for now we need for everyone to leave a paper trail with an objective committee before they leave the polling place after using the machines. A simple 7 box page with the choice of President three boxes (well there is a green party) two boxes for Congressman and two for Senator. Now who to leave it will would be a question.

100% of them.

There is no reason this couldn't be done nationally. When election races are close, we end up waiting for days for final results. We could just do manual counts and be done with it.

I don't have any problem using optical scanners of paper ballots for preliminary results.

When you request a paper ballot in NY State, you get a provisional ballot. These ballots are only counted if the machine counts are very close. I know that this is SOP in both Dutchess and Ulster counties. I do know that all counties in the state were mandated to buy these new machines, whether they wanted to or not.

I have been working with voting machines since before these computerized ones came into play. I have been managing a 2000 user network since I built it from a "pup" almost 20 years ago. I can tell you for certain that the database (Microsoft SQL) can be hacked via SQL injection, or any other means. It can be altered to flip results, and nobody will ever know that it happened, unless they examine the entire code.

that someone else agrees with me, and he's a Republican. NY may still have some decent people as Republicans, but they are few, and far between.
It must be costing Columbia County a lot of money to hand count all the votes.
That's probably why other counties do not do this. Perhaps they don't have that many votes to count, but I am speculating.

I think in the past people voted absentee to avoid the machines. Too late for that now.

I'm goin ta bed...JUST KIDDING!

record things if they go wrong on the screen, like names switching out. record anyone outside the polling place intimidating voters.

If you could prove who you voted for, then you could sell your vote.

Has that been changed for outside of the polling place?

Every county has their own laws. here in my county the law says you can video 100 feet from the polling place entrance.

You can also monitor, or watch, inside the polling place. Any citizen legally can. You can NOT see or film the screens. That would be illegal.

generally it IS legal to film inside, but the county clerks do not want to let you. Check the law in your county/state.

Filming outside the 100 foot border is clearly an ok place to video, especially if it is on public property (town hall, school, etc). I would guess that filming on private property requires the owner's consent. I have no idea about the DMZ (inside the 100 feet, but not in the booth).

can tap into these types of machines remotely. Satellite DirecTV for ships at sea uses this method so DirecTV techs onshore thousands of miles away can re-tune/calibrate the satellite receiver.

DirecTV for ships uses the same technology as Tomahawk cruise missiles to lock on to satellite signals while the ship pitches and rolls, and sometimes it wanders off lat/long coordinates. Net Meeting fixes this, just like it can be used on Diebold-like voting machines miles away.

no FN duh! And only 8 short years after the biggest election fraud ever. How timely.

those who were concerned as "conspiracy theorists" We do have an election fraud forum here. I haven't been there recently as I lived there for a good four years, and boy oh boy, do the voting machine companies like to protect their reputations and lovely product lines.

to the video of machine tampering done in 2004 by a university. Or is it a rerun of I Love Lucy? Either way I recall that it was pretty good.

They are at least as hackable now as they were then.

GOTV is the only way for now. Get out the vote,.

?

non sequiter, plus I have been at the computer non-stop since yesterday evening, and I should be doing some actual work.

Mama mia Pedro! Save me Sacred Heart of Jesus!

Since Dems can hack as easily as Republicans, this ought to concern everyone. Hell, noncitizens can hack.

doesn't it?

Why can they still be and why are we still talking about it as if it is some thing new, just because the methodology has changed a bit?

Activists screaming at the top of their lungs about it were crackpots, nuts, conspiracy theorists.

Color me not surprised.

spyware on my computer and what all else.

have been going on for a long time. At some point, people will wake up, but not until there's a video of someone hacking a live election.

Sad, but true.

Maybe someday, when it's not so critical to elect a DEM President, we can all vote for Mickey Mouse and prove it without video.

Is if someone steals the election in an undeniably obvious way. Say by letting Big Bird win an entire state with 100% of the votes.

I've come up with a few ideas that are as different as chalk and cheese.

And on the subject of that trust, one telling thing is the very simple fact that a company like Diebold already had several good solid secure device designs, (ATMs) which could have very easily been repurposed as voting machines. And yet they chose to chuck an ATX board running a crippled but not locked down version of Windows inside a flimsy plastic case secured by a bogroll dispenser lock.

At every point where interference with the voting machine is least detectable, whenever questions of security are raised, the answer is to trust that the persons in a position to carry out such interference won't do so, because someone probably told them not to.

When you insist on retaining that which has been repeatedly identified as totally unacceptable security flaw as a "hidden" feature, there is only one viable conclusion to be drawn. Someone with the power to make it so, wants to be able to tamper with the system.

This is just a simpler and more elegant way of doing it.

And my bog roll dispenser key still fits the lock.

Failing a job in the bog buffing trade, a second or two with a snap pick, or ten with a bobby pin will get you in.

As an absolute first: devices like POS terminals and electronic voting machines should be totally sealed units. SOLID blocks of catalytically fused polymer.

And really if you are going to have fully electronic voting, then realistically the smart thing to do is to make every possible step along the way, "too stupid to be fooled" with dedicated electronics. Never let a general purpose (and thus repurposable and corruptable) device occupy any critical part of the voting process. Wherever practicable follow up an electronic transfer of polling data with a physical confimation.

Nobody knows what's in that propitiatory software. The software needs to be open source, so anyone can look at the software itself for problems and the maintenance people can compare any particular machine to what is supposed to be there. That can not be done now.

You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.

People mistakenly quote this to Stalin: 'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'

that will do it. they can't stop many millions. they can 't get away with that.

that will be used in Texas, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Washington, Colorado and Ohio.

http://veracitystew.com/2012/10/03/cheating-with-voting-machines/

F'ing itself!

GOTV!!

really get disgusted with it all!!!

If we get out and vote, then after election day, PAY ATTENTION to our LOCAL VOTING PRECINCT'S results, we can protest the count if it looks like there's funny business.

I do know that in NY State, the machines that they chose, use a Microsoft SQL database for the elections. The machines come back from the polls, and their results are fed into one computer, which compiles all the results. The problem is that these databases and other applications are not secure, and they can be manipulated. Because the code is proprietary, it cannot be examined legally. This leaves them open to anyone who could construct a simple algorithm to flip a certain percentage of votes, provided they have access to the machines. One should also take note that the main computer runs Windows XP. This version of windows is known to have bugs in doing simple math problems.

At least in NY, the code is not secure, but the machines are fairly secure. There are seals on any place where one could tamper with them. This includes the place where the memory card is installed, and removed for compilation on the main election computer. The chain of custody is well documented, so should something arise, at least one could tell who had custody of the machine, and when they had it.

NY was the last state that went to these computerized voting machines, because we didn't like them, and raised a big stink to the State Board of Elections about it. Some of us explained that we already had our Tammany Hall, and had fixed it with the mechanical machines that we all used since the 1930s and 40s. I have worked on these machines as well, and they are impossible to hack, due to the interlocking mechanical elements of the machines, and the counters within them. I had insisted that NY not use proprietary software to count votes. That we needed to be able to examine the code to make sure that it was counting correctly, and compiling results correctly.

The machines in NY are not the type mentioned, so as far as being able to be hacked by remote control, I do not see how this can be done. The machines that count the ballots read into them are stand alone, with no connection, either wired or wireless. Each ballot counting machine has a self-contained PC inside of it with an oversized UPS, in case of a power outage. This could be different if there is a wireless connection, or if votes are sent to the main computer over public telephone or data lines. Perhaps the Diebold machines have this capability. I just don't know.

I do know that if we turn out in large numbers, it will be harder for them to change the results. Especially if people pay attention to their local precinct's counts. These counts are generally available from county boards of elections within a few days of an election. If the counts are way off, one could bring this to the attention of these boards, as well as the press, and perhaps something can be done with it before the election is certified.

... is NOT a front burner, platform ISSUE with the Democratic Party.

92% of ALL Americans (Democrats & Republicans) favor Transparent, verifiable elections.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445
An EASY Win/Win for whichever party picks up that fallen flag,
yet, only SILENCE form the Party leadership.

Only waaaayyyy out on the Fringe Left Wing can you find a Democrat wiling to talk about this problem,
and he got "redistricted".

Maybe they don't believe it's a threat. Maybe they believe the propoganda and "stories" created around the issue.

I know that Rep.Jan Schakowsky used to think it was the province of the overly paranoid, but she changed her views a few years back.

I once met her at a meet-up in Park Forest Ill. and spoke on the issue briefly. She had that wary look about her at the time. And then there was an article about her change of heart, an actual apology. and I think she discussed the topic of hackable machines on the old Olbermann newscast. (She had read by then read Kennedy's article on 2004) it never hurts to speak face-to-face cogently wiyh your reps. Plant that idea in thier heads.

http://electionfraudblog.com/2006/congresswoman-apologizes-for-not-taking-allegations-of-stolen-2004-election-seriously/

Rolling stone article by Robert kennedy Jr on 2004 theft of electionr:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm