trying to keep a lid on it!!

We should involve foreign press!!

[me b zola]

18. I respectfully disagree

It is quite embarrassing enough that the world is watching our constitution and democracy perverted, raped, and spit upon. The very essence of a democracy is that the PEOPLE have the power to govern themselves. If we cannot address these offenses committed against the American people ourselves, then we do not deserve to have the power in the first place. We must be relentless in demanding the removal of ALL electronic voting machines. We must insist that voter suppression and intimidation at the polls end NOW. WE HAVE THE POWER, please don't ever let the repubs make you feel that you are powerless to fight them---that is exactly how they want you to feel.Demonstrations and protests are one way, but that must be done in conjunction with relentless pressure on congress and senate.

[mom cat]

14. Now is the time to really crank with LTEs to push for coverage of

this story,and notes of thanks to the ones who do cover it.

[Straight Shooter]

3. The following is a persuasive argument for paper, not vapor

Re: distrust of evoting

It can also arise from a clear understanding of how computers work - and don't. The more you know about the operations of today's widely trusted commercial computer networks, the more concerned you become about most electronic-voting systems.

The phenomenal reliability of the systems we trust for banking, communication, and everything else rests on two bedrock principles. One is the universal understanding in the technology world that nothing works right the first time, and maybe not the first 50 times.

As I've said before on DU, this election was nothing less than one huge beta test group, and you can bet your bottom dollar they had embedded "bugs" all set to go.

Thanks for the catch. It's a start, and it's a well-written article.

[anamandujano]

4. If we tried to take away their paper atm receipts

all the repukes would be revolting--not that they aren't already.

[SharonAnn]

7. I'm not sure it was even a "beta" test. Might have been an "alpha"

[Stevepol]

5. DRE Foibles

Later, the author says he doesn't believe the DREs cost Kerry the election because the margin was so great. What kind of stupidity is that? He might have legitimately asked why the margin was so great. Here's a president who lost by 500,000 votes four years ago and since then every demographic measure has the Dems gaining votes and Repubs losing them. On top of that, you have a president who has the poorest record of any president in the last century, and you have exit polls, universally considered reliable unless they're used where DREs are used, and this guy can say that he doesn't think the DREs could have caused Kerry to lose. Not only could they have caused Kerry to lose, but they DID cause Kerry to lose and they will cause the Dems to lose 3 or 4 more seats in 2006, as they've lost seats since '02, if the DREs are not fitted with voter-verified paper ballots which are audited in every election (along with the optical scanners which are just as easily fraudulently programmed) using some procedure like that instituted in CA this year (strangely Kerry performed about as expected in CA where the Diebold machines were impounded and the audits were required). The evidence ever since GA in 02 is overwhelming and only an idiot would contend otherwise if he's looked even cursorily at the evidence: pre-election polls, exit polls, post-certification shenanigans as in GA and CA, companies owned and operated by ex-felons in management positions, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

15. Agreed

I thought this was a pathetically weak article. Even if the author's scared to speculate, he still missed piles of disturbing facts about who's doing the programming (criminals), the proven demonstrations about how easily hacked these machines are (running on unpatched Windows machines that count votes in unprotected MS Access files, etc.), the way exit polls began diverging from official vote counts in 2000 and 2002, etc.

He seemed to say, "Never buy version 1.0 of an electronic voting machine." The implication is that "They'll have the kinks worked out by Version 2.0." Sadly, he's probably right. They will be so "good" at stealing votes evenly across precincts that we won't be able to detect fraud statistically except by comparison with exit polls... that the Republicans are now doing everything in their power to eliminate.

The NYT and WP were always my gold standards. I'm now disgusted by both. I turned my nose up at the Sunday Times in a grocery store this evening. Normally I drool over it, but Frank Rich and Paul Krugman (on leave) are their only strong voices these days. As DUers have said, we *are* the media now. I'll probably return to the media for science, business, sports, and tech news, but I'm now permanently distrustful of their political coverage. (Actually, I believe the Web is already better source for science and tech news than the MSM.)

I've almost totally stopped watching TV news, but I watched the Tom Brokaw retrospective last night because I think he's a decent guy. I got a strong wink-wink-nudge-nudge sense from that show that we've returned to the '60s (JFK, MLK, Vietnam, RFK) and early '70s (Watergate). He made several remarks that basically said "You can't trust presidents."

[MarkusQ]

16. Yes but...

I agree with your post, but would go further, or at least not get hung up on the means. It's not just the electronic voting we need to watch, it's the electronic tallying, the allocation of resources, the media manipulation, the discarding of ballots and the destruction or alteration of records, etc.

There isn't just one way to cheat, as the cheaters have apparently realized.

--MarkusQ

[Eric J in MN]

9. The Washington Post columnist he's referring to is Anne Applebaum

From The Daily Howler

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111704.shtml

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2004

APPLEBAUM’S PIETY:There’s almost no way to be this daft—unless you’re a Washington journalist. We refer to Anne Applebaum’s column in this morning’s Post, in which the siren of ruling-class piety mocks an intelligent Times editorial about our absurd voting systems. Try to believe that a sentient being dreamed up this kooky comparison:

APPLEBAUM (11/17/04): Two weeks after the election, the Internet rumor mill continues to spout stories of computer-stolen votes. No sooner are they disproved than others appear. Some are demanding an Ohio recount. Otherwise sober people are asking whether there can be smoke without fire. Last weekend the New York Times published an editorial that found "no evidence" of vote fraud but called electronic voting "a problem" all the same. After all, the editorial noted, there is "no way to be sure" that votes weren't changed "by secret software" inside the machines. If you're tempted to believe that analysis is rational, just ask yourself this question: Are you really sure that your bank isn't using secret software to steal $9.72 from your retirement account every week? And if the answer is no, why aren't you up in arms about that, too?

Typing from the far side of Neptune, Applebaum compares our current voting systems with the way your bank is handling your money. Have you checked to see if your bank is stealing your money? the deeply daft columnist types.

Could any comparison be less apt? No, you probably haven’t checked this week to see if your bank is stealing your money. But duh! The reason you haven’t checked is obvious—banks provide extensive paper trails, and a major bank would quickly be caught if it swiped that nine bucks every week. (As anyone except a “journalist” would know, many Americans do check their bank statements quite religiously.) And duh! Let’s note another fact which would be obvious to anyone outside Applebaum’s tribe. Here it is: If banks were allowed to run audit-free systems, many banks would of course steal your money! Only a fool would fail to know it. But Applebaum—like powdered elites through the annals of time—is paid good money to pretend not to know this.

[Lizzie Borden]

10. It's better than nothin'.

[Eric J in MN]

12. What is better than nothin'? NT

NT

[Eric J in MN]

11. There is no need to automate a process done once in 2 years.

(federal elections.)

We could mark X's on a sheet of paper just for federal races, deposit those ballots in a transparent ballot box, and then watch them publicly hand-counted after voting ends.

That system would be cheaper, easier, and more trustworthy.

[understandinglife]

13. A letter to the NYTimes acknowledging the article....

....and urging they begin to educate everyone, via their editorial page, as to what the logical and necessary next steps should be :

Good evening New York Times,

I've included a reference to the article "Electronic Voting 1.0, and No Time to Upgrade" in a discussion of Associate Dean Ian Solomon's important op-ed article in the Baltimore Sun.

VALIDATE THE VOTE

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/26/21262/464

How you can publish "Electronic Voting 1.0, and No Time to Upgrade" and then not carry on your editorial page, a crystal clear statement of the logical mandate that anyone familiar with computing systems would expect every responsible media organization to be demanding, is beyond reason and is a threat to the solvency of our Democracy.

You are not doing your Constitutional duty to the citizens of the United States of America.

Here is all you have to do. First, just ask every citizen, via an editorial these three questions:


Did you vote?

Do you remember for whom you voted?

Do you Know If and How your vote was counted?

Fact is, no matter what form of ballot each citizen used, the answer for most of us to question # 3 is no and no. Not just because 30 % of the voters used 'electronic voting machines' but because the 'central tabulating systems' in every county in every State are suspect -- they're "computers" and the rigorous and non-partisan assessment, monitoring and authentication of their output DID NOT HAPPEN.

It is absolutely essential to the credibility of our franchise that you publish an editorial with the same message delivered by Associate Dean Solomon -- "Halt and Audit." Once we all know, as comprehensively as possible, what happened to each citizen's vote, we can then proceed to determine an outcome -- declare a winner or re-vote.

Courage, New York Times; you must step to the defense of the franchise, now.

Thank you,

----------------------------------
Links to related commentary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/26/21262/464
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000997.htm

"Halt and Audit"

Peace.

[Patsy Stone]

17. Although bland

It may give some people pause. Also, I liked the related artices links on the bottom to other bad "e-vote hackable" stories.

No investigative journalism here, but a mention is a mention.