Does your vote count? (How many times?)

So this post will probably generate some opposing views. Hopefuly everyone will keep it civil long enough to gain some insight.

http://blackboxvoting.org/

This is something very serious. If we are losing our vote, then what are we? I know the standing arguement is "the elctorial college", but that only applies to the presidential elections. What about local elections? How far will this go, before we stop it?

I listened to a bit of the show on "coast to coast" last night regarding this issue. I may be paranoid sometimes, but I think there is a big, dark, scary conspiracy hiding behind this somewhere. If you put a great many of the recent trends together, it's definitely cause for concern. I just can't shake that analogy involving the frog and the pot of boiling water.

Especially after the president of Diabold visit Crawford texas, and then goes back to work saying that "he is out to get as many votes as possible for Bush"

Plus the machines in florida counting a negative 16,000 votes for gore! I didn't know voting machines counted backwars to the negative. All of those software updates, and missing data card 3. Hummm...

Bravo,

Do you have any links to this story that are from non-special interest sites? I looked through google and found that the same information was all mixed up between 16k Gore, 10k Gore, 16k Socialists, etc... I could not find one original source for this information... It appears to be all pretty much left wing/anti-bush/New Zealand type sites that are putting this information out.

Google Search Terms

That being said, I do favor that simple paper ballot marked with pen or pencil (bubble or connect the line type) that are scanned by a reader.

The whole touch screen type system was created to prevent over/under votes and punch card errors (talk about overkill)--and save costs (paper management?) in the long term. I personally believe that these systems are way too easy to screw-up in the short term and, in the long term, commit fraud. I could really care less about what the president of a company says who he wants elected... I really care more about who the government workers, unions, and elected officials want to be in power--they both have the motive and the opportunity to actually affect the outcomes.

Here in California we have, courtesy of our state legislature Prop 56. This fun piece of legislation will change the law from 66% to 55% of the legislator's vote to approve spending and tax increases... This is in the same state that is now ranked 49th or 50th (i.e. last) in the country for positive business climate and this bill is backed for passage by every state workers/union/etc. organization here. Based on a 66% requirement (by the way, this is all Democrats plus a couple Republicans required for approval) From 1997 to 2002, per capita state spending in California rose by 42 percent, and per capita taxes rose by 28 percent. Over the same period, per capita state spending in Virginia rose by a shocking 56 percent, while per capita taxes rose by 37 percent. Consequently, per capita state spending and taxes each rose a shattering 33 percent faster in Virginia than in California. (added information about Virginia so that folks don't think we are the only nuts in the can...

But, even the old mechanical voting systems were documented to have errors (worn cams, parts) and fraud (preloaded information, "worn parts" for non-preferred candidates)... And even simple precinct worker fraud.

Here is a link to the work of a pair of brothers ("VoteScam") (started in the 1970's). They started by researching problems with Florida's elections (surprise!).

About the only reason I would choose the touch screen only systems is that--by in large--it appears that the current elections officials are not smart enough to really rig these systems (yet).

It is interesting to me how voter error and vote fraud, etc only seemed to be found in predominantly controlled/ran Democrat districts in Florida 2000 by Gore...

-Bill

BB, I think we would have to define "Non Special Interest". There is no such thing. Everone, and any organization that is reporting news or information has a special interest. Mostly to get you to read theirs, or buy their product.

I don't think this site was really Bush bashing, as the problem reported by them is mainly an accounting one. The author even maintains that we can keep electronic voting providing there are some checks and balances.

As for special interest, the author probably has the some of the least. She has made her book available for free on the internet for those that can't afford it. This, because she believes so much in the issue. I would think those that are trying to sell you subscriptions, or commercials would have even more of a special interest.

I voted in that Fl election. 4 news papers, including the new york times counted, recounted the punch cards, bush won on every recount. I did have coast to coast on(helps me sleep) but didnt listen to the latest antiBush wacko. If it was said that there was a negitive count for al bore, how could that be when we didnt get computerized voting machines till after the pres election. We used punch cards. Maybe the dems were counting backwards along with yhe liberal press. I have alot of notes I put away from that election. If the topic continues ill pull them out.

The recounts were meaningless. I read one report where the observers collected over 200 chads from the floor after a single recount, and this was a typical result of each recount. They ballots just weren't made to be preserved through that much handling. What this means is that the ballots at the end of the day were fundamentally different than they were at the beginning of the day. IOW, each recount was more meaningless than the last. All it served to do was manufacture feelings of disaffection and victimization that partisan interests were more than willing to exploit, truth be damned.

Bravo,

Actually, I was asking about the -16,000 votes for Gore--I looked around and did not find any source other than those listed in the google search I provided. Which did list a bunch of "special interest sites".

I am not arguing that all electronic voting is good--in fact, I think it is terrible and should not be allowed.

I guess I am getting sensitive when I see a bunch of people use dubious information and lack of root cause analysis--such as ToppleBush.com (using Bev's Chapter 11) to point at Big Business and whatnot.

I am old enough to remember "Landslide Lyndon " (LBJ) and the interesting way JFK won his presidential election.

The errors in Florida where gone over with a fine tooth comb, by anyone with an axe to grind. The results--it was a very close election and most of the scenarios showed Bush winning.

The errors listed can easily be traced back to non-specific candidate failures--and given the complexity of the system can probably be made to support the election of specific candidates and such.

It is always fun when I read the non-technical explanation of computer problems... The problem is many people believe the summary and don't understand the underplaying complexity and how, sometimes, poorly designed software can cause exactly these type of problems. From ToppleBush/BlackBoxVoting:

[ QUOTE ]

In her book Bev Harris explains the issue of whether the card was a chance fault or a deliberate example of tampering."

"A memory card is like floppy disk. If you have worked with computers for any length of time you will know that a disk can go bad. When it does, which of the following is most likely? In an Excel spreadsheet that you saved on a "bad disk," might it read a column of numbers correct the first time: "1005, 2109, 3000, 450" but the second time, replace the numbers like this: "1005, 2109, -16022, 450" Or is it more likely that the "bad disk" will fail to read the file at all, crash your computer, give you an error message, or make weird humming and whirring noises."
source: page 239, Chapter 11, "Black Box Voting in the 21st Century"

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who knows a bit about computer memory and disk drives knows that the above explanation is either hopelessly naive, or flat out wrong (depending on specific hardware / software failures). In either case, the above explanation is used to further a malevolent outlook on the entire process--where just plain stupidity (either in use or in software/hardware design) would also account for this failure (and nobody has ever identified what happened pass the first reports of this problem--per this web site).

Elections today, and apparently, throughout history and the world, have always been subject to the whims of those in power (or those wanting to get back into power). And, frankly, I prefer the open / private market derived solutions than those of my friendly government that pretty much guarantees a 98% reelection rate of incumbents.

I suggest a possible model could be based on comercial bank / accounting. I use ATM's (similar to voting machines), but I get a receipt, a transaction number, and a monthly statement of transactions. I need an ID (ATM) Card, a PIN, and to get those, I needed Government ID to prove to the Bank I am who I said I was. And, because both the Bank and I have fundimental interest that all transactions are accurate (neither of us wants to lose money in the process), with government oversight (they want to get their cut of any profits generated)--we all come out pretty well. There were initial problems when ATM's first came out--but those were quickly resolved.

Unlike the annual election problems that I see our government produces and fails to correct: Scavenged ballot box lids haunt S.F. elections .

It is a whole lot better than the Government Accounting for my Social Security, Taxes, Spending, etc. that I see as their alternative.

-Bill

I believe many that are very vocal about not wanting electronic voting do so because they count on fraudulent paper votes to get elected or get their guy/gal elected. They either haven't found a way to hack the program or they haven't found an untraceable way to hack it.

On the other hand if you wanted to commit fraud in mass...paperless voting would be great.


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

That is my thoughts as well. Not who won what where, but the accountability. We know that computers lend themselves to being hacked, just by virtue of their being. So it won't be long (if not already) that someone has gotten to the voting system. I too think we should be given a receipt, like ATM's to be used in case of a recount. Once the votes start being manipulated electronically it will count for more of an impact than all of the dead voters we have now. Your vote will no longer be private, and secure, and we will have truely surrendered our country to those who only seek power, and corruption.

We have electronic voting and the process is quite simple. you hand over your ID and get a random card, much like a visa card with a magnet strip at the back, you insert your card into a computer, this computer then allows you to select your candidate and writes the info to the card. You then retrieve your card and put it into a box which is equipped with a card reader. These boxes are then transferred to the central office where the totals of each box are added. This way, there is always proof in the fact that for each vote, one card with that vote is stored in that particular box.

But if no hard copy exist there is nothing to verify the results with.

More internet induced hysteria /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I have tinfoil hats and black helicopter detectors for sale if anybodys interested. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif

[ QUOTE ]
tkl said:
More internet induced hysteria /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

I have tinfoil hats and black helicopter detectors for sale if anybodys interested. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems to be the standard answer by those that just don't care any more, and not caring anymore is exactly what these problems feed on.

I love this quote from The Moscow Times:

[ QUOTE ]
But where the elections themselves are concerned, Stalin's inspired principle remains in force: The important thing is not how they vote but how we count.

[/ QUOTE ]

Voting sounds the same the world over:

[ QUOTE ]
Pluralism does remain, however, when it comes to the methods of committing fraud, which vary according to local customs. In one region they deliver the ballot boxes half full, in another the polling stations close early and the staff spend the remaining time filling in the unused ballots. And in some regions they simply forget to open the polls. Chechnya excels in this regard, especially the Vedensky district. An interesting correlation has emerged: When the rebels are active, the party of power receives more votes. Should the armed conflict spread beyond Chechnya in time for the next Duma elections, the party of power will undoubtedly enjoy a resounding victory in the affected regions.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Bill

[ QUOTE ]
Bravo25 said:
But if no hard copy exist there is nothing to verify the results with.

[/ QUOTE ]
The cards are the hardcopy in themselves. Each card has been programmed with the name of the person you voted for so that in case you want a recount, you simply have all the cards go trough a batch reader again.

Not everyone in Belgium appears to like their magnetic card voting system either:

AEL (Association Electronique Libre) WikiWiki - Electronic Voting ...

(Disclaimer: I don't read French, and the translation may have some issues)...

o They had their own "Florida" moment with a 4096 vote counter error. Attributed to Cosmic Ray memory bit inversion (a real event, but either unlikely because no other data/memory problems were found and/or shows weakness in system as no parity/ECC/etc. was apparently used in software/hardware to validate data).

o They had an 8% miss-match between a paper audit vs the electronic results. "After investigation on the 8% mismatch in the result, official expert choosed to say that electronic result are more relyable."

o Found that small screens listing only a portion of the candidates at a time resulted in one position getting more votes than otherwise expected. Was not seen in paper ballots.

Not intended as a knock at their system/process--more to demonstrate that even a custom system that is deployed to ~43% of the population of Belgium can still benefit from oversight and review by the public at large. And, from my point of view, and indication that marks on paper are still a very good form of ensuring that people understand and use the process correctly.

However, once those marks are made, the devil is in the counting, as seen in many US elections and as understood by Stalin.

-Bill

PS From the same link, addressing the fact that no ordinary voter can validate what was written and know the data structure on the magnetic card:

[ QUOTE ]
Does this refer to this special system or can regional prints been made? Is there a countercheck mechanism that disables the possibility of central manipulation?

I am talking about the Belgium situation. But since all the vote and vote result are electronic, there is no option for recounting. The only recount we have is recount of the magnetic card... and it does not help since the card can have been modified or not properly recorded.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder about which election thay are talking. The system was first used two elections ago (with the expected kids diseases (is this correctly translated? But you get the point I suppose), but the last election was done with the same system and there has been very little mention of errors. The greates fear was that older people would find it hart to use, but after the election, they said that it was much simpeler as the system was in large letters, works wit a pen on the screen and filters out all the combinations you don't want) e.g. you first select one of the many parties and it then shows only the candidates of that party. Before the use of this system, all counting had to be done by hand, there was no automatic counting system. It also prevented the use of invalid votes. On paper, no writing is allow except for the coloring of the red dot to mark the candidate. People used to write all kinds of stuff and jokes on the papers and these votes were then separated and declared invalid.

We would probably say "growing pains" or "teething" problems for "kids diseases"...

I found the information on the Belgium web site to be much more fact based--I did not see mention of political party did this or that type thing. I would hope that those in the US approach the problems/solutions in a similar vein (not holding my breath for that though...).

-Bill

Damn, I should have known that one, Growing pains was a tv series when I was a kid.
I think we take politicians less personal. However, with their being several different parties in power at the same time, It's hard to point the finger as to who did something wrong. After all, they agreed to do something to get the majority of votes to accept the proposal. Then again, finding sneaky ways to do things behind the governments back is considered good sportsmanship. We do it as a national sport /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif