Seriously, do you trust the voting machines??

[kentuck]

I'm not trying to flush out all the conspiracy theorists but what do you think about the integrity of our elections process?

Do "they" know who is going to win ahead of time just by their polls? Who is "they"? The establishment? The "media"? The Republicans?

Or do you think the elections are as fair as they can possibly be?

[niyad]

1. no

[Vincardog]

42. +1 No never will trust them until we have paper ballots and verified counts

[Mimosa]

78. ITA. n/t

[BolivarianHero]

2. Sure I do...

My trust doesn't extend beyond the borders of Brazil and Venezuela though.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

3. As much as I hate to quote Ronald Reagan, the words "Trust, but verify" seem appropriate here.

And since it is impossible to verify the results of these machines, therefore, it is impossible to trust them.

[county worker]

4. No, so I vote by mail.

I would say that most of us can vote without using the machines. Go to your county voting place and request an absentee ballot. Fill it out right there and give it back to them. Do it now!

[BeFree]

7. heh

When you send in your ballot, the people at the office run it through a machine.

Your vote is counted by a machine.

[county worker]

10. It's not the same kind of machine you vote on at a precinct.

Plus your vote tally can be verified.

[BeFree]

23. You don't know what you are saying

Opscan is opscan. It's how they count paper ballots.

Opscan can be hacked. It took six months of counting in Minnesota to determine the opscan count. 6 months.

Do you know for certain that your votes were counted as cast? Can you verify?

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. If those ballots were counted on by hand, who would pick the those people who count them?

What would be the political affiliation of the person who picks the counters, and what would be the political affiliation of the counters themselves?

How can we ever be sure that our vote is counted as cast?

[BeFree]

31. Right

So who picks the people who program the machines?

Hint: Republicans. Rich republicans.

In the old days, a bipartisan group sat down and counted the ballots in each district. And that happened in thousands upon thousands of districts.

In this new age, a few hand-picked programmers get to count all the votes from sea to shining sea.

Do you get that?

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. I get your point but what I DON'T buy is that in every instance a rich republican picks

the persons who program the machines.

"a few hand-picked programmers get to count all the votes from sea to shining sea" doesn't ring true to me, as a former Registrar of Voters employee.

[BeFree]

36. Who owns the voting machines?

If you owned the machines, would you let your enemies program your machines?

Do you know who owns the voting machine and the programming?

[slackmaster]

110. I already answered that question. cherokeeprogressive lives in California, as do I.

The voting machines in our state are owned by the county governments.

Your mileage may vary, but I am not aware of any state in which voting machines are leased. If you could provide an example of that, it might be interesting for the discussion.

[BeFree]

114. And the programming?

Who owns the software?

Why did you neglect to answer that part of the question?

The ownership question goes to who owns the machines before sold to the counties. The answer is: rich republicans.

[slackmaster]

121. Three steps. On the ES&S systems, the operating system is a version of Microsoft Windows.

Don't worry. The US military runs Windows on some of the computers that it uses to monitor and control high-technology weapons systems. ;-)

I believe some other vendors use open-source operating systems.

The hardware vendor (in this example ES&S or a subcontractor) wrote the base vote tallying system.

Employees of county registrars' offices configure the machines to prepare them for elections.

Until that final programming phase (configuration by county employees), none of the programmers involved have any idea what input events will correspond to votes for Republican candidates.

The ownership question goes to who owns the machines before sold to the counties. The answer is: rich republicans.

So what? Rich republicans own lots of businesses.

[glitch]

123. Can be verified but rarely is. And then there's the gauntlet of the central tabulators...

Lots of dark corners to hijack the machine counted vote on its way to the tally.

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

5. Absolutely not

If our elections aren't real, our nation isn't real.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Hell no and to do so is approaching insane.

[ensho]

8. NO

nt

[Valienteman]

9. Obama hasn't complained about voting machines

I don't know how accurate they are, but if there were something wrong going on with them President Obama would have protested, don't you guys think?

[kentuck]

11. Do you think Obama is God??

Or do you think that we think Obama is God?

[Valienteman]

17. I think you don't need God-like powers to complain about voting machines

It's easy. The President would be affected by Republicans taking control of seats that Democrats won. If he sensed fraud, do you think he would shut his mouth? Or use hi influence by asking a machine fix or replacement?

[valerief]

24. How do you know he hasn't? Because it's not in the media? Neither were

the antiwar marches with millions of people.

[awoke_in_2003]

118. he is part of the system now...

the dems could have run a chimp in 2008 and it would have won. The republicans threw the election- why do you think McCain was chosen as the candidate. They knew the chickens were coming home to roost, and wanted to make sure they had a democratic president to place the blame on. Reminiscent of Carter.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. No.

[HopeHoops]

13. That's a rhetorical question, right?

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

14. I trust any machine to do exactly what it was designed and configured to do, IF...

...the machine is in good working order and in the operating environment for which it was designed. For machines that run on electrical power, the power supply must be of the proper voltage level and quality.

I don't trust machines that are damaged or have not been properly maintained, or are not operating in the proper conditions.

I don't trust people much.

[BeFree]

26. Who programs these machines?

People, right? What people? Do we know who these people are?

[slackmaster]

33. Just like all the sentient beings who handle paper ballots and mail-in ballots, they are people

Programming falls under the main heading of "Configuration".

[BeFree]

34. So, You don't have a clue?

I can name my election officials, but I don't have a clue who the actual programmers are.

Well, one clue: They are paid by rich republicans who own the voting machines.

But you knew that, right?

[slackmaster]

37. In California, the machines are owned by the government entities that deploy them, i.e. counties

The people who configure the machines for elections (and test them and certify them) work for the county registrars of voters; but you are correct, I can't name them.

As long as a voting machine produces a paper audit trail that can be seen by the voter and is kept in proper custody, there is nothing wrong with using machines for voting.

Here is a link to the state of California's requirements for new voting systems:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/cert-and-approval/vsysapproval/vs-conditions.htm

[BeFree]

38. Nothing wrong?

Do you know many machines used in the 2004 election, like some in California, have been outlawed since then?

And you have NOT answered the direct question about who the programmers are.
Is that an intentional ignorance, or harboring a hidden agenda?

[slackmaster]

39. I believe I answered your question about the programmers, and I'll answer it again

They're county employees, and I can't name even one of them.

Is that an intentional ignorance, or harboring a hidden agenda?

You really have a problem with hostile behavior here.

[BeFree]

40. Correction

You said those who configure the machines.

You claim to be an expert, so you should know programming and configuring are not what we are talking about.

The programmers of the machines are hired by the owners of the machines.
And they will not allow you to look at the programming code.

Let me repeat that:

And they will not allow you to look at the programming code.

Are we straight on that?

[slackmaster]

41. "Configuring" is a subset of "programming" when dealing with a configurable data entry system

The programmers of the machines are hired by the owners of the machines.
And they will not allow you to look at the programming code.

The people who program the base systems work for the manufacturers, not for the counties that own them; but voting machines certified to be used in California elections have been subjected to full source code reviews, penetration tests, etc. For deployment in actual elections, they are configured by county employees, and extensively tested to make sure they are working properly. State law prohibits connecting them to the Internet at any time.

Let me repeat that:

And they will not allow you to look at the programming code.

Are we straight on that?

Your statement may be true for some states, but not for California.

[BeFree]

43. Finally

You admit"The people who program the base systems work for the manufacturers"

It took a few posts but you did get around to it.

Now, as to the idea that the source code can be examined, can you show one case where that has actually occurred?

This would be news, if true. As far as I know, judges have turned down every instance of plaintiffs requesting any such examination of the source code.

[slackmaster]

44. Are you suggesting that our good Democratic Secretary of State cannot be trusted to follow the law?

You've got to be kidding.



This would be news, if true. As far as I know, judges have turned down every instance of plaintiffs requesting any such examination of the source code.

No voting system can be certified for use in any California election until the source code has been audited by the state.

[U4ikLefty]

115. What do you trust guns to do?

Just like voting machines, it is who controls the mechanism.

I see that you are in conflict with most progressives AGAIN...what a surprise.

[slackmaster]

127. What part of "exactly as it was... ...configured to do" in my post was not clear to you?

I see that you are in conflict with most progressives AGAIN...what a surprise.

Is English your native language, U4ikLefty? Do you understand that configuring a voting machine is a task that is done by a human?

Why are you trying to make this into some kind of personal issue, with your snotty little innuendo about what you (apparently incorrectly) think my opinion is vs. what you believe "progressives" think?

Does the concept of "civility" have any meaning for you?

[U4ikLefty]

130. I see that you reside in San Diego where they take home the voting machines.

Why would I want to get personal with you?

You have nothing to add, unless it's "yay guns & conservative values!"

[slackmaster]

131. What do the San Diego County Registrar of Voters' procedures for a few remote polling places have...

...to do with anything in this discussion? There is no evidence that having a few machines sent to polling places the night before an election have ever led to inaccurate or fraudulent votes.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

You have nothing to add, unless it's "yay guns & conservative values!"

I think I've contributed a lot to this thread. You have not. All you have done is fail to comprehend one of my replies, and attempt to cover your mistake by trying to smear me.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-spite.html

[glitch]

124. Then you must love the machines' ownership, programming and testing (or lack).

"I don't trust people much"

[slackmaster]

128. Please see reply #12

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

15. NO. One more means for the corporations to take over the nation.

Not only can they make a profit on elections themselves, but can control the outcome for their own benefit in the long run as well.

[Tippy]

16. K&R.....Integrity and elections process

Should not be used in the same sentence, especially if that process is happening in TN....It is the process we have to live with but not by choice..If only Democrats in the Stagte Legislature would not have decided to go along with Republicans we would have bee voting on new machines "with a paper trail"...but Dems here have got their noses stuck so far up republicans ass-h-les voting dems don't have a chance...If the machines arn't broke, or, the republicans don't know how to turn them on...it is just one excuse after another but it boils down to election theft....

[AsahinaKimi]

18. One word: Diebolt...

No. Thats why I send in a paper ballot.

[lame54]

19. no

[bobbolink]

20. You're asking "seriously", but a serious answer is going to equate to

"conspiracy theorists".

Then people wonder why so many of us have given up.

[kentuck]

29. Sorry.

That is deeper than I intended.

[bobbolink]

32. Thank you. There is plenty of unrefutable evidence, which the Dem party refuses to recognize,

that the machines are hackable, and that, in fact, HAVE been hacked.

Robert Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone was quite clear on that.

So, if he is a "conspiracy theorist", then there is no point in asking the question.

If he is not... if you consider him "serious", then the answer is clear.

The answer is that the machines are rigged, and the party refuses to admit it, or even allow it to be discussed.

[littlewolf]

21. NO I do not trust voting machines ...

I trust paper ballots ....

there are too many problems associated with them ....
esp the touch screens ... the old time lever ones ... not as many problems
and they provided a paper trail for any recounts ....

touch screens ... I do not trust them at all ...
in NC they are dealing with problems of vote switching ... not sure
about other states ....

[BeFree]

48. Paper ballots are machine counted

By Optical Scanners, or Opscans.

There is a code that is used by the machines and that code cannot be examined for defects, even in cases where a clear defect in the count has occurred, as happened in the Sarasota County 2006 election.

So you are wise to not trust the outcome from the machines.

[littlewolf]

71. however a paper ballot can be hand counted

not true of an electronic one ....

[slackmaster]

129. The only electronic voting machines that are acceptable to me are ones that produce a human-readable

...paper audit tape that can be seen by the voter at the time each ballot is cast.

[valerief]

22. NO NO NO NO NO. nt

[Iggo]

25. Of course not.

[old guy]

27. No.

[wand94nard]

30. No.

No - I work in IT, and all electronic data is subject to manipulation.

I will not vote on a electronic machine unless it provides a hard copy of my vote.

[SalviaBlue]

45. no

[BootinUp]

46. I think the recommendations from the Carter led commission

on elections were very good. As I recall, they did not say electronic voting was the real problem, although they did recommend some changes to them. Basically I do not see the electronic voting as the biggest issue to fair elections.

[BeFree]

50. So?

You do trust the voting machines?

Did you know the real computer experts don't?

[BootinUp]

53. I think slackmaster did a good job on this subject

I think you should re-read his replies they were quite good.

I will add this for clarification of my main point. The number of errors in voting systems and their effect on the results is more than likely quite small compared to other election problems in terms of how well the whole election process works. Furthermore, I do not believe it is in the interest of any political party or vote machine manufacturer to put something out there that anybody can fuck with. Ok?

[BeFree]

58. Hahaha

You're funny

"I do not believe it is in the interest of any political party or vote machine manufacturer to put something out there that anybody can fuck with."

The evidence shows that they have done just that. The evidence.

[BootinUp]

60. Machine integrity

costs money, the machines will only be as good as the investment of time and money that goes into them. If the customer has low standards and is willing to buy shit then that is what the supplier will provide.

[BeFree]

61. Do you remember HAVA?

Do you know how much HAVA spent on the machines? Any idea at all?

[BootinUp]

62. I expressed my opinion already

I knew it wouldn't be that popular here. Please continue your discussion.

[BeFree]

64. So, you don't know what HAVA did?

And you do see how your opinion is just an opinion?

An opinion not based on evidence or really any basis at all except the old:
"They wouldn't steal our votes" copout.

[BootinUp]

66. .

:wtf:

[BeFree]

68. HAVA

Help America Vote Act...HAVA

Passed in 2001 by the republican controlled congress and shepherded by Tom Delay, HAVA appropriated $4.5 Billion for the purchase of electronic voting machines.

So, your opinion about the $$ for the machines is now shown to be quite without basis, as the HAVA act was the largest single disbursement ever for counting votes.

As the president of Diebold said in 2004: "We will do everything we can to see that bush is re-elected."

[BeFree]

84. Crickets?

All I hear is crickets and not a peep about HAVA?

[kentuck]

47. It seems it would be so easy to monitor?

Most polling places, you can count the people that come into vote and whether they vote as a Democrat or a Republican. If there are wide variances, then it should be audited. There are really not that many people that show up at my polling place. There would be no problem with counting the votes. It could done in 5-10 minutes. Usually, when votes are counted, there are reps from each Party there to verify the count.

[BeFree]

49. Monitor the machines?

Like you say, it can easily be done.

So.... do you know of how many places actually do an audit?

And what percentage of the ballots are actually audited?

Most state laws call for one precinct in each county to be audited, or 2 % of ALL the ballots.

Well, they did such an audit in my county and found a 5% discrepancy. And you know what they did about it? Nothing.

[kentuck]

51. 5% discrepancy would not be acceptable..

All the machines would need to be audited.

[BeFree]

55. Yep

So I asked them what they were gonna do, and they said "Nothing".

"We trust the machines" they said.

So what can we do? Like you said: All the machines need to be audited.

We can audit the paper ballots, but we can't audit the touchscreens. So, first we get rid of the touchscreens and then we audit all the machines. Then we can have trust. But not until then.

[grahamhgreen]

52. No. They have been proven to flip votes and be easily hackable.

[Bozita]

54. Last night, Dan Rather Reports on HDNet was all about electronic voting

I don't know if it's available online, but it certainly was worth an hour of my time.

[Bozita]

83. Link to the complete video ...

http://www.hd.net/danrather.html

[DCKit]

56. No. But they can only steal a certain percentage of votes.

I will maintain for all time that President Obama had to win by 15% to receive an "official" 2% win.

The first time there has to be a re-vote because the people won't accept the result, their game will be over and we will, once again, have verified voting. It should put a serious crimp in some of the older tactics too when voters lose their patience for these UnAmerican games.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. I've never used a voting machine, and will not do so

Of course nothing is as fair as it can be, but one fact that can not be stressed enough is that we do not vote nationally, we vote in our States. Not an electronic ballot in my entire State. I get to make and keep a copy if I want. I am in fact voting right now, hang on. There, I just now voted for DeFazio, between phrases in this post.
Not that Oregon has a perfect system, but it is not the same system as you have. Only residents of a State can really change the way voting is done, and none of us can do the whole nation.
So do I trust the voting machines in other States? Not at all. The counting machines here? Somewhat.

[BeFree]

63. Mail in ballot? Machine counted.

You are wise to "somewhat" trust how your vote is counted.

What percent of the ballots are audited in your state? 2% in mine.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

59. No.

[philly_bob]

65. No. Programmers can put in trap doors. /nt

[dkofos]

67. NO

[Stinky The Clown]

69. I firmly believe US elections *can* be rigged. I don't think they are *generally* rigged.

I believe there was enough jiggering in Florida in 2000 that Bush was able to steal it. Apart from Florida, I would be harder pressed to think there was election theft down ballot anywhere.

I believe Ohio was screwed around with in 2004, but to a lesser degree than was Florida. I think the rest of the US elections were generally fair.

I believe 2006 was generally fair.

I believe 2008 was generally fair.

I believe 2010 will likely be fair.

I am in no way saying that election theft is impossible. I believe it is *very* possible. But I think people are more aware and watching more closely. I think more safeguards are in place.

I do not advise complacency.

Who are "they?" They are the owners.

[BeFree]

70. 2004 election

Before there was any established rejection of the e-voting, Repubs in 2002 and 2004 swept the congress and then the WH.

The experts on polling couldn't believe it, the polls had showed Kerry winning.

The exit polls for the first time ever were way out of line with the recorded counts.

It sure seems to have been rigged. It was possible for the election to have been rigged and the folks in power have been shown to be quite adept at rigging deceptions and grabbing power any way possible.

When you add it all up, they had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to steal the election.

[DefenseLawyer]

72. No. n/t

[AnArmyVeteran]

73. I just early voted and I have no idea if my vote was counted.

With punch cards I always felt fairly secure my vote would be counted. At least there was physical evidence of my vote. But now I have almost zero confidence in the electronic voting system. The only thing I have is a piece of paper with an access code I needed to cast my vote, but no record of my vote exists.

The electronic machines were different from two years ago and I could see where a lot of people could be confused or overwhelmed with their operation. I thought if someone wasn't very computer literate they might not select the correct candidate or even have their vote counted.

I live in Texas and my town is mostly republican. When I walked into the polling area I presented my voter's registration card but no one checked to verify if I was the person on the card. I've always been asked for my driver's license in the past. I don't know if the rules have changed but I was surprised when I didn't have to prove I was the person on my registration card. Any male could have used my registration card to vote.

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, while I felt good about voting for every democrat on the ballot I also left wondering if my vote will ever be counted. I believe purely electronic voting machines need to be replaced with ones that produced a verifiable paper trail. Without physical evidence no one can be certain their votes were counted. The access code printed on a small piece of paper is 1929. That's the only 'proof' I voted. I thought, even in 1929 there was a paper trail, but not in this modern world.

A great site explaining the history of voting is at the link below:
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/pictures/

[BeFree]

74. What can you do?

Do like I and so many others did in my state.

Make sure the election laws outlaw the paperless machines.

That is the first step.

After 2004, I walked into my election official's office and told them that was the last time I was going to vote on that DRE. And it was.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

75. No with a caveat --

I do not trust any electronic voting machine that does not have a backup paper ballot that can be hand tabulated if necessary. My county uses Optiscan - it's not perfect but I am a smidge more comfortable with it becasue of the hard copy.

[LanternWaste]

76. I trust the machines...

I trust the machines to a much lesser degree than I trust voting by paper ballot w/ pen by my own hand.

Non-specialized oversight has a much more effective and efficient time tracing (if and when necc.) the paper ballot trail than the e-trail (as per the February 14, 2005; May 2, 2005; May 26, 2005 and December 13, 2005 tests on Diebold machines (see Vanity Fair: Hack the Vote; April 1, 2004 by Michael Shnayerson and Technology Daily: States Still Concerned About New Voting Equipment, May 30, 2006)).

[pokerfan]

77. Voting should be open source

In fact if anything in the world has ever cried out for the open source approach it's electronic voting.

OVC will not run your elections for you. OVC will provide jurisdictions with tools enabling them to run their own elections in a secure, verifiable, accessible, and transparent manner -- very affordable, too. The People will own the hardware. The People will own the software. Together, we will exemplify the concept of Self Governance.

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org">Open Source Voting: Accurate, Accountable

While critics in the United States grow more concerned each day about the insecurity of electronic voting machines, Australians designed a system two years ago that addressed and eased most of those concerns: They chose to make the software running their system completely open to public scrutiny.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61045">Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting

[BeFree]

82. Who owns the source code we use now?

Open source is a very good step. Will the republicans allow it?

[pokerfan]

90. Premier Election Solutions

The wiki is worth reading to get up to speed:

# 2 Controversy
* 2.1 O'Dell's fundraising
* 2.2 Security and concealment issues
* 2.3 States rejecting Diebold
* 2.4 Leaked memos
* 2.5 Stephen Heller (whistleblower)
* 2.6 Diebold and Kenneth Blackwell's conflict of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions

[Motown_Johnny]

79. nope, there should always be a paper trail. Without one there is no reason to trust

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

81. Well

That is the biggest fear with these machines:

The machines are so easily rigged, it is just a matter of time before the corruption totally determines who gets elected.

Such a system has no place in a democracy. Our votes should be protected from corruption. But our votes are not protected from corruption.

[Skittles]

85. LOL, no programmer would trust those fucking machines

absolutely NOT

[BootinUp]

87. But they trust code used for financial transactions all the time.

that they never see. Fail.

[Skittles]

89. you see the RESULTS from their transactions

if they tell me I have so much money in my account, I can go REQUEST that money - it's easily provable, or when I pay a bill online, I will surely hear from the other party if the transaction did not actually happen - but when they say SOMEONE WON an election, how are we to know who really won??? So, FAIL ON YOU.

[BootinUp]

91. Ballots are anonymous

whether they are paper or digital. There is no way to go back to the government and say show me my ballot was counted. Its a ridiculous argument.

Paper ballots can be miscounted, lost, destroyed, etc.
Voters can fill out paper ballots incorrectly, where machines can validate it is properly filled out.

Certain voting machines that make punches for example can malfunction.

There are many possible problems with any voting system, they all can work if implemented well.

[Skittles]

100. programming code in voting machines should be vetted

[BeFree]

92. "" But they trust code used for financial transactions all the time.""

Ah, but the code used by banks is open source.

What source code is used by the ES&S machines?

Is it open source or a private company's secret code?

[BootinUp]

95. I don't think that is correct.

about banks using open source code. AFAIK most financial software is proprietary.

[BeFree]

96. Ahhh, I see

You really don't know much about this matter? Just kinda flying off the handle, eh?

Each bank can look at the code so that they can trace errors. That means it is Open source.

The code may be owned by a single company, but every bank can look at the code.

Not so with most voting machines. Judges have told plaintiffs that they can't look at the voting machine code to uncover errors.

[BootinUp]

98. you don't seem to know what open source means.

Banks may hire programmers to write code that the bank will own. That is not called "open source".

If a bank has a contract with a company they buy software from that allows them some access to the code that is one thing. A State Gov. could make the same deal with certain confidentiality protections I am sure.

The company selling software has to convince the customer they are buying are tested or certified product. If a State Gov buys untested crap its on them.

[BeFree]

99. Banks use open source software.

They can hire their own programmers to tinker with the code and examine and change it when they find faults. It is open code.

Do you have a clue that ATM's have open code use?

But you are right, the crap software that states buy is crap, and it should not be used to count our votes.

Do you know what HAVA means?

[slackmaster]

107. Typical core banking systems are not open source

A typical modern bank buys its software from a major vendor like Oracle or SAP or IBM any of dozens of other providers, and runs it on a commercial, proprietary Unix system. The source code for some of the systems may be available to the customers (i.e. banks) so that they can tweak it to fit their needs, but it's by no means open source software.

Things have changed a lot since I did my eight years as an information systems analyst for a bank, but open source banking software, which is certainly available, is not the norm for brick-and-mortar banks including ATM systems.

There is at least one major bank in my area that still runs its core systems on IBM mainframes. I know people who are still writing 370 assembler code for that company.

[BeFree]

111. well

There is either closed secret source that no one can examine without permission, or there is open source that can be examined openly and legally.

The question is: should we use open source code for our voting machines, or stick to the private code?

Should the code which is used to count our votes be a secret, or should it be a code that can be examined openly?

[slackmaster]

112. Open source would be fine, but it's not necessary if state law requires the code to be disclosed

As it is in California.

There is either closed secret source that no one can examine without permission, or there is open source that can be examined openly and legally.

The example of California makes that statement a false dilemma.

[BeFree]

113. How many machines in California?

Is it possible to be sure every machine has the same exact code? And that the code on every machine has been certified?

[slackmaster]

122. Here is a link to the Secretary of State's Web site

I don't know what specific procedures and controls are used to ensure that the machines are all programmed correctly and in good working order. Please direct any questions you can't figure out for yourself to Debra Bowen.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/

[glitch]

126. Bank ATM transactions are AUDITED all the time. Voting transactions are rarely audited.

System Fail. You might try a reboot, but it could be serious. ;)

[Posteritatis]

86. The only voting machine I trust is a pen. (nt)

[fascisthunter]

88. HELL NO!

[Lucian]

93. Absolutely not.

[csziggy]

94. I do but ONLY because I trust my supervisor of elections

Ion Sancho has been a leading voice in pushing for voting methods that can be audited and verified. Once he decides to retire, how much I will trust the machines in use at that time will depend entirely on whoever takes his place.

I will not vote on a touch screen machine - ever. Our county uses optical scanner with paper ballots, so even if the machines can't be trusted, the ballots can be hand counted.

And that is NOT the way a democracy should be run, dependent on a single individual to make sure the system is accountable. Our systems should be transparent and trustworthy no matter who is in office at the moment.

[BeFree]

97. Ion is a hero

He has been a great protector of the vote.

He was almost fired at one point for doing so.

What you say is true: being able to hand count the ballots is protection. But I, and others, have been told we can't see the ballots even well after an election.

Or, as has happened in 2004 Ohio, paper ballots have been thrown away.

[csziggy]

102. After the 2000 election, Ion posted PDFs with scans of all the ballots

Not counted by the optical scanners. Those images made clear why some were counted when looked at in the recount and why others were not. Ion has fought to keep the right for Floridians to hand count ballots.

You see, Ion was elected after a botched election and swore over twenty years ago to keep our elections fair and transparent. Back in the 80s when the woman who had been supervisor of elections decided to retire 30 minutes before closing time for filing, her son was the only candidate to qualify. No one thought he would be a problem - he had been working in the office for years - so no one worried about him running unopposed. The first election he ran was a complete nightmare. The lever machines were screwed up, ballots not aligned so no one was sure who they were voting for, and some of the vote totals were not consistent with the number of voters who had signed in. THAT was the precedent for not 're-doing' an election that was cited in Gore vs. Bush.

Ion ran against the incompetent the next possible election , immediately changed the machines to optical scanners - at the time very advanced machines - and has run very clean, easily audited elections ever since.

We here in Leon County raised hell when the voting machine manufacturers tried to have Ion impeached - that is why Jeb chickened out and stopped it.

I dread the day when he decides to retire.

[demodonkey]

101. Please donate a few bucks to the election integrity group of your choice...

...especially your local or state-based group fighting for better voting systems and to get rid of the bad voting machines.

While billions are going to the campaigns, lot of our local and state election integrity organizations are struggling, But if there is a voting machine meltdown we are the ones who will be on the front line doing the leg work and digging for answers. And we are the groups best able to turn these machines around state by state and county by county.

We have had a lot of success since 2004, but we have a long way to go. Election integrity groups really need support. Please help.

[madmax]

103. No nt

[sonias]

104. Never have and never will

Especially the completely paperless pieces of crap we use in Texas!

:puke:

[donheld]

105. kentuck, I'm as paranoid about ALL of it as it gets.

I didn't even trust the post office to deliever my mail in ballot. I took it to the election commision myself. Still, I worry something with screw it up.

[defendandprotect]

106. No .... but why aren't Democrats asking us that question .... ?

[slackmaster]

108. Democrats must be in on the Conspiracy

If shrinking the Conspiracy to a handful of corrupt programmers serving their evil wealthy Republican masters by writing software so fiendishly clever that it always tilts the results toward the GOP side no matter how the machines are configured and in a way that can't be caught during pre-election tests or verified in post-election tests doesn't explain things, you can always follow BeFree's lead and expand the Conspiracy to include prominent Democrats like California's Secretary of State, Debra Bowen and everyone who works in her department, plus all of the county registrar staff who configure and test the machines.

[shanti]

109. N.O.

that would be NO!

[glinda]

116. Paper ballots. I have no trust in the machines and some of the people there also.

[awoke_in_2003]

117. not one bit...

when the company that makes cash registers for the place I buy tacos at (which can produce a receipt) says they cannot make a voting machine that can produce a receipt, well, I have no trust.

[McCamy Taylor]

119. There were ways to undercount votes BEFORE e-voting.

Voter suppression is probably a bigger problem.

[glitch]

125. One does not preclude the other.

And the machine rigging is much easier, far more efficient for the corporate bottomline.

[Rex]

120. NO.

Sorry but that was forever ruined for me in 2000. I will never trust the govt or the assholes that run the dam thing ever again. From now on my vote is like social security, I expect it to matter but doubt it will.