Skip to comments.Programmer admits to creating vote rigging software in 2000's US election.
Posted on 10/13/2010 11:54:40 AM PDT by Cowgirl
This is why I have advocated that you have the opportunity to view your votes printed on a roll of paper through a window to verify that the votes are recorded correctly. If it is right, you finalizes the votes. If it is wrong, you go to the judge immediately (before the votes are added to the totals electronically) and both you and he open the window and X out and initial all the votes and you get a do-over.
In 2006, Curtis ran unsuccessfully against Feeney for the United States congressional seat in Florida's 24th congressional district. He ran again in 2008, losing in the Democratic primary to eventual winner of the seat, Suzanne Kosmas.
Seems Bush won the election even after the months spent counting every hanging chad and there was. This is such BS, it’s obviously after the 2004 election when Kerry almost took Ohio. What you are looking at is a bunch of crybaby Dems trying to do anything to keep Bush out for 4 more years.
How bout something more recent? (oct 5th 2010)
Video of some guy’s testimony in some sort of “under oath” forum who said then Florida State Speaker Feeney asked this guy to “design code to rig an election.” Says his speculation on Feeney’s motive was to determine if it could be done and “to prevent you guys from cheating them.” They also asked his “expert” testimony if the discrepancy in Ohio between results and election polling [which we know is highly scientific /s] was “proof” of fraud. He said “yes.” Nothing said that establishes this guy’s bona fides beyond him being “a programmer.”
That explains why my Tornado Amplifier was only marginally successful.
Sounds as if a programmer could bypass that though. It could show you what you did, but then swap the vote on the way to electronically recording it.
At any stage of the process, it can be changed. If it shows it to you, so what? You say, yep that’s right, and it goes on to record the vote differently.
ah, the 1620. memories ...
“If there is a significant difference between the exit polls and the vote, that is evidence of fraud.”
Come on! That’s just ridiculous. Is that the US Congress at its best?? My, my. Time for some real change.
We have seen exit polls in Sweden, US, UK, Israel, Switzerland all miss their mark (and that’s just some examples). Polling is not an exact science. Does the “computer engineer” not know that?
My CS teacher said it was called the 1620 because that is when it was manufactured.
i didn’t hear that. he was mistaken that you could simply look at the source code to determine whether the program was crooked or not. you need to verify that that particualr source code is, in fact the code running on the machine at the time.
you’d have to take the source code, compile it fresh, and checksum it against the executable to see if the numbers match. even then, checksum programs themselves can be manipulated to show whatever you want.
at the risk of sounding lika a tinfoil advocate, when you consider what is at stake, the process really isn’t that difficult - detection is.
you’d need a verifiable paper trail. and a program can just as well tally a vote one way, while printing it out the other. you’d need to save every paper record, and be able to verify that each paper ballot is what the voter selected.
It is easy to program cheats in, but difficult to program in inked out X’s and people’s initials. The final tally would always be what is on the paper and the paper totals should always equal the number of people who physically voted.
most people won't take the time to verify this, unless the votes arenn't tallieduntil after this is verified. the easiest way would be to have the voter fill out a paper form, then feed the form into a counting machine. the paper stays with the machine. touch screens are easy to manipulate, and just because the paper says you voted for candidate A doesn't mean that that who got the increment.
P.S. It is easy to erase electronic bits, but not so easy to erase the printed paper.
"...in the opinion of most independent observers, this is the single most confusing, bewildering, incipherable document ever produced. To begin with, how do you know which side to vote on? [ holds it up on one side ] Is this right-side up? [ flips it over ] Or is this right-side up? The ballot doesn't say. And what's with all these confusing names? Bush. Gore. Buchanan. Nader. And confusing party affiliations. Democrat. Republican. Reform. Here's one called "Green". And here's more names. George. Patrick. Albert. John. John. There's two different Johns. I mean, who on earth could figure this out.
But to really understand how confusing this ballot is, you have to take a closer look. Here it is. [ close-up is shown ] Now, for the love of God, what are all these dots? And these arrows? If you look closely, you will see that tips of the arrow points to a dot...but the shaft of the arrow points back to a name. So how do you vote? Do you circle a candidate's name? Do you underline it? Or do you write it on the arrow? Or underneath? Or maybe it's the dots. Do you write the candidate's name on the dots? They seem sort of small. Maybe just his initials. Or do you color in the dots? If so, in what color? Maybe you scratch the dots with the edge of a penny. Or lick the dots. Again, this ballot does not spell it out. I went to Harvard - I couldn't make heads or tails of this. [ puts ballot away ]
Just imagine what it was like for the most vulnerable residents of Palm Beach. [ holds up photo ] This is Esther Rosenthal. Esther Rosenthal is age 92, a Democrat all her life. Esther left her nursing home Tuesday morning intending to vote for me! Totally bewildered by this ballot, she ended up voting for the Libertarian candidate, and switching her long-distance service to Sprint. [ holds up next photo ] Okay.. Sidney and Reesa Mandel, age 87 and 85, ate their ballot! [ holds up next photo ] While Rachel Goldensten, age 96, mailed hers to Barbra Streisand..."
-- A Message From The Vice-President Of The United States
As heard on Saturday Night Live, November 11, 2000
A voter compilation program would be a project with 10 different oversight and proofing phases.
This "testimony" is pure BULLSH!T and the "programmer" should lose his sack as the original meaning of "testify" intended.
OFF WITH 'EM! ! !
Its hard to take blogs seriously so here’s a recent story about a UofM professor and some students hacking the DC internet voting tial.