Was the Vote Hacked?

Page not found - Truthout If this is true it is very disturbing.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 19:59 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

scary.what about the "glitch" in ohio? how often do you think that happened? just a small percent of the time would be enough.

Seems everyone enjoys a conspiracy theory.

seeing as how the head of the company that makes the voting machines said he'd do anything to get bush re-ellected, yes, we do.

Is there any way for the average Joe to demand a recount or is it simply a matter of write-your-congressman?Are there any organized movements afoot?

the problem gets a little more complex than just a recount, what we really need is a way to certify that our own vote was counted correctly and get it fixed if not.I've been thinking that all votes should be either provisional or absentee so they all get equally scrutinized.The voter should get a hard copy of his vote and there should be a code number on each ballot so that he can look up his vote in the count and see that it is listed correctly.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I don't know if we need to go that far with regard to being able to identify each vote. The fact is that they have rolls of who could be expected to vote and who actually came in to vote at any particular polling place.To my mind all that is really necessary is that there be one hard copy, which the voter can look at to make sure the vote is correct, before slipping it into the voting box.It is ridiculous that people think it should just be electronic and stored all on computer. Whether or not it had an impact on the federal election or not is not known at this point but we can see it is already screwed up election results in general. I mean over 3000 phantom votes appear for Bush in one polling place, and thousands of e-ballots disappear in a southern state? Case closed.And anytime I hear anyone saying printing out one hardcopy is not necessary, I have to scratch my head and wonder what that person is up to. There is not one logical reason not to create a hard copy for a permanent record.I think that your worry about tying it back to an individual vote might be better served by putting a time/machine stamp on the hard copy. That would allow people to track their own (if for some reason they wanted to) and better still indicate irregularities... like 100 votes coming from one machine in a matter of seconds.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

it's a level of trust that has been brokenthink of the whole hanging chad farce: if the people had a hard copy themselves of what they voted they could bring them in and have their votes counted the way they voted, not some clerk looking at a supposed record, and you would be assured when you get your copy that it is recorded correctly.the brown shirts couln't complain about counting the recorded votes, and the issue would have been settled in a week.yes, we need to go this far.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I agree with getting a hard copy of one's vote, and thankfully it can be printed in unambiguous fashion that would leave chad's back in the 1970's where they belong.My problem is having a number code for each vote and/or a carbon copy for the voter.The problems you have mentioned are taken care of by a hard copy that a voter reviews right there on the spot before depositing the copy in the ballot box. That way the voter knows the ballot is as they desired.If one wanted traceability, then a time and machine# stamp on the ballot will allow tracing. A person can remember the time and machine# as if a code. It would be just as unique without adding a new issue for election officials to worry about, and not allowing a government to track for sure who voted for what based on an individual's code.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Still assumes it is counted as voted and not altered in any way.I want to be able to know that my vote was counted and counted the way I voted it. The only way I can track that is to have a arbitrary random code that only I know when I open my ballot and have a copy of for my personal reference. If you randomly draw a ballot from a pile how can anyone trace you to the number when only you see the number when voting and the official only sees the number when counting but has no idea who voted the ballot?Your machine number and time stamp is easily recorded by any person at the precinct, perhaps with a cam-corder or ... oh I don't know, a "security" camera? Do I want that published?Ever vote by absentee ballot? I did this year ... the ballot had a code number on it so I could check if it was counted. This is not a new system, I just think it should apply to everyone and that we can get extra mileage out of it by using it to actually verify the vote.Would you have any problem with the 2000 election if every person who voted had verified that their vote was properly counted within a week of the vote?Think about it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You seem to be missing the point. You make the vote and it prints a hard copy which you check to make sure is what you wanted, and then deposit it in the ballot box. You can write down the time/machine# if you really want a specific reference.Even if you are given a code, as you suggest, you will have to assume it is counted as you voted. Or you can check records to see what was voted by a machine at a certain time... if that's what you want to do.In general people trust that it is being counted correctly. The first check would be by officials that do a second check of paper vs electronic count. This could be done by automated processes if the hardcopies are printed in a specific (machine readable way). You could then go through a secondary hand check.It is unlikely any official would have to get down to finding a specific person and asking what they voted, or if they did it would be based off the election rolls and not from the specific ballot cast.The time/machine stamp would help officials pinpoint machine or software problems better than a code because as I said it would spot the very problems which happened in Ohio and one of the southern states (I forget which) where machines screwed up votes by the thousand.Its kind of a win win situation. If I want to get that paranoid, I'd have to worry about a code just the same. As it stands we are both publically declaring who we vote for more often than not, so being spotted voting in specific manner isn't exactly scary to me. But for someone that is paranoid, I don't see the time/machine number being any more spottable than a code. Yes, I had to this year. It must vary state by state as I don't remember a code with mine. Absolutely not, but using my method that would also have happened without having to call up each and every person. Unless it was feared people looked at their hardcopy before setting it in the box and couldn't figure out if it's what they wanted or not? That seems unlikely.I'm not saying I'd fight your suggested system. I'm just saying one doesn't have to go to those lengths, creating a code system, when another method is available.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Call up each person? With what information? How can the official know who voted what ballot? All he\she sees are ballots with votes and a randomized code number that they are prevented from correlating with the voter because they don't know which ones the voters get.What I can check is a printed list with the code numbers and the votes and see that yes, my code number lists the vote as I cast it.I know it was counted, and I know the count was correct. I don't have to assume anything: I KNOW it.If the code vote is incorrect I can launch a criminal investigation that still protects my privacy.If the vote is not counted I can contact the election officials and demand to know why.That is a lot more power than anyone has now. And it is good power.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I was trying to make the point they'd have to in order to correlate ballot to correct vote, if you simply gave it a code. But I think I was misunderstanding something.In your scenario you get a code which is in the electronic "vote", the hard copy, and something in your hand (or you write it down)?This is essentially the same thing I am doing with the exception of my method would allow officials to spot problems more clearly.In addition to the time/machine number acting as a code for any particular voter, it would act as a double check on the functioning of the machine. You can do that with a time/machine number too. Same. Ditto.I think you are getting hooked up on... Well that certainly wouldn't be true with absentee ballots now would it?But let's leave that out for a second. You seem to think that an official or someone else hanging around with a camera will be able to find out exactly what you voted if it had a time and machine number on it. But that would not be true.The time does not have to be set at the "real" time. Infact it could just be time of operation. Or each machine could be given random starting times. And no official, or anyone else, needs to know the actual machine number unless problems arise.The problem with creating a code, as you suggest, is that a system would have to be somehow coordinated such that no machine in at least every polling place, if not in every county, cannot give out an identical code number.I'm not sure how you avoid this without either creating a system that allows people to be tracked anyway (by whatever nonrandom system you created). The only way to eliminate that possibility is to have a random system, but then duplicate codes are possible.I should give you heads up that I was responsible for coming up with code systems for a federal government project that involved a lot fewer "voters" and over a smaller area than a nation (though it was pretty big). Some sort of time/date plus equipment number (which could remain hidden from the people running it) was one of the best ways to guarantee no duplicates, yet generate some sort of random looking number that can still be tracked at the end.Think about how you would deal with the possibility of duplicates. I'm not sure how many machines you have had at polling places you go to, but I have seen at least ten and with several blocks (in the same district) carrying the same number.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

with your scenario you have no way to(1) see your exact vote being counted correctly with no possible question on which vote was cast by who.
(2) ensure it is counted at allthat is not good enough.the issue of the absentee ballots and the provisional ballots:everyone should be required to use one or the other so all votes go through the same processthe outside information is checked to ensure that a legal vote is being cast.once that hurdle is past the envelope is opened and the ballot removed and put into another container, the contents counted by someone else.there are at least two people present representing political parties to see that no hanky panky goes on with listing actual people vs votes.it is a double blind protection for the counting with clear accountability for the voters to ensure that their votes are counted and correct.only you know the number of your vote.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Someone is missing something somewhere... Why is this not possible with my scenario? All I have done is alter what is placed on the ballot for identification. You want a unique code, and so a code system must be generated which can be safe from producing duplicates over many different and non connected machines. I want a "code" that is produced by putting a time and machine stamp on it. You remember one code or the other. The beauty of the other is it allows officials to detect machine problems. And by using non "real" time, and hidden machine numbers (to the election officials), there is no way to tie a person to a vote (unless they want it to be).The rest is the same is it not? Again, I don't see where your system comes out any better, when all I am discussing is the generation of a unique code in a different way. I think that is an option. What's great is that one can get rid of polling places as well.The problems will be: lost votes (chicago was a wonderful place for lost mail), an added burden on the mail system in general, possibilities of voter fraud (with people filling out ballots for friends and family), as well as an increased risk that people will find out who you voted for.I'm not saying that your suggestion should be discounted, I am just noting that it will have some things to get ironed out. Frankly I liked the convenience of voting absentee.I also have a plan to increase voter turnout, give a $25-100 tax refund for anyone that votes in a federal election.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)