What is the point of a recount with electronic voting not recountable?

[QuidditchFan]

O.K., so let's assume that recounts go forward. How are votes that were cast electronically re-counted? I know that this is the thrust of many of the arguments AGAINST electronic (touch-screen) voting...that you can't verify the original vote. So, if you can't verify the original vote, what is the point of doing a recount of optically scanned or punch-card ballots?

Does the recount open up legal avenues to force the makers of the software to expose their source code? It is easy enough, given the appropriate information, to discover whether a vote was hacked, but if it is something in the source code that is causing the "fraud", then it would be a lot more difficult.

So, I guess I am asking if a recount will ever get to the bottom of what is likely the greatest potential cause of the fraud?

Thanks.

Quid

[VivaKerry]

1. A couple of things.

1. Some (not all) counties and even states have PAPER ballots that can be compared to the e-vote.

2. where there is no paper ballot, there is the registered voter list... where everyone is listed, and hopefully, they are listed as 'appeared to vote.' If the numbers of registered and showing up voters doesn't match the e-vote...well, we have a problem that needs to be solved. No identified solution, mind you, but the problem (lack of democracy) is outted in front of god and everyone.

IMO

[tbuddha]

2. Most of Ohio uses punch cards

[berniew1]

10. Its possible to do analysis in touchscreen counties; and also audit softwa

Its fairly easy to do a comparison of absentee votes by Bush vs Kerry
versus total votes by Bush vs Kerry by county and look for strange patterns; absentees(plus provisionals where they are auditable) make a very large sample that gives good indication of pattern in total vote. Can be used in addition to other information and audit of software, etc. used in election. See very good N.C. study:

Unofficial Audit of NC Election: Comprehensive Case for Fraud

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This is a pretty good case for fraud in North Carolina.

[ccarter84]

12. linky dead?

[LisaL]

3. ????

You can recount optically scanned or punch card ballots. Why did you lamp them together with electronic voting?
As for software and source codes, as I recall, a judge ruled they can not be examined because they are trade secrets of the company that makes these machines.

[QuidditchFan]

5. Right...I didn't mean to lump together

Optically scanned and electronic voting ballots.

More than anything, I'm just wishing that there was a way to expose the source code of the electronic voting machines. I'm assuming that the judge made his decision on the grounds of patent law, but here is the problem. Stick with me for a hypothetical: If I patent a type of paper ballot that "sells" because it is a lot more user-friendly than another version, but it appears that ink that is marked on one candidate disappears and magically reappears as ink in a bubble for a different candidate, wouldn't I be certifiably insane to inspect that ducking under the cover of copyright law would preclude me from giving away my "trade secrets." This is utter bull shit.

[berniew1]

13. Optical scan counties can have scams also; and problems widespread

The Florida official results in 2004 were not as close. But there is little evidence that the vote results were accurate or reliable. And there were documented examples of voter suppression,
equipment glitches, Election Official bias and malfeasance that affected a lot of votes. And there is evidence and analyses by experts that cast doubt on the accuracy of the official vote count. I've posted URLs for this before. www.flcv.com/flavi04.html
Most of the Florida results were compiled by electronic equipment and most independent experts agree that such results are not secure or reliable using current equipment, software, and security protocols. All Florida Election Offices are run by partisan officials many of whom have a clear bias and preference regarding who wins.
Both touchscreens and optical scan systems are compiled by computers and results can be easily manipulated by election officials, in some cases by equipment manufacturer employees(and there is known bias here also), and also not reliable regarding outside party hacking.
Manipulation that isn't noticeable in the counts can be fairly easily carried out. The main difference in reliability of touchscreen systems vs optical scan systems is that optical scan
systems have a paper backup and can be recompiled by machine or hand after the election(are auditable), if demanded ,which happens infrequently.
The software programs that control the equipment and compilation of votes are large and complicated. It is hard to assure accuracy with such programs. There have been widespread documented software glitches found in the election all over the country that affected large numbers of votes. It appears 2 states may have to have new elections for some offices due to the glitches, one of them statewide and one in a limited number of counties.
The accuracy of such software is extremely unreliable and was hardly tested before this election. I've been a programmer on similar software and also a reliability engineer assessing reliability of
such large software programs. Its extremely easy to have glitches in such programs, and extremely hard to insure reliability. Our system has few safeguards and insufficient testing of election management and vote compilation software.
Its known that there were widespread glitches found in most states and major problems have been admitted with the Diebold system and documented for other manufacturers. There were reports of touchscreens recording votes for Bush when Kerry’s button was punched in Florida, Ohio, and other states. Some of these were verified by elections officers. Its strange that all of the reported problems were in one direction. There's no reason to think that the cases of glitches found were as much as 10% of the actual glitches that affected the vote. Its very hard to find such glitches buried in vote totals unless the results are extremely out of line. Its already a matter of record that the glitches did affect the results in several elections, and new elections will likely be needed.
The exit poll data as assessed by credible experts along with other highly unusual and untypical patterns cast doubt on the accuracy of the official results in Florida and elsewhere. The results
were extremely different in swing states with touchscreens and lax security vs non-swing states and swing states with systems known to be secure. The experts agree that the probability that the
highly unusual results happened by chance are extremely low. The changes in swing states were all in one direction. And exit polls are not the only source of such doubts. There were much bigger differences however in other states like Ohio

[truehawk]

4. Lots to investigate Most of Ohio has a paper trail

And There are 93,000 odd punchcards unreadable by machine, quite probably 80% or those are for Kerry.

Also punchcards read by Dibold Centeral Tabulators have been known to exhibit "irregular" totals for years.

Most of Ohio votes on punchcards.

Also the rules for how to count provisional ballots were changed after the voteing had occured, so those need to be examined and Hell needs to be Paid if they were destroyed.

More than just DRE voting needs a look here.

[ClassWarrior]

6. I think the idea with electronic machines and no paper...

...is to force the machines to be audited, that is to examine their source code.

NGU.

[Wiley50]

7. The answer to you question

is in the Daily Kos link in the thread " Do we have grounds" ( it's on page 2 now)
Trade secrets are not important when they are relevant to court case

Wiley

[Wiley50]

8. Same link is in "actionable Fraud" link

[delphine]

9. I don't think trade secrets apply

when your product is illegal.

If you developed a really clever software that charges all of your purchases to someone else's credit card I'm sure law enforcement would have no problem getting you to divulge it.

If the "private" source code is used to steal or defraud it's no longer protected.

Of course, you've got to get to it to prove fraud and you can't get to it unless you can allege fraud (and make it stick).

Best thing would be for someone involved in the development of the code to come forward.

[Liberty Belle]

11. Bingo. That's why we need a new election, not a recount.

[Cowboy Joe2k]

14. This is not about fraud any more. This machine has mastered

us long enough. Write in Peace on paper Ballots at every Election.

Never again let them take your right to vote no on war. This is what is at stake the future of humanity Don't you get it?

[Cowboy Joe2k]

15. Is it the moment it leaves your fingure? or is it when your herd?