HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Election Reform (Group) » What does Bernie believe ...

Thu May 28, 2015, 07:49 PM

What does Bernie believe about the ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES?

Does he have any advisors who know anything about this? I doubt it.

One quite recent book on the subject, CODE RED by Jonathan Simon, gives a good summary of how we got to where we are (where 98% of the vote is counted electronically on computers and are thus virtually unverifiable), where Republicans have become the most powerful party even though every demographic would indicate otherwise, and where the corporations that count the votes keep making sure that any shift away from the pre-election polls or the exit polls is always a RED SHIFT.

I'm with Bernie but I'm afraid I don't believe Hillary is his most serious obstacle to election. And even if by the grace of God he is elected, the people on the lower ends of the ballot, the Reps and the Sens, are the ones that are the most often the ones who are narrowly beaten despite showing stronger in the pre-election polls and in the exit polls. And he will have to have a Senate and a House to work with if he's to do any of the things he wants to do.

About all we mortals can do is pray I guess. The immortals are on the board at Dominion or ES&S. Here's a LTE I wrote recently (200 wds limit) related to this subject:

HAVE WE GIVEN UP ON ELECTION INTEGRITY?

Electronic voting machines are essentially unverifiable. Itís as if we give our vote to a guy who takes our vote into a room, then comes out later and says that he has carefully counted all the votes before shredding them, and hereís the result. Like it or lump it. And yet thousands of elections since computers began counting votes in 1988 have not squared with the exit polls or with other significant measures of validity. In the last election in Kansas, for example, Beth Clarkson, a statistician at WSU, found some marked irregularities in terms of urban/rural deviance and asked to be allowed to study the paper tapes from the voting machines to square them with the precinct results. Kris Kobach would not allow her to do so. We are now at a point where corporations count about 98% of the vote and itís almost impossible to verify anything. Isnít it time we joined Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands and trashed the machines in favor of easily verified paper ballots, preferably hand-counted?

53 replies, 7668 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply What does Bernie believe about the ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES? (Original post)
Stevepol May 2015 OP
TheNutcracker May 2015 #1
lovelydestruction Dec 2015 #47
Vincardog May 2015 #2
Baobab May 2016 #48
Dustlawyer Aug 2016 #51
Hacking_Democracy Aug 2016 #52
SusanCalvin May 2015 #3
Scuba May 2015 #4
kath Jun 2015 #16
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2015 #19
Peace Patriot May 2015 #5
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #7
Wilms Jun 2015 #22
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #23
Wilms Jun 2015 #24
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #26
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
Wilms Jun 2015 #28
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
GoneFishin Jun 2015 #29
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #31
Stevepol Aug 2015 #40
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #42
Stevepol Aug 2015 #43
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #45
Hacking_Democracy Aug 2016 #53
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #6
merrily Jun 2015 #8
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #25
merrily Jun 2015 #27
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #33
merrily Jun 2015 #34
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #35
merrily Jun 2015 #36
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #37
merrily Jun 2015 #38
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #39
Stevepol Aug 2015 #41
sketchy Jun 2015 #9
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #10
sketchy Jun 2015 #11
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #12
sketchy Jun 2015 #13
Cal33 Jun 2015 #15
Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #17
Cal33 Jun 2015 #20
Stevepol Aug 2015 #44
Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #46
Hacking_Democracy Aug 2016 #49
Thinkingabout Aug 2016 #50
Cal33 Jun 2015 #14
GoneFishin Jun 2015 #32
Persondem Jun 2015 #18
1STWURLDVIEW Jun 2015 #21
GoneFishin Jun 2015 #30

Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Thu May 28, 2015, 07:55 PM

1. I write about this a lot in FLA. A stronger audit of paper ballots against machine totals is needed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 29, 2015, 11:27 AM

47. We should make it an issue

Not enough time now, but people send petitions off to the White House for all kinds of stuff. They say we don't want to know how the sausage is made. Well, if you might be putting some kind of stank on it we do. We don't have to control everything, but our vote seems like a pretty personal, guaranteed right. We should be able to watch the frisson of our collective opinions coming together more organically. More transparently.
There, I hope I've inspired someone, because I'm probably not going to do another thing about it.
But, I had a flash of passion for a moment.
I'd sign a petition, though. Maybe email my congressman, but omg my congressman sucks!
We Need Voting Transparency. The Count is the Thing. It's Our Vote! (I'm imagining myself marching with a placard)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Thu May 28, 2015, 07:55 PM

2. Long past time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Baobab (Reply #48)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 10:22 AM

51. I would add that people interested should Google William Spoonamore.

He is a Republican who was asked to hack the first Diebald voting machine as a test. He did it in 30 minutes. He works in credit card Internet security and has detailed videos showing how easy it is to hack our elections and how it was done by a company that Rove's IT guy was part owner in. This guy died in a small plane crash days before he was to give his deposition.

In one video he states that it would cost around two million to hack the Presidential election to switch the outcome. He asks the question that with all of the billions spent to elect a President, wouldn't some group somewhere be willing to pay the money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baobab (Reply #48)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 01:55 PM

52. The 'Hursti Hack' of the Optical Scan machines

The Hursti Hack of the Diebold Optical Scan machines and the Diebold central tabulator was the first proven
hack of a county's live election system in America (in Leon County, Florida). It was performed using only a
memory card and it was broadcast nationally on HBO.
I believe that these optical scan machines probably still retain this dangerous attack vulnerability.


Does anyone know how many counties and states are still using the Diebold optical scan machines?


The UC Berkeley Report which reviewed the Diebold source code and confirmed the Hursti Hack is real
can be found here:
https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2013/09/VSTAAB-Security-Analysis-of-Diebold-AccuBasic-Interpreter-2006.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Thu May 28, 2015, 09:52 PM

3. Thanks for bringing this up.

It is a huge issue that hardly anyone talks about anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Fri May 29, 2015, 07:03 AM

4. Paper ballots, hand counted, in public, cameras rolling. Nothing less.

 

I don't need fast election results; I need accurate vote counts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 03:36 PM

16. Yes, yes, yes!

accurate, fair results much more important than fast ones.
This is basically how they do it in Canada.

too bad ours is such a no-attention-span, instant-gratification culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 08:17 PM

19. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Sun May 31, 2015, 11:48 AM

5. "Belief" is not enough.

What does Bernie believe about the ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES? (your title, my emphasis)


I don't want to know what Bernie "believes" about electronic voting machines. I want to know what he DOES about verifying vote counts (or exposing the inherent inability of current e-voting systems to provide verification). Can he even prove that he himself was elected to the Senate? No other elected official can do this, and none of them even try to. Why? How is it that they are "trusting" to private corporations, all of them using 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that the public is forbidden to review--to tabulate election results, with half the states doing NO AUDIT AT ALL of the results, and the other half doing only a miserably inadequate 1% audit. And don't even get me started on WHO owns and runs the PRIVATE corporations that are 'counting' all our votes--it would make your hair stand on end. It is no wonder that Congress has something like a 10% approval rating. Most of the members of Congress represent NO ONE. Or rather, they represent the 0.01%. Many of them were NOT elected by the people. And NONE of them can prove that they were elected.

It is not a matter of "belief." It is a matter VERIFICATION. If verification is NOT POSSIBLE, the system is criminally fraudulent and inherently anti-democratic. And those things are true whether you like the result or not. They would be true if every elected official were a socialist and a peace activist. (As Josef Stalin, in communist Russia, is alleged to have said: "It's not the votes that count; it's who counts the votes!"

To my knowledge, there is not a single elected Democratic leader in this country--nor even any of those who were NOT s/elected, nor any party leaders at all--who have challenged this criminally fraudulent and inherently anti-democratic vote counting system. And, believe me, Bernie Sanders will not do so if he is serious about wanting to be s/elected--and if he does challenge the vote counting system, in defiance of our Corporate/MIC rulers, he will see a swift end to his political career. He probably knows this. I think they all do. And if he is not just a decoy--someone to bleed off the leftist energies of the majority (especially with regard to the zillion dollar military/security state/ police state thievery)--he will keep his lip zipped and hope for the best. We will never know what he "believes" about 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting.

Although Bernie Sanders is an independent, he has to play by the same rules as everybody else who seeks power within our Corporate/MIC system. So do not expect him to violate Rule no. 1: Silence about our criminally fraudulent and inherently anti-democratic 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting system. He won't likely do it; he CAN'T do it and remain viable as a candidate for president (or any office). And, in the unlikely event that he does do it, we should know that he is sacrificing his career for the rest of us. That would be an exceedingly noble and patriotic act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 12:26 PM

7. Have you ever worked in Early Voting or voting on Election Day?

I have worked in Texas, there are lots of verification occurring during the day and after the last voter has voted. There is the registration books, a list written by the clerk, a machine which delivers the number to use in the voting machine and the machines also keeps a count. Guess what, at the end of the voting process, all of these numbers has to match. This is four different sources which match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:30 AM

22. That has nothing to do with the vote count accuracy. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:11 AM

23. If your claim iscorrect then show the facts, I have presented my information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:13 AM

24. Nice try.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #24)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:17 AM

26. Nice try on your part, this is appearing to be another CT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:28 AM

28. .

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:11 AM

29. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:16 AM

31. Guess I have my answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #23)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:09 AM

40. Showing the Facts

You demand of the poster: "If your claim iscorrect then show the facts."

May I ask a simple question. If the inner workings of the computer (what programs are running there, whether it gives an accurate count, who programs it, who updates it or hacks it or rigs it, etc.) are completely off limits to any impartial outside entity, what facts are you talking about? It's possible to give many cases where the exit polls didn't jibe with the so-called results. In fact, nowadays nearly all elections deviate from the unadjusted exit poll numbers and nearly always in a "red" direction.

I'm sure the poster would give the "facts" that you demand IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GIVE THESE FACTS. The whole point of the argument is that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GIVE THE FACTS ABOUT ANY ELECTION. THE VOTE COUNTING ON ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES IS UNVERIFIABLE!

Can you understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:57 AM

42. I understand entirely, I need to see some facts and not conspiracy therory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #42)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:38 PM

43. It is a FACT that voting machines are UNVERIFIABLE

Here in KS right now a statistician working at Wichita State is trying to get the Sec of State to allow her to verify the vote tallies in the last KS election, one in which Kobach himself took part, that don't make sense to her statistically. THIS IS A FACT.

Kobach was very proud that he allowed some voting machines, the touch-screen variety, to produce a paper coupon or strip that supposedly records and preserves the vote of the voter. Beth Clarkson wants to use this paper trail to verify the vote. Kobach refuses. He says it's illegal to do so. ALL OF THESE ARE FACTS.

Let me ask a question. Why does Kobach require that a paper trail be produced during an election and yet when somebody wants to use it to check or verify the vote, he refuses?

Maybe you can give me some facts. In the state where you reside, how are the votes verified? If they're not verified, why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Reply #43)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:59 PM

45. We also found the paper ballots in Florida was not verifible, this has been proven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Reply #43)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 02:48 PM

53. In Florida the printed paper poll tapes are a public record of the election.

If the law in KS says that the poll tapes printed by the voting machines are also a public record then
then no election official or state or federal official should be able to stop them being viewed and verified by the public
after any election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 12:14 PM

6. It doesn't appear paper ballots helped the DNC in 2000, in fact it cost Gore the election.

In the years I voted with paper ballots such as was used in Florida was not accurate, pages slipped, chads was not punched through properly resulting in hanging chads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 12:35 PM

8. Boston uses a paper ballot that you can choose to mark with a pencil--no chad issues--or

have a machine mark. Either way, you hand carry your ballot to an official and are able to see what it says before you hand it in. Plus, if a recount is necessary, the officials dont need to rely on a machine or worry that the machine might have flipped votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:14 AM

25. Did you know on the Diebold machines you are given a review of your ballot?

How are the ballots counted, by hand or machine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #25)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 09:23 AM

27. Review is irrelevant unless you have written verification.

I am not even sure that's true of all Diebold machines, either. However, as I said, that bit is not especially relevant. With machines you don't know what happens after you review your vote.

How paper ballots are counted is also irrelevant. Point is, if anyone gets a recount, the piece of paper I reviewed before I handed it in is there for them to count by hand, if he or she chooses. No chad issues either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:27 AM

33. Having dealt with pencil strokes for several years I don't find this was an accurate system of

obtaining information, this goes to the ability of the readers also. It would not be a big think to add to the Diebold machines a method of retaining a file of the votes on the machine. I grew up with electronic voting, I trust the machine more than I trust even the most trust worthy people of which makes errors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:45 AM

34. Testimony in Congress was that it was very easy to program the software to cheat. Not that anyone

needed testimony to figure that out, but there was testimony.

You dealt with pencil strokes on ballots for years, yet when I mentioned paper ballots, you went straight to hanging chads? Funny how the human mind works, isn't it?

I applaud Massachusetts for going to paper ballots, starting with the 2004 primary. In the beginning, they did not even use machines to read the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #34)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:28 AM

35. Did I say I dealt with pencil strokes on ballots? Louisiana went to electric machines as early as

1952. They was very easy to use and even once had a guy who spent quiet a bit of time trying to show how easy it was to rig the machine, he gave up and said it could not be done. If machines are not used to count the votes there is still going to be mistakes with people counting them also. It is not fool proof for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:31 AM

36. The software is easy to rig. That is not even debatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #36)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:36 AM

37. Yes, this is why so many people, monitors, companies, grocery stores, etc use computers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 11:37 AM

38. Total non sequitur fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:23 PM

39. When you get a valid argument we can resume.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #39)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:22 AM

41. Banks, grocery stores, etc.

use electronic machines to count safely BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN VERIFY WHAT THEY SEE. My bank sends me an electronically generated bank statement. I go through it and verify that it is accurate. If that electronic machine maker (Diebold is one of them) tries to cheat, the individual can easily catch the error BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN VERIFY WHAT THEY SEE.

Try to understand this. I know it is difficult but it's possible to understand. It really is:

VOTE COUNTING ON ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES IS ESSENTIALLY UNVERIFIABLE!!!!!

A voting machine does not know by itself how to count votes. It has to be programmed by actual people. Those people may be honest people, most I'm sure are, but they can also in some cases be "bad" people. Those people actually exist and sometimes do bad things. The code in the machine is protected from oversight by copyright laws, the actual vote totals are counted only by machines, in some states (FL) it's even illegal to recount the vote by hand. Hacks, vote rigging, etc. are trivially easy to carry out and the possibility of getting caught is essentially zero. Why is this hard to understand? Read some books on it. There are hundreds out there by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #6)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:09 PM

9. What "cost Gore the election" was the US Supreme Court

There were rules about how to count the chads that weren't punched all the way through. They weren't the problem.

The recount was halted by the Supreme Court.

Unprecedented in US history. Vincent Bugliosi's book The Betrayal of America examined this event.

link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Betrayal_of_America
from the link:
"The Betrayal of America is a book by Vincent Bugliosi (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2001, ISBN 1-56025-355-X) which is largely based on an article he wrote for The Nation entitled "None Dare Call It Treason," which argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's December 12, 2000 5‑4 decision in Bush v. Gore unlawfully handed the 2000 U.S. presidential election to George W. Bush. Bugliosi declares that the decision damaged both the U.S. Constitution and democracy in general. He accuses the five majority judges of moral culpability by endangering Americans' constitutional freedoms."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sketchy (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:10 PM

10. I do not engage in CT, electronic voting and counting is more accurate.

Out with the old, in with the new. For many years Louisiana used electric voting machines, one guy promised he could rig the machines, they gave him the opportunity, he failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:19 PM

11. Do you engage in mathematics?

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

link to a recent thread I started on this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026815770

Beth Clarkson is a Kansas mathematician suing Kansas Sec. of State Kris Kobach for paper tapes from electronic voting machines. She found statistical anomalies in voting patterns in the last Kansas general election results.

Link:
http://bethclarkson.com/?page_id=46&paged=2

Quote:

Iíve recently written an article for the Royal Statistical Society on the trustworthiness of US voting systems. Here is an excerpt:

My statistical analysis shows patterns indicative of vote manipulation in machines. The manipulation is relatively small, compared with the inherent variability of election results, but it is consistent. These results form a pattern that goes across the nation and back a number of election cycles. Iíve downloaded data and verified the results from several states for myself. Furthermore, the manipulation is not limited to a single powerful operator. My assessment is that the data reveals multiple (at least two) agents working independently to successfully alter voting results.

Youíll find the article in its entirety, here:
http://www.statslife.org.uk/significance/politics/2288-how-trustworthy-are-electronic-voting-systems-in-the-us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sketchy (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:23 PM

12. Are you saying mathematician are not capable of CT? Do you think paper ballots can not be

manipulated? Why yes, ballot box stuffing has been a problem in the past, if there is a return of paper ballots, it will happen again. Just add a couple hundred here and there and you have a big vote difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 02:28 PM

13. No, I am not saying "mathematician are not capable of CT"

I'm linking to a professional statistician and mathematician in Kansas, Beth Clarkson, who is suing for paper tapes from the last election to try to find a reason for the statistical anomalies she has discovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 03:29 PM

15. Do Democrats care enough to demand that the votes are never left alone in the hands

 

of Republicans? They could also demand that the votes be stored in safes with two separate
locks. Dems. and Repubs. keep one key each. And the safes can only be opened when Dems.
and Repubs. do it together (somewhat like the safety boxes in banks). The above is only an
example. There are bound to be other methods. Insist that they be applied, and don't take
"No" for an answer.

Democratic states can offer the Republicans the same conditions, so they should have nothing
to bitch about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 03:41 PM

17. Are you serious? Hiw long have you been voting electronically or with

Electric voting machines? The same hands you "trust" to hold the paper ballots are the ones I do but trust. How easy is it for them to stuff the boxes or exchange them for ballots they prefer? How safe I this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 03:21 PM

20. If there are both Dem. and Repub. people present at all times with the votes, the

 

chances of "stuffing the boxes" would be minimized if these vote-watchers are
alert and awake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 08:52 PM

44. Here's an interesting event you may enjoy reading

The headline on the article is this:

National Security Lab Hacks Diebold Touch-Screen Voting Machine by Remote Control With $26 in Computer Parts: My New EXCLUSIVE at Salon.

Here's a bit of it:

The Vulnerability Assessment Team (VAT) at the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois has managed to hack a Diebold Accuvote touch-screen voting machine in what I describe at my exclusive today at Salon as perhaps "one of the most disturbing e-voting machine hacks to date."

As noted by the computer scientists and security experts at Argonne's VAT, largely all that's needed to accomplish this hack is about $26 and an 8th grade science education.

"This is a national security issue," VAT team leader Dr. Roger Johnston told me, echoing what I've been reporting other computer scientists and security experts telling me for years. "It should really be handled by the Department of Homeland Security."

Johnston should know. While the VAT folks have been dabbling in the security (or lack thereof) of e-voting systems in their spare time of late, most of the work they do is related to issues like nuclear safeguards and non-proliferation.

What makes this hack so troubling --- and different from those which have come before it --- is that it doesn't require any actual changes to, or even knowledge of, the voting system software or its memory card programming. It's not a cyberattack. It's a "Man-in-the-middle" attack where a tiny, $10.50 piece of electronics is inserted into the system between the voter and the main circuit board of the voting system allowing for complete control over the touch-screen system and the entire voting process along with it.

Here's the link in case you want to read about it. By the way this is only one of maybe a hundred examples of computer hacking that could be cited.

http://bradblog.com/?p=8785

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Reply #44)

Tue Aug 18, 2015, 09:06 PM

46. Nothing new here, the what ifs has not been proven. Apparently you do not like voting machines, I

don't trust the paper ballots, neither may be an exact science. Having a piece of paper in your hand does not prevent distortion in the results. With the count verification of the votes cast at the end of the day in the precincts I have worked in will give an accurate number of votes to the number of people signing in to vote. I would be more concerned about nefarious stuffing of a ballot box with paper ballots someone else delivered rather than the voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #46)

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 08:05 AM

49. The voting machine totals can be rigged to match the voter sign in books.

I am one of the producers of the HBO documentary 'Hacking Democracy' and it's a deep concern that since
we filmed the hacking of Florida's election system and the Diebold voting machines and central tabulator
nothing has really improved.

Our hacker expert, Harri Hursti, injected negative votes into the Diebold system, using just a memory card,
and successfully rigged a mini election on camera to defraud Leon County's actual live voting system. This was
the first demonstrated hack of a voting system in the USA. Crucially the Election Supervisor, Mr. Ion Sancho,
states in the film that if he hadn't known what was behind this attack he would have certified the hacked election
as genuine and true.

If you're interested I've put the filmed hack itself on YouTube.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hacking_Democracy (Reply #49)


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 03:12 PM

14. I've been harping on this for years, and the Democratic Party hasn't

 

bothered to change anything thus far that I can see. I wonder if the Democratic
Party we have now also has a death wish!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:23 AM

32. I suspect that they have benefitted in some more convoluted way. Maybe it helps in their primary

challenges. Who knows. But due to the appearance of apathy from the Democrats on this issue I suspect that their hands are not completely clean.

I still think that Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman, but Lieberman had the support of the right wing of the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Sun Jun 21, 2015, 04:36 PM

18. This is actually one of the few things that NC has gotten right.

We have paper optically scanned ballots which work very well and allow for eyes on recounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Thu Jun 25, 2015, 11:35 PM

21. fair

well, for me a leader should be fair from all the decision he/she come up, justice and equality must prevail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stevepol (Original post)

Mon Jun 29, 2015, 10:16 AM

30. We need a paper record verified by the voter, on hand, available for a recount. Period. Anybody who

resists such a simple and verifiable mechanism is suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread