It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voting is a Farce...."43 States Will Be Using Outdated Voting Machines in 2016 Election"

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Forty-three states will be using outdated voting machines for the 2016 presidential election, according to a recent study. At least seven states—Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Texas, Virginia, and Washington— are using machines that are 15 years old, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “No one expects a laptop to last for 10 years. How can we expect these machines, many of which were designed and engineered in the 1990s, to keep running?,” Larry Norden and Christopher Famighetti, authors of the Brennan Center report, wrote. “[T]he majority of systems in use today are either perilously close to or past their expected lifespans.” In some instances, producers of these machines have gone out of business, making it difficult for elections officials to find spare parts. This predicament has forced officials to shop on eBay for decommissioned equipment from which to get parts, according to Wired.


SOURCE

I've worked in IT for 25 years. I've worked specifically as a database/software developer for just over 20.

I am no hacker. But, I can tell you this. Old equipment? EASIER to hack. It'll almost assuredly be outdated from a physical security standpoint, and due to lack of dilligence, not up to date on software updates.

Now, I cannot even begin to delve into just how perilous a programmatical approach to a voting system is. At this point, you are placing all of your trust in what is very likely a black box. How many of you know how to read code? How many of you have ever actually read the full verbage of a EULA? Well, code is even more likely to be just as dense if not moreso. It is also very very easy to intentionally obfuscate, and thus conceal an effort to alter the outcome of the actual vote.

edit on 19-9-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
For instance, any of you relatively familiar with code...here is what should be a straightforward "Hello World", but not so straightforward in it's presentation...in C....

SOURCE Obfuscated C Contest

Now, taking the above into account....just imagine how easy it would be to manipulate the outcome of the election?

We readily accept any given EULA because of it's burdensome and intentional length. Obfuscated code is no different.

Voting is a FARCE.

edit on 19-9-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

I agree that voting is pretty much a farce... but not because of outdated voting machines. It's because the candidates, for the most part, are just two sides of the same corrupt coin. That's what makes it a farce if you ask me.
edit on 19-9-2015 by Blazemore2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: nullafides

I agree that voting is pretty much a farce... but not because of outdated voting machines. It's because the candidates, for the most part, are just two sides of the same corrupt coin. That's what makes it a farce if you ask me.


also, besides the candidates being fubar, the electorate doesn't want leadership, they want entertainment and feelgood nationalism. And by God the "electorial" process will give them what they want.

I'm not complaining because we get the best government money can buy.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: nullafides

I agree that voting is pretty much a farce... but not because of outdated voting machines. It's because the candidates, for the most part, are just two sides of the same corrupt coin. That's what makes it a farce if you ask me.


Oh, I ABSOLUTELY 100% agree with you. But when the method of voting itself is rigged, let alone the fact that the "candidates" are not representative of our needs as a country...let alone our interests....

I think you have to start peeling the onion from the outside in. Or, Chop the damned thing in half.

In all actuality....

I am highly in favor of the latter option...



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: nullafides

I agree that voting is pretty much a farce... but not because of outdated voting machines. It's because the candidates, for the most part, are just two sides of the same corrupt coin. That's what makes it a farce if you ask me.


also, besides the candidates being fubar, the electorate doesn't want leadership, they want entertainment and feelgood nationalism. And by God the "electorial" process will give them what they want.

I'm not complaining because we get the best government money can buy.


I have long been in favor of dismantling the system...no, destroying it...and rebuilding from scratch.

The Candidates are a farce.
The Electoral College is a farce.
The voting process is a farce.

Our "liberties" are sadly, a farce.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
One thing I'd like to add to this from the code standpoint....

Back during Y2K...when they were digging up graves to find Cobol developers....

The "code" I saw? Really was merely a matter of the number of characters typed per hour. It was ENTIRELY and INTENTIONALLY obfuscated...yeah..sure...it "fixed" Y2K....but, it was also done in such a way as to bilk the client for billions....

...yes...billions....



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I have often wondered, with today's technology, why voting and referendums in the UK use such outdated processes. My conclusion is that it is due to a form of enslavement. Technology, even without the use of the internet, could provide results very quickly and facilitate many more referendums.

In a democratic society this would be more preferable than leaving decision making to an elite few on matters of great importance that affect all its citizens. In the UK we are only able to vote for a candidate in our area based on their views/promises. The probability of this candidate having the same views on every issue as an individual voting for them is very unlikely.

Thank you for giving me another perspective. As computer technology evolves surely the same technology can also provide safeguards and transparency?


edit on 19-9-2015 by deliberator because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The machines are only outdated to the ones saying it will not be fair and that always scream voter manipulation.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: deliberator


To answer your question....

IF $vote = 'Republican' THEN
Let #vote_Rep_Count = #vote_Rep_Count + 1
ELSE
Let #vote_Dem_Count = #vote_Dem_Count + 1
END-IF

Now, the above pseudo-code (in other words, it is not language specific, but rather displays the general logic that would be used) displays an honest approach to tallying the votes.

IF (#total_Votes / 3.5) = 4
IF $vote = 'Republican' THEN
Let #vote_Rep_Count = #vote_Rep_Count + 1
ELSE
Let #vote_Dem_Count = #vote_Dem_Count + 2
END-IF
Let #total_Votes = 0
ELSE
IF $vote = 'Republican' THEN
Let #vote_Rep_Count = #vote_Rep_Count + 1
ELSE
Let #vote_Dem_Count = #vote_Dem_Count + 1
END-IF
Let #total_Votes = #total_Votes + 1
END-IF

This code, was me being dishonest. Not too bright in my way of going about it, pretty obvious actually.

But, the point is...you are trusting someone to write this logic. You are trusting someone to be honest with YOUR VOTES.



How often have you found that you can trust someone you've never met, someone who has never met you? Someone who may not care at all about your best interests? Possibly truly only cares about their own interests?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: deliberator


To answer your question....

IF $vote = 'Republican' THEN
.......... Let #vote_Rep_Count = #vote_Rep_Count + 1
ELSE
.......... Let #vote_Dem_Count = #vote_Dem_Count + 1
END-IF

Now, the above pseudo-code (in other words, it is not language specific, but rather displays the general logic that would be used) displays an honest approach to tallying the votes.

IF (#total_Votes / 3.5) = 4
...... IF $vote = 'Republican' THEN
............ Let #vote_Rep_Count = #vote_Rep_Count + 1
......ELSE
............Let #vote_Dem_Count = #vote_Dem_Count + 2
......END-IF
......Let #total_Votes = 0
ELSE
......IF $vote = 'Republican' THEN
............Let #vote_Rep_Count = #vote_Rep_Count + 1
...... ELSE
............ Let #vote_Dem_Count = #vote_Dem_Count + 1
......END-IF
......Let #total_Votes = #total_Votes + 1
END-IF

This code, was me being dishonest. Not too bright in my way of going about it, pretty obvious actually.

But, the point is...you are trusting someone to write this logic. You are trusting someone to be honest with YOUR VOTES.



How often have you found that you can trust someone you've never met, someone who has never met you? Someone who may not care at all about your best interests? Possibly truly only cares about their own interests?
edit on 19-9-2015 by nullafides because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Why don't you vote for mail in votes like in my State of Washington? Our whole family like the system real well. No lines, time to think, mail it, top two win.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3



The written ballots you submit....out of curiosity....are they actually handwritten...such as you write in "DONALD TRUMP"....or, do you check a box? Fill in an oval like on a college exam?

It is highly likely they are being scanned and read via OCR. Even option one I offered, where you are hand writing your choice of candidate. That being said...again, you are relying upon someone's code to determine what you voted, and to tally the votes.

Personally, I don't vote. I think the entire thing is a sham and a shame. I haven't voted since Clinton for this very reason. I wasn't complaining about wanting a better way to vote for myself, I was saying the system as a whole is a farce...

And even if your written votes are manually tallied...the vast unwashed masses are still using the electronic voting machines.

Good luck!



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Well, There have never been any complaints against the system that i am aware of. Even my kids in their 20 30's vote every election.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: nullafides

Well, There have never been any complaints against the system that i am aware of. Even my kids in their 20 30's vote every election.



I'm glad you're happy with it.

If you cannot see the flaws as they have been spelled out for you, and continue to remain happy, then I can only congratulate you on reaching a rather zen-like state of numbness.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

So what is flawness, not voting?



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Coming soon to a Smartphone near you:

The Official US Government Voting App.
Only able to be logged in at official polling places.

Please scan your candidate code to continue.

Thank you for your participation in the Political Process.


ETA : *also - please note : I am not an engineering or security specialist, but there are several workarounds that would insure the safety of data and scan codes....devices that only operate within the facility and no intel could be leaked out by nefarious parties and a good placement of enough properly trained armed guards would scare off the most common types of "social hacker wannabes".

Also could even work up to home PC security channels for eligible housebound, elderly and disabled voters.

Not a programmer here, just a Think Tanker.
Peace.



edit on 9/19/15 by GENERAL EYES because: ETA



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Reading your OP, nullafides, kinda reminded me of an experience I had around 10 years ago.

I used to work as a software developer/analyst for an engineering R&D company mainly involved in scientific systems and support services. It did a lot of contracting for NASA, Aero-DoD, the nuclear energy industry, as well as some product testing for commercial interests. Consequently, it had a lot of testing facilities that took things and shook them up, smashed them, twisted them into knots and blew them up, and then measured the results. Was kinda neat, actually.

Anyway, out of the blue somebody picked up a contract with Diebold to do quality assurance testing on it’s voting machine hardware/software and give it the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. To my dismay, I was requested to do the software analysis. Noone else would fess up to knowing the software language that was used well enough, although that was a crock. Anyway, I got stuck with it.

It was pretty simple, actually, and I recall thinking at the time how easy it would be to tweak it a little to get whatever your desired results might be. Although I didn’t see any questionable code, it would’ve been so easy to slip a few extra lines of code into the program at the appropriate time, recompile it and then celebrate your chosen winner ahead of time. I was really shocked at how easy it would be.

Maybe todays’s voting apparatus has better safeguards against fraud, but I doubt it. It seems the government often prefers not to use bleeding edge technology for certain applications. Their thinking is it’s safer to use older, “tried and true” software/hardware packages, rather than risk possibly buggy, less tested state of the art apps. 15 year old voting machines, however, is quite a stretch.

Typical bureaucratic thinking here. They’ve invented their own brand of illogic....



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

I wrote a thread here a while back on a better voting system, one that preserves the anonymous vote while simultaneously making every vote publicly accountable in order to ensure transparency.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, I would suggest you look up the documentary Hacking Democracy, I believe it's on youtube but you'll have to use a european proxy to view it in the US.

I have zero faith in our voting machines as they currently are. I'm pretty much convinced the 2004 election was decided by fraud, we all remember what happened in 2000, and if those are anything to go by 2008, 2012, and all the midterms were no different. Forget voter ID laws and ballot box stuffing, that's not how fraud is committed, you do it by altering the vote counting machines.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Voting machines matter not in elections as long as you are going just to vote for your "team". Most people now vote along party lines exclusively , instead of using wisdom and forethought. It is to the extent now that the entire voting process has been reduced to a farce.It should be on Comedy Central. Name calling , trying to make up stuff or exaggerating what goes on with the other team. You might say , it is even went as far down the toilet as being "barbaric".

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join