Electronic Voting Systems Pass Their Big Test -- Maybe

[seemslikeadream]

Vendors say election validates technology; critics not convinced

News Story by Dan Verton and Patrick Thibodeau

NOVEMBER 08, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD) - Electronic voting systems avoided the virtual meltdown that some people had predicted during last Tuesday's election. But critics said the technology still has significant shortcomings that raise questions about the validity of the results tabulated by the machines.
Officials in various states said they encountered relatively minor glitches, such as a North Carolina county's inability to account for about 4,500 ballots cast on touch-screen systems. Nonetheless, the apparently largely successful use of the 175,000 or so e-voting systems deployed throughout much of the U.S. led proponents to call the election a validation of the technology.

"Electronic voting machines took an important test on Nov. 2 and passed with flying colors," said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, an IT industry lobbying group in Arlington, Va.

Britt Kauffman, president and CEO of Austin-based Hart InterCivic Inc., whose e-Slate touch-screen systems were used in nine states, said all the reports he has seen point to a "relatively smooth Election Day" for the millions of voters who cast electronic ballots.

more
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/story/0,10801,97303,00.html

[VegasWolf]

1. Yes, they worked exactly the way they were programmed to! n/t

[Redleg]

12. LOL!

Well stated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. If you are a fasit of course they passed their test

sure, they did

I will not trust this system until it is gone from the face of the earth, i mean the computer voting machines

[LynzM]

3. Oh, Bullshit.

86,000 extra votes is not a 'relatively minor glitch', in my book. Any programmer could tell you that. Damn. What is our media smoking??

[glitch]

4. Until they verify the return with random handcounts of complete precints

I remain disdainful.

[Redleg]

13. Good point. They are playing us for rubes.

And rubes we ain't.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Machines may have passed or not, but seems likely tabulators failed.

The machines that recorded votes may or may not have passed (there have been problems reported), but the issue of the tabulators is still open.

It seems that the tabulators are the weak link and easier to "fix" or hack. Kind of a Rovian strategy perhaps, look at these funky voting machines so that you don't notice the man behind the curtain diddling the tabulations.

[stellanoir]

6. funny how the manufacturers of these machines

sing their praises. Contrary to we who have seen these problems loomings for so long.

Go figure. . .

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Gee, you mean an industry lobbying group says they are OK?

Well, what were we thinking to question them then!! :eyes:

[VegasWolf]

8. There wil NEVER be another free election in this country until

the federal government mandates federal audit rules
for "voting machines". Incrementing a counter is
not exactly rocket science.

[intheflow]

18. And if every ATM can give me a receipt

why can't my government?

[VegasWolf]

20. I agree, hon. - Having a personal receipt I think is a

big part of the equation needed for a true auditable
return. Carrying away personal proof of how you voted
is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. But this coupled
with a publically accessable database indexed by receipt
identification number would provide a validation system.

[foo_bar]

25. why is it necessary?

The secret ballot is the simplest and most widespread measure to ensure that political views are not known to anyone other than s/he voting - it is nearly universal in modern democracy, and considered a basic right of citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_privacy

[Kierkegaard]

9. What the fuck planet is this bonehead from?

'...flying colors' my ass. These things couldn't have failed any more miserably if they had all exploded in mid-vote!

[liveoaktx]

10. How would one KNOW if they passed the test? The way to

check them would be to compare the results with a printed audit log that matched ballot receipts.

Here's the problem. Bush stole the election in 2000. As long as even one BBV is used, and no thorough investigation, there will always be those (myself included) who question the legitimacy of his *win*. For anyone honest, he or she would want to know that the public is solidly behind him due to a transparent vote. Bush will never be able to claim that.

[VegasWolf]

11. Exactly, hence the name "black box" voting! n/t

[Zorra]

14. The shit is deeper than even I suspected. Folks, we need to start a

general strike ASAP.

We've been totally sold out.

Campaign to starve the beast thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2600099&mesg_id=2600099

[Kellis]

15. wow

The right wing nuts are working over time to get the word out that the e voting went well!

"Nothing to see here folks!Move on!"

RIGHT!The shit is about to hit the fan on just how UNWELL the voting went.

[Laelth]

16. No doubt.

They stole just enough votes to insure that * and a bunch of Republicans running for the Senate would win. Yeah, they work great!

:mad:

-Laelth

[intheflow]

17. "None of the problems were from machine failures," she said

No, the power remained constant while and the mother boards didn't melt. Great computers! Crappy programming.

[Politicub]

19. Can anyone help me find info about campaign contributions

For the people quoted in the article:

Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, an IT industry lobbying group in Arlington, Va.

Britt Kauffman, president and CEO of Austin-based Hart InterCivic Inc.

Or just tell me where I could maybe look.

Also, we can respond to the writers at:

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

And their editor, Criag Stedman @ [e-mail]

:kick:

[Merlot]

21. Stop BBV reaches the masses...

I'm putting together a website to spread the word to people who are unaware of the problems with BBV.

This site is for people who aren't informed. It's non-partisan. It's all about the issue, not about overturning elections. I feel that this is the best way to reach a broader group of people, without scaring them away.

Check it out and send feedback. I'd like a link to the charts of paper ballots and exit polling if anyone has one.

thanks!

http://www.stopbbv.net

ps I know, it's only my second post here at DU, but I've been reading (lurking?) for years and have learned so much from ya'all!

[bullimiami]

22. Exactly. They were made to destroy democracy.

Working like a charm. Now if the rabble will just shut up and take it theyve got a done deal.

[Brundle_Fly]

23. just listen to this expert....

he knows computers....you do not...nothing to see here...move along...ohhh look fallujah....when you call fraud you embolden the enemy, thats what they want, here's another expert....what...this little glitch...

[noamnety]

24. I sent them this letter

I appreciated your humor piece on technologies that were validated by the election.

Multiple precincts and counties cast more votes than they had voters. Machines lost votes because they had a maximum number of votes defined, and any votes beyond that magic ceiling were dumped. Voters who pushed one candidate had another selected on their screen on multiple machines in 6 different states. Some votes are still locked in the computers' memory banks because they can't get them out for some reason. Thousands of votes in swing states are completely unaccounted for. Some machines began counting votes backwards. Some machines doubled the totals of all the precincts reporting in. Bad programming was blamed for voting errors that flipped the result of at least one local race. Some machines bypassed certain screens entirely when people tried to vote. Machines froze and had to be reset. Votes were lost when battery power was lost in multiple machines. Voting at some precincts came to a standstill when 75% of the machines froze. Those malfunctions and more are documented here: http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp?sort=date&selectstate=ALL&selectproblemtype=Machine+malfunction

It was one of the best pieces of satire I've seen recently, building to the conclusion that the machines have no audit trail whatsoever, we don't know what can go wrong in the machines, anyone can tamper with them without us detecting it, but the main thing is the lines moved quickly. It made me laugh, which is sorely needed when faced with the prospect that we may never have an honest election again in my lifetime.

[HuckleB]

26. OK. So we know who ComputerWorld speaks for...

Sheesh. This is pitiful. Propaganda of the worst kind. Ugh.