The Diebold voting machines are 100% accurate in their count. Where do you get this stuff? Touch screens that are calibrated and ready for voting work perfect in their count. In fact many problems with the machines are in those printer audit trails. Once in a while the printers jam JUST LIKE THEY DO IN ATMS.

Not until 2000 did I know that +-10% was acceptable to vote counters, and a common error factor. But by 2000, it was too late.
Hmm that's interesting. What's the source on that?

2- Ars Technica has a pretty good article about electronic voting machines and their vulnerabilities.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ars

This Princeton video also somewhat demonstrates how a voting machine can be compromised with a virus (and also how the physical security of the machine can be compromised by picking the lock in 10 seconds).

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

"The Diebold voting machines are 100% accurate"
but 100% vulnerable to manipulation.

I voted today on a Diebold voting machine. On the right side was a paper audit trail that I read and everything printed was how I voted. No matter what virus was introduced on the machine or on the election board server my printed vote is there to be counted and gives a complete audit trail of all votes. Since each smart card is reset before each voter cast his/her ballot the machine that resets the cards would have to be tampered with or a new card slipped into the machine and removed with some fancy slight of hand. You would need thousands of people involved with a scheme like that and a large team to infect the servers that tabulate the votes. All of which are stand alone. Diebold voting machines are never on a network. Techs load the software and the election board tests and verifies that they work. Again if they did something illegal the paper audit trail is still there and can be checked by every voter.

"Not until 2000 did I know that +-10% was acceptable to vote counters, and a common error factor. But by 2000, it was too late.
Hmm that's interesting. What's the source on that?"

I kind of doubt you could find the quotes online, but my sources are the broadcast interviews I saw of the FL county elections supervisors in 2000 debacle. All that I saw interviewed said "what's the big deal, we've never counted all the votes. There have always been errors and problems". That 10% factor came up more than once in the interviews that I saw. And a lot of the interviews I saw were on local news, not as polished as the national exposure.

I've voted on a Diebold machine the past 8 years, not touch screen. Never a piece of paper, I place my ballot in a slot, and it goes bye-bye. The observers then say "have a nice day".

Some states do not allow a paper ballot, some states mandate it.

>>Give you film stock any day. A hard drive crash makes no difference with film

Good point. Excellent technology, but a tad expensive these days without the big budget. But for quality and archival issues, you're right.

Also the NLE is a tool with a great deal of inbuilt redundancy and if things go wrong its pretty easy to see that and to do something about it. The issue with the voting machines is that if things go wrong accidentally, you're unlikely to know about it. If they go wrong intentionally, you're even less likely to know. Seems to me that there is a significant difference between choosing those who govern us and cutting video. But I guess not everybody can perceive the difference.

This week I saw a fascinating documentary on the corruption potential of Diebold voting machines, by HBO, entitled "Hacking Democracy".

Once the individual votes are recorded on the voter Flash Card, they are tabulated on a central counting machine, where all individual identity is lost.

In this doc, a Danish computer geek created a small software embellishment which totally and invisibly changed the grand result of the test election. This all done under the TIGHT scrutiny of the Head of Elections of Tallahassee.

It was quite territying. The doc also revealed a public letter by the CEO of Diebold to a Republican fund raising comittee, promising a Republican win. Frightening even if not an indicator of corruption.

Next election, I will be mailing in a hand written absentee ballot, current election overturns notwithstanding. The implimentation of computers into the voting process has been too fast, too secretive and too overwhelming for my taste.

While you know I'm not normally a Luddite, I am highly protective of the US public's right to fair representation. I don't believe that there exists a computer program today, that cannot be hacked. Someday, maybe, but not yet. It's just too vulnerable with too far reaching results.

v

The Voting Machine

You can see it on Google video.

My favorite bit was the error in Voluisa County, Fl Where 412 voters gave Bush 2,813 votes and gave Gore -16,022 votes. So at one point during the Florida election Gore's vote total dropped. This was one of the reasons the election got called for Bush and then the networks retracted the call. (This happened a few hours after the networks called it for Gore and then retracted that.)

It looks like we are in recount territory in perhaps Virginia and Monatana this election.

Uh, and paper ballots and ballot boxes are exempt from tampering? Some things never change, unfortunately.
"...where all individual identity is lost." Wow, is that the stupidity of the progammers or of the areas that accepted a machine with that huge of a weakness?

The Diebold voting machines are 100% accurate in their count. Where do you get this stuff?
===========
Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic are the four contractors that tally eighty percent of the votes. Typical no-bid awards.

ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former company.

Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over.

According to campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush in 2004. O'Dell sponsored a $600,000 fund raiser for Republican vice president Dick Cheney in July 2004. Diebold director W.H. Timken is also a Bush "Pioneer."


Sure the machines were certified. The companies certified the machines THEMSELVES in 2004 and through "private companies" THEY hired themselves for this election. Pleas by Democrats for Congress to pick independent companies to certify the machines were ignored by the Republican majority.

Forgive me for being suspicious.

John

>>Uh, and paper ballots and ballot boxes are exempt from tampering? Some things never change, unfortunately.
"...where all individual identity is lost." Wow, is that the stupidity of the progammers or of the areas that accepted a machine with that huge of a weakness?

The possibility of tampering always exists, which is the reason the whole process must be controlled and supervised by a federal body independent of all political parties (Florida holds the shining example for that). On your second point, in the British style of democracy (naturally superior) votes must be anonymous. In the Soviet Union votes were not so, which meant repercussions for those who voted "the wrong way". You prefer the Soviet model?

I would like to point out that Diebold machines were not in use in Florida in 2000. While I agree that anything to do with an election should be treated with the utmost security it seems that staying with old technology is not the answer since election fraud exists today. What I don't agree with is the attack to be rid of the technology all together which makes no sense. I don't like agendas. One sided attacks by the likes of the HBO film which distorts the truth makes me wonder what the truth really is. That special could have been great but instead it just turned into propaganda to destroy a good idea for what I feel is an unknown "REAL" reason. An Walden O'Dell...well he was an egomaniac who had is own agenda. He always felt that ATM's and voting machines were technologically beneath him. He should have been thrown out when he made that promise to deliver Bush. Prior to O'Dell Diebold had never made any statement like that..ever.

While voting machines may be a good idea, their implementation has been poor. For example, a paper audit trail should have been a feature from day one. Other simple things such as using encryption should also have been implemented (this may be specific to the Diebold Accuvote).

Maybe we should go back to the old lever machines? Guess what they don't have? A PAPER TRAIL! And in the 1960's they were used to record over 50% of the nation's votes.

But please, don't let these silly old facts spoil your paranoid fantasies!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_machine#Direct-recording_voting_system

Direct-recording voting system
Commonly used in the United States until the 1990's, direct recording voting systems are mechanical systems to tabulate votes. Commonly, a voter enters the machine and pulls a lever to close the curtain, thus unlocking the voting levers. The voter then makes his or her selection from a list of switches denoting the appropriate candidates or measures. The machine is configured to prevent overvotes by locking out other candidates when one candidate's switch is flipped. When the voter is finished, a lever is pulled which opens the curtain and increments the appropriate counters for each candidate and measure. The results are then hand written by the precinct officer at the conclusion of voting.


http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa111300b.htm

Mechanical Lever Machines
On mechanical lever voting machines, the name of each candidate or ballot issue choice is assigned a particular lever in a rectangular array of levers on the front of the machine. A set of printed strips visible to the voters identifies the lever assignment for each candidate and issue choice. The levers are horizontal in their unvoted positions.
The voter enables the machine with a lever that also closes a privacy curtain. The voter pulls down selected levers to indicate choices. When the voter exits the booth by opening the privacy curtain with the handle, the voted levers are automatically returned to their original horizontal position. As each lever returns, it causes a connected counter wheel within the machine to turn one-tenth of a full rotation. The counter wheel, serving as the "ones" position of the numerical count for the associated lever, drives a "tens" counter one-tenth of a rotation for each of its full rotations. The "tens" counter similarly drives a "hundreds" counter. If all mechanical connections are fully operational during the voting period, and the counters are initially set to zero, the position of each counter at the close of the polls indicates the number of votes cast on the lever that drives it. Interlocks in the machine prevent the voter from voting for more choices than permitted.
The first official use of a lever type voting machine, known then as the "Myers Automatic Booth," occurred in Lockport, New York in 1892. Four years later, they were employed on a large scale in the city of Rochester, New York, and soon were adopted statewide. By 1930, lever machines had been installed in virtually every major city in the United States, and by the 1960’s well over half of the Nation’s votes were being cast on these machines.
Mechanical lever machines were used by 20.7% of registered voters in the United States as of the 1996 Presidential election. Because these machines are no longer made, the trend is to replace them with computer-based marksense or direct recording electronic systems.

As for the Diebold exec:

A Diebold plot to rig the elections? Where did that idea come from? The rumors began with this letter from Diebold's CEO, Wally Odell, who was moonlighting as a Republican fundraiser. In his invitation to a benefit for Bush last August, he wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

After a public outcry, Odell announced in May that he was getting out of politics.

"Our CEO Wally O'Dell's position from a political standpoint really does not reflect at all in our equipment or the functionality of our equipment. It has nothing to do with how elections are run," says Radke.

Source: Those rightwing extremists of CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

"I would like to point out that Diebold machines were not in use in Florida in 2000"

My Florida county's machines have been in place for about 8 years. The older Diebold models, scan the ballot with the filled in circles type of machine. So yes, Diebold has been around awhile. The Diebold Touch Screens are tne newer ones proliferating across the country and causing the stir.

And the "10%" error I mentioned in a previous post was with the punch hole/loose chad type of ballot.

Maybe we should go back to the old lever machines? Guess what they don't have? A PAPER TRAIL! And in the 1960's they were used to record over 50% of the nation's votes. But please, don't let these silly old facts spoil your paranoid fantasies!

"Source: Those rightwing extremists of CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

===========


"It's easier to "explain away" ballots lost on electronic voting machines than lost boxes of paper ballots. Just call it a "glitch" and then no one is responsible for it. "

Run the demo at this website.

"If you ran a "real election" and gave more votes to John Doe, you saw the Fraudulent Voting Machine reverse the tallies (Mary Smith got the votes intended for John Doe, and vice versa). If you gave the same number of votes to both candidates, you saw that one vote was subtracted from John Doe and added to Mary Smith. However, an election director would be 100% within their rights to say that these elections were perfect and that they saw no errors. This is because, unless there is an audit, election personnel can check only one thing -- is the number of voters the same as the number of ballots?"

"The concept of a "close election" is related to paper ballot or mechanical "lever" voting systems WHERE FRAUD REQUIRES A LOT OF WORK BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A LARGE NUMBER OF POLLING PLACES OR A CENTRAL COUNT LOCATION.
With computerized fraud, one person can falsify the results of every machine in a matter of seconds and provide any margin of victory he or she wishes."

Even a computerized CASH REGISTER has a verifyable paper trail. There is no logical (or honest) reason the Republican party should oppose such a relatively inexpensive method of securing our votes and ensuring the accuracy of an audit should an audit be necessary.

We still use the lever machines in my district in New York. I have NEVER doubted the accuracy of votes counted in New York State no matter WHO is counting them. They are built to last and I am very happy we have them here.

FOR NOW.

As of Nov. 3, 2006:
Deadline for selection of new machines was changed to Feburary or March, 2007
. . . The deadline for counties to select new machines has been deferred till February or March, 2007, due to delays in certification. The delays are related to the need to revise the Security Test Plan to make it acceptably rigorous. I hope they change their minds. The majority of New York counties, many of which have a single lever machine per polling place, may go ahead with replacement of all equipment as soon as possible because they are worried about losing HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funding from the Republican controlled federal government.

It is strange you should use a TWO YEAR OLD article to make your point Arthur. Using your same source I found more recent and more troublesome articles.



John

Ok, this is what I am talking about here. Global Election Systems was purchased by Diebold in January 2002. So Diebold had nothing to do with the 2000 vote. Global changed it's name after Diebold bought them. So the HBO story about how Diebold counted 40% of the vote in 2000 is bunk.

When one company purchases another company, the purchaser is buying all history and responsibility of the one being purchased.

So Diebold today is responsible for Global Election Systems in 2000. And they have probably capitalized on it's intellectual property as much as possible since they bought them.

Any idea why Diebold would buy a company with such a bad reputation as being involved in the 2000 election debacle?


Wiki - Diebold:
"In 2006 Diebold decided to remove its name from the front of the voting machines for strategic reasons."

"Jeff Dean, Senior Vice-President and Senior Programmer at Global Election Systems (GES), the company purchased by Diebold in 2002 which became Diebold Election Systems, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft for planting back doors in software he created for ATMs using, according to court documents, a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of two years"


Jeff Dean - Nixon "Plumbers":
Programmer Jeff Dean worked for chief of White House Plumbers unit
by Bev Harris, Kathleen Wynne, and John Howard
January 26, 2006

Convicted of 23 felonies for computer crimes, Jeffrey Dean was sent to prison for four years. Shortly after his release from incarceration, his company was awarded one of the largest ballot printing contracts in history.

In a 2003 deposition, Dean states that he was a scapegoat who was left holding the bag in a series of unapproved payments from Culp, Guterson & Grader, one of the most politically connected law firms in Washington state.

One of this firm's partners at the time was Egil "Bud" Krogh, who headed the White House "plumbers" unit under Richard Nixon. Krogh ordered the burglary of Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

Well, hey, ho! I reckon whatever their potential faults, they seem to have worked satisfactorilly.

If you bought a car that was previously in a wreck does that then mean you are responsible for the wreck? Did you know that Diebold purchased GES in 2002 or are trying to make it look like you knew it all along. Diebold is not responsible for the actions of a GES employee who was never an employee of Diebold. It isn't unusual for a press release stating that someone will stay on as a consultant when needed but they are never actually needed. It just makes for a better transition and ease the market. The guy was a crook and guess what, Washington doesn't care. That's why Diebold is considering dumping the machines. Politics makes bad business unless you are a lobbyist or the politician.
I mentioned before that I thing this whole thing stinks and sounds like an agenda on someones part. I don't know who that someone is but I stand by my original statement. The issue is the entire election process and not any single machine. You are focused on the voting machine and not the fraud that goes on around it. How can the election board allow voting machines to be taken home by the volunteers who show up with them on election day? Where is the outrage about that? How can the election board/county/state allow dead people to vote? How can they allow illegals to vote? How can they allow voting documents to be thrown into the trash? How can they accept a new machine that has not gone through a set of standards that allows no fraud possibilities? How can they not know until the day of an election that the 3 prong plug on the voting machine won't fit into the 2 slot outlet in an old 1950's school (then announce to the USA that it was a voting machine error)? This past election a statement at a polling location by a worker made headlines. The statement as that she was worried that the machine would auto turn-off at the wrong time because of day light savings time. Totally stupid and deserved no attention and yet it was in the news. How do I get some of that publicity? The headline could read "Video editor not sure Vegas will edit HD content". The correction, "DSE confirms that Vegas and HD are a match made in heaven". Ok, back on topic, How can they allow political statements to be made at polling location? The list goes on and on.

I am trying to tell you that we have to make sure to question everything we hear. The issue is not the machines. It is the whole process!!!! How can all of the above happen and nothing ever be done about it?