Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: verifiedvotingfoundation.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to verifiedvotingfoundation.org.

Comments · 6

  1. Yes, very similar things happended in 2004 by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Graph Shows Fraud in Russian Elections
    From Pravda:

    In Florida, 13 counties reported more votes than voters, these accounting for 39.4% of the vote. In Ohio, at the Gahana 1 Precinct, Bush received 6,253 votes, Kerry 1,916 votes, and the others, 23. This totals 8,192 votes, which is strange, since only 4,346 people voted.

    At another Precinct in Gahana, Ohio, 4,258 votes were cast for Bush and only 260 for Kerry, while only 638 people were registered as having voted.

    Another source. These sorts of ridiculous "errors" could be seen when searching the online results at the time.
  2. Florida House 13 by bloodstar · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Diebold Security Foiled Again

    Why are people ignoring what is going on in Florida House District 13?

    The Rebublicans are claiming a 369 vote victory. However the EVMs in Sarasota county, reported an undervote of 18,000. or 1 in 6 of the total votes, which is much higher than the undervote in both the other counties and on average. Sarasota County also happened to be where the Democrat challenger won the vote by 6 percentage points (of the votes cast in that county).

    There are some obviously severe issues with Electronic Voting, Particularly when there is no paper trail (as in the case for this district). Sure, there are ways to change the vote on a paper verification ballot, however large scale fraud becomes problematic to implement.

    Links Below:
    http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section ?CATEGORY=NEWS0521&template=ovr2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_13th_congre ssional_district
    http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.ph p?id=6423
    http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/12/the_cqpolitics_i nterview_chris_1.html

  3. Re:So It Begins by Duggeek · · Score: 1 · on E-voting State By State

    Hear hear!

    It's the rush to embrace electronic voting that has led to these catastrophes. In the haste, we allowed the wrong people to be in-charge of how they are used.

    How many of the electronic voting systems are actually proven? How many are tamper-resistant? How many use public and openly available source code to operate?

    We've already seen the results of "black box" voting. Though the jury may be out, my money is riding on, "not working in the slightest".

    If the public is not allowed to understand the voting process, it is NOT a democratic vote!

    Learn more here and here.

  4. Re:Voting Receipt? by syphax · · Score: 2, Interesting · on E-voting State By State

    Unless you live in a dumb state that does not require paper trails, all this talk of hacking elections is really off base

    Like... ALL of Georgia, ALL of Maryland, >1M voters in Iowa, almost 3M in Florida, 540k in Virginia, 885k in PA, and so forth (and that's only for Diebold machines without a paper trail). (pdf link).

    As for audits, my impression is that auditing only occurs if the vote is close (the definition of 'close' varying by locale). If I were hacking the vote, I'd go the extra mile to make it likely that the results didn't meet this criteria. As you'll recall from Ohio, election officials usually aren't chomping at the bit to do a recount.

    Ignorant paranoia? I wish.

    Actually, what I really wish for is a third party candidate with no money and no support in the polls to win a major race on Nov. 7th. Say, Libertarian Kevin Litten in the governor race in Iowa. With unusual support in those districts with unverifiable Diebolds. That would be interesting.

  5. Nothing is unhackable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Quebec Bans Electronic Voting
    Are we saying that purpose built computer Hardware/Software cannot be made unhackable?
    For these purposes, yes, that's true.

    Humans cannot be proven to be incorruptible and still have the knowledge necessary to build one of these systems. There are no programmers who were raised in Skinner boxes by turing machines, so any programmer may have undisclosed affiliations that would cause him or her to build vote-modifying malware into a system.

    Here's a scenario to illustrate what I mean:

    Smedley is a fanatic Democrat. He believes anything is justified as long as the glory of the Democratic Party is served.

    Smedley is hired to build a voting machine, because he's a crackerjack programmer.

    Smedley knows his source code will be examined. Smedley knows his binaries will be disassembled.

    So, Smedley persuades Richard Stallman to put the Thompson hack into gcc. Then Smedley recompiles his employer's compiler and their disassembler with the hacked gcc. Smedley's version of the hack will both insert the malware in every executable and prevent display of the malware in any other program, such as disassemblers.

    No amount of code auditing of the voting machine source can find the malware if the auditing tools themselves are compromised.

    If the ballots were human-counted paper, you'd have to suborn thousands of volunteers in order to change the vote. But with Smedley's malware, two programmers (Smedley and RMS) can implement a vote-changing virus that will throw the counts in every machine simultaneously.

    That's why centralized vote-counting strategies are no good. You need distributed counting by independent minds so that the inevitable corruption is limited, and hopefully cancels out on a larger scale.
  6. Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature! by tassii · · Score: 4, Informative · on Critical Security Hole Found in Diebold Machines

    This is yet another liberal urban legend people like to spread around that Diebold somehow tampered with the election. Please stop spreading this FUD.

    Unfortunately not FUD. There are documented cases where Diebold's machines subtracted one out of every 100 votes for a democratic candidate. Its only been caught on minor elections and other irregularites with Diebold's machines. From California:

    http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/ resources/documents/ElectronicsInRecentElections.p df

    "At least one voter was able to vote twice on her "smart card", and 10 votes were inexplicably lost.

    John Pilch, a retired insurance agent who worked as a polling place inspector in San Carlos, said that when polls closed at 8 p.m. Tuesday, the number of people who signed the voter log differed from the number of ballots counted by computers.

    "We lost 10 votes, and the Diebold technician who was there had no explanation," said Pilch, who registered complaints with elections officials, his county supervisor and several others. "She kept looking at the tapes."

    At least 250 polls opened late because poll workers were unable to start up the machines, so hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people were turned away - many of them disenfranchised because they were unable to return to the polls at a later time that day"

    As well as been posted here: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/ 16/1737228