The upcoming midterm elections will be historic, not because of whom we vote for but how we vote: For the first time some form of electronic voting machine will tally ballots in all 50 states. This new digital democracy is the culmination of the federal 2002 Help America Vote Act -- a nearly $4 billion upgrade of voting machines approved after the disastrous 2000 Florida presidential election, which infamously left the fate of our country hanging by a chad.
The new computers are designed to count votes faster and more accurately than the clunky old levered, punch card and butterfly ballot machines. And laudably, they will make it easier for tens of thousands of disabled voters to cast ballots. But the new electronic voting, or e-voting, machines also have raised as many questions as they have answered. And they all boil down to the very definition of a democracy: How can the public be sure that each vote counts?
In our latest segment examining the use of e-voting machines, "Das Vote," we will show again that there's no guarantee that these machines count votes correctly. Indeed, since 2000, there have been several cases of certain types of e-voting machines mis-recording votes. A number of voting precincts have since spent considerable money upgrading their e-voting machines so they also record a paper record. But many are simply relying on their citizens to have faith in technology that few understand.
Our report centers on a group of computer savvy activists who have proven how naïve and dangerous this trust could be. The activists have used their technological know-how to demonstrate that most, if not all, e-voting machines can be hacked. Quite simply, this means that someone with computer programming skills could change the result of an election.
The strongest case we came across was made by the Dutch activist Rop Gonggrijp. In a video he provided us, Gonggrijp and friends showed they were able to change the votes recorded by a popular e-voting machine in under a minute. Like most e-voting critics, Gonggrijp is neither anti-computer nor afraid of technology -- he is a hacker himself and has made a good living using computers. But what he knows about computers scares him when they are used for voting. "I'm very much into technology, so one of my main topics in my life is telling people that yes you can do all sorts of things with technology," he told us. "But the technology also has drawbacks and it has things it can't do."
Gonggrijp incongruously has pushed for a return to paper ballots.
It's worth noting that paper ballots historically have been far from foolproof in preventing election fraud. As recently as the last month's parliamentary elections in Afghanistan, there were widespread reports of ballot stuffing, observed by independent monitors. It's hard to hide ballot stuffing - and there's usually little attempt to do so by corrupt officials. And that's what Gonggrijp and others say makes paper ballots better than e-voting machines. When there's corruption, at least it's open. There's no way to know when a virtual ballot box is being stuffed.
The e-voting machines' inherent lack of transparency and vulnerability to hackers, as demonstrated by Gonggrijp and other activists, led three European governments to warehouse tens of millions of dollars worth of computerized voting machines. As of last year, citizens in Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands are now back to using what former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern once referred to derisively as "stupid old pencils."
The United States, of course, has taken a different tack. In spite of the flaws exposed by U.S.-based hackers and activists -- groups such as Black Box Voting and Verified Voting -- states here continued a spending spree on e-voting machines. And they did so unencumbered by federal oversight. As of now, there is no federal body monitoring problems with e-voting machines.
Larry Norden, a scholar of voting technology at New York University's law school, finds it implausible that the same federal government that monitors consumer goods like baby powder and automobiles is asking us to blindly trust e-voting machines. "I think it's outrageous," he said. "To me, there's no explanation for why we regulate toasters so much more thoroughly than we do a voting machine. This is our democracy. There are few things more important than voting and making sure that all votes are counted accurately."
Dan Rather Reports' "Das Vote" aired October 26 at 8 PM and 11 PM Eastern on HDNet. You can now download the show on iTunes.
Barbara Lee: In "Manly" Midterms, Vote Like a Girl
Tom Engelhardt: Handicapping the Global Midterms: Winners and Losers
David Bourgeois: Breaking: Republicans Propose Canceling Midterms
The corporate oligarchy has made a joke of our democracy.
I would define digital democracy as voting on a case-by-case basis, in an immediate fashion and with great frequency, for laws and the allocation of funds towards the common good.
When the citizens of the internet, whether at the level of being within national boundaries, or at the level of being anywhere on the globe, can make public policy simply by submitting ideas online, having them debated and refined and edited and refactored, then ultimately publicly rated as to their desirability and efficiency and intelligence, so that the ideas are consented upon by the majority, or even by a minority in accordance with first principles or a constitution... then we will have achieved a "digital democracy."
"And they all boil down to the very definition of a democracy: How can the public be sure that each vote counts?"
I'd be happy to donate my domain, "http://define.com", to the purpose of defining and implementing a digital democracy. In fact, it's being reserved for just such a purpose.
The very first item that we can vote on, as a self-governing people creating our own law, is whether it would be in the best interest of the majority of citizens to forgive all debts, public and private, and start over with a new non-profit banking system democratically owned and controlled by the citizens themselves directly, one person, one vote.
I would venture to say that this is an idea that would secure a majority vote, and put Wall Street back in the service of the people instead of global banking interests and multinational corporations which obviously and conclusively represent the interests of the rich.
What do you think? If we just got rid of all the fluff and controversy and distractions, and just voted on that one issue alone, as a distinct and solitary public decision, could "electronic democracy" actually prevail?
The story: Never Say Die-bold: So You Don’t Think the Bush Campaign Stole This Election? Think Again
By Jackson Thoreau
opEdNews.com
If you’re looking for one word to sum up the way the Bush-Cheney campaign stole another election Tuesday besides obvious ones like “cheated,” try this one: Diebold.
An election judge where I voted Tuesday in a heavily Democratic precinct in Maryland knows what that means and wasn’t adverse to sharing his opinion of the Republican-owned company. As I was about to vote with the electronic system, I asked this judge if they had a way to check people’s votes through a paper backup.
The official said no, and then in a low voice so no one else would hear, added, “And that really makes us nervous, with Diebold as the owner of that system.”
http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_110404_diebold.htm
All the fuss over voter fraud masquerades the real concern over election fraud where servers are rerouted and totals switched.
Should a case be invoked against either one of these, the paper trail would indeed help. However, a computer program is less likely to make mistakes in the first place. Have doubts about the code? Release the source code. Or have it reviewed by multiple panels of people with the clearance to see such code.
How much confidence can anyone give me that their grandparent can read and count hundreds of ballets without messing up? Heck, forget about the geriatric. What about you?
Human error to is great. There is no doubt potential problems with computers, but there are far worse problems that exist right now that we have become compacent with to the point where we've forgotten that they are even there.
People say they can't trust computers, but can you really trust a room full of old people? Political bias out of the question, of course. Though it adds insult to injury to note the political differences among older folks vs younger.
The most amazing thing was how serious they took this task.They let me know that they weren't like some of those precincts in other parts of the state of Ohio who came under scrutiny because of incompetent or crooked behavior.One silver-haired lady told me that those people were "nuts" and the others at the precinct table nodded in agreement.I didn't ask for these opinions.They were volunteered.
I'll take these patriotic senior citizens over a hackable computer any day.
they transformed 60 minutes and CBS (and every existing network, including PBS) into a magazine where all segments are subtly embedded commercials
what's left, as independent, is Frontline, DemocracyNOW, and sites like ProPublica, HuffingtonPost and few others, but for how long? they know that you can't control the masses if there is an independent viewpoint which may cause people (read voters) to begin to question the system.
First of all it is next to impossible to "prove" voter fraud using electronic voting machines. Second while the majority of machines do not have a paper trail, the ones that do are just as easily hacked into. Furthermore since the machines tallies the votes, not humans, no one knows if the votes were correctly counted. All it takes is less than 1 minute for a hacker to alter the number of votes and do so without leaving even a trace of evidence therein no one is the wiser. And he/she does not even need to be in the same room or even in physical proximity to the machines.
Granted you are correct about the need for paper, but you forgot to mention pencils and the need for votes to be counted by humans rather than machines. There are many other vulnerabilities and inconsistencies that also need to be addressed and corrected. Until then every American voter should/must question the integrity of our voting system.
Democrats come off worst in machine frauds because the Republicans have the further advantage of dominating the manufacture ot the machines. There are laws in any case about fraud and the administration should conduct investigations and pursue jail time penalties when fraud can be proven. Democratic voters should seriously consider absentee and early voting that emphasizes paper trails.
Secondly, why can't measures be taken to rectify such problems, if the weaknesses are already well known? No one system is utterly foolproof, and I come from regions of the world where vote rigging, sometimes very crudely indeed, is rife.
There will never be excuse for lack of supervision to any system, whether labor- or machine-intensive. Human supervision must always be a key factor. All systems are as strong and as weak as their creators, and indeed, the chief weakness of all systems is the human.
The article is a good start but the problems so identified are rectifiable. At least a significant number of weaknesses have already been exposed.
How would one hack a non-networked system without access to any of the ports and a 3 button interface? The only person who would need supervising is the one flashing the device.
People try to be too fancy and end up causing more problems than it's worth. We don't need touch screens, or flashy animations, or an incredibly unstable operating system. Heck, this can be done with a PIC Kit and some LEDs.
Liberalized voter registration laws pushed by Democrats and strict voter ID laws opposed by Democrats have made vote fraud a way of life in some places. Democrats seem to be involved in efforts to disenfranchise military and other groups of voters by manipulating the laws, rules, deadlines, etc. Democrats work hard to guarantee that their members in Congress have safe seats by gerrymandering congressional districts to the point of overincredulously.
There are ways to stop this nonsense. Until there is a Vote Party to shake up the idiots we have elected nothing substantive will ever be done. Both parties look for an edge - legally and illegally. We, as citizens, shouldn't put up with it and demand a change. It demeans us all.
Should felons or non citizens be allowed to vote? They may pay taxes, and taxation without representation is a great offense to the ideals of our founding fathers. In the past non citizens have been allowed to vote when they declared an intention to become citizens. Denying them a vote deprives them of the power to demand fairness which undermines the claims of all workers to legal fairness -- something nobody expects all that much of in any case.
An election judge where I voted Tuesday in a heavily Democratic precinct in Maryland knows what that means and wasn’t adverse to sharing his opinion of the Republican-owned company. As I was about to vote with the electronic system, I asked this judge if they had a way to check people’s votes through a paper backup.
The official said no, and then in a low voice so no one else would hear, added, “And that really makes us nervous, with Diebold as the owner of that system.”
Goodbye, hanging chads. Hello, computer fraud that leaves no trace, no chads hanging.
Diebold Inc. of North Canton, Ohio, supplied scores of machines and counted millions of votes Tuesday, while reportedly discarding many votes for Democrat John Kerry, according to British investigative reporter Gregory Palast. Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold and a top fundraiser for the Bush campaign, wrote in a fund-raising letter last year that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to president next year.”
That he did.
Software errors involving the system can change results, computer scientists say. Since majority of touch screens in United States do not produce paper records, machines could alter ballots without anyone noticing. DIEBOLD was largest campaign contributor to Bush.
http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_110404_diebold.htm
There is a myth that only Republicans (via Diebold) have 'stolen' elections. You don't hear about Democrats stealing them for a reason and that isn't because they do not.
The Republicans have striven for many years to challenge and reduce the numbers of votes. Chief Justice Rehnquist, as an ambitious young Republican in the 1960s, was once evicted from a polling place for harassing minority voters. Seriously, is it in our interest as a representative democracy to deprive any resident of the vote?