Open-source voting: Secure over obscure?

I could have programmed a voting machine on a Commodore 64 in 1984 when I was twelve that is more reliable than Diebold... WITH A PAPER TRAIL. What's the problem?

I could have programmed a voting machine on a Commodore 64 in 1984 when I was twelve that is more reliable than Diebold... WITH A PAPER TRAIL. What's the problem?

The problem is not the programming, and it's not the people doing the programming, and it's not the company developing the system and programming. There are probably many millions of programmers who can do a good job of programming a fairly secure voting system. And there are no doubt many companies that can do a very good job of securing the systems and the programming involved with those systems.

The problem, in a lot of cases is with the people who are expected to use those systems to do their voting. No matter how simple the voting process is made, there will always be those for whom the system is complicated, or who are fearful of the new technology or who will believe that their vote won't be counted correctly or fairly, even if there is a paper trail.

And then there is the political side. The biggest problems in the last few elections that were contested is that, the politicians and special interest groups didn't like the results and so, they sued or wanted recounts. Al Gore sued in 2000, and he wanted recounts. He wasn't going to be satisfied with the results until the recounts showed him on top. The same kind of thing happened in Washington State with the election for governor where a republican had won initially, and the recounts only stopped when the incumbent governor, a democrat, ended on top. The same thing happened just this past year with the election for senator in Minnesota where the incumbent, again a republican, had won, and then, the recounts were demanded and they only stopped when the democrat ended on top. And it happened again in New York just a few months ago where the republican seemed to be winning, but the democrats insisted that recounts were needed. Again, the recounts ended when the democrat was on top. See a pattern?

Most of the complaints and recount requests came mostly from the democratic side. Thus, according to them, no election is fair or legitimate until the democrat either wins initially or wins through a recount. Now, in the last general election cycle, the democrats won control of the house and the senate and the presidency. There were a lot of close elections for congressmen and senators during the 2008 election where the democrats won by very narrow margins. It it had been the republicans who had won with narrow margins, then we'd still be recounting a lot of those ballots. Are you still not seeing a pattern?

When it comes to Diebold, nobody has ever proven any insidious programming or problems with the machines. Yet, Diebold was demonized and they became the villain until the democrats finally won their majorities. But, again, no misconduct or wrongdoing was ever proven. This last time around, the democrats didn't have any complaints against Diebold. Wonder why.

Like the secretary of state in the video above stated, an election will be deemed fair and legitimate when the people and politicians start to believe that the process is acceptable to all. But, that's never gonna happen. There will always be those that, even with 100% proof to the contrary, will call the process unfair and illegitimate if they didn't get their desired results from an election.

So, buddy, your understanding of the problem and your over-simplification of what's needed is apparently coming from someone who is not fully aware of the real problems with the voting systems and the real problems that will be encountered when politicians and the people are not satisfied with the outcomes of elections. Study up and start thinking.

Sigh,

Asornoe Your cap key seems to work thus there is no good reason not to Capitalize the word Democrat. Of course there are plenty of not so good reasons to spew wrong-wing talking points.

Since you are so fond of the "facts" let do a little digging.

Florida: An investigation by two major news agencies that had no skin in the game came to the conclusion that Gore actually did win in Florida in 2000. Human error and the dreaded " butterfly" ballot plus the Republican Secretary of State throwing the election (with a big assist from the five Republican Supreme Court member) got W. "elected" despite having fewer total votes nation-wide.

Washington State: The vote was a statistical tie. Close votes almost always break for Democrats in the recounts. The Republican Secretary of Sate there actually did his job and let the recount proceed as required. Did I mention that Democrats always pick up votes in recounts? The shift got the Democratic candidate elected by a whopping three votes.

Minnesota: yet another very close vote, yet another process allowed to follow its course. A shift of 400 or so vote, not much when you are talking millions of votes gave Al Frankin a new job. Did I mention that Democrats always pick up votes in the recount?

The pick up occurs because Democrats seem to attract people who are little less conformist in the way they cast their votes. Thus marginal votes tend very slightly to be cast by Democrats.

Frankly there is no particular reason why the States could not go back to paper ballots. As Congress does not convene until January of the next year, there is no particular rush to get the vote tallies in. Australia does quite well with paper as do other nations.

Yes paper is such an analog technology in the 21st century but it is the best thing going. Computers are too easily hacked and odd results are too common. In Ohio in 2004 black box machines somehow managed to record results that were 110% of the registered voters in some counties. In Cleveland some 60,000 votes for president vaporized while the Senate race got full participation.

Finally in 2006 and 2008 the fortunes of the political parties were such that Democrats were able to win very close elections. From 1992 to about 2004 the Republicans were the people winning the squeakers. The Republicans were able to build just enough cushion to negate the late surge Democrats always have in the recount. In 2010 more than likely the Republicans will regain the advantage especially in close elections.

In the meantime, please quit your sniveling- close elections always result in recounts: sometime you get the bear, other times the bear gets you.

Your cap key seems to work thus there is no good reason not to Capitalize the word Democrat.

How the heck do you figure that ?democrat? deserves to be capitalized? ?Democrat? is just a simple word and as such, unless it?s at the beginning of a sentence, it deserves as much capitalization as the words ?garbage? or ?nonsense? or ?stupidity? or ?idiocy? or ?clueless? or ?dummy? or even the word ?duh?. When your favorite word is part of a title, then I may capitalize it, as in ?Democratic Party?. I won?t even capitalize republican or conservative unless those words are also part of a title, as in ?Republican Party?. Learned anything yet? And what the heck kind of school did you attend that taught you that ?democrat? needs to be capitalized? There is but one single word that I know of that deserves be capitalized at all times and that is the word ?God?, even if you?re not religious but out of respect for others? beliefs.

And, the word "democrat" is not even applicable to the current party that has it as part of its title. That party is very close lately to being more socialist and communist and far away from the true meaning of "democracy".

Of course there are plenty of not so good reasons to spew wrong-wing talking points.

And you did a very good job of demonstrating that in your post above. And by the way, I don?t use talking points and everything that I write or say can be verified by the facts which can be looked up. The only one that used talking points so far has been you with your post above.

Since you are so fond of the "facts" let do a little digging.

When it comes to your apparent bias from the very beginning, you are of course going to do a lot of spinning and lying, which is the standard way of doing business for a (d)emocrat.


Florida: An investigation by two major news agencies that had no skin in the game came to the conclusion that Gore actually did win in Florida in 2000.

Garbage! Total nonsense!

Gore did not win in 2000 and what he did try to do was to steal an election. Even if he did win the popular vote nationwide and the democrats and Gore felt they deserved to win, American national elections are not determined by the simple majority nationwide; the presidential election is determined by the electoral college count and the one with the simple majority in the electoral college wins. That is the way the ?republic? was set up under the constitution. Ever read any part of the constitution?

Human error and the dreaded " butterfly" ballot

Wrong! And total garbage!

Why is it that, in your mind and that of the thieving democrats, that the ?butterfly? ballot only worked against (d)emocrats? Are the democrats the party of the dummies and the republicans only have intelligent voters? You are so full of it.

plus the Republican Secretary of State throwing the election

That again is more crap from yourself and from your fellow (d)emocrats. As a non-thinking democrat and one who is clearly blinded by your ideology, you bought into the lies of Gore and the democrats in 2000.

The allegations against the secretary of state are total lies and not only can you and the democrats not prove it, but it was only a total lie set up in order to try to undermine the whole process and the credibility of the secretary of state and the governor of Florida. Nobody has ever proved or come up with any evidence for the allegations against the secretary of state or the governor.

(with a big assist from the five Republican Supreme Court member) Oh, what the heck, I'll do it for you. Look at the 2nd paragraph in this page: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878702.html

Presidential Election (Dec. 12, 2000): Court reverses Florida Supreme Court decision ordering manual recount of ballots. Majority of justices (7?2) agree that recount violates Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees, since counting standards varied among counties. Court remands case to Florida Supreme Court for remedy but, in 5-4 split, maintains that deadline for recount ends at midnight. Decision effectively ends presidential election.

If anything was wrong with the Supreme Court in 2000, it was with the ultra-liberal Florida Supreme Court which was trying to assist Gore in stealing the election.

got W. "elected" despite having fewer total votes nation-wide.

Pure crap!

I believe that in the history of presidential voting, that there were 3 times where the presidency was not won by that candidate with the national majority vote. JFK was an example of that, and even there, it was questionable if JFK had really won.

Bush was ELECTED in 2000 by virtue of the fact that he got the most votes in Florida, even if the difference was a few hundred votes. And, count after recount always came up with Bush the winner, even with just the recounts in Gore?s ?selected? 4 counties. And then, even months after the election was WON, a bunch of news organization did their own recounts and every one of those recounts, inicluding the counts done by the NY Times and the Washington Post, always came up with Bush the WINNER.

And, again, since you seem to be totally ignorant about how the votes are counted for the presidency, I?ll be glad to let you know again: the presidency is determined by the highest vote total in the electoral college. If you don?t know what the ?electoral college? is, then do a look-up for the words. I don?t want you to continue being so ignorant about how the U.S. presidency is won. And, please also inform the rest of your fellow ignoramuses in your party.

And, don?t forget that in 2000, the democrats insisted that the military vote, which mostly votes for republicans and which always comes in late, could not be entered into the recounts.

Furthermore, when it comes to the Florida Panhandle, there were many thousands of people who were ?essentially? disenfranchised when the Florida vote was called early and those people who had not voted yet decided to stay home. Florida has 2 times zones and as soon as Florida was called, the people in the later time zone who still hadn?t voted didn?t get to cast their votes. The majority of the votes in the Florida panhandle traditionally vote mostly republican. So, potentially, the votes in the panhandle that could've been made might've won the state for Bush by a much wider margin.

Washington State: The vote was a statistical tie.

The vote totals were statistically, very close percentage-wise.

But, when it comes to close elections, nobody is better at ?finding? or ?discovering? uncounted votes than the democrats. And, in Washington, it turns out that there were a large number of votes which had ?mysteriously? not been counted in the original or in the few recounts.

Here?s where things were stood at the beginning in Washington State (from the Washington Post):

b Rossi led Gregoire by 261 votes statewide after the first ballot count, a margin small enough to trigger a mandatory machine recount. That retabulation narrowed his margin to 42 votes out of the nearly 2.9 million cast, and Secretary of State Sam Reed certified him as governor-elect. The Democratic Party then put up a $730,000 deposit to pay for a statewide hand recount.

After that, recount after recount, if the republican ended with a lead, the democrats went about ?discovering? or ?finding? votes which had ?somehow? been lost or not counted previously. And Kings County ended up providing the ?newfound? votes which would make up the difference to give Gregoire the lead. And, there are suspicions that Kings County ended up with more people voting in the election than there are eligible voters in the whole county.

So, it was evident from the very beginning that Gregoire was not going to ?lose? that election, and that the republican (Rossi) was not going to win, no matter what. The recounts would continue until the democrats found enough votes to put them in the lead until Rossi conceded or the courts put a stop to the recounts.


Close votes almost always break for Democrats in the recounts.

Of course they do. That?s because the democrats will cheat and steal their way into the lead until the republican gives up or the courts stop the recounts. It?s the only way that democrats can win. If the democrats were to be honest with the people about their real intentions and their methods, they would lose most elections every year.

The Republican Secretary of Sate there actually did his job and let the recount proceed as required.

Since that is the law, he didn?t have a choice. Just like in Florida, remember? But, in Florida, Gore wanted his selected 4 democrat counties for the recounts instead of the whole state. In Washingtion, recounts included the whole state.

Did I mention that Democrats always pick up votes in recounts?

You don?t have to remind any republican about the dirty tactics that democrats use to win elections, especially in close ones.

The shift got the Democratic candidate elected by a whopping three votes.

There is absolutely no way that a democrat is ever going to lose a very close election. They will beg, lie, steal their way into a ?win? with whatever means is at their disposal, including illegal methods. To the democrats, the end justifies the means.

Minnesota: yet another very close vote, yet another process allowed to follow its course.

Yep! The same lying and stealing that the democrats are well-known for, they used again in Minnesota.

Like I said, the republicans will never win a close election against a democrat unless they?re willing to use the same tactics that the democrats use. Coleman had that election won initially, but he didn?t fight as hard as the opposition to keep the lead in the recounts. But, the real losers were the voters, in both Washington and in Minnesota. In fact, there are many people who voted for Franken who are having buyers? remorse about their decision. There?s no doubt in my mind that if the Minnesota election had been re-done, that Coleman would?ve won handily and without any kind of ?closeness? in the voting.

A shift of 400 or so vote,

Doesn?t it even raise any kind of suspicion in your mind about how the democrats always ?seem? to find or discover enough votes to eventually take the lead, no matter how many recounts are done? I actually was a democrat myself, a liberal one at that, and I always wondered about how much more I could tolerate from ?my? party when it came to their dirty and sinister tactics. I eventually had enough and became independent and eventually a republican.

not much when you are talking millions of votes gave Al Frankin a new job.

Yeah, the people in Minnesota got a clown to represent then in Washington. But, if it wasn?t Franken, it could just as well have been bin-Laden, as long as he called himself a (d)emocrat.

Did I mention that Democrats always pick up votes in the recount? :

But, you are forgetting to mention that the democrats are also the party of lying and cheating and stealing of elections.

Also, don?t forget to mention that the democrats are also the party of ACORN, a corrupt political organization. The democrats are in fact the beneficiaries of the corrupt politics of ACORN, which includes registering illegal aliens and dead people to vote. ACORN is also the organization that registers people to vote some 72 times for voting. With that kind of corrupt organization, and with the democrats themselves having no scruples, then of course, they are going to win a lot of close elections. A crook that isn?t caught will continue to have good days at stealing. ACORN?s best days are over, and so are the best days of the democrats. ACORN has been exposed as a corrupt political organization, and the democrats won?t have their help anymore in stealing elections.

The pick up occurs because Democrats seem to attract people who are little less conformist in the way they cast their votes.

What the democrats do attract are the more ignorant and less educated and the poor who buy into the false promises by the corrupt politicians who promise them free housing and free food and free clothes and free transportation and free medical care, etc. The people who buy into those lies are in for a very rude awakening, if not shortly, then in a matter of years. In fact, studies have been done that examined how the voters for the democrats made their decision. And, it turns out that when it came to answering the pollster?s question, the people who voted for the democrats ended up totally clueless about what Obama really stood for, and they were just as clueless about their other selections. I know about the ?cluelessness? of the democrats? voters because I know many of them, and when I ask them what their party really stands for, they can?t answer the questions.


Thus marginal votes tend very slightly to be cast by Democrats.

If by ?marginal? you mean ?idiot? then I agree with you.

Frankly there is no particular reason why the States could not go back to paper ballots.

You are just as ignorant and clueless as most of your fellow democrat voters.

No matter what the method used for voting, whether paper ballots or by machine or by some electronic means, there will always be those that will mess up or won?t know how to use the method or machine. And, then there is the political side. No matter what the method, if there is a political advantage to demonizing the method or the difficulty of the method, the democrats will use it to point to some sinister motive in that methods use. If just one person states that he or she didn?t understand how to cast a ballot or didn?t understand how to select their preferred candidate, the democrats will exaggerate the problems and claim that millions are being disenfranchised. But, the problems will only be problems when the democrats are in the process of losing an election or are behind in the voting or recounts of the votes.

As Congress does not convene until January of the next year, there is no particular rush to get the vote tallies in. Australia does quite well with paper as do other nations.

That?s not what the problem is about. The problems is about who is winning or losing. It?s not about when the vote counts come in.

But, in the U.S., the president-elect has a lot of work to do before he takes the oath of office. He has to select a ?team?, or administration, and he has to meet with current or new leaders in government in order to ?take off running? as soon as the first day in office. The congress doesn?t have as big of a problem, but even they do have business to get acquainted with before they take office. That is all necessary for a smooth transition from team to team.

How Australia or any other country does their transition or runs their government business is completely irrelevant to how the U.S. handles its transitions and government business.

Yes paper is such an analog technology in the 21st century but it is the best thing going.

Completely wrong!

Paper ballots are extremely prone to error and to tampering and can be ?lost? in transportation. Of all the methods for voting, paper is probably the most error prone.

Computers are too easily hacked and odd results are too common.

What the heck are ?odd? results? If you don?t know what the heck you?re talking about, then don?t even bring up the topic.

And computers are very reliable. The problem is the people; the people who don?t know how to use computers or are intimidated by them. Then, of course, there are the people who will tamper with the technology, either the hardware or the software. But, all of those problems can be overcome, and if that happens, computers could be the most reliable means for voting.

In Ohio in 2004 black box machines somehow managed to record results that were 110% of the registered voters in some counties.

That happens with paper ballots too. With paper ballots, there are people who deliberately set out to produce fictitious ballots with fictitious names or duplicate names. Different set of circumstances, but the same kind of corruption.

In Cleveland some 60,000 votes for president vaporized while the Senate race got full participation.

That?s a total lie. What are you, a copy of Obama the ?liar??

If there really had been such a problem, then Kerry would?ve unleashed a much bigger investigation than the assault that Gore did in Florida in 2000.

Finally in 2006 and 2008 the fortunes of the political parties were such that Democrats were able to win very close elections.

There indeed were a lot of close elections in 2006 and in 2008. But, there was also a big difference. When the democrats ended up being the ?winners? in those ?close? elections, the republicans didn?t try to steal away those elections by endless and costly recounts, like the democrats always do in close elections. There is a lot more decency in the republican party than with the democrats.

From 1992 to about 2004 the Republicans were the people winning the squeakers.

Your recall of history is wrong. In 1994 there might have been a few squeakers, just like in most congressional election years, but, in that year, the people spoke loudly and decided that they?d had enough of the democrats and wanted huge change, and most of those elections were not squeakers. In 2006 and 2008 there were a lot more squeakers than in 1994 with many of those squeakers being decided by fewer than 5% in favor of the democrats. And in fact, many of those democrats that won by 5% or less are now fearing for their seats in 2010, realizing that they could just as easily lose the next election by 5% or less to the other side. In fact, if those seats that went to the democrats with 5% or less had gone the other way towards the republican, the republicans would now be the majority party in congress.

The Republicans were able to build just enough cushion to negate the late surge Democrats always have in the recount.

Recounts happened for both parties. But, the democrats are always better at winning recounts because they are relentless at cheating their way to a final recount that ends in their favor. With the democrats, recounts will be repeated until a recount has the democrat in the lead.

In 2010 more than likely the Republicans will regain the advantage especially in close elections.

In 2010 the republicans will again win control of the congress, but it won?t be because of any ?squeaker? nonsense as you describe.

The reasons that the republicans will regain control is because the democrats are again overreaching, just like they did in 1993-1994 when they tried to ram nationalized health care down the throats of the people. And it won?t be just because of health care. The democrats are overreaching with mandates for green technology and cap-and-trade high taxes. They are also preventing the U.S. from drilling for its won oil which necessitates that we purchase our petroleum from overseas at premium prices which keeps the cost of energy and gazoline high on the American people. And the democrats are the party of high taxes and high spending. Obama?s high spending has brought our deficit and our national debt to figures which won?t be able to get repaid for many generations. That?s bankrupting the country, big time! Yeah, the republicans are also guilty of high spending, but not even close to what Obama and the democrats have been doing lately.

In the meantime, please quit your sniveling-

If using ?facts? in my posts is the equivalent of ?sniveling? to you, then I absolutely will not stop ?sniveling?. Facts continue to get in the way of democrats and liberals, therefore, I?ll continue getting in your way. .

close elections always result in recounts: sometime you get the bear, other times the bear gets you.

Close elections will continue to happen, and recounts will continue to happen.

But, history teaches us that democrats can?t be trusted to conduct themselves fairly or honestly or lawfully when it comes to elections in general, nor in the recounts that occur after close elections. Most recounts end up with the democrat winning, and that?s because the Democratic Party is the party of corruption and cheating and lying. Period. I know, I used to be a democrat until I decided that I could not continue being a member of such a corrupt organization anymore.