Happy Atheist Forum

Do you think e-voitng machines, especially the touch screen type, (which have zero way to recount votes) should be outlawed?

"Those who cast the vote decide nothing.  It is the ones who count the votes who decide everything."
~joseph stalin

In the Netherlands they performed a hack on a e-votingmachine. Instead of counting the votes it started to play a decent game of chess. It proved to be quite easy to manipulate the votingmachine within just a few minutes.

Paper can't be hacked. It's really that simple.

I watched a special about how easy it is to hack voting machines.  I don't care if they are counted electronically but there needs to be a paper trail in case  we need to argue over chads

And no more Supreme Court overstepping their bounds. I felt like seceding from the union when they helped Bush cheat in 2000.

All voting in Oregon is on paper by mail.  I love it.  The Bush camp has done enough cheating for one lifetime, thank you very much.  But by the time the next election rolls around, Bush may have appointed himself King and Ultimate Ruler, so it might not matter.

I've been casting early ballots by mail in AZ and although it is convenient, I'm not confident that my vote is being counted.  Any form of voting can be tampered with or ignored.  Most candidates aren't worth voting for anyway.  (Sigh)  :doubt:

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I watched a special about how easy it is to hack voting machines. I don't care if they are counted electronically but there needs to be a paper trail in case we need to argue over chads

Yeah, I guess there can't be any "dangling bits"....

I like the idea of a technological solution, but then again I'm a computer guy.  I can't believe that a secure voting machine cannot be constructed.  Ideally, I would think cleverly applying encryption technology, we could provide a voting machine that both hides your identity and allows you to query the final vote to ensure that your vote is included in the total.  Maybe even makes sure that no "hack" votes have been included.  What could be better?

SteveS, I'm sure it is more than possible to create a secure electronic voting machine....but we have to trust those with the contract to build the machine to remain honest.

Well, ultimately we'd have to trust something, I guess.  Right now I'm trusting the election judges, and I'm not really sure why they are more or less reliable than anyone else.

I'd prefer to specify the machine in such a way that any "hanky-panky" is potentially detectable.  I don't fancy having to place a large amount of trust in either the government running the machines or in the manufacturer of the machines.  I believe this to be possible with an appropriate design.  But there's always some vulnerability - the question is can it be made better than the current technology?  Without a digital signature or something similar, how do I know somebody didn't swap out my punch card with a different one?  That's why I now have to trust the election judge - that kind of thing, I think, could be improved.

Anyway, still wouldn't prevent somebody from voting wrong, especially if correctly reading the dreaded "butterfly ballot" is a serious strain on their intellectual resources  :wink:

Steve S, the election judges must rely on the electronic machines, though.  Even the most honorable person could be misled if the machines or the voting cards were tampered with.  

I do like your idea about a hack-proof technological solution, though.  That WOULD be ideal!
 There is an awesome documentary on this very topic, called "Hacking Democracy" about a lil florist in Seattle Wa, who started investigating Diebold voting machines......definately worth a watch. Everyone should google it and find out how to buy or rent a copy...

The film kinda gave me  a futile feeling though....like what is the use of even learning about or trying to campaign for candidates and issues when our voting system  IS hackable?   I still do, but knowing it could all be for nothing is discouraging, isn't it?

I think Laetusatheos is right, it probably IS do-able, more a matter of getting those in charge to be HONEST.....bah ha ha!!!

I voted yes, but I now believe that it should be a qualified 'maybe'.

Why, Amor?  I mean why would you feel more like a maybe now?

The e-voting machines we have are all owned, well, something like 85% of them are owned by Diebold, and have been PROVEN hackable....

Also, Diebold is owned by a very out conservative, who spoke of "delivering the vote to George W. Bush"

I voted yes, and mine was a passionate YEEEEESSSS!!!   Like our democracy is so jeopardized....

Hi tigerlily,

I certainly don't condone the manufacture and use of hackable voting machines.  I guess my question would be: why is the paper ballot system currently not hackable?  Look: I don't think anybody "stole" the last election, but my confidence in paper systems is just as "shook-up" by the argumentation of voter intention and "hanging chads".  This system clearly has its own flaws that are also exploitable.  My reason behind favoring electronic systems is that I believe they could be specified to be more "unhackable" (if that's a word) then the systems we now have - not that we should accept the current machines if they are flawed.

In an ideal solution, the "specification" would be open to manufacture, allowing companies to bid on the manufacture business - good old fashion capitalism at work.  A company could not custom design a flawed exploitable machine if they were constrained to produce the accepted specification (and an adequate testing regimen was applied to the production by a third party, preferably multiple third parties).

This is how we do business in the software market, and it protects us both.  A customer cannot come back and claim that the deliverables were not produced if the product is measurably in compliance with the specification.  Likewise, a fraudulent company cannot deliver something that was non-compliant with the specification and get away with it, because the end result would be demonstrably different from the stated specs.

You might have to trust whoever came up with the specification: and the best way to do that is to make the specification open to peer review, the way encryption technology is produced.  In short, we will have to trust our own abilities to smell a rat.  The fact that there is politic adversity in our culture should serve to assist with this by immediately calling out exploitable flaws offered by the competition.  If either group believes they are being sold a phony they're sure to speak up about it, and they will have the media, power and money to do so effectively.

Just my thoughts.

Quote from: "tigerlily46514"Why, Amor?  I mean why would you feel more like a maybe now?

The e-voting machines we have are all owned, well, something like 85% of them are owned by Diebold, and have been PROVEN hackable....

Also, Diebold is owned by a very out conservative, who spoke of "delivering the vote to George W. Bush"

I voted yes, and mine was a passionate YEEEEESSSS!!!   Like our democracy is so jeopardized....

Well the first question that needs to be determined is: should we have a universal method of recording and tabulating votes?  Currently these systems vary by state and often by precinct, and these various methods of course have differing accuracies.  Now, only if we answer an emphatic YES to this question does it make sense at all to talk about outlawing certain methods, such as electronic voting machines.  

So......maybe, but only if.

even if it is proven the electronic voting machines CAN be hacked?

Especially the paperless touch screen.....gives me shivers.  Even the paper-counting machines are hackable, but the touch screen.....

You bring up an excellent point about the variability from state to state of our vote counting methods.  I'd think if it is left to local authorities, i'd imagine the ability to flamboozle the voters is then increased, by having a variety of methods possibly not overseen by a larger, hopefully ethical, educated board.....(like that ever happens, now i'm off into dream world)....

yeah i completely agree with you, but if our elections are always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it really doesn't matter if they're rigged.

:lol:

I meant to vote for "giant douce", but I misread the ballot and accidentally punched "turd sandwich".  Damn - I hate it when that happens!

To avoid confusion, next time I intend to write in "shameless shyster"!

..but still, some turd sandwhiches are worse and MORE DANGEROUS than others.....It DOES make a difference which turd is in the White HOuse, as we have all sadly witnessed, it DOES make a difference.

Oh, Steve S, i just now am finding something you said on page one, somethng about if paper methods were hackable.  OH THEY ARE---as they are counted with quite hackable computers!  
Please google "Hacking Democracy" and try to see the film on how the hackability was proven.   How the paper recount (samples only) were pre-arranged by_______?  

I don't have your post right in front of me, Steve, but i recall you said you don't feel the election was stolen, something like that....  One of the Florida county computers came up with a NEGATIVE 1,560 votes for Al Gore.  1,560 minus votes.... watching that flick might change your mind whether the election could be/was stolen.  

Ps, Steve, i love your posts!  YOu are so funny!  Crack me up!!

Quote from: "Amor Fati"yeah i completely agree with you, but if our elections are always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it really doesn't matter if they're rigged.

 :lol:

I just watched that episode again, last night. Damn, I like that one!

It's always between a douche and a turd sandwich!

after these past six years!!!!!????  how can ya say that?  C'mon, we got the worst president ever,  the damage he has done will reverberate for eons around the world.....it does make a difference, yeah, they are all corrupt at that level of politics, but some are just dangerous.  Gore wouldn't been THIS stooopid!!!!!

Quote from: "tigerlily46514"after these past six years!!!!!????  how can ya say that?  C'mon, we got the worst president ever,  the damage he has done will reverberate for eons around the world.....it does make a difference, yeah, they are all corrupt at that level of politics, but some are just dangerous.  Gore wouldn't been THIS stooopid!!!!!

Ummm....who is this post aimed at?  

I can't figure out who you're responding to, Tigerlily.

Hi tigerlily,

My problem with allegations of vote theft is that there is always one politico or another laying the claim.  It seems like every election both reps. and dems. hurl accusations at each other about questionable election practices --- but why isn't it ever law enforcement?  I guess I would find the accusations more meaningful if they came from a "disinterested" third party (if such a thing actually exists - doubtful, right?  :wink: ).  If the allegations are provable, then why isn't there a serious effort being made to make the responsible parties pay for their crimes?  Surely, if the political opposition had irrefutable evidence on their side, they would prosecute this to the best of their considerable abilities?  They also have money, power, and ample media access, right?  When ol' Tricky Dicky (Rep) was busted breaking the law the Dems had no problem going after him and removing him from office - why are they dropping the ball on this one?

Also, political conspiracy theories inevitable produce the genius/idiot paradox --- was Bush so much of a genius that he knew exactly which counties, in which states, where going to be the pivot points ahead of time so that he could swing the election with the minimal detectable traces of tampering?  Or, is he such an idiot that he's the worst president of all history?  How can he be both?  (For the record, I'm given to doubt the genius hypothesis - so how did he so cleverly and undetectably "steal" the election?)

About the paper ballots, I'd call the machine that counts them more of a "machine" than a pure computer (i.e. read-only programs running in controller modules maybe, but those should be easy enough to inspect for fraud - where's the smoking gun?), but it really doesn't matter.  What is the alternative to a machine/computer counting the cards - a human being?  Is that more accurate, less hackable (i.e. less corruptible), more honest than the machine?  For me personally, I really don't think so - the machine is a useful intermediary that can be made to be accurate, reliable and dispassionate.  While I agree that the touch screen/no receipt machines are hugely suspicious, this is largely because I find the design to be freakin' awful - I think they also had open input slots exposed which potentially allow a voter to introduce viral code to the machine.  This is really inexcusable - a secure machine would not only have no inputs slots exposed, it would ideally include tamper detection (like an electronic secure login token - it breaks if you open it and fries itself to prevent reverse engineering).  This could well co$t dearly, but maybe its worth it.  I don't really know.

The matter is complex - so please just keep in mind that I have qualified my opinion; I'm a software developer by trade which probably makes me more likely than the norm to favor a technological method (and I am aware of this).  I'm also not a consistent supporter of either of the two major political parties in our country - I do not consider myself to be either a republican or a democrat, and frequently vote for either and/or third party candidates (I've punched the ticket for more than a few Libertarians, although as a political movement I don't agree 100% with them either).  So, I am less likely to find these sorts of debates evidence of one side "pulling a fast one" on the other side.  I mean, consider that the reps. charged that the vote recounts were being conducted in a less than honest manner also!  Who do I believe?  Neither, really.  I'd rather have a system that allows for no hanky-panky, one way or the other; my opinion on this is honest - I'm not trying to argue for a format that would make it more or less difficult for one side or the other to win.  I want it to be completely, neutrally, fair.  An incorruptible system would be unavailable for election stealing one way or the other --- if electronic machines are insecure, could they not also be used by the dems. to "steal an election"?  I don't see that a "corruptible" system necessarily favors either one side or the other - it's just a lousy system that can be improved.

Quote from: "tigerlily46514"Gore wouldn't been THIS stooopid!!!!!

The fact of the matter is that we just don't know this.  Not defending Bush, I have major issues with many of his policy choices.  I just don't think this statement is a given  :wink:  .

I'm waiting for a Monty Python style "Silly Party" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU) to emerge - they would get my vote for sure  

HA HA, I FORGOT TOO!!!!!

Anyone, i guess, who really thinks it makes zero difference   which turd sandwich is in the White HOuse....I'm just all surprised at the political apathy here.  But i have felt that myself in the past.  So i do remember what that is like.  KInd of a hopeless feeling, like it just doesn't matter.  

I REMEMBER FEELING THAT:   why bother learning much about it, cuz.........

 A)  they are ALL crooked....
B)  I can't do anything about it anyway
C)  it'd take too much time to search out the truths, and how would i even get past not-so-free-media to find the truth.

and now.....D)  the voting machines may be rigged, even if i did want to get involved.

So i guess i can understand....been there myseLF..BUT I'M NOT NOW.
BUT STILL----I AM JUST KINDA SURPRIZED AT ALL THE ATROCITES DURING THE LAST 6 YEARS HAVEN'T SHAKEN POLITICAL APATHY OUT OF EVERYONE.  After watching these last six years, can't you all see it IS WAY WORSE than the usual garbage?  can you all see how THIS turd sandwich caused a much larger wave of damage than anyone has seen before?  How is DID make a difference which turd in the White HOuse?

I would respond, but I'm feeling way too apathetic  :wink:

Guilty as charged....

QuoteI guess I would find the accusations more meaningful if they came from a "disinterested" third party (if such a thing actually exists - doubtful, right?

dang-somehow, the quotes are all out of order to my reponses, i musta messed up, i'll come back and edit this later-gotta go, but il'll be back!  sorry for the difficulty if you are trying to read it now...
  Exactly!  Please do ever see "Hacking Democracy"   She WAS  not a politician, just a lil ol gramma/florist who had no background in either politics or computers, just some time on her hands.  

QuoteSurely, if the political opposition had irrefutable evidence on their side, they would prosecute this to the best of their considerable abilities? They also have money, power, and ample media access

Excellent question,i share your view on this!!  i don't have a great answer for this.  but re: ample media access, our media is SO not free.  Almost all our TV stations, and major newspapers are all owned/monopolized by a handful of conservatives.  Still, it does beg the question, why didn't this info get more attention?  Why was there no federal investigation?  

Quote--- was Bush so much of a genius that he knew exactly which counties, in which states, where going to be the pivot points ahead of time so that he could swing the election with the minimal detectable traces of tampering

Well, here is where Karl Rove comes in.   He was the midwife who birthed this whole presidency, and thought to be a genius.
Bush himself is no computer hack genius, but he has money to get them!!!!
  And Steve, political pundits DO know which states are gonna be key by the time it gets close to election time.  (heck, even i know some of that!!)  There is  A TON of money put into investigating this.  And if your brother is Gov of Fla, and the head of elections is a known ally, it wouldn't be impossible.

QuoteOr, is he such an idiot that he's the worst president of all history

Well, i'll agree with THAT point!!!!

Quote(For the record, I'm given to doubt the genius hypothesis - so how did he so cleverly and undetectably "steal" the election?)

PLease watch "Hacking Democracy".  These computers are easily hacked by using the insertable vote-counting card that is inserted into the computer.  This is the card that is then removed and contains the TALLY.  Diebold insists, on camera, repeatedly, there is no executable code in the vote counting insertable card.  But there IS, and it wasn't hard for european computer hack to chang e the exe. code around.

  HOw did Al Gore come up with a NEGATIVE 1,560 votes??????  How is that POSSIBLE??  Cuz there IS an exe. code contained inside the vote-counting card.

Quote(i.e. read-only programs running in controller modules maybe, but those should be easy enough to inspect for fraud - where's the smoking gun?),

That is just it--it is NOT a read-only card that is inserted to collect the count!!  IDiebold insists it IS read-only, but it has been proven to contain
 an exe. code  that can be hacked!!  The computer itself is not the only piece they can mess with--that little card that is inserted into the computer is quite pliable, according to the experts.

QuoteWhat is the alternative to a machine/computer counting the cards - a human being? Is that more accurate, less hackable (i.e. less corruptible), more honest than the machine? For me personally, I really don't think so

Steve, i certainly agree with you very much there.  I don't know the solution.  EVen if we had some committee to hire super-ethical unbuyable computer geniuses to set up a read-only computer....we'd still end up having to trust they were 'unbuyable' wouldn't  we?

Quotethe machine is a useful intermediary that can be made to be accurate, reliable and dispassionate

That is what i always thought, too.  It can also have insertable voting cards inserted into that are guaranteed to skew the results.  Gore had a negative vote tally!!!  They'd overtweaked it!!

Quoteand frequently vote for either and/or third party candidates (I've punched the ticket for more than a few Libertarians, although as a political movement I don't agree 100% with them either

I used to do that too, but in 2000 and 2004 i voted democrat, and felt my old 'party'--which is ALWAYS subtracted from the democratic party---(do you know the republicans support the green party!!!!?  unbelievable, but it's true, i can send you the stuff if you don't beleive me) cuz i was soooooo afraid of W.  I wish the third party could ever compete, i hear ya on that one, but in reality, it is just almost like a perverse vote FOR the republicans.

Quote. I mean, consider that the reps. charged that the vote recounts were being conducted in a less than honest manner also!

Exactly,  The film profiles a very honorable man, who took his job on the voting board quite seriously, and even he was convinced there HAD been fraud when presented with the evidence.  But in his defense, he had no way to know this.

Quotewin. I want it to be completely, neutrally,

OOH, SO DO I!!!  Steve, you are way more educated on this topic than i am, i would certainly appreciate if ever you DO see this film, if you could tell meif i am being naive by buying into it?  The thing that REALLY has always bothered me too, is your question--WHY NO FUSS?  WHY NO PROSECUTION?  Steve, i gotta admit, that is a powerful point.  And i don't understand it myself.  
If anyone reading this knows, i mean knows, i'd love to know, too.  It really bothers me.

QuoteThe fact of the matter is that we just don't know this. Not defending Bush, I have major issues with many of his policy choices. I just don't think this statement is a given

Well, ya got me there.  ha ha!  To ME, it is a given, but i sound like a thesit right there, don't i?  bah ha ha!!!

dang-company has arrived, i'll be back later!!!

QuoteAbout the paper ballots, I'd call the machine that counts them more of a "machine" than a pure computer (i.e. read-only programs running in controller modules maybe, but those should be easy enough to inspect for fraud - where's the smoking gun?), but it really doesn't matter. What is the alternative to a machine/computer counting the cards - a human being? Is that more accurate, less hackable (i.e. less corruptible), more honest than the machine? For me personally, I really don't think so - the machine is a useful intermediary that can be made to be accurate, reliable and dispassionate.

Here in Australia we only use paper ballots, and the elections are handled by a government department called the Australian Electoral Commission, which is strictly non-partisan. I applied for temporary work with them (the general public, rather than fulltime public servants, make up the bulk of the polling station officials) for the upcoming election this year and I had to sign a declaration stating that I wasn't affiliated with any political organizations. The votes are all counted by hand by and each polling location has what's called scrutineers to observe the process, which are representatives of each of the major parties to ensure that the votes are being counted fairly. And boy do they take it seriously.

We have a lot of trust in this system and because of all the scrutiny I think it would be very difficult for any individual or group to get away with rigging votes. Admittedly the AEC is like any government department in that it costs us a lot of taxpayer money, especially in an election which are very expensive to run. I know Americans are very sensitive about where their tax money goes and I'm not sure Americans would be willing to pay for the same sort of thing, not to mention your notorious mistrust of government.

I should also point out that Australia's population in contrast to America is very small, we only have something like 20 million people and many of them are obviously under the legal voting age of 18. So it would be a much bigger deal to have a system like ours all across America, what with your 300 hundred odd million people. Another fun fact: Australia is one of the only democracies where voting is compulsary. Failure to vote (you don't actually have to cast a valid vote for a particular candidate, you can simply submit a blank ballot or protest vote, just as long as you show up and have your name ticked off) could land you in jail or more commonly a large fine. This has its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it means our elected representatives are truly OUR representatives -- chosen by the entire voting-age population of the country. This in contrast to countries with voluntary voting where turnouts are often low. On the other hand, I resent the fact that I have no say in whether or not I have any say or not. In other words, democracy should be about being free to choose, not being foced to choose! It also means that the cynic in me realises that a huge number of, dare I say it, stupid people, are taking part in the electing of those in charge of my country, when in fact they are probably so misinformed they should really stick to sitting at home on election day in front of the TV.

/end rant

Thanks for the input pjkeeley.  I think the cost factor is a major motivator for me - this is why I don't have a problem with a machine counting ballots (or directly counting votes).  A process similar to your "scrutineers" could examine and test the machines to reasonably ensure that they are accurately and fairly counting the votes, and the end effect should be an election that doesn't take forever and doesn't employ a ton of vote counters.

tigerlily - I will check out the movie if and when I get a chance to.  Just understand that I am not defending the Diebold machines - it seems clear they are atrocious.  I just don't think we should outlaw electronic machines in general.

Also, I don't think I'm more educated than you in this matter, and if I was accusing you of anything it would be "bias" and not "naivety", but I'd far rather not accuse you of anything at all  :wink:  .  I'm just explaining why I'm skeptical of the claim that the last election was "stolen" - that's all.

If only we could go back to the days when no one could vote but white, land-owning men, and candidates bought votes with copius amounts of booze...

QuoteIf only we could go back to the days when no one could vote but white, land-owning men, and candidates bought votes with copius amounts of booze...

Donkeyhoty, i didn't think THAT was too too funny, as someone who is female, and has close black friends.  but surely, that WAS your intention, right?

PS-i don't think we ARE that far away from  the white, rich dudes running the country's politics, anyway.....

Quote from: "tigerlily46514"... but surely, that WAS your intention, right?

Nope.  I was being completely literal.

ha ha.
well, good luck with your quest for truth and personal evolution, donkeyhoty...

Here's a very good documentary about just that very topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzPXer7946E)

watch all 9 parts of it.

OOOOH IZULT!!

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!  You have SOOooo made my day!!   THIS is the flick i was talking about!!!!  

 I have this movie TIVO'd IT, but i had no idea it was on YouTube!!!!  WOW!  The whole flick, even!!  WOW!!!!!  Cool enuff!

See, now i did believe this flick, hook, line an sinker!!!  Am i being naive to totally believe this lil ol gramma?

Here's some things to consider -

Electronic voting allows widespread application or RunOff voting, which is far superior in its representation of the electorate's will - the voting process itself is a terse, effective political debate within the electorate. It is far more accurate - and, it enlightens the electorate to the entire process (apparently, a thing to be carefully avoided.)

The security issue is the machine itself - who will be trusted to make the machine? No one - it is the software, which should be universal to a wide range of generalized machines of whatever manufacture - your computer, your PDA - you Cash Machine (irony?) It is true - there is plenty of absolutely inviolable free crypto, and there has been longtime.

The issues buzzing around the vote should be viewed with caution - they may be used as a Red Herring - they give us the idea that the vote has more power than it actually does, and this can be diversion from the central issue of  - what IS the Power of the Vote?

Gore won the popular vote - and this means nothing. The electoral college has the power - and no one seems to know who they are, most are not even aware of their role, or that they exist; overwhelmingly, we vote on we know not what or why, and that vote is discarded. It is diversion, they are cheap Magicians - It's a Shell Game. You feel free, it feels good, and you don't want to awake into the Real Nightmare - much like religion.

Whatever it may be, Votes have far, far less Power than Authoring Agenda.
Let's go write some, eh?

Beware the Illusionists!

I dont know why electic voting machines are unpopular here. I dont know the 'old' process, but if it means moving the votes by hand I'd be more worried on human error or some pissed extremist in the process. Extremists are more likely to get a hand in voting as they will find it more important than many others.

Quote from: "Promethium147"The issues buzzing around the vote should be viewed with caution - they may be used as a Red Herring - they give us the idea that the vote has more power than it actually does, and this can be diversion from the central issue of - what IS the Power of the Vote?

Coupled with,

Quote from: "Promethium147"Whatever it may be, Votes have far, far less Power than Authoring Agenda.

Speak it, brother!  :wink:  I concur whole-heartedly.