Was the 2004 election stolen?

[Phi for All]

It is inconceivable to me that the US would pay for a system that is so easily corruptible and leaves no evidence of tampering. Equally inconceivable is the fact that affordable solutions providing a paper check to assure voters that their ballot was entered correctly have all been swept under the rug.

 

With so much at stake, and with so much past history of questionable practices, why is the opposition argument, which boils down to "Just because someone CAN tamper with the vote doesn't mean they DID tamper with the vote", allowed to continue thwarting attempts at fixing the system? When the Diebold machines were first introduced I started voting by absentee ballot because I don't trust Diebold (mostly because of the partisan bias of their CEO, as swansont points out). Then I found out that my absentee ballot was entered into the same Diebold system and was almost equally as insecure as the machines used on election day.

 

* frustrated sigh *

[ParanoiA]

Yeah I'm quite upset about our voting system imperfections. But I'm even more upset at conservatives acting like liberals and demanding we add yet another bureaucracy to the list and start requiring picture ID and issuing "free" ID's to those who don't have a picture ID or DL.

 

We need to fix this problem, which is largely due to incompetence. Hey, I respect the elderly, but they are usually running the polls and they don't do that great of a job.

 

There was a guy here in town that bragged on the radio that he has voted in every presidential election since he got out of prison over 20 years ago - when he LOST his voting rights. They have never been reinstated. He said he first did it to see what would happen.

[Pangloss]

Heh, don't let the ACLU hear that. They're on a major crusade to "restore" something that apparently hasn't been lost after all. (chuckle)

[bascule]

The Princeton research into the Diebold voting machines just underlines that what's needed is a paper trail generated when the vote is cast, which is verifiable by the voter at the time they vote.

 

This is how the Nevada system works. After voting, a printout of your vote passes behind a plexiglass window, allowing you to see what choices the machine logged. In the event of vote tampering, you have a voter-confirmed paper trail of all votes.

 

That, and voting machines should be open source. The open source vote-counting code should be compiled to binaries certified by several 3rd parties, which are then signed, and every voting machine set with a checksum so that the code cannot be tampered with.

 

The ease with which the Diebold machines were compromised really makes we wonder how banks trust them to build ATMs...

[Phi for All]

This is how the Nevada system works. After voting, a printout of your vote passes behind a plexiglass window, allowing you to see what choices the machine logged. In the event of vote tampering, you have a voter-confirmed paper trail of all votes.

This is because Nevada is very familiar with how easy computers without verification can be set to tamper with the odds.

The ease with which the Diebold machines were compromised really makes we wonder how banks trust them to build ATMs...

Banks, unlike the voting public, are smart enough to require paper receipt printouts.

[padren]

Since we moved away from the questions of 2004 and into voting machine vulnerablities - does anyone have any good reasons why the status quo should be maintained and a papertrail not be mandatory?

 

I think a printout list of the names the person voted for that they have to sign (in the privacy of the booth) should be mandatory. Its not like they'd ever have to be verified down the road as long as the election was clean, but it would also be such a strong papertrail that should anyone ever consider voting fraud and the flags come up, it would be very easy to track down what and where it happened.

 

But basically - is there anyone on the "no need for paper or security" side of the debate in these forums and who in politics openly supports that policy? What are their arguments - just cost? It seems so far from making any sense I can't imagine anyone publically supporting a lack of security.

 

 

Maybe Fox News should do a report during the mid-terms when they are afraid of the dems winning on slim margins: "Could Terrorists Doctor The Vote?"

[Pangloss]

Well there is a reason to be concerned about the "paper trail" concept, it's just not a very good one. Or rather I should say that it's a valid concern, but it's not enough to justify not having printed voting receipts.

 

The concern is that people will be able to easily forge the printed receipts. Since a citizen's vote is not recorded by the system (that's a right we enjoy -- nobody can look up how we voted and then hold it against us), someone could create fraudulent receipts and claim a different outcome for an election. For example, if your equipment showed 500 votes for so-and-so, and 501 people step forward and said they voted for him (and have "receipts" to prove it), then you have a problem.

 

The reason why I don't believe this concern is sufficient to warrant not giving receipts is that the system is already flawed without it. The addition of another check on the system cannot make it less stable, and it could give you an additional tool for confirmation. So long as people understand the potential problem with receipts, and the need to weigh their message accordingly, they could be a valuable additional tool.

 

So really disagreement over receipts has more to do with human nature and the flaws therein. As I say, those concerns are valid -- there will likely be cases of people stamping their feet and claiming fraud just because the receipts disagree with the system, which would not be sufficient to warrant a new vote, IMO -- but this is clearly not a case of "if it ain't broke" -- it IS broken, and it makes sense to try multiple avenues of repair.

[Pangloss]

By the way, that premise about the anonymous vote is something we're going to have to challenge as well. David Brin, author of The Transparent Society, might say that we're neglecting the real issue. If our votes were recorded, then we would be able to compare them with our printed receipts and know for sure exactly what the result was.

 

I believe that's how it's done in the UK. Perhaps it's time to re-open the issue for societal debate.

[bascule]

By the way' date=' that premise about the anonymous vote is something we're going to have to challenge as well. David Brin, author of The Transparent Society, might say that we're neglecting the real issue. If our votes were recorded, then we would be able to compare them with our printed receipts and know for sure exactly what the result was.

 

I believe that's how it's done in the UK. Perhaps it's time to re-open the issue for societal debate.[/quote']

 

But all you get is a smartcard, pulled out of a box, that says "I'm authorized to vote once". Once you vote, the card is marked as used.

 

There is no metadata tying your voter registration process to the smartcard you received. Your vote is still anonymous. It's pulled at random out of a box of smartcards which are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

[padren]

I wonder if people would concent to this idea:

 

Each ballot can be signed, but it has a fold with a pull of adhesive that covers the signature and identification information. A person can choose to either fold it up and seal it, or tear it at the fold and vote anominiously.

 

It would only be opened by a judge's order, after a case for voter fraud is made: such as a high difference between the electronic and paper balots or drastically higher anonimous votes than the exit polls would show.

 

 

It wouldn't be fool proof, but it would make it drastically harder to steal an election, and security isn't about perfection anyway - I can write very secure webbased software, but I know it isn't foolproof. Its just good enough to ensure very few people would have the resources to break it, and drastically increase their odds of being caught.

 

After an election, the ballots would be destroyed if there was no issues, and chances are any inspection that included voter identification would be limited to a handful of districts, and not nation wide.

[Dak]

i dont really see voter annonymity from the govournment as that big a deal... after all, we trust the govournment with access to lots of other data that we wouldn't want people going through willy-nilly, from social security numbers, address, phone number etc to the possibility that, under certain circumstances, the govournment may read our letters/emails, listen to our phone conversations etc.

 

why not track votes, and just trust the govournment not to use the data unless neccesary, and even then exersize care when using it?

 

if votes were tracked, people could check how their own vote was registered: if someone cares enough to bother to check, they can request, say, a letter that confirms (or belies) that their vote was actually registered correctly: if enough discrepancies were found, surely more people would check and the voting anomoly would be quite easy to spot (thus, vote-fixing would become pretty tricky).

 

espescially useful, imo, given that you've switched to electronic voting machines, which are apparently quite easy to hack

[Pangloss]

But all you get is a smartcard' date=' pulled out of a box, that says "I'm authorized to vote once". Once you vote, the card is marked as used.

 

There is no metadata tying your voter registration process to the smartcard you received. Your vote is still anonymous. It's pulled at random out of a box of smartcards which are, for all intents and purposes, identical.[/quote']

 

You could be right, I don't know, but I've read that voter data in the U.K. system can be traced back to the voter due to the consistent assignment of voter numbering (or something along those lines). I'm afraid I have no direct knowledge of the issues here, so perhaps someone with more info can chime in.

 

Just playing devil's advocate here. It seems to me that what you're saying should work, and in my view it doesn't really matter a whole lot anyway (although ultimately it should be as secure as possible).

[Pangloss]

if votes were tracked' date=' people could check how their own vote was registered: if someone cares enough to bother to check, they can request, say, a letter that confirms (or belies) that their vote was actually registered correctly: if enough discrepancies were found, surely more people would check and the voting anomoly would be quite easy to spot (thus, vote-fixing would become pretty tricky).

[/quote']

 

Yeah this is kinda what I was getting at with the David Brin mention above. Full transparency actually improves security. And the issue of voters being held negatively to account for their voting by too-informed employers, etc, is a problem that can be handled by other means (laws, whistleblowers, etc).

 

I like your suggestion of being able to go back and check my vote, too. That has other implications as well -- a lot of times, especially in elections for "lesser" offices, I can't remember how I voted, and it would be nice to go back and see after the fact. I think if a system like that were in place, I would save all my receipts and my login information and verify them on a regular basis. Why not? It's easy and presumably free, so what the heck. I can, in a sense, defend my own franchise.

 

Heck, I might *want* other people to know how I voted. Give me a web service datastream or at least a hyperlink that I can place on my blog so I can authentically tell the world how I voted. Why not? I'd *love* for an employer to try and fire me for the way I voted. I would eat that ALIVE. What a FUN event that would be! (evil grin)

 

But of course that sort of thing is not for everyone, so if they want their vote to be private, I guess we have to respect that as well. So perhaps not FULL transparency, but I see little harm in storing that data and connecting the vote to the user.

[JohnB]

Boy, do you blokes do it the hard way.

 

Australian election steps.

 

1. Go to polling station.

2. Give name and address to Election Official.

3. Get Ballot paper.

4. Go to booth and mark ballot with pencil.

5. Place ballot in box and leave.

 

After the close of voting, the ballot boxes are emptied at the polling station and an AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) employee tallies the votes. They are watched by "Scrutineers", representatives from each party, to ensure a correct tally. The results are then phoned in to the Tally Room where the results are combined and the result announced.

 

As representatives from all parties oversee the count at individual polling stations, the question of rigging just doesn't arise.

 

Also, no election information is allowed to be broadcast until polls are closed. In a national election, the West Coast is 2 hours behind the East, so Election coverage doesn't start in the East until 8 PM when the polls close at 6 PM in the West.

 

As an aside the Exit Poll question "Who did you vote for?" would be met here with an answer of "None of your bloody business. That's why it's called a secret ballot dickhead.":-)

 

Reading some of the links there is one thing I found interesting.

You can find the exit poll data that Freeman relies on in his first report on the election, located here: In Iowa, this exit polling data showed Kerry ahead by 50 percent to Bush's 48 percent; in Nevada, Kerry was ahead 49 to 48; in New Mexico, he led 50 to 47; and in Ohio, he was at 52 to 48.

There were only two candidates, so the percentages should add up to 100%, yet only in Ohio do they actually seem correct. Where are the missing percentage points? Iowa 2% missing, Nevada 3% missing, New Mexico 3% missing.

 

I mean it's an A or B question, there is no third option. Where are the missing percentages? Could this be Mokele's "People are idiots" factor?

[Pangloss]

Partial responses would be my guess. They gave responses on some races, but not others. So for example the respondant might have been willing to disclose how they voted for their senator, but not how they voted for the president. These things happen between annoying pollsters and busy people on their way to or from work, picking up the kids, etc. They're like telemarketers -- people to be shoved aside almost, but not quite, strongly enough to warrant arrest on a charge of assault. (grin)

[JohnB]

Possible.

 

What I don't understand is why you blokes don't use a paper ballot. You're talking about spending millions on a system that no-one seems to like and is apparently full of holes. It seems like it would be cheaper and easier to just use a paper ballot and count the things.

[Pangloss]

You're not the only one, but I can try to give you some answers that are typically discussed. How valid these answers are is somewhat up to the reader.

 

The issue mainly came up as a result of the 2000 Presidential election fiasco. A number of issues were raised with the paper ballot system that was used, especially in Florida. The system basically involved a punch-card system called the "butterfly ballot". I used this system for many years, and basically what it involved was a small, loosely-bound booklet with a set of holes running down either side of the spine. As you flipped the pages the holes would represent entries on the paper (actually plastic-coated) pages to either side of the holes. You'd take a small metallic puncher (kinda like a pencil that's been sharpened so many times there's only a stub left, attached to a chain so nobody walks off with it) and punch the hole that represents the person you want to vote for on that page. The punch card slid into the system from the top, aligning with the holes.

 

The problems with this system basically all revolved around "user idiocy" -- not that every user was an idiot, exactly, sometimes it was just honest mistakes I'm sure, but since you don't know when you've made a mistake (no verification -- there's no identity information on the card, you're handed a card off the top of a generic stack and you drop it into a box when you're done) there's no way to know exactly what caused the errors.

 

The errors came down into two main areas:

- "Hanging chads" -- cases where people misaligned the punch cards just a hair, causing the hole to appear but a stub of paper to be left behind, which could subsequently tear into another "hole" area on the ballot due to shuffling during transportation

- "Dimpled chads" -- cases where the puncher didn't go all the way through the paper (I'm not sure if they ever figured out exactly why, because no human being can be THAT weak, but it probably had something to do with the plastic binding around the hole in the booklet)

 

In addition, there were accusations over the years that the system explicitly disenfranchised certain groups, such as seniors, disabled people, etc. Various things were tried (like accomodations for the disabled) but the accusations always persisted and never really went away.

[ParanoiA]

Boy, do you blokes do it the hard way.

Australian election steps.

 

1. Go to polling station.

2. Give name and address to Election Official.

3. Get Ballot paper.

4. Go to booth and mark ballot with pencil.

5. Place ballot in box and leave.

 

After the close of voting, the ballot boxes are emptied at the polling station and an AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) employee tallies the votes. They are watched by "Scrutineers", representatives from each party, to ensure a correct tally. The results are then phoned in to the Tally Room where the results are combined and the result announced.

 

As representatives from all parties oversee the count at individual polling stations, the question of rigging just doesn't arise.

 

One major difference makes this work for australia and not for the US. I believe it's against australian law not to vote. That's not the case in the US, so voter turn out is very low. What does that mean? Well, if half the voters don't turn out and we don't require picture ID, then people can illegaly cast multiple votes by using the names and addresses in step 2 of the absent voters.

 

I'm all for a paper ballot, counted twice or more for redundancy, with no results until counting is finished - no matter how long it takes.

[Pangloss]

Last few times I've voted I've had to provide picture ID. I don't remember ever doing that before the 2000 election, though. Perhaps it's just a Florida thing?

[ParanoiA]

There were only two candidates' date=' so the percentages should add up to 100%, yet only in Ohio do they actually seem correct. Where are the missing percentage points? Iowa 2% missing, Nevada 3% missing, New Mexico 3% missing.

 

I mean it's an A or B question, there is no third option. Where are the missing percentages? Could this be Mokele's "People are idiots" factor?[/quote']

 

No, there were at least 3 candidates. Bush, Kerry and Nader. I'm not so sure there wasn't a libertarian candidate also, but I don't remember. I doubt that's why the numbers were off though, because I can't believe Nader would get even that many votes, but it's possible.

[JohnB]

Well, if half the voters don't turn out and we don't require picture ID, then people can illegaly cast multiple votes by using the names and addresses in step 2 of the absent voters.

Then use photo ID.

A number of issues were raised with the paper ballot system that was used, especially in Florida. The system basically involved a punch-card system called the "butterfly ballot". I used this system for many years, and basically what it involved was a small, loosely-bound booklet with a set of holes running down either side of the spine. As you flipped the pages the holes would represent entries on the paper (actually plastic-coated) pages to either side of the holes. You'd take a small metallic puncher (kinda like a pencil that's been sharpened so many times there's only a stub left, attached to a chain so nobody walks off with it) and punch the hole that represents the person you want to vote for on that page. The punch card slid into the system from the top, aligning with the holes.

Like I said, you blokes are doing it the hard way. Have a look at this link to wiki. At the top of the page is the Liberal "How to Vote Card". The actual ballot is the green bit in the centre.

 

A preprinted piece of paper with a box next to each candidates name. We take a pencil and number the boxes. (In this case from 1 to 8.) Since we use the Preferential System it would work slightly differently for the US, but in the case of POTUS, there are two or more boxes, just put a cross in the box next to the guy you want to vote for.

 

This system has none of the failings of your current voting systems. It's like the old joke. NASA spent $10 million developing a pen that could write in zero-G, the russians used a pencil. It just seems like you've outsmarted yourselves.

No, there were at least 3 candidates. Bush, Kerry and Nader.

Ah, thanks for that, it makes more sense now.

 

PS. The downside of our system is that usually you have to number every box or the vote is invalid (informal). In one election not too long ago there were over 200 people standing for the Senate in New South Wales so the ballot had over 200 names on it which all had to be numbered consecutively. The informal count was quite high as many people lost count.

 

On the upside.

[ParanoiA]

Like I said' date=' you blokes are doing it the hard way. Have a look at this link to wiki. At the top of the page is the Liberal "How to Vote Card". The actual ballot is the green bit in the centre.

 

A preprinted piece of paper with a box next to each candidates name. We take a pencil and number the boxes. (In this case from 1 to 8.) Since we use the Preferential System it would work slightly differently for the US, but in the case of POTUS, there are two or more boxes, just put a cross in the box next to the guy you want to vote for.

 

This system has none of the failings of your current voting systems. It's like the old joke. NASA spent $10 million developing a pen that could write in zero-G, the russians used a pencil. It just seems like you've outsmarted yourselves.[/quote']

 

I like it. And I've always supported the idea of a preferential voting system.

 

As far as requiring photo ID's, I'm not convinced yet. I disagree with just about any voting barriers. It needs to be accurate, but it needs to be accessible to all americans no matter how disenfrachised they may be. It shouldn't cost a penny to vote.

[Pangloss]

Like I said, you blokes are doing it the hard way. Have a look at this link to wiki. At the top of the page is the Liberal "How to Vote Card". The actual ballot is the green bit in the centre.

 

Sure sure, they tried all that stuff. Believe me, you're preaching to the choir here, you're just making the mistake of underestimating the American legal machine and its ability to manipulate the media. The moment that Jane Doe, a single mom with three children in public school and a $5/hr job at Wal-Mart, decided that she had been disenfranchised, the entire system was doomed.

[swansont]

Reading some of the links there is one thing I found interesting.

 

There were only two candidates, so the percentages should add up to 100%, yet only in Ohio do they actually seem correct. Where are the missing percentage points? Iowa 2% missing, Nevada 3% missing, New Mexico 3% missing.

 

I mean it's an A or B question, there is no third option. Where are the missing percentages? Could this be Mokele's "People are idiots" factor?

 

 

Write-in votes are an option.

[ecoli]

Write-in votes are an option.

 

Perhaps, but I doubt even 2% of a states population does that.