This is good: GOP asked PA state officials to impound machines in 27 counties

[IndyOp]

This sets a precedent that impounding machines to inspect them after an election is acceptable - the vote should be verified.

GOP asked PA state officials to impound machines in 27 counties

Problems with new voting machines scattered, minor
Wednesday, November 08, 2006 By Gabrielle Banks and Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

State Attorney General Tom Corbett last night said the state has received a letter complaining of irregularities in voting machines in more than a dozen Pennsylvania counties during today's elections.

Mr. Corbett, putting in an appearance at the campaign headquarters of Republican gubernatorial candidate Lynn Swann, said Lawrence Tabas, general counsel for the Republican committee, had written to Secretary of State Pedro Cortes complaining of glitches in the voting machines. A copy of the letter was forwarded to Mr. Corbett.

According to Mr. Corbett, the complaint says that voters complained that, after casting votes for Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Mr. Swann, they saw their votes switch on the electronic screen from the Republican candidates to Democrats Robert P. Casey Jr. and incumbent Gov. Edward Rendell.

Last night, Sen. Santorum's campaign also complained of voter fraud in the election, citing similar allegations.

Should Mr. Cortes, an appointee of Gov. Rendell, find reason for further investigation, he can refer the matter to the individual district attorneys in the affected counties, or to the office of Mr. Corbett, a Republican.

While expressing skepticism about whether yesterday's problems, if they existed, constituted fraud, Mr. Corbett expressed reservations about the handling of electronic voting machines at his own polling place in Allegheny County. Mr. Corbett said he was concerned that screens, blocking voters from view as they cast their ballots, were not in place. ..

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06312/736482-178.stm

[hedda_foil]

1. This is sensational news, Indy.

I hope they push the complaint to the limit.

[wisteria]

2. Yeah sure.

You get a chance to review your choices before casting your vote, so if the had switched to Dem's then they shouldn't of confirmed and voted.

[IndyOp]

4. Just because you are able to get the machine to highlight the name you want

- does not mean that that is the candidate who gets your vote. Computer software can do lots of jobs at once -- light up a name here, add a +1 over there.

You cannot know whether the software is counting correctly unless voters fill out paper ballots and randomly selected precincts are hand-counted to compare the hand counts to the computer results reported.

:kick:

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. There was definitely something wrong with those machines --

they didn't save Santorum's butt like they were supposed to.

[IndyOp]

5. Wouldn't it be fun to have them examined and show they were counting

in Santorum's favor?

:evilgrin:

[zbdent]

6. What, weren't they smart enough to know how to run the machines?

I guess all those "Santorum" and "Swann" voters were pretty stupid, eh?

Someone should remind Mr.s Santorum and Swann that the time to verify that the voting machines were working properly was

BEFORE THE F*CKING ELECTION!

[IndyOp]

7. We should do pre-election testing and we should do

post-election auditing of voter-verified paper ballots.

We want the very best system in place to protect our votes.

:kick:

[dlaliberte]

10. Timed hacked software undetectable before election

It is not quite enough to check that the machines are working before (or after) the election because hacked software could be programmed to work correctly in all tests before the election, and erase all evidence after the election. *During* the election (maybe just election day, to avoid raising alarms during early voting) the software could activate the vote switching mode.

So the only way to detect problems is during the election itself.
Looking at randomly sampled physical ballots and comparing to the total to notice anomalies is what we need. Open software and sufficient security is also essential. Better to do away with the machines entirely.

I'm a software developer. Don't trust the software.

[philb]

8. Switching from Repub to Dem in N.J. also; there are different ways to do switching

this case is a common type of switching glitch where the ballots are programmed with a default to one candidate, seen a lot in 2004 in many states. If voters don't choose a candidate or have trouble choosing their candidate the vote goes to the default candidate. Bush was the "default" in many places in 2004, as documented by the EIRS reports. Not all machines have the same type of programming or default. But the totals for manipulated/glitch/defaulted/miscalibrated machines mounts up. These cases in N.J. and Pennsylvania show its easy to manipulate electronic machines in either direction. One has to build in considerable transparency and checks and balances to ensure fairness, which ever party is in power.

Middlesex, Hudson, Camden, Passaic and Union Counties. NJ,

Sequoia Advantage voting machines are pre-voted for Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez. Republicans are having trouble changing the selection. Attorney General is investigating. http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=6746

[philb]

9. Who controls the most SOSs and SOEs now? these are more important races than many understand

Should they be non-partisan?
Could they be?
what about balance, one of each major and one independent?