How was fraud committed using Opti-Scan and other machines?

[mzmolly]

Is this entire case about "hacking" into a mainframe?

I don't get what it is were looking to find exactly? And, if fraud was committed, would we be able to find out "who" committed it?

I am heartened at the fact that so many are working hard on this...I just don't get the HOW?

So, if somebody could break it down for the simpletons here I for one would appreciate it.

Thanky? :hi:

[txindy]

1. Opti-Scan machines feed totals into a central tabulator

And that tabulator is a simple, easily-hacked, online PC. Just like yours and mine. Feeling secure? ;)

That's all I know about Opti-Scans. I think other methods may have been used on different elec. voting machines. The possibilities seem endless, but NH will help narrow the focus tremendously. I hope.

[mzmolly]

3. Interesting, thanks. Sure sounds like an ignorant method of

securing our voting system.

If nothing else comes of this we need standardized/secure voting in Presidential elections across the nation.

[jhgatiss]

2. The picture that has emerged for me....

I wrote a post about my hypothetical way this was done....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=46887&mesg_id=46887

You can add to that now the evidence that Palm Beach county apparently showed a similar strange skewing of the absentee ballots compared to the actual election day results.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=48981&mesg_id=48981

[mzmolly]

8. Thanks!

And WELCOME :toast:

[Rjnerd]

4. The scanners have

code running in them that is apparently customized for each ballot. (its on proms that get changed). The scanners, while not as tempting a target as the central tabulator (most votes for least hacking) aren't as labor intensive to hack, as they only have one per site, rather than one per booth.

There is a case of "misprogramming" that changed an election result: One district had a "straight democratic party line" vote show up as votes for libertarians.

Luckily, the scanned systems have human readable paper ballots to recount with. So if you are trying to steal an election in a scanned district, you have to steal by enough so that it doesn't trigger an automatic recount.

How did we pass a voting reform that didn't include spot checks -- manually verifying 1% of the precincts, chosen randomly. And how did we continue to allow the head of voting to be an official in the campaign of someone on the ballot.

[mzmolly]

5. Excellent point - I was thinking the same damn thing.

How did we pass a voting reform that didn't include spot checks -- manually verifying 1% of the precincts, chosen randomly. And how did we continue to allow the head of voting to be an official in the campaign of someone on the ballot.

I worked in Banking and we had "AUDITS." The Government had auditors and the banks had internal auditors. There were standards to be followed and if they weren't a bank can be fined or even shut down.

[The Doctor.]

6. The opti-scans reported to a central server...

It would be very easy to get into the spreadsheets and do a simple cut and paste to tamper with the vote.
http://www.workablepeace.org/voting/dirtline.htm
Luckily there are punchcards which can be counted.

The Diebold machines are not so easily checked.

http://www.the7thfire.com/controlling-voting-machines.htm

[mzmolly]

7. Yes, I am sooo thankful for the "paper trails" in Ohio and other places.

I hope like heck that major change happens as a result of the inquriy.