HILLARY: BEWARE OF VOTING MACHINES MADE OF STEAL

New York Post ^ | 3/11/04 | Vincent Morris

[kattracks]

March 11, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday voters in New York and elsewhere may not be able to trust future election results, charging the company that makes high-tech voting machines may skew results to help Republicans win.

[kevkrom]

A receipt doesn't help because there's no guarantee that the receipt matches what the machine tallied.

Actually -- if the receipt has a random but unique ID on it, then simply requiring the precinct to publish the full voting results, by ID, will allow each individual to double-check his/her receipt against the tally roster to ensure that the two match. The tally sheets could be posted at the polling location, online, or in newspapers.

Combine that with the previous comment about catching "spikes" of votes, and it has considerably better validation of results than traditional methods.

[JoeSixPack1]

Alternative translation: "We have figured out how to rig these things, so time to setup the usual smoke screen - accuse you of whatever we are up to."

There it is! Link that statement to Kerry's 'off mic' but 'on mic' comment and the simple fact that the queen of corrupt politics herself sees fit to attack the once revered, impeccably disciplined, faithfully subservient voter counters.

SOP for the rats is swiftly unraveling. As in AHIBL(All H--- Is Breaking loose) on the plantation.

[Chances Are]

Good post! I missed that. If she was really any good, they'll doubtless have her on again.

On a unrelated note, why are all the good-looking female commentators Republican?

Well, there's a reason for that. Girls with good looks and lots of smarts just naturally gravitate towards the Republican side because, let's face it, if they have the smarts, there's really no place else they can go!

On the other hand, this leaves our friends on the left with the pickings (rather slim, admittedly) from their natural constituencies. Invariably, they get them from the local Board of Public Works!

CA....

[Just mythoughts]

Looks like Hillry will have to have get this story replayed if she sought to get media attention today, given that we have terrorists at work in Spain, and one of the liberals own arrested for spying.

[Last Visible Dog]

Clinton said that unless electronic voting machines also produce a paper trail, GOP-leaning corporations might program the equipment to help Republicans steal elections.

And monkeys might fly out of Hillary's butt - we need to take action now!

[ArmstedFragg]

"weegee"'s post 21 addresses the problem inherent in having identifiable information available. You can end up with a situation where an employer demands an employee's receipt number. So, there's a potential loss of secrecy in the ballot process inherent in the verification process you suggest.

I do agree, though, that it would work.

The general concept of a receipt has another problem which is related to its mischief-making potential. If you recall the way the first moments of the Florida recount unwound, the demo phone-banks made numerous calls to people suggesting that their vote was being miscounted, and, by golly, produced a significant number of seniors who decided that had, in fact, happened.

Issuing receipts presents a candidate who wishes to put the results in doubt with the opportunity to send a few "ringers" to the polls instructed to vote for his opponent. He then has them display the receipts showing a vote tallied for the opponent and claim that they had actually voted for him, and therefore the machines weren't counting votes properly.

Given sufficient publicity, this claim would result in a number of other people checking their receipts and would turn up a number of people who, through human error, hadn't voted for the candidate they wanted to. Of course, knowing human nature, none of them would accept that the error was theres, so they'd present themselves as additional "victims" of the "machine problems".

Essentially, you create a situation where every election can become a "Florida-type" contest.

[ArmstedFragg]

Before Florida there was nothing wrong with manual voting devices.

Well, actually, there was a Los Angeles City Council a few years prior to 2000 that had the same "problems". The guy who lead the challenge in that race was later quoted as saying, "you let me get my hands on the cards and I can give you a hundred votes".

Interestingly enough, that guy was working as a consultant for the Gore campaign in Florida in 2000.

[ArmstedFragg]

OH, and....

The work around for the unique ID number would be to create an ID number for each possible combination of choices. The machine would issue you a number for the combination that matched what you voted for, but would actually record a modified version of your vote under another ID number.

Unless you compared ID numbers with someone else who voted exactly the same way you did, you'd never catch on. And even then, if it was only done enough to swing the majority and not on every vote, you'd have to get lucky.

[VadeRetro]

"If it doesn't have chads, we don't want it. What are we supposed to recount for weeks on end?"

[kevkrom]

Issuing receipts presents a candidate who wishes to put the results in doubt with the opportunity to send a few "ringers" to the polls instructed to vote for his opponent. He then has them display the receipts showing a vote tallied for the opponent and claim that they had actually voted for him, and therefore the machines weren't counting votes properly.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd have to disagree. The voter would be responsible for making sure the receipt correctly recorded their vote before they left the polling place. It could only challenge the tally if it differed from the "official" vote list. The "I meant to vote for Gore but it said I voted for Buchanan" argument doesn't work if their receipt says they voted for Buchanan.

Buying votes or voter intimidation is a legitimate concern. On the former, my libertarian streak says that an individual has every right to sell their vote -- it is their franchise to do with as they will, and don't many people already sell their votes for the promise of a particular program to benefit themselves? My conservative side is revolted at the thought that people would actually do it.

On the coercion issue... the only remedy would be legal enforcement -- attempting to interfere in such a manner with a federal election is a civil rights violation and possibly criminal in other ways as well.

[ArmstedFragg]

The "I meant to vote for Gore but it said I voted for Buchanan" argument doesn't work if their receipt says they voted for Buchanan.

I really appreciate the tone you've set for this discussion, there is a tendency at times around here for disagreements to degenerate into "you're an idiot", "no, you're an idiot" levels , and I'm glad we've been able to avoid that. I do have to say that, while I take your point, from my point of view it doesn't apply.

My point of view is simply that of someone who is trying to sell the public on a claim that the system is malfunctioning. From that location, a receipt that shows the vote was cast for Buchanan and was logged as being cast for Buchanan doesn't defeat the argument that the vote was not recorded properly, but instead serves as proof of that claim. The average citizen is simply going to pocket the receipt without looking at it, in the same way that the average citizen in Florida punched Buchanan's name but never looked at the card to see what he punched. Upon hearing publicity to the effect that the machines are in error, that citizen will then fish out the receipt and discover the vote cast for Buchanan.

While I agree that it's the citizen's responsibility to check the receipt before leaving the poling place, it was also the citizen's responsibility to punch the right hole in the "butterfly ballot", and the fact that the card showed that's not what he punched didn't defeat the claim that the ballot was flawed, nor would it defeat the claim that the machine didn't properly record the pushing of the "Gore" key.

Well, we're both speculating, and I suspect we'll have to see how things play out, but I get nervous when people with a vested interest in non-conclusive elections start offering suggestions on how to "make things better".

I guess, bottom line, I'm a big fan of the "simplest tool" theory, i.e: the simplest tool that does the job properly is the best tool. We have methods where the ballot is guaranteed to be secret, and where it travels directly from the voters hand to the tallying operation in an easily secured fashion. Sadly, those methods are no longer considered acceptable to the same people who want to add receipts to the electronic systems.

[sport]

The democrats are setting the stage to challenge the results of the '04 election.

This is the build up to the aftermath of the '04 elections if kerry does not win.

Recall Florida in '00?

Recall the democrats crying about the paper ballots? Even though they were designed by democrats.

Recall the democrats lobbying for the electronic and touch screen machines?

I thought something sounded fishy when bob graham and other democrats begin critizing the electronic and touch screen machines.

It was the democrats that did not want a paper back up. I was against them because there was no paper backup.

Now that the democrats are wanting a paper backup, I don't know if I do or not.

I do know that everything a democrat does is for an ulterior motive and I do not trust any democrat.

This election may have to be settled in the streets.

[sport]

Amen and Amen!

Preach it Brother!