The Diebold Memos' Smoking Gun
October 26, 2003 9:43 AM Subscribe
One can only imagine that Jeb Bush will be put in charge of a commission to
"get to the bottom of this" and nothing more will be heard.
The US government is now so corrupt that I wonder if it can ever be fixed.
posted by milovoo at 10:27 AM on October 26, 2003
"get to the bottom of this" and nothing more will be heard.
The US government is now so corrupt that I wonder if it can ever be fixed.
posted by milovoo at 10:27 AM on October 26, 2003
Mother: Navin, it's your birthday, and it's time you knew. You're not our natural-born child.
Navin R. Johnson: I'm not? You mean I'm gonna STAY this color?
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:36 AM on October 26, 2003
Navin R. Johnson: I'm not? You mean I'm gonna STAY this color?
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:36 AM on October 26, 2003
We vote with paper and pencil up here in Canada, so come on up! Heck, our dollar is catching up too, so you might as well all move here now. :)
posted by tiamat at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2003
posted by tiamat at 10:38 AM on October 26, 2003
Good , next step: more publishing and get rid of evoting fraud.
posted by elpapacito at 12:06 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by elpapacito at 12:06 PM on October 26, 2003
milovoo, i have come to the conclusion that it is not unfixable. With a means to instantly rig any election the system is broken. It now needs to be removed and replaced with a new order. The revolution is coming folks, i just dont know then yet.
posted by MrLint at 12:26 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by MrLint at 12:26 PM on October 26, 2003
From Swarthmore College's Phoenix Online
http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2003-10-23/news/13346
" (the Diebold) memos include excerpts that admit that a precinct in Florida in the 2000 presidential elections gave Al Gore minus 16,022 votes when uploaded into the county tally — more than the number of votes by which Gore lost the presidency. Another admits that a generic Smart Card, available for purchase by the public, could attain administrative status on a voting machine — and thus change the number of votes counted — simply if someone inserted it into that machine. "
There's a whole website on this, with a downloadable book on the subject at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=usacoup
posted by gregb1007 at 12:50 PM on October 26, 2003
http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2003-10-23/news/13346
" (the Diebold) memos include excerpts that admit that a precinct in Florida in the 2000 presidential elections gave Al Gore minus 16,022 votes when uploaded into the county tally — more than the number of votes by which Gore lost the presidency. Another admits that a generic Smart Card, available for purchase by the public, could attain administrative status on a voting machine — and thus change the number of votes counted — simply if someone inserted it into that machine. "
There's a whole website on this, with a downloadable book on the subject at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=usacoup
posted by gregb1007 at 12:50 PM on October 26, 2003
odd. phoenix.swarthmore.edu is non-responsive, meanwhile www.sccs.swarthmore.edu wants me to download a unix directory. somebody messed up pretty bad.
posted by dabitch at 2:04 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by dabitch at 2:04 PM on October 26, 2003
Now that we found love what are we going to do with it?
posted by the fire you left me at 2:30 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by the fire you left me at 2:30 PM on October 26, 2003
Can't get to it now either even though it worked fine just a couple of hours ago
posted by gregb1007 at 2:30 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by gregb1007 at 2:30 PM on October 26, 2003
Good ol' Swarthmore is shutting down sites that link to Diebold. More info here.
posted by chino at 2:36 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by chino at 2:36 PM on October 26, 2003
(the Diebold) memos include excerpts that admit that a precinct in Florida in the 2000 presidential elections gave Al Gore minus 16,022 votes when uploaded into the county tally — more than the number of votes by which Gore lost the presidency.
I'd just like to point out a few other statements in the report, since all the commentary here is very misleading.
First, the report also says that a glitch "in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed". And again, "After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified".
The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right? And it also established that, had Gore's legal team been successful, Bush would have won by an even wider margin?
Ergo, while there might have been an attempt at vote fixing, it didn't succeed. That's something, at least.
posted by gd779 at 3:03 PM on October 26, 2003
I'd just like to point out a few other statements in the report, since all the commentary here is very misleading.
First, the report also says that a glitch "in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed". And again, "After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified".
The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right? And it also established that, had Gore's legal team been successful, Bush would have won by an even wider margin?
Ergo, while there might have been an attempt at vote fixing, it didn't succeed. That's something, at least.
posted by gd779 at 3:03 PM on October 26, 2003
(1) The phoenix site works for me. You could also try this URL
(2) You can't ping the SCCS since the SCCS is behind Swarthmore's ICMP-filtering gateway.
(3) I'll heckle SCCS staff to do something about the website.
posted by tss at 3:11 PM on October 26, 2003
(2) You can't ping the SCCS since the SCCS is behind Swarthmore's ICMP-filtering gateway.
(3) I'll heckle SCCS staff to do something about the website.
posted by tss at 3:11 PM on October 26, 2003
[gd779] The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right?
Not that it's all that relevant to this thread, but no, not necessarily. Even if you leave out things like the purge of the voter rolls, "Bush would have likely emerged the victor if only undervotes were counted, while Gore would likely have won had all the ballots, both overvotes and undervotes, been counted. "
posted by ook at 4:05 PM on October 26, 2003
Not that it's all that relevant to this thread, but no, not necessarily. Even if you leave out things like the purge of the voter rolls, "Bush would have likely emerged the victor if only undervotes were counted, while Gore would likely have won had all the ballots, both overvotes and undervotes, been counted. "
posted by ook at 4:05 PM on October 26, 2003
gd779, you have misunderstood the New Zealand News account. It's not that the mistake of Al Gore getting negative votes was rectified; there was no mistake in the first place. The original memory card in the voting machine during the Volusia County election was falsely purported to be defective and under this pretext was replaced with a new memory card that gave Al Gore negative votes.
From the article: "Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia County's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates;"
The defectiveness pretext doesn't stand up to scrutinity. The report says that "both memory cards [the original one as well as its replacement] loaded into the system clean and without errors, indicating (contrary to the official line) that they were not faulty." Thus the motive for a replacement seems to be to reduce Gore's votes rather than connect any problem.
That explains what the article really means by its quote about how "after the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified." Under a false pretext of defectiveness, the old card was taken out and replaced by a new one with 16,000 negative votes for Al Gore.
posted by gregb1007 at 4:20 PM on October 26, 2003
From the article: "Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia County's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates;"
The defectiveness pretext doesn't stand up to scrutinity. The report says that "both memory cards [the original one as well as its replacement] loaded into the system clean and without errors, indicating (contrary to the official line) that they were not faulty." Thus the motive for a replacement seems to be to reduce Gore's votes rather than connect any problem.
That explains what the article really means by its quote about how "after the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified." Under a false pretext of defectiveness, the old card was taken out and replaced by a new one with 16,000 negative votes for Al Gore.
posted by gregb1007 at 4:20 PM on October 26, 2003
gd779: Ergo, while there might have been an attempt at vote fixing, it didn't succeed. That's something, at least.
Massive, unexplainable mistakes were found, and rectified, in two counties. But...
The Article: nobody knows whether the Brevard and Volusia county errors were the only ones in play at this time. These errors were both big ones. They were noticed and corrected on the night. How many smaller vote subtractions could have taken place on the night?
posted by jeffj at 4:20 PM on October 26, 2003
Massive, unexplainable mistakes were found, and rectified, in two counties. But...
The Article: nobody knows whether the Brevard and Volusia county errors were the only ones in play at this time. These errors were both big ones. They were noticed and corrected on the night. How many smaller vote subtractions could have taken place on the night?
posted by jeffj at 4:20 PM on October 26, 2003
2am in the morning.
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by kayjay at 4:30 PM on October 26, 2003
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by kayjay at 4:30 PM on October 26, 2003
First, the report also says that a glitch "in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed". And again, "After the error was noticed the original card was reloaded and the mistake was rectified"....Ergo, while there might have been an attempt at vote fixing, it didn't succeed. That's something, at least.
Oh? Disregarding the possibility that the great mass of icebergs consist only of their tips (in this case, one icy peak consists of a corporation supplying voting machines nationwide, run by one Walden O'Dell, who has stated he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to Bush next year), how could we have any confidence whatsoever in "rectification", given an electronic voting system so insecure?
For more information on the issue at large, see info on the Diebold memos here.
The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right?
No. There is widespread acknowledgment that using the fairest, most obvious, most inclusive, least disenfranchising criteria for deciding the outcome of the Florida vote (that of "voter intent", ie counting obviously discernible intent in undervotes and overvotes), Gore would have easily won Florida.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:47 PM on October 26, 2003
Oh? Disregarding the possibility that the great mass of icebergs consist only of their tips (in this case, one icy peak consists of a corporation supplying voting machines nationwide, run by one Walden O'Dell, who has stated he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to Bush next year), how could we have any confidence whatsoever in "rectification", given an electronic voting system so insecure?
For more information on the issue at large, see info on the Diebold memos here.
The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right?
No. There is widespread acknowledgment that using the fairest, most obvious, most inclusive, least disenfranchising criteria for deciding the outcome of the Florida vote (that of "voter intent", ie counting obviously discernible intent in undervotes and overvotes), Gore would have easily won Florida.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:47 PM on October 26, 2003
gregb1007:
Actually I think you have misunderstood the article. The second upload, which overwrote the data from the first was the one with -16,000 gore votes. That error was noticed and corrected (giving Gore his 16,000 votes back). However this huge messup was responsible for the networks' calling the election to Bush (only to be recinded later).
Also, gd779:
The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right? And it also established that, had Gore's legal team been successful, Bush would have won by an even wider margin?
That's all well and good but given the complete lack of audit trail and security in the Diebold election systems used in many locations during that election, it's entirely possible that other totals were incorrectly reported, and no one would EVER be able to tell. The only reason the two in this article were caught is because they were big enough and strange enough for people to notice. A few hundred votes here and there, especially in strong Republican areas would never be noticed.
The details here are shocking. The complete lack of security and accountabilty are incredible.
The idea of the USA standing up high as a pillar of democracy is almost laugable when you consider the farce surrounding the last presidential elections.
posted by sycophant at 6:58 PM on October 26, 2003
Actually I think you have misunderstood the article. The second upload, which overwrote the data from the first was the one with -16,000 gore votes. That error was noticed and corrected (giving Gore his 16,000 votes back). However this huge messup was responsible for the networks' calling the election to Bush (only to be recinded later).
Also, gd779:
The comprehensive newspaper recount established as certainly as possible that Bush won the election, right? And it also established that, had Gore's legal team been successful, Bush would have won by an even wider margin?
That's all well and good but given the complete lack of audit trail and security in the Diebold election systems used in many locations during that election, it's entirely possible that other totals were incorrectly reported, and no one would EVER be able to tell. The only reason the two in this article were caught is because they were big enough and strange enough for people to notice. A few hundred votes here and there, especially in strong Republican areas would never be noticed.
The details here are shocking. The complete lack of security and accountabilty are incredible.
The idea of the USA standing up high as a pillar of democracy is almost laugable when you consider the farce surrounding the last presidential elections.
posted by sycophant at 6:58 PM on October 26, 2003
sycophant, I must admit I did misunderstand the article.... but to my credit, I was partially mislead by other sources that claimed that the negative votes went uncorrected..... I guess I have to be more vigilant in watching out for hyperbole in the future....
posted by gregb1007 at 7:55 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by gregb1007 at 7:55 PM on October 26, 2003
"I'm picking out a President for you...no not an ordinary President, for you...but the extra best President, you can buy...with deficits and war, and a smirk built right in!"
posted by trondant at 8:22 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by trondant at 8:22 PM on October 26, 2003
Want to be something truly terrifying on Halloween?
posted by homunculus at 8:23 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by homunculus at 8:23 PM on October 26, 2003
This is at least the third time this (general issue) has been discussed here. Why haven't 60 Minutes, 20/20, Dateline, etc. picked up on this? (Or have I just missed it?)
posted by AstroGuy at 9:10 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by AstroGuy at 9:10 PM on October 26, 2003
sycophant,
I think you misunderstood the article.
From the article:
Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia Couny's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates
posted by bas67 at 9:22 PM on October 26, 2003
I think you misunderstood the article.
From the article:
Two memory cards were uploaded from Volusia Couny's precinct 216, the second one was loaded sometime close to 2am in the morning. It automatically replaced the first card's results and reduced Gore's total by 16,022 votes and added several thousand votes to Bush plus a variety of minor candidates
posted by bas67 at 9:22 PM on October 26, 2003
Even if this was corrected in this case how many other counties could this have happened in and gone unnoticed?
posted by bas67 at 9:27 PM on October 26, 2003
posted by bas67 at 9:27 PM on October 26, 2003
What I don't understand is something that I saw empirically that night. At the point that the networks had called the election for Bush, I was watching the vote totals on the board. There was a large number of votes left to count. Every x number of minutes, the vote total that Bush was ahead was diminishing by 100x votes. If you extrapolated from that trendline, you immediately saw that when all the votes were counted, that Bush and Gore would be tied.
Yet none of the networks noticed that for a very long time until it was so obvious that a chipmunk would have figured it out. Only then did they put the vote back into the undecided category. Gore almost publically conceded the race before the networks reverted to undecided. Had Gore publically conceded, it would probably have been irreversible.
I continued to stay up and watch the results late into the night because I keep seeing the results get closer and closer to a tie at a steady rate. I knew it was going to be incredibly close an hour before the networks figured it out, and I was only seeing the data the networks were reporting. I just don't understand why they left calling it for Bush for so long.
posted by Xoc at 10:24 PM on October 26, 2003
Yet none of the networks noticed that for a very long time until it was so obvious that a chipmunk would have figured it out. Only then did they put the vote back into the undecided category. Gore almost publically conceded the race before the networks reverted to undecided. Had Gore publically conceded, it would probably have been irreversible.
I continued to stay up and watch the results late into the night because I keep seeing the results get closer and closer to a tie at a steady rate. I knew it was going to be incredibly close an hour before the networks figured it out, and I was only seeing the data the networks were reporting. I just don't understand why they left calling it for Bush for so long.
posted by Xoc at 10:24 PM on October 26, 2003
Disclaimer: I actually observed the Volusia County recount for the Gore Campaign.
I tuned out this article/e-book/whatever after the third paragraph because it seems (to me) to be an unfounded conspiracy theory and it doesn't really focus on the real scandal of the 2000 Election.
Gore petitioned for a hand-recount in Volusia County because our numbers were significantly off from the reported numbers. In fact, it was the first county targeted for a number of reasons, one of which was because we thought we would recover (i.e., correctly count) the margin. (At this point there were only a few hundred votes in between Bush and Gore.)
I didn't like a lot of the Republican laywers I met while observing the manual recount in the Volusia County Courthouse. But I will say that the judge was very fair and that by and large, both Republicans and Democrats made certain to count fairly the votes. It was a pretty straight-forward count in Volusia -- every vote was examined, and then all were tallied for the new county total. Sorry to report that these supposed 10,000 or 20,000 memory card-deducted votes just weren't there.
I personally am more concerned by the series of events (and the odd votes) in Palm Beach. I would rant and rave, but I have to get back to studying... More later.
posted by jennak at 10:32 PM on October 26, 2003
I tuned out this article/e-book/whatever after the third paragraph because it seems (to me) to be an unfounded conspiracy theory and it doesn't really focus on the real scandal of the 2000 Election.
Gore petitioned for a hand-recount in Volusia County because our numbers were significantly off from the reported numbers. In fact, it was the first county targeted for a number of reasons, one of which was because we thought we would recover (i.e., correctly count) the margin. (At this point there were only a few hundred votes in between Bush and Gore.)
I didn't like a lot of the Republican laywers I met while observing the manual recount in the Volusia County Courthouse. But I will say that the judge was very fair and that by and large, both Republicans and Democrats made certain to count fairly the votes. It was a pretty straight-forward count in Volusia -- every vote was examined, and then all were tallied for the new county total. Sorry to report that these supposed 10,000 or 20,000 memory card-deducted votes just weren't there.
I personally am more concerned by the series of events (and the odd votes) in Palm Beach. I would rant and rave, but I have to get back to studying... More later.
posted by jennak at 10:32 PM on October 26, 2003
Mmmmmm. With all that beating, this here horse should be nice 'n tender even tho she been dead for nigh on three years, ayup.
Honestly, uberscandal or not, get over it. Concern yourself with 13 months from now when we can actually _do_ something about the world's most powerful chimp.
posted by skatz at 10:47 PM on October 26, 2003
Honestly, uberscandal or not, get over it. Concern yourself with 13 months from now when we can actually _do_ something about the world's most powerful chimp.
posted by skatz at 10:47 PM on October 26, 2003
bas67:
That's precisely my point - that particular error was discovered and corrected. Not, as gregb1007 said, "the old card was taken out and replaced by a new one with 16,000 negative votes for Al Gore."
If this was a delibrate alteration, as the article implies, then it seems likely that other 'errors' went unnoticed.
posted by sycophant at 11:43 PM on October 26, 2003
That's precisely my point - that particular error was discovered and corrected. Not, as gregb1007 said, "the old card was taken out and replaced by a new one with 16,000 negative votes for Al Gore."
If this was a delibrate alteration, as the article implies, then it seems likely that other 'errors' went unnoticed.
posted by sycophant at 11:43 PM on October 26, 2003
Get over it
We've been hearing that for 30 years now.
Wait for 13 months and you'll have another trauma. Have a look at this Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America
posted by Twang at 2:31 AM on October 27, 2003
We've been hearing that for 30 years now.
Wait for 13 months and you'll have another trauma. Have a look at this Brief History of Computerized Election Fraud in America
posted by Twang at 2:31 AM on October 27, 2003
jennak, no one is claiming that there were 16,000 votes for Gore in Volusia County that were erased. What's been shown is that, initially, Volusia County reported -16,000 votes for Gore which would have been added to the state total had this particularly egregious error not been noticed. And the question raised is whether or not more minor, less obvious errors in other counties might not have gone unnoticed.
And, Twang, fascinating link.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:59 AM on October 27, 2003
And, Twang, fascinating link.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:59 AM on October 27, 2003
Honestly, uberscandal or not, get over it.
Get over telling me to get over it 'cause it ain't gonna happen. Ever.
posted by nofundy at 7:30 AM on October 27, 2003
Get over telling me to get over it 'cause it ain't gonna happen. Ever.
posted by nofundy at 7:30 AM on October 27, 2003
Honestly, uberscandal or not, get over it. Concern yourself with 13 months from now when we can actually _do_ something about the world's most powerful chimp.
I'm sick and tired of being told to "get over" things that are not only historically significant but ongoing.
Still, skatz has the right idea: We should be concentrating not on picking apart how Diebold may have helped with the original uberscandal, but on how they're planning to create the next. More specifically, I'm disappointed that there's not more discussion of what's going on with the memos and the Swarthmore students on a day-to-day basis, as well as ideas for getting this information spread around (including to other student accounts at other universities, as is happening) and into the mainstream media as soon as possible. Come on, folks, this could be kind of important!
posted by soyjoy at 7:31 AM on October 27, 2003
I'm sick and tired of being told to "get over" things that are not only historically significant but ongoing.
Still, skatz has the right idea: We should be concentrating not on picking apart how Diebold may have helped with the original uberscandal, but on how they're planning to create the next. More specifically, I'm disappointed that there's not more discussion of what's going on with the memos and the Swarthmore students on a day-to-day basis, as well as ideas for getting this information spread around (including to other student accounts at other universities, as is happening) and into the mainstream media as soon as possible. Come on, folks, this could be kind of important!
posted by soyjoy at 7:31 AM on October 27, 2003
Yes, soyjoy is right. We have to get the mainstream media to pay attention to this story - that's the way the American public will become concerned about the potential problems that Diebold can cause in the next election.
posted by gregb1007 at 8:42 AM on October 27, 2003
posted by gregb1007 at 8:42 AM on October 27, 2003
What's been shown is that, initially, Volusia County reported -16,000 votes for Gore which would have been added to the state total had this particularly egregious error not been noticed. And the question raised is whether or not more minor, less obvious errors in other counties might not have gone unnoticed.
No, it doesn't show that point. In fact, linking to silly conspiracy stories like this only hurt that point.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with you -- errors in recording caused the media to call the race early, and because the race was incorrectly called for Bush to begin with, it was Gore's race to lose. (Even though they were statistically tied.)
What I'm saying is that the "memory card" story sounds like BS.
posted by jennak at 1:09 PM on October 27, 2003
No, it doesn't show that point. In fact, linking to silly conspiracy stories like this only hurt that point.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with you -- errors in recording caused the media to call the race early, and because the race was incorrectly called for Bush to begin with, it was Gore's race to lose. (Even though they were statistically tied.)
What I'm saying is that the "memory card" story sounds like BS.
posted by jennak at 1:09 PM on October 27, 2003
thanks soyjoy, that's exactly what i was getting at. I never meant to imply we should forget about the election scandal(s) but that we should learn our lessons from past history and move on, then make sure that it won't happen again. Twang: i'm glad you've seen those sites as well, some good info to pick through and hopefully some to put into action. next time i'll pull the tounge a little farther out of my cheek...
posted by skatz at 2:43 PM on October 27, 2003
posted by skatz at 2:43 PM on October 27, 2003
No, it doesn't show that point. In fact, linking to silly conspiracy stories like this only hurt that point.
Um...
I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".
Lana Hires – Volusia County Florida - January 17, 2001 8:07 AM
One card was uploaded with the original total. Later, a second card was uploaded with -16022 votes for Gore from the last card and tacked onto the totals of other candidates. The error was noticed and the original card was uploaded, restoring the total.
Since the matter was dealt with that night, it would not have shown up in the recount since 16022 -16022 +16022 =16022.
The question is not *whether* the second card happened but *how* the second card happened, and whether similar (less noticable) things may have happened elsewhere.
posted by kayjay at 3:59 PM on October 27, 2003
Um...
I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here "looking dumb".
Lana Hires – Volusia County Florida - January 17, 2001 8:07 AM
One card was uploaded with the original total. Later, a second card was uploaded with -16022 votes for Gore from the last card and tacked onto the totals of other candidates. The error was noticed and the original card was uploaded, restoring the total.
Since the matter was dealt with that night, it would not have shown up in the recount since 16022 -16022 +16022 =16022.
The question is not *whether* the second card happened but *how* the second card happened, and whether similar (less noticable) things may have happened elsewhere.
posted by kayjay at 3:59 PM on October 27, 2003
I'm just saying -- I observed the recount in that county first hand, and this issue never came up at all.
I'm not going to believe something just because it's on the internet. A more credible news source would cause me to change my assessment of the situation.
posted by jennak at 8:35 PM on October 27, 2003
I'm not going to believe something just because it's on the internet. A more credible news source would cause me to change my assessment of the situation.
posted by jennak at 8:35 PM on October 27, 2003
A firsthand memo from a Diebold employee isn't a 'credible news source'? One that Diebold is claiming copyright on in an attempt to take down?
You're right, the article linked here is more confusing than helpful -- but the memos themselves, which are available at why war? in full, are pretty damn clear.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:56 PM on October 27, 2003
You're right, the article linked here is more confusing than helpful -- but the memos themselves, which are available at why war? in full, are pretty damn clear.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:56 PM on October 27, 2003
skatz: Concern yourself with 13 months from now when we can actually _do_ something about the world's most powerful chimp.
Maybe. Depends how far the rigging's gotten.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:07 AM on October 28, 2003
Maybe. Depends how far the rigging's gotten.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:07 AM on October 28, 2003
Aside from my doubts about *this* particular county incident...I agree that there are very real problems with the security of our votes.
After a few recounts, I had decided that I liked optical scans (which is the method that Volusia County uses) the best. It's a big 8.5x11" ballot that one fills out with pen and then scans through the machine. It's essentially a big scantron. If there's an error in your ballot, it spits it back at you.
But then I thought about the device itself. People are so scared of Internet Voting because of rigging, viruses, DoS, etc.... but then assume that electronic devices that aren't connected to the internet must be error- and hack-proof.
It seems an electronic system would have to constantly upgrade to prevent tampering. I'm not sure that most counties would be willing or could pay for that upkeep. (I don't really buy the concept of "verifiable voting." If someone can hack an electronic voting device, why not rig it so it can also spit out biased vote reports?)
Currently, all methods of voting have serious issues -- whether security vulnerabilities, or a higher percentage of ambiguous votes. Which is the better evil? Would you want to cast a vote knowing that there's a good chance your vote will not come out punched correctly? Would you rather cast your vote on an electronic device that's prone to hacking?
posted by jennak at 6:03 AM on October 28, 2003
After a few recounts, I had decided that I liked optical scans (which is the method that Volusia County uses) the best. It's a big 8.5x11" ballot that one fills out with pen and then scans through the machine. It's essentially a big scantron. If there's an error in your ballot, it spits it back at you.
But then I thought about the device itself. People are so scared of Internet Voting because of rigging, viruses, DoS, etc.... but then assume that electronic devices that aren't connected to the internet must be error- and hack-proof.
It seems an electronic system would have to constantly upgrade to prevent tampering. I'm not sure that most counties would be willing or could pay for that upkeep. (I don't really buy the concept of "verifiable voting." If someone can hack an electronic voting device, why not rig it so it can also spit out biased vote reports?)
Currently, all methods of voting have serious issues -- whether security vulnerabilities, or a higher percentage of ambiguous votes. Which is the better evil? Would you want to cast a vote knowing that there's a good chance your vote will not come out punched correctly? Would you rather cast your vote on an electronic device that's prone to hacking?
posted by jennak at 6:03 AM on October 28, 2003
But then I thought about the device itself. People are so scared of Internet Voting because of rigging, viruses, DoS, etc.... but then assume that electronic devices that aren't connected to the internet must be error- and hack-proof.
They may not be error or hack proof, but the paper ballot remains to confirm of deny the result if there is a question. If the *only* record of the voting is the one that may have been hacked, then where are you?
posted by kayjay at 4:05 PM on October 29, 2003
They may not be error or hack proof, but the paper ballot remains to confirm of deny the result if there is a question. If the *only* record of the voting is the one that may have been hacked, then where are you?
posted by kayjay at 4:05 PM on October 29, 2003
« Older Dezain: Designalicious! | Would this happen in the US? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22
posted by wsg at 9:58 AM on October 26, 2003