Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Hope4hope: America's votes have long been counted on software kept secret by the companies that make the machines. This week comes the first signal that this is about to change. Sequoia Voting Systems just announced the first transparent vote counting machine -- the Frontier Election System.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

hope4hope

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Black Box Voting No More

What a racist headline!

Black Box is a well-known term that refers to something in which you cannot see the inner workings.

I could never understand why you couldn't get a printout of your vote, when ATM's have been doing it for decades.

The Death Panels will be counting the votes this year as each person votes.

Vote for more than one Republican and you are tagged, loaded onto a truck and shipped off to the abattoir to be humanely euthanized and made into Genuine Republican Brand Cat Food.

All proceeds from the sale of the '100% conservative content' cat food are to be given to Acorn to buy guns for illegal immigrants.

I could never understand why you couldn't get a printout of your vote, when ATM's have been doing it for decades.

#3 | POSTED BY LETUSPREY AT 2009-10-29 04:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

If you were to be given a print out then some one could coerce you to vote for a particular candidate.

Like...
Hey buddy, vote for Joe blow or we will break your knee caps, and if you dont come out with your reciept that says you voted for him we will break em too.

but what makes you think a printer output has to have anything to do with what is actually stored?

but what makes you think a printer output has to have anything to do with what is actually stored?

#5 | Posted by Valisk

That's what I was going to say.

I dunno. We still have ink-a-vote here.

And I have seen cases where the little pen is almost out of ink - if you don't check, who knows if the votes would count or not. If presented with a Diebold machine I think I'd just wig out and put it on YouTube. Do not like the electronic voting option. No sir.

why can't we just have scantron voting?

That's what the ink-a-vote is most like, actually.

A paper trail is important so voters could check that they did indeed vote for who they meant to vote for and for the county to be able to hand recount votes in the case of close call.

Here's a story about a flubbed election (an estimated 18,000 votes missing) with no paper trail. Ironically the voters in this election had just approved a ballot measure requiring paper trail ballots to be used as a backup to the e-voting machines.

oops, here's the link: www.pcworld.com

Quite a few people don't understand how lame the Sequoia development really is. First, it is not "open source" they are proposing; rather, they propose to disclose some of the source code (they haven't said what parts). Now, partially disclosed is of no real value towards assessing what the code actually does.

Next, they will be hosting this partially disclosed code on a proprietary hardware system, most likely containing firmware components that they will not be allowed to disclose, because those components are made by other companies. If I own the hardware, ultimately I own the software that runs on it (in other words, the hardware can control the software).

Next, this new system would need to go through certification, a process that takes years. Don't expect to see anything people vote on that resembles this for many years.

Next, disclosing the code -- even if you disclose all of it -- does absolutely nothing to ensure that the disclosed code is what is running on any individual voting machine.

And last, disclosing the code does not change the fact that the machines conceal the counting of the votes from the public.

A much more robust approach is that recently taken by the nation of Germany, where the high court deemed use of the computerized vote counting system to be unconstitutional, in that it conceals essential processes of the public election from the public (thereby making the election non-public, a constitutional violation).

The German decision also requires that the public must be able to see and understand all essential components of the election without special expertise (public "observation" of disclosed source, problematic in authentication anyway, would still require special expertise.)

The German decision also states that no certification process, audit, or governmental examination can replace public right to see and authenticate the original counting of the actual votes.

Germany got it right; the entire nation has now returned to PUBLIC hand counting. Ireland is also doing this now, and the Netherlands just banned its e-voting system.

In the USA, we're still being told to run on hamster wheels. And some hamster wheels cause the little critters to die before they figure out how to get off.

Bev Harris
Director - BlackBoxVoting.org

Good to read you, Bev. Welcome to the Retort.

"Bev..."
#15 | Posted by 101Chairborne

You wrong, man.

Especially if she's actually who she says she is.

Yes, jerk, you got the FF.

Bev Harris

Clean it up, guys.

I really hope she doesn't come back to this thread.

Wow this Bev Harris is a lightning rod (or was 5 years ago on the DailyKos)

anyone else hear Randi Rhodes just now? bev harris called in and sounded out of her mind - that wasn't just me, right?
any ideas, conspiracy theories, etc.? i haven't been following that particular drama but i'm feeling for those who pumped money into that lady... she doesn't seem to know anything about her own organization; she doesn't even check her messages - from AAR and Congress members, no less. then she doesn't show for the ohio hearings but won't say why...

www.dailykos.com

The comments made by people on that story are great.

Jeb Bush would let there be a paper trail in Florida for his entire term in office. I'll give Charlie Crist a little credit because he finally did.

BTW, that is one of the reasons, but only one of the many, that Jeb Bush is POS.

#13 | Posted by BevHarris: Quite a few people don't understand how lame the Sequoia development really is.

Thanks for the information Bev. I guess I shouldn't have taken them at their word that they were going to be "transparent end-to-end." Count me as one who didn't know.

For anyone who doesn't know Bev Harris, she was the first to warn the U.S. of the dangers involved with e-voting and was featured in HBO's film Hacking Democracy.

Black Box is a well-known term that refers to something in which you cannot see the inner workings.

#2 | Posted by hope4hope at 2009-10-29 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

This is the reason Prison TV's come in a clear case so as to prevent a place for inmates to stash contraband.

Finally.

"For anyone who doesn't know Bev Harris, she was the first to warn the U.S. of the dangers involved with e-voting and was featured in HBO's film Hacking Democracy."

She is a patriot and deserves our respect.

Two thumbs up Bev!

Some of these black boxes were designed to be rigged, and were. Good riddance to them.

A much more robust approach is that recently taken by the nation of Germany, where the high court deemed use of the computerized vote counting system to be unconstitutional, in that it conceals essential processes of the public election from the public (thereby making the election non-public, a constitutional violation).

Is such a ruling a possibility here? As I understand it, it's up to the States how they want to conduct their elections. In the old days, didn't the state legislature directly choose electors?

Even that is nonsense at best.

Optical hard wired soft pencil readers are simple and reliable. There will always be reliability and unnecessary cost issues with complex software operated computer systems.

How difficult would it be to use a computer to create a "vote receipt" that you can visually verify and then deposit in a vote box as your actual vote. The computer can report the actual votes for speed and manual auditing can be done using the receipts against the computer total to confirm the results. This audit could be done both randomly and based upon specific recount challenges.

redman,

but what use is expensive hi-technology machinery in vote counting when simple hard wired optical readers work so well? Its only purpose is to open windows for fraud and unnecessary profits. you don't need a computer screen to register and count votes quickly.

The cards that are read could not be entered in the reader, could disappear before being read or new cards could be created. Not that a computer system could not have issues, but I think the security would be tighter do to electronically generated validation keys(GUIDs) and near realtime backups.

The 2000 election of George W. Bush ushered in severe doubts for Americans about whether or not their votes were being counted.


My how the myths grow.

Recounts conducted by NY Times and Wash Post using the most librul standards showed Bush with a bigger lead than the recounts that were disallowed by the SCOTUS.

Slickster, that's not true. Here is the top of the NY Times story on their recount in Florida. It says Bush had a legal claim but the election was so messed up no telling who really won.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 ? The comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats.

But the analysis does not diminish the heartbreaking might-have-beens for Al Gore. It suggests that more Floridians intended to vote for Mr. Gore but were deterred, in some cases by ballots that were confounding even to elderly voters who are accustomed to having five bingo cards going at once. (No wonder networks reported on election night that, based on polls of voters leaving the polls, Mr. Gore had won Florida.)

The reality, therefore, is that Mr. Bush's victory in the most fouled-up, disputed and wrenching presidential election in American history was so breathtakingly narrow that there is no way of knowing with absolute precision who got the most votes. After all, there is no perfect way to decide which disputed ballots should be counted and rejected.

And there never will be.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable