"It's far easier to manipulate paper ballots than encrypted memory cards"

[Amaryllis]

anyone want to take this on?

Send letters to Send letters to [e-mail]


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.voting14mar14,0,3629904.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines
opinion
Machine politics
Originally published March 14, 2006

Three months ago, a Finnish computer expert successfully hacked into an optical scan voting machine in Florida. Now, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and members of the House of Delegates seem to believe this same technology is a far better choice for the coming election than the state's touch-screen voting system. Why? That's a good question. Because while there are legitimate security challenges posed by touch-screen machines, including the absence of a so-called paper trail, these shortcomings pale compared with the problems spawned by this 11th-hour push to replace them with optical scan machines.

Even the most skeptical Luddite understands that it's far easier to manipulate paper ballots than encrypted memory cards. And optical scan machines have already proved to be less reliable - misreading poorly marked ballots, for instance - than the extensively tested $90 million system the state has put in place.

This is no time to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. The hysteria over touch-screen voting has been fueled by Republicans who think crying voter fraud helps them politically and Democrats taking marching orders from Montgomery County Del. Sheila E. Hixson, chairwoman of the influential House Ways and Means Committee. To even think about converting to optical scan equipment just six months before the primary is a recipe for disaster.

It's up the Senate to take a more levelheaded approach. Diebold Election System's offer to replace some of Maryland's voting machines with printer-equipped versions to evaluate their performance might prove helpful. Certainly, it makes more sense than spending $12 million or more for a less-accurate, less-secure, and less-accessible way to cast a ballot this fall.

[shoelace414]

1. and having both is better?

Paper ballots that could be recounted and computer tabulation?

[rooboy]

2. Optical scan machines ARE a big danger.

THROW OUT COMPUTERISED VOTE COUNTING ALTOGETHER. YOU DO NOT NEED MACHINES TO VOTE OR TO COUNT VOTES.

[Atman]

3. Sure it is, if you're an old-time campaigner with no computer skills!

But don't tell my kids that. The could manipulate your encrypted memory card faster than you can say "Diebold ate my vote!"

[Canuckistanian]

4. No physical evidence = The Perfect Crime

The whole point of protesting the voting machine irregularities is that it's so easy to cover up your tracks when cheating. These machines seem to be intentionally designed to have multiple "back doors" that could easily allow tampering without detection.

Any evidence of wrongdoing is just a bunch of ones and zeroes that are erased in a fraction of a second.
Poof! Like it never existed in the first place.

With real paper ballots, there's always a chance of fraud, but much harder to pull off. It would require manipulation of physical evidence that always leaves some kind of trail.

[shance]

5. I guess they think if they say a lie long enough, it will eventually take.

n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Why can't we just throw out all the machines? Paper ballots, counted

by hand.

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Pretty easy to manipulate touch screen systems and memory cards

My kid learned BASIC in elementary school

10 print"Hello World!"
20 goto 10

We learned PASCAL together when he was in Middle School

Begin

Writeln ('Hello World!');

End.

I learned fortran in college

PROGRAM HELLO
DO 10, I=1,10
PRINT *,'Hello World'

10 CONTINUE

STOP
END

Then there's the old workhores C++

#include <iostream.h>

main()
{

for(;;)
{
cout << "Hello World! ";
}}

And, for you young dudes

class HelloWorld {

public static void main (String args[]) {
for (;;) {
System.out.print("Hello World ");
}
}

}

Ain't hard to hack if you can "Talk" to the code.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Paper ballots have been manipulated for a long time. And

people have been caught for manipulating paper ballots for a long time.

It's easier to catch paper ballot manipulation than it is too catch digital ballot manipulation. For one thing, we have a lot more experience in catching paper ballot manipulation.

It's harder to do large scale paper ballot manipulation than it is to do large scale digital manipulation. It requires far more time, people and evidence of the effort with a wide scale paper ballot manipulation than it does for a wide scale digital manipulation.

Casting a ballot isn't rocket science and shouldn't be, and counting them shouldn't be either.

Let's keep it simple and secure.

I don't need an electronic pencil and I don't need an electronic ballot box. Even if the writer thinks I do.

[On the Road]

9. It's Not Exactly the Right Question IMO

the question is "which system offers greater security against tampering?" This depends not only on the technical system, but on the human process. Most pertinently, who has access under what condition to the ballots or voting data? How are those collected, gathered, and reported? What checks are in place to ensure that the official vote matches the total reported by an individual polling station?

I am more concerned about the possibility of paper ballot fraud than a lot of DUers are. Paper is impervious to hacking, but it creates other ways of committing fraud. Jimmy Carter, for example, wrote a book about his experience with paper ballot fraud. Hunter Thompson was convinced Humphrey used paper ballot fraud in Cuyahoga County to beat McGovern in the 1972 primary. The list can be expanded ad infinitum.

I believe it might be possible to design an automated or partially automated system that would be more secure than pure paper. But it's not what's being done today with the secrecy and massive security holes.

[mcranor]

10. OK, I'll fire one off..

How's this?

To the Editor:

What a fatuous, ill-considered opinion you offer in today's editorial "Machine Politics." To begin with, the statement upon which the whole argument rests, "it's far easier to manipulate paper ballots than encrypted memory cards," is demonstrably untrue. Also, cheating can be detected in a paper-based system, whereas it is virtually undetectable in the electronic systems (this by design, according to some conspiracy theorists.) Beyond that, you don't even mention the chief problem with touch-screen voting: if a race is close, if there are technical problems, if there are legal challenges to the results, there is NOTHING to recount, NOTHING to audit, NO WAY to verify the intent of the voters. A cloud of uncertainty hangs forever over any such electoral 'decision'. How in the name of Democracy can you find this acceptable?

(XXXXXXXXXX)
Eugene, Oregon

[yourout]

11. To alter a meaningfull amount of paper ballots would require...

alot more effort by alot more people then memory cards. A single well connected quasi intelligent person could alter thousands of vote in mere seconds.

A single person would have a difficult time altering more than a few hundred ballots and it would be far easier to get caught stuffing the ballot box.

[simonm]

12. Master Key

Well, assuming bribery and corruption on any level is impossible.

Once the encryption is hacked (when, not if) the cracker will have the Master Key to *ALL* memory cards. Therefore, the ability to change all vote totals without a trace.