Posted on 01/29/2008 5:04:00 AM PST by lifelong_republican
"...electronic voting system shut down across the board..."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I doubt that it was “malfunctioning.” It was no doubt working in precisely the way Pelosi wanted it to work.
You make an excellent point. With the electronics, others can and will manipulate the results with ease and without any risk of detection, as well as delay and otherwise interfere with the process of voting with the unreliability factor, intentionally and otherwise.
Karl Rove strikes again!
“there are huge security holes in the electronic ‘voting’ systems.”
practice saying ‘president hillary clinton’.
Ripley, you’re exactly right. The problem with rigged elections is that totally unsuitable people get put into office while the will of the voters is thwarted.
How do you prevent a campaign worker from substituting a box of pre-marked paper ballots for the “real one”, with both boxes having the same total count? Both boxes have a paper sticker seal with a signature on it.
Paper ballots aren’t perfect, but they’re still better than the electronics, according to computer security experts. The physical ballots can and should be observed by the public. No such observation is possible at all with the electronics.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html
The trick is to make it difficult enough that it is not worth the effort or risk.
Pure electronic machines make it too easy to cheat. Paper ballots (which can be electronically scanned) require a physical object to be manipulated. Thus leaving fingerprints and other physical evidence.
The gross election fraud we have had in the past depends on manipulating objects, which is why there is so much resistance to a medium that is difficult to hack.
Electronic voting is being attacked based on distrust and fear that wizards change the vote, and us peasants can’t tell.
The biggest problem is that, every time you read the file, the total remains the same with electronics.
With paper, you get a different count every time until the correct result is obtained.
You’re exactly right, fireforeffect. The electronics make cheating quick, easy, centralized, widespread, and undetectable.
“many experts say that a paper trail alone can’t solve the problem”
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20122/?a=f
Why do you believe that the electronic ‘voting’ systems would be difficult to hack? University computer scientists have already shown that they’re easy to hack.
Or was there another case after that one?
I’m not referring to YouTube at all. I’m referring to university studies and experts on computer security.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20122/?a=f
It's not tampering that we should be worrying about. Each individual machine would need to be opened and changed, which is very unlikely. What is easy to do is to have dishonest poll workers vote for anyone who is on the rolls but didn't show up to vote....dead, moved, hospitalized, etc. The epoll book tells them if a person has voted already.
Heavily Dem areas often send in their results much later than other areas. I wonder if they just vote again and again as many times as they need to until they get enough votes to win.
How can a virus infect a machine that is not on the internet in any way?
What is telling is this, though-
“This makes the job of a person who wants to cheat a lot easier,” Rubin said. “If the machines had a paper trail, anyone could inspect the outcome, because the paper would give you the right answer.”
The paper gives an opportunity to throw an election much easier. The person who wishes to cheat merely switches the paper tape for any two machines. Oh oh, now the tape does not match the machine! What do we do? Count the tape, or trust the machine, or call in the media and the lawyers?
From one of the articles,
“Security, while important, happens to be one of those places where voting machines actually have not proven to fail,” Bederson says. “However,”
So the strongest statement about security says that there have been no security issues with electronic voting machines.
“the problem with rigged elections is that totally unsuitable people get put into office while the will of the voters is thwarted.”
one of the biggest problems is that someone died for our right to vote in fair and accurate elections. it seems that the American concept of fair play is out and the concept of the people’s revolutionary socialism is in; brought to us by way of the democrat party, filled with sneering, snide, macho socialist punks who’ll do anything to win and who know too many sneering, snide, macho socialist lawyers who’ll do anything to help them.
Many of the faulty systems have wireless and other connections, including connections to phone lines, and can be infected with viruses or other malware from the time they’re built in secrecy in factories in communist China.
You should read more carefully, especially such things as the GAO report in which the systems were found to be unsuitable for use in elections.
They’re not secure, they’re unreliable, they’re overpriced, and it’s documented that they have lost, switched, and faked votes already.
With the electronics, you won’t be able to catch the violators.
Democrats have actually violated state laws to deprive voters of physical ballots.
The easy solution is to just shoot any democrat over 40 or that has a child (if married). The younger ones may still be converted.
Where is the GAO report? I’ll take a look at it.
I read what you linked and those two articles did not support your conclusions, in fact, one said that there had been no security problems. Neither showed evidence of switched votes or fakes.
They can still count hands if the voice vote is indeterminate.
Actually, it’s possible to tamper with electronic ‘voting’ systems and leave no evidence.
The links I’ve provided don’t say what you claim.
The security problems have been noted, among computer security experts. The other problems are significant, too.
Here’s the GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07576t.pdf
Your recommendation would still be more reliable and secure than the electronics, certainly.
Very little is not the same as none. Very hard is not the same as impossible.
Just because you can not see does not mean you are blind. You just need to find the light switch.
or
“It is not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.”
attributed to J.V. Stalin.
“Security, while important, happens to be one of those places where voting machines actually have not proven to fail,” Bederson says. “However,”
here it is again.
Thanks for the GAO link!
“democrats have actually violated state laws to deprive voters of physical ballots.”
how can democrats do anything wrong? if they do it for the children, they can never do anything wrong.
I’m not the best reader, though, could you please show me where it says that?
It does say that you must treat the system like any other technology:
In GAO’s view, the challenges faced in acquiring and operating electronic voting systems are not unlike those faced by any technology user—adoption and application of well-defined system standards; effective integration of the technology with the people who operate it and the processes that govern this operation; rigorous and disciplined performance of system security and testing activities; reliable measurement of system performance; and the analytical basis for making informed, economically justified decisions about voting system investment options. These challenges are complicated by other conditions such as the distribution of responsibilities among various organizations and funding opportunities and constraints. Given the diffused and decentralized allocation of voting system roles and responsibilities across all levels of government, addressing these challenges will require the combined efforts of all levels of government, under the leadership of the EAC. To assist the EAC in executing its leadership role, GAO has previously made recommendations to the commission aimed at better planning its ongoing and future activities relative to, for example, system standards and information sharing. While the EAC agreed with the recommendations, it stated that its ability to effectively execute its role is resource constrained.
“GAO Report on Electronic Voting Systems (September, 2005)
This report detailed flaws in voting system security, access, and hardware controls, weak security management practices by vendors, and identified multiple examples of failures in real elections.
Voting system vulnerabilities and problems found include:
Cast ballots, ballot definition files, and audit logs could be modified;
Supervisor functions were protected with weak or easily guessed passwords;
Systems had easily picked locks and power switches that were exposed and unprotected;
Local jurisdictions misconfigured their electronic voting systems, leading to election day problems;
Voting systems experienced operational failures during elections;
Vendors installed uncertified software;
Some electronic voting systems did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected;
It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate.”
http://www.md-eic.org/INFO1.HTM
See also:
http://www.md-eic.org/Documents/GAOReport_ElectionSecurity_102105.pdf
Ah, new stuff to read! Thanks. I’ll get to it when I’m off the road and have some time.
Looks like the 2007 report found much fewer problems than the 2005 report.
I guess things are getting worse! :)
The problems with electronic ‘voting’ systems are so many, and so significant, that they aren’t suitable for use.
OK, your opinion. Many of the problems noted for electronic voting are also true for other systems- most having to do with people not following procedure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.