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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[xSauronx]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Peaceful_Patriot]

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

google news

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

new methods for perennial problems

[rodentia]

same old solution: vigilance.

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...

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

[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: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 . . .

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

[Bushido Hacks]

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

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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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?

[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.

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?