ie8 fix

The scary truth about voting machine hacking risk (exclusive video)

By | October 23, 2011, 9:28pm PDT

Summary: In this exclusive interview, ZDNet’ Government’s David Gewirtz sits down with Dr. Jon Warner of Argonne National Laboratories for a deep dive into voting machine hacking.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a column here on ZDNet Government entitled, Four outrageous political stories that will make you scream.

In it, I discussed a number of outrages, but one in particular caught my eye: research by the scientists at Argonne National Labs showing the ease at which voting machines could be hacked. This is an issue of great concern, because free and reliable voting is at the core of every democracy.

Voting, essentially, is democracy.

After I published the article, Stephen McGregor of Argonne contacted me and offered me the opportunity to talk with Dr. Jon Warner, the scientist who conducted the study and who came up with the startling conclusions.

What follows is that interview, and it’s both fascinating and freaky. I also want to send a special shout-out of thanks to Jon for his great patience in the process. This was the maiden voyage of the studio I’ve been working on over at ZDNet’s DIY-IT and Jon was quite patient while some extra fiddling and tuning was required.

Here then is ZDNet Government’s exclusive interview with Dr. Jon Warner of Argonne National Labs. It’ll make your hair curl.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

53
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The scary truth about voting machine hacking risk (exclusive video)
tom@... 5th Nov
It's a non-issue if the machinies aren't connected to the 'net, ever, and go thru only one set of hands, period. THAT would be a bit safer. ANYTHNG on the 'net is inherently NOT secure, so why add that extra layer?
[ SOS ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial

Please Google:

Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
or
How Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media
or
IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennials
@larkforsure The companies are firmly under the thumb of the Chinese government and "get away" with what the government wants. In China it is my way or the highway.
0 Votes
+ -
Insider is the real problem
guihombre Updated - 24th Oct
freedom-to-tinker DOT com/blog/appel/nj-election-cover

If you're not familiar with this one, they had a vote in the primary, the most popular Democrat *lost*.

"Following the election, the County Clerk certified the results as Vivian Henry, 34 votes; Mark Henry, 33 votes; Ernest Zirkle, 9 votes; and Cynthia Zirkle, 10 votes."

This is a very small election and so Zirkles got affadavits from people who had voted for them, (28 of them), showing the vote was wrong.

The administer of the election said 'oh I configured it wrong' and the person who checks it claimed them made a mistake in the double check.

R-i-g-h-t, here's the thing, its next to impossible to prove fraud, its easy to do, only a few people need to be paid off, and when you catch them, they just claim some implausible mistake.

Without a paper trail, without a checks on that paper trail, none of these elections have any validity, because the vote just isn't taken seriously enough by anyone except people who want to rig an election.

If you remember they spend millions gender/racially/social profiling Americans in order to win elections, if you think they would never spend $10k to pay off a couple of officials, then you're deluded.
@guihombre @ if voter fraud was punished as treason which is what it actually is, those involved should be shot.

You would find over night the management of most of the voting machine companies would change, they are greedy traitors not brave pioneers as they promote.
0 Votes
+ -
@Reality Bites
...but I would imprison him for 25 years and permanently disenfranchise him.
0 Votes
+ -
Penalties DON'T work
guihombre 24th Oct
Because the penalties are set by the people in power, if you can't prove it now, you can't prove it in future no matter what the penalty is, and the penalties would be set by the 'winners/cheaters' anyway. So if by some luck you *could* prove it, then they'd change the law to reduce the penalty.

The only way is to make an auditable election and audit it! It should never have been made so trivial to cheat in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
Voter fraud is treason... shoot them.
Reality Bites 24th Oct
We would quickly find the elections would run a lot smoother and an entirely different government would come into place.
Hi i live in Ireland and the Irish GOV.spent millions of Euros on e voting machines that had to be scrapped because of security issues a few years back,
Con
There are so many layers to election corruption, this is just one of them. In 2000, Bush/Cheney proved that the presidency could be bought at the Supreme Court level. Black Box Voting has shown that even with a paper trail, local election officials are regularly throwing out election receipts. The Republican Party's operatives have been working for years to disenfranchise and redline poor voters. And with Citizens United, everything can be run totally above board and those with the money can *still* get what they want simply by spending as much as they need to. We no longer have a democracy. Instead, it's a red, white, and blue show to dupe citizens into thinking there is one.
I suppose that ACORN was an extension of the Republican Party and not of the Democrats and the Organizer-In-Chief?
2000 election eliminates your credibility from this argument. You're ignorant on the purpose of electors and how they are selected. You're ignorant of the lawsuits brought by Gore and his attempt at selective recounts. You're ignorant of the re-count corruption to favor Gore votes (attempting to determine voter intent from dimpled chads? Please). And, finally, you're ignorant of why we moved to black box voting in the first place. Hint, it was because Democrats insisted their voters were too stupid to read a paper ballot they designed.
0 Votes
+ -
@enovikoff
You know, if our town did that, there'd be a couple of new graves in the town cemetary.

If more citizens dealt with government corruption that way, maybe we wouldn't have as many corrupt officials around. I always figured that if a guy got sent to prison for killing a corrupt government official, he ought to get the highest level of respect from the rest of the population; unlike child abusers or those who beat up on the elderly.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting
John L. Ries 24th Oct
@Dr_Zinj
Would that be the case if people were only suspected of vote rigging, or would it require proof?

I'm not really big on lynch mobs (they have a tendency to punish the unpopular innocent as often as the guilty), so I'm glad I don't live in your town.
@enovikoff

There you go.... it's those eeeeEEEEEEEEEvil Republicans again.
0 Votes
+ -
What a bunch of crap!
adornoe@... Updated - 24th Oct
In 2000, there were many recounts, and in each case, Bush/Cheney won. And, even the liberal newspapers, like the NY Times, did their own counting, and Gore lost. Gore and his cohorts were the only crooks in 2000, whereby, after the recounts showed them losing, they resorted to trying to steal the election by counting only the counties which were undoubtedly massively liberal and favorable to democrats. That's when the case was brought to the US Supreme Court, to stop the "disenfranchisement" of voters which was being attempted by Gore and democrats.

The real crooks then and in all elections are the democrats, and in just about every case where voter fraud was charged, it was the democrats using illegal tactics, and counting dead people, and using out of state people, and counting people over and over again, and keeping ballot boxes from being counted, and many people crossing state lines to vote illegally in other states after having voted in their allotted district. It happens over and over again with democrats, whose mantra is "do whatever it takes" to win.

The fact is that, if all voter fraud were to be stopped, democrats would lose most elections, and thus, they have to resort to cheating.

Even the charges about voting machines being rigged is a tactic that the democrats use to deflect attention from their own crookedness.
@adornoe@...

And, like a good Republican, you re-write history as you see fit.

Lemme guess, you view slavery as 'lifestyle training' and outlawing abortion as 'morality assurance', eh?
0 Votes
+ -
So only Democrats rig elections?
John L. Ries Updated - 24th Oct
@adornoe@...
I find that hard to believe, given our country's history.

Do you assert this because your favorite talk show host told you so, or have you done some independent research?

I see you did respond: All I see here are dogmatic assertions, based on the assumption that the Republicans have been the Good Guy Party continuously since the party was founded in 1854 (presumably, it was the Whigs before that), leading me to believe that you're simply parroting what the precinct captains in headphones say.
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe@... The standard the USgov uses to determine election fraud is whether the end results differ from the exits polls by a significant margin. I forget the exact standard, but in Florida the exit polls where running strongly in favor of Gore. I think an international commission should have supervised the election or the recount given the vast difference.
@bigsteve666

...exactly.

Both the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court's basis of their decision was that it would "take too long" to get a true and accurate count.

So they stopped the recount in it's tracks before a recount could be finished, you know, after all the 'chad' BS.

Oh, and can someone please remind me? ...was it Al Gore or George Bush who's brother was the Gov. of Florida at the time???
0 Votes
+ -
chmod 777: Where do you get your garbage from?
adornoe@... Updated - 24th Oct
Oh, let me guess. It's from the democrats talking points, which have you and all of those who vote for democrats believing that, republicans are the evil-doers who like to enslave blacks and anybody that is not "rich or wealthy".

Grow a brain already!

Did you know that, if it weren't for republicans, that slavery would've continued for many more years and perhaps decades, and who knows we might still have it. Also, if it weren't for republicans, the civil-rights bill would never have passed, and that people in the democratic party ranks, like Al Gore's dad, were against the civil rights bill? Also, most of the dark ages of slavery in America, occurred because of democrats policies?

BTW, you make very dumb assumptions about me, and as a Hispanic, I would be known as part of a minority, and therefore, not expected to be an "evil republican"?

So, stop the race-baiting, and stop the stereotyping, and start thinking for yourself.

The only people re-writing history are the democrats and people like you, who need to re-write history in order to keep lying to the people and getting democrats elected.

And, btw, your attempt to re-write the history about the 2000 election won't fly, and even the democrats would laugh in your face if you approached them with your version.

The fact is that, Gore attempted to steal the election by trying to get recounts only in the heavily democratic districts. That is a fact that can't be denied, and that's one of the reasons that the Supreme Court stopped the charade.
0 Votes
+ -
bigsteve666: Exit polls? You gotta be kidding!
adornoe@... Updated - 24th Oct
What the democrats tried to do in 2000 had nothing to do with exit polls. The recounts were allowed to occur, and when those recounts didn't favor Gore, Gore and his team went about trying to steal the election by getting only the heavily democratic districts involved in the recounts.

Also, there were perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 people in the panhandle part of Florida who didn't go to the voting booth after the election in Florida was called for Gore, and thus, there were may thousands of votes for Bush that didn't get counted, because, the panhandle part of Florida is heavily republican and it's in a second time zone, while the election was called before the polls were closed in that area of the state. Also, Gore and company fought hard to stop the counting of the military vote, which normally leans heavily republican, and thus, there were may thousands of votes for Bush that weren't allowed to be counted there either.

So, the fraud in 2000 is all on the democrats side, and that's an incontrovertible truth.
have most of the fraud, and who perpetrates most of the fraud.

Even if there are republicans who do commit fraud, the vast amount of voting fraud is done by democrats. Why is it that, most times, when there's a recount in a close election, the democrat almost always end up "winning", even if the recounting started with the republican being ahead. The senatorial election in Minnesota 2 years ago is a prime example.
0 Votes
+ -
"Were all voter fraud stopped..."
John L. Ries Updated - 26th Oct
@adornoe@...
Do you think that because the 1968 and 1972 elections proved conclusively that the vast majority of the American electorate is Conservative (never mind any other elections or polls), or is there some other reason?

Response to the response:

And where do your facts come from? Here's a hint: political talk shows, blogs, and "advocacy journalists" (the last of these is a contradiction in terms) are in the business of persuasion, not information; they cite only those facts that support their case, or can be made to appear to support their case (as I discovered back in 1992-93 when I was subjected to Rush Limbaugh at work for 3 months straight).
Do you think that because the 1968 and 1972 elections proved conclusively that the vast majority of the American electorate is Conservative (never mind any other elections or polls), or is there some other reason?

I only believe in what is based on facts, and the facts indicate that the preponderance of voter fraud is perpetrated by democrats.

You need to do your own research and perhaps you'll discover the truth too. And, btw, you won't find the facts in democratic party talking points.
@adornoe@...

My folks lived in Fl at the time, and there is no way the count was what the officials said it was. Many of Gore's votes went to the third candidate. There is no way that Gore honestly lost in a Dem county.
what was happening on the ground, and like everyone else, on TV, and I read about it in newspapers and magazines.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.


My folks lived in Fl at the time, and there is no way the count was what the officials said it was. Many of Gore's votes went to the third candidate.

That's what Gore and the democrats would have you believe, but, the votes were counted, many times, and Gore lost in all counts.

There is no way that Gore honestly lost in a Dem county.

There is no way that Gore honestly won in the whole state. Gore might have won in the liberal leaning counties, but that's not the point. The point is that, he lost in the state as a whole. No one wins the state by just winning the democrat leaning counties or the republican leaning counties. It's a statewide count that matters. Get it?!?!?! In all statewide counts, Gore lost them all.
@enovikoff
They have to since a lot of Democrats vote more than once
0 Votes
+ -
And illegal aliens and voters who cross states lines and district lines to vote again after they've voted in their own districts. It's also people who are not eligible to vote because of their criminal past, but do so anyway. It's also people who aren't registered to vote, but democrats pay them off and bus them to the nearest voting place and insist that they need to be counted or else the democrats will accuse the district managers of disenfranchising their voters.
0 Votes
+ -
Great interview
John L. Ries Updated - 24th Oct
It properly raises questions like...are votes being transmitted from precincts over the Internet without being counted locally as well?

Elections in the US have always been run by the states (the FEC deals mostly with the financing of federal elections, not actually regulating them), so it's the chief election officer in each state (usually the Secretary of State) that bears ultimate responsibility for the integrity of elections. As most of these officers are elected officials, it's up to the voters (us) to hold their feet to the fire, to show zero tolerance for partisan behavior by such officers, and to punish severely any effort to inject partisanship into the issue. It's also vital to be just as hard on election officials affiliated with one's own party as on those affiliated with the opposition. No party has ever had a monopoly on political virtue or vice and the number of crooked Republicans appears to be very close to the number of crooked Democrats.

Most of all, we need to take the position that the integrity of the system is vastly more important than which candidates or parties win.

BTW: David, it looks like you've gained some weight since your blog photo was taken.
fraud coming from democrats than from republicans. And that's easily proven, if you'd bother to do some research on the subject.

So, no, it's absolutely a lie, on your part, that the "number of crooked Republicans appears to be very close to the number of crooked Democrats". You're not even close to the truth.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, but...
John L. Ries Updated - 26th Oct
@adornoe@...
I remember rather well an incident in the early 1990s, when a number of California legislators were caught taking "campaign contributions" in exchange for favors. The number from each party were nearly the same, but the Bush Justice Department prosecuted the Democrats, while the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted the Republicans. Somehow, then Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and then Assembly Minority Leader Ross Johnson escaped prosecution completely. I thought then that they would have been great cellmates.

I've been watching politics since 1972 and the numbers of politicians caught being crooked (or engaged in brazen hypocrisy) do appear to about evenly divided between the major parties. I think the sample is large enough to conclude that the ratio between the parties for crooked politicians not caught is about the same. Note also that both parties engage in gerrymandering; both try to rewrite election law to their own advantage, both tend to trumpet wrongdoing by opposition politicians and minimize, if not deny wrongdoing by their own, and both are much more concerned with making sure that elections come out the right way than they are with making sure that the results accurately reflect public opinion. The tactics are different, but the motivation is the same.

I'll repeat again that the party of Roscoe Conkling was not significantly more honest than that of Boss Tweed in the 19th century; while the party of Tony Coelho is definitely not more honest than that of Tom Delay today. Good, responsible, honest politicians inhabit both major parties; as do rascals and swindlers. Those who pretend otherwise encourage the latter of their own party, and discourage the former of both.

Note that politics in the years following the Civil War were both very polarized, and extremely corrupt. The two go together for the simple reason that if party loyalty is allowed to trump all other considerations, shysters and cheats will be rewarded for toeing the party line and delivering votes while stealing the public blind, and honest people will be penalized for speaking the truth as they see it and otherwise following their consciences.
by you singling out one example from the 1990s; but even there, the corruption and fraud was mostly on the democrats' side, with Willie Brown being a leading democrat.

California is fraught with corruption, and the biggest reason that California is so heavily democrat is because of so much fraud, especially as it concerns the illegal votes from Mexico who "tend" to vote for democrats. One of the best known cases of election fraud is that of Lorreta Sanchez, who, with union help and the illegal alien votes, was able to "overcome" Bob Dornan with about 894 votes, the difference coming mostly from the illegal voters.

The fact is that, if democrats were to play honest in all elections, that they would lose most of them, and they know that the only way to "win" is by cheating, and, they've perfected their cheating to the point that, it's become accepted practice to await a challenge from whoever the democrat is in a closely contested election, where they know they stand to gain many votes, and oftentimes, enough to overcome any small lead by a republican.

But, you seem to be trying so hard to defend the democrats' fraud, and it leads me to believe that, you might have a vested interest in allowing the fraud. You've claimed not to be a democrat in the past, but, it's doubtful that you're anything but a democrat. Even if you aren't registered as a democrat, there is no doubt that you won't vote for anything but a democrat in any election. The fraud by the democrats in the 2000 election was so blatant, that, nobody with any kind of common sense could've missed it.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm defending the Democrats?
John L. Ries Updated - 27th Oct
@adornoe@...
I call the Democratic Party "the party of Boss Tweed" (and Tweed was a lifelong Democrat) and I'm defending them? I say that excessive party loyalty is a major cause of corruption (which it is) and I'm being politically correct? Only once have I ever been represented in Congress by a future convicted felon and he was a Republican (that was Randy Cunningham). Interestingly enough, it was a Republican U.S. Attorney who prosecuted him.

You may feel compelled to believe that corruption and fraud are concentrated in a single party (goes along with the notion that all of the Good politicians and voters are on one side and all of the Bad ones are on the other), but it's not so and never has been. You carefully avoid saying where you get your facts from, but I'm pretty sure you're simply parroting what you've read and heard elsewhere.

I've said before that partisan politics does more harm than good and that the optimal number of political parties is zero (but the worst possible number is one). I haven't changed my mind.

Correction: I had believed that Samuel J. Tilden, a conservative Democrat, had been the prosecutor in the Tweed case; in fact, the Tweed prosecutors were Republicans.

Dornan alleged that he was the victim of fraud, but I don't think any evidence was ever presented. Given that Dornan usually won easily before then (despite his extreme views), I suspect his constituents got tired of him. Rather odd that the Democrats got away with this alleged massive fraud in what had been safely Republican Orange County (you'd think election officials there would have been suspicious).

I figured you got your facts from partisan Republican sources. I guess if Conservative Republicans are the only people you trust to tell the truth, then you really have no choice.

It's rather convenient that you think that were it not for fraud, Republicans would win the vast majority of seats in every election (that is the implication of what you said). It means that you don't actually have to convince any Democrats or Independents to change their political opinions, since they are (according to you) tiny minorities anyway (never mind the polls that report that only 40% of voters are self-described conservatives... since they don't back your claim, they must be fraudulent). I figure the theory is approximately as plausible as the claim that were it not for favorable media coverage, the Democratic Party would have become extinct long ago.

Personally, I'll keep on voting for whomever I think are the best candidates, regardless of party. I've split my ticket in every election in which I've voted, save one, and that's not likely to change (but I keep on voting for losing presidential candidates for some silly reason).

I guess my intent is not to defend the Democratic Party I left long ago (which pioneered many of the techniques that are used today by political machines the world over), but to oppose the notion that partisan politics is an apocalyptic struggle between the Good Guy Party and the Bad Guy Party as both false and dangerous. As hard as it might be for you to believe, honest, intelligent people can and do have real differences of opinion as to which laws and policies are most likely to serve the public interest (and many more than two opinions are not only possible, but likely). Efforts to transform what should be a good faith public policy discussion into a life or death struggle between Good and Evil wrongly turns neighbors and fellow citizens into enemies, encourage both corruption and outright fraud (if partisans think opposition victory is intolerable, they're likely to take extreme measures to prevent it), have a bad habit of becoming violent, and ultimately make representative government (under whatever name) impossible. We've already had one civil war too many in this country. We don't need another.
talking about:

3 Out-of-State SEIU Operatives Registered and Voted from Wisconsin Hotel

http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/10/26/3-out-of-state-seiu-operatives-registered-and-voted-from-wisconsin-hotel/

After discovering that Occupy Milwaukee protester and left-wing activist Austin Lee Thompson used a Glendale hotel to register and vote, Media Trackers has discovered that at least two more out-of-state activists employed by the SEIU registered to vote from the Glendale Residence Inn hotel for the April 5, 2011 spring election.

And, yes, you are defending the democrats by insisting that the fraud occurs equally from both sides. That is very far from the truth, and pretending that both sides are equally corrupt is in essence the same as defending the democrats, who are, by far, the biggest offenders.
Slightly off the path, but this makes a good case for internet voting. Paper ballot unsecure, voting machines unsecure, voting administrators: crooks.

Internet voiting would appear just as secure. In addition, the inconvience factor would be eliminated. Plus, I belive we could motivate a larger portion of the electorate.

How would it work: The county voting comissioner would send each registered voter an electronic ballot (email) with a unique password. When the voter reply, the server would look for that embedded password and reject the ballot if it not included or is different than the assigned password. People with rejected ballots could be contacted to come to the commissoner's office to do a vote-over. Not secure? I submit it matches anything currently available!
0 Votes
+ -
any mechanism for voting.

Here's a better idea:

Each state gets a computer, exactly the same in all the states. Each state has the same software and the same filing system and people from all parties supervising the incoming and outgoing traffic to the computer site.

When any person enters his/her vote in any district, it is sent, via secure lines, to each computer in each state.

While voting, the voter needs to get his/her fingerprints scanned and entered into the computer. But, there will also be facial scanning and a checking of ID and proof of having registered for voting, and proof of address. All of that information is sent to all the computers stationed in all the states.

Once the voting is finished in all districts and all states, then, and only then, will the computers have to display the totals gathered from all districts and all states, and, they should all better be matching while the vote is occurring. The matching should all be occurring while the voting is occurring, to make sure that nothing "unbecoming" is occurring in any one district or state. So, there will be "double checking" (really, all-states checking) while the voting is occurring, and again, after all the voting districts in all the states have closed. If all the computers don't have matching numbers for each state, then a "major" investigation should be conducted before any results are disclosed.

It may sound like overkill, but, in a democracy, there is nothing more important than the integrity of the vote.
my neighbor's step-aunt makes $74/hr on the computer. She has been laid off for 8 months but last month her pay was $7131 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this site NuttyRich.com
0 Votes
+ -
Ummm, let me see here, if you let me rewire the circuits, I can change the recording.
WOW, rocket science! REvelation REvelation!
There is considerably more security built into an ATM machine than a voting machine, but the ATM machine proves that technology exists to authenticate a user and provide a paper trail. We should take our democracy more seriously.

In close elections, it only takes a small percentage of flipped votes to flip an election result. If investigators are looking for large scale fraud, their radar is probably aiming too high.

Voter suppression seems to be the new thing. It is harder to register and vote if you are poor, old, or a student with new laws enacted in FL, OH, MI, WI, and ME. These states all are adopting virtually the same legislation being pushed by ALEC.
@josmyth
Voter suppression has been going on as long as there has been voting!
Remember, women did not get to vote till the 1920s. Indians not till after them. Blacks in the south were routinely suppressed by the Democrat party for decades (till they found out they could get them to vote Democrat after becoming their "champions") - and people who live outside in the country would have to drive 10 to 50 miles to vote in an election (poor city folk only have to walk a 1/2 mile but that is beyond their ability(?)).
Part of the reason of the laws is to ensure that only US Citizens vote in FEDERAL elections - you do NOT have to be a citizen of the us to vote in almost any state or local election - the criteria is that you are a citizen of the STATE. Voter suppression is really done by combining both Federal and State onto the SAME ballot - thus people who could legally vote in a state - but would be thrown in jail for having a Federal Ballot at the same time - DON'T VOTE. Back before a consolidated ballot people were given a STATE ballot and a FEDERAL - thus you could not violate federal law by being a non-citizen and voting in a Federal.

This is NEVER cited by ANY news organization - let alone ANY political party.

In close elections fraud pays off - to game the WHOLE system requires centralization - which is what WILL happen with a central voting system via electronic methods.

As for ATMs - they only verify the CARD and PIN - NEVER the person. It is like a bearer bond - whoever bears it would then VOTE.

As for the old punch cards and "hangin chads" that is a function of not telling people how to push down on it AND never keeping the blades sharp. Thus, for lack of a 5 cent blade they had these problems. You gave out 500 ballots, 450 signed a sheet, your turned in 50 blank ballots, and ran through the machine 450. easily checked. Electronic all there really is no verifable check if EVERYTHING is electronic and it ALL talks to each system - you would just code into all of them the same fraud and it would check out perfectly.

To allow true audit checks the machines would have to be even MORE complicated, generate an instant paper trail (two, one to the voter and one on site) electronic recording, a manual signing and all three would have to match an audit count afterwards.

Punch cards / OCR readers are not the best, both can be damaged, but much easier to control / count / audit than electronic methods.
0 Votes
+ -
Only two problems with your statement...
John L. Ries Updated - 25th Oct
1. Under the U.S. Constitution, qualifications for voting for members of Congress are the same as for voting for members of the "most numerous branch" of the state legislature. Presidential electors are to be chosen in whatever manner is decreed by the legislature of each state (or Congress, in the case of the District of Columbia). In neither case is there any federal requirement (constitutional or otherwise) that the franchise be limited to U.S. citizens. It is customary to do so, but this was a decision made by state legislatures and/or constitutional conventions, not Congress (except in the case of DC and the territories), or the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, it doesn't matter if federal and state ballots are combined or separate, as the states make the rules, either way.

2. Some states and territories did allow women to vote prior to 1920 (there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prevent them); Utah did so as early as the 1860s. In fact, the first female member of Congress, Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT), served her entire first term before the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.
0 Votes
+ -
If it can happen, it will, BUT...
adornoe@... 24th Oct
has it ever happened for real?

Has any election ever been won or lost as a result of a voting machine having been rigged?

Voter fraud is most likely to occur before the voter gets to the voting machine. That's where elections are stolen. And, no surprise, it's always the democrats doing the stealing.
@adornoe@... One machine getting rigged would be obvious. Rig enough machines and they'll look normal by virtue of sheer volume. If there's no paper trail and all the machines are made by the same company, there's immense potential for abuse.

Anyway, I remember seeing a comparison between voting machines and Vegas slots. The Vegas slot machine manufacturers have to report to an independent committee, the chips in the slots have to comply with a whitelist of chips, the program code has to be kept on file, and they can send someone over to randomly test the machine.

Voting machines, on the other hand, have their code kept as a trade secret, background checks vary on a state-by-state basis, and while the Nevada Gaming Commission and Gaming Control Board control slots with a two-tiered regulatory system, the FEC only really provides "voluntary guidelines" for voting machines, and scrutiny can vary from state to state.

Remember those test runs where one district had more votes than there were voters, and another district had a negative number of votes? The system can be easily gamed, and blaming one party over another serves no one.
Don't give me hypothetical scenarios, and don't compare to irrelevant cases on other types of machines with different purposes.

Like I said, "if it can happen, it will", but, like I also said, give me a real case where it's happened. The charges about voting machines being capable of being rigged, is not the same as having real cases of rigging. People who like to scare about the prospect of vote rigging, are the ones most likely to commit the fraud.
@Third of Five... All methods of tampering I've heard of so far would leave traces. Change the firmware , add snooping or "man in the middle" intercept circuitry.. all these leave behind physical evidence of tampering that a qualified investigator looking for signs of tampering would find. This doesn't correct the fraudulent votes of course, but it provides solid evidence that fraud was committed.

However, election systems have been "gamed" long before electronic voting machines. Chicago had 99% voter turnout in some precincts during the JFK election, and of course nearly all voted Democrat (SURPRISE!) because the Unions and the Mob controlled the the handling of the ballots.

It's not so much blaming one party or the other, but historically Leftism (world wide) has proven to be far more likely to steal (or attempt to steal) elections through fraud and intimation than the Right. Those who don't understand this also typically don't understand the fundamental differences between the Left and the Right and what it is that defines the two political philosophies. The Left typically has EVERYTHING vested in the outcome of elections because the Left is all about government supremacy, and using government to control a nation's wealth and control of its subjects through dependency on their government for all their basic needs. The Right is more about limited government and citizens living mostly free of government meddling and interference, wanting only the the basic services governments should provide (roads, defense, police, fire, etc.) leaving citizens to look after their own basic needs and prosperity apart from government provisioning.
This is a horrible video. Both guys talking are horrible at explaining details of what the test was, how it works and how practitical it is. Who is going to risk a felony by trying to hack one of these machines in a voter setting anyhow. Insiders are the only concern here.
0 Votes
+ -
Man in the middle is a real concern...
John L. Ries Updated - 26th Oct
@FireThorn
...but it can be defeated by counting the votes locally and calling them in, as well as transmitting them over the Internet. Tampering with machines before election day is harder (except by insiders), but doable, as discussed.

One item brought up several years ago as a result of the boasts of a now-former voting machine executive is the possibility of tampering by the vendor. This can be overcome by not allowing the vendor to have anything to do with configuring the machines, except for technical support, and nothing at all to do with the reporting of results. The system needs to be 100% operated by election officials and verifiable by poll watchers (no outsourcing). Careful testing and certification of equipment before election day is also essential.

I think the point is that prevention of electronic election fraud is not rocket science, but people do need to pay attention.

Response to Adornoe:

What you propose would require a constitutional amendment putting the feds in charge of elections (whereas the states have always been in charge of elections in the U.S., and I think should continue to be).

Uniformity and federalism are mutually exclusive by definition and as incredible as you might find it, I really do prefer federalism (it scales much better than does unitary government). Of course, there's nothing to stop the states from talking to each other; they already do, to a large extent.
who can steal the election by committing fraud.

In most elections where fraud has been charged, it's the person at the end, the one who does the counting, that is more to blame for miscounts or missing votes or not having fool-proof methods for voting.

Look up my post above. It's probably a better idea.
which might necessitate the courts getting involved.

My proposal was for the states, all 50 of them. Never did I mention the federal government. With each state supervising the votes coming in, and with all states as a backup, any incidence of fraud would be hard to pull off. No state would get an advantage in the counting, and no counting would occur without all the states noticing. BTW, the states already do some cross-checking and communicating about fraudulent voting, so, collaboration amongst the states is not unheard of.
It's a non-issue if the machinies aren't connected to the 'net, ever, and go thru only one set of hands, period. THAT would be a bit safer. ANYTHNG on the 'net is inherently NOT secure, so why add that extra layer?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix