Thread: Voting Machine Flaws Again!

ABC News: PDA + Magnet = Election Fraud?

Thats right, once again we are relying on these machines to sort what should be sorted by hand, in a swing state no less.

With little confidence the American voter will have to hope his/her vote will count. I can rig an election if you let me code it, arrange it to confuse the common man, and allow it to be tapped into from 3rd party sources. These things are junk useless pieces of equipment that cost way too much and do nothing but fail.

You have to ask yourself;

Does your vote really count?
Is this the best possible solution we can come up with?
If the software is flawed why install it?

As someone with a bit of computer savvy under my belt I have to say from my professional point of view, using these types of machines are a bad idea. They don't release the source code to the public to check because they know they will be laughed out of the software development community. The source code, if sound, couldn't be tampered with no matter who saw it, but they won't for security reasons.

To develop it correctly all you must do is make is sound and work 100% of the time and not include an interface to the alteration of the code, bugging of the system, and ultimately give zero 3rd party entry. This isn't hard and it sure as hell isn't rocket science.

It also isn't rocket science to understand that these machines can be fixed with wireless capabilities that one can utilize to alter votes from a distance machine to machine. Of course the display of their source code would show such things, and they won't.

I say we decide on a system and run with it, one that works and one that can't be tampered with. And a 100% confidence factor wouldn't follow anything driven by software. There should be tons of public pressure concerning this because if not, it may not matter who you vote for.

I was going to suggest that Apple do the software, but software can be manipulated. So what do we do, go back to paper ballots that must be counted by hand? Is that really more reliable? Can we trust the counters or the people entrusted to watch them? It's a shame we have this problem going into 2008. What can we do other than protest, which usually happens after all of the voting problems?

Here is a simple sample of how you can code an election survey, explained in simple terms and code. This would be a 100% confidence machine.

Dems:

selection.Clinton = 1
selection.Obama = 2
selection.Huckabee = 3
selection.novote = 0

If vote=1
vote=selection.Clinton

If vote=2
vote=selection.Obama

If vote=3
vote=selection.Huckabee

Else vote=false
vote=selection.novote

And then it prints a receipt of your vote for your personal records.

Why is that so hard to put on a computer? You make an interface with buttons that connect to the selection.nominee and if you don't press them, it casts a vote of 'no vote.'

Just a small sample of how this idea works and it is far from tough programming. You do surveys all the time on these political sites to tell you who you are and it isn't a far cry from a if - then process.

Maybe I should go into business making reliable voting machines. Anyone got a plastics company I can borrow?

But just because you make a program like that, doesn't mean that the results cannot be tampered with. Sure, I get a receipt of MY vote, but I don't know who everybody else voted for, so therefore, I have no way of knowing for sure if all of the votes went to the people they were intended to go to. How do you assure that one?

Originally Posted by TurnBackTheClock

I was going to suggest that Apple do the software, but software can be manipulated. So what do we do, go back to paper ballots that must be counted by hand? Is that really more reliable? Can we trust the counters or the people entrusted to watch them? It's a shame we have this problem going into 2008. What can we do other than protest, which usually happens after all of the voting problems?

With all the processes provided to an election we should pick the one that promotes most voter confidence. Yeah I know, thats an election to find out what method we will use to conduct an election, but thats the best way.

Either that or they can just release their code and let us fix it. After all most code is shared in bits across the internet on forums and what not and these everyday forum goers solves some of the best codes for those who lack the knowledge, its like a collective of minds.

Software cannot be manipulated unless you are able to interface with the code itself. Software however is made so that you cannot manipulate the code unless you understand how to interface with it or the interface is provided. Its a pretty simple thing to not allow 3rd party interfaces. And from load the software should run itself from start to finish.

Ultimately I believe there is a best way but it may seem like a lot. First create the voting machines that are software driven and make them 100% operational without fail. Second allow the user to print a ticket with the vote coded on there and printed in English. 3rd allow the voter to supply the written ticket to a voting bin. In this process you have a software count and a hand count, as well as a ticket count via a machine that reads the code and supplies a figure.

Thats 3 checks and balances from vote to finish. This will force the weak link to emerge and as well it can go as far as to see if there is a difference in voting machine to hand count to ticket count. And you'd only have to do it once in a large town as a mock up of an actual election to find your solution.

This is critical enough to try it as the election process at its base cannot be flawed or there is room for nothing but abuse.

Originally Posted by TurnBackTheClock

I was going to suggest that Apple do the software, but software can be manipulated. So what do we do, go back to paper ballots that must be counted by hand? Is that really more reliable? Can we trust the counters or the people entrusted to watch them? It's a shame we have this problem going into 2008. What can we do other than protest, which usually happens after all of the voting problems?

One small episode of cheating at a polling centers using a paper ballot
could very well be canceled out by some small time fudging at another.
Even if one side does a little more than the other it amounts to a small
overall effect.
Pure software driven vote tally is corruptible by one source- if one
concern gained a back door to the system they could literally pick
office holders at will.
I know enough about computing to not even dream it could not be
possible, and enough about people to know without reservation that it
will be tried.
Digital voting isn't a stumbling step down a slippery slope, its a lurch off
a precipice.

Originally Posted by TurnBackTheClock

But just because you make a program like that, doesn't mean that the results cannot be tampered with. Sure, I get a receipt of MY vote, but I don't know who everybody else voted for, so therefore, I have no way of knowing for sure if all of the votes went to the people they were intended to go to. How do you assure that one?

Well basically all I explained was how it would work at code. You wouldn't ever be able to change that code from say Obama = 2 to Obama = 1, which would obviously skew the voting public's actual vote.

All you have to do is ensure no party other than your finger hitting the obvious button will interface with that code.

When code 'fails' it can mean a lot of things. Poor testing, poor design, or poor installation or platform. This results in anomalies, loss of control, back door interfaces, access to interface from 3rd parties to the usual crashes, irregular results, and bugs. The bad thing is that if someone wishes to make it do something they want it to and they design it as such, it will do that.

Originally Posted by johnflesh

With all the processes provided to an election we should pick the one that promotes most voter confidence. Yeah I know, thats an election to find out what method we will use to conduct an election, but thats the best way.

Either that or they can just release their code and let us fix it. After all most code is shared in bits across the internet on forums and what not and these everyday forum goers solves some of the best codes for those who lack the knowledge, its like a collective of minds.

Software cannot be manipulated unless you are able to interface with the code itself. Software however is made so that you cannot manipulate the code unless you understand how to interface with it or the interface is provided. Its a pretty simple thing to not allow 3rd party interfaces. And from load the software should run itself from start to finish.

Ultimately I believe there is a best way but it may seem like a lot. First create the voting machines that are software driven and make them 100% operational without fail. Second allow the user to print a ticket with the vote coded on there and printed in English. 3rd allow the voter to supply the written ticket to a voting bin. In this process you have a software count and a hand count, as well as a ticket count via a machine that reads the code and supplies a figure.

Thats 3 checks and balances from vote to finish. This will force the weak link to emerge and as well it can go as far as to see if there is a difference in voting machine to hand count to ticket count. And you'd only have to do it once in a large town as a mock up of an actual election to find your solution.

This is critical enough to try it as the election process at its base cannot be flawed or there is room for nothing but abuse.

Can we get the voting day changed from Tuesday to Saturday?

All voting programs should be compiled together by representatives from both party. Both should examine the code before hand to make sure there is no funny business. And make sure you use longs instead of integers

Calculate the votes on the internal hard drive and don't connect to the internet . now no third party can get in and fuck it up