READER COMMENTS ON

"All Diebold Touch-screen Voting Systems Fail on Election Day at 110 Polls Across Utah County, UT"

(16 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... TomR said on 11/5/2010 @ 11:10 am PT...





OT: I just watched this 7 minute video of this guy explaining a system he devised to ensure election accuracy, transparency, and verification: http://www.huffingtonpos...-voting-wi_b_777932.html I'd need to see more information before I could believe that his system doesn't have any vulnerabilities or couldn't be hacked, but he does provide interesting ideas (food for thought) on the subject of improving the election process. His system does use paper ballots of a sort. - Tom

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 11/5/2010 @ 12:04 pm PT...





TomR - His system does use paper ballots of a sort. His system also uses computer encryption which must simply be "trusted"; allows for vote buying and selling; disallows citizens to oversee the accuracy of all ballots (since voter intent cannot be presumed as accurately verified by looking at all of the paper ballots); and other such issues in this country's continuing obsession with solving simple addition "problems" with rocket science.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... eric said on 11/5/2010 @ 12:47 pm PT...





"Did CA get bluer, while the nation got redder, because Debra Bowen threw out touchscreen voting?" "Let's not forget that Debra Bowen, our courageous secretary of state, ordered hack tests on all our voting machines and decertified the ones that proved to be easy to hack. Touchscreens are only allowed now for disabled voters. Is it really just a coincidence that in the first statewide election since she decertified the Diebold touchscreens and others, EVERY SINGLE STATEWIDE OFFICE WAS WON BY A DEMOCRAT????? While our current machines are not perfect, and some could still be rigged, I suspect Bowen made it a lot harder for the election thieves. Knowing the scrutiny upon them, perhaps they scurried off and focused efforts on other states with more accommodating right-leaning or just clueless secretaries of state." http://www.democraticund...address=389×9482845

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... TomR said on 11/5/2010 @ 12:51 pm PT...





What I like is he raises some good ideas for requirements, like wouldn't it be great if any citizen or group of citizens could verify the election results for themselves if they really wanted to? So, I'm thinking maybe something more like what The Uptake did for the Coleman/Franken recount: record video of the actual counting of ballots and have it on the web where citizens can review that process for themselves. This could/should become standard procedure for any election. - Tom

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... MKennedy said on 11/5/2010 @ 4:14 pm PT...





The incredible (literally) thing about this TV story is that neither interviewed voters nor reporters/anchorpersons made the cognitive leap to the possibility of vulnerability on the vote-COUNTING end, since clearly that programming vulnerabilty existed on the vote-CASTING end. Once the votes could be cast, there seemed to be blind faith in the accuracy of the process dutifully engaged in by the (GOd bless 'em!) patriotic voters. Such blind faith! What's happened to Americans' ability to think and imagine? We've been dumbed-down into utter denial of any bad possibility! Any critical thinker should be able to say, wow, we better check the tabulation end of these things before we trust 'em! But we are not allowed to think critically anymore. We're walled in by lies. It is so sad. Suspicion doesn't even occur to the inconvenienced/disenfranchised voters. Not allowed on the part of reporters. If our police were this dumbed-down they'd never solve a crime! (Some lawyers and judges, out of pious obedience to the story necessary to keep us in check, already seem to have been this dumbed-down. Or maybe they believe it's our right to be dumb and the media's right to free speech to continue lying so we stay that way and can't figure anything out correctly.)

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Robert Horning said on 11/5/2010 @ 6:17 pm PT...





I need to point out that these machines do have verification for the votes that are cast. Prior to the election itself, the machines all have a printed voting record that can (indeed ought to be!) verified by each voter before they leave the voting booth. This print out is human-readable where it lists each race and which candidate or response (yes or no "votes" for ballot initiatives, for example) for each question on the ballot including a bold ">" when you refuse to vote for anybody. It is patently unfair to say that these machines are unverifiable but I think you can say that many voters are lazy and don't bother rechecking their votes as they are cast. If you voted for a Democrat and it shows the Republican candidate instead (or the other way around) on the print-out, that is your problem as a voter and you are being a good for nothing lazy voter willing to let your vote go somewhere else. If the machine won't get fixed, you can then file formal protests that your vote was not counted properly. The responsibility here is with the voter, not the judge in this case. By law, at least 1%-2% of all voting machines must be verified with the paper ballots, and for close elections the recount is based entirely on the paper ballots for a recount. The paper ballot is locked behind a plastic screen, and difficult to tamper with... at least without letting others and in particular the voting judges know what you are doing. The usual Chicago style "dead people" voting can still happen with these machines, but that has nothing to do with electronic voting machines but more to the reliability of the election judges and making sure that all interested parties are watching the polls to make sure funny stuff isn't happening. As for this glitch, the "technicians" who set up the machines screwed up. It also indicates a decided lack of training on the part of the election judges in that county as the voting machines themselves could be turned into card encoders to allow the election to continue. It takes "sacrificing" one voting machine to be dedicated for the election judges to be encoding cards and somebody knowledgeable enough to be able to know how to set that system up, but such a change should only take a minute or two. In this case the Utah County election officials themselves really stepped in it big time for anybody to be turned away or told to wait more than 10-15 minutes. It is a human error and a decided lack of training or perhaps semi-senile senior citizens expected to operated high tech equipment that is the problem, not the machines themselves. Being an election judge in Utah now requires some fairly advanced technical skills that weren't necessary before, but people with such skills are available if the county clerks would but look for them. As for the website being down... there is this wonderful invention called "a telephone". There is also "directory assistance" where if you ask for the "county clerk" they can connect you to somebody knowledgeable to tell you where to vote. Last I heard, the telephones weren't down in Utah during the election.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 11/5/2010 @ 8:33 pm PT...





TomR said @ 4: What I like is he raises some good ideas for requirements, like wouldn't it be great if any citizen or group of citizens could verify the election results for themselves if they really wanted to? Of course. That's the whole point of what we fight for every day here. But we don't need rocket science and/or un-transparent encryption or computers for any of that. Moreover, the scheme you point to only allows one person to check their own vote, and relies on gameable computer systems to do so. So here's the very very complicated scheme to accomplish what you require: 1) Vote on paper ballots.

2) Put the paper ballots into a translucent box on the table in front of everyone at all times.

3) When poll closes, open box, count ballots, with all parties, all citizens, all video cameras watching.

4) Post the results at the polling place before ballots move anywhere.

5) Celebrate a 100% transparent electoral democracy. Doesn't require much rocket science (or money) does it? If anyone wants to count those same ballots later, of course, they can count all of them any time they wish.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 11/5/2010 @ 8:47 pm PT...





Oh, this happened on election day and now it's the 5th of November... Old news.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 11/5/2010 @ 8:57 pm PT...





Robert Horning said @6: I need to point out that these machines do have verification for the votes that are cast. Prior to the election itself, the machines all have a printed voting record that can (indeed ought to be!) verified by each voter before they leave the voting booth. This may be your first time here. I don't know. So you may not understand that I've written to that point time and again, most recently over at Slate last week. I won't re-itereate the entire piece here, but the point is that, as even you admit, voters do not verify their so-called paper trails. Moreover, as studies show, many voters (most, in fact) don't notice when their votes have been flipped by the computer even if they bother to check it. Finally, and most the point of all, perhaps, even if they do check their paper trails and even if they do notice any vote flips on it, there is no way that we, the people, can verify those paper trails as actually reflecting the will of the voters. Thus, it is 100% unverifiable voting. BTW, you'll also be interested to know that those paper trails can be gamed as well, in about 60 seconds, across an entire county, in such a way that it's unlikely to ever be discovered (even if every paper trail "vote" was counted by hand). Here's how. As to the rest of your appalling and offensive comments wherein you attack patriotic, hard working poll workers, who shouldn't be required to be computer scientists to help out their nation for one day every two or four years, who you describe as "semi-senile senior citzens" I take great exception. The only "human error" involved in this situation was by the jackasses who forced these antithetical-to-democracy, 100% unverifiable pieces of shit computers on Utah's voters, despite pleas from many of the state's election clerks to NOT do so (not to mention the world-class computer scientists and cyber-security experts across the globe who have said time and again that they should NEVER be used in ANY election.) That you are an apologist for the democracy haters who implimented this anti-American scheme is appalling. Given your apparent lack of knowledge about these systems, however, I should hardly be surprised. Please beat it, and take your horseshit elsewhere where they may be people stupid or self-loathing enough to buy it. Thanks!

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 11/5/2010 @ 9:09 pm PT...





By the way, Robert, perhaps if you showed any respect whatsoever for your fellow citizens you wouldn't have come in last place last year when running for the Logan, UT City Council. Please make my day and run for office again sometime in the future. Okay? I suspect the "semi-senile senior citizens" in your jurisdiction will be quite lucid enough to ensure your opponent wins. Again. And I hope the Utah readers of The BRAD BLOG will take note of this joker and share his name with others in the state who may wish to keep track of him should he run for office again.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 11/5/2010 @ 11:38 pm PT...





Lets give him credit. Robert Horning used his real name and that's better then most of the Diebold trolls. Nonetheless, a troll for Diebold. I was at a "Tea Party Event", (thing) here and talked to one guy who was there, campaigning for - senate winner - Mike Lee. He told me he was a technician for Diebold. I have no proof whatsoever of a misdeed here, and Mike Lee is a much slicker guy then the Democrat who was running against him, but that's the problem, isn't it? No proof!

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 11/5/2010 @ 11:58 pm PT...





Robert Horning said: It is patently unfair to say that these machines are unverifiable but I think you can say that many voters are lazy and don't bother rechecking their votes as they are cast. I'm a fellow Utahn. I've lived here all my life and I'm sorry I called you a troll, but it doesn't matter if the paper roll says I voted for Mickey Mouse; the ONLY thing that gets counted is inside the machine, period. If you don't understand that, you haven't been paying attention. Please pay attention! This is serious!

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... patginsd said on 11/6/2010 @ 9:44 am PT...





Brad,

I love the passion!

Wish we could get justice and accountability. I am going to start spreading links of Brad's available documentaries to all non-corporate media (local community TV) and to progressive and Democratic meetup groups that I can find. If we can get these documentaries aired and viewed at all activist group meetups, perhaps we can build up a rabid following like the Tea Partiers did, with Fraudulent Election signs at every protest we attend. 2012 starts NOW. BAN DRE's and Opscan counting! Hopefully others will join in and help.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Allen W said on 11/7/2010 @ 3:40 am PT...





Endless vote fraud, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right:

They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II” and censoring the internet.

They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns.

They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers.

They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries.

Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul.

(Last link of Banned Book):

America Deceived II (book)

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... taffy droyd said on 11/7/2010 @ 12:52 pm PT...





Brad - In Kansas we had a question about the 2nd Amendment: when we voted: Should people have the right to carry guns to protect their property and family etc. I thought this was odd and wondered if any other state had this on their ballot. Since it's a federal/constitutional issue why was this on a state ballot? I just suspicious about it.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 11/7/2010 @ 9:55 pm PT...

