"For the record, Diebold has only been in the election machine business since 2001. They only make direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines, and have never produced paper ballot readers or any other equipment"
Forgive me if I have missed something here but the machine that was the subject of the final dramatic "fixing" scene in the HBO special was a Diebold paper vote scanner. I know this because it is the same machine used at my polling place for the last few years (Since California decertified the first Diebold touchscreen machine.)
And just one observation of the sensational climax: The fixing of the media on a scanning counting machine is easily trumped by recounts of random precincts on different machines done with the original paper ballots.
"When it comes to computerized voting, who voted for whom can be immediately identified"
Not so in California counties with Diebold touch screen machines. After a voter signs the register an election official issues him a smart card that is used to "unlock" one of the voting machines. To match a voter to a ballot would require the precinct officials to keep some sort of log book (of course which is forbidden by law) where names were written and an election official runs to the specific machine the voter selects to write the machine ID and the number of votes cast on that machine at that time which MIGHT let some computer expert identify the specific ballot.
By the way the purpose of the card is the same as hotels use of them to unlock room doors but in this case the card is set with data that shows it is unused and valid for voting that day in that precinct. Upon casting a vote the card is wiped such that it will not work to allow an other vote in that or any other machine.
Not true. Election results are always subject to a recount. Whether or not paper ballots are used during that recount is a matter for each state's legislature.
California where the Diebold touch screen machines were decertified, the involved counties went to the Diebold scanners identical to those used in the "fixing" demonstration that climaxed the HBO special. Now the Diebold touch screens are back in those counties but with different software and a paper record of each vote. The law here calls for recounts to use a random sample, as I'm sure it does in every other jurisdiction in the country. If there is a statistically significant variation with the total canvas all the ballots are recounted. But these matters are not related to whether or not computers were used at any stage.
As a personal aside working in the election process, fixing an election requires crooked election workers whether or not computers are used. And it is a lot easier for a cabal to have a trunk full of bogus paper ballots that are switched with the real ballots that are then destroyed before making it to the counting location thus making recounts meaningless. Not only that, there needs to be crooks all over the place to either hack the computer memory on thousands of machines or switch thousands of boxes of paper ballots.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me if I have missed something here but the machine that was the subject of the final dramatic "fixing" scene in the HBO special was a Diebold paper vote scanner. I know this because it is the same machine used at my polling place for the last few years (Since California decertified the first Diebold touchscreen machine.)
And just one observation of the sensational climax: The fixing of the media on a scanning counting machine is easily trumped by recounts of random precincts on different machines done with the original paper ballots.
Ditto elections.
Rock-paper-sissors: No computers, no paper no fraud, perfect results everytime.
Not so in California counties with Diebold touch screen machines. After a voter signs the register an election official issues him a smart card that is used to "unlock" one of the voting machines. To match a voter to a ballot would require the precinct officials to keep some sort of log book (of course which is forbidden by law) where names were written and an election official runs to the specific machine the voter selects to write the machine ID and the number of votes cast on that machine at that time which MIGHT let some computer expert identify the specific ballot.
By the way the purpose of the card is the same as hotels use of them to unlock room doors but in this case the card is set with data that shows it is unused and valid for voting that day in that precinct. Upon casting a vote the card is wiped such that it will not work to allow an other vote in that or any other machine.
California where the Diebold touch screen machines were decertified, the involved counties went to the Diebold scanners identical to those used in the "fixing" demonstration that climaxed the HBO special. Now the Diebold touch screens are back in those counties but with different software and a paper record of each vote. The law here calls for recounts to use a random sample, as I'm sure it does in every other jurisdiction in the country. If there is a statistically significant variation with the total canvas all the ballots are recounted. But these matters are not related to whether or not computers were used at any stage.
As a personal aside working in the election process, fixing an election requires crooked election workers whether or not computers are used. And it is a lot easier for a cabal to have a trunk full of bogus paper ballots that are switched with the real ballots that are then destroyed before making it to the counting location thus making recounts meaningless. Not only that, there needs to be crooks all over the place to either hack the computer memory on thousands of machines or switch thousands of boxes of paper ballots.