Scientists Question Electronic Voting

Oddly enough, Silicon Valley has been a laggard when it comes to applying the technology it's famous for to the election process. Now it's finally beginning to catch up, and it has suddenly become the locus of an overdue -- and profoundly important -- debate about the mechanics of democracy in the 21st century.

Uh, that is what poll and ballot counting observers are for. With the optical scanning process, the paper ballots are sucked into and stored in the SEALED scanning machine. That SEALED machine is only opened if there is a question necessitating a recount, and then the SEALED machine is opened in the prescence of witness from all interested parties and the paper ballots re-counted. You can't do ANY of that with "all-electronic" means.

The problem is that once you open the sealed machine, it's no longer sealed, and much of the evidence that it really was sealed before it was opened is destroyed.

One thing, though, that would substantially improve the tamper-resistance of the optical-scan ballots would be to add two columns to the right hand side in which the voter had to mark how many marks were placed in the rest of the ballot. If a voter was incapable of counting, putting in the ballot without that field completed would cause the ballot to be spit out while the machine showed the necessary number, but no ballot would be accepted unless it was fully valid and the "magic number" was filled in correctly. Further, no ballot would be accepted if there were any ovals that read anywhere between 25% and 75% density [i.e. every oval must be marked well or not at all].

With those provisos, there would be no way of altering a validly-cast ballot without rendering it void [substitution would still be a danger, though], and there would be no excuse for any void ballots to appear in the box.

You are obviously very technical minded. Maybe if someone really wanted to make an infallible system then we could come close. But I hardly doubt any such system will ever come to exist. From what I have read these systems are even tied via modem to a central location. You can bet that updates to the program can even be uploaded. Program code could be stored in Ram temporarily. Ideally the Main program stored in Rom would not allow this, and experts on all sides would be able to examine the main program code. But they cannot...it is not allowed. And something tells me that it never will be allowed either. If certain officials wanted to be really brave then they could even slip in hardware altercations that could do the trick. You would have to be really brave to do it...but hey these people are capable of anything these days. They are not going to solder the main proms in the circuit because they will need to be changed for each election(Or be updated via flashing) . So anyone with a certain influence could obtain a replacement prom to exchange in just for the election. You could come up with all kinds of ways to prevent this but hey...where there is a will then there is a way...especially if your influence is an inside contact at the company that makes these machines.

I know what you are saying too...but I feel like nothing is more reliable than a paper trail that is carefully planed. I suppose that they are subject to tampering too. But it is time consuming to do and eaiser to catch. I agree that chads are out, but the fill in the circle kind of cards seem pretty good. They can be optically read too. And anyone who messes those up does not deserve to even have there vote count.

If it were not for the planned destruction of our culture via multiculturalism then those who can't read english(other than the blind) would not even be allowed to vote in the first place. I prefer to have people vote who have an interest in the well being of this country period. So all of this multilanguage crap via touch screen is a bad thing to me. During the election of 2000 this was pretty much the consensus on FR. It does not appear to be anymore since people have excepted the idea that foreigners and deviants should be allowed to vote. So this is another reason why I hate this electronic voting.

It is no indication of the intelligence or loyalty of the voter. And lets say that some precinct worker wants to manufacture votes. Well we found out during 2000 that is no problem. We found out that it is even legal to not have these places monitored by all partys...much to our surprise. It is recommended but not required. And if there is a dispute with poll watchers then no one is required to listen to them. Well at least if someone manufactures votes using a paper trail then you have a chance at catching there repetitive actions. How do you go back and prove that one of them sat at one of these screens and kept punching in votes. And we say that they would get caught doing that. But these things are rarely checked against any real list of voters. We found that out in 2000. And the dems especially are so bold about it that they are willing to take there chances. Almost never is there any arrest over such matters. Money for votes, assisted voting, dead people voting, Manufactured absentee ballots, Discarded military ballots,...People gain citizenship by being given the answers to the test just so can vote for more social benefits. We saw it all. And what was done about that?

So I would say that this electronic voting scheme is nothing more than a distraction really. Something to make us think something is being done when in reality the only thing that is actually be done is that a system that makes cheating even easier is being setup. Because this secure system that you dream of is not even in the works. The only one that has ever been consulted is the company that is manufacturing these devices. No on else is listened to. If we don't put or foot down then some day we will even have presidents winning with %100 of the vote like they do in Iraq. That may sound crazy, but so do so many things that are happening today. Things we claimed would never happen here. We are losing out voice.

And that includes the experts in this article. This idea of a future printer add on is nothing more than a scam to be able to say "We are listening to you". When the authorities know full well that these "add ons" will never likely be implemented. It is a typical socialist trick to "Shut up the decenters". When will people start learn and start demanding a foolproof system from the start? They are not building a system with a paper trail. They are not even building the secure electronic system that you envision. So in my mind the only thing left to do is to scream foul play.

How I miss the days when Americans demanded provable honesty. How I miss the days when Americans held there officials accountable.

"The problem is that once you open the sealed machine, it's no longer sealed, and much of the evidence that it really was sealed before it was opened is destroyed."

Which is why that opening and counting is done before multiple witnesses. This is really NOT a complicated problem. You are making it more so by putting the "whole job" on the deus ex machina of the voting machine, when in fact one has to look at the overall "voting system".

"One thing, though, that would substantially improve the tamper-resistance of the optical-scan ballots would be to add two columns to the right hand side in which the voter had to mark how many marks were placed in the rest of the ballot. If a voter was incapable of counting, putting in the ballot without that field completed would cause the ballot to be spit out while the machine showed the necessary number, but no ballot would be accepted unless it was fully valid and the "magic number" was filled in correctly. Further, no ballot would be accepted if there were any ovals that read anywhere between 25% and 75% density [i.e. every oval must be marked well or not at all]."

The machines already do this (won't accept an improperly marked ballot). They "do" spit it back out if it is incompletely/incorrectly filled out so the voter can correct it. They also do so without needing ANY action from the voter (i.e. the filling out of "number of marks".

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.