# Electronic voting machines cheat another Democrat out of an election **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 9, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007 "2006-08-09T15:07:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/1 "2006-08-09T15:07:53Z")
[Only this time it was to another Democrat.](http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/28b636a0-01a0-473f-87f7-aa1075788e04) > [@](#): > > Electronic voting machinges are a threat to our democracy. So let the word go out-- we aren’t going to tolerate any more stolen elections. I love it how now whenever a Democrat doesn’t win, the first thing they tend to do now is to claim that someone rigged the electronic voting machines. I suppose Diebold had a specific interest in seeing her lose, right? Get over yourself, Cynthia. You made an ass of yourself in March, and you lost your seat because of it. I’m really tired of this shit. Does everyone have to be a sore loser nowadays? I know the above link is a blog, but I haven’t been able to find a transcript of the speech she gave this morning that I heard on the radio. If anyone else knows of a more reputable link, I’d appreciate it if you could post it for me. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/2 "2006-08-09T15:13:28Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I love it how now whenever a Democrat doesn’t win, the first thing they tend to do now is to claim that someone rigged the electronic voting machines. This statement is slightly incongruous with your sig. 😉 And coming from McKinney, this behavior isn’t surprising. It really fits right in with what we know about her character. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/3 "2006-08-09T15:13:46Z")
However, it would be good if there were more public awareness of the problems with electronic voting machines. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/4 "2006-08-09T15:15:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This statement is slightly incongruous with your sig. 😉 Actually, I purposely used my sig so I couldn’t be accused of making a sweeping generalization. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/5 "2006-08-09T15:34:49Z")
I think everyone who loses an election should make a stink until we do something about the problems. The winners should, too, but you know, it’s harder to make a stink when it can hurt you. I don’t blame them for that. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/6 "2006-08-09T17:40:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This statement is slightly incongruous with your sig. 😉 And coming from McKinney, this behavior isn’t surprising. It really fits right in with what we know about her character. No kidding. Why is this being generalized to “democrats”? Cynthia McKinney also hit a security guard. Do all democrats hit security guards? And, um, is it really ridiculous to have concerns about electronic voting machines? It strikes me as a bit servile, and way out of keeping with what I think of as the American character, to assume that those in power will take care of things when there’s no way to check up on them. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/7 "2006-08-09T17:58:10Z")
Well, if some folks are too damn lame to use a punch or mark voting system… God I’ll be glad when that whiny bitch is off the airwaves. If you want truly horrifying, she later broke into a Pink protest song. It was stupendous in it’s awfulness. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/8 "2006-08-09T18:02:32Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > No kidding. Why is this being generalized to “democrats”? It’s being generalized to Democrats because that has become the perception, that Democrats cry “voter fraud” every time they lose. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/9 "2006-08-09T18:23:28Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > However, it would be good if there were more public awareness of the problems with electronic voting machines. What exactly are the problems with electronic voting machines? Because it all comes back to programmers/engineers with poltical agenda or just plain buggy design? What makes that problem any different from a counter looking at punched ballots and counting with his political agendum, or simply making mistakes? Or maybe someone on the “other side” might have influence in adding extra votes electronically? What makes that any different from the “other side” stuffing 10,000 phony paper ballets instead of 10,000 electronic ones? It looks like both systems “suffer” from similar problems to me. The difference is, you can eliminate buggy or politically motivated coding/engineering by having other contractors or government agencies review the design. You can never eliminate the possibility of politically motivated or errors in the counting. Further, if the ballots are digitally signed (as I would expect any half-way decently engineered voting system to be), it makes it all but impossible to stuff the ballots electronically. This can be done with the same sort of PKI encryption technology that protects your bank numbers online, and secure government documents. The problem isn’t with the electronic ballots… its with the paper ones. Its bothersome to see so many technophobes in positions to make those sort of wild, accusations. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/10 "2006-08-09T18:27:56Z")
> [@Blaster Master](#): > > The problem isn’t with the electronic ballots… its with the paper ones. Its bothersome to see so many technophobes in positions to make those sort of wild, accusations. I disagree. There’s no audit trail in many of these machines (something you would also think would be standard). Not only is fraud harder to detect, it rapidly becomes impossible to determine where the fraud occured or even if fraud occured. There is also the level of effort required, manufacturing and stuffing 10,000 paper ballots is a huge undertaking. Adding 10,000 votes electronically takes no more people and no more time than adding 1 vote. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/11 "2006-08-09T18:30:10Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > It’s being generalized to Democrats because that has become the perception, that Democrats cry “voter fraud” every time they lose. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. Absolutely, look at the recounts in Florida in 2000, or the accusations from various Democrats over the legitimacy of Bush’s victory in Ohio in 2004. Regardless of whether they have legitimate gripes, it has become what the public expects. This is akin to complaining about officiating after a sports team loses a game. Regardless of whether or not the officials actually made mistakes, the losing team looks like a bunch of sore losers. The thing is, the democrats have had some crushing loses and they’ve complained about the officiating, so they look like sore losers. I imagine if the Republicans had lost those elections in similar fashion, and said similar things, they would now have that stigma instead. This is the sort of news story that only serves to perpetuate that image. She’s embarassing the Democrats, and empowering the Republicans. I suppose that depends on your political leanings as to whether or not that’s a good or bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/12 "2006-08-09T18:30:14Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Why is this being generalized to “democrats”? Because when it comes to electoral fraud, Democrats are used to being the perpetrators, not the victims. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/13 "2006-08-09T18:31:07Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > No kidding. Why is this being generalized to “democrats”? Maybe my memory is failing me, but I don’t remember any Republicans or Independants losing an election and blaming electronic voting. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/14 "2006-08-09T18:40:51Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > I disagree. There’s no audit trail in many of these machines (something you would also think would be standard). Not only is fraud harder to detect, it rapidly becomes impossible to determine where the fraud occured or even if fraud occured. Can you provide a cite for that? > [@](#): > > There is also the level of effort required, manufacturing and stuffing 10,000 paper ballots is a huge undertaking. Adding 10,000 votes electronically takes no more people and no more time than adding 1 vote. I disagree. The whole point of PKI is that I can unequivically prove the source of the ballot when its used to digitally sign it. Voter fraud would require a lot more than just openning a table of the ballots and adding 10,000 to the candidate you want to win. It would require access to the private keys (which I’m sure would be kept quite securely and punished quite severely if it were found to be compromised, and certainly would leave a trail when it was compromised), or illegal access and use of a voting machine. I think it would as easy, if not easier, to forge 10,000 paper ballots or gain illegal access to legitimate ones than either of the above scenarios. If they’re not digitally signing the ballots, or using similar digital fingerprinting technology, then I would agree there is a problem and many heads should roll. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/15 "2006-08-09T18:52:47Z")
> [@Blaster Master](#): > > Can you provide a cite for that? Here’s a [blog article](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060510/2334247.shtml) with some links summarizing security problems with Diebold machines. The reason I have been deeply concerned about the current crop of voting machines for some time started with [the reports](http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/23/bev_harris/index.html) of gaping security holes before the 2004 election. Specifically, the vote counting was done with a Microsoft Access database with the security options disabled, meaning anyone with access to that computer could change everything: > [@](#): > > **So what was the flaw?** > > Specifically the flaw was that you can get at the central vote-counting database through Microsoft Access. They have the security disabled. And when you get in that way, you are able to overwrite the audit log, which is supposed to log the transactions, and this [audit log] is one of the key things they cite as a security measure when they sell the system. > > **So you can break in and then hide your tracks.** > > You don’t even need to break in. It will open right up and in you go. You can change the votes and you can overwrite the audit trail. It doesn’t keep any record of anything in the audit trail when you’re in this back door, but let’s say you went in the front door and you didn’t want to have anything you did there appear anywhere – you can then go in the backdoor and erase what you did. > > **Who would have access to this? Are we talking about elections officials?** > > A couple situations. Obviously anybody who has access to the computer, whether that’s the election supervisor, their assistants, the IT people, the janitor – anybody who has access to the computer can get into it. > > **Where is this computer – is there one per county?** > > Yes, there’s one per county. If true, that isn’t a subtle computer hole exploitable by only the most brilliant hackers, that’s a complete lack of security. I wouldn’t run a website with that level of security. Internal memos from Diebold apparently confirmed the findings, and indicated that they’d known about the security problems and simply covered them up instead of fixing them. McKinney is a nutburger and a moron, but that doesn’t change the fact that everyone should be concerned about the security and validity of the current voting machines being used, even if your party is currently winning elections. Electronic voting can be done securely, but there is a lot of evidence that it isn’t being implemented that way right now. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/16 "2006-08-09T18:57:20Z")
> [@Blaster Master](#): > > What exactly are the problems with electronic voting machines? > > … > > Further, if the ballots are digitally signed (as I would expect any half-way decently engineered voting system to be), it makes it all but impossible to stuff the ballots electronically. This can be done with the same sort of PKI encryption technology that protects your bank numbers online, and secure government documents. > > The problem isn’t with the electronic ballots… its with the paper ones. Its bothersome to see so many technophobes in positions to make those sort of wild, accusations. I have no problem with a well-implemented, well-reviewed electronic voting system. Believe me, I’m by no means a technophobe. I’m a computer science student at MIT, for Christ’s sake. 🙂 However, the current systems out there are anything but well-implemented. The insecurity and design flaws in the most popular vendor’s (Diebold’s) systems are unbelievable. They are most certainly not using any sort of encryption for vote verification or auditing. There essentially is _no_ audit trail. > [@](#): > > Avi Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical Director of the Information Security Institute has analyzed the source code used in these voting machines and reports “this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts.” Following the publication of this paper, the State of Maryland hired Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to perform another analysis of the Diebold voting machines. SAIC concluded “[t]he system, as implemented in policy, procedure, and technology, is at high risk of compromise.” > > [Source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold_Election_Systems#Security_Issues) These systems are _still in use_, although many states are getting the idea and scrapping them. There are a number of sites out there with more information: [http://blackboxvoting.org](http://blackboxvoting.org) > **[Homepage](https://verifiedvoting.org)** As I said, I have no problem with a well-implemented electronic voting system. I think such a system would be immensely more secure than paper methods. But what’s out there now is not well-implemented by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn’t trust these machines to run a student government election. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/17 "2006-08-09T19:08:27Z")
> [@Blaster Master](#): > > I disagree. The whole point of PKI is that I can unequivically prove the source of the ballot when its used to digitally sign it. Voter fraud would require a lot more than just openning a table of the ballots and adding 10,000 to the candidate you want to win. It would require access to the private keys (which I’m sure would be kept quite securely and punished quite severely if it were found to be compromised, and certainly would leave a trail when it was compromised), or illegal access and use of a voting machine. I think it would as easy, if not easier, to forge 10,000 paper ballots or gain illegal access to legitimate ones than either of the above scenarios. > > If they’re not digitally signing the ballots, or using similar digital fingerprinting technology, then I would agree there is a problem and many heads should roll. As I said, I agree that the system you’re describing is quite secure. But it is nowhere close to what’s out there now. > [@](#): > > Can you provide a cite for that? Here is an article providing a detailed description of how to change the vote tally in an election and erase the evidence from the audit trail of the software that manages Diebold’s Accuvote machines. > **[Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program | Scoop News](https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm)** > > Publication of this story marks a watershed in American political history. It is offered freely for publication in full or part on any and all internet forums, blogs and noticeboards. All other media are also encouraged to utilise material. Readers... The author managed to figure all this out because Diebold left a ZIP containing the source code for their applications on a public FTP Server. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/18 "2006-08-09T19:14:53Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > If true, that isn’t a subtle computer hole exploitable by only the most brilliant hackers, that’s a complete lack of security. I wouldn’t run a website with that level of security. Internal memos from Diebold apparently confirmed the findings, and indicated that they’d known about the security problems and simply covered them up instead of fixing them. > > McKinney is a nutburger and a moron, but that doesn’t change the fact that everyone should be concerned about the security and validity of the current voting machines being used, even if your party is currently winning elections. Electronic voting can be done securely, but there is a lot of evidence that it isn’t being implemented that way right now. I don’t think that’s necessarily as insecure as they make it sound. If its only stored on one computer, with no network access, then you have to have physical access to it. This keeps anyone who has no way to even get into the same room from having access to the computer. Further, they mention “janitors” having physical access… so? We have janitors in my office too, I don’t worry abotu them gaining access to unencrypted, unsecured sensitive information on my computer, because the computer itself has its own security. But you have the same problems with paper ballots. Anyone who can get into the same room with them could change a few, or drop in a few. Physical security is a problem in the case of both electronic and paper ballots. If you can’t trust the people that are supposed to have access to the computer, how can you trust them to count the paper ballots? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/19 "2006-08-09T19:24:48Z")
> [@Blaster Master](#): > > But you have the same problems with paper ballots. Anyone who can get into the same room with them could change a few, or drop in a few. Physical security is a problem in the case of both electronic and paper ballots. If you can’t trust the people that are supposed to have access to the computer, how can you trust them to count the paper ballots? The two aren’t remotely comparable. Giving a single person the ability to change every vote in an entire county in a minute or two without any sort of record is quite different from someone being able to tamper with a few physical ballots. To change the results of an entire election with paper ballots requires a lot more time and effort, and will leave a significant amount of evidence. This is not an issue of trust. Election workers should not be _able_ to change election results, period. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007/20 "2006-08-09T19:28:20Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Here is an article providing a detailed description of how to change the vote tally in an election and erase the evidence from the audit trail of the software that manages Diebold’s Accuvote machines. > > [Inside A U.S. Election Vote Counting Program | Scoop News](http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm) > > The author managed to figure all this out because Diebold left a ZIP containing the source code for their applications on a public FTP Server. :rolleyes: I’m failing to see the issue here, from the article itself it says: > [@](#): > > If you run a detail report, you’ll see that the precinct report pulls the untampered data, while the totals report pulls the tampered data. This would allow a precinct to pass a spot check. It does look like there might be a security hole, but I’m not seeing how it would affect the outcome if you can still run a detail report on the data in the table that can’t be tampered with. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electronic-voting-machines-cheat-another-democrat-out-of-an-election/368007.md?page=2)