I have been concerned about this since I first started reading about the way the machines in various states operated- specifically that there is no paper record, and that the source code in the ES&S machines (and maybe the Diebold as well) is secret and not available to government auditors.
Here is a website on the subject. Amusingly, ES&S is threatening to sue the site.
How hard would it be to program such a machine to, say, change every tenth vote? The only tests of the machines accuracy that I have read about consisted of voting 400 times for a Dem, and then 400 times for a Rep, and seeing if the outcome was correct. That seems like a meaningless test, since it is only a test of whether the machine can work, not a control that ensures that the machine does work.
I think the simple solution would be to have the touch screen machine print out a ballot, which would be clearly marked so that the voter could confirm it, and that the printed ballot would be the actual vote.
Well then what would be the point of having an electronic voting machine in the first place? If paper ballots are going to be counted then you should dispense with the expensive electronic machine.
I think however that this plan could be modified some what. You have the machines that print the ballots. Then some randomly chosen machine tallies are compared with the paper tallies. That way you audit the machines but all of the physical ballots do not need to be counted.
There would be this advantage: Fraud can be commited while counting paper ballots if the ballot counter adds votes for additional candidates, thus invalidating the real choice. If the paper ballot were a computer-generated printout, that particular scam would no longer be feasible.
You are aware that there is a reason people don’t recieve ballot reciepts with ID #'s!!! Umm… because, duh you can actually check your vote. This is considered very bad in the US.
In some states hand counts are illegal now. Go figure! They get packed in a truck and carted off to a central warehouse where they do God knows what with all those votes. sigh
On to the OP; I can guarantee you beyond all reasonable doubt that the idea of ballot reciepts was dropped because of a ‘national security’ necessity; namely this one:
“”"""""“How hard would it be to program such a machine to, say, change every tenth vote?”""""""""
A reciept would make this impossible. Don’t even think that people 50 years ago were TOO DUMB to not know this.
Even the most laughable measures such as a reciept with a 10 digit ID number; and say a special edition of the NY Times posting all of this stuff in print would be a bazzillion times cheaper, less argumentaive, less cynical, more transparent, more efficient etc…
– then the current system of having EPS/VNS call your precinct and tell you what your results were. It is seriously beyond rationality! I do not believe that a votefruad case has ever reached as high as a state govorner; so in theory there may still be one local official outside of the corperations who could veiw the source. This is really hypothetical stuff though, so I don’t want to hear any complaints if your governor cannot access it!
You forgot to mention that most vote counting machines now have two-way modems equipped into them with a direct line both in and out, and that 99% of all US precincts are counted THIS way. Precincts phone in their results directly to VNS, or in cases of ‘better’ equipment, have their results phoned TO THEM BY VNS!
sigh What are people seriously thinking when they just hand their ballots to someone? This is a government that issues medical trials of viruses on the population - make your elections transparent!
I think not. Surely there is a record of the number of votes cast? If additional ballots are added, the number of ballots counted will exceed the number of votes cast, and the fact that a fraud has been perpetrated will be obvious.
(Unless, of course, a similar number of genuine ballots are extracted.)
(Also: wouldn’t observers notice if a poll clerk pulled a pile of ballots out of his pocket and stuffed another pile into his pocket? The count is observed, isn’t it?)
Um. If the ballot counter can smuggle in false ballot papers which look like the ordinary printed ballots, what is to stop him smuggling in false ballot papers which look like the ballots printed by the computer under the new system?
If there are no receipts for the votes, I have to agree that the chances for frauds are greatly increased. They should print a paper receipt for each vote, so the receipts can be used to be a check.
That’s easy. Just randomly generate a 20 digit number for each site each time.
Originally posted by december
There would be this advantage: Fraud can be commited while counting paper ballots if the ballot counter adds votes for additional candidates, thus invalidating the real choice.
I think not. Surely there is a record of the number of votes cast? If additional ballots are added, the number of ballots counted will exceed the number of votes cast, and the fact that a fraud has been perpetrated will be obvious. *
Sorry, that was a poorly worded post. What I meant was that marks can be added to an existing paper ballot. E.g., if the voter checked Gore, a dishonest vote-counter can add a check for Buchanan, thus invalidating that ballot’s Presidential vote.
There are two separate issues here- how to ensure that the ballots cast reflect the intention of the voter, and how to ensure the integrity of the counting process. I think that the touch screen machines help WRT the first issue, but have the potential for considerable harm to the second. If a ballot is printed based on the voters entries, at least there would be a paper trail.
As I was thinking about this today, though, I had a better idea. It is really very simple. The ballot could be set up weeks before the election, and from a certain date, perhaps 1 week before the election, be available on the internet. Voters could run the program, enter their choices, print out a ballot, and then on election day, simply take it to the polling place, check off their names on the registration rolls, and put the ballot in the ballot box. For those voters unable to get access to the internet prior to election day, there could be computers at the polling place. This would keep all the present controls on registration, but eliminate spoiled ballots, and greatly reduce traffic jams at the polls. Simple. JDM