MovieChat Forums > Hacking Democracy (2006) Discussion > Interesting....

Interesting....

posted 17 years ago by jeffislouie
18 replies | jump to latest

But is it accurate?

I always wonder when I see things like this how accurate they are.
It appears to be on the level here. Clearly these machines acted....unusual.
clearly they were able to fix their own staged elections.
But why no real governmental challenges?
I don't buy that the republicans or democrats are behind it. One of the points made in the movie was that both sides were concerned. Unfortunately, it seems like they weren't concerned enough.
do you think this movie will change anything?
Will this be enough to spark a federal investigation into diebold?
Will this be enough to force a change?
I have to go do some research.....
edit:
diebold's website includes a series of refutations to the information provided by this movie, if anyone is interested.
Still digging....

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"But is it accurate?"

The camera doesn't lie, but Diebold officials do. This was plainly shown in the documentary.

The County Election Official was probably lying when she said that that the Official Signed Poll tapes were at the warehouse. When Bev got there (unannounced), what did she see? Someone throwing out the Poll Tapes, which is illegal. Why would she do that, if she wasn't covering up election fraud? Some of the Poll Tapes were still at the office, and were thrown out right under the noses of Bev's team. Remember the part where the woman threw out the recycling bin containing signed Official Poll Tapes, and Bev's outside people found the tapes that were missing from the warehouse? Remember the part where Bev showed that several of the Official Poll Tapes had different counts than the ones she submitted to the state?

This is video and written evidence of election fraud, plain and simple. You can't get any more accurate than that.

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

"This is video and written evidence of election fraud, plain and simple. You can't get any more accurate than that. "

Only a fool accepts one side of a story as truth without investigating the other sides.....

Yes, this movie made some excellent and seemingly undebateable points.
However, while the camera doesn't lie, film makers sometimes do....

For instance, the 'proof' of an executable on the memory cards?
on film it sure looks good.
They left out the part where the creator of the executable (was his name eulie? something like that) later said that an executable on the memory card would not likely withstand the volume of an actual election. His conclusion? The test was interesting, but really didn't prove much.

All I am saying is that the information in this film, while intriguing, is not representative of the entire situation.
It presents the problem, then only focuses on one side and one discovery.
I am curious to see if there is a contrary study.
Diebold's website points out errors and shoddy reporting.
I am not interested in convicting diebold, but rather finding the truth. Something I hope interests you more than coming to a conclusion based on one documentary, whose facts you have not checked.
Believe none of what you hear and half of what you read.
So, what have you read on the matter?

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"Only a fool accepts one side of a story as truth without investigating the other sides....."

I assume you're not a Christian, then.

You aren't calling me a fool, are you? Because that would be a mistake. When I said "This is video and written evidence of election fraud, plain and simple." I was 100% correct, but I might not have been clear enough for you. Let me spell out exactly what I was referring to.

When the cameraman recorded the county worker throwing out signed poll tapes, and trying to prevent Bev from seeing them, this is irrefutable evidence of an illegal act. A prosecutor could have used that video to prosecute the worker and anyone else involved. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in this case.

When another cameraman caught the woman throwing out more signed poll tapes, right under the nose of Bev Harris and the county elections official, this was another illegal act. Since the woman was just an office cleaner, someone told her to empty the recycle boxes at that specific time, not at the end of the day, as is usual practice. Therefore, this is evidence of a conspiracy to commit election fraud, caught right on tape. A prosecutor could have used that video to prosecute the worker and anyone else involved. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in this case as well. At worst, she should have been charged with criminal incompetence.

When Bev recovered the original, signed poll tapes and compared them to the tapes given to her by the election official, there was a discrepency of at least hundreds of votes. This is written evidence indicating election fraud. It is the sworn duty of the election official to make sure that the original signed poll tapes matched the official vote tallies submitted to the county. Incompetence is no excuse under the law. There was sufficient video and written evidence to prosecute one or more election officials for failing to uphold their sworn duties. Incompetence or ignorance of the law is no excuse when you are a sworn in official charged with making sure the votes are counted and reported accurately.

Is a soldier assigned to guard a site innocent if he falls asleep on duty? No, he's criminally incompetent, and will be charged for failing to do his sworn duty. Same thing here.

"I am not interested in convicting diebold, but rather finding the truth."

I am very interested in convicting Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S, because I know there is enough evidence to convict them.

"Something I hope interests you more than coming to a conclusion based on one documentary, whose facts you have not checked."

Oh really? How do you know that?

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you read."

I believe I hear a train coming...

"So, what have you read on the matter?"

I have been following this story since before 2000, and very passionately since then. There are dozens of sites on the internet with thousands of pages of documentation, affidavits, court and Senate testimony, etc. People (not enough) have already gone to jail over this.

There are many studies by computer scientists showing many very scary security holes, all of which have been pointed out, none of which were fixed, despite Diebold's claim otherwise.

I downloaded and studied the GEMS source code when it was still available on Diebold's ftp site. It was all a joke anyway, because the central tabulator stored the totals in an Excel spreadsheet that could be edited by anybody anyway, bypassing any supposed security measures implemented further down the chain.

There are studies by statisticians showing that it is mathematically impossible that the polls in the 2004 election were wrong.

There are all kinds of testimony from voters of how tens of thousands were illegally denied the right to vote, all over the country.

I could go on for days summarizing all this for you, but suffice it to say that this rabbit hole goes very deep. An HBO special could not possibly show more than 1% of the summary, let alone the complete story.

You seem to be very new to this whole thing, so here's some pointers:

I suggest you see "Electile Dysfunction" and "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election". (www.electiledysfunction.org www.unprecedented.org)

Read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast.

I suggest you go to blackboxvoting.org and search google for the PHRASE "election fraud". Last I checked, there were 1,920,000 pages.

But the thing that really makes me frustrated about this whole thing is that electronic voting is not even needed! We in Canada use paper ballots only, and have none of these issues. Neither do most other countries.

Happy reading...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

"Why the hell would anyone deny the proof laid out before them. People were caught on camera throwing the poll tapes away in obvious response to Bev and her team showing up. I mean really. What did they do? Hire actors?"

We all watched an edited documentary that only presented one side. It is foolish to assume that what was presented was absolute truth.
What was 'obvious' about it? the bin was full, someone took it out. Perhaps they were making rounds, as does happen in local government, and it was coincidence? Perhaps the cut to the other camera was at another facility altogether? Perhaps the data in the recycle bin was dumped days ago? Perhaps the signed tapes were from a test group? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
We didn't see the unedited footage, nor were we there.

"the OP seems to believe that Diebold has suddenly decided to tell the truth when they told nothing but blatant lies throughout the documentary (and they did it on camera, so again the OP needs to get his head out of his bum and stop appologizing for these political/corporate scumbags). "

I assure you, my head is not in my bum.
I also assure you that I am not apologizing for anyone. I am pointing out that diebold has issued several responses to this movie and if you choose to ignore them, then it is you who has placed their head firmly up their own backside.
Last time I checked, people have a right to defend themselves against allegations. By denying them that right, you are saying that you accept everything presented in the movie as truthful without investigating for yourself.
So who has their head in their rear end, the person looking for truth or the person who accepts a documentary as an absolute truth?
I just love the double talk, by the way.
It is american to question our election procedures, but unamerican to question a documentary.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

"You aren't calling me a fool, are you?"

No...
I am saying that only a fool would use this movie as their sole source of information.
If that applies to you, then I am truly sorry - not for calling you a name, but because you don't 'get it' yet. I can only assume that it does not apply to you.

"When the cameraman recorded the county worker throwing out signed poll tapes, and trying to prevent Bev from seeing them, this is irrefutable evidence of an illegal act. A prosecutor could have used that video to prosecute the worker and anyone else involved. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in this case. "

Which begs the question: why hasn't this been prosecuted? Possibly because the information provided is flawed, possibly because as viewers, we are expected to believe what is put on the screen.
I have trouble believing that the DOJ wouldn't be interested in this.

"Since the woman was just an office cleaner, someone told her to empty the recycle boxes at that specific time, not at the end of the day, as is usual practice."

How do you know what the usual practice is? To me, it looked like the recycle bin had been filled up. That's why it was emptied. Don't assume you know, unless of course you do....

"Is a soldier assigned to guard a site innocent if he falls asleep on duty? No, he's criminally incompetent, and will be charged for failing to do his sworn duty."

Not true. Soldiers are not deemed criminally incompetent for falling asleep on guard duty. Admit it, you just made that up.

"I am very interested in convicting Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S, because I know there is enough evidence to convict them. "

Based on a documentary. A one-sided one at that. Innocent until proven guilty is still the way our court system operates.
And if you knew much about the criminal justice system, you would know that video is seen, for the most part, as inadmissable. Good lawyers don't base their case of edited video and documentaries. Thankfully, they investigate. How do we know that the recycling bin contained anything? We see a woman walk out with a bin, but don't see what is in that bin as it is emptied into a larger container. Then, film is spliced in and implies that is what happened. We, as viewers, cannot verify that the second camera is even in the same location. We are asked to believe it. Shadow of doubt is cast.
And if you are more interested in conviction of voting machine manufacturers than in finding truth, you are already off to a bad start. Suspicion of guilt is healthy. Assumption of guilt is not.

"There are dozens of sites on the internet with thousands of pages of documentation, affidavits, court and Senate testimony, etc. People (not enough) have already gone to jail over this. "

Then perhaps your cause would be better served by providing links to said information rather than spouting off about it using opinionated language, don't you think?
Some of us are interested in learning more about the issues and are hesitant to believe someone on the IMDB boards as our only source of information.

"There are many studies by computer scientists showing many very scary security holes, all of which have been pointed out, none of which were fixed, despite Diebold's claim otherwise. "

Again, can you provide evidence that none of the security holes have been dealt with? Diebold seems to say otherwise, claiming full encryption to a widely accepted standard.

"I downloaded and studied the GEMS source code when it was still available on Diebold's ftp site. It was all a joke anyway, because the central tabulator stored the totals in an Excel spreadsheet that could be edited by anybody anyway, bypassing any supposed security measures implemented further down the chain. "

Amazing. Especially since the movie discussed how difficult it was to find and goes on to say that it was immediately removed once they realized that anyone had accessed it.
An interesting claim....
What programming language was it written in?
Do you understand programming language?

"There are studies by statisticians showing that it is mathematically impossible that the polls in the 2004 election were wrong. "

so the statisticians say that the polls were correct?

"There are all kinds of testimony from voters of how tens of thousands were illegally denied the right to vote, all over the country."

Where can I find this?

I agree with the frustration over balloting. I think that the idea was to remove human error, but I think that the system needs to be studied more by impartial people.

Thanks for the head start....

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"They left out the part where the creator of the executable (was his name eulie? something like that) later said that an executable on the memory card would not likely withstand the volume of an actual election."

This doesn't make sense. There was no executable on the memory card, merely a data file containing two sets of votes adding up to zero.

You can read more about the incident here:

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html

Quoting:

Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, together with Black Box Voting, demonstrated that Diebold made misrepresentations to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the “memory card” (the credit-card-sized ballot box used by computerized voting machines.
...
The Hursti Hack requires a moderate level of inside access. It is, however, accomplished without being given any password and with the same level of access given thousands of poll workers across the USA. It is a particularly dangerous exploit, because it changes votes in a one-step process that will not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure, it requires only a single a credit-card sized memory card, any single individual with access to the memory cards can do it, and it requires only a small piece of equipment which can be purchased off the Internet for a few hundred dollars.

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

you might consider reading this before making up your mind:
http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/pdf/hbopointbypoint.pdf

in particular, a letter from Harri Hursty (that was his name) to representatives of the California Secretary of States office, DESI, and david jefferson wherein he states outright that if proper election procedures were followed, his attack could not be duplicated.

".....I find it most likely, that the preset counters will not survive the whole cycle- and therefore proving these two diebold claims accurate."

In other words, the man who beat the machines on the video sent off an email with his actual official position - that the test was dramatic, but innaccurate in terms of the conclusions the movie made.

Again, all I am saying is that this was a documentary - one groups viewpoint on the matter.
Like all things, it has an agenda.
Intelligent discourse on the matter is warranted. However, it would be unwise to make a decision based only on a documentary.

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"in particular, a letter from Harri Hursty (that was his name)..."

It's Harry Hursti.

"to representatives of the California Secretary of States office, DESI, and david jefferson wherein he states outright that if proper election procedures were followed, his attack could not be duplicated.

".....I find it most likely, that the preset counters will not survive the whole cycle- and therefore proving these two diebold claims accurate."

In other words, the man who beat the machines on the video sent off an email with his actual official position - that the test was dramatic, but innaccurate in terms of the conclusions the movie made."

Why are you using a straw man argument to divert people away from the real problem? Why are you attempting to shoot the messanger, instead of addressing the actual issue cited in the documentary?

The documentary clearly showed that someone could tamper with a memory card, altering the outcome of an election without detection. They made no other conclusions. Diebold repeatedly denied that could happen. Now that they have been proven wrong, thay have backtracked. Quoting from the PDF file you cited:

"Just as a safe deposit box is only as secure as the vault it is in, so too must the memory cards, paper ballots and the other equipment be kept secure."

This is true, yet it goes against Diebold's own argument for adopting electronic voting in the first place! They sold counties on the idea that their system is more secure than paper ballots. Now they're admitting that their memory cards are a weak link. Remember, a memory card IS the ballot box. Which is easier to manipulate, a box of ballots, or a little card with no paper backup?

But there's more. Remember the scene with Howard Dean? Bev demonstrated that the final vote tallies are stored in a spreadsheet, with no protection whatsoever. This shows that without a paper trail for verification, someone at the top level could alter election results in seconds, with no way to prove he did it.

This nitpicking is all a waste of time anyway. The safest system is the simplest system: paper ballots with each poll counting and reporting its results. That's how we've done it in Canada since Confederation. It usually takes no more than 4 hours after the polls close to have a complete count. Any close races have tho original ballots to refer to.

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

"Why are you using a straw man argument to divert people away from the real problem? Why are you attempting to shoot the messanger, instead of addressing the actual issue cited in the documentary? "

I am not using a strawman argument (this isn't a strawman anyway). I am not trying to divert people away from the real problem. And I am certainly not shooting any messenger instead of addressing the issues cited in the documentary.
Someone who watched this film might believe that Harri Hursti's evidence was bulletproof. The fact is, by Hursti's own admission, the test was dramatic, but unrealistic.
That's all.
Too often, people latch onto dramatic moments like that and have posted attacking my opinion, that we need to look into it further without drawing our final conclusions based on a viewing of one sides documentary.

"The documentary clearly showed that someone could tamper with a memory card, altering the outcome of an election without detection. They made no other conclusions. "

That is why Hursti's statement is so important. He claims that the experiment did NOT prove that someone could SUCCESSFULLY alter an election by tampering with the memory card.

""Just as a safe deposit box is only as secure as the vault it is in, so too must the memory cards, paper ballots and the other equipment be kept secure."

This is true, yet it goes against Diebold's own argument for adopting electronic voting in the first place! They sold counties on the idea that their system is more secure than paper ballots. Now they're admitting that their memory cards are a weak link. Remember, a memory card IS the ballot box. Which is easier to manipulate, a box of ballots, or a little card with no paper backup?"

You are missing a piece here. They sold the machines by saying that they are secure. However, protocols must be in place to ensure the accuracy of the count. For instance, only poll officials can be allowed to handle the cards, and only under supervision. What you are missing is that it is very easy to manipulate a box of ballots without anyone knowing by simply SUBSTITUTING A DIFFERENT BOX.
Or, you know, reading the count wrong intentionally.
There is no real security in any voting method.

"But there's more. Remember the scene with Howard Dean? Bev demonstrated that the final vote tallies are stored in a spreadsheet, with no protection whatsoever. This shows that without a paper trail for verification, someone at the top level could alter election results in seconds, with no way to prove he did it."

And that is different from how votes are tallied by hand how again?
How do they do handcounts?
Who tracks those counts and how?
Who signs off on them?
They left that part out of the film, so I guess no one wants to know why or how.

All I am saying is that this film was very one sided and it is stupid to form your opinion based solely on this film.
That's it.
No strawman. No attack. No casting unneccessary shadows.
Just that....
It is ridiculous that people would base their opinion on one unverified source, like a documentary.
Stupid even.

Let me retort to your line of assumptive, logically incorrect questions with a question of my own:

Why are you trying to discourage people from doing their own research and forming their own opinions?

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"The fact is, by Hursti's own admission, the test was dramatic, but unrealistic."

He said that in the context of "end-to-end" it would be unrealistic, whatever that means. The point is that the memory cards are a vulnerability, because the tabulator fails to detect a negative vote data file. Diebold denied that this was possible. Don't forget, those memory cards are ballot boxes. What Diebold did with their software was the ballot box equivalent of failing to detect pre-stuffing the box with ballots that eat up votes for a certain candidate. This is inexcusable, and to make matters worse, Diebold denied it, even in the face of overwhelmong evidence to the contrary.

"[Hursti] claims that the experiment did NOT prove that someone could SUCCESSFULLY alter an election by tampering with the memory card."

He claims nothing of the sort. Even if he did, he would be wrong. He clearly demonstrated that the Diebold tabulator failed to detect a data file containing negative votes. Therefore, without outside verification of the memory cards, votes can be changed without anyone knowing.

"You are missing a piece here. They sold the machines by saying that they are secure."

They sold the machines by claiming that they were MORE secure than other methods. Otherwise, why would counties spend the money on them?

"However, protocols must be in place to ensure the accuracy of the count."

Exactly! The same protocols must be in place using Diebold as must be in place using any other method. So where's the savings? What problem is Diebold solving with their machines? We already have ample evidence of the problems their machines are creating.

"What you are missing is that it is very easy to manipulate a box of ballots without anyone knowing by simply SUBSTITUTING A DIFFERENT BOX."

A different box with different ballots. Which is easier to do, fake a ballot box and the ballots they contain, or change a number in a data file on a memory card?

"Or, you know, reading the count wrong intentionally. There is no real security in any voting method."

There is no perfect security in any method, only degrees.

"And that is different from how votes are tallied by hand how again?
How do they do handcounts?
Who tracks those counts and how?
Who signs off on them?
They left that part out of the film, so I guess no one wants to know why or how."

Thank you for asking! I thought nobody would...

I live in Canada (Ottawa). I have been a scrutineer for the Liberal Party in several federal elections. Here's how it works:

In each "riding" (a geographic area containing candidates for members of Parliament) there are several "polling places" (usually a community centre or school). Each polling place has numerous polls (usually 20 or so), each of which has one ballot box. Each ballot box has 2 elections officials called returning officers, that make sure each voter is eligible to vote, and check off each voter from the list as they vote. In addition, there may or may not be a scrutineer representing each party running candidates for that riding. They can challenge the eligibility of a given voter. Once a voter is deemed eligible to vote, he is given an official paper ballot containing the names of candidates. If he is challenged, he still gets a ballot, but it is a special ballot containing his name, address, ID info, etc. That special ballot is only counted if a recount is required. Each ballot is perforated into 2 parts: one part that the voter uses with a serial number on it, another part with just the serial number. The voter part goes into the ballot box, and the other part goes into a bag.

At the end of voting, the 2 returning officers count the votes in the box. The scrutineers are allowed to observe the count. The count is totalled and reported by the returning officer to the riding office. Each poll's votes are published. Every ballot is saved in its box and returned to the riding office along with any unused ballots. The serial numbers are compared to the actual ballot serial numbers in case of dispute or recount.

It's never taken longer than 4 hours to determine the outcome of the entire Federal elction. Everything has a verifiable paper trail in case recounts are necessary. A recount is automatic if the results are very close, or if widespread irregularities are reported by the scrutineers or others involved in the counting.

Before every Federal election, the Federal Voter Registry is updated by various means. Basically, cards are sent out to each voter in every household in Canada. If any changes need to be made, it is up to the voter to ensure they are registered before the day of the election. If you are not on the list (which is organized by street address), you can always vote by filling out a form first.

"All I am saying is that this film was very one sided and it is stupid to form your opinion based solely on this film.
That's it.
No strawman. No attack. No casting unneccessary shadows.
Just that....
It is ridiculous that people would base their opinion on one unverified source, like a documentary.
Stupid even."

Sure it's a mistake to claim expertise on a topic based on a small sample. But c'mon! Does Bev Harris strike you as a person with an ulterior motive?

What about Diebold's motives?

"Let me retort to your line of assumptive, logically incorrect questions with a question of my own:
Why are you trying to discourage people from doing their own research and forming their own opinions?"

You know I'm not doing that. Look at my other postings about this documentary. I'm not going to let straw man arguments, distortions, spin and lies get in the way of leading people to the truth. This topic is too important, for your country, Canada's, and the rest of the world your 'elected' rulers like to attack for personal profit...

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

"He said that in the context of "end-to-end" it would be unrealistic, whatever that means"

That means that it would not survive an election cycle. That's what it means.

"They sold the machines by claiming that they were MORE secure than other methods."

and, all things considered, they are.
People can be bought off to vote. People can be bought off to change official documents, etc. etc.
If security protocols are maintained (only one person handles the card, that person is monitored by other officials, and so on), the system is remarkably secure.
You cannot stand next to a box and alter the votes. You cannot get into the box and change the way votes are tabulated, etc.
Hence, the system is quite secure.
The point that is made about the memory cards is an interesting vulnerability. However, if those cards are properly secured, there shouldn't ever be a problem. Perhaps they could make it even safer by wiping the cards clean just prior to insertion.

"Exactly! The same protocols must be in place using Diebold as must be in place using any other method. So where's the savings? What problem is Diebold solving with their machines? We already have ample evidence of the problems their machines are creating."

Mostly human error, both on the counting and the voting side.
I remember the hanging chad well..... Seems to have caused quite a stir.

"Does Bev Harris strike you as a person with an ulterior motive? "

Not really. But there are some interesting things to consider...
1) Prior to her work to expose potential election issues, what did she do? Who was she? Had she any noteriety? Of course, the answer is no. Now, millions know of her and visit her website.
2) She did make an HBO documentary. Those result in nice paydays.
3) She is described by people that I have read as uncooperative, accusatory, and a touch on the paranoid side. Granted, those are good qualities for an investigative reporter, but I read some bizzare emails from her accusing an organization dedicated to the study of environmental solutions of being a secret society invested in diebold, halliburton, etc. There seems to be a camp forming where the general impression of Bev is that she is a tinfoil hat wearing nutbag. But who knows, right?
4) The beauty of truly brilliant ulterior motives is that you can't see them until it is too late
5) This movie was released just days before a major election - a movie that implied that the right benefitted from diebold errors. Isn't that indicitive of an ulterior motive? After all, it's not like this movie was JUST finished. This was planned. As a way to influence voters.

But all of that means nothing. We seem to have had a fair election. The balance of power did swing, we seem to have had a fair election, and everything seems to have gone smoothly.

"You know I'm not doing that. Look at my other postings about this documentary. I'm not going to let straw man arguments, distortions, spin and lies get in the way of leading people to the truth. This topic is too important, for your country, Canada's, and the rest of the world your 'elected' rulers like to attack for personal profit... "

But you are trying to get me to stop posting potential defenses to diebolds position. So, in essence, you are in fact perpetuating strawmans and discouraging others from asking questions and finding their own evidence.
I applaud you for being passionate and caring enough to actually do something about it.
However, it is more important that people find truth than accept your opinions.
And, for the record, seeing as how our elections seem to have been both fair and relatively undisputed (no one has brought up machine failures as a possibility for issues), it appears that while flawed in some ways, the diebold boxes worked properly.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

"The safest system is the simplest system: paper ballots with each poll counting and reporting its results"

It must be nice to be able to forget about hanging chads...
It must also be nice to be able to believe that people cannot forge election documents, including paper ballots.
That's not really a solution, it just appears to be one.
As in, 'it is too warm in here. Should we fix the furnace? Nope. Just open a window.'

[–] tom-1674 17 years ago

"It must be nice to be able to forget about hanging chads..."

What hanging chads? It's a piece of paper with names and little boxes beside them! You use a pencil to make a mark in the box beside the name you're voting for. Pretty radical, huh? Hanging chads occur with optical scan ballots, which is another moronic concept concocted by the mutual agreement of people who want to sell over-priced equipment and election officials that are either too lazy or too stupid to count ballots, or want an easier, safer way to commit election fraud.

"It must also be nice to be able to believe that people cannot forge election documents, including paper ballots."

Only an idiot would believe that. Only an idiot would believe I believe that. But the point is, we want a system that is as hard to compromise as possible. Don't you?

What's easier to do, forge ballots with matching serial numbers in 2 physical locations, while knowing in advance what the exact sequence of serial numbers for that poll is, and duplicating the serial numbers on the ballots you want to switch, all within the few minutes allowed to count and report the poll numbers, or causing a proprietary machine to "fail", and blaming the machine?

"That's not really a solution, it just appears to be one."

Paper hand-counted ballots are a "solution" that works for the vast majority of the world, and has since elections were invented. Why do you have a problem understanding that?

"As in, 'it is too warm in here. Should we fix the furnace? Nope. Just open a window.'"

I'd probably just adjust the thermostat. But thanks for pointing out our only choices. It's good to know we have such a sharp individual as yourself on the team...

[–] jeffislouie 17 years ago

ouch.

ZINGED ME!!!

What I am saying is that all systems can be compromised.
I happen to think that the diebold systems could be improved and more secure, but could work.

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor!

[–] ben-549 17 years ago

"diebold's website includes a series of refutations to the information provided by this movie, if anyone is interested."

Yeah I just read them... they're mostly spin. "Despite the implication.." "Despite the inference..." etc. If you watch the documentary those inferences and implications actually aren't there. Sure a lot of the documentary is about diebold (probably because they're the ones who accidentally left their software code freely available on an ftp site. I'm watching it right now, for example I see no implication that voting machines in louisiana were Diebold systems. I find no inference that Diebold machines were used in Ohio or New Mexico either.

I'm sure there's some innacuracies in the programme, it's virtually impossible to be 100% accurate as often companies like Diebold refuse to participate but I don't buy most of Diebold's critiques. Diebold see an inference or an implication, I do not because it isn't there. They're just padding their complaints to make the documentary look more innacurate. Which I don't think it is. A lot of the stuff in it you simply cannot argue with. Florida and Ohio election officials are caught breaking election laws and they proved you can hack an election if proper procedures are not followed (which we see during the documentary that sometimes they are not followed).