Kentucky Officials "Changed Votes At Voting Machines"

The indispensible jamie found a report out of Kentucky of exactly the kind of shenanigans that voting-transparency advocates have been warning about: a circuit court judge, a county clerk, and election officials are among eight people indicted for gaming elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006. As described in the indictment (PDF), the election officials divvied up money intended to buy votes and then changed votes on the county's (popular, unverifiable) ES&S touch-screen voting systems, affecting the outcome of elections at the local, state, and federal levels.

Comments

Election Fraud

[stoolpigeon]

We never had it before electronic voting systems. And it is impossible to catch because there is no paper trail.

Re:Election Fraud

[mmontour]

From the article:

, the Election Day scheme, carried out in primary and general elections in at least 2004 and 2006, was accomplished by taking advantage of a "feature" on all DRE (usually touch-screen) voting systems and "voter unfamiliarity with new voting machines."

Essentially, they tricked voters into leaving the 'booth' after pressing the "Vote" button on the ES&S iVotronic. That button, does not actually cast the vote, as one might think (and as these voters were told), but instead, it brings up a review screen of the voter's "ballot."

So this looks like basic social engineering, not exploiting any specific flaws of the electronic machine (other than poor UI design).

Re:Election Fraud

[Columcille]

If it is impossible to catch how did they catch these guys? Election fraud has always happened and always will, no matter what the method of voting. And some people will get caught while others get away, just like it's always been. There are reasons to oppose electronic voting - and reasons to support it. At least be a little realistic in your opposition.

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

a circuit court judge, a county clerk, and election officials are among eight people indicted for gaming elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006

You see, this is why I don't vote;
Those guys are much more qualified to pick a candidate than I am. Why bother?-)

Re:Election Fraud

[ChefInnocent]

Feeling particularly trollish? It doesn't matter what party does the fraud (I say this as someone who voted Democrat in the last election); these people should be tried and hung for treason. This cuts into the very fabric of what our country is suppose to be.

Re:Election Fraud

[titten]

The flaw exploited would be the fact that the voter had no 'receipt' or evidence of what they voted. Had there been such a thing, nobody would leave without it.

Re:Election Fraud

[TapeCutter]

Sure you can get it retail but you need a counting machine to handle wholesale.

Re:Election Fraud

[erroneus]

Perhaps this AC is under the impression that the Slashdot demographic is primarily democratic? I observe that we have quite a mix here and if there is anything disproportionate from the general public, it would be a larger than normal portion of Libertarians and other alternatives.

Democrats and Republicans are both evil in their own ways. They both serve the interests of business and heavy contributors. Their games are very well established and you can't get elected through any of those parties unless you play their games and participate most fully. (Gotta get dirty with them to keep the political career going.)

(What we need is a "judge dread" to clean the system out... the system will not clean itself out.)

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

...and a receipt would also mean that people in positions of authority could force you to vote a certain way. "Vote for Joe Schmoe and bring me the receipt to prove you did it or you'll lose your job", that type of thing. People could also buy and sell votes, because there would be a a way that the buyer could know for certain whether or not the voter voted the buyer wanted him to (and of course refuse payment until the seller brings proof to the buyer).

Re:Election Fraud

[worthawholebean]

That's not true at all. The U.S. has a long history of various forms of electoral fraud. See for example this book.

Re:Election Fraud

[ChromaticDragon]

While some sort of verification would seem necessary, there is a rather significant problem created if anyone can "leave [with] it".

If you can walk away with proof of "what" you voted, you can prove it to anyone willing to buy your vote. Or to Guido who is threatening to beat up your little ones if you don't vote a specific way.

This is a rather serious problem all the world over. So whatever we do to verify or to authenticate, it cannot involve the voter walking out with the means to show anyone how they voted.

Re:Election Fraud

[stoolpigeon]

One of the things I like about slashdot, after the number of people with true expertise, is the wide representation of many view points. On a few other popular sites I visit things feel much more slanted in one direction or another. Here in discussions of politics or religion (to name a couple of the more inflammatory topics) there seems to be a good number of people from all over the spectrum. I prefer that to an echo chamber. (Yes, we are pretty bad about the FOSS thing - but I'm willing to let that slide.)

Re:Election Fraud

[CrimsonAvenger]

It doesn't matter what party does the fraud

Quite so.

But it should be pointed out that /. tends to mention the Party of a wrongdoer if the wrongdoer is Republican, and omit it if he's a Democrat.

these people should be tried and hung for treason.

Sorry, treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution. I doubt seriously the definition can be stretched to fit this.

Re:Election Fraud

[rpillala]

I agree that it doesn't matter case-by-case, but I think it's important to watch for trends. If the majority of election fraud is committed by members of the same party, it could indicate a conspiracy at a higher level of the party than whatever level the individual elections decided.

Re:Election Fraud

[erroneus]

The F/OSS thing doesn't have a particularly controversial position. If you understand it, your probably support, endorse or apply it. If you don't understand it, you probably don't. I have yet to know someone who both understood F/OSS and didn't also support it or use it. My brother is a hard core Microsoft supporter but also uses F/OSS because it works... the Microsoft thing pays for his house and stuff like that though.

Re:Election Fraud

[stoolpigeon]

That is the best part of the joke. The first part is a little snarky - the second part is pure comedic gold. Saying this pretty much kills it though. And I wouldn't say anything - but the point of the joke is not to oppose electronic voting and so I've got to correct that misunderstanding.

The whole thing hinges on the fact that here at the dot we regularly rail against things that are considered 'new' because there is an electronic component. Well - what happened in this case is just good old election fraud, and a computer happened to be involved. So it is ironic that we, who complain about this very thing, are now involved in carrying it out.

So I am just trying to use humour to point that out. I am not really for or against electronic voting. I just want the best tool for the job - whatever that is. I'm not really for or against either of our two major parties in the U.S. Though I do tend to think they both stink.

The fact that people think I'm making a statement about either of those things means I was a little too clever for my own good I guess. That it is currently modded funny leads me to believe at least a couple people got it though.

But basically - your post is an exact summary of what I was trying to say.

Re:Election Fraud

[mmontour]

The voters thought that the screen that came up after they clicked "Vote" was their confirmation that the vote had been cast. They left without thinking anything was wrong, just like the Florida voters who mis-punched their famous butterfly ballots in 2000.

No voting system is going to let you leave with a paper receipt showing how you voted. That is too vulnerable to abuse.

Re:Election Fraud

[stoolpigeon]

Well - I'd agree with you but how many people feel that way about religion and politics? Most of them. So I'd say FOSS/Closed is controversial because there are a number of people on both sides of the issue. Head on over to somewhere like stack overflow and see if you can drum up some controversy - bet you can.

Re:Election Fraud

[MrMarket]

But it should be pointed out that /. tends to mention the Party of a wrongdoer if the wrongdoer is Republican, and omit it if he's a Democrat.

You must be new here. /. is full of Liberation engineers and IT industry protectionists. Neither of which really have a home in the US two party system. You might confuse the trend in the last 8 years of Bush bashing with Democratic leaning, but it was actually just a low tolerance for idiocy. Rest assured, the idiots in the current majority party will also be called out.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Nobody said that Democrats could not do evil things and betray the trust of the people.

What we're saying is that when Republicans do it, the criminals are protected and sheltered by the party. When Democrats do it, we eject them from the party and prosecute them.

And on Slashdot, no matter the discussion, we add fuel to the fire.

Re:Election Fraud

[JasterBobaMereel]

Voting machines can work .... but ....

Press the button on the the screen marked "Obama" the machine prints out your vote...you check it says you have voted for Obama , you put this in the ballot box

What you put in the ballot box is not kept by you ...

It is easily machine readable so is quick to count ...

The voting machine does not need to remember who voted, how many votes etc ...it cannot be gamed

The paper voting slip is as anonymous and as verifiable as the old "place cross here" system ...

Re:Election Fraud

[NeverVotedBush]

I agree completely - this is treason - regardless of the political affiliation of whoever does it.

It all needs to be prosecuted and the guilty dealt with as harshly as possible.

It's that or kiss this country goodbye.

Re:Election Fraud

[stoolpigeon]

It's hard to be as funny as I am and yet so misunderstood. I dig deep for these precious pearls of humour. I cast them out to slashdot and how do you act? Like undeserving farm animals that don't even appreciate what they've been given. Like chickens, or cows or something. A good word picture escapes me at the moment - but I think (despite your post to the contrary) that you will figure it out.

Re:Election Fraud

[bickerdyke]

Or to Guido who is threatening to beat up your little ones if you don't vote a specific way.

What?? He??

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for is "hanged" not "hung". Being hung would be a much, much slower way to die.

Re:Election Fraud

[CrimsonAvenger]

You must be new here. /. is full of Liberation engineers and IT industry protectionists.

Alas, it doesn't really matter what /. is "full of". But it is true that the Party of a Republican in the news tends to be mentioned in the summary, while the Party of a Democrat in the news tends to be quietly ignored in the summary.

Note this case as an example. Nowhere does it mention that the people doing this were Democrats, though it wasn't terribly hard to determine.

Re:Election Fraud

[scrib]

Since when does the "right to bitch" about something depend on voting? I never voted on that! Does that mean I don't have the right to bitch about not having the right to bitch about it?

Was Microsoft on a ballot somewhere that everyone else on /. saw but I missed?

Re:Election Fraud

[imamac]

No way. Absolutely not. Secret ballot is vital to our system. It allows people to vote without ANY outside influence. People can vote their minds and not their peer pressures. Secret ballot removes outside influence on votes. There is no other way around that.

Re:Election Fraud

[Exitar]

Many are worried by employees looking on the internet for employers habits (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/04/0028227&art_pos=2) and you would want to remove secret ballots?

Re:Election Fraud

[The FNP]

Actually, it clearly says that WW and CW were the Democrat and Republican election officials for a certain precinct. Meaning that both Democrats and Republicans were in on it.

--The FNP

Re:Election Fraud

[fmoliveira]

In Brazil, RJ, some drug lords that "own" certain neighborhoods demanded people to shoot photos of the voting machines, using mobile phones. Proving they voted in whoever they chose.

Re:Election Fraud

[maxume]

There might be some wiggle room between giving the voter the means to show how he voted and giving the voter the means to prove how he voted (the former lets the voter verify his vote but lie to an adversary, the latter prevents the voter from lying).

Re:Election Fraud

[ibwolf]

You are right of course but there is an easy fix. The 'receipt' should not contain your name, only your vote(s). Once you've read it over and verified that it was the same as you entered into the computer you deposit the receipt in an old fashioned ballot box before leaving. If the electronic vote is later deemed suspect these receipts can be tallied instead.

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for Joe Schmoe and bring me the receipt to prove you did it or you'll lose your job", that type of thing.

No, it's not a lottery ticket that you take home. The voter checks the receipt and immediately puts it in a box or something. It is an audit trail that election officials can check against the electronic count.

Re:Election Fraud

[mea37]

I'm not sure how doing away with secret ballot would help, really. You'd still have to trust somebody to audit the millions of datapoints to validate the result.

But ok... the first legitimate purpose of the secret ballot is to make it harder to sell votes. (I won't buy your vote if I can't prove you voted as instructed.) These... er... gentlemen have demonstrated that if you're close enough to the process, you can still buy and sell votes; but I, for example, cannot sell my vote to the coworker across the aisle, because I could never prove to him that I'd deliver on my end of the bargain.

A closely related problem is extortion or intimidation of voters. If a gang in an area wants a particular candidate in power (because, say, he/she is easy on their brand of crime), and the gang can see who voted for which candidate, then those in the area might just feel pressumre to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

You cannot mitigate these problems without controlling the information of who voted for whom. You could make it known to some people but not others, but that tends to invite bribery and also still leaves the information in the hands of someone with power over the voter.

So then you could try a solution where the person who cast a vote can verify how that particular vote was counted. Maybe you could build that up into a fraud-proof system... Except now I'm back in a position to sell my vote, because I have a way to prove to the buyer how I voted. (If I can't prove it to someone else, then me seeing how my vote was counted is useless, because any accusation of fraud I would make would be unprovable as well.) And extortionists are back to having a way to control my vote ("That's a nice house you have there. It'd be a shame if anything happens to it. You should consider voting for Candidate X and proving to me that you did so.")

The solution isn't to get rid of the secret ballot. The solution is to figure out exactly what you think gettnig rid of the secret ballot will do to reduce voter fraud, and find another way to do it.

Re:Election Fraud

[The FNP]

Right, because this wouldn't confuse the poor bastards in KY who couldn't even follow the directions on the screen after they pushed the "Vote" button that clearly told them that they had to push the "Cast Ballot" button too.

I'm fine with not having a receipt (except for my collection of "I voted" stickers) , but my polling place has ES&S machines with the additional paper trail module, and yes, I do check the paper trail after each selection.

--The FNP

Re:Election Fraud

[M1rth]

I'd trust this story a whole lot more if Slashdot had quoted the actual newspaper article rather than the frothing partisan political hackblogger's "report."

Re:Election Fraud

[amasiancrasian]

Yes, I think it can work, but what would be a more open and accountable ways is to assign each voter a unique identifier and print out a receipt designating the entire vote transaction. At the end of the election, all results are available by precinct in Excel/CSV format with the vote choices and the UUID/vote selection. This system keeps anonymousness and also works with allowing individuals to take audit/verification into their own hand.

Re:Election Fraud

[cthulu_mt]

Really...How is the ejection going on all those tax cheats like Rangel?

Re:Election Fraud

[dkleinsc]

They can't have been that smart: they completely forgot to pay off the new US Attorney.

Re:Election Fraud

[INT_QRK]

But actually, ineffective Human-Machine Interface design that allows, increases, or promotes unintended function is, in my opinion a flaw by demonstration.

Re:Election Fraud

[xSauronx]

you have it backwards, since I didnt vote, I can bitch at the rest of you for picking morons.

Re:Election Fraud

[dkleinsc]

No, obviously this guy.

Re:Election Fraud

[jcr]

You just made yourself look like an idiot with your implication that only one faction of the Ruling Party engages in election fraud. Do the names "Daley" or "Kennedy" ring a bell?

-jcr

Re:Election Fraud

[ImRoadKill2]

Take this one more step farther.

You go through the process of voting electronically. At the end it prints out a ballot . You check it make sure it is 100% what you wanted then you put into a locked box.

That way we get extreme speed on counting votes electronically and also have a machine to count the paper ballots to double check the electronic votes. Have a number on the Electronic vote and a number on the paper ballot to reference the electronic vote. That way when double checking the votes you can find if any 'errors' have occurred in the electronic vote. and see if anyone was playing with the machine.

Re:Election Fraud

[Jason Levine]

When I vote, the volunteer looks up my name in a book. I sign next to my name and they write a number next to it. The machine (old fashioned push lever kind) is set to that number and I put in my vote. The vote itself is anonymous but there is the possibility of looking through the voter rolls (should a court order it) to see who voted which way. (For example, if there's a claim of people voting multiple times or other widespread voter fraud.)

The same could work for a "printed copy only" system. The election volunteer writes a number next to your name and sets the computer with that ID number. The ID number is encoded on your slip in some machine readable manner along with your vote. To anyone scanning the printed copy, you would be "State=NY, County=Albany, Precinct=5, Voter=439". After the election, the ID number/name book would be sealed and only a court order would allow it to be opened again. (And then only until the court was done with it at which time it would be resealed.)

Re:Election Fraud

[Miseph]

Which I would have expected just from the tactic.

Historically, Democratic election fraud takes the form of ballot stuffing, voter fraud and otherwise directly tampering with the election system. They certainly don't have a lock on it, and there are definitely known cases of Republicans using such tactics (Palm Beach in 2000), but it is the traditional domain of Democrats. In effect, any time you see vote tampering or over-voting, there's probably a Democrat behind it.

Republicans, on the other hand, have generally done a better job of voter intimidation and lock-out. Again, Democrats have been known to send out the police to harass and scare opposition voters the day before an election, or break voter registration procedures such that it takes a lot of work for a ballot to be cast and it is likely to be discredited after the fact anyway, but this is more traditionally associated with Republicans. In effect, any time you see voter intimidation or under-voting, there's probably a Republican behind it.

Of course, down the thread it looks like this was a 50/50 job, so I guess we're both wrong... but mostly you.

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, I know this entire concept of an entire state, nay, region of the US stuck in the past (not to mention the geeks trapped in said region, trying to flee) is as best a quaint curiosity to Slashdotters, and I know ideas such as "newspapers" and "TV" are just hazy blurs, barely visible in your caffeine-fueled memories due to your desperate lust for something, anything new to displace the ancient knowledge from a year or two ago out of the sheer embarrassment of showing your friends evidence of a connection to something that isn't up-to-the-blogosecond recent, but might I suggest at some point learning the difference between a TV news report, of which LEX18, Lexington's NBC feed, is reporting in this case, and a newspaper article, which, in general, is produced by newspaper publishers, of which LEX18 is most definitely not?

Re:Election Fraud

[kalirion]

So I take it you demand a carbon copy of your paper ballot before you drop it in the box?

Re:Election Fraud

[The FNP]

They could have been caught much sooner if the machines had been using a paper trail. My local machines print out each selection as it is made. Then if at the ballot review screen I change a vote, then it prints that on the paper trail. So if even 10% of the paper trails from a single precinct shows significant and consistent changes at the review screen, that's a huge red flag!

If the machine had a paper trail, the 2002 election could have been the only one that was affected. And the 2004 and 2006 elections would have been unaffected. As it is, it took over three election cycles to catch these guys, ***BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PAPER TRAIL***.

As for the question of how did they catch these guys, there are any number of methods, including, the wrong person talking; or an actually smart and observant voter who was waiting in line and noticed that they were given incorrect instructions and the poll workers seemed to be spending a lot of time in the booths after each voter; or a candidate being asked for bribe money; or a poll worker being approached to join the scam; etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam . . .

So the people who say that the voting machines will always reflect the will of the voter are idiots. I don't think that the machines need to be fully open source, but they need to be certifiably as secure as possible and part of that includes independent penetration testing and a paper trail ***AND PAPER TRAILS SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW***

--The FNP

Re:Election Fraud

[titten]

I see your point, and I should have said:
"The flaw exploited would be the fact that the voter had no 'receipt' or evidence to prove that they had successfully voted. Had there been such a thing, this kind of social engineering would have been much harder."

A receipt telling *what* they had voted would be bad in so many ways.

Re:Election Fraud

[digitig]

Really? Has the first amendment been further amended then, so it only applies to those who vote?

Re:Election Fraud

[VShael]

But it should be pointed out that /. tends to mention the Party of a wrongdoer if the wrongdoer is Republican, and omit it if he's a Democrat.

Then what's the problem? You can clearly tell the two part, by assuming the corrupt party is a Democrat, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Sounds like a Republican friendly set up to me, if the assumption of corruption = Dem.

Re:Election Fraud

[Satanicolas]

any +1 redundant ?

Re:Election Fraud

[RailGunner]

When Democrats do it, we eject them from the party and prosecute them.

No you don't, you make them Secretary of the Treasury.

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who's involved in KY politics, I can speak to something on this with some authority.

REPUBLICANS WERE ARRESTED TOO.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/03/19/county-election-officials-in-kentucky-arrested-for-allegedly-fraudulently-changing-votes-on-vote-counting-machine/

Both sides are crooks, vote independent or third party.

Re:Election Fraud

[geekoid]

That is the worst you can find? some guy that managed to 'dodge' 5000 dollars over 3 years?

While I think what he did was wrong, in the scope of things it's not so bad.
Whether or not some gets tossed out is up to the voters...or a county clerk, judge and election official.

Re:Election Fraud

[Tubal-Cain]

It could just spit out an "I voted!!!1!1!!" ticket of some sort.

Re:Election Fraud

[fractoid]

Easy: If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch about the people you didn't vote for screwing things up :)

If I don't vote (and I didn't, which in Australia is actually punishable, but so be it - I didn't see a candidate I could conscionably vote for) then no-one can blame me for 'choosing' the candidate who's currently fucking our country. And that's the main purpose of democracy; to say to the common man: "You voted for him so it's your fault that he's making fucktarded decisions", or "You voted against him but most people voted for him, so you're wrong".

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

Yes, we are pretty bad about the FOSS thing - but I'm willing to let that slide.

FOSS sucks and is destroying America! Support American workers and buy Microsoft!

There, I made us fair and balanced ;)

Re:Election Fraud

[NeverVotedBush]

Thanks for the clarification. I would still argue that election fraud is such a basic attack on our political system that it should be included in the definition of treason and punishments for those found guilty be as harsh as those currently for treason.

Re:Election Fraud

[fractoid]

You didn't vote for it, but that guy you DID vote for (cuz he said he'd save the children and prevent forest fires) voted for it 6 months later. Sorry, you no longer have the right to bitch about anything including the right to bitch and your lack thereof.

Re:Election Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

No no NO! How dare you bring your facts and your truth into this? Can we please go back to saying it was all Democrats? That was much more comfortable.

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

While I think what he did was wrong, in the scope of things it's not so bad.

Isn't it amazing how Democrats rationalize corruption in the exact same manner as Republicans?

Re:Election Fraud

[Beardo the Bearded]

All politicians are liars and crooks.

I choose the party that's going to steal for me.

Re:Election Fraud

[NeverVotedBush]

Being hung would be a much, much slower way to die.

Maybe so, but to borrow from Marty Feldman, "He would be very popular."

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

Nice try. As an extreme leftist, I can assure you, Slashdot as a whole is nowhere near liberal. We've got more Libertarians here than anything... It's a pity, really. So many intelligent people here, yet they cling to a backwards ideology, with lunatics at the help... It's sad. Don't get me wrong, I think Libertarians have some great ideas - they just seem intent on speaking the loudest about the piss poor ones they have. Every time I see a Libertarian on /. parrot another stupid talking point, I die a little inside.

Please, parrot some of your extreme leftist talking points ;)

Re:Election Fraud

[TheSpoom]

...but it was actually just a low tolerance for idiocy.

And this is why I love Slashdot.

Re:Election Fraud

[ciggieposeur]

A voting receipt wouldn't have the actual vote, it would have instead an identification number that the voter could use to look up their vote on a web site. In the event of a recount, all you need is a statistically random sample (yeah yeah hard to get blah blah) of voters to check that the web site has their votes accurately recorded and you'd have good confidence that the final tally is OK.

Re:Election Fraud

[forgotten_my_nick]

IEEE did a nice article on it a year or two back. Showed a system where you got a receipt that you could check online to ensure the end value was not changed.

Also the way the receipt worked it stopped others from seeing who you voted for (so you couldn't be threatened into voting for someone).

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

Secret ballot is vital to our system. It allows people to vote without ANY outside influence. People can vote their minds and not their peer pressures. Secret ballot removes outside influence on votes.

That must be why the labor unions want to get rid of them.

Re:Election Fraud

[LordKazan]

yeah because "Extreme leftist" ideas like protecting the environment, protecting your rights, preventing crime, protecting consumers from idiotic megacorps crashing the economy, etc are bad :P

it's easy to make something sound bad by slapping a label on it.. but I have yet to hear anyone who goes around spouting "omg extreme leftist" (of which we have NONE in government in any position of power) actually attack a specific agenda item with a valid argument.

spouting "socialism" (confusing an economic system with a political system, and then not even using it correctly!) is one of the worst offenses of "fear label tossing"

Re:Election Fraud

[DragonWriter]

...and a receipt would also mean that people in positions of authority could force you to vote a certain way.

Only if you could keep the reciept. Which would be the wrong way to do things, both for that reason and for the ability to validate the tabulation of the election results, since then detecting errors would requiring getting all the voters to come and turn in their ballots to compare to the tallied results. What you want to do is have the receipt -- or, more accurately, hardcopy ballot -- printed in the booth, have it reveiwed by the voter, and (assuming it is correct -- exception handling is necessary if it is not) the voter places it in a ballot box before leaving the precinct, just like they would a ballot in a non-machine election.

Then, when the automated count is complete, you do a manual tabulation of the hardcopy ballots from random (actually random, not arbitrarily-chosen by officials) selection of precincts, and if there are substantial discrepancies (an objective standard must exist to judge this), a complete recount is done based on the hardcopy ballots.

Re:Election Fraud

[wfstanle]

It doesn't matter if they were democrats, republicans or little green men. It was election fraud and that is all that matters. If there was a paper trail the election fraud would be much harder to do.

By the was, a slip of paper that you take home saying how you voted is a very bad idea. We need a paper trail but all election materials should stay at the polling place.

Re:Election Fraud

[geminidomino]

It all depends on how you want to define [The United States'] enemies...

If one is idealistic enough to feel that subverting the democratic(*snort*) system of elections makes one an enemy of the state, and getting them elected counts as "Aid and comfort..."

It's all in how you read the words. Just ask the dems about Amendment 2, the repubs about Amendment 4, and both of them about Amendment 1...

Re:Election Fraud

[LordKazan]

He didn't rationalize it in the least - he said it was wrong, but he said compared to other things it's not so bad.

And being a few-thousand-dollar tax cheat is nothing compared to being a war profiteering traitor who selectively censored intelligence information from the president and congress to get a war started, a war said president was all too happy to go along with because "that bad guy attacked my dad." (cheney)

being a few-thousand-dollar tax cheat is nothing compared to intentionally perpetrating a massive misinformation campaign to manipulate the american electorate (fox news)

being a few-thuosand-dollar tax cheat is nothing compared to helping strip consumer protections, banking regulations, redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, etc all leading to the worst economic collapse since the great depression (rescumlicans as a whole).

No... he didn't rationalize or justify it in the least - he simply put it into persepective. /we still think intentional tax cheats need to get the boot //not all of them were INTENTIONAL, one of them just didn't realize something he was getting qualified as taxable.. he is the one that told everyone about his error... after he paid off the back taxes... but OH GNOES!! ME MADE A TAX ERROR HE'S A CRIMINAL! NOBODY LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN AND SEE THAT HE PAID IT OFF SOON AS HE REALIZED IT!

Re:Election Fraud

[smidget2k4]

So now Person in Authority just looks over your shoulder while you check your vote. How would this solve the problem mentioned by the parent?

Re:Election Fraud

[srobert]

"Democrats and Republicans are both evil in their own ways."

Yeah, but Democrats are evil only when they're in power. Republicans are pretty much evil all the time.

Re:Election Fraud

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Being hung would be a much, much slower way to die.

Death by Snoo-Snoo?

Re:Election Fraud

[Buelldozer]

Really? Where did you find the list of names with the little R & D tags?

I went through every article I could find and nowhere did it list the party affiliation of the people actually indicted.

You're making some unfounded assumptions. First you're assuming that everyone on the Election board was indicted, I don't see any information verifying that.

Second, you're assuming that because the board had recommendations from both D & R parties that those recommendations were followed and that there was equal representation on the indictments between D & R party members.

In short there is no evidence that what you've said is true.

If you read this article closely (http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=10037216&nav=menu203_2) you'll see that there are two groups involved with an election, the Board and the Officers, and there were a lot more than just the five people indicted involved in the election.

Without someone doing an actual search there is no way to know the party affiliation of the people indicted.

Re:Election Fraud

[Just Some Guy]

Yeah. I can't think of a single defensible reason for such a bizarre, anti-democratic plan.

Re:Election Fraud

[CyberKnet]

This may come as a surprise to you... but if you can put the number into a webpage... so can that person in authority. Whether it's a receipt you keep with the vote readable, or a number you put into a webpage.

Any time that you can verify after you leave the polling place which way your vote was recorded ... so can someone else. And that can lead to very serious consequences. Loss of job, family, the stakes are endless.

All that is required for you to verify your vote is a human-readable paper record that will be kept separate from the electronic record, but doesn't leave the polling place. That way you can verify it after you vote electronically, and if a recount is done, the paper trail box can be unlocked and counted.

Re:Election Fraud

[Lumpy]

Repub or Dem... I dont care who they are.

That judge needs to be hanging high from the gallows in a public hanging.

An example needs to be made, and a Judge is supposed to be the most trusted. A good old torches and pitchfork with it ending with him hanging from a rope is the message that needs to be sent to all these scumbags.

Honestly, the people of this nation need to get violent over these kinds of things.

Re:Election Fraud

[smidget2k4]

/* Off topic
While peer pressures may be one of the reasons (to make it easier to form), secret ballots in the workplace have their issues. Generally, there aren't enough people voting to maintain anonymity, and people get fired, etc, for how their employer thinks they've voted.

While I only half agree with the getting rid of secret voting, employers do need stricter penalties for unlawfully terminating employees who want to unionize, and this bill will increase those penalties.
*/

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

And being a few-thousand-dollar tax cheat is nothing compared to being a war profiteering traitor who selectively censored intelligence information from the president and congress to get a war started, a war said president was all too happy to go along with because "that bad guy attacked my dad." (cheney)

Ah, rationalization by pointing out how bad the other guy is. Another time-honored tactic from the Republican/Democratic playbook.

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

Lil touchy aren't we? He called himself an "extreme leftist" and then mocked "libertarian talking points". Figured it was only fair if we had the chance to mock some of his talking points.

actually attack a specific agenda item with a valid argument

Throw out some of your agenda items and we'll be happy to do that ;)

Re:Election Fraud

[barkingcorndog]

It's funny that you call it a 'frothing partisan political hackblogger', when I didn't even get the part where he's blaming either republicans or democrats. It looked like a piece on corrupt officials with little or no mention of party.

Re:Election Fraud

[Robyrt]

"Democrats and Republicans are both evil in their own ways."

Yeah, but Democrats are evil only when they're in power. Republicans are pretty much evil all the time.

So the best way to reduce evil is to vote Republican?

Re:Election Fraud

[Maxo-Texas]

The main purpose of democracy is to avoid massive bloodshed and social unrest around changes of power.

Someone is *always* screwed. Some fringe people may be screwed their entire lives.

But the alternative is civil war.

It's a sucky system of government (until you compare it to others) as the old saw goes.

Re:Election Fraud

[Lord Ender]

The primary difference between a liberal and a libertarian is a sense of pragmatism.

Re:Election Fraud

[A. B3ttik]

What's to stop Don Corleone from breaking your knees if you don't vote via mail-in ballot and show him how you are voting?

Re:Election Fraud

[DingerX]

You obviously didn't go through the indictment itself, where the party affiliations, when relevant is given. So the Democrat election commissioner is named in paragraph 4, and the Republican judge in paragraph 7. The #1 unfounded assumption a person makes is that the world is the way s/he thinks it is. In short, there's plenty of evidence that what you wrote is false. While the party affiliation of most people indicted is not mentioned (as it does not pertain to their job description), when mentioned, both parties come in.

Re:Election Fraud

[ciggieposeur]

You've got a paradox: who is more likely to screw up the vote? The election officials, or a person of authority outside the polling station? If the former, then the voter needs something they can take out with them to ensure their vote was cast the right way. If the latter, then the voter can't have anything leave the booth that could reveal their vote to someone else.

Which one do you think in practice is the greater threat to democracy?

Re:Election Fraud

[tuxgeek]

meh
you fail to note the election fraud on the national scale the neo-cons perpetuated in 2000 & 2004.
talk about the pot calling the kettle black

Re:Election Fraud

[ShieldW0lf]

The solution is to figure out exactly what you think gettnig rid of the secret ballot will do to reduce voter fraud, and find another way to do it.

Create enough forensic evidence that any attempt at large scale vote tampering without trace is impossible, allow individuals to personally verify that their vote was tabulated correctly, allow voters to have enough insight into the minds of those who they are voting for to bring their wisdom to bear rather than operating in relative ignorance, allow voters to express that they are revoking their vote if they are betrayed by their representative.

There was no secret ballot in the Roman empire. They ascended to dominance with public and open voting system. When they lost it, they fell inside a few generations. So, don't claim to me that it can't work, because history demonstrates that it can. The question is, how can we use modern technology to do it even better than they did. In Rome, you had to leave and go to the capital to raise your hand, so if you had responsibilities, you couldn't participate. That is a problem that modern information technology should be able to resolve.

Re:Election Fraud

[andytrevino]

Yes, because Larry Craig, Tom DeLay and their ilk are still so very much sheltered by the Republican party..

Meanwhile, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank and the like are in the worst position for the country: rather than being prosecuted for sweetheart loans and campaign contributions from AIG, they're actually being entrusted with fixing the current mess that they largely helped create. Way to go.

Re:Election Fraud

[opec]

LEX18 is not a newspaper. The Herald-Leader is, and their news story is here.

Re:Election Fraud

[!coward]

[...] And that's the main purpose of democracy; to say to the common man: "You voted for him so it's your fault that he's making fucktarded decisions", or "You voted against him but most people voted for him, so you're wrong".

Or as the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork would put it: "A thinking tyrant, it seemed to Vetinari, had a much harder job than a ruler raised to power by some idiot vote-yourself-rich system like democracy. At least they could tell the people he was their fault."

In any case, this is not the least bit surprising.. Any system that can be abused will be abused. It's simply a matter of time, access and motivation (greed, in this case). And pretty much any system can be abused. It's kinda like trying to design a fool-proof system.. You just need a more ingenious fool to break it.

But instead of this partisan bash-fest we're seeing in so many comments ("YOUR guys did it!", "YOUR guys have been doing it for longer!" ...), you should be focusing on the fact that this story, even moreso than the numerous Diebold debacles, highlights the absolute need for openness and accountability in the election process..

Like I said above, no one's going to find a magic bullet to this problem, because the problem is one of trust and convenience.. You're not inclined to trust election results whenever they don't fit with your expectations, so you want accountability. But at the same time, you want a system that makes it easy to vote (and you seem to have particularly complicated voting procedures), one that can be used by "computer-illiterate" people (so you don't end up marginalizing large sections of the population), basically one that doesn't make voting a pain in the ass.

Such a balance is hard, but can be achieved to a certain degree -- and that is what you should be demanding of your local, State and Federal government. But don't deceive yourself: you'll never be able to completely discard fraud.. Like I said, it's only a matter of time, access and motivation -- which isn't to say you shouldn't go through the motions and at least try to design a system that's "open" and works as intended.. Which is where BOTH parties have consistently failed over the past decade. It's not on their agendas and doesn't seem to be a major preoccupation to either of the two major parties (outside of episodic sabre-rattling when something like this happens -- after that, it's always back to business as usual). Not to mention other less-than-ethical-but-still-absolutely-legal practises like changing the voting districts around so that the demographics favor this candidate/party more than the previous map..

In my country, we still vote on paper ballots.. Ballots that get cast in a ballot box, and then get hand-counted. Technology is involved only in the process of communicating the results to the Electoral Committee. Each party nominates representatives to the circuits where they have lists on the ballots, and the thing is done only with these representatives.. A central government organization with "independent observers/oversight" is in charge or tallying the votes..

And guess what: 11 million in population, about 7-8 million registered voters -- of which about 4-5 million on average actually vote. Voting starts at 8am and ends 7pm. Because one of our islands is on a different timezone than the continent (one hour behind) all projections are banned until 8pm (ie, when their voting assemblies close). Projections at 8pm (usually very accurate), real results start at 8:30pm (before that there isn't enough data). Usually you have all the relevant results in by 10pm .. In most cases ALL results are in no later than 11:30pm (except for absentee and overseas ballots -- those, by constitutional decree get counted at a later date).

Not the fastest system, not very technologically advanced, but works like a charm everytime.. It's very very rare that even suspicions of fraud are raised.

Re:Election Fraud

[The Spoonman]

It comes right after cherry-picking parts of a comment that seemingly support your case and completely ignoring the ones that don't. Such as the part where he points out that he does not believe Rangel intentionally "cheated" on his taxes since he's the one who brought it out. The comparison was made that Rangel is "evil" because of his actions (or inactions), but evil is a choice. Rangel made a mistake. There's a difference. In a "who is more evil" discussion, which this one is, ultimately...bringing out the evil committed by the opposing side is perfectly acceptable.

Beyond that, it's unrealistic to assume that someone like Rangel even DOES his own taxes. I don't make anywhere near as much as he does and even *I* don't do my own taxes. I get the advice of a tax professional, and if that professional gives me wrong advice, it's difficult for me to know that. All of the recent tax issues faced by public officials have been minor, MINOR, and easily attributable to ignorance rather than malice...as opposed to the actions of those on the other side who are criticizing these mistakes.

Re:Election Fraud

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's funny that you call it a 'frothing partisan political hackblogger'...

My guess is that M1rth took exception to the following paragraph in the blog post (emphasis added):

The fact is, those who know anything about computer security understand that it is the insiders who are, by far, the greatest threat to security on such systems, as even the phony, GOP-operative-created Baker/Carter National Election Reform Commission determined in its final report: "There is no reason to trust insiders in the election industry any more than in other industries."

The blogger does, upon further investigation, seem to have a tendency to... well... froth. However, we should not let this detract from the core issue here: Voting without transparency and verifiability cannot be trusted to return accurate results.

Re:Election Fraud

[MightyDrunken]

That is the worst you can find? some guy that managed to 'dodge' 5000 dollars over 3 years?

Isn't it amazing how Democrats rationalize corruption in the exact same manner as Republicans?

No, no no. What Geekoid is saying is that Republican's are just much better. If you want something done well vote Republican, especially if it's fraud.

Re:Election Fraud

[hairyfeet]

Slightly OT, or maybe not, but are these the machines with the big blue easy to read screens that make a printout under glass on the left side of the machine? If so, according to the election official I talked to while waiting to vote in Nov we figured out a nice way around the whole rigging thing, and it didn't cost us a dime. We simply ignored the electronic vote and used that instead to give numbers to reporters for their exit polling and kept the receipts as ballots. The machines printed out a large easy to read printout that you could check before an election worker took it and put it in the ballot box.

It seemed to me this was the best of both worlds, as you didn't have the whole hanging chad or voter intent problems, it made it easy for those with bad eyesight to vote, was quick, and yet still had the paper ballot at the end of the day. I have to really give the election officials credit too, they really made voting nice this time. They had seating for the older folks and coffee for everybody, but what impressed me the most was what happened when a girl that had recently moved to the area got to the front. Instead of making the poor girl drive around trying to find the right place they simply pulled her aside and called her previous voting area and had her switched over. She got to vote with less than a 5 minute delay. I have to say it really was a nice and efficient experience.

Now if we could actually have someone worth voting for besides a bunch of crooks and corporate ass kissers.....but some things just can't be fixed with tech, if they can be fixed at all.

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

If you think the Democrats are immune to fraud just wait a few years. They haven't been in power long enough yet to get as corrupt as the GOP was.

Re:Election Fraud

[cthulu_mt]

All other comments aside I picked Rangel because I am a New Yorker and he jumped to mind.

If I was from Chicago I might have had more options.(From both parties)

Re:Election Fraud

[hairyfeet]

Yes, but as my boys who will soon be turning 18 and despite my protests have made it damned clear they have no intention of ever voting said to me, when all you are given is the lesser of two evils you are still choosing to side with evil. And sadly I have to agree they have a point. Both the Ds and Rs have gotten so blatantly corrupt you might as well just put "corporate ass kissing corrupt lying scumbag" A or B on the ballot.

When BOTH sides are for big government, more power for the fed, blowing cash like a gambling addict in Vegas, and passing any laws that a corporation buys....err lobbies for, no matter how badly they screw the people(see DMCA, Sonny Bono, current bailouts, two unpopular wars draining cash, pointless weapons systems that enrich defense contractors, etc for examples)

When you have that from BOTH sides, and their greed and blatant corruption is so damned obvious that even my 15 and 16 year old smells the bullshit from a mile away, who the hell ARE you going to vote for? Kodos? Hell, when I turned to my 67 year old mother for backup, who has voted in every election since she was 18, she said "Why bother? After seeing how corrupt they both have become and how Obama lied through his teeth and how McCain didn't mind earmarks as long as they were his, seriously why bother? It's pointless now."

And sadly if we don't get a real third party I think she is right. This last election I was practically holding my nose because the stench of corruption was all over all the choices. I think that is why nobody has pride in America anymore. You might as well grab everything that isn't nailed down for yourself before the entire Ponzi scheme collapses, because no matter which side you pick they are going to screw you and enrich themselves and their rich corporate buddies. Depressing? Yes, but as I sat there trying to think of a logical, legitimate argument for voting I frankly couldn't think of one. The MSM owns the gates of advertising and they are only going to push D or R, and frankly I would not pee on either side if they were on fire right now. The era of having "Trust Busters" like Teddy Roosevelt are apparently over for good and never to return. Just too much greed and whoring by the two sides to ever let anyone with integrity ever make it into a position of power.

Re:Election Fraud

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't think there is any controversy over the design goals of the "F/OSS thing". However certain implementations of the "F/OSS thing" have stirred some controversy between the pragmatists and the zealots.

Re:Election Fraud

[vidarh]

The main reason for a secret ballot is to prevent election fraud through vote buying and coercion. It was introduced exactly because of widespread fraud and abuse more or less everywhere that have tried voting without it.

Any system where it is reasonably easy to find out what specific people votes is prone to vote buying and coercion.

On the other hand it is fairly simple to protect a paper based election system (or one with a paper audit trail) relatively well against tampering: Ensure reasonably physical security and allow monitoring by any interested party at all times during transport and counting.

Re:Election Fraud

[Peaceful_Patriot]

I agree the source article seems less than impartial. Here are some reputable sources for more info:

google news

Re:Election Fraud

[Arancaytar]

Simple. Print the filled-out ballot, let the voter look at it, then make them throw it in the bin on their way out before they leave.

The best part is that you can count the bin contents to match the electronic outcome. That would basically be returning to the traditional ballot system, but the difference is that you only need a manual count if the electronic outcome is close (within, say, 5%) or in doubt.

Re:Election Fraud

[Tycho]

The primary difference between a liberal and a libertarian is a sense of pragmatism.

The liberal I assume is the pragmatist who has looked at the evidence and thus the libertarian is weirdo frothing at the mouth about what he has decided is true: The Moon is a Liberal Myth.

Re:Election Fraud

[mea37]

So the Roman Empire grew large, and that shows that its electoral system worked? How so? How is the total power accumulated by the government a measure of that government's reflection of the people's will? China has gotten quite powerful; does that mean that their model of government is a working democracy?

BTW, it's a nice rhetorical trick to imply (without quite saying) that the empire fell by replacing open balloting with secret ballot, but I think we both know that isn't what happened.

Now tell me -- did everyone in Rome vote their own mind, or was their pressure (from the politically powerful, from gangs, thugs, and bullies, etc.) that changed how people voted? Do you have enough insight into Roman society to answer that question, or did you merely cherry-pick an ancient example in hopes of skirting the specific issues that were raised?

For extra credit, go have a look at some current examples of what happens when the ballot isn't secret.

Re:Election Fraud

[Just Some Guy]

While peer pressures may be one of the reasons (to make it easier to form), secret ballots in the workplace have their issues. Generally, there aren't enough people voting to maintain anonymity, and people get fired, etc, for how their employer thinks they've voted.

So secret ballots are worse at protecting anonymity than open ballots? That's a novel point.

Re:Election Fraud

[SlowMovingTarget]

Score one for bipartisanship!

Re:Election Fraud

[fractoid]

Well, last election I looked at both sides and said "I can't honestly vote for either of you because I don't want either in power". So I didn't. What really got me was the TV advertising, which was so truthy you could run a truth-fork through it and get a whole forkload of truthy truthiness... but no actual truth. They told me ALL about how the other guy's niece this one time pulled her top up at a party, and how the other guy was practially a terrorist himself because he didn't believe in workers' unions, and how they would save me from "those damn young larrikins" by being "tough on car hoons" or "drugs" or "alcohol" or "gangs" or "internet pornography" or "music pirates" or "ecstasy" or anyone of a hundred different things that I don't actually think are wrong. And most importantly, other than bragging about how "tough" they were on all this stuff, they never, ever said ANYTHING about how they'd run the fucking country.

Forgive me for thinking that might somehow be relevant.

Re:Election Fraud

[RailGunner]

well a good treasurer doesn't pay out money he don't have to... right...
Please. If you can't see the problem in having a Tax Cheat as head of the IRS, then you're hopeless.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And a blowjob is SO AWFUL. It's none of your damn business.

Re:Election Fraud

[HiThere]

these people should be tried and hung for treason.

Sorry, treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution. I doubt seriously the definition can be stretched to fit this.

Yeah. You're technically correct. They should be tried for fraud and sentenced to consecutive sentences for each fraudulent vote. Also and similarly for malfeasance. And anything else that's just to tack on. (Look into accepting bribes and unjust enrichment.)

But the sentences need to be consecutive, not parallel.

Re:Election Fraud

[RailGunner]

And a blowjob is SO AWFUL. It's none of your damn business.

It wasn't that he got a hummer in the oval office. It WAS, however, that he lied under oath and denied it.

Saying it was about a hummer is disingenuous and intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue.

Re:Election Fraud

[Lord Ender]

Well, yeah. The liberal and the libertarian both want to protect personal liberties. But since we aren't all self-sufficient farmers living alone in shacks in the middle of nowhere, the liberals recognize some compromises are necessary for being part of a society, some more compromises are necessary for being part of a prosperous society.

And it seems a good number of the libertarians actually are self-sufficient farmers living in shacks so they see no reason to compromise on their principles.

But yeah, you get the idea. Same "spirit" as far as the abstract goals go.

Re:Election Fraud

[Rary]

But it is true that the Party of a Republican in the news tends to be mentioned in the summary, while the Party of a Democrat in the news tends to be quietly ignored in the summary.

Someone (maybe it was you, I dunno) made a similar comment in an article a while back. Someone else came along and posted many links to Slashdot summaries which explicitly mentioned the offending individuals as Democrats, and even posted links to a few summaries that failed to mention that the offending individuals were Republicans.

I'm not going to do the same research that person did — if you don't want to believe me, that's fine. Nevertheless, it happens both ways. Sometimes it may be because the submitter has an agenda, other times it may just be that the submitter didn't really care what party was involved and simply neglected to mention it. Either way, it's no conspiracy.

In this case, I don't think the party is relevant, so I would have written the summary the same way. What matters here is that the use of voting machines is just begging for abuse, and now we have an example of it actually happening. Democracy is being destroyed by these machines. That's the real story.

Actually, I just had a thought. Since people always want to know which party is the "bad guy" in the story, maybe leaving the party affiliations out of the summary is a sneaky way for Slashdot contributors and editors to get the rest of us to actually RTFA.

FYI, it didn't work on me. :)

Re:Election Fraud

[HiThere]

Actually I've noticed very few Libertarians, though lots of people who are libertarian grading towards anarchist. But you're right, there are probably more Libertarians here than in the general population, but in the general population there's probably fewer than 1 in 10,000. (Being a registered Libertarian doesn't prove that you're a Libertarian. There were several years that I registered Libertarian just to give the party a bit more funding. Then I did a more systematic analysis of voting and decided that all third parties were a sham given the current voting system. You need a minimum of very close to 1/3 of the voters adhering to your party to be able to act as anything other than a spoiler in the current system.)

Re:Election Fraud

[fractoid]

Oh, sorry, I almost forgot (and please forgive me for replying to myself) but the worst thing of all was the stupid banter about the economy. "Vote Labor for WORKERS RIGHTS", one side said. "Vote Liberal for A STRONG ECONOMY, Labor stands for a WEAK ECONOMY and we stand for a STRONG ECONOMY so if you want a STRONG ECONOMY vote for US!!!", the other side said. Then they continued on to say "Yes, Labor will MAKE INTEREST RATES RISE, and if you VOTE for ME, we will MAKE THE RATES FALL!!!!!!!!".

Which is blatant bullcrap because as anyone who bothers to look it up can find out, the interest rates here are set by the reserve bank, and aren't under the control of the government regardless of the party that's currently in. That aside, saying that parties can make the economy strong or weak instantly at a whim is just disingenuous.

Re:Election Fraud

[cbiltcliffe]

A Repubmocrat moderator.

Or is that a Demolican? It does seem to roll off the tongue a little better...

Re:Election Fraud

[anegg]

Re-distribute wealth from the poor to the rich?? How does that work? "Wealth redistribution" generally means taking money from one group and giving it to another. If no wealth was redistributed, everyone would only have the money that they were able to earn (one way or another) for themselves. There are a number of US tax and welfare policies that in essence take money from one class of people (those who have it) and give it to others (generally those who don't).

I don't know of any particular policy that actually takes it from those who don't have it and gives it to those who do. Could you cite your example here so that we can debate it properly?

For the purposes of this argument, I don't believe that examples wherein the amount of money being taken from those who have it is being reduced yet is still far more than that being taken from those who have less is really "wealth redistribution." This latter case where most of the screaming over the "unfair" tax lowering measures came from.

Lets change the US tax system to a "per capita" tax. We take the entire budget of basic government services, divide it by the number of residents, and have everybody pay their share. For those government services that aren't used by all of the folks, we charge fees to those who do use them. Fair enough?

Re:Election Fraud

[HiThere]

Are you talking about EMACS vs. vi? Or BSD vs. GPL? Or just more generally anything that inspired controversy? They all seem to be less common now than they were earlier. There seem to be fewer devotees to "The one true, right, and only way". Perhaps it's a sign of greater acceptance, or perhaps it's just that most of the original protagonists are growing older.

Re:Election Fraud

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

I see what you're saying, but no, I don't think there's a lot of room for interpretation. It's pretty clear that it's intended to be during wartime (though, apparently, we're at war permanently at this point.) It has more to do with becoming an enemy combatant, spy, or abettor (e.g. the American Taliban kid.)

Don't try too hard to stretch the meaning. We've been getting into a lot of trouble over that already. Breaking any law can be construed as "treason" if you try hard enough, because, generally speaking, breaking the law means you've probably hurt the common good. Think of all the trouble that would be caused by an expanding definition of treason. I don't think you want to go down that road. What you're talking about is a dictator's dream, and is exactly why the Constitution didn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Re:Election Fraud

[Requiem18th]

Since the article doesn't mention it, the people indicted were DEMOCRATS. Quite the conundrum, eh, SlashKos? On one hand, vote fraud is bad, but since it's your guys (Democrats) doing it is almost makes it ok, right?

Not exactly:
Fred Thompson is definitively a Republican.
William E. Stivers and Paul E. Bishop are far more obscure, but the only source I found reports them as Democrat and Republican respectively.

So this fraud was 66% Republican goodness.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson#Electoral_history
http://norunnyeggs.com/2009/03/election-rigging-in-kentucky/

Re:Election Fraud

[realnrh]

Hey now! I can't believe an error like this would be posted on Slashdot without immediate outcry. It's 'Judge Dredd.'

Re:Election Fraud

[realnrh]

Heck, you could even get *really* creative and do something off-the-wall like having voters fill out bubbles on a paper ballot by hand. Keep a few electronic voting machines at hand for ease-of-access purposes (being able to read the candidates for a blind voter, for example), but all those machines do is fill in the bubbles for the voter.

Re:Election Fraud

[Gat0r30y]

Yes, he lied under oath. But then again, there was a congressional investigation into whether or not get got a BJ. That is absurd in its own right. Left or Right, what you do with your sex organs in private, with consenting adults shouldn't be the government's business.

The 4 Fascist American Presidents: Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama.

I don't think you know what this word means. And your feeble attempt at fear mongering doesn't work particularly well when it is clear that you do not even know what the words you use mean.

Re:Election Fraud

[realnrh]

Right, because 'outside influence' is limited to the big mean unions, and the fact that union organizers and supporters currently have a distressing tendency to be illegally fired before the election, or that management can force their entire workforce to attend multiple anti-union harangues on company time while limiting pro-union voices to break rooms and outside of work, well, that's just a tiny detail. Put some teeth into the existing "No firing union organizers between certification and election" and subject management to the same restrictions on speech as the union organizers get, and then a secret ballot is a fair thing. As it is now, the secret ballot for unionization is only slightly less relevant than the secret ballot in North Korean elections. All the protections on the ballot itself are meaningless if the fundamental process is corrupt.

Re:Election Fraud

[AK Marc]

...and a receipt would also mean that people in positions of authority could force you to vote a certain way. "Vote for Joe Schmoe and bring me the receipt to prove you did it or you'll lose your job", that type of thing.

They can do that now trivially. Give them a camera and have them take a picture of the ballot. If you are worried about them faking it, pay off a poll worker to tell you if someone gets extra ballots. I could think up 100 ways of doing vote verification now, and it simply isn't a problem. Open voting was used the first 100 years or so of the US. The only reason it became a problem is because of race, starting around the time of the Civil War. All the fraud that would be eliminated by having verification would be a much greater benefit than having people demand receipts. It's illegal, and they'd have to verify them at some point, and anyone so coerced would be able to easily go to the cops and get the person caught.

People could also buy and sell votes, because there would be a a way that the buyer could know for certain whether or not the voter voted the buyer wanted him to (and of course refuse payment until the seller brings proof to the buyer).

Again, this is something that could easily happen now and doesn't. And there's no evidence that having a receipt being a litte easier to get would make this commonplace. Yet, the receipt would fix many types of other fraud. Are you really willing to choose to increase overall fraud in order to prevent any transparancy in the system?

Re:Election Fraud

[realnrh]

... And, as I should have mentioned first, you can use optical scan machines to then read the ballots and get the immediate-results efficiency. In 2004, Nader paid for a recount in several New Hampshire counties, where they use these optical scan machines; the hand-count results were found to be *less* precise than the optical scanner, due to human errors in tabulation. And since there's a physical ballot, it becomes very clear if the scanner is doing anything improper.

Re:Election Fraud

[AK Marc]

No way. Absolutely not. Secret ballot is vital to our system.

Absentee and early voting is often done in a manner that would allow anyone to essentially cast your vote for you (as long as you sign). It also allows those receiving the ballots to see how each and every early/absentee voter voted. And it's on the rise. Most elections are now decided by a margin less than the number of absentee/early votes. So if it is "vital" then our system is already broken, so we might as well make the most of it.

Re:Election Fraud

[slapout]

"Rest assured, the idiots in the current majority party will also be called out."

Really? Then why hasn't the president been called out for walking into a window? Or giving the wrong format DVD's to the British PM? If Bush had done these things he'd have been torn apart on Slashdot.

Re:Election Fraud

[EvilBudMan]

Just follow the money not the parties. Where the money is will be the answer 9 of 10 times.

Re:Election Fraud

[Darby]

When you have that from BOTH sides, and their greed and blatant corruption is so damned obvious that even my 15 and 16 year old smells the bullshit from a mile away, who the hell ARE you going to vote for?

Hell Dude, I was that age in the freaking 80s and it was that damned obvious then. I mean damn, remember Reagan selling crack to buy weapons for terrorists and then getting a pass from both parties rather than being impeached and executed for treason like would have happened if we'd believed in the rule of law even back then?

Re:Election Fraud

[DMUTPeregrine]

Punchscan lets you walk out with a record of how you voted, but it's useful only to you. No one can determine what candidates you voted for, they can merely determine that the votes were recorded as cast. http://www.punchscan.org/

Re:Election Fraud

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr]

Pictures of the voting machine screen with a given candidate only prove that the voter typed in the number they were told to. After taking the picture, they could have pressed "cancel" and typed in a different number before pressing "confirm".

Re:Election Fraud

[Chabo]

As long as people believe that if neither the Democrats nor Republicans put up a good candidate, then they might as well not vote, then we'll never get a good third party.

If you didn't like McCain or Obama, you should've voted for someone else. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, somebody. If all the jaded voters who didn't vote did that instead, then McCain and Obama would've each only had about 25% of the population each. Doesn't matter if the election outcome would've been different, but it would've showed the nation that true change to our system of government is possible.

Another thing is that it's very possible to make a significant change at the local election level, even if your vote has no federal influence. Never vote for any incumbent politician unless they've shown that they will make an effort to reduce the size and scope of government influence on our daily lives.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What are you going on about?

Look at what far right Senator Specter said in his defense:

"I'd still like to see Sen. Craig fight this case," he said. "He left himself some daylight, when he said he âintends' to resign in 30 days. I'd like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case. I've had some experience in these kinds of matters since my days as Philadelphia district attorney, and with the evidence, Sen. Craig wouldn't be convicted of anything."

And you also don't seem to know how AIG made the mess we're in right now. Read up a bit. Your ignorance is showing.

Re:Election Fraud

[RailGunner]

Go read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, then you can argue with me about the meaning of fascism.

And your facts are wrong: Clinton was under oath lying about Lewinsky because Paula Jones sued him for sexual harrasment. It was in THAT TRIAL that he lied.

Re:Election Fraud

[bzipitidoo]

You forget another culprit: the system.

Systems are shaped by many idiocies of the moment--legislators adding convolutions designed to help or hurt some group. The tax code is so horribly complicated it's nigh impossible to do taxes right. Elections are also like this. For instance, in Texas neither R's or D's got on the ballot in time. In 2005, Texas changed the lead time from 60 days to 70 days. Why? Who knows, but it's just the sort of thing to trip up political parties. It's hard to imagine they had a valid reason for that change. Red light cameras and parking meters are well known to be revenue generation schemes, whatever authorities try to claim about safety.

Other schemes generate dirt. Of course some politicians are dirty rotten cheating scoundrels. But if you want to find reasons why any particular politician is a scumbag, and you aren't worried about being fair, you won't have far to look. There's all kinds of hoked up crud you can nail anyone on. As said in All The King's Men, "there's always something". Tax cheating seems to be the flavor of the moment. It's little wonder our best people don't want to go into politics. We've had many calls for "kinder gentler" politics, working with the opposition, reaching across the aisle. But many prefer vicious, bloody, dramatic fights, no mercy, no forgiveness. You can help by curbing your desire for the latter.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

There's a difference between the guys you mention. The Republicans are criminals and in jail. The others aren't criminals.

Or are you going to argue that a fatal traffic accident is something to go to jail for? Hmmmm Laura Bush Ms. Killed her first boyfriend because she was high and didn't want the secret of her abortion to come out?

Hmmmm?

Fucking baby. I'm wiping the shit off your ass.

Re:Election Fraud

[AliasMarlowe]

these people should be tried and hung for treason.

Sorry, treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution. I doubt seriously the definition can be stretched to fit this.

I suspect a lynching would be more in line with the American tradition of informality. Holding an actual trial before the hanging just looks pompous and ritualistic.

Re:Election Fraud

[Darby]

Honestly, the people of this nation need to get violent over these kinds of things.

Absofuckinglutely.

The kind of people who will disagree with you on the grounds of some sentimental bullshit like "dropping to their level", at this point are nothing but illustrations of the truth of "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb".

   

Re:Election Fraud

[alfredo]

The people who owned and programmed these machines have a political and religious agenda. Google "Urosevich brothers. " Whether they did something wrong or not, their close ties to radical religious groups and GWB raised some red flags. Their unwillingness to allow any oversight, and questionable tactics made matters worse. Diebold boss, Wally O'Dell's unfortunate 2004 comments about delivering the electoral votes to Bush in Ohio, raised even more suspicion.

BTW, Diebold and other voting machine companies would not allow any inspection of the software claiming "trade secrets."

Our elections should have never been privatized.

Re:Election Fraud

[Ashriel]

If I don't vote (and I didn't, which in Australia is actually punishable, but so be it

Cool. Most things I hear about Australia make me never want to go there, but legally requiring citizens to vote is kind of neat. Sort of like fascist democracy.

Let me guess, you have to vote but you don't have the ability to write in your own candidate.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Only a moron would think that book is worth a shit. You don't even know what fascism is.

Re:Election Fraud

[Ashriel]

No party is going to steal for me :(

I vote in order to not vote for the guy I like the least.

Re:Election Fraud

[Mad Marlin]

I believe that vote fraud is the crime committed here, and it doesn't carry a death sentence (unfortunately).

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What a tiny cock you have.

Re:Election Fraud

[Petrushka]

If I don't vote (and I didn't, which in Australia is actually punishable, but so be it - I didn't see a candidate I could conscionably vote for)

You should always vote. If you can't vote for any of the candidates in good conscience, do a write-in. If you can't do a write-in, vote no confidence. If you can't vote no confidence, spoil the ballot paper.

An election where 30-40% of all ballot papers came back spoilt would send a political message, however small or insignificant. Not voting sends a message that you don't care.

(Unfortunately, of course, this isn't possible with an electronic voting system.)

Re:Election Fraud

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

But then employers have an advantage of being able to gather and lecture employees selling
them on the idea that a union would kill their employment.

It seems that companies have the upper hand (ever since R.Regan started the union busting with the Air Traffic Controllers). Companies have the power, the money to dictate their salaries and the salaries of workers. I don't think the average worker really is behind the extreme (sometime 300 to 1) ratios of highest to lowest salaries within companies.

Just look at the abuses lately with the AIG bonuses. Lets say that tax payer money to one executive of say 1 mill dollar bonus. How many other workers could live on that money over a year. Say a salary of 50k a good wage. Lets double that for benefits and medical etc.
100k so 10 workers could have a good job for a year for 1 bonus. We are talking about $160Million so that means 1600 workers could have jobs and pay morgages and raise their kids and send them to college for the tax payer money given to those executive that took the risks that brought down AIG and the economy. So anything that would make unions easier to be created, could bring this out of balance salary structure back into balance.

Re:Election Fraud

[ushering05401]

Easy: If you don't vote, you have no right to bitch about the people you didn't vote for screwing things up :)

You almost have it. If you don't vote you have no obligation to bitch.

Re:Election Fraud

[Just Some Guy]

There is no way in this universe that your claim could be possible.

Re:Election Fraud

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Great point.

I say this respectfully, but it seems as if you're assuming that the Democrats are just waiting to become corrupt. I'm under the impression that both parties sell their souls to get that much-prolific "D" and "R" tag before they even enter mainstream politics. So, in other words, most of them are already corrupt and it's a matter of time before the skeletons are dug out of their closet.

This all comes back to voter education. As a good colleague of mine once said - "you deserve who you vote for." There absolutely needs to be a bigger push to make more information about candidates available to voters, and not just snippets of their accomplishments. What is their voting record? What proposals do they agree with or disagree with? Why do they agree / disagree with it? Are they going to allow their personal views drive what policies they enact? Are they easily influenced by lobbies? How many pork projects do they push through? (Stuff that has no real benefit to constituents, but helps out lobbies.)

This needs to happen on all levels of government: at the local, state, and federal level. The flip side is that voters must be willing to research and understand this information before making a decision.

Anyway, good comment on your part.

Re:Election Fraud

[shinzawai]

That is so coincidental. Most things I hear about the USA make me never want to go there either.

Re:Election Fraud

[ShieldW0lf]

So the Roman Empire grew large, and that shows that its electoral system worked? How so? How is the total power accumulated by the government a measure of that government's reflection of the people's will? China has gotten quite powerful; does that mean that their model of government is a working democracy?

Clearly, their model of government has demonstrated itself to be superior to any contemporary socio-economic system.

BTW, it's a nice rhetorical trick to imply (without quite saying) that the empire fell by replacing open balloting with secret ballot, but I think we both know that isn't what happened.

I didn't imply any such thing. I simply drew attention to the fact that it wasn't the Emperors that brought Rome to their apex, it was direct democracy without secret ballot.

Now tell me -- did everyone in Rome vote their own mind, or was their pressure (from the politically powerful, from gangs, thugs, and bullies, etc.) that changed how people voted? Do you have enough insight into Roman society to answer that question, or did you merely cherry-pick an ancient example in hopes of skirting the specific issues that were raised?

I don't see how that's relevant. Social pressure is an inherent part of every human society, it is inevitable, and it is not a flaw to be overcome.

For extra credit, go have a look at some current examples of what happens when the ballot isn't secret.

I already know. Two faced double dealing and shady back-room deals that carry the force of law. I don't know if you noticed, but the world has gone to shit, over and over again for the last hundred years. This doesn't happen because we aim wisely and miss the mark. It does this because our social system are so incredibly fucked up that these crisis' are inevitable.

How many cycles of angry citizens shoveling banksters into gas chambers do you think appropriate before we recognize what's going on and do something about it?

Re:Election Fraud

[mcsporran]

You don't actually have to vote for anybody, you can of course lodge an invalid or blank polling slip.

You do have to turn up at the polling station, and will get a fine if you don't.

Re:Election Fraud

[ngg]

If a gang in an area wants a particular candidate in power (because, say, he/she is easy on their brand of crime)

What if the gang wants a particular candidate in power because he's/she's hard on their brand of crime, and that makes it easier for them to maintain their cartel?

Re:Election Fraud

[Gat0r30y]

OK, so in order to argue with you, I have to go read a book to understand the meaning of the word Fascism? Without the agreement before hand on the meaning of terms, argument isn't particularly useful, But if you get to define all the terms, well I'm not going to argue with you. How about instead, we use well defined terms from sources we could agree upon. Like say the dictionary, or Wikipedia (though I suspect from your tone, that one is out of the question).

Re:Election Fraud

[LordKazan]

I know most people are conditioned to think wealth redistribution only means rich->poor: but it doesn't, it means any reallocation, it also doesn't mean redistributed to everyone.

Tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor the rich (both in terms of % cut and total dollars cut) = upward redistribution. Giving $8 billion grants to oil companies that are in the middle of record profits = wealth redistribution. Many more examples.

    We haven't had as great of a wealth disparity in this country as we do now since just before the great depression.

And no.. to your last paragraph not "fair enough": that system is unworkable that is the problem. I wasn't objecting to wealth redistribution as a whole, I was talking about improper and/or counterproductive uses of it. The fact of the matter is no modern economy can work without it, it will collapse. When you redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich such as was being done under Bush then you get things like we have right now: economic collapses: history shows this over and over again but greedy fuckers never learn their lesson.

Re:Election Fraud

[mad_clown]

What we're saying is that when Republicans do it, the criminals are protected and sheltered by the party. When Democrats do it, we eject them from the party and prosecute them.

Which of Obama's tax-cheating nominees have been "ejected from the party" and prosecuted? How about Dodd? Or Rangel?

I'm so tired of Democrats piously informing everyone else about just how "tough on their own" they really are. You're just as bad as the Republicans.

A pox on both your houses.

Re:Election Fraud

[hawk]

In Nevada, ours print a hard copy that you can read, but stays with the machine.

hawk

Re:Election Fraud

[myspace-cn]

Those stupid record companies, they do that to me all the time
PAL miniDV DVD

Maybe the prime minister has a video editor? Then you could just render it in the proper format

Re:Election Fraud

[mad_clown]

it's easy to make something sound bad by slapping a label on it

It's also easy to make something look good by employing silly blandishments.

"Protecting the environment" can mean anything from "keeping people from dumping toxic waste into the local lake" to "burning down car dealerships," depending on who's doing the "protecting." "Protecting your rights" often morphs into "hate speech laws" that have the perverse effect of infringing on First Amendment rights. "Fighting crime" is a completely meaningless term (I'd love someone to explain to me what a "root cause" is without resorting to worn-out racial tropes), and "protecting consumers..." is all too often a smokescreen for increased government intervention in the economy, which, as the housing crisis has amply proved, often has a hand in... crashing the economy.

I'm also rather shocked that you'd consider socialism merely an "economic system," when the very point of socialism is that the state assumes control of the economy. Any time the state is involved in anything whatsoever, politics becomes important.

Re:Election Fraud

[HornWumpus]

Editor was slacking...

At the end of the article. Page 2.

Appointed the election board members

Paid people to vote for specific candidates

The editor only did half his job. The shit must have splattered on someone the newspaper likes.

Re:Election Fraud

[tsotha]

A vote doesn't imply your endorsement for the candidate. All it means, at a minimum, is you think this guy isn't as bad as the other one. "I didn't see a candidate I could conscionably vote for" is a cop out. This is one of those cases where perfect is the enemy of good. I'm not one of those who thinks you have no right to complain if you didn't vote, but if enough people do what you're doing a small, motivated segment of the electorate can get wacky people into positions of power.

Re:Election Fraud

[neomunk]

The only problem with that is that I'm not a murderer, you're not a murderer, we'll assume Lumpy isn't a murderer either.

The people who get killed are usually trying to do something positive, because the ones who DO murder are fearful of positive change.

That's how I see it anyways.

Re:Election Fraud

[dbIII]

then no-one can blame me for 'choosing' the candidate who's currently fucking our country

But ... he gave us chocolate and flowers first.

Off to vote in a State election today, and it's going to be all done on paper. The results should be clear in less than an hour after votes close since there will be a lot of volunteers from all parties counting them instead of some idiot deciding to make a business out of the process.

Re:Election Fraud

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

Disregarding the machine, TFA says there actually was vote-buying going on:

While the Early Voting scheme involved finding voters who might wish to be paid to have their vote cast a certain way

I think this was more to do with buying absentee ballots or something, rather than having anything to do with the machines, but it's a gaping loophole that puts Goatse Guy to shame.

Re:Election Fraud

[dbIII]

Not really. I don't even live in your country and I've frequently been called a Democrat stooge for writing things critical of people that happen to be Republican. Those defending the actions of Republicans typically used that as a "debating technique" - ignore the argument and just attack the person making it and accuse them of being partisan. Personally I think you need to change your lobby system which corrupts all parties, and stop torturing people FFS - it puts the USA morally behind even China and every third world shithole who are at least honest about the torture.

Re:Election Fraud

[neomunk]

*raises hand* I am. Vehemently, though I'm not the OP. I'm an Independent party wise, but with a good enough dose of liberal ideology that I think I'd make a valid sample for your little survey.

It's a large point of contention between me and my mostly-politically-alike friends, but yeah, I'm against gun control for pretty much the reason you imply. Leaving only authoritarians with access to guns seems to be an excessively short-sighted idea to me.

Re:Election Fraud

[hairyfeet]

Sigh, nice thought.....but here (AR) the locals elections don't even have a D or R anymore, just D most of the time. So I repeat, WHO am I going to vote for, Kodos? There is NO "none of the above" and the last election I'd say a good 2/3rds here were simply "push here to vote D" and that was it. Reminded me of those third world "democracies" where they all vote for "el presidente" whether they WANT el presidente or not, simply because the only one on the ballot IS el presidente. I mean, we had a couple of greens in a few of the pointless slots, but the MSM ignored them so much you didn't know if you were voting for a serial killer with as little as you'd heard about them.

You can't HONESTLY expect a third party candidate to win, can you? Not when the MSM pounds into John Public about how he is "wasting his vote" and making damned sure that you NEVER here anything about the third party guy or their positions. Nobody is going to vote for "John Gault" if they have never heard a single word about him or what he stands for. Hell, for all you know he might be all for a police state and waving the flag of the Aryan Brotherhood. You just don't know. And when many folks still get their news from newspaper and TV(I'd say about 1/3 of my area can't even get better than 14k dialup) and the MSM refuses to do their jobs because they are owned by corporate interests....well then there really isn't any point in voting now, is there? At least not here. And from the looks of things more and more of them are getting like my boys and just wanting to wash their hands of the whole thing.

Democracy can't function if nobody believes in it anymore. And more and more folks I talk to, from the teens to my 94 year old granny, think the whole things has turned into a scam. And sadly I'm beginning to feel the same. Just grab what you can before Rome burns.

Re:Election Fraud

[LordKazan]

(I'd love someone to explain to me what a "root cause" is without resorting to worn-out racial tropes)

Economic hardship most of the time

Re:Election Fraud

[couchslug]

"I choose the party that's going to steal for me."

I'm a blue-collar White guy for whom no one will steal and from whom all is stolen, so I'm stuck with the party that supports my right to shoot back.

Re:Election Fraud

[GodfatherofSoul]

Not true, and I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated. The law is to give the workers the choice of secret ballots. The reason why? Because of the cottage industry of union organization busting that has cropped up in Corporate America.

Re:Election Fraud

[fractoid]

I see where you're coming from, but I stand by my statement that none of the candidates were any different, or any more aligned with my views, on any issue I cared about.

I'd be very interested in seeing how it would work out if a candidate ran with no platform except democracy. Set up a secure website where people could (after confirming themselves as members of the electorate) log in and vote, personally, on every single issue that was being raised. Then the candidate would cast their vote according to their electorate's wishes, allowing the electorate to directly have their (aggregated) say on any issue. Hell, I'm tempted to do it myself, the only problem is whether the average Aussie would actually care enough and/or understand the difference. I suspect a key reason that democracy works reasonably well in general is that it results in the government not bothering the populace too much between elections. :(

Re:Election Fraud

[MinistryOfTruthiness]

Coincidentally, as I was reading your comment, Matthew Lesko's free government money for whatever you want commercial came on. Besides that one, I've been seeing more and more commercials about how to get "free money" from the government. Ridiculous. Snuggle on up to the teat, folks. Parasitical behavior has finally gone mainstream.

My first thought was that this guy's encouraging people to take more and more of my money and that of other hard-working taxpayers like myself, because after all, it's not like money just appears out of thin air by the trillions! Then I remembered: it does now.

Re:Election Fraud

[TapeCutter]

Not picking on you personally but most suggestions here just show that the authors have not taken the time to understand how hand counted paper operates. It's number one priority is trust. What "problem" are we fixing by using a counting machine?

Re:Election Fraud

[dakohli]

OK, so I just don't get this. Are you saying that the only way you can have a secret ballot is using an electronic system? Now, I have worked in IT for years, I LOVE technology, however for this, low tech is the way to go. Secret ballots on paper. I'm Canadian and don't see what the fuss is about. You mark the ballot with an 'X', put it in a box, and later it's counted. You have scrutineers who can reject it based on agreed upon convention. Any system can be hacked, but if it is all based on 1s and 0s, then it can be difficult to trace. -my $.02

Re:Election Fraud

[cbiltcliffe]

You're all a bunch of blind dingbats.

All politicians are corrupt, regardless of party, leanings, political viewpoints, sound bites, associate relationships, or what have you.

The whole problem with politics is that people get voted in, simply because "They're not as bad as the other guy."

When you stop and realize that they're all a bunch of crooks, then maybe you'll actually be able to get somewhere with your broken political system. Not that ours is any better, but at least we have more than two parties.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You know, there's a difference between making a mistake on your taxes and cheating on your taxes.

We'll find the tax cheats when Switzerland gets rid of their secret banking rules.

Idiot.

Re:Election Fraud

[martinX]

Having compulsory voting actually protects your voting rights since the government has to go to all sorts of lengths so that people are able to cast a vote, and woe betide an employer that tried to interfere with their employees voting.

It's run by the Australian Electoral Commission. Since they count all the votes, too, this keeps the political parties at least one pair of hands removed from the votes.

As others have said, voting isn't compulsory, but turning up at a polling station and getting your name crossed off is. Since they have polling stations at least at every state school, it's not that hard to find one.

I really don't get the "write in your own candidate" thing you guys have. If someone wanted to stand for office in an area, wouldn't they just register to do so, and so be on the voting slip?

Re:Election Fraud

[DragonWriter]

Not picking on you personally but most suggestions here just show that the authors have not taken the time to understand how hand counted paper operates. It's number one priority is trust. What "problem" are we fixing by using a counting machine?

The suggestion here was taking as outside the scope of the debate whether one wanted electronic tabulation. But there are efficiencies that can be realized, using the mechanism I outline in GP (which is by no means original!), without sacrificing the reliability that comes with handcounting.

Further, in the broader sense, there are a number of other election methods besides those currently popular in the US that are possible that are not going to be practical for large elections with complete manual counting as the norm (rather than an exception in cases where there are irregularities in the random verification); since a more sophisticated basic method is probably essential to retain candidate-centered elections but eliminate the features of poor representation, duopoly, and incumbent advantage, getting the basic processes of electronic elections down opens up useful avenues that are otherwise closed.

Re:Election Fraud

[DragonWriter]

That must be why the labor unions want to get rid of them.

EFCA doesn't get rid of secret ballot elections, nor does it remove the right of workers to choose secret ballot elections.

Nor, it should be noted, are secret ballots considered anything like a universal norm in the except in elections by the public for public office or on public issues.

Re:Election Fraud

[TapeCutter]

"The suggestion here was taking as outside the scope of the debate whether one wanted electronic tabulation."

Uhu, but still, what's the problem counting machines are trying to solve? What are these avenues? - "poor representation, duopoly, and incumbent advantage" are all about how one gets placed on the ballot, nothing to do with trustworthy counting.

Re:Election Fraud

[Ashriel]

I really don't get the "write in your own candidate" thing you guys have. If someone wanted to stand for office in an area, wouldn't they just register to do so, and so be on the voting slip?

Nope. Ballot access laws are determined by the individual state, and most of them are skewed against allowing minority runners on the ballot. If you aren't a member of a major party (I think it's 3% of the national vote in the previous election to qualify), then you're looking at needing 3-5% of the electorate to sign a petition. Also, it's expensive to get on the ballot - usually between $8-10k. You can check out a few of the worst ballot access laws here.

Re:Election Fraud

[geminidomino]

Okay, so what does the constitution say about "oathbreaking?" Surely we can get a law passed to have THAT declared a capitol offense. After all, what kind of politician wants to be seen as soft on dishon... BWHAHAHAHHA...

Sorry. I almost had it.

Re:Election Fraud

[martinX]

I think our laws require some sort of upfront money but if you get a certain percentage of the primary vote, the AEC gives you a bunch of money to cover costs.

This means you can have a go at running, but discourages frivolous candidates.

I have to be honest: the US system of voting is the most convoluted system for doing ANYTHING I have ever seen. From nominations, right through to counting the votes, it is just complexity for the sake of complexity. Combine that fact with the fact that it seems everyone from the president down to the dogcatcher is voted in, I think the complexity can only aid corruption: crooks can hide behind complex rules and when they're in power they can make up even more complex rules which won't get challenged by the populace because no-one can understand the existing ones anyway.

Re:Election Fraud

[Ashriel]

I think the complexity can only aid corruption: crooks can hide behind complex rules and when they're in power they can make up even more complex rules which won't get challenged by the populace because no-one can understand the existing ones anyway.

Yep, that's the idea. Never even mind the slight of hand they pull in some states, where poor voting districts that are full of people who may not be interested in maintaining the status quo have their polling places reassigned at the last minute without notice, or the registration lists may be swapped, or just plain fudged.

Then there's the "moral turpitude" laws some southern states have - should you be convicted of a crime that suggests moral turpitude (like receiving stolen property), you lose your right to vote in that state.

In short, it damn near takes an Act of God to get a minority party into a high office - it's been done before, but it's rare.

When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."

How did I miss that before? That's a riot :)

Re:Election Fraud

[Brad Eleven]

Your point is well taken, but like everything else, there's a trade off. If the ballot is secret, it is easier to manipulate.

Re:Election Fraud

[Brad Eleven]

Nice. Spew talking points much?

Saying that labor unions as a whole want to get rid of secret ballots is an ignorant smear. Citing the wikipedia EFCA article--which says in its first paragraph that the purpose is to make it easier for employees to organize and join labor unions--is just silly.

And there's bound to be conflict between employers and employees, whether the employees are organized or not, and whether the organization is a previously organized labor union. I personally think that labor unions are outmoded, and that only worldwide unions are effective. The obvious tradeoff is corruption of worldwide organizations, as demonstrated with multinational corporations.

It's not that unions want to eliminate the secret ballot. They want to allow for authorization cards to be recognized as a valid alternative.

The rationale behind providing an alternative to a secret ballot is that most workplaces which benefit from union representation do not facilitate a secret ballot. Think it over: If you were put in charge of administering a secret ballot, what would be on your To Do List?

You may be accustomed to public elections with secret ballots run by someone else. That doesn't mean that it's easy to set up and run a secret ballot. Further, the employer is not interested in a union, and so is not inclined to help with the secret ballot.

All unions aren't helpful. All employers aren't fair. There is no single solution, even to the same problem in different places.

Re:Election Fraud

[Shakrai]

They want to allow for authorization cards to be recognized as a valid alternative.

Which means that instead of being pressured by my employer I'll be pressured by my pro-union co-workers instead. How is that any better? What if I don't want a union? Instead of being able to vote my conscience in secret without outside intimidation I'm now forced to get into an argument with the pro-union co-workers and explain why I don't want a union.

Getting rid of the secret ballot serves no purpose other than to shift the source of intimidation to a different group. If your argument is that it's hard to run a secret ballot election then let's pass some legislation that provides a mechanism to do this -- perhaps the NLRB could run them? -- shifting the intimidation from the employer to the union solves nothing.

Re:Election Fraud

[mad_clown]

It's astonishing, though, how many of Obama's hirelings have "made mistakes" on their taxes. "Mistakes", moreover, that if any of us plebians made, would probably land us in jail.

Kudos for the ad-hominem, though.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's astonishing how often right wingers think that mistakes on taxes are always purposeful.

It's astonishing how ofen right wingers take one data point and turn it into a data set.

It's astonishing how ofen right wingers take individual situations and put them under a misleading banner - take unrelated situations and call them all tax cheating.

It's a sign of your worthless brain and tiny cocks. I love the tiny cocks, but you still shouldn't brag about them.

Re:Election Fraud

[JasterBobaMereel]

There should be two records
1) Who has voted
2) A vote by one of the above, and who it is for

The two should not be connected in any way, they should not be able to, and have no reason to, ever tie the two back together, this is the anonymous part of voting

You cannot be intimidated, or punished for which you voted if nobody can ever know which way you voted, just if you did, and that you only voted once ....

Re:Election Fraud

[MrMarket]

On the left: We must win on the merit of our social ideas.

LOL. While I admire progressive idealists in the Democratic party, Democrats have a long tradition of winning by any means necessary.

Re:Election Fraud

[martinX]

Changing that sig (an original by me. An amalgam of that famous piece and something a Robert Heinlein/John Wayne hybrid would say) to:

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

    -- Henry Louis Mencken

Re:Election Fraud

[mad_clown]

Is this supposed to be irony?

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

What the fuck are you going on about? We've already established your tiny brain and tiny cock (which I love). Do you want to sleep with me or something?

Re:Election Fraud

[mad_clown]

Perhaps.

Re:Election Fraud

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Cool, let's fuck.

Re:Election Fraud

[Uberbah]

They tend to spend most of their time digging the country out of the cluster fuck the Republicans got us in

Fixed that for you.

Obama pledged in the campaign to run an open and transparent administration

And in most areas, he has. Exceptions would be with his finance team (who should be fired) and lack of will to investigate/overturn Bush's unconstitutional war policies.

He promised that he'd not sign any bill until the people had some time to read it

Under the alternative Constitution that exists in your mind? The president has 10 days to sign or veto a bill.

He promised change so us wingnuts are going to respond with the usual blathering, raving & ranting, lying, and pathetic attempts at misdirection

Fixed that too. Obama may indeed fail to get the job done - but if that happens, it will be because he was too conservative to do what was necessary.

Treason

[Just Some Guy]

Elected officials subverted the voice of the people for personal profit. Execute them. I am serious. There needs to be an example made, quickly and decisively.

Re:Treason

[Rogerborg]

Bear in mind that the people who write the laws are the winners of elections. You can see how they might be disinclined to change a system that demonstrably favours them.

Re:Treason

[itschy]

And don't spare those that made this, against all warnings, possible.

Re:Treason

[Kokuyo]

Even though I do not agree with a death sentence, I agree with the acting decisively part. Our countries are there for the people. The people IS the country, so to speak.

And since this directly went behind the backs of the people, treason is the proper definition here. Imagine what shenanigans will happen, if this kind of behaviour is not come down upon hard.

Re:Treason

[Just Some Guy]

Bear in mind that the people who write the laws are the winners of elections.

That's why it's critical that this be handled harshly. When the guardians deliberately attack their charges, the penalties must be severe.

Re:Treason

[Atrox666]

"Imagine what shenanigans will happen, WHEN this kind of behaviour is not come down upon hard."

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:Treason

[Rogerborg]

If they penalties aren't severe enough, perhaps you could run for election and get them upgraded?

Re:Treason

[SterlingSylver]

Executing corrupt pols is always a popular choice, but we should really consider public humiliation. Bring back the stocks. Seize all their assets, all their family's assets. Then, after a month or two of leaving them in the town square, throw them in federal PYITA prison, and let them rot for all eternity

Re:Treason

[couchslug]

"That's why it's critical that this be handled harshly. When the guardians deliberately attack their charges, the penalties must be severe."

The crimes by government against the people can not be tolerated. They are worse than mere murder (other than mass murder) because they damage us all. Likewise, massive financial crimes damage all of us.

People such as election fraudsters and Bernard Madoff should be executed (and not by silly lethal injection) in public. Hanging would do fine.

Re:Treason

[Curien]

Uh... because treason is defined in the Constitution, and this is not it.

Re:Treason

[bentcd]

Seriously. How is this not treason?

In the context of the U.S., its Founding Fathers were very reluctant to label as treason anything that could be used by a tyrant to strike down on legitimate internal opposition. Therefore, they were left with only two very specific acts that would be considered treason:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (...)"

"Conspiracy to rig an election" is just not on that list.

Re:Treason

[worthawholebean]

The US Constitution defines treason as "levying war against [the US], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This isn't it.

Re:Treason

[CrimsonAvenger]

The crimes by government against the people can not be tolerated. They are worse than mere murder (other than mass murder) because they damage us all. Likewise, massive financial crimes damage all of us.

People such as election fraudsters and Bernard Madoff should be executed (and not by silly lethal injection) in public.

You are aware that Madoff didn't work for the government, correct? He was an old-fashioned private-citizen criminal....

Re:Treason

[Dog-Cow]

As others have posted, it's not actually treason. However, it's also true that treason is not the only crime whose punishment should be death.

Re:Treason

[CrimsonAvenger]

And since this directly went behind the backs of the people, treason is the proper definition here

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

I trust you can demonstrate how this action fits, since you have declared that "treason is the proper definition"?

Re:Treason

[Just Some Guy]

Founding Fathers were very reluctant to label as treason anything that could be used by a tyrant to strike down on legitimate internal opposition.

That was good and wise and as it should be. You don't want the ruling party to define treason to include "speeding, if my opponent is doing it".

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them

I'm willing to accept that they staged direct attacks on their political enemies. Our own government doesn't hold that warfare must include physical action; ref.: the new Cyber Command.

Re:Treason

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seriously. How is this not treason?

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Well, it's not levying war against the US.

It's not adhering to the enemies of the US.

And it doesn't actually give aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.

So, basically, that's how it's not treason.

Re:Treason

[GMFTatsujin]

So now I'm thinking of the Battlestar Galactica in which Roslyn rigged the election. How many people who cheer her on as a strong leader are calling for charges of treason here?

Just a thought from my sociological mind. Personally, I think they should all swing.

Re:Treason

[ITJC68]

We have already witnessed voter registration fraud at the hand of ACORN. Now they want to be part of the census? No one in their right mind would allow this. This country needs to start over with voter registration. You register to vote and must present your voter registration card at the time of your vote. If you don't have your card you don't vote. PERIOD. I voted in the last election and watched many people in front of me not even produce ID and were allowed to vote!! I am not saying any of this fraud would have changed the outcome of the last election. I don't know that. It does however put a cloud of suspicion over it. Until the US can come up with a better way to register people to vote and VERIFY them at the time of voting there will always be fraud in some form.

Re:Treason

[maxume]

Yep, prison doesn't count if there is no anal rape involved.

Re:Treason

[maxume]

Just carefully define enemy.

Re:Treason

[jollyreaper]

In the context of the U.S., its Founding Fathers were very reluctant to label as treason anything that could be used by a tyrant to strike down on legitimate internal opposition. Therefore, they were left with only two very specific acts that would be considered treason:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (...)"

"Conspiracy to rig an election" is just not on that list.

I understand but to my point of view the highest treason possible against a democracy is tampering with the voting process because it is faith in that process that serves as the underpinning for the entire society. If you cannot trust the vote, what can you trust? Tampering with the vote should have the same sense of shock and horror we reserve for pedophilia and necrophilia. The consequences should be drastic and dreadful so that even a Nixon wouldn't dream of incurring them. Frankly, it's the only crime I can think of worthy of the death penalty at a federal level, and this is coming from someone who doesn't support capital punishment in practice because the system is too flawed to carry it out equitably.

Re:Treason

[INT_QRK]

"Execute them" -- My reaction exactly! ...which, of course, is but one of many reasons I'd never recommend electing me to a public office that comes with serious power.

Re:Treason

[huckamania]

I'll go out on a limb and guess that more then 1/2 of the posters on this thread are opposed to executing ax murderers.

As bad as these yocals are, someone was paying them and probably not the party that usually wins in that area. They need to figure out who was paying and those people need to be indicted as well.

I just have very little faith in the U.S. Injustice system. Too many deals, too many poor outcomes. I don't understand where local prosecutors derive the right to give indicted criminals immunity, when the right to commute and pardon is reserved exclusively for Presidents and Governors. Lessen sentences, give parole, what have you, but if you do the crime, you should pay in some way and it should go on your permanent record.

No party affiliation was mentioned which usually means one thing.

Re:Treason

[FMZ]

Define "enemy of the US". Being that the United States prides itself on democracy, to me it would seem that those that work in the shadows against the democracy we hold so dear could be construed as "enemies". Treason or not, they deliberately worked against the American citizenry. Yes, democracy here is a joke at the best of times, but it doesn't mean we should roll over and allow people to do this kind of stuff without severe punishment. We should certainly make an example of these people. Death penalty, probably not. Lock them away for life.

Re:Treason

[geekoid]

You will note now one has gone to war over a 'cyber' attack. No one has stated it is an act of war in any official way.

Re:Treason

[Frosty-B-Bad]

Does that mean drug dealers are committing treason? I mean, the government actually declared a war on that.

Re:Treason

[Lumpy]

They cast voted for the terrorists.

They use the terrorism bullshit on us, time to turn it around.

Re:Treason

[mike2R]

oh come on, I live several thousand miles away and even I know the ACORN thing was a deliberate attempt to mislead. In short, yes there were a lot of ACORN employees fraudulently registering voters. No these fraudulent registrations could not lead to fraudulent votes. Just a bunch of people bilking the public purse for unearned income, no threat to democracy (unless you happen to be in the middle of an election and have an axe to grind).

Copious amounts of supporting evidence can be found on the interwebs.

Re:Treason

[Daniel Dvorkin]

We have already witnessed voter registration fraud at the hand of ACORN.

You mean the attempted fraudulent registrations that ACORN themselves identified and reported?

There is no evidence that ACORN has ever suborned registration fraud. None. Zero. You people are going to have to find another scapegoat.

Re:Treason

[zippthorne]

The consequences should be drastic and dreadful so that even a Nixon wouldn't dream of incurring them.

It's ironic that you picked Nixon as your example, since his experience with vote fraud was as the alleged victim in the 1960 election.

Re:Treason

[Raenex]

Frankly, it's the only crime I can think of worthy of the death penalty at a federal level, and this is coming from someone who doesn't support capital punishment in practice because the system is too flawed to carry it out equitably.

Which just goes to show you how emotional and reactionary people can be. You think claims of voter fraud will be carried out equitably, that you're willing to kill people? Get out your lynching rope.

Re:Treason

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And since this directly went behind the backs of the people, treason is the proper definition here

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

I trust you can demonstrate how this action fits, since you have declared that "treason is the proper definition"?

The constitution is not a dictionary. The constitution does not define treason, it defines what can be prosecuted as treason in the US.

A real dictionary says:
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Re:Treason

[Fishbulb]

Yeah, but obviously they're waging a "war" against Democracy!
Just like the War on Terror, or the War on Drugs, or the War on Poverty, or the War on the Middle Class!

Hell, you could even say organic farmers are waging a War on Monsanto! Clearly, Monsanto needs to defend itself!

Re:Treason

[WNight]

"What's that boys? The lawyer says he's not guilty because of a technicality and that we should let him down? Well ain't that funny."

But, just to play the game, I think it fits the legal definition too.

Anyone who takes power in an illegal fashion is an enemy.

If some Iraqi national showed up in the USA and was caught tampering with vote results to make himself president we'd rightly acknowledge the action as one of war, yet if one of our own people did it you'd have us think it's fundamentally different.

Re:Treason

[CrimsonAvenger]

If some Iraqi national showed up in the USA and was caught tampering with vote results to make himself president we'd rightly acknowledge the action as one of war, yet if one of our own people did it you'd have us think it's fundamentally different.

Alas, an act of war is NOT treason. So, yes, it's fundamentally different.

Re:Treason

[Just Some Guy]

You think claims of voter fraud will be carried out equitably, that you're willing to kill people?

Absolutely. Honestly, I can't think of a more fundamental crime against a democracy. By disenfranchising 100% of the electorate, it's a direct attack on the foundations of our entire system of government and way of life. If no other crimes deserve capital punishment, this one should.

Re:Treason

[Raenex]

It's a serious crime, and deserves many years in jail, but capital punishment should be reserved for violent criminals. Somebody who illegally seizes power by might actually turn out to be a good official. The serial killer, has well, killed people.

Re:Treason

[InternetVoting]

Let's keep in mind that they only subverted the voice of some people unwillingly. From the sounds of it hundreds of our fellow citizens are coconspirators willing to sell their votes...

Re:Treason

[dbIII]

You privatised it and took the process out of the hands of the people. All bets are off at that point of absolute stupidity. The profits of making very expensive but easily riggable machines are far higher than the low cost, low vote count machines used in India - and profits are what Diebold etc want first.

Re:Treason

[WNight]

It'd be one of our people doing it so instead of just an act of war it'd be treasonous.

Standards of democracy?

[heironymouscoward]

I suspect that in elections from 2000 to 2006, the standards of democracy in the US fell to below what we would consider acceptable in emerging democracies. Where there would be monitoring from outside observers.

Not to make this more political than it will be, but do we know what direction those stolen votes went? Do we know how much this influenced the national vote?

Another thing I did not find in TFA: how was this uncovered?

Re:Standards of democracy?

[itschy]

I suspect that in elections from 2000 to 2006, the standards of democracy in the US fell to below what we would consider acceptable in emerging democracies. Where there would be monitoring from outside observers.

Actually, many international Organizations wanted to monitor the US-american elections.
They were not allowed.
Go figure...

Re:Standards of democracy?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not to make this more political than it will be, but do we know what direction those stolen votes went?

Well, it took some googling, but it seems the five involved were Democrats. So it's probably pretty safe to assume the stolen votes were stolen from various Republican candidates and given to various Democrat candidates.

Though why anyone should care about the Party of someone running for the local School Board is beyond me (yes, one of the elections in question was for the local School Board).

Note, by the way, that what happened was good, old-fashioned, vote-buying. With a twist, in that the people actually handed the money to buy votes in the field decided to keep the money and just change a few votes themselves.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[thebheffect]

Those involved were Democrats. One would assume the votes would swing that way, but with money involved, who knows.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[ScentCone]

Actually, many international Organizations wanted to monitor the US-american elections

No, many international organizations with an axe to grind thought it would make good political theater to offer to monitor them. When countries like Cuba offer their expertise in running fair, open democracies, that's not really a comment on the US, is it? It's evidence of just how dumb their propoganda machines think everyone else is. When Hugo Chavez mentions his willingness to help, though, we should take him up on it. That will give him something else to think about for a day, besides using violence and prisons to crush his own election rivals. I understand that Iran also offered to help out. It's hard to deny that allowing them to do so would make for great fun.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[dkleinsc]

Actually, many international Organizations wanted to monitor the US-american elections.

My favorite story from the 2000 presidential election was that Fidel Castro offered to send observers to Florida. Proof that the old man still had a sense of humor, I guess.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[DMiax]

It's hard to deny that allowing them to do so would make for great fun.

Why didn't you allow them then?

All you have said is "because it's absurd", "because it's absurd", "because it's absurd". Care to backup you ideas with something more than this? Mentioning the current scaremongers and calling it a day, are we?

What if they suggested *UN* control the elections (which is what they probably did)?

Re:Standards of democracy?

[itschy]

This is the outcome of a 5 min google search:
UN http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60143-2004Jul18.html
OSCE http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/election.htm
General (for links, not opinion) http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/08/foreigners-monitor-us-elections.html

Probably every human rights organization (even some within the US) felt the urge to monitor, please go on searching, but take off these glasses you wear.

I'm sure your government told you its only those evil communists who distrust the great americans people...

Re:Standards of democracy?

[JustNilt]

Though why anyone should care about the Party of someone running for the local School Board is beyond me (yes, one of the elections in question was for the local School Board).

A lot of politicians got their start in similarly seemingly minor positions. In addition, the school board in many areas (I don't know about the one in question) is in charge of capital projects such as construction and purchase/sale of school real estate. That'd certainly be a good place to be if one were inclined to steal from the public.

Note, I am not suggesting that anything beyond the alleged election fraud occurred. I'm simply pointing out possible reasons (one honest and one dishonest) why a person might want to sit on the school board badly enough to pay for it.

Note, by the way, that what happened was good, old-fashioned, vote-buying. With a twist, in that the people actually handed the money to buy votes in the field decided to keep the money and just change a few votes themselves.

I'm not sure of that. It sounded to me as though the vote buying was involving absentee ballots (also made them commit mail fraud, apparently and allegedly). The vote tampering at the pools themselves didn't involve payouts but instead was just telling voters the "here's your vote" preview screen was final and then changing the votes before actually casting the ballot once the actual voter left the booth.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[geekoid]

Becasue those countries will do what ever it takes to twist what they find and lie.

"What if they suggested *UN* control the elections (which is what they probably did)?"

No, I wouldn't want that.

"What if they suggested *UN* monitor the elections (which is what they probably did)?"

I am fine with that.

Actually, the democrats wanted the UN to come in to monitor the 2004 election, the republicans fought it and won. They won the usual way they do, lies an misdirection.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[ScentCone]

Why didn't you allow them then?

Because there's no point in providing a hostile, thug-powered foreign government like those of Cuba or Venezuela what they actually want out of such a spectacle, which is a platform for their own propoganda. Not only is there no point to it, there's plenty of reason not to do so. Governments that actively suppress democracy in their own countries are, correctly, identified by the government in this country as not deserving any more support or recognition than in any way necessary. Actively giving them a highly visible platform from which to spew more of their BS is not in anyone's interest (except for the few murderous thugs in question).

Further: why empower the highly corrupt UN in the way you describe? This is the same organization that has no problem providing Iran with the opportunity to chair human rights committees, you know? The US elections are highly visible to media from every country of the world. Observers from highly adversarial parties all across the political spectrum are already completely involved the process and able to talk to the press about what they see... unlike in places like Venezuela or Cuba.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[The Angry Mick]

Though why anyone should care about the Party of someone running for the local School Board is beyond me (yes, one of the elections in question was for the local School Board).

Remember, this is the same state that's home to the Creationist Museum. What better place to make sure that either side of the argument is taught than at the School Board level?

Re:Standards of democracy?

[Locke2005]

I believe the Iranians volunteered to monitor our elections in Florida, but they were not well received. I cannot imagine why not! Yes, I do believe we should allow legitimate international organizations to monitor our elections, provided they are not disruptive.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[WNight]

Surely accepting Iran's help wouldn't require implementation of sharia law beforehand, and I wouldn't imagine we'd let them carry weapons...

So why shouldn't our enemies be allowed to come and observe our elections? What are we trying to hide?

Besides, if the USA accepted election overseers from various (including hostile) countries it'd make it easier to convince dictatorships to do so.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[AK Marc]

Well, it took some googling, but it seems the five involved were Democrats. So it's probably pretty safe to assume the stolen votes were stolen from various Republican candidates and given to various Democrat candidates.

Some were Republicans too. I think more were Democrats than Republicans, but I'd have to say it was a case of people getting their friends in, rather than a simple party move where it was a bunch of one party indiscriminately helping anyone of the same party.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[dbIII]

Actually Iran apparently runs a fair election process once the canditates are chosen. Getting to be a canditate and then actually getting to do much once you are elected are the difficult bits. Their President practices over the top popularism to try to get enough support to actually run the country - remember it's a theocracy with elected advisors.

Re:Standards of democracy?

[GodfatherofSoul]

So, when he says "international organizations" what makes you immediately think Hugo Chavez and Castro? Try the UN!

Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Reality Master 201]

Apparently the people told voters that hitting the "Vote" button would complete their vote, when it actually just brought up a confirmation screen. It was after the voter left that the people charged went and changed the votes, then completed the vote.

So, yeah, that's definite election fraud and those involved should go to jail for a nice long stretch. But the headline leads you to believe this was somehow a voting machine flaw, rather than a social engineering attack based around shitty UI design ("Vote" means vote, not, "Confirm my Choices").

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Just Some Guy]

But the headline leads you to believe this was somehow a voting machine flaw, rather than a social engineering attack based around shitty UI design ("Vote" means vote, not, "Confirm my Choices").

In what way is that not a security flaw? If an ATM were to fail to log me out for several minutes after returning my card and money and receipt unless I know to hit a specific button, it is a problem with the ATM.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[ControversialMatt]

Which is interesting, because it contradicts the image many of us have of the average end user. Personally I believed that they would be programmed by now to automatically click OK on any popup without reading it.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[jrumney]

But the headline leads you to believe this was somehow a voting machine flaw, rather than a social engineering attack based around shitty UI design

A shitty UI design is a voting machine flaw!

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[magusxxx]

Maybe the people rigging the votes made sure the machine didn't show the 'Confirm Vote' screen until the voter was long gone. It is a security flaw if you can rig the machine so instead of the ATM logging you out in 10 seconds someone changes it to 60. Why should this be a changeable feature?

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[__aatmkh9910]

This is partially the fault of the voting machines(no paper trail) and partially the fault of the stupid people who didn't look at the next screen after they hit "Vote".
Election fraud will always exist, no matter how people vote.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[itschy]

But the headline leads you to believe this was somehow a voting machine flaw, rather than a social engineering attack based around shitty UI design ("Vote" means vote, not, "Confirm my Choices").

If you are told it's alright that you can't actually verify your vote, because the machine can not be fixed to misplace it and than thats exactly what happens, I'd say it's a damn big security problem with these machines!

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Dotren]

But the headline leads you to believe this was somehow a voting machine flaw, rather than a social engineering attack based around shitty UI design ("Vote" means vote, not, "Confirm my Choices").

In what way is that not a security flaw? If an ATM were to fail to log me out for several minutes after returning my card and money and receipt unless I know to hit a specific button, it is a problem with the ATM.

Bad analogy.

As the GP said, the button they hit wasn't the "you're finished" button, it was more like the "next screen" button. In your analogy would you really walk away from an ATM BEFORE you finished your transaction and told it "I'm done"? Probably not because, in the ATM situation, you generally don't get your card back until you're completely done and logged out of the system.

In this case, it sounds like the voters were convinced by the guilty parties that hitting the "Vote" button meant they were done, when, in reality, it was more like the standard "Next" button you see on most web forms.

Badly designed GUI + social engineering != security flaw.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Reality Master 201]

Perhaps not the best phrasing; it's a flaw in the design, but it's not like flaws that allow you to manipulate the vote database with impunity and without an audit trail, or manipulate the machines totals. It depends partly on shitty design, and partly on lack of education for the voters.

Interesting you should mention ATMs - I used one near my house the other day that would have allowed me to withdraw money from the previous user's account. It's one of those ones where you just swipe the card, and apparently the person who used it before me took their money and receipt and left, and didn't notice that it gave them a prompt to do another transaction afterwards. Shitty design - if you aren't keeping the card for the duration of the user session, allowing multiple transactions per swipe are a very stupid idea.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Norsefire]

There was an ATM scam a while back similar to this.

People would use matchsticks to jam the cover of the dispenser, where the money comes out, closed and then wait around a corner for someone to make a withdrawal. The machine would say "please take your money" only they couldn't as the cover wouldn't open, so they would go in to the bank to complain, meanwhile the scammer would prise the compartment cover open and take the money.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Just Some Guy]

Badly designed GUI + social engineering != security flaw.

It most certainly does! We've held MS to that standard for years with such things as "nakedgirl.gif.exe" tricking users into running unknown binaries, and rightfully so. Social engineering alone doesn't indicate a problem, as con men have been around since roughly the beginning of time. Software misfeatures (such as a button labeled "Vote" that doesn't actually cast your vote) that make fraud trivially easy absolutely are vulnerabilities.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Just Some Guy]

it's a flaw in the design, but it's not like flaws that allow you to manipulate the vote database with impunity and without an audit trail, or manipulate the machines totals.

Understood and agreed. It's more of a bad specification than an outright bug in that the screen works (IMHO incorrectly) as designed. Still, that and the unexpected ATM behavior you described are security issues, even if someone thought they were good ideas at one point.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[An Onerous Coward]

I think the point your respondents are missing is that -- while the machines are clearly flawed -- the electronic voting machines didn't greatly magnify the officials' ability to corrupt the vote. Had one of them altered hundreds of votes using a USB stick and three minutes of "alone time" with the machines, this story would have a completely different flavor for me.

IOW, Kentucky electoral officials can't hack. What scares me is that this is probably why they got caught; there must have been a dozen people involved. I'm sure the more tech-savvy vote riggers are just getting away with it.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[silanea]

Badly designed GUI + social engineering != security flaw.

I disagree. It does not matter which attack vector or medium is used to break intended behaviour. And the fact that a UI allows such a severe subversion of intended functionality simply by telling users bullshit just makes this flaw all the more serious and shameful than a true machine exploit. A simple "Please review your choice and confirm it to be counted. It has not been stored yet!" and a biiiiiig red button labeled "Yes, this is my choice! Cast my vote!" should have been enough to avoid exactly this kind of flaw.

Voting machines do one thing, and one thing only. They should be incredibly simple to engineer and implement. It is beyond me how the manifacturers managed and still manage to screw them up so royally.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[UnknowingFool]

We've held MS to that standard for years with such things as "nakedgirl.gif.exe" tricking users into running unknown binaries, and rightfully so.

No, we've been holding MS to the standard that programs should not autoexecute on download/copying, etc. And when it runs, not any program should be able to change system settings. In the Unix/Linux world, downloading a malicious file does nothing. The user has to set it to be runnable and then explicitly run it. Even then, the program is limited to what rights the user has and cannot change system files or settings without admin rights.

Microsoft has changed the behavior so programs don't do that any more (most of the time). However, there may be flaws where hackers get around it.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[bickerdyke]

1. You used one 'maybe' too much.

2. Changing the logout-timeout might be neccessary e.g. in polling places with lots of elder people.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Posting=!Working]

Actually, the equation is

This particular poorly designed UI=Security flaw.

If you press button marked "Vote" then it should cast the vote, as most reasonable people would expect. If it does anything other than cast the vote, then it should be labeled something else. If they pressed a button marked "Review ballot" and walked away, then I would chalk it up to random idiots, but having a button marked "Vote" that doesn't actually do that is a HUGE design flaw.

No matter how many analogies you use, it doesn't change the reality that this is a UI flaw that was used to breach the security of the vote. It's kind of silly to argue anything else now.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Dotren]

Apologies, I should have worded that a lot better.

My meaning was that a badly designed UI combined with people exploiting social engineering doesn't mean there is a serious security hole in the machine software itself on the level that, say, allows someone to walk up to the machine after the votes have been completed and alter the vote.

Common sense says the GUI designer should have labelled that button "Next" or something like that if it was merely a step of the process and not the final process itself. I think such a change would drastically reduce people who walk away at this point, especially if another note is added saying "Not done yet, X number of steps to go".

So yes, it is a security issue with the GUI that leaves an opportunity open for exploitation by social engineering, but not a security issue involving the safety and accuracy of the votes after they've actually be completed and cast properly.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[way2trivial]

go ahead and try what you propose.

they require the pincode again

no- I haven't tried doing this to others, I tried doing it to my own account.

it went
card in- given back
I entered code, asked for balance got my receipt.

looked shocked as it asked if I wanted another transaction, with the same fear in mind, I selected withdraw 20$, and was prompted for my pincode again.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[Just Some Guy]

Personally I believed that they would be programmed by now to automatically click OK on any popup without reading it.

They needed to put "WARNING!" in the titlebar. That would've triggered the correct response.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[LittleKing]

Saying that a printed receipt at the end of the voting process would have solved this, then yes it can be tied back into a machine security fraud.

Just because an exploit in the system didn't occur by a malicious means of backdoor hacking doesn't mean it's any less of a system flaw.

If a car didn't have locking system it would be considered a system security flaw in the same manner this is a system security flaw.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[zippthorne]

You should try it with your own card. iirc, it asks you for your PIN for each transaction.

Re:Uh, not exactly a voting machine security flaw

[dbIII]

IMHO that sounds like a pretty major flaw as well. These things are supposed to be simple - if they are not simpler than pencil and paper they should not be used.

Oddly enough I'm off to vote with pencil and paper today.

Life inprisonment

[Joebert]

Conviction for tampering with election results should be met with life inprisonment. The scope of things affected by gaming elections warrents nothing less.

Death would be better, but sometimes we get the wrong guy and at least with inprisonment we can let them out of jail and make sure they live well with a fat stack of cash for the rest of their life.

Re:Life inprisonment

[hobbit]

+1

Re:Life inprisonment

[Just Some Guy]

Wanna bet they were changing the votes to favour the GOP?

One million dollars please? We already know they were Democrats. But who cares? I tend to vote Republican but I'm more than ready to throw a Republican politician to the dogs for committing this crime. I trust that honest Democrats will feel the same way about these particular cretins.

Re:Life inprisonment

[$1uck]

I'm a liberal... and I say send them to Texas (i.e. hang em til they're dead or just make them live in Texas not sure which is worse) regardless of political affiliation.

Re:Life inprisonment

[NotBornYesterday]

Wanna bet that ACs who don't even RTFA are uninformed idiots who have zero idea what is going on? Troll.

I'd like to see a study revealing how many ACs spout partisan, kneejerk reaction nonsense about American politics and likely don't even live in/come from the States, judging by the spelling of "favour".

For the record, it appears that those indicted include "Charles Wayne Jones, 69, the county's Democratic election commissioner"

Re:Life inprisonment

[Just Some Guy]

Thank you. It's nice to know that there are still issues we can all agree on. :-)

jamie

[Anonymous Coward]

So the last story has an update that was basically supplied by jamie (article was discussed last year), and this article is from jamie. So why is kdawson posting these if jamie is the one that seems to be doing the work?

Treason!

[ewenix]

This is why we need to bring back public hangings.

new methods for perennial problems

[rodentia]

same old solution: vigilance.

Re:new methods for perennial problems

[Anonymous Coward]

That you, Mad-Eye?

Re:new methods for perennial problems

[ChefInnocent]

And vigilante justice...the courts aren't going to do the right thing.

I preferred hanging chads

[olddotter]

Were any of these guys named Chad?

Seriously. I would much prefer paper voting. Be it punch card or optical scan (used where I am). Of those two it seems optical scan is easier for people to deal with at least I have heard no major problems.

Re:I preferred hanging chads

[NotBornYesterday]

No, but believe it or not, there was a judge with the authentically Appalachian-sounding name of "Cletus".

It IS treason.

[geekmux]

Seriously. How is this not treason?

It IS treason, plain and simple. And for further proof of the pussification of America, look back 200 years and see how they would have handled this case back then.

The importance of honesty and integrity with our elected officials is not any less critical today than it was 200 years ago, so why should the punishment be?

Re:It IS treason.

[GMFTatsujin]

"look back 200 years and see how they would have handled this case back then."

You're apparently the one the crucial information -- care to share it?

Or are you just evoking the Righteous Forefathers to cover that you're blowing hard-line smoke out your ass?

Re:It IS treason.

[Just Some Guy]

Or are you just evoking the Righteous Forefathers to cover that you're blowing hard-line smoke out your ass?

Hard-line?!? Elected officials have directly acted to remove the rights of democracy from their constituency. They said, explicitly, that the will of the people no longer matters and that they are picking the leadership. In what way is that less horrible than any other farcical election throughout the world? In what way are the people who want to punish those involved to the fullest extent of the law possibly considered hard-liners?

Re:It IS treason.

[geekmux]

"look back 200 years and see how they would have handled this case back then."

You're apparently the one the crucial information -- care to share it?

Or are you just evoking the Righteous Forefathers to cover that you're blowing hard-line smoke out your ass?

Standing in defense of Democracy is not merely taking a "hard-line", I am standing on THE line this country and many others were founded on.

And perhaps taking a few steps back from your Constitutionally-protected keyboard to think about what those "Righteous Forefathers" you casually speak of continue to do for you every single day, you might realize they earned that name, in blood.

Re:It IS treason.

[Blakey Rat]

And for further proof of the pussification of America, look back 200 years and see how they would have handled this case back then.

Dressed up like Indians and thrown them off a ship? Where do I sign up!

Re:It IS treason.

[0xdeadbeef]

It IS treason, plain and simple. And for further proof of the pussification of America, look back 200 years and see how they would have handled this case back then.

They would have been all like "you let WOMEN vote!?!"

Dude, read some freakin' history. Violence was not unheard of at the ballot box. Ballots were not standardized, and often it was the political organizations themselves that collected them. There are even examples of people transporting ballot boxes having been murdered by members of opposing parties. It wasn't anywhere close to secure or fair until well into the 20th century.

This pattern of corruption is nothing new, and the mechanisms for preventing it are not common knowledge, and in fact, were not even well understood until the information age. It is our duty as technologists to educate people, and not go off the handle, foaming at the mouth and ranting about treason and teh founding fathers!1!!

Apologize Now

[Doc Ruby]

I want everyone who sneered at me in 2000 and 2004, saying "changing those electronic machine votes would require a conspiracy so vast, with nobody ever leaking, that it's impossible, you're crazy, just get over it" to apologize now.

Not just to me, though I want that now. But also to the entire country, for standing in the way of fixing this basic corruption that destroys democracy that should be ancient history by now.

Apologize. Preferably door to door. But a reply here would start to count.

Re:Apologize Now

[erikina]

They were right, though? :P

Re:Apologize Now

[WindBourne]

Actually, with the old systems (typically the butterflies), you could not pull this kind of scam. It was designed in to prevent anything similar. So, this is just ONE type of treason that is more local. I am guessing that we will find more at a later time.

Re:Apologize Now

[Doc Ruby]

They were wrong. They said that such a conspiracy couldn't be kept secret from election time to the time they were denying such a conspiracy could exist. But here's just one that was kept secret from at latest 2000 until now. So while they were denying it, this conspiracy was still secret.

There is no reason to believe that there aren't many more of these conspiracies out there, still secret just as this one was through this whole decade. Denying those now on the "too hard to keep secret" principle now is just part of a coverup, not any kind of reasonable assumption.

Re:Apologize Now

[Just Some Guy]

I want everyone who sneered at me in 2000 and 2004, saying "changing those electronic machine votes would require a conspiracy so vast, with nobody ever leaking, that it's impossible, you're crazy, just get over it" to apologize now.

In fairness, it did leak. This time, at least.

Re:Apologize Now

[Doc Ruby]

The butterflies at least are paper, so there's physical evidence of both the voter's actions, and of later actions in the paper. The layout of the butterflies printed "GUI" has its own problems, as well as the consistency of mechanically marking them. But at least they are a lot harder to change without notice.

What we need is "voter verified" balloting. We should use the machines only to uniformly mark a physical ballot record. Perhaps a separate machine to read back the marked physical ballot to the voter for confirmation, if that confirmation machine is completely inspectable and testable by both experts and anyone in the public who's interested. Then the voter puts their uniformly marked and personally verified physical ballot into a box. They can mechanically count those ballots for early results, but they should be counted by people for the binding result, even if that takes a few days (distributed among the people in each district).

This stuff isn't hard, it just requires rigor. It's extremely important. We need to do it right, or we won't get much else done right.

Re:Apologize Now

[Kjella]

Why? You could social engineer single voters in the old system too. No mass vote changes happened here, and I doubt they'd get away with doing this 1000x over in a large election.

Re:Apologize Now

[WindBourne]

Yes, but that would not have solved this one. This was about social engineering. Personally, I prefer the electronic voting, but no doubt about, a paper trial is absolutely needed. In fact, I do not trust a company, like diebold, who does not want a paper trail. Why? Because they would get to make money from it. If they are objecting to it, then it means that they are making more money elsewhere.

Re:Apologize Now

[MC68000]

There is a huge difference between engineering a clumsy fraud on a local election with low turnout and engineering a fraud involving several states in hundreds of counties using many different voting systems. Not to say that I oppose a paper trail.

Re:Apologize Now

[cmdr_klarg]

The votes on the electronic machines were changed, just as GP said. Whether by hack or by fraud, the result is the same. The poor UI enabled the fraud, and no paper trail leaves no evidence.

Those saying it could never happen were just proved wrong.

Re:Apologize Now

[Doc Ruby]

It might have helped here. Because for one, a voter verified paper ballot, or the process to record and collect it, would have been harder to bamboozle than this one, where the voter leaves after pressing a button that says "vote" (but which, they don't realize, has failed to commit their vote until after a fraudster changes it). This commit protocol was very easy to socially re-engineer. One where the voter checks paper they deposit is harder.

For another, there would be physical evidence of the different vote. This fraud had some extra complications, including some voters bribed to know they were part of a fraud. There's more chance the paper would have some evidence of discrepancies than the purely digital and rewritable records used here.

Paper isn't proof against exploit, if the protocol has holes. But paper closes a lot of holes. And it's also a physical object to show to a jury or a TV audience, which has a lot more political backlash than a story about swapped bits. Paper is almost always better, even if it's not perfect. But we're not aiming for perfection, just adequacy.

Re:Apologize Now

[nine-times]

Still, it makes you want to ask how many other places this has happened without leaking.

Re:Apologize Now

[brkello]

But it WAS leaked. And some similar social engineering technique could be used on paper ballots. And you make it sound like everyone was against you...like not one other person on Slashdot hasn't criticized electronic voting. You are in the majority in that opinion. I think you are probably just crazy because you have an over inflated view of your self importance.

Re:Apologize Now

[Doc Ruby]

No. It wasn't leaked until too late. These conspiracists got away with it. The coincidence theorists insisted they couldn't have kept it secret long enough to get away with it, but they did. While the coincidence theorists were insisting that, these conspiracists were safe.

The social engineering here would not have worked on either marked paper deposited in locked boxes or mechanical lever machines. Saying so is crazy, since it's wrong, has no basis, and is the product of only buying into a delusion that voting can't be secured.

Further, I did not say that everyone but me was wrong. Far from it: there were many of us. There were, however, way too many of us shouting us down, calling us crazy like you just did. And you were all wrong to say it's impossible. You all helped them get away with it.

And you continue to stand on your obnoxious wrongness. You are wrong. Apologize now. Or admit that you're not important enough to voice your opinion in public again.

Re:Apologize Now

[Anonymous Coward]

no

What wasn't in the article

[deepthinker42]

From other articles, one of the defendents, Mr. Jones, is a Democrat, which makes me believe that all of them are. Interesting that the article didn't mention it.

Re:What wasn't in the article

[WindBourne]

Yes, he was a dem. OTH, a polling place requires BOTH pub and dems. And in a heavy pub area, I would expect most of the rest to be pubs. But no doubt about it, this scheme required at least one or more corrupt dems.

Re:What wasn't in the article

[ScentCone]

Nah. The partisan issue here is that if the story had lingered on the discovery that this was a Republican group of people, rather than Democrats, that the Slashdot summary and headline would have read "Kentucky Republicans Subvert Election" instead of "Kentucky Officials." You know it, I know it, and the GP was indirectly making that point, too.

Re:Hang them.

[tonyreadsnews]

It might be easier if you ask them who paid BEFORE they are swinging from the rope. Unless you plan on hanging them by their ankles.

Doesn't surprise me

[MBGMorden]

It really doesn't surprise me about this. A lot of judges and officials really just don't "get it" IMHO for stuff like this. During this last presidential election, the lines were very long in some areas depending on where you went to vote (I waited until about 5:30 and didn't have to wait but about 30-40 minutes, so it wasn't too bad).

Now, I work in government, so the election committee was discussing turnout on the mass email the next day. One of the judges wrote, commenting about low long the lines were and how ridiculous it was, and actually suggested that perhaps just calling (by phone) a random subset of people and basing the whole election off the sample would be better than letting each and every person vote.

Sure, no possible way THAT could be abused . . .

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[GodfatherofSoul]

You want short lines, live in a strongly Republican precinct.

Must...tell...president...McCain!

[Bushido Hacks]

"Hey! I only mean one of those votes for McCain!"

Quote - "affecting the outcome of elections"...

[somethingwicked]

"affecting the outcome of elections at the local, state, and federal levels. "

Source please? Not saying your wrong, I just missed that detail when I RTFA.

Re:Quote - "affecting the outcome of elections"...

[drew]

According to the indictment, these alleged criminal actions affected the outcome of federal, local, and state primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006.

I only skimmed through most of the indictment, but I'd say that this would depend on what you consider "affecting the outcome" to mean exactly. The indictment merely charges that they changed votes in all of the above listed elections. To some extent, that in itself is affecting the outcome. Whether their actions actually were enough to change the winner in any election is not stated, and probably not known. We could make guesses based on how narrow the margin of victory of any of the candidates they were supporting, but it would still be only a guess. Based on the description of their actions and the machines, it sounds like it would be impossible to prove or even guess at the number of votes that they altered.

To me, that's a bigger criticism of the system than anything else. Even if the defendants are found guilty, in the face of known fraud, the systems in question provide no way to even guess at how pervasive it was. Even then, there are failures at multiple levels here. According to TFA, the poll workers have to fill out voter assistance forms every time that they assist a voter (presumably for this very reason) and those forms were being destroyed to cover their tracks.

Re:Quote - "affecting the outcome of elections"...

[dcollins]

Source please? Not saying your wrong, I just missed that detail when I RTFA.

From the website of WLEX-TV in Lexington KY ( http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=10037216&nav=menu203_2 , 3rd paragraph):

According to the indictment, these alleged criminal actions affected the outcome of federal, local, and state primary and general elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006. The indictment accused the defendants of the following criminal actions:

From the official indictment papers ( http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/03/19/17/clayindict.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf ; page 14, paragraph 2):

2. On or about May 16,2006, and on or about November 7,2006, pursuant to the
laws of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, primary and general
elections were held in Manchester, Clay County, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, for
the purpose of selecting candidates for state, local and federal offices.

That's followed by the precise manner in which the conspirators tampered with those elections.

Meta-moderators feel free to down-moderate people who thought parent was insightful. It's very much not so.

Put up or shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is true that the Party of a Republican in the news tends to be mentioned in the summary, while the Party of a Democrat in the news tends to be quietly ignored in the summary.

This makes two times you have said this in this thread. Instead of asserting it for a third why not prove what you claim? Or is this just another Republican "the media is liberal and always against us" whine?

Re:Put up or shut up

[CrimsonAvenger]

Or is this just another Republican "the media is liberal and always against us" whine?

A couple of things:

I'm not a Republican. I'm one of those Libertarians you mentioned a while back.

We're not talking about "the Media". Looking in "the Media" is how I found out the guys in question were Democrats. "The Media" didn't hide the fact at all. What we're talking about is /.

Now, the problem may be that /. editors don't like story submissions that mention that Democrats are scoundrels. I have no evidence one way or another.

Or it may be that people who submit stories don't like to point out that the Democrats are scoundrels. Again, I have no evidence one way or another, since I never pay attention to who submitted a story.

Alternatively, it may be that Democrats are assumed to be scoundrels by default, and that it's only worth mentioning when a Republican is a scoundrel. Which is basically silly, since both Democrats and Republicans are scoundrels by default.

Re:Put up or shut up

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the real story here is about the insecurities and perils of current electronic voting machines - the kind of topic slashdotters are interested in - and party affiliation is incidental because readers are smart enough to understand that system can be rigged by any party or any person.

Re:Put up or shut up

[CrimsonAvenger]

Or maybe the real story here is about the insecurities and perils of current electronic voting machines - the kind of topic slashdotters are interested in - and party affiliation is incidental because readers are smart enough to understand that system can be rigged by any party or any person.

Or not, since this wasn't actually about electronic voting machines, but about vote-buying.

Some people basically extorted money from candidates to buy votes.

They then handed the money (less their commission, presumably) to their flunkies in the precincts to buy the votes that were paid for.

The flunkies decided they'd rather keep ALL the money rather than just the commission, and lied to voters about how the machines worked (note that this could only work with really stupid voters - read the instructions on screen, and this won't be an issue), and changed a few votes themselves and pocketed the bribe money.

If there had been no electronic voting machines, things would have worked pretty much as they did, except that the flunkies in the precincts would have made less money on the deal, since they'd have had to pay for the votes the old-fashioned way.

Yes, it's popular to blame all the evils of democracy on electronic voting machines. Alas, a quick reading of history shows that people were subverting the vote long before electronic voting machines existed, and doing so far more often than is generally the case today.

Getting rid of the electronic voting machines won't stop vote fraud. It won't even slow it down. It might speed it up some, since the old-timers in the vote fraud community probably don't have the tech-savvy to actually do much with the possibilities inherent in electronic voting machines, but they do have a good working understanding of the tried and true techniques useful with paper ballots....

Re:Put up or shut up

[andytrevino]

Here's a great recent example. It happens all the time, difference is the conservative blogosphere and groups like NewsBusters are around to point it out.

Eliot Spitzer: A Man Without a Party

Re:Put up or shut up

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Actually, it's more accurate to say that kdawson has liberal leanings, pro-democratic, or whatever you want to call it. He's the submitter.

I'm sure a conservate, pro-republican, or whatever would write his/her summary with their own personal viewpoint too.

As for the media:

Unfortunately, most news sources in the US are biased, and the number of mainstream media outlets with liberal leanings appear to outnumber the conservative ones.

But local demographics has a lot to do with the bias than some unseen national conspiracy. Take public radio for example. While NPR is well balanced in their reporting and programming, the local program director of the college radio station usually isn't. They can choose which NPR programs are aligned with the political leanings of their target demographics.

Most of the public stations in my area do "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" which are NPR, "Market Place" which isn't, and some classical music which shouldn't ruffle too many feathers.

Then there are the others nearby that, in addition to the above, have liberal leaning and empowerment based talk shows. Thus coloring their content to their more liberal or minority listeners.

On the national level: CNN, which has lost all credibility as a news source, is mostly iReporters and Hollywood gossip, so they have a liberal leaning. While Fox News, which never had any credibility, have a conservative viewpoint. They both regurgitate everything that comes off the AP wire and add their political leanings to it (mostly by cherry picking the stories favorable to their bias).

My point being if you're a liberal in the conservative south, you'll probably complain about the conservative media. If you're a conservative in California, you'll probably complain about the liberal media. So do yourself a favor, and find a news source you can live with.

Complain about inaccurate news, or out right lies to keep us from seeing something bad taking place, but try to tolerate any perceive political bias (it's human nature) and quit complaining about them.

Re:Put up or shut up

[ThinkTwicePostOnce]

| Unfortunately, most news sources in the US are biased, and the number of mainstream media outlets
| with liberal leanings appear to outnumber the conservative ones.

Uh, that may have been true during the Viet Nam war, but it certainly became completely false
by the time of the Iraq war.

"The big lie", a propaganda method popularized by the Nazis, persuades people by claiming something
rather outrageous, and then repeating it endlessly. The first time people hear the lie, they think
any idiot can tell that's false, but when they hear it again they think "those people aren't idiots --
the outrageous thing must be true! How very interesting! I must tell so-and-so about it!" If you
don't think hard and get real facts, you'll be fooled. If you do think hard and try to get facts,
you're likely to be laughed at, ostracized or worse. But if you don't bother to think hard, you'll
always wind up doing someone else's bidding, and not even realizing it.

You might want to change your single opinion about media bias into two or more different ones, depending
on the decade in question.

Re:Put up or shut up

[Uberbah]

Unfortunately, most news sources in the US are biased, and the number of mainstream media outlets with liberal leanings appear to outnumber the conservative ones.

Except of course that is demonstrably false. Conservative writers dominate editorial pages and conservative commentators dominate TV.

On the national level: CNN, which has lost all credibility as a news source, is mostly iReporters and Hollywood gossip, and engage in constant concern trolling on Democrats

Fixed that for you.

Re:Put up or shut up

[Uberbah]

Here's a great recent example.

Great example indeed. Contrast the media attention paid to Spitzer's hooker problem vs Diaper David Vitter. We're still hearing about Spitzer today, while Vitter was a two day story. Republicans in the NY state senate threatened to start impeachment hearings against Spitzer if he didn't resign within 24 hours after his initial press conference. When Vitter returned to the U.S. Senate, instead of expulsion hearings the Senate Republicans gave him a standing ovation.

Reality's well known anti-conservative bias continues it's undefeated streak....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Shenanigans!

[adamchou]

The indispensable jamie found a report out of Kentucky of exactly the kind of shenanigans that voting-transparency advocates have been warning about

or what about these kinds of shenanigans!

Re:Hang them.

[WindBourne]

Wish I had mod points. That was funny.

A computer was involved!

[tsstahl]

Since the crimes were committed with a computer, why aren't there a whole heap of additional federal charges piled on? As we all know any crime with a computer element is much worse than murder. /sarcasm

Re:A computer was involved!

[Locke2005]

As we all know any crime with a computer element is much worse than murder. Only if the computer is connected to the Inter-tubes.

Re:No difference

[WindBourne]

First, what were they before 2000.
Second, if the outcome was so certain beforehand, then why would somebody pay?

Solved problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a system, that provides verification *and* allows the voter to take the verification without being able to sell it. It's so simple anyone can understand it.

The vote is divided into two images, each with random pixels. They are printed on transparent media. When they are lined up, you can read the votes.

The person votes electronically. The vote is printed, it stays behind glass, in a clear chute. The voter verifies it then presses a button. Each of the two images drops down a separate chute. The voter chooses which one to take. From verification to division to storage, the entire handling of the verification media is visible behind glass. No monkey business possible.

If a verification must be done, the voter brings in their image and it's combined with the retained image. Any alteration on either shows up. They can only be read when re-combined, so the vote remains private.

Verification, papertrail, tamper-proof, secure, simple.

I really just don't understand the professional ethic that allows someone to build a sell a machine that sucks, when building a good machine is trivial.

Re:No difference

[WindBourne]

Actually, I was just thinking about this. You are half right. This county IS republican. So, nobody would pay for LOCAL election. Instead, it would have to be somebody who is state-wide or national-wide. In addition, this area DOES make sense to pull this. The reason is that if a heavy dem area suddenly voted for a pub or even was close, that would indicate some sort of fraud. But in a moderately heavy republican area, it is possible to shift a number of votes for a dem to pubs, pushing the election. In addition, it will be a LOT easier to get pubs to do this for pubs, then to get dems to do this for a pub.

I am so tired of paper trail being trotted out

[Shivetya]

because in my cousin's good old hometown of Chicago a paper trail never stopped anyone. Hell electronic voting has been a travesty to some counties here in Georgia because voter fraud became difficult under the new system. Until they figured out that good old paper fraud was possible with absentee ballots.

Paper trail, I want an national repository for all votes immediately.

Oh, looky...brad's at it again

[filesiteguy]

Here's a link to real news, in case anyone though Bradley is a news source...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gs2WHoM41pW8pDFh-0KIrDnOsqfwD971E2JG0

Fingerprint confirmation?

[Dotren]

I'm curious, how difficult would it be for the these electronic voting machines to require a fingerprint at the beginning of the process and require the user to use that same finger through the entire process?

Now, before everyone starts screaming about identification, I'm not talking about comparing the fingerprints to any external databases at all.

After the ballot is cast and completed, the fingerprint data is immediately wiped.

This way, if a voter was somehow convinced that they were done and to step away from the booth before their vote was completed, the computer would automatically detect fraud/tampering if another user came up to change the ballot by comparing the fingerprints.

I'm sure there are reasons not to do this (like processing overhead), but its just something that occurred to me that could enhance security besides having a GUI designer who knows where to use a "Next" button.

Doh!

[huckamania]

Yep, another example of Democrats cheating the system.

Funny how the article makes it look like "the phony, GOP-operative-created Baker/Carter National Election Reform Commission" was somehow involved. We mustn't let a scandal tarnish the image of the Party.

To be fair, if a Republican did this, I would advocate taking them for a long helicopter ride over the desert. Accidents happen, just usually not to the right people.

How they did (do?) it in Chicago

[Jeff1946]

Go into neighborhood bar and pickup filled-in ballot
Go to poll
Put filled-in ballot in box
Return with empty ballot
Get free drinks

Repeat for next voter

Look how smart people do it

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of Americans are conditioned to believe that technology is the appropriate solution to every problem. The truth is, optimal solutions are almost always a well thought out mix of people, processes and technology.

Take a look at how electronic voting machines are used in India - Indian electronic voting machines have been widely used in various elections at the state and national levels for several years now and they have been wildly successful.

http://www.slate.com/id/2107388/

Actually, I think the above article's claim that "The Indian machines are vulnerable to retail fraud (but, because of the basic design, are much less subject to wholesale fraud)" is incorrect.

The Indians solve potential for "retail fraud" by putting in strong polling and counting processes with automatic checks and balances. For example, the procedure for opening of polls at a polling station involves, each candidate's authorized representative voting in a mock-poll-and-count in the presence of the presiding officer. The machine is used for actual polling only once the representatives certify that the machine functions as expected.

http://eci.nic.in/faq/evm.asp

The Indians may not be using any fancy-schmancy touchscreens but they do have a solution which works. Kudos to them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Voter fraud charge?

[Callaway]

Given one of our greatest rights as U.S. citizens is the right to vote, those who tamper with such a right should be charged with treason.

Democracy sure has been great

[Peaker]

Democracy sure has been great while it lasted.

Re:Democracy sure has been great

[cagrin]

It is actually supposed to be a republic (where rights of the individual are protected against the masses)...the "democratic" thing has been an illusion for quite some time now, and is something the founders reviled anyway.

http://freedomtofascism.com/

RTFA now

[Shivetya]

Nothing about this article supports you.

So, quit banging your own drum when you don't even know the tune being played.

I am so tired of you "Bush stole the election freaks". Any excuse to ignore the fact that the person whose views you supported was not accepted by the majority. So how does the 2008 election get a pass? Is it only because the person you wanted to win did so?

Really, I want to know, is it only a problem when you lose?

Re: Obama and the Democrates...

[cagrin]

New movie out about Obama called "Obama Deception", by Alex Jones, if you have not already seen it.

http://www.obamadeception.net/

so conspiracy theories are not all junk

[Anonymous Coward]

To all of you suckers that laughed at me suggesting this, *FUCK YOU*

Re:Hang them.

[thermian]

It might be easier if you ask them who paid BEFORE they are swinging from the rope. Unless you plan on hanging them by their ankles.

Unless the names or the people who paid were 'grnfrgleArghhhBurble' or 'snap'.

A modest proposal

[ThatsNotPudding]

How about we bump up the punishment for election fraud just a smidge - to vivisection.

Voter ID Bill

[tthomas48]

This is why we need a national voter ID bill, to prevent election fraud! Oh wait...

Apologize Now

[Doc Ruby]

That article perfectly supports me. Its proven facts debunk the spin that insider election fraud conspiracies are impossible to keep secret long enough to get away with stealing the election. These crooks did, and there's no getting back the 2000, 2002 and 2004 results they stole. But throughout that time, people (like you) insisted that such conspiracies would have to have leaked. They didn't, and such talk helped them get away with it.

The 2008 election was won by Obama and most others by large margins. There is no evidence that election fraud (or disenfranchisement) was either widespread or had any effects on any results in 2008 - quite unlike 2000 and 2004, especially (but not exclusively) in Florida and Ohio. But yes, throughout this decade I have argued for better election security, especially paper trails. I was met by people insisting I was fighting an imaginary problem.

So I want to know what you said in 2000-2006 about protecting elections from election fraud conspiracies. And if you weren't either silent or speaking up to fix the broken system, I want your apology. Now.

We need a new crime.

[Sowelu]

"Treason" is very narrowly defined. I think it's okay that way. But if we don't change the definition of "treason", we need to add a new crime on the same level of capital murder that's specifically for this kind of fraud. It's clearly conspiracy of the very worst sort.

insanity fraud

[Onymous Coward]

Obviously this was someone pretending to be a crazed right-winger. Most likely it's one of those insidious liberals just posing as a frothing and stupid conservative for the purpose of making conservatives look idiotic. You know how those insidious liberals are.

Voting Shmoting

[Halmos]

I just have a hard time believing that ANY vote counts. That politicians would allow us unwashed to decide who gets in and who doesn't. The Canadian system isn't much better, but it does seem a wee bit harder to fake and fraud.

Re:Hang them.

[Darby]

It might be easier if you ask them who paid BEFORE they are swinging from the rope. Unless you plan on hanging them by their ankles.

I find your Piñata method of interrogation intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Off the cuff

[amohat]

I'm going to say that cheating federal elections would be a good argument for treason, as the tag suggests.

Yes, treason.

Forget about 'the death penalty' and its elusive deterrent effect.

I promise that if we start publicly shooting motherfuckers, nobody is going to mess with these machines.

Or we'll get them all in a few rounds, and the rest will understand.

Re:Democrat's get away with it again...

[Sowelu]

What do you mean nobody is screaming for their heads? I sure think they should be executed, and I'm a democrat! String them up! Make it painful! I sure don't want to tolerate this in my party, and I'm pissed.

Ref#3 on cite #3 and we finally get a party...

[HornWumpus]

Anybody want to guess which one?

If boss hog was a R it would have been in ALL the headlines.

Social Security!

[HornWumpus]

Social security takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

The median person paying in lives on much less then the median person receiving. Old folks have done well on average. Schools mostly suck. Many kids work for shit wages.

If it were a sound retirement system that would be OK. It is a Ponzi scheme.

If an insurance company tried to pull it off they would slap the cuffs on all the trustees.

I'm waiting for the day they means test the benefits and lift the income cap. Granting that will undermine Social Securities political support (I'm counting on that). Once it is an explicit welfare program it will get the support it deserves. Damn need none.

Re:Election Fraud SlashKos Oh my.

[mrmeval]

Since some commie rated you troll:

"Since the article doesn't mention it, the people indicted were DEMOCRATS. Quite the conundrum, eh, SlashKos? On one hand, vote fraud is bad, but since it's your guys (Democrats) doing it is almost makes it ok, right?"

Re:How does that prevent this fraud?

[julesh]

If you have a conspiracy large enough to include the election workers, couldn't they just open the box and change the papers?

The normal solution to this is to have the box locked with multiple locks, so that you need some number of people who are hopefully independent of each other (e.g. supporters of opposite sides in the election) to agree in order to open it.

Plus, the voter doesn't know how the system works. He doesn't even know if he's supposed to get a receipt.

If there's a box for voters to put their receipts into, most people will see it and realise what it's for.

Slashdot need a different mod descriptive...

[ibsteve2u]

Any time that you can verify after you leave the polling place which way your vote was recorded ... so can someone else. And that can lead to very serious consequences. Loss of job, family, the stakes are endless.

"Informative" sometimes just doesn't get it; you need something like "Horrific Truth" for such as this.

DeEvolution in Kansas?

[EricTheO]

It would seem that things in Kansas are devolving. We go from inspiring other countries to improve election transparency and credibility in other countries to this.