What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
80 Comments
- shoelace414, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17How can anyone with any computer knowledge not want a Voter Verified Paper trail? What happens if the power goes out? well.. with a voter verified paper trail if there is any problem, you can just count the ballots.
you have to ask yourself, why are people so against paper trails? - Truegod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Why does everyone think this is a Democrats Vs. Republicans issue? Voting machines that can be tampered with are bad for both sides.
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15doyadigg:
Or maybe he got rich off of political patronage from Republicans who are commited to "privatising" the public trust, like a lot of the mooch contractors that have gotten rich from the Bush administration.
If Democrats are tax and spend, then Republicans are borrow and spend on privatized public programs that now cost many multiples of what they cost as public programs so their buddies can get fat from no-bid contracts with built in gauanteed profit margins and have no fear of audits because they know that their Republican pals in the government who gave them their sweet deals to begin with will never bother to look at how the money is spent. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12A paper trail = a receipt that is kept on record by the poll workers, just like the old days.
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11It seems to me that most people are not against the idea - the people that are making the machines tend to be the ones arguing against it.
Honestly I think the old ways are best - a pencil and some paper to mark on. Simple and proven effective with a built in recount mechanism. - monkeywizard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"Just more proof that these guys are just a bunch of kook leftist looking for anything to toss against Bush."
Kook leftists? Get over yourself, douchebag.
The guy has royally ***** this country and it doesn't take a "democrat" to point that out. That's why the republicans in congress are now turning against him.
Get it thorugh your head - the guy is ruining this country. But, of course, you aren't open minded to see perspectives other than what exists in your narrow minded view of life.
You're arguing these machines were used in elections where democrats won - no ***** *****. It wouldn't look obvious or anything if republicans won straight across. That's not the point - the point is, if you're going to turn to software and machines to vote, they HAVE to be open source and regulated.
Fact: there has been no independent review of these machines to insure that the votes aren't being tampered with.
This country is so *****. - xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Search Digg, there are numerous postings about how easy it is to mess with the system.
- brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As you should be. Everyone should be concerned with any sort of election rigging or vote tampering. A paper trail might be added expense and difficulty but it can help ensure your vote counts.
- baltimoretim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Of course the TV news shows only scratch the surface. Check out http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ for the full Princeton report. From the executive summary:
"Anyone who has physical access to a voting machine, or to a memory card that will later be inserted into a machine, can install said malicious software using a simple method that takes as little as one minute. In practice, poll workers and others often have unsupervised access to the machines."
and from the full report:
"Such malicious software can be grafted into the BallotStation election software (by modifying and recompiling BallotStation if the attacker has the BallotStation source code, or by modifying the BallotStation binary), it can be delivered as a separate program that runs at the same time as BallotStation, it can be grafted into the operating system or bootloader, or it can occupy a virtualized layer below the bootloader and operating system [16]. The machine contains no security mechanisms that would detect a well designed attack using any of these methods. However it is packaged, the attack software can modify each vote as it is cast, or it can wait and rewrite the machine’s records later, as long as the modifications are made before the election is completed. " - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why should the public have any faith Diebold? These Diebold machines are easily hackable, and have proven to be unreliable. They refuse to open up their source code even for verfication of accuracy, and that's just ridiculous. The fact owner of the company is a noted Republican certainly doesn't help ease the common-man's worries either, but the refusal to implement a paper-trail (making a recount impossible), refusal to allow review of the source code (making the results meaningless), and the simple hackability (proven in this video and elsewhere), make these voting machines worthless... except to the Diebold company, which sells them for thousands of dollars each.
Our tax dollars hard at work, circumventing democracy. - andesmints, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5California requires a paper trail: when you vote you'll see your vote printed out on a little roll of paper behind some glass in the machine. They they do manual counts of totals from randomly selected machines to be sure the paper records match what the machine says. The presence of the paper means they can check all totals for all machines if needed. Problem solved.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sorry, this is not just CNN news. Here's the same story from FOX news (in fact, maybe they covered it better:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE
Please, everybody, this issue is too important to be partisan. The party stealing votes tomorrow won't be the same one stealing them today. - goostoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Why? Well, if Republicans win, then it's the will of the people! If Democrats win, then it's "OMFG they rigged it!!111oneoneone!""
This will be a little off topic, but I have to respond.
Nothing made me so disgusted than after the 2004 election. I voted before I went to class, headed to school, and was waiting outside for it to begin. A guy came up to a group of people wearing in a shirt with Bush on it that said "Not my president". He began telling everyone that was seated around me his opinions on the president. How he was a liar, how he stole the election this last time, and how he was leaving the country if he won again. I overheard one of the people that was listening, say to him, "Well then, who did you vote for since you want change?" The guy couldn't answer. He started to make excuses about how he didn't like any of the candidates, but Bush was the worst of them all.
Instead of being noise in the crowd, why don't you take action and make your vote for the candidate that you think will better this country? - hasbeen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I fail to see why this continuously becomes a partisan issue. Voting needs to be accurate no matter what side you're on, otherwise it's completely useless. Is that concept really so difficult to grasp?
- dosequis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I though the exact same thing in 2004 after what happened in 2000, I think the american populace is just way too tolerant and will let just about anything happen.
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@flag564 - Re-read my comment, the keyword there is "sweep". During elections I expect there to be a mix of winners that roughly corresponds to information on the area going into the election - i.e. if the area is known to be Republican and a Democrat wins I raise an eyebrow. Likewise if most of the country is gripping about the current administration and the Republicans take the vast majority of the seats (say, 70% or more) then I would raise an eyebrow, and I would do the same thing if the tables were flipped the other way in favor of the Democrats.
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, then don't complain - those of us that do vote don't appreciate being disenfranchised by a machine.
- zazzalicious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3exit polls.. some the exit polls in the last election were so far out from the 'results' that in a monitored election in a 3rd world country the election would have been declared corrupt.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
read it and weep. - monkeywizard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"So I see. If the election doesn't go the way you want, you assume people are going to question the results as fraud. "
Quit trolling this article, you ignorant *****.
The problem with people like you is you label everything a "wacko theory" - you don't represent freedom of thought, or the foundations of freedom itself. To do so, you must be willing to listen to, and understand your opponents' view that you don't agree with.
You don't. I see your posts in this article and it's just neo-con babble. The perspective you're failing to understand is that you can NOT have closed voting machines and blindly trust them, there is infinite room for fraud. No one is claiming it IS happening, but could it? Yep, it very likely could. And guess what? Since no one can verify it, they could pretty much do whatever they want. *THAT* is the issue.
All you extremists do is sit there and repeat time and time again any of the two:
"That's just typical liberal media" (Fact is, most media is owned by Republicans)
or
"That's just leftist crap designed to get Bush."
Please learn to have more educated responses. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Roche,
Look a little deeper. Check out the Princeton videos and Clinton Curtis's testimony. The paper trail can be adulterated. What we need here is an open source voting system. There must be transparency here so that we can be sure everything is being properly secured.
And now my own gripe: People need to stop making this a partisan issue. This has nothing to do with right/left/red/blue/maroon. This is about protecting our democracy, and we should all be able to gather around that. - Roche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ohio has paper trail on all electronic voting machines. Machines were chosen county by county so our county doesn't use Diebold, but some do and they are equipped with a paper trail unit.
- mmeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The solution to all of this is extremely simple: verifiable paper trail.
If people are truly interested in valid voting results, I don't understand how they can be against such a solution. I also don't know where companies like Diebold think that machines shouldn't have verifiable paper trails by default.
Republican, Democrat or Independent. I want to know that my vote was cast correctly and can be be verified after the fact. As the "premier" democracy, that is the least to be expected. Otherwise we always have the potential to have elections like they had in Iraq (where Saddam won 100% of the vote) -- that is to say, where you vote, but it means absolutely nothing.
The only reason to be against paper trails is if you intend to take advantage of such a situation, either in this election or the next. Will it be perfect? No, but it will be a lot better than not having ANY way to verify the votes. - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I find it the height of irony that the committed liberals are all screaming. The VAST MAJORITY of malicious hackers are liberals, and by deduction would be the ones trying to steal the election."
vast majority are hackers are liberals? I think you misspelled libertarians.
And for that matter the only point this makes is that there should be a paper trail for votes. Thats all anyone responsible is asking for. - Roche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is somewhat misleading. The Princeton researches mention that paper trail is a solution to this but no one ever mentions that it's possible to add this. Ohio requires a paper trail on all the electronic machines, Diebold or ES&S (which is what we use).
The paper trail is created by a separate unit that piggybacks onto the electronic machine and that paper trail is compared to the numbers reported by the electronic machine and is considered the final audit trail in case of discrepancy, because the voter can see how his or her vote is recorded.
The Ohio election in 2004 was flawed and may've cost Kerry the win, but it certainly wasn't because of these machines -- and they were first used widespread in the 2006 primaries, anyway. - xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This wont get fixed until someone rigs the election so that osama bin laden wins a senate seat, or at least wins on the electronic voting machines.
- xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The unfortunate thing is that people want the results fast, but no matter what the results are, they will call them wrong. If a machine told you it was 100%-0%, 51%-49% or anything people would be pissed and demand recounts. The use of an electronic system for voting won't be successful until the people would trust it (of course, they don't trust recounts either).
- thegreyfox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Doesn't matter if it is networked or not. It only takes one machine, or even a vote to ***** up an election.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I just sent away for my ABSENTEE ballot. IF YOU WANT TO VOTE ABSENTEE I SUGGEST YOU CALL YOU VOTERS REGOSTRATION OFFICE TODAY.
SOrry for the shouting but time IS running out and i think it is important. - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@flag564 - I know that the news media is biased, and that polls can be skewed in any which way; but I listen to what the people around me are saying both at work and at school, and when I hear people that I know voted for Bush in the last election say that they regret their decision then you know all is not "sunshine and ponies".
My biggest problem with the current state of things isn't so much who is in office as the fact that I don't think all of the problems inherent in electronic voting have been worked out yet. During the 2000 election and the big controversy about "hanging chads" there were people snicking, but at the end of the day you knew that someone has punched the paper. With electronic voting there is really no good way to confirm a 1:1 ratio of voter to vote - hence my problems with the machines. - AkiraXXX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Honestly, I don't know why EVERYONE isn't out in the streets over this.
The vote is pretty much the last thing we have anymore to make our wishes known and to choose the direction our country will go on the issues important to us. When that choice goes, it is all over.
I don't trust any politician, left or right, that sets up situations designed to keep themselves in office and in power. I don't like the fact that the rich are allowed to give vast amounts of money to a campaign while politicians stand by and say "It doesn't influence me". In the same way, anyone with any character would ensure that there was a fool-proof and verifiable election method available to their citizens. Wouldn't you want such a safeguard just to ensure that in a close election, YOU wouldn't be the one accused of tampering?
Of course we are not dealing with true statesmen, we are dealing with politicians: some who are rich and fund their own campaigns, many who get jobs through "old boy" networks, most who spend a disproportionate amount of their lives begging for money and pandering to monied interests. The only thing worse than that is the fact that America, yet again, scratches its head, shrugs it shoulders and goes back to Googling Paris Hilton. You get the government you deserve, I guess. - tHePeOPle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@blueskydiver76
Votes should never be linked to the person who placed the vote. They should, however, be recorded on paper and kept safe by the election board for later counting if needed. As soon as voters are given paper indicating their vote, then you'll have goons from one organization or another checking said indicator outside to polls. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"...there are MILLIONS more people who have the basic qualification to print on paper."
True. Election tampering is as old as elections themselves. But here's the difference. The old way, it would take a LONG time to falsify thousands of paper ballots, and leave behind forensic evidence of tampering.
The new way: thousands of votes switched in 5 minutes. No forensic evidence to investigate.
And if they get away with it - next time, millions of votes switched in 5 minutes. Just as fast and easy for a computer to switch a million votes as 100 votes.
We DON'T NEED fast elections. We need accurate, transparent, verifiable and DIFFICULT TO TAMPER with elections. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While it may be easy to hack the voting machines for certain tech types, I feel compelled to point out that there are MILLIONS more people who have the basic qualification to print on paper.
I'm not actually seeing the big fix with this suggestion. - Qenton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1andesmints: "California requires a paper trail..."
That only works if the machine itself is set up properly. If, for example, the printout is done via through the software, then just reprogram the machine and the printout will match the the internal code. If the printout is hardwired to the key selection that makes it a lot more difficult to tamper with. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1because the person can check the hard copy before giving it back to the state... unless it has arms and whiteout, paper trails work,
- cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More important question: Why did it take CNN so ***** long? I scoff at FOX News, but was appalled when they beat 'em to it.
- itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i wonder how true that is since the major evoting lawsuit is in fact
in ohio, - EFF - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...because the voter can see how his or her vote is recorded. "
The way Diebold implements this add-on paper trail (which cannot be added to all of their models), the voter cannot see his/her vote unless the voter knows enough to open an unmarked lid and peer inside. The Diebold printer is also subject to frequent paper jams. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Flag, so you do not care at all how easily these things are hacked because republicans havent hacked them?
That must be awesome news for the dems dont you think?
Dont you think it would suck if 60% of us voted honestly for republicans only to have dems win accross the board?
You did watch the video huh? it would be "unprovable"... Isnt it smart for mending the partisan divide that we have honest machines.
THIS IS AMERICA
we are supposed to have have honest and fair elections, unquestionably
90% of the people here would be glad to see a hanging chad over this diebold joke.
except for the strangest reason, you flag.
I am not accusing you of anything flag, But when a man says something dishonest and cheatable is good to use in the election, you should look very close at that man, because he is the one most likely to cheat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmmm... recounting computer results helps both parties...
from BlackBoxVoting.org regarding primary races last week.
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/8/40478.html
"In Waukesha County, computer monitors at the county clerk's office briefly showed Christine Lufter winning her 97th Assembly District race after returns from the City of Waukesha had data recorded in the wrong column. Lufter later was declared the loser by a wide margin to fellow Republican Bill Kramer. County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus and her staff corrected some of those results manually. " - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Are you aware that in the 5 counties with paperless touch screen machines, ONLY 2 USED DIEBOLD MACHINES?
Man...that Diebold CEO really worked hard to win Ohio....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309927/posts?page=26#26
http://www.electionscience.org/Members/StevenHertzberg/report.2005-05-14.4978140903/view?searchterm=None - djkrush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone already knows about the ohio voter fraud issue, but to me they never brought up any good points. I lived in Ohio at the time and there were a few irregularities that I noticed. All areas with large percentages of college students had to wait 1 -2 hours to vote. Which I think is rather too long to wait to vote (dont give me any you would spend an hour or two if you cared about your country *****). The other was the gay district of Columbus. This is the second largest gay district in the US (#1 being SF). If you drove around that area before the election it was by far the most political area. Every house and I mean every house had a Kerry sign infront of it. It was quite a specticle to see an urban area just completely covered in Kerry advertisements. The vote for that area was in favor of Bush. When I saw that, knowing the politics of that area, I just couldn't believe it at all. Anyone who I told that to in the city couldn't believe it either. And all voting machines were diebold in the urban areas while surburban areas and typically republican areas were all older machines. The whole ordeal seemed too suspicious to be coincidence.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These machines with no paper trail are a big joke. They are a priori ridiculous as anyone who has the luxury of not using them can see. If you do have to use one, it is a tragedy.
- da_bradler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1here's a question I was wondering though I mean couldn't the computer record one thing and print out a receit for another? just seeing your vote on a piece of paper doesn't do anygood unless there is a hand recount(very rare)
Ok how bout this. you mark on a piece of paper with an 'X' who you want to vote for then put it in a box which is later counted, I mean how hard is it for them to just set up a machine that takes a quick scan of the paper I mean my webcam could do it, look at the piece of paper a simple program locates where the X is bam shoots it threw - television, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well if anyone tampers with the votes.. i'd say it was the guys from princeton.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Really people this doesnt have to do with being part of a political party, It's about keeping those in power in check.
- skeeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Leo Laporte interviewed Avi Rubin on the old Screen Savers show a few years ago. He did a live demonstration on how these machines could be hacked. A video of that is here:
http://www.suddenlyeverythingsucks.com/issues/politics_electronic_vote_fraud.shtml
Anyway, looks like massive election fraud is coming (again, some would say) this November and the public is being prepared for it.
This isn't a left / right issue. I can see all sides trying to take advantage of this. In fact, if the Republicans lose in a massive sweep (like has been predicted), then I can see Republicans complaining about vote fraud. Just how they accused Democrats of being "sore losers" last time when they brought up Diebold machines, despite evidence of e-vote fraud in 2004.
The whole Joe Lieberman (a Republican in Democrat clothing) thing last month alone seemed to freak out a lot of these people. That was proof that even if you can hack machines, they still aren't effective if a MASS of people come out and vote against you. Chances are you'll still lose. And that's what happened to him. People didn't care that he was "Democrat" or "Republican". He supported and continues to support this unpopular war and anything GW does, so he got tossed out. Then he (and surprisingly, many big name Republicans) whined about it. Now he's trying to run as an independent with REPUBLICANS raising all sorts of money for him. That is just hilarious and shows how BS the majority of this left wing / right wing crap is. Someone put it best a little while back. The left and right are wings on the same bird; a buzzard. - cbiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 I smell a fan-tard - aka, flag564....
- roadmr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here in Mexico City the Electoral institute commisioned an electronic ballot box from public universities. They laid down a series of requirements and the result was quite impressive, a device entirely based on open technologies, (apparently) completely secure, with extensive use of digital signing technology AND a paper trail for every vote. Should controversies arise (as indeed they did in the federal election), this ballot box would still keep a paper copy of every vote cast. The system is interesting as the machine lets the user actually see the vote being printed and is then automatically deposited in a transparent urn. No human intervention. I believe 50 of them were installed and used along with normal voting methods, hopefully they could be incorporated in the future, and HOPEFULLY the freaking US government will get a clue and launch a similar program involving institutions, because when a company such as Diebold is in the mix, the bottom line is what matters to them.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Wrong. If you don't vote, then you aren't helping anyone. If he was wearing an anti bush shirt, then he should have voted for the dems or independant. Even if he didn't like them either, he obviously didn't hate them as much as bush. It's like everyone in an office pitches in to buy food, and you get to eat the left overs but didn't pay, then complained the food sucked."
I can't speak for the original poster, only what i assume (and we all know what that does)
No, that's a horrible analogy, for one, he didn't want the left-overs in the first place
saying that he should vote for someone simply because he didn't like the parties available is irresponsible. I would consider that a waste of a vote. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is