Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Will the Next Election Be Hacked? 904

Posted by kdawson
from the privatizing-vote-counting dept.
plasmacutter writes to let us know about the new article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Rolling Stone, following up on his "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" (slashdotted here). Kennedy recounts the sorry history of electronic voting so far in this country — and some of the incidents will be new even to this clued-in crowd. (Had you heard about the CERT advisory on an undocumented backdoor account in a Diebold vote-tabulating database — crediting Black Box Voting?) Kennedy's reporting is bolstered by the accounts of a Diebold insider who has gone on record with his concerns. From the article: 'Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia... "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from [president of Diebold election unit Bob] Urosevich...' According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties, the state's largest Democratic strongholds. The tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. (Hint: Republicans won.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will the Next Election Be Hacked?

Comments Filter:
  • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:06PM (#16270455) Homepage Journal
    the process is over. It doesn't matter who votes for who, it only matters who counts the votes.
    • It also doesn't matter who wins. The losing side will claim the winners stole the election. I fail to see how electronic voting has changed this. It is being going on for a long time.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:50PM (#16270853)
        Electronic voting removes what semblance of vote verifiability existed with paper votes (real recounts) while enabling easy, broad tampering.
        • Moral equivalency (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BeeBeard (999187) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @10:41PM (#16272389)
          Electronic voting removes what semblance of vote verifiability existed with paper votes (real recounts) while enabling easy, broad tampering.


          This is the perfect answer to the "paper voting can be tampered with anyway" point. The current political landscape is a testbed for unfounded moral equivalency. A lie about a blowjob is not the same as a lie about a war, and in the same vein, paper ballot box stuffing is not the same as electronic vote tampering. The latter has far more potential to improperly influence important elections and to undermine the democratic process than its paper counterpart ever did. If you believe at all in the ability of computer technology to make most other tasks simpler and easier, then you have to at least consider the possibility that fixing elections has just become simpler and easier with the advent of the Diebold machines.
      • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:11PM (#16271085)
        It is true that you can certainly tamper an election that's based upon paper ballots. Heck, in 2001 San Franciscans suddenly found ballot box lids mysteriously floating ashore after the November election.

        That said, the amount of shady crap surrounding Diebold voting machines is fairly ridiculous. Lets ignore the fact that you have a former CEO, who resigned for allegations of corruption, and who was committed to "delivering" an election to one party. As well as drastically skewed exit polling. All in all, you have a slew of voting machines models that lack the most basic security procedures... such as proper, or any, locks. You also have a fairly complicated voting solution that presents a number of opportunities for a compromise.
        • by plalonde2 (527372) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @09:42PM (#16271927)
          Why are Americans such complete and utter *morons* about vote counting? Why do they insist on centralizing vote-counting, one of the most *scalable* problems in civic governance? Instead, form a multi-partisan committee of volunteers fore *each* ballot box. Split up your voting population to keep each box to under 1000 votes or so. Do the count immediately at the close of polling, at the polling place, with the committee and as many observers as signed up in advance (if your party can't muster a volunteer per ballot box, you're not a serious contender in that district).
          If you do it the decentralized way you have to corrupt *a lot* of committees to sway the vote substantially. If you centralize the vote counting (moving ballot boxes, electronic voting, etc) you reduce the number of people you have to coopt dramatically. Clearly, anyone intending to corrupt a vote will prefer centralized alternatives. Anyone trying to demonstrate a fair and just election must prefer the decentralized, hard-to-corrupt model.
          • by plalonde2 (527372) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @09:57PM (#16272077)
            Nice troll moderation there. At least argue the point.
            1. Centralized voting means you only need to corrupt small number of people to corrupt an election.
            2. Decentralized voting means you need to corrupt many, many people to substantially change an election result.
            3. The US has a history of centralizing its vote counting, using techniques such as moving ballot boxes to central counting locations, and using electronic means to centralize counting.

            Given the amount of noise about appearance of fraud in US elections, why isn't vote counting de-centralized? Other democracies seem to manage.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cgenman (325138)
          My bank recently started installing Diebold ATM's.

          Not only are they clearly just running Windows all the sound effects are default Windows NT 4 sound effects. Not only that, but the sound they chose for clicking a button successfully is the error prompt.

          Anyone know of a good bank that doesn't have its head up its ass buying diebold equipment?

      • by interiot (50685) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:38PM (#16271335) Homepage

        Electronic voting machines without a printer attached make it impossible to have a proper recount if claims of ballot tampering are substantiated.

        Electronic voting isn't prima facie more vulnerable than previous voting methods; rather it's the current crop of voting machines that are poorly engineered that's the problem.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by volkris (694)
          Paper records aren't some magic bullet to solve the issue of recounts. Paper is corruptable; this is a return to the problems that electronic voting was supposed to solve.

          What happens when the count is different? Which is to believed? The perfect, digital count that could be intentionally flubbed or the subject-to-significant-error hand count of corruptable marks on paper?

          The 2000 election was decided within the margin of error for paper methods. Digital counts deliver us from this problem, but the paper re
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by theLOUDroom (556455)
          Electronic voting isn't prima facie more vulnerable than previous voting methods; rather it's the current crop of voting machines that are poorly engineered that's the problem.

          As an electrical engineer, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

          It is fairly simple for someone from each party to stand there an watch ballots get stuffed into a box and to observe the count.

          It is much harder to disassemble all the hardware and software inside an electronic voting machine.

          One requires a budget in the millions
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nacturation (646836)
      In that case, might I recommend that Americans bring in the Swiss in order that they may have a supervised election run by an impartial third party? Given that the US has such a hard time ensuring fair elections, they shouldn't be too proud to ask for help.
       
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by The MAZZTer (911996)
        Ah, but you're forgetting current and future administrations' policies affect foreign relations. There are no neutral parties, locally OR overseas.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by chgros (690878)
        In that case, might I recommend that Americans bring in the Swiss in order that they may have a supervised election run by an impartial third party?
        relevant link... [theonion.com]
  • two words. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:10PM (#16270491)
    exit polls.

    they have always been acurate to a very slim margin, yet they were off by hundreds of thousands of votes in 2004. think about it - oh wait sorry, the apathy, i forgot.
    • Re:two words. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lawpoop (604919) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:26PM (#16270641) Homepage Journal
      This has always bothered me, ever since I heard about it.

      Aren't statistics a science?

      So for all you geeks out there who believe in objective, external reality, who believe in science as a way of knowing reality, here we have the best science to date to detect electoral fraud telling us that the election was stolen, and people are fucking quoting Mark Twain "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" and shit like that.

      Where is the outrage? Almost everyone who frequents /. should have a good idea of how shitty these diebold machines are and how easy they are to hack. Can't you see what is going on here?
      • Re:two words. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by espo812 (261758) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:36PM (#16271313)
        Aren't statistics a science?
        An inexact science, which is ok in many instances. Statistics are used because it's cheaper to test or ask a smaller number of people in a population than it is to ask every single member of a population. The whole point of an election is to ask every single person in the population.
        here we have the best science to date to detect electoral fraud telling us that the election was stolen
        How do you propose to do that? An exit poll? A telephone poll? A visit the voter's house poll? Many conservatives don't respond to polls. Their vote is no one else's business, including pollsters. If they don't respond to the polls, they are underrepresented in the poll data. The statistics may look one way while the real data is another way. It's an inexact science.

        If you want to know how people voted, count the votes.
        • Re:two words. (Score:4, Informative)

          by arminw (717974) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @10:06PM (#16272137)
          Here in Oregon they have no exit polls because there are no polls. Everybody votes by mail with paper ballots. Alternatively, on election day there are special boxes where voters may deposit their sealed and signed ballot envelopes. The ballots are electronically counted, the same way as SAT tests and other such marked forms. Maybe that is a pretty good system for other states to check into.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ben there... (946946)

          Many conservatives don't respond to polls. Their vote is no one else's business, including pollsters. If they don't respond to the polls, they are underrepresented in the poll data. The statistics may look one way while the real data is another way. It's an inexact science.

          Okay. Here's some more statistics for you: What percentage of the previous exit polls were anywhere near this wrong? If conservatives avoid pollsters now, they should have in previous elections as well. If exit polls are really that impre

    • by ChePibe (882378) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:21PM (#16271187)
      I have... and our results were off by a quite a bit.

      Why? I can think of a few reasons:

      1. It takes time. It usually takes about 10-15 minutes to fill out a good exit poll form. People with less time on their hands - people with steady jobs, people with kids, people who vote in the morning on the way to work, etc. - are much less likely to accept the polling sheet. On the other hand, people with lots of time on their hands - the retired, the unemployed, often younger voters, etc. - are much more likely to fill out exit poll forms. Given that the unemployed are more likely to vote a certain way (generally for the opposition party, whoever that may be), this can lead to skewed data, not to mention other groups.

      2. People fill out polls to make a statement. Again, this tends to favor opposition parties, or parties that are less likely to be represented in a region. People like the idea of voting twice.

      3. The organization you poll for could determine who answers your questions. Example - "Hi, I'm performing a poll for University X! Could I take ten minutes of your time?" If the person you are trying to poll doesn't like your university's football team, they may not participate. Or, if a poller represents a news organization the person dislikes, a potential pollee (?) may opt out as well.

      4. People honestly forget. This doesn't happen so much in presidential elections, to be sure, but on many exit polls people mark their own votes wrong because they forget what proposition x was or who the candidates for a seat on whatever were.

      As someone who has worked exit polls before, let me assure you that they're not always accurate and there are a LOT of things that can throw them off.

      In any case, though, the CNN exit poll data from 2004 [cnn.com] should make the case for a Bush win, if you go by exit poll data alone.
      • by ChePibe (882378)
        2. People fill out polls to make a statement. Again, this tends to favor opposition parties, or parties that are less likely to be represented in a region. People like the idea of voting twice.

        Shouldn't have left this point so quickly without going for a deeper explanation. My mistake.

        People like to show their support for a candidate they feel very strongly about more than once. Those who vote for Incumbents/members of the dominant party are, generally speaking of course, less passionate about the matter
      • by cyberon22 (456844) on Monday October 02, 2006 @02:31AM (#16274003)
        CNN changed their exit polls for a number of states after the election was called for Bush. The numbers you are seeing at that site were not the numbers produced by their polling organization. You can check the link below, or simply Google for "CNN" and "change" and "exit polls".

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x1293911 [democratic...ground.com]

        This isn't exactly a secret. You guys have some serious problems on your hands.
    • One URL. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by daveschroeder (516195) *
      ...of many, but just an example:

      http://www.wm.edu/news/?id=4027 [wm.edu]

      Oh, wait, sorry about believing what you want to believe, I forgot.

      I actually hope a Republican DOESN'T win in 2008 so we can have a 4 year reprieve from the incessant bitching about people who thing Bush/Republicans stole the election(s). (I didn't vote for Bush.)
  • Maybe.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:12PM (#16270513) Journal
    Maybe we should take Fidel Castro up on his offer to monitor U.S. Elections.
    Or bring the United Nations in on it.

    It seems like the main difference between a certain 1st world country and many 3rd world ones is the scale of election fraud, not the type or quality.

    International monitors anyone?
    • by Tony (765) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:31PM (#16270681) Journal
      The US government outright refused to allow the UN to monitor the 2004 election. They won't let any monitoring happen at all, no matter what the citizens want.

      Can you imagine the government's reaction if Venezuela refused election monitoring?
      • by incabulos (55835) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @10:29PM (#16272315)
        Its a faux democracy, just like the all the african dicatorships that call themselves 'democratic republic of foobaristan', those ones where armed militia force citizens to 'vote' at gunpoint. And the suburbs with voters belonging to the opposition parties mysteriously catch fire on polling day.

        In the last week George Bush had both houses pass laws giving him the authority to order the abduction and torture of american citizens indefinately, based on his word alone. He also had laws passed that retroactively exempt him from being charged with war crimes and terrorist offenses from 2001 onward.

        When any citizen can be abducted by the state and tortured to death 'legally', then that state is a defacto dictatorship regardless of how elections are held, or if they're even held at all. In 5 years America has gone from a democratic state in which liberties are treasured and upheld, to a state teetering on the brink of a facist, fundamentalist and terrorist run nightmare nation of despots and villians. Whats it going to be like 5 years from now?
  • Absoutely. There will be wide margins in exit polls for Democrats and the Republicans will win anyway. They'll blatantly steal it and dare us to say it was stolen.

    See, they've already tested the waters on the "will anyone believe an election is stolen" question. (Whether the 2004 election was stolen or not.) They know the general public will not believe it to be stolen, no matter how compelling the evidence.

    So 2006 is a wash.
  • Diebold ATMs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kherr (602366) <kevin.puppethead@com> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:17PM (#16270563) Homepage
    Since Diebold has a crappy track record with electronic voting, why should we as consumers have any confidence in their ATMs? Even if you don't buy that elections have been stolen, there's enough evidence that Diebold is at best sloppy with their design, implementation and support of their voting machines. With a corporate attitude this lax, how can any banking customer feel good about how Diebold treats money transactions? I've noticed Diebold rolling out more complex ATMs with a lot of useless features. It's not a positive trend.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Durandal64 (658649)
      ATMs are different from voting machines. Diebold doesn't really do much to design an ATM. They use already-existing APIs to interface with the ATM network. Pretty much all they do is grab input, send it across the network and interpret some output. They don't validate a user's account or manage the communication channel or anything complicated like that. The only thing that happens is Diebold code is probably a call to some function like send_withdrawal_request(char *card_number, char *PIN, short amt).

      Wi
  • Edison was wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CriminalNerd (882826) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:21PM (#16270593)
    When Edison first made an vote counting machine, the patent office rejected his invention citing concerns that could lead to vote tampering and yet, over a hundred years later, we have all of these problems...Maybe we should just GET RID OF ELECTRONIC VOTING until somebody can make uncrackable DRM software.
    • Maybe we should just GET RID OF ELECTRONIC VOTING until somebody can make uncrackable DRM software.

      DRM has no place in an election. DRM is about restricting the rights of a computer owner. WiMP, for example, has DRM but the OS that uses it is still unfit for network use. DRM is not what the local election commission needs to keep elections honest.

      What they need is free and secure software. If the software is free, it can be inspected by anyone with any doubt. If it's secure, inspections won't harm

    • by theLOUDroom (556455) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @09:53PM (#16272033)
      When Edison first made an vote counting machine, the patent office rejected his invention citing concerns that could lead to vote tampering and yet, over a hundred years later, we have all of these problems...Maybe we should just GET RID OF ELECTRONIC VOTING until somebody can make uncrackable DRM software.

      Even if you created magical, unhackable software, the hardware tiself is still hackable.

      Give me a nice budget, and I'll make you some chips that look just like normal, but have some extra special functionality that is effectively undetectable without depackaging the chip.


      In short: Electrons are not visible with the naked eye and as such should not be a critical part of the voting process.
  • by Tod DeBie (522956) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:26PM (#16270635)
    I don't mind the idea of electronic voting, just be sure to give me a printout of my vote in plain english with a tracking number so that I can validate it later on. We cannot just take them at their word on this. This is one of the few cases where I think a paper trail is a must!
    • by Atmchicago (555403) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:41PM (#16270787) Homepage

      This idea is brought up many times, but is inherently flawed. The moment you allow people to take back physical records of how they voted, you open up the possibility (or even inevitability) that people will start selling votes, or start being forced to vote a certain way.

      Additionally, if their machines are flawed, it is entirely possible that the printout that you get and the actual vote tally won't be the same anyway. So getting physical printouts really doesn't solve anything at all.

      • by Jeremi (14640) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:04PM (#16270991) Homepage
        You (and probably also the grandparent post) misunderstand the concept. You get a print out from the machine, and you place the printout into the ballot box. The printout is in every way treated the same as the paper ballot you use in traditional systems. The only difference is that at the end of election day, there is a quick tally available electronically. The paper ballots can (and should) still be counted in order to verify that the electronic tally is correct. If there is a discrepancy, the paper tally is used.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:50PM (#16270867)
      If you have a tracking number, there is the possibility that voters can be bought or threatened into voting a certain way.

      I tell you that unless you vote for Mr. X, I will break your legs. You go vote and I demand your tracking number (or I break your legs anyway). I can verify that you voted how I wanted you to.

      The best paper trail is for the voting machine to spit out a form/card/whatever with the name of the person you voted for printed/punched on it. Then you drop that into a locked box. Later, that locked box is opened in front of anyone who wants to watch and the votes are sorted and counted.

      We have the technology to do that already.

      But it seems that having an easily verifiable paper trail is not something that our politicians are interested in.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:38PM (#16270749)
    We just don't give a fuck. The Prime Minister of Hungary is caught admitting to lying to the public about the economy on tape and Hungarians are out RIOTING (including tear gas!) in the streets. Our President has all but been caught lying about everything, royally fucking up everthing he's touched in the process, and the best we can muster is Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Cindy Sheehan.
  • wake up folks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grozzie2 (698656) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:50PM (#16270861)
    When are you americans gonna finally get it ? Why do you think so much effort goes into fund raising for a campaign, and, the press virtually declares the one with the most funds a winner, months in advance. Elections are not won on the campaign trail in the usa, they are BOUGHT on the campaign trail.

    Raising funds / winning elections. There is a cause/effect relationship here folks. Wake up, smell the roses, elections are just like anything else in america, sold to the highest offer. If that wasn't the case, then fund raising wouldn't be the most critical part of an election campaign.

  • by Serveert (102805) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @07:55PM (#16270907)
    I've seen enough evidence to never vote electronically again.
  • by Snarfangel (203258) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:02PM (#16270973) Homepage
    I just wanted to point out an interesting method of creating a secure paper trail that came out recently (September 28th 2006) by Ronald L. Rivest of M.I.T's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It's called the ThreeBallot Voting System [mit.edu] (.pdf format).

    The interesting thing about it is that it handles both voter privacy and verifiability without requiring encryption of the ballot. Rather than give a poor explanation because of lack of space (the paper itself is 13 pages long), I encourage interested people to read it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spasm (79260)
      The problem is, if it takes a 13 page paper to explain it, it's too complicated to explain to Joe & Jane voter.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by qengho (54305)

      an interesting method of creating a secure paper trail

      It's certainly interesting, but completely impractical. If people can't reliably punch a hole in a card, there's no way they can be expected to correctly follow these directions:

      To vote FOR a candidate, you must fill in exactly two of the bubbles on that candidate's row. You may choose arbitrarily which two bubbles in that row to fill in. (It doesn't matter, as all three ballots will be cast.)

      To vote AGAINST a candidate (i.e., to not vote FOR t

  • good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frostalicious (657235) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:10PM (#16271073) Journal
    I hope one of you jokers does rig the election. Give 100% to somebody, I don't even care who. Then there will be no choice but to deal with the Diebold issue.
  • by intnsred (199771) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @08:11PM (#16271083) Homepage
    Why hack the election when you can just steal it the old fashioned way?

    * Give poor voting precincts ancient machines and very few of them so that people have to wait hours and hours in line to vote. Isn't that what we saw in 2004?

    * Dream up a system of "provisional ballots" to placate voters when a voter is "challenged" -- and then never count those provisional ballots.

    These tactics are the way the past 2 elections were stolen, and they're profusely documented. Even the huge exit poll discrepancies of the 2004 elections were ignored by the US corporate mass media.

    And don't forget the way BBC reporter Greg Palast [gregpalast.com] clearly documented that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris eliminated more than 90,000 Florida voters in 2000 as "suspected felons" -- with over 90% of those voters being Democrats. But you're read about that scandal in the US corporate mass media, right?! (Not!)

    Sorry, the elections are already being "hacked" and it doesn't take an electronic voting machine to do it.
  • by pudge (3605) * <<ten.egdup> <ta> <todhsals>> on Sunday October 01, 2006 @09:11PM (#16271611) Homepage Journal
    Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Democrats' own expert [slashdot.org] who did a lot of the work behind the report RFK was basing his article on.

    In his words:
    RFK's article is misconceiving, socially damaging and simply wrong---much like his previous one on autism and vaccines. RFK selectively cites the DNC report. More voters supported Bush in Ohio in 2004 than Kerry. There is no scientific evidence that they did not. There were some irregularities (such as the allocation of voting machines), but they were not large enough to change the outcome. Bush won in 2004; Democrats have to admit that he really did if they are to fix their electoral problems much like how an alcoholic first has to admit that s/he has a problem.

  • by FromellaSlob (813394) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @09:12PM (#16271615)
    Here in the UK we use old-fashioned paper ballots, hand counted. No tabulating machines, no hanging chads, no technology at all. In a General Election, the polls close at 10PM and the earliest constituencies usually declare their results around 1AM. By 8AM the next morning there are only a few left to declare and the result is known. This is in a country of some 60 million people - there is no reason why it couldn't scale up to the US population. Why complicate things and introduce more potential for fraud?
  • Silly Amerikans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrbcs (737902) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @09:30PM (#16271799)

    There isn't going to be any more "elections".

    If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator. GWB. CNN.com, December 18, 2000

    You americans are fucked now... the rest of us will be fucked later.

  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday October 01, 2006 @10:04PM (#16272121) Homepage

    Warren Slocum [warrenslocum.com], who is in charge of elections here in San Mateo county, is extremely critical of touch-screen voting machines. He liked the system we had here - big paper ballots marked with black markers, which the voter inserts into the scanner atop the ballot box. This gives a quick count when the polls close, and the ballots are locked in the box in case a recount is needed.

    But we couldn't keep that system. It wasn't compliant with the "Help America Vote Act", which requires touch-screen machines for "accessability" by blind people. San Mateo had to go touch-screen, but it went with Hart InterCivic eSlate machines. They're still not high-security devices, but they're way better than the Diebold crap. Slocum pushed to get California to require printers for manual recounts on all California touch-screen machines, and that's now the law in California.

    But Hart InterCivic has problems, too.

    "Gail Fisher, manager of the county's Elections Division (for Travis, TX), theorizes that after selecting their straight party vote, some voters are going to the next page on the electronic ballot and pressing "enter," perhaps thinking they are pressing "cast ballot" or "next page." Since the Bush/ Cheney ticket is the first thing on the page, it is highlighted when the page comes up - and thus, pressing "enter" at that moment causes the Kerry/ Edwards vote to be changed to Bush/ Cheney."

  • by intnsred (199771) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:44AM (#16275449) Homepage
    20 Amazing Facts About Voting In The USA
    by Angry Girl of Nightweed.com

    Did you know....

    1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by only two companies: Diebold and ES&S. http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html [onlinejournal.com] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold [wikipedia.org]

    2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine industry. http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-04.htm [commondreams.org] http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html [onlinejournal.com]

    3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers. http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/private_comp any.html [americanfreepress.net] http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html [onlinejournal.com]

    4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/m ain632436.shtml [cbsnews.com] http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1647886 [wishtv.com]

    5. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004 /03/03_200.html [motherjones.com] http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/031004Fitraki s/031004fitrakis.html [onlinejournal.com]

    6. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, long-connected with the Bush family, was recently caught lying about his ownership of ES&S by the Senate Ethics Committee. http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=New s&file=article&sid=26 [blackboxvoting.com] http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx [hillnews.com] http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000896.ph p [onlisareinsradar.com]

    7. Senator Chuck Hagel was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates. http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_28/b3689130.ht m [businessweek.com] http://theindependent.com/stories/052700/new_hagel 27.html [theindependent.com]

    8. ES&S is the largest voting machine manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes. http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html [essvote.com] http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/ 042804landes.html [onlinejournal.com]

    9. Diebold's new touch screen voting machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same as what was legitimately put in by voters. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-05.htm [commondreams.org] http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/041020evotestates /pfindex [itworld.com]
  • by kalirion (728907) on Monday October 02, 2006 @08:41AM (#16275947)
    A program or machine isn't hacked if it does exactly what it is designed and implemented to do. The these machines have been designed and implemented to cheat. There's no hacking involved.

Money is the root of all wealth.

Working...