Rigged USA Elections Exposed (voting machine fraud)

This is precisely why I don't even bother partaking in the sham that is U.S. politics.

And for the "don't vote? Don't complain" crowd, keep on sheepin' on.

I recall after the last election the dismissal that rigged voting doesn't happen. When in fact such as this article and much more had shown that it did and very well continues to happen. As mentioned, guess it was so long ago that many had forgotten about the 2000 election.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: 727Sky

We learned this during the election of puppets between Gore and Bush in 2000.

The system needs to be changed from top to bottom and nothing less then millions in the streets will get results. The apathy that has been cultivated by the social engineers is quite impressive.

This is really the only plausible way I can see change really happening. I mean just look at what happened after the Gore-Bush election, nearly everyone just forgot about it....


I can honestly only see things changing through a revolution, unfortunately

It may be unfortunate however it is the destiny of humanity to live in harmony with this great planet. We are divine beings that have been skillfully convinced that we are mere animals. The elite have created a system for slaves, which they have done for millennia, I have a feeling we shall be changing that, one way of the other!

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: 727Sky

We learned this during the election of puppets between Gore and Bush in 2000.

The system needs to be changed from top to bottom and nothing less then millions in the streets will get results. The apathy that has been cultivated by the social engineers is quite impressive.

This is really the only plausible way I can see change really happening. I mean just look at what happened after the Gore-Bush election, nearly everyone just forgot about it....


I can honestly only see things changing through a revolution, unfortunately

It may be unfortunate however it is the destiny of humanity to live in harmony with this great planet. We are divine beings that have been skillfully convinced that we are mere animals. The elite have created a system for slaves, which they have done for millennia, I have a feeling we shall be changing that, one way of the other!

It's kind of hard to deny 'the system' when we share our DNA with all animals to some extent.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: 727Sky

We learned this during the election of puppets between Gore and Bush in 2000.

The system needs to be changed from top to bottom and nothing less then millions in the streets will get results. The apathy that has been cultivated by the social engineers is quite impressive.

This is really the only plausible way I can see change really happening. I mean just look at what happened after the Gore-Bush election, nearly everyone just forgot about it....


I can honestly only see things changing through a revolution, unfortunately

It may be unfortunate however it is the destiny of humanity to live in harmony with this great planet. We are divine beings that have been skillfully convinced that we are mere animals. The elite have created a system for slaves, which they have done for millennia, I have a feeling we shall be changing that, one way of the other!

It's kind of hard to deny 'the system' when we share our DNA with all animals to some extent.

There is no denying our connection with our animal friends and all of nature.

However our brains are composed of more than the simple R complex. We have great depth within us to awaken higher energy centers, however we have been programmed through sex, fear and violence to remain in a state of arrested development.

originally posted by: intrptr

To some degree elections have always been rigged. Difference is now, there isn't going to be any reports of people running off with ballot boxes to hide or alter vote tallies.

How do we know theres fraud? Because we can't tell there isn't…

Actual, physical ballots can be recounted and verified, pixels on a screen cannot.

There's too many advantages to making it digital in order to get rid of the machines. The fix is to make a voting process that cannot be tampered with. I detailed one such approach here in the past, if you're interested I'll link the thread with my idea. The gist of it though is:

Each person when they vote is given a voter id slip, this slip contains a number that can be referenced later along with who they voted for. There is no link between the specific voter and the id slip they're given.

After the election has been tallied, the votes are publicly posted in a database.

Each voter can query the database with their id number to ensure their vote is correctly recorded. Complete databases could be downloaded as well in order to look for suspicious districts.

If the vote doesn't show up properly, the slip can be taken to the board of elections and the vote can be changed. If too many votes need to be changed in the district, declare a case of fraud and revote.

This system would remove the security hole that allows people to rig the voting outcomes.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I cannot believe a company with such a name even exists.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for that rundown. The machine could be programed to lie too, to cover for any incongruities.

a reply to: Aazadan

I like the design of your system. It provides an interesting method for database error checking that is utilized directly by the voter.

But there is a problem when you provide a voter with proof of their specific vote. It can also be used as a method to demonstrate, to a 3rd party, proof of a prearranged vote. In other words, it enables vote buying.

It occurs to me, that given voters' ID numbers and their votes, an algorithm can be encoded to provide a crypto "serial #" that can be decoded to the voter's actual vote. Only the specific algorithm and secret key can authentically decode the serial #.

The voter would only need to verify that the serial number and voter ID number match on the website. The voters can be assured that their actual vote will count as long as that number is consistent. But they're not provided any specific information that can be used as proof of a specific vote.

-dex

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for that rundown. The machine could be programed to lie too, to cover for any incongruities.

Easily dealt with. If you query vote totals off of the same database that people are checking it will probably be valid. Without getting into all of the technical details, there are ways around it but at the same time there are countermeasures for the countermeasures. For example, if we made the voting system open source (easily done if the government were to fund/own it) and released the code/database experts could verify the authenticity of it, and the security of the code. One of the big problems with a company like Diebold is all of the information remains proprietary and as a result there is no public accountability.

Also, I should add that one more benefit of this system is that since there would be a public listing of all votes (while still keeping individual voters anonymous), cross referencing the votes in a precinct with the population size would instantly make known any case of modern day ballot box stuffing.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: Aazadan

I like the design of your system. It provides an interesting method for database error checking that is utilized directly by the voter.

But there is a problem when you provide a voter with proof of their specific vote. It can also be used as a method to demonstrate, to a 3rd party, proof of a prearranged vote. In other words, it enables vote buying.

It occurs to me, that given voters' ID numbers and their votes, an algorithm can be encoded to provide a crypto "serial #" that can be decoded to the voter's actual vote. Only the specific algorithm and secret key can authentically decode the serial #.

The voter would only need to verify that the serial number and voter ID number match on the website. The voters can be assured that their actual vote will count as long as that number is consistent. But they're not provided any specific information that can be used as proof of a specific vote.

-dex

The problem with such a system (if I understand it correctly you want to make a hash that can be compared) is that one of the security checks is that when the person initially votes on the machine they can verify that the vote printed off for them matches how they actually voted. If you use a hash there is no easy way while in the voting station to ensure that pulling the lever for someone actually registered that someone on the piece of paper. Your voting receipt (for lack of a better term) needs to be easily verified on the spot.

As far as selling votes goes, that already happens and it carries a huge penalty. If votes are overtly sold already existing laws would be sufficient to prosecute offenders.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why try so hard to re-invent the wheel?
Paper ballots dropped into a locked box which is only unlocked and counted before witnesses doesn't require a lot of money. No need to make it rocket science, just take the machines out of the picture. Or---if you must have a machine---have an optical scanner through which the ballots are fed to check the human counts. Again, with human observers.

Sure humans are corruptible but with enough honest humans observing, it will much easier to catch a human cheating than to catch a machine that has been programmed to cover the corruption.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Aazadan

Why try so hard to re-invent the wheel?
Paper ballots dropped into a locked box which is only unlocked and counted before witnesses doesn't require a lot of money. No need to make it rocket science, just take the machines out of the picture. Or---if you must have a machine---have an optical scanner through which the ballots are fed to check the human counts. Again, with human observers.

Sure humans are corruptible but with enough honest humans observing, it will much easier to catch a human cheating than to catch a machine that has been programmed to cover the corruption.

Even carbon copied ballets would be better than what we have now. Police should be stationed or Brinks security guards at each polling place. The boxes with the votes are secured after the polls close and are counted the old fashioned way..mark one issued hand and eye balls.. under video surveillance. If a fraud attempt is report play back the tape of the process.. Whatever... this system we presently have is to open for corruption. Even Russia's Stalin knew it was who counted the votes that mattered, not those who voted.

a reply to: Shuye

I think HBO ran a special about this electronic hacking some years back. On its best day, politics are rotten. This shows just how rotten.

a reply to: Salander




I believe this is what you are referring to. This clip is the guts of the documentary.

originally posted by: AlteredDimensions
a reply to: 727Sky

I actually like the electronic voting machines if they can be secured properly.

I have every qualification and skill required to make an authoritative and definitive statement on this topic. The fact is there is not and never will be a way to secure electronic voting. There are so many ways to corrupt the vote without anyone knowing. It can be done through the electronics in the machine. it can be done in the programming of the machine, the memory card, or it can be done in the communications. The machine can be made to act one way at one time and through a secret trigger that no one would find be flagged to operate another way. It comes down to the fact that if there is no way to verify the vote afterwards then the electronic vote cannot be trusted. A paper trail that can be certified from the hands of the voter to the counting process is the only way.

I am certain that I could corrupt an electronic voting machine in ways no one would ever find. Understand that I have degrees in electronics and computer science. I understand how every electron flows in that machine and why.

a reply to: ArJunaBug
Thank you for your post. That is exactly what I've been told by numerous experts in the field who have absolutely no reason to lie.
We were bamboozled into thinking along the lines of: "Humans can lie and cheat, machines can't." As a matter of fact those were the exactly words of our county clerk when I brought evidence to them of vote tampering in the '90s. There were at least eight people in my neighborhood, all of them well known to me, who were supporting a third party candidate in a Senate election. We dutifully took ourselves to the polls and cast our ballots and yet when the precinct totals were announced, that candidate got only two votes. All eight of us signed sworn affidavits and took them to the clerk where we were met with disbelief and the clerk basically accusing us of dishonesty because he was too damned dumb to know that machines could be corrupted.
That incident began my campaign to get our county returned to paper ballots. It took almost ten years but now we vote on paper ballots which can be verified.

a reply to: 727Sky
This was the biggest story about American democracy in US history, in my opinion, yet nothing happened! What have we learned from this? Why hasn’t this story gone viral 12-15 years ago?

Imagine how different this world could have been if Al Gore became president in 2000. At least he would have been too busy to make “The Inconvenient Truth”.

originally posted by: Schmoe1223
This is precisely why I don't even bother partaking in the sham that is U.S. politics.

And for the "don't vote? Don't complain" crowd, keep on sheepin' on.

Apathy is what got us to this point. Don’t give up, keep reading and learning. Try participating in local elections and issues close to your home. I have been where you are and have done exactly what I just suggested. It does help, a little.

a reply to: Aazadan

The problem with such a system (if I understand it correctly you want to make a hash that can be compared) is that one of the security checks is that when the person initially votes on the machine they can verify that the vote printed off for them matches how they actually voted. If you use a hash there is no easy way while in the voting station to ensure that pulling the lever for someone actually registered that someone on the piece of paper. Your voting receipt (for lack of a better term) needs to be easily verified on the spot.

The cryptographic technique I have in mind is using asymmetric encryption on a small cleartext token that encodes the voter's selections. By using a public/private key algorithm, only the main vote accounting system is able to decrypt the token to get the actual vote selection. In the event the voting machine is compromised, it would still not be possible to decrypt the vote tokens.

However, I understand your point. If I understand correctly, you are saying: If the voter lacks trust in the voting machine itself, then having an indecipherable code as proof of their vote selection has no meaning to the voter.

Ultimately all of this boils down to voters' "trust" of the voting system. For the voter, this means personal trust of the election system itself. For our purposes here, let's say that trust refers to a voter's confidence that the vote they cast is what is ultimately recorded in the election process.

However, in information security the term trust has a specific meaning.

For purposes of defining a trusted voting system, "trust" is the notion that the system can't be compromised. Typically this is accomplished through the use of both cryptography and physical security. Physical security is obvious; an attacker should not be able to surreptitiously gain access to the system, or any of its component elements, for the purpose of subverting the official vote. Cryptography is used to internally verify that end-to-end trust has been maintained. Any attempt at digital subversion will be detected and the vote selections will be discarded.

In the case of your system design, this end-to-end protection is provided by the voters themselves. They make the vote selection and verify that their selection is properly recorded in the database. At that point the only elements of information security trust necessary are in the database system itself and the way the vote totals are calculated. However, even that acceptance requires some personal trust of the higher level vote administrators.

In the case of an end-to-end digital voting system, i.e., one that doesn't offer the voter the ability to verify the veracity of their own vote, the voter has to personally trust the election system at all levels. However, if the high level officials, already personally trusted by the voters out of necessity, define how the voting system is to function from an informational security perspective, then that personal trust should be able to be extrapolated to the system as a whole.

In summary I’ve discussed the concept of an end-to-end “trusted” digital voting system for the sole purpose of maintaining a Secret Ballot. The Secret Ballot has been practiced in nearly every election in the US, at all levels, since the late 19th and early 20th century.

As far as selling votes goes, that already happens and it carries a huge penalty. If votes are overtly sold already existing laws would be sufficient to prosecute offenders.

Well, from that perspective there are also a number of laws in place that carry huge penalties for any type of voter fraud. That includes digital vote system tampering. If the lack of fear, on the part of the perpetrator, of the legal ramifications of voter fraud from system tampering, it seems unlikely to have any deterrent effect on vote buyers. And, in fact, it is potentially more profitable for the perpetrator to control the voting process from the perspective of the voters themselves.

In vote buying, Electoral Surveillance is the process used by the perpetrator to verify that a voter has voted in the manner in which they have been instructed. With a secret ballot this is much more difficult because the voter has no proof of how they voted. So the perpetrator may have to trust the voter. In essence this makes the vote less valuable. On the other hand, if the voter has proof of how they voted, then the vote is much more valuable.

The issue of a more valuable vote goes beyond its remunerative value however. A provable vote selection can now also be used as leverage for the perpetrator in terms of threats. A voter can be threatened into voting in a way that is advantageous to the perpetrator.

This paper provides an interesting model concerning vote buying.

This paper is quite interesting as it discusses the concept of vote buying from a market perspective.

This link from the Washington Post looks at the practice of selling votes as part of modern election fraud.

In summary, there is a valid reason for the so-called “Secret Ballot.” In providing non-reputable evidence of a voter’s selection, that vote can now be used more easily by a perpetrator by obtain the election result they desire.

-dex

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Hacking Democracy

I'm sure there is a full version of the doc which is easy to find. I'm on mobile, otherwise I'd post the YouTube video which shows the demonstration of the Diebold machine being hacked, in the doc.

Here it is.

I got about half way through and had to stop. I think I'll do something else for awhile to cool off. It would be interesting to fact check the names in that doc and maybe look up what some of them are doing now, like Bev Harris at BlackBoxVoting.org
I'm done with this topic for now as it's ruining my day.

Devino:

I just find it hard to believe any politician is looking out for anyone but themselves, from the president to the mayor.

Decisions are influenced not by their own ideology, but by whichever corporation is funding them. Good old fashioned pandering.

Am I any better than those people? Maybe not, but then again I'm not seeking positions of power within a government.