# Voter Machine Fraud Starting Already
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [October 19, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587 "2008-10-19T00:50:25Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/21 "2008-10-19T07:18:29Z")
> [@Professor\_So\_And\_So](#):
>
> I remember watching a Senate hearing on electronic voting machines, maybe about five or six years ago. They brought in all kinds of experts in various fields, but the most interesting testimony that I saw being delivered was from IT security guys and computer programmers. It was the overall opinion (unanimous) that IF electronic voting was going to become the prevalent mode of collecting votes, that they must also deliver paper receipts for individual voters to reference (and I believe submit if there was a necessary recount). There was also some talk about programmers burying a simple little algorithm in the source code that could manipulate data on the back-end of the process (post-receipt delivery) and be virtually impossible to find if the source were to be scrutinized.
>
> In fact, they said that they themselves cold perform such tasks, so they saw no reason why there weren’t others capable of the same.
>
> Here’s a \*Wired \* article detailing some fact about the Diebold machines that were examined late last year: [Diebold Source Code Review - 08/2007](http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/ca-releases-sou.html)
>
> It’s my personal opinion that there really will never be a way to insure that the voting process is actually secure. It’s actually a bit comical, if you’re capable of separating your emotions from the situation and just look at how pathetic this process really is. Here you have a competition between two parties trying to gain control of the most powerful empire in the history of mankind, with technology probably beyond the wildest dreams of most people alive 200 years ago, and we can’t even come up with a way to count some fucking votes.
>
> It’s pretty damn freaky to me. Even after watching that entire hearing, which also discussed the unreliability of paper ballots, I can’t say that there was a solid case presented by anyone giving testimony as to which system was actually more secure. One thing that was particularly interesting to me at the time was that the Diebold source code wasn’t allowed to be inspected, for proprietary reasons.
>
> Regardless of all of that, I’ll still be casting my votes on the 4th.
As a programmer, I’d say that they either pulled out the cuckoos or you’re remembering the parts that were a bit technical for you.
1. The vote isn’t something that should be hardcoded in. So favoring X data over Y data is impossible since you can make it so you don’t know who X or Y are.
2. The code which reads in the data, the code which handles the logic, the code which displays the user interface, and the code which detects the user input can be written by entirely separate companies and the data be encrypted in the logic section and entirely inaccessible to the code which handles the user input. If any of that code is malicious, it will have no way to perform its task.
3. The people who request the device can fully well test the code in a loop 800,000,000 times to see whether the output matches the input.
4. You can always hire a company in Sweden to create the code.
5. There is no requirement to tell them what they are even building.
6. You can hire a different Swedish company to store and manage the machines.
7. Etc.
I mean, for any level of needed security and redundancy, you can always get precisely that, regardless of whether you are using human or computer labor. Historically speaking, though, compromising humans is easier than computers.
The issue we’re seeing with these machines is that they were coded by internee programmers and the office which requested their manufacture didn’t bother to verify that they actually work before paying the company which made them.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/22 "2008-10-19T07:31:42Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> The issue we’re seeing with these machines is that they were coded by internee programmers and the office which requested their manufacture didn’t bother to verify that they actually work before paying the company which made them.
The issue is that there is any programming involved at all. Punch cards work the same as touch screens. You point, you vote. No software needed. Nothing has to be calibrated between the voter and the ballot and there is a permanent record of the event. It’s cheaper, more reliable and environmentally friendly (no electricity needed).
---
### Author:  [@Professor\_So\_And\_So](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Professor_So_And_So)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/23 "2008-10-19T07:43:38Z")
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
As a programmer, I’d say that they either pulled out the cuckoos or you’re remembering the parts that were a bit technical for you.
[/QUOTE]
Undoubtedly the latter, as I distinctly recall a lot of language thrown around that I didn’t fully understand. The overall point they seemed to be making (and was manifesting on the faces of many Senators on the panel) was _be afraid, be very afraid_. Not being a programmer myself, I have/had no way to judge the information, only the tone of the experts.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Tof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tof)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/24 "2008-10-19T09:51:22Z")
> [@DigitalC](#):
>
> How fucking hard can it be to make a damn voting machine anyways? its just a freaking poll, any message board could handle the elections better than the machines specially designed for it seem too.
Seriously! This is just what I was thinking. How come we can make touch screens for all manner of retail outlets that are consistent and work just fine. Hell, make cell phones with effective touch screens. But we can’t make Press A to log A and Press B to log B work accurately, for the most important thing we do as citizens.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/25 "2008-10-19T09:54:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> The issue is that there is any programming involved at all. Punch cards work the same as touch screens. You point, you vote. No software needed. Nothing has to be calibrated between the voter and the ballot and there is a permanent record of the event. It’s cheaper, more reliable and environmentally friendly (no electricity needed).
Like I said, “Historically speaking, compromising humans is easier than computers.”
And if you want a permanent record, how about being able to see your vote on a public website, read from a central database, just as soon as you’ve cast it? Anybody should be able to go home and see what their vote was. With the paper ballot, how many people really can verify that the vote submitted as them is what ends up being counted? How many people can verify that their vote really got into the system?
---
### Author:  [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/26 "2008-10-19T14:16:02Z")
> [@Mosier](#):
>
> I’d bet that electronic voting is more accurate than hand ballot counting, despite these issues. I don’t think I would call what’s happening in West Virginia “fraud” yet because it doesn’t seem to be deliberately favoring one candidate over another.
Just because it only changed the democrat votes to republican doesn’t indicate favoring one candidate over the other? Pull the other one its got bells…
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Like I said, “Historically speaking, compromising humans is easier than computers.”
>
> And if you want a permanent record, how about being able to see your vote on a public website, read from a central database, just as soon as you’ve cast it? Anybody should be able to go home and see what their vote was. With the paper ballot, how many people really can verify that the vote submitted as them is what ends up being counted? How many people can verify that their vote really got into the system?
But with human vote counters you need a conspiracy of unwieldy proportions with computers you only need a few programmers. And if you suspect foul play you can go back and recount the paper ballots, if the supreme court will let you. It is too easy to fuck with computers it would be simple matter to have it show you your vote as correct while spitting out the incorrect winner.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/27 "2008-10-19T15:41:50Z")
> [@askeptic](#):
>
> But with human vote counters you need a conspiracy of unwieldy proportions with computers you only need a few programmers. And if you suspect foul play you can go back and recount the paper ballots, if the supreme court will let you. It is too easy to fuck with computers it would be simple matter to have it show you your vote as correct while spitting out the incorrect winner.
You can put a printer right there that prints out what you voted on each ticket right as you’re doing, and you can see what went into the central database. How is this different from a paper ballot?
If I’ve got data being instantaneously beamed to a central database and I can see that it has arrived there before I step away, how is that less secure than a box of paper which could be picked up and exchanged with any other box of paper that looks exactly the same? Sure there’s **security measures** to verify that the box isn’t compromised, but the difference is that we’ve had a couple of hundred years establishing paper ballot based security measures, while as we’ve only started on e-voting and apparently haven’t yet seen to it that we have **equal** security measures in place there. But for any task that can be done with humans or computers, the system is only as tough as the security measures you employ. The difference is that, again, historically speaking it’s easier to compromise a human than a computer because a computer can’t be distracted or bribed or fall prey to social engineering, nor just plain off get lazy and not do things the right way. If you can get one-on-one time with the machine, certainly you can hack it, but proper human security measures should be that the machine is watched to guard against this–just the same as they’re doing with the paper box.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/28 "2008-10-19T16:18:48Z")
> [@suranyi](#):
>
> One possible difference is that here the ballot is, by necessity, very complicated. Take my own ballot in California. It’s not just the president we are voting on. It’s also a member of congress, our city mayor, state propositions, a city propositions, even members of the local hospital board. I count 23 separate items I am voting on on my ballot at this election. It would be a nightmare to count them all by hand. (My ballot uses a paper optical scan technology.)
>
> Ed
I’m most definitely with **Euphonious Polemic** on this. I felt very comfortable that my simple folded piece (approximately 3 x 6 inch) of paper entering the slot in the box was going to perform its intended purpose and available for recount if neccessary.
Now I understand that elections in the States are way may complicated, but the problems like Florida have only come to the fore since the introduction of technology. Plus, I can’t recall any longer waiting for poll station returns back in the old days of presidential elections.
I can see what’s coming up next. Registered voters will get a pin number and vote from home or public libraries or other internet access points.
Now that I think about it, that’s not such a bad idea ! I trust in my online banking as well online tax returns. Why not ?
---
### Author:  [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/29 "2008-10-19T17:07:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> You can put a printer right there that prints out what you voted on each ticket right as you’re doing, and you can see what went into the central database. How is this different from a paper ballot?
Do you really think programmers couldn’t devise a program that spit out one thing to the printer and another thing to the database or that the database could not be manipulated? The issue is not whether it is being done now (although I happen to think it is) but whether it could be done. When the CEO of one of the major manufactures of these machines promises to deliver as many votes as possible to one candidate it just does not look good. If it can be manipulated, it will be.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/30 "2008-10-19T17:38:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Like I said, “Historically speaking, compromising humans is easier than computers.”
>
> And if you want a permanent record, how about being able to see your vote on a public website, read from a central database, just as soon as you’ve cast it? Anybody should be able to go home and see what their vote was. With the paper ballot, how many people really can verify that the vote submitted as them is what ends up being counted? How many people can verify that their vote really got into the system?
A punch card can be assigned a number and it can be recorded visually just as checks are.
---
### Author:  [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/31 "2008-10-19T19:25:26Z")
> [@askeptic](#):
>
> Do you really think programmers couldn’t devise a program that spit out one thing to the printer and another thing to the database or that the database could not be manipulated?
Like I said, the machine wouldn’t even know what the data it was showing is. Printing out to paper is just to verify that it’s linking the correct gobbledygook to the correct button.
> [@](#):
>
> When the CEO of one of the major manufactures of these machines promises to deliver as many votes as possible to one candidate it just does not look good.
Hire a Swedish company to make the device, and a Japanese one to oversee the security. Have each of these companies receive a regular sum that comes direct from taxes.
Why do you believe that paper ballot security is higher and the members less partisan than that?
---
### Author:  [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/32 "2008-10-19T19:54:48Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> Like I said, the machine wouldn’t even know what the data it was showing is. Printing out to paper is just to verify that it’s linking the correct gobbledygook to the correct button.
You really don’t know much about computers, do you?
> [@](#):
>
> Hire a Swedish company to make the device, and a Japanese one to oversee the security. Have each of these companies receive a regular sum that comes direct from taxes.
I can see the headlines now “SWEDES AND JAPANESE UNITE TO PICK AMERICAN PRESIDENT”
> [@](#):
>
> Why do you believe that paper ballot security is higher and the members less partisan than that?
I said it before, with physical paper ballots there are still security problems BUT the size of the conspiracy needed to fiddle with enough votes to change the election is prohibitive. And you can go back and actually count them.
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/33 "2008-10-19T20:19:46Z")
> **[WaPo: Thousands of Voters 'Incorrectly' Purged From Voter Rolls Across Nation](https://www.bradblog.com/?p=6533#more-6533)**
>
> Records of 4 of 6 WI State Election Board Members Rejected Due to Database 'Mismatches'!
The right wingers are trying to suppress the vote. This article suggests you should verify your voting status. If you sign with your middle initial sometimes, you could be tossed for mismatching data. Oversight of voting in practically non existent. There is no one watching . When the count of provisional ballots is done, it is in private with no citizens present.
Most new registrations have been from poorer areas and are likely Obama voters. Florida and Ohio have hired companies to cut people off the rolls.In the last 8 years there have been 120 voter fraud cases. Thats it 120. there were 82 convictions. Few of those were for improper voting IDs. It is presumably an attempt to stop a crime which practically does not exist.
If you read down through the Bradblog ,they have covered the voting machines failing tests all year long. Many states have certified them because time was running out and they had to prepare for the primaries.
---
### Author:  [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/34 "2008-10-19T20:36:49Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> …
> And if you want a permanent record, how about being able to see your vote on a public website, read from a central database, just as soon as you’ve cast it? …
That would be a Bad Idea IMO (just as bad as getting a printed-out receipt to take home). Because it would allow you to prove how you had voted to the person who had bought your vote, or who had put pressure on you.
Secret balloting only works reliably if voters cannot opt out of the secrecy.
East Germany had secret ballots in elections with the provision that you were not forced to use the booth (i.e. were allowed to opt out of the secret ballot), and that was all that was needed to make the election nondemocratic.
---
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/35 "2008-10-19T20:48:05Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#):
>
> Now I understand that elections in the States are way may complicated, but the problems like Florida have only come to the fore since the introduction of technology. Plus, I can’t recall any longer waiting for poll station returns back in the old days of presidential elections.
First, let me say that I’m a proponent of paper ballots myself. I personally think that the more removes you are from actually being able to take the actual ballot and put it in the box, the more opportunities for funny business there are.
However, if you’re talking about the problems in Florida in 2000, those were mainly paper ballots. The West Palm Beach butterfly ballot was paper. The whole chad (hanging, dimpled, pregnant) business was paper punch balloting. The push for electronic voting machines came after 2000 precisely because they had such problems with the paper ballots. Of course, opinion is already swinging away from the electronic voting only 8 years later.
---
### Author:  [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/36 "2008-10-19T21:03:39Z")
> [@jayjay](#):
>
> However, if you’re talking about the problems in Florida in 2000, those were mainly paper ballots. The West Palm Beach butterfly ballot was paper. The whole chad (hanging, dimpled, pregnant) business was paper punch balloting. The push for electronic voting machines came after 2000 precisely because they had such problems with the paper ballots. Of course, opinion is already swinging away from the electronic voting only 8 years later.
And many of those “problems” were along the same lines as ACORN voter fraud. In other words they were manufactured “problems” to slow down the counting process to allow one group to influence the outcome. Give me a break, “hanging chads” were nothing more than an strategy to not count some votes.
---
### Author:  [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/37 "2008-10-19T22:31:59Z")
The electronic voting machines that we use in my precinct in Ohio have a printout that runs alongside the screen. You can see, in real time, the paper result of every button you press. If you change your mind and press another button, it’ll mark that clearly.
I don’t understand why they all don’t do that.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/38 "2008-10-19T22:36:37Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#):
>
> The electronic voting machines that we use in my precinct in Ohio have a printout that runs alongside the screen. You can see, in real time, the paper result of every button you press. If you change your mind and press another button, it’ll mark that clearly.
I don’t remember if it did it in real time here, but it did print before I finalized my vote. (In the primaries; Missouri doesn’t have early voting.) I had the opportunity to review my casted votes both on the screen and on paper before I accepted them.
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/39 "2008-10-19T23:00:00Z")
I suppose this must be hopelessly naive, but why not just require that all of the software (interface, vote counting and storage algorithms, hardware drivers, everything) be released under the GPL or something similar? Have the machine test itself against a bunch of checksums before it goes onine, have it print out a ballot which can be both human and machine read. Send the paper ballot to a scanner and check the computer and scanner results against each other. Pay the company for their coding time and the cost of the hardware supplied and they can still make a profit.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587/40 "2008-10-19T23:41:43Z")
> [@jayjay](#):
>
> However, if you’re talking about the problems in Florida in 2000, those were mainly paper ballots. The West Palm Beach butterfly ballot was paper. The whole chad (hanging, dimpled, pregnant) business was paper punch balloting. The push for electronic voting machines came after 2000 precisely because they had such problems with the paper ballots. Of course, opinion is already swinging away from the electronic voting only 8 years later.
I pointed to Florida because it was the first time i heard of electronic tabulation of votes which is the case
in both of these Florida systems. Having worked with punch cards in the early seventies I would assume that it would be awfully difficult to read them after they’ve been punched.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-machine-fraud-starting-already/468587.md?page=3)