Source Codes ..... let us see the source codes!

[Botany]

52 to 48 is just about 51 to 49 ......

I smell a rat ...... god damn we need to get some machines under lock
and key and look @ the source codes.

He went from 800 votes down to over 3000 votes down w/ under the last
4% of the vote after the system crashed?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. We can't though.. in the Corporate States of America industrial

secrets are kept on a pedestal. No transparency allowed.

-------------------------------------------------------
Fight for election reform! Fight for Andy!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

2. hell yes we do.... but how likely is that?!

Not too bloody likely....

[Fiona]

3. source codes(sic)

to what?

They didn't use electronic voting machines.

[Pobeka]

5. But they used optical scanners which are programmed. n/t

[Fiona]

8. and he was winning under the optical scan counting...

he lost when Clermont county conducted a hand count.

[Pobeka]

13. I'm not saying there was vote rigging, just that computers were involved.

[high density]

25. Can't we trust anything anymore?

I don't doubt that many/all of the Diebold systems are poorly engineered and have flaws (which I bet is more because of money instead of the desire to throw elections), but I have a hard time buying the corrupt optical scan tabulator theory. When we start winning elections, will that mean that the voting systems are suddenly not corrupt? I'm all for a paper ballots and optical scan seems like a decent compromise for speed and accuracy. All of the computers I've seen do a much better job at counting than any human. In addition, I think the output of these optical scanning machines is typically audited by tallying a random sample of the ballots by hand and verifying that the overall proportions are within acceptable statistical limits. Fraud is a natural possibility in any system, but I have to hope that people from all political sides are there to observe the process and keep each other honest.

[Pobeka]

29. Winning elections is not what this is about. It's about voter confidence.

I'm fine with facing the fact I may live in a country with more people who disagree with me politically.

I'm not fine with being in the majority, and not being properly represented.

I would hope voters from every party can find common ground on those principles.

[Botany]

10. the source code that tabulates the data in the machine .....

..... Those were touch screen machines? they were not mechanical ......
some software or programing must be internalized.
how was the data routed?

[Carolab]

14. They use programs to run the tabulators for optical scanners too!

I wish people would LEARN THE ABOUT THE VOTING SYSTEMS!!!!!!!!!!!

Optiscan ballots are "read" by machines (Tabulators) at the precinct, county and/or central (state) offices.

The tabulated results are either fed via modem transmission, phoned in or hand-carried (they are stored on memory cards) from one place to another; i.e., from the precinct to the county or the county to the state.

There are holes in the security all the way through!

We don't know what the program source codes are, there could be executable vote-switching programs there that overwrite themselves, there could be memory cards swapped out with different results, the results could be hacked on-line if the systems are communicating with one another, the tabulation databases can be easily hacked and the results changed invisibly, and on and on and on.

Jeez, people, it's NOT the solution just to ask for paper ballots or a paper trail!

WE NEED SECURITY PROCEDURES WRITTEN ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE!!! WE NEED LEGISLATION GUARANTEEING THESE PROCEDURES! THE SECRETARIES OF STATE CAN BE TOLD WHAT PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW IF WE MAKE IT LAW!!!!!!!!!!

WOrk with your local and state representatives and find out what your procedures are/are not, and where the security loopholes are, and FIX THEM!!!!!!

[Pobeka]

16. yep. and BTW

:hi:

on edit:

I would add the paper ballots are a necessary component, along with reliable counting processes through the system.

[Fiona]

19. Believe me, I know how they work

My point is that it was the HAND-COUNT that put Schmidt over the edge.

I don't understand why people believe handcounting is superior to machine counting. Handcounting is just as susceptible to fraud and manipulation as any other system, and it's less reliable (provided the machine is honestly programmed).

[Pobeka]

22. And therein lies the rub - "provided the machine is honestly programmed".

It is impossible to know at the time you are casting your ballot that the machine is honestly programmed, unless you can see magnetic fields on memory chips which are hidden beneath several layers of opaque plastic.

I will take hand-counts any day, with 2 or more parties represented in the count.

[Fiona]

24. I believe

it's easier to insure a machine is honest than a person.

[Pobeka]

28. And therein lies the rub.

Sorry, had to do it :D

Anyway, when you are dealing with re-programmable machines, it's people doing the programming. And it's complicated, too complicated to trust to any individual, or group of individuals to do the certification, because their motives and self-interests usually create conflicts of interest.

I do, however, think one can design a system which is not re-programmable, and merely tallies marks in a column (so to speak), and then you could trust that the machine was unbiased, perhaps more so than human counters. The political parties would never get the same column from election to election, so there'd be no way a priori to rig the machine to falsely tally more votes in any particular column.

[Bluebear]

4. Sorry, the "humidity" knocked everything out. nt

[burrowowl]

6. Ah! Yes! Source Codes!

Remember drinking from the source code! TRON!

[wli]

7. it's all rigged... now time for the coverup

After all, what are we going to do? Have our case heard by a Federalist Society judge?

[Pobeka]

9. I know you're mad, but source code will not help.

Source code does not reside on these machines. They could show you any source code they like but it's not necessarily what was running on the counting equipment.

[Botany]

11. We need to look at the machines .....

how was the data routed?

[paineinthearse]

12. Get a court order NOW to impound all the machines

NOW!

[Land Shark]

35. No basis for confidence in any results with secret data and secret count..

Results only? puh-leeze....

[Pobeka]

15. I'm really not very familiar with how optical scanners are programmed.

But presumeably you'd need some way to examine the executable (binary) data which is the program.

I have no idea beyond the basic concept, and it would likely take an assembly language programmer many days, if not weeks to verify the program that is residing in the scanner.

[Botany]

17. Fine look at it.

It was not like you flipped a lever and a mark was added to a column .....
those machines were not mechanical ........


800 votes to 3000 votes in the last 3% of the vote?

[longship]

18. Access BASIC.

It's written in Access BASIC. Have you ever seen Access BASIC? It's the single worst designed programming platform I've ever seen. Furthermore, Access is insecure; it has more holes in it than Albert Hall.

[Pobeka]

20. The optical scanners are programmed in Access BASIC?

Or are you talking about the central tabulators?

[longship]

21. Diebold machines, and probably the central tabulators.

n/t

[Carolab]

23. Definitely the central tabulators.

You can look it up.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

[longship]

31. Thanks, I thought so.

At any rate, Access BASIC is the most insecure, most retched platform in the industry. It truly is an abomination. M$ has long recognized this, that's why they're phasing out Access as a product. It's rubbish.

[LoZoccolo]

26. The Diebold code I saw was C++.

It does use Access tables to store the data though.

[LoZoccolo]

27. There is no source code in the machine.

By the time it gets there it's been compiled into machine code. You could compile what was allegedly the source code for the machines, and compare it to the machine code in the machines, and then you could say "this is the source code for what ran in the machines" and begin inspecting it from there.

[Carolab]

37. Yes, but as Bev found in Florida, the CHIPS can be programmed

Putting an executable program into removable memory card
"ballot boxes" -- and then programming the opti-scan chip to
call and invoke whatever program is in the live ballot box
during the middle of an election -- is a mind-boggling
design from a security standpoint. Combining this idiotic design
with a program that doesn't even check to see whether someone has
tampered with it constitutes negligence and should result in
a product recall.

[LSK]

30. from what I understand, it was cut and paste from a networked PC

The vote tallies are kept in a text file on the hard drive, and anyone who can access the drive via a network can edit it.

Theres a video of a demonstration of this out there somewhere.

[Liberal In Texas]

32. I agree....How do we do it?

HOW do we get these GOP machines to do an honest vote?!

I'm with you but HOW DO WE DO IT?

[fighttheevilempire]

33. How many of these machines are there?

And where are they stored? I can't believe that someone hasnt had access to one for long enough to leak a copy of the source code out. Diebold must have great security. Maybe Diebold should be keeping our CIA secrets, the Bush administration isn't doing too well holding up that end.

[SoCalDem]

34. As I predicted, sadly..

"Ooooh, soooo close".."better luck next time"....

repubes are EXPERTS at this stuff, and they know just how to play it.. They act all worried before the election, and no matter who turns out, the margin is "just enough" for them to win..

You would think that dems all over would be staring to grab the torches and start marching..

No matte how much money we raise or how much grass-rooting we do, the ones who control the counting and the mechanisms for voting, will always manage to "squeak by" and win with a close margin:puke:

Until there are democratic representatives at EVERY polling station, getting signed affidavits from all dem voters, as to how they voted (especially easy in a special election where the numbers are small), nothing will change/...

Can you imagine the uproar in the papers if there were signed affidavits from 400 dems who voted Hackett, and yet the "tabulator" gave him 100???

[Carolab]

36. This is one of the suggestions offered by some of the experts.

They recommend "parallel" polling and voting.

[SoCalDem]

38. It's the ONLY way to throw a spotlight on vote counting..

I would never object to telling who I voted for. It always strikes me as funny, when people go on and on about the secret ballot, yet they have their cars plastered with stickers and have signs in their yards.. Big secret:)

It would not be hard to do, and people would probably volunteer.. Every precinct's regsitration list is public information.. We know how many people showed up to vote, we know how many dems and how many repubes..
all we need is a table at the exit (outside the "special area" where no one is allowed)..and a table with a notary..as every dem leaves the polling station, they stop there for "vote verification"..

A simple press conference prior to the election would be easy enough to arrange.

a spokeman could just say:

"We no longer trust the vote counting and the sketchy electronic machines..the media will not accurately account for an exit poll, so we are preserving OUR constituents' choice by a notarized accounting of the votes.."

If a precinct has 800 registered, and half are R and half are D...400 show up.. 350 sign affidavits as having voted Dem..there better not be more than 50 R votes..:)

[Carolab]

39. Right. And THIS solution may be, in the end, ALL we have left.

Unless we can get the SOS to stop buying the dreaded machines and unless we can get some legislation to address the security issues first!!! And even if we DO succeed on the first two, why not do the parallel polling/vote verification ANYWAY?

[SoCalDem]

40. Any time a NEW system is instituted, there should be DOUBLE

checking until the public is comfortable with the new system. When we switched over to computers at work, we still did manual bookkeeping for at least 2 quarters so that we cold verify the totals, and make sure we were correct. Once we had those two quarters under our belts, and the figures matched, we tossed out the paper, and never looked back:)

Voting is a little different though. there should ALWAYS be a failsafe feature..

The problem is that our ELECTION themselves are way more complicated than they need be..

Every state/municipality has a lot of stuff to be voted on, and instead of lumping them in with the national elections, they should be separate.. That would free up the national elections to still be run by the states, but with a standardized ballot of all states, and there would be no reason for delays with only a maximum of 3 votes to make , per district..

pres.senate.congress ( and not all three ususally)

The local/state stuff could be in odd years:) I don;t give a rats ass who ends up on the city council of Boise Idaho, but I sure DO care who they send to congress/senate/WH

[Carolab]

41. Absolutely. They have made the elections too complicated.

It's deliberate, IMHO.

The excuses given--it's faster, it's cheaper, etc. etc.--are all lame. It's the process that needs fixin'.

There are too many races and too many issues on the ballots at one time.

Canada keeps it simple, and that's how they can hand-count!