Electronic Voting

[xoxoxoBruce]

BBC News reports more than 140,000 ballots were rejected in May.

Tens of thousands of votes in the Holyrood election were rejected by the counting machines without any human adjudication, BBC Scotland has learned.
An investigation has established that the machines were programmed to reject some of the new style ballot papers automatically. They never appeared on the screens to be challenged by the parties or adjudicated by returning officers.

The Scotland Office said there was no evidence it added to voter confusion. It added that, in the instance of auto-adjudication for the 3 May election, the decision was taken between returning officers and the e-counting provider.

However, First Minister Alex Salmond described the development as "astonishing" and deeply disturbing. "I was under the impression - until this revelation - that the ballots that were rejected were actually seen by the election agents as part of the process," he said.

Excuse me, "the decision was taken between returning officers and the e-counting provider"? These people took it upon themselves to arbitrarily reject 140,00 ballots?
Something is rotten in Scotland.

[Flint]

I'm blue-in-the-face (no pun intended) describing, in pain-staking detail, how outisde database contractors systematically cooked the books, based on the specific instructions given them, in the ... can you guess what comes next? ... in the Florida "election" circa 2000. After the "success" of this endeavor, many have been eager to jump on the "electronic voting" bandwagon.

[queequeger]

There's a way to hijack any election. How about dead people voting? How about one county with an unusually high discard rate? I don't think electronic voting is anymore dangerous than paper ballots. On the contrary, they're both systems that need constant oversight.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by queequeger

There's a way to hijack any election. How about dead people voting? How about one county with an unusually high discard rate?

Electronic voting has all that and more.

I don't think electronic voting is anymore dangerous than paper ballots. On the contrary, they're both systems that need constant oversight.

How do you provide constant oversight on a closed-source computer system? It may be theoretically possible to make an electronic voting sistem that is at least as secure as paper, but nobody has done it, and it seems as if the big players would rather die than do so.

[wolf]

Who needs dead people? Philadelphia apparently allows up to some silly number (100?) of homeless people to register to vote at any address in the city ... so for the price of a few bottles of cheap vodka you can swing a ward ... and, you don't even have to have the homeless people you registered be the ones who show up to vote.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by wolf

and, you don't even have to have the homeless people you registered be the ones who show up to vote.

Here in Virginia, you have to show ID, and they compare it to the list, and they make you recite your address. They don't have those checks in Penna?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It may be theoretically possible to make an electronic voting sistem that is at least as secure as paper, but nobody has done it, and it seems as if the big players would rather die than do so.

I agree with this as forcefully as I disagree on the other thread.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

Here in Virginia, you have to show ID, and they compare it to the list, and they make you recite your address. They don't have those checks in Penna?

The problem is what happens to your vote after you make it. If and how it's credited, for whom it's credited, how the vote can be audited and recounted if necessary.

[queequeger]

Hardcopy backups at the time of voting so every vote DOES have a reference, maybe. Honestly, I don't care either way, there will always be ways to defraud the vote, and they will always be used. It would just be nice to not waste all that paper.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Flint

pain-staking detail

pains taking, dumbass.

[Griff]

Dude, staking hurts.

[Sigwrite]

Electronic voting machines and the illegal alien/dead person voting are both problems. Whatever you may think of each, the reality is that a large and growing number of Americans have less or no confidence in the outcome of elections because of perceived problems in these areas. Lack of confidence in the outcome of elections is bad for democracy. There's legislation pending on part of the problem, but it seems to me that a constitutional amendment might be a good idea--one that deals with both issues. Any thoughts?

[orthodoc]

A constitutional amendment to do what, exactly? Make voting mandatory?

Or to forbid voting after you're dead?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Welcome to the Cellar Sigwrite

What legislation are you talking about?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sigwrite

There's legislation pending on part of the problem, but it seems to me that a constitutional amendment might be a good idea--one that deals with both issues. Any thoughts?

Legislation was passed years ago. But it required actions by our current leader. That is did not happen. Search the Cellar for discussions involving the word HAVA to better appreciate the problem including:
Easy Voting Fraud Machines and
Letting the Voter Count

As orthodoc notes, what good is bombing when you don't have a target; when you don't even know who the enemy is. That bombing is the Constitutional Amendment solution. The legislation was passed many years ago.

Dead people voting? It is a popular myth. Even Federal prosecuters were fired because these dead people voting could not be found. But the myth continues. These electronic voting machines are the hurricane threat to elections. Dead people voting - a sun shower.