posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 01:57 AM
Hell they can apparently legally change, er I mean redsitribute, your vote with the news systems, check this tid bit out...
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed by Election Systems & Software Inc. for the city's new "ranked-choice
voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes outright, voters'
second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round.
And from the same article...
Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna.
Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365....
In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost in this election because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots
electronically could hold more data than it did....
After voting ends, the cartridge is either transported to a tabulation facility or its data sent via modem.
Kimball Brace, president of the consulting firm Election Data Services, said it's possible the fault lies with the software that tallies the
votes from individual cartridges rather than the machines or the cartridges themselves.
Either way, he said, such tallying software ought to have a way to ensure that the totals don't exceed the number of voters. ...
Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, told The Columbus Dispatch that on one of the three machines at that
precinct, a malfunction occurred when its cartridge was plugged into a reader and generated a faulty number. He could not explain how the
malfunction occurred. ...County officials did not return calls seeking details....Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.
A national voting rights group says it documented hundreds of voting irregularities affecting poor and minority voters in seven Southern states — from
long lines and faulty equipment to deliberate voter intimidation.
California should have been a warning light to america but we ignored the implications for years.
SACRAMENTO, Calif.--California election officials on Thursday recommended banning some Diebold Election Systems voting machines and referred an
investigation into the company to the attorney general for possible civil and criminal sanctions....Like others at Diebold, Urosevich declined to
comment on the recommendation to send the report to the attorney general....E-vote critics discovered the company's elections equipment source code
sitting unprotected on a public FTP server.
That code subsequently underwent analysis by security experts who called its security measures inadequate at best. And the company undertook--and
later abandoned, under public, legal and even congressional pressure--a copyright offensive against people who posted damaging internal Diebold e-mail
Voting machine vendors collectively have felt some of the heat applied to Diebold Election Systems, of North Canton, Ohio, which has become a
lightning rod for criticism following adverse security reports, partisan comments by its CEO and a legal fracas following the distribution of
embarrassing internal e-mail correspondence.
No they are not secure systems.
Four computer security experts have warned proponents of Internet voting that such systems cannot be secured against fraud.
The experts--three computer science professors and a former IBM researcher--said Wednesday that creating an e-voting system that both guarantees each
person votes once and protects the voter's identity is impossible on the current Internet system.
Here's some more...
Voting machine fails inspection
Apparently diebold deosn't like it when their emials get leaked, but who would, given the leaked emails indicate fraud...
Diebold retreats; lawmaker demands inquiry
A good debate can be found here...
The harms are not potential; they are real. The obvious harm is that no sensible person will have confidence in a system that cannot be meaningfully
audited. Electronic voting in its current form is morally equivalent to handing over the counting of votes to private groups who count the ballots
behind closed doors--and then destroy them before anyone else can do a recount.
Apparently, many people learned the wrong lesson from Florida 2000--that recounts are bad. The right lesson is that we need to be able to do good
recounts. Electronic voting has the advantage for some--of eliminating the ability to do a recount altogether. To paraphrase (California Voter
Foundation President) Kim Alexander, that's like eliminating fraud by eliminating the accounting department.
The following is a must read from the 2000 elections...
The Diebold Memos' Smoking Gun
Volusia County Memos Disclose Election 2000 Vote Fraud
By Alastair Thompson
"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At
10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked
the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an
obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."
Another must read fromt he 2002 elections...
Hopkins researchers also found loopholes that could have allowed votes to be altered without a voter’s knowledge, either on the spot or by remote
access. This means that a voter could leave the voting booth believing that he or she had voted for Candidate A, but the machine would actually have
recorded his or her vote for Candidate B. This also means that someone with a device as simple as a Palm Pilot could alter votes from across the
Do some homework folks, we have been had....