Attn: Black Box Voting naysayers: What evidence would convince you?

Some DUers have poo-pooed the idea that the voting machines might be rigged. Which of the following would change your mind to the extent that you would call for a paper trail AND open source, along with an immediate moratorium on electronic vote-counting until solutions are in place?

a) Nothing.
b) Evidence of changing votes (specify what kind of evidence will suffice?)
c) Evidence of deliberate malfeasance, i.e. voting manufacturers knowingly lying to certifiers about material facts
d) Evidence of deliberately nefarious programming, i.e. items in the program which could facilitate election-tampering, for which no benign explanation can be offered
e) A confession by someone in the know (what would they need to confess to?)
f) Evidence of improper computer code (i.e. code that is expressly forbidden by the FEC that is not satisfactorily explained by the manufacturer)
g) Evidence of bribery or racketeering among those who certify, recommend or purchase the machines
h) Proof that the triple set of books, bypassable passwords and overwritable audit trail exposed earlier this month (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm) is actually being used in the programs used in county election offices
i) already convinced before this month

Please weigh in.
Bev Harris
Black Box Voting

because of b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? Or -- ??

I'd really like to know what your point is.

Eloriel

Nothing more is needed to convince him -- or me for that matter. The trick is getting enough traction (or enough concerned Dems) for a GAO investigation.

I'm also convinced when "trade secrets" were put as a priority over voting rights

In other words, I have already been convinced from previous sordid details (thanks to Bev Harris and others).

And I agree with Rooktoven here, voting machine code should by law be open source, especially based upon my knowledge and experience of computer programming and commercial software firms.

A paper trail or double entry is essential. Otherwise fraud is invited.

Changing the laws in every state to allow HUMANS to look at the ballots is the other half. At this time, many states do not allow the paper ballots to be checked by people! The ballots are printed in a format that is read using optical scanners. If the code used by the optical scanning units to tabulate the votes is the same as the code used to tabulate the votes in the touch screens what good is it?
:shrug:

The paper ballots are numbered. However, it's true. The paper votes should be hand counted by humans for a second tabulation.

I won't disregard all of the other possible abuses that you listed but show me a race that was wrongly declared and I'm a convert.

Scurry County IIRC.

All electronic machines that produced seriously flawed results. So bad in fact that the election was reversed.

Purely out of curiosity, was it a Diebold setup?

If the results were "seriously flawed", how was that detected? I thought the entire problem was that if votes were miscounted or altered, there'd be no way to know.

JC

Scurry County used ES&S machines, and the machines miscounted so badly they announced a landslide win for a Democrat as a Republican victory.

Will you answer the question?

Bev

I did answer the question.

Interesting that it was ES&S.

I still want to understand how we know the machines miscounted. I don't dispute that they did, I just want to know how it was ascertained. I keep hearing over and over again that there's no way to know if the machines miscount because there's no evidence or paper trail etc. and yet it's apparently detectable when they do.

JC

People are under the mistaken impression that optical scan machines will never be tampered with. As long as people aren't allowed to count the paper ballots (even when they WANT to) the O.S. machines are quite vulnerable.

However, in Texas, the poll workers became suspicious and (according to one report I read) took it upon themselves to examine the ballots. I don't have my notes in front of me on this, but I think my memory serves me correctly on this.

Many of the touch screen problems are identified because the number of votes differs markedly from the number of votes cast. In some cases (Florida, 2002) the machines count more votes than there were voters; in other cases (Bernalillo County, NM, 2002) the machines count far fewer votes than there were voters.

And in other cases (Johnson County, KS) the machines' internal tally does not match the county tally. In that case, the election workers took it upon themselves to look at the tallies inside the machines, instead of waiting for the Diebold technician.

Bev

Are the Florida cases you're referring to run by Diebold? Is the Bernalillo County example? I'm inferring that the Johnson County case must be, if they were waiting for a Diebold technician.

JC

A previous Bernalillo problem (60,000 votes, 2000) was Diebold, then called Global Election Systems.

Bev

Just been waiting for the evidence to catch up with my gut.

It was under the name of Global Election Systems then.

If the machines were rigged, a statewide hand count would have been a disaster, by the way. Would have exposed it.

Suddenly, after 2000, we are rushing headlong into voting machines that can never be hand-counted. Did someone get scared?

Bev

and that is what I have been on this you bring up a good point. But, there are two seperate issues here. One is could there be fraud. Two is is there fraud. You have convinced me of the first which is why I worked to try to make sure we got a decent machine for our county. I am unconvinced of two. I think we lost the races we lost due to our voters not turning out. It is both that sad and that simple. Most states where we lost didn't have the machines yet. We lost uniformly. The issues were similar where we lost. It would take one of c through h to get me thinking on question 2.

practices are double entry, not only because of mistakes, but also fraud. Two sources are better than one. So there should be an accounting trail to verify results, especially when there is a question of accuracy. I know Bev talks of a paper trail. It doesn't have to be paper but it should be a traceable source document.

I haven't seen the Diebold machines or how they operate, but in my precinct, we have a numbered ballot we fill out that is scanned into a machine. In case of a questionable result the numbered paper ballots can be used to verify results by a hand count. The diebold machines should have something similar.

last year they began scanning the completed ballots into a reader of some sort

how does that system stack up

I HATE those punch cards, BTW. VERY easy to make mistakes, and it took several minutes to pull chads off.

I've spent many hours over the last three weeks trying to put together a matrix of the election laws for all 50 states to post both here and at Black Box Voting.org. You would not believe what a task it's been! Many states don't have their laws posted on line and a number will only sell you the information! If I wasn't broke and unemployed I'd gladly pay to get them and take the time to scan and post them but as it is I have to rely on 'other methods' to get them. All in all I'd rather give a donation to DU! :)

States like Georgia have written provisions into their laws that make it impossible to get a machine in dispute adequately inspected. The Georgia law stipulates that three people, a patent attorney and two mechanics, be appointed by law to look at the computerized machines! This is tantamount to appointing two blind men and an attack dog to inspect the machine. If either of the 'mechanics' asks about how the machine works the attorney is there to tell them 'it's proprietary information', you're not allowed to know! :evilfrown:

Of course, it's true, but love the way you described it:

"The Georgia law stipulates that three people, a patent attorney and two mechanics, be appointed by law to look at the computerized machines! This is tantamount to appointing two blind men and an attack dog to inspect the machine. If either of the 'mechanics' asks about how the machine works the attorney is there to tell them 'it's proprietary information'.}

Bev

:evilgrin: Thanks for DUing this, it's the least I can DU to return the favor! :)

since the paper ballots were numbered that they were surely kept in numerical order in case a recount was required and that it was done by humans. But I don't know for sure. I am in California. I will ask about this at my next Democratic Club meeting around the first of August and make a post on it. It is something to think about.

because, as I've been pointing out, vote-counting is accounting. It's bookkeeping. And though we get wonderful advice from computer scientists, who know that the system is insecure, they sometimes try to make up basic accounting principles as they go.

This is basic bookkeeping. Vote-counting must follow simple accounting procedures. The bookkeeping community, like the computer experts, "get it" but haven't been as vocal (yet) about what's wrong with unauditable voting systems.

Double entry is important to prevent fraud. Let us not confuse "double entry" with a "double set of books" (or, in the case of Diebold, a triple set of books which can be set to disengage from each other). We've got people violating basic principles of bookkeeping, and I LOVE IT when bookkeepers and accountants weigh in.

By the way, one expert asked me (ME!) to go and talk to the Federal Elections Commission about basic bookkeeping. Apparently it had never occured to them to learn how simple accounting is done. They didn't realize that when you must do a corrected entry, there is a protocol for entering an adjustment, and you can't just go in and erase and overwrite things. (!)

Sad. And a bit scary. But we WILL solve this!

Bev

The Case of the Diebold FTP Site
Part of the Voting and Elections web pages
by Douglas W. Jones
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA Department of Computer Science
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldftp.html

Demand that Diebold answer his questions (a petition is being formed to try to force Diebold to provide answers, something required by some state certification processes; stay tuned, I'll provide the link on that soon).

So far, Diebold has simply refused to answer questions and has not returned my phone calls.

Read again: (c) and (f)
It's heavy going, but read it if you haven't already: Dr. Doug Jones, one of the top experts in electronic voting and voting security. He has questions for Diebold. I happen to have seen the answers on the ftp site.

(c) and (f). Doug Jones is asking questions -- when will Diebold answer, and what will they say?

Bev

DEMActivist had to remind me a few weeks ago that I argued tooth and nail with her (on DU and via PM) that the election results in Georgia were bogus -- that it was another stolen election. I knew it then. Tho I don't want to speak for her, I think it's safe to say she knows it now. ;-)

Good post, Bev.

Eloriel

And, yeah, I think I finally figured it out. :evilgrin:

You nut.

Eloriel

I can tell you first hand that we got our asses kicked by cash, footwork, and phone calls.

The GOP's grassroots is unstoppable in Georgia. It is bankrolled by big business and fueled by racism and selfish middle to upper class people who live in the donut around Atlanta.

If the computers were tampered with last fall, they wasted their time. The Dems are history here.

that machines were tampered with?

What will it take?

Or are you "(a)"?

Bev

....could you provide a link to the demographic data that shows the majority of people in Georgia live in the "donut around Atlanta"? :shrug:
If you really need it I can dig up the links to actual poll results that show some amazing turn arounds in the last week to the last day before the election! :evilgrin:

machine, in 2000. Ours are built with lights in fixed places but the image of a ballot that is custom programmed for each election along with the software that counts the votes. When I realized there was no paper audit trail of any kind, I knew it was susceptible to fraud that couldn't ever be proven.

Of course I have 37 years of IT experience and was trained as a programmer in a bank writing systems for internal bank transaction accounting as well as DDA, TDA, Trust, and CD systems. Then, I spent years working for a vendor installing all kinds of banking and retail systems, converting data, balancing accounts, training operators, trouble-shooting problems, etc. So I know how important an audit trail is and the systems I was programming and installing were intended to track information and prevent/eliminate opportuniteis for fraud.

So, it was obvious to me from the git-go that the electronic voting machines were susceptible to bugs and fraud, neither of which could ever be proven. And, since the motivation to win an election and control the power is so strong, fraud would take place.

And then, conversations with our Election Administrator and Board demonstrated to me that these people didn'tknow the first thing about systems, auditing, quality control, quality improvement, or anything that would help prevent fraud.

... because as a geek and professional programmer for 20 years, I've seen enough already. There are so many holes in the system that you have already found that there is no question that hacking it would be easy for the right people.

I think many of the folks who are critical simply believe that proving that the machines are completely un-secured is not enough. That you have to prove that tallies were actually tampered with.

I personally believe they have, but I also understand that it will be difficult to prove at this point in time.

I would like to express my gratitude and admiration for the work that Ms Harris and her helpers have done. I'm sold, it is too bad that because of the techical nature of many of the discoveries - they are beyond the understanding of many. I hope that you'll keep working on this, the absolute least that can be accomplished is to let those who would rig elections know that they are being scrutinized.

that's the whole point! There is nothing to check against! There is no audit capability that isn't electronic and thus equally suspicious..

Could you enumerate the holes you refer to? I want to double-check them against the code.

Thanks!

JC

This thread is about "what would it take to convince you" not about a programming discussion. Do feel free to launch your own thread discussing programming of voting machines and the various holes. I'm sure many programmers will respond to you.

Now, your answer to the question in this thread is...???

Bev

Once again, I did answer your question. This attention to detail, or lack thereof, is shocking in a self-professed investigative reporter.

As for my own question, why is it dismissed? Someone made a claim and I asked them about it so that I can go educate myself with his findings. Why do you feel the need to interject and head off a response? Are you trying to hide something?

JC

When you finally answered, I acknowledged. True, I answered you here before reading all the threads. I would hazard a guess that other DUers answer as they read, rather than reading a huge page full of posts in its entirety and then going back and answering one by one.

If that is a "lack of attention to detail" go ahead and be shocked.

I hope your shoes are more appetizing than my husband's, just in case you have to eat them.

Bev

I am somewhat of a luddite when it comes to electronic transactions...I avoid them whenever possible.

On edit: I guess I'm not a naysayer so I have no business being in this thread. :silly:

So many questionable situations, VNS shutting down 4 hours before the polls starting shutting down, then filing for bankruptcy and refusing to release any of the 2002 data.

All the huge upsets with Dems in the lead in so many races. Looked like a no brainer of highly questionable races, that no Democrat wanted to look at, or atleast that I know of.

And what did the Dem leaders do yet again? We BLAMED AND BASHED THE DEMOCRATS for the same reasons we had blamed our party before. Im all for self-responsibility but this felt almost masochistic in a way. It was its own form of denial and dysfunctional dishonesty.

I wonder specifically about those races where we were clearly ahead, and have wondered what type of machines did they have? Why such a wealth of upsets that night?

And why are Dems scared and not making this a top issue? How can they at the DNC literally not want to know the truth? Where in the heck is the DNC? Esta muy loco.

Whats amazing about the two parties is how republicans are BEGGING for any situation to make into a conspiracy, and the Dems will do everything to avoid the TRUTH or REALITY when it is an ACTUAL conspiracy!!! Wild.

That has to change if we are going to survive.

That would be an unreasonable position to take, it would mean they were certain they could not be rigged. How could anyone be certain of that?

"Which of the following would change your mind to the extent that you would call for a paper trail AND open source, along with an immediate moratorium on electronic vote-counting until solutions are in place?
"

Bev

One of us is either schizoid or MPD.

It must be me.

Eloriel

There is already a reported trail of inconsistencies of vote tabulation which indicates that system reliability is definitely questioned. As far as 'vote-changing' persay, I would want physical evidence such as any system audit logs that demonstrate questionable system messages such as system-ware downloads and any abnormal work hours that someone may be configuring the system and its devices. Eye-witness affidavits of vote tampering incidents would work. Video would be a nice touch.

A close second would be option g, followed by all of the rest.

I'm already with option i ... but for the great unwashed masses to understand, go for option b.

I wrote n/t. So why the fuck are you reading this? Don't you know what n/t means? It means there isn't any text here. I'm serious, stop fucking reading this!! Just walk away. Walk away and everything will be fine.

Of course, I sat and read every word. Twice.

Bev

I will never forget those days here in Florida in November. We were so angry and so stressed. How could anyone NOT think something was wrong unless they were "blinded by the right."

I will never get over it, my husband never will.

As to the proof, I think it hard to pick just one. I would love to see someone tell all, I would love that.

Among all the press in FL, do you know of any papers and/or reporters who covered the election fiasco (esp., perhaps the vote suppression and vote fraud) well -- by which I mean, accurately, with concern, etc.?

Eloriel

Nothing, nada, zilch.

I am always writing a few reporters from our local paper. I send them links, documents, etc. to no avail.

I did send them info and links on Bev's work, but of course I have heard nothing back.

The problem is that people feel like something was/is wrong. It is a hard concept, the documentation is complicated. It is easier to just not notice.

I think Bev's work, and that of others, will take seed and sprout before long. I get very angry at the ones here and at BC who seem to delight in doing nothing themselves (like me....I don't know how to do research like that), yet they are constantly putting down Bev's work. It will stand or fall on its own merits, but the least we can do is help publicize it.

I have to suspect their motives. It is more than just their premise that Bev was building it up too much to suit them. Why should that bother them. Just ignore the threads.

I have shared her research around a lot, and I try to follow up on it to see if they got it. I think it will take time.

http://www.sptimes.com/

I used to live there.

last year they began scanning the completed ballots into a reader of some sort

how does that system stack up

I HATE those punch cards, BTW. VERY easy to make mistakes, and it took several minutes to pull chads off.

and speaking of computer kludge, I don't much like this format.....can't find new posts very easily in this swamp of unjustified sentences. why did they go away from right-justify?

....from what I've seen it uses the same core software modules as the Diebold DRE's! :(

Yes, they're Diebold Optiscan machines. Thanks for verifying that they're using the same core module (by which I assume you mean the Access-based GEMS program). I've been holding on to get this verification (and the publication of Bev's book) before taking it to David Orr, the Cook County Elections Commissioner.

Why is this story not being covered by the media?

The fact that issues like the the ones brought up on the BBV website are being ignored by the media and being ignored by our representatives makes feel like I am living in The Twilight Zone.

They are being researched and confirmed, and I am being interviewed by the bigs. Repeatedly. Daily.

Have patience, it won't be long now.

Bev

... the story about votes being rigged. It's just now reaching Dan Gilmor with SiliconValley.com. This sucker tries to explain technical issues to techno-punks in Silicon Valley.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6344554.htm

In its report issued July 2 (www.ss.ca.gov/elections/taskforce.htm), the task force found flaws in the testing and certification process for DRE machines, and was adamant about the need for some kind of verification. That was progress from the see-no-evil stance we'd been getting in the past from voting officials, the companies making the machines and others.

But only three of the nine task force members pushed for the paper trail. Someday, hopefully before a debacle sours people on voting entirely, they will be seen as prescient.

The companies that make these machines, and their supporters, insist all kinds of safeguards have been built in and that the systems will work as advertised.

So it gets down to what and whom to believe.


Though more is needed than just paper trails, IMHO ....

This is a print media story, at first, because it is a complex one. They have already picked up, they just haven't finished writing the stories.

Let me tell you, in PR, when you call to pitch a story the normal pitch is to a voicemail machine. The lucky pitch is to the real reporter, and the average call length is 1.5 minutes. Quite a few of those culminate in stories, mind you, but it usually takes a few weeks. A great pitch/response creates a call that lasts 5-10 minutes.

My average call length with reporters on this story is one hour. Sometimes 1 1/2 hours. They request the documents. Most of them, to my surprise, already went to the New Zealand site and had all the files. And they call back, day after day. And they are getting additional reporters from same publication assigned. And they are out locating C++ coders to verify findings.

This is not slow to be picked up, it's being properly researched and I'm gratified at the responsiveness of the press.

I believe I posted last week that it would take at least 10 more days, and I tend to be very impatient and estimate less time than it takes.

This one is gonna happen.

Bev

I started working with a reporter on an issue article the third week of May. It was also highly detailed stuff, and it has taken this long to get close to being in print. Last word I had was it could be in the paper this month or maybe even be held over to September.

By the time they do all the fact checking and the research to even FIND the facts investigative reporting is not a speedy process.

You have my sympathy. This waiting for the article to hit is awful.

Laura

... to say the least in the delay that the initial news stories are slowly starting to sprout legs, especially it seems in the overseas press (otherthan NZ). But it appears to be happening. As is the march and drumbeat that is pushing more states and counties in adopting these systems in time for the 2004 election. For me, there too is a bit of a sense of urgency ...

Any connection to Bill Simon's family ownership
of Wyle Labs between '94~'99.

yet.

Yeah, they owned voting machine certifier Wyle, and they (along with Coors and Scaife) were main funders of the Heritage Foundation and the whole vast right wing you know what.

Now we don't know who owns Wyle labs. A holding company, and I've had a bit of wine and can't remember the initials. Another mystery.

Wyle, of course, refused to certify voting machine software after 1996. The story became even stranger then, and the mystery men have used up a few hours of my interview time with the bigs. They are quite fascinated as to these men, and are doing a little digging...

Bev

(edited because I misspelled the word "the." It's a nice merlot, by the way.)

2nd edit: Wyle now owned by LTS Holdings.

God, this is good news, Bev -- about the media, not the wine. ;-) Just thrilling.

You go, girl!

Eloriel

All it takes it the presence of such code in a voting machine program. We shouldn't have to talk about, "Has it been used." IT'S A VOTING PROGRAM- NOTHING LIKE THAT SHOULD BE 10,000 MILES NEAR IT!

Ahem....Bev, I like Merlot, I can drink that, what year/producer?

Media- I've been pondering that question. The print media seems to be harder on the current administration than broadcast. With cross ownership and cap rollbacks, many print companies will be gobled up. They stand to lose a lot, so maybe they need to show they can still report some facts, so Congress will hold the line.

On covering the voting machine issue- everything else seems fair game now where the administration is concerned. If the theory holds that other powers want Bush out, then you do just enough to accomplish that, but you don't lose your ability to control.

I can't even blame wine if this is muddled thinking. Just tired!

at the top of any such list is the telling and audacious fraud which took place in the 2000 elections. the collective failure of the united states as a free people to effectively understand, let alone deal with what happened there is itself shocking and difficult to establish a clear historical precedent for—the parallels the 1876 and 1960 elections lack the same sinister look and feel.

getting away with what happened there—and despite victorious lawsuits, numerous investigations, and tacit admissions mind you—what kind of courage do you suppose that gave them? maybe enough to subvert the whole process of 'modernizing' elections systems, which itself had such a strong mandate because of this proven fraud in 2000? what a bold play that would be. not to mention one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated in this country's doublespeaking history.

what i read here confirms what so much else demonstrates: the fix is in. no tinfoil hat necessary, it's right in front of your sober face. the beautiful thing is, though, that this is not the only place where the truth is starting to break out. and when these men are finally driven from power (as surely they will be), i want this electoral chicanery gone with them.

as in 2000 convinced me. and i am an accountant. what specific accounting help do you need?

answer the question about why multiple sets of books are built into the software, and why people can overwrite totals instead of being required to change information with a new line item, preserving the original information and journaling the reason for the change --

at that time I will need people from the accounting industry to weigh in. I have been told by people in the industry that the elections process doesn't need to pay attention to proper bookkeeping (in the context of overwriting totals when they decide they need to be "corrected") and I've been told that:

1) In some places, where the machines count votes in precincts that don't exist or that have no voters at all in them, "those are just absentee votes." Proper accounting: Let's call them absentee votes, then, don't make them into a ghost precinct.

2) It's said to be a very high priority to make sure things "match." Unfortunately, the procedure described to me by some industry insiders is that when they don't match, you have to change the report so that they do.

And other things like that. So far, I have informal explanations from those in the elections industry, but soon hope to have formal answers. If they include the mistaken accounting methods above, yeah, I'll be emailing you to weigh in, and thanks!

Bev

i doubt most people responsible for managing these machines in the precincts have a clue about the importance of maintaining an AUDIT TRAIL, or even the basics of bookkeeping. overwriting totals and 'forcing' numbers to match report totals is a MAJOR no-no. and the ghost precinct explantion just doesn't make any accounting sense. please email me when your get the industry responses.

That is, if they don't crumple up and hide after what's coming this week.

Bev

J would say: I have to be convinced that politicians, even Rovian politicians WOULD have the capacity to want to act fraudulently to rig the votes.

I honestly beleive that most americans can't believe that this could happen. That's a BIG obstacle in perception. So any hard core evidence (choices b through h) would just not mean that much to them. Esp with the punditry (is that a word?) that would ensue were any hard evidence to come out in the mainstream press.

I have a friend in Florida.....supposedly a dem...who thinks ALL issues re the 2000 election were taken care of -- all the votes were counted - Bush won. She didn't really need to visit the reason issue of why the S. Ct. APPOINTED bush by a 5-4 vote. No need at all. Everything is fine.

"That would never happen in America" is a BIG problem in our country today.

I think the only proof that would turn the American public on to what's going on with the elections would be better proof that the repukes, Jeb, Bush, Baker, Katherine Harris and MANY others colluded to trounce election 2000. If that became a FACT in people's minds.....the simply evidence of everything Bev has put out re BBV would cause a revolution in this country.

In short, the evidence is there.......we just have to convince the public that there are evil people who actually rig elections. Yes, in America.

IMO

who have billions at stake depending on who wins.

With electronic voting, politicians wouldn't even need to know, would they? I mean, with over 800 million going into coffers for campaign contributions, how hard would it be for Multinational Privatizers & Profiteers, Ltd., to slip $50,000 to a programmer with a gambling problem?

Bev

-- as in election 2000 -- and following in election 2002,

Those corporate biggies couldn't have pulled it off without direct political connections.

specific to florida...ya needed the secretary of state to purge all those voters; and then to NOT put them back for 2002.

I suppose in the NEXT election, the corporate biggies could take it all on all by themselves. But at the impementation stage in 2000 and 2002, there had to be politicians and state "civil servants" involved.

but the KEY position to corrupt in all states is the Secretary of State -- overseer of the elections.

AND, this is hard to express.......but I will try. The corporations are NOT accountable to all the people. The govt officials are. That's where we start.

And let's say we do find hard evidence that a corporation has defrauded the election system. AND everyone believes it. What happens? The govt comes down on them and throws them out of the system. Another corp comes in to replace them and the state (filled with guilty parties) certifies that "now we have fixed the system and the few evildoers have been shut out." And the state continues with the crappy fradulent voting box systems.

We are on our way to oligarchical control of the state, but not quite yet. It will take another 4 years of repuke control of the federal govt to seal the deal. Of course, can't you just see it? We also have the military vyying for total control. If left unchecked, I see a BIG civil war in the US on the horizon: oligarchy vs. military. Wooooo, I am going to Canada.

When I say corporate, I don't mean the voting machine corporations picking the candidates. I envision that an oil company, or a construction firm would have much money at stake, and defense contractors have even more billions in play.

You do make good points. Government is supposed to be accountable and yes, I agree, each state's secretary of state office is the key place one would want to corrupt.

Bev

But for the point I was making to convince the general populace that election fraud is occurring......we HAVE to look to the officials the general populace put in place to represent them. The buffer (the state!) between the people vs. corporations is quickly evaporating everyday. But there's still some semblance of that buffer/checks and balance still present today. It's a horse race! I hope we win this race!!!

**excellent news on the looonnnggg interviews you have been doing. That is music to my ears!!!!! :-)

Hopefully the process of converting the general population into believing this would happen will be effected by your breaking story. God, I hope so. But somehow we have to be ready to take on the people who just don't *want* to believe it's true. That's sort of like trying to convince someone that jesus was not sacrificed for our sins. It's 100% faith-based. Our country has taken its freedoms (defined primarily by free and honest elections) for granted for wayyyyy too long. Hell.....they are willing to murder 10s of 1000s of people and bankrupt themselves (our treasury) in the name of FREEDOM. Can you see trying to convince them that their alleged "freedom" has been severely compromised by its own govt? (or corp biggies....we shall soon see who are the most culpable as you suggest). Whoa......that will be as tough as taking the baby jesus out of the nativity scene. EGAD.

:scared: It looks like the International Foundation for Election Systems has already made inroads at getting the Secretaries of State to do their bidding! Take a few moments to check out their web site and think about the implications!

New World Order anyone? :shrug:

While you're at it, visit the National Association of Secretaries of State State Election Laws & Administration Issues page!

Look at what they're proposing in the way of voting legislation and compare it to what IFES recommends. Then ask yourself if you want your representative to enact those things. :(

CALL THEM! WRITE THEM! E-MAIL THEM!

Remind them that they represent you and tell them what you want! :evilgrin:

Once again, I sound my futile refrain:


Show me the code that is miscounting votes, deliberately or otherwise.

Or,

Show me the code that is maliciously altering valid results.

Alternatively,

Show me the code with the secret backdoor(s) Diebold allegedly implemented, through which their operatives or associates manipulate the official election results.


I'll take pretty much any of those. I can't really pick one of your stated (a) through (i) options because of the way you've carefully phrased them, although I suppose (d) would suffice in the absence of your qualifier at the end. I still don't understand why it's so difficult to produce the evidence and make me a believer; I ask pretty much daily and you do have all the malicious source code. For the record, I've stopped analyzing it because I found nothing nefarious.

I'd take (e) too, I suppose, as long as by "someone in the know" you mean the proverbial "puppet master" or one of his/her senior henchmen. Another gratuitous quote lifted from Dr. David Dill, professional computer guy, probably isn't going to do it no matter how many times you beat me over the head with it.

You didn't list it as an option, but if you could (hypothetically speaking, of course) use your newfound insider technical knowledge of the Diebold software, procedures and equipment to demonstrate successful rigging of an actual election using the security holes/backdoors/exploits we're supposed to be worried about, I guess I'd buy that too. It doesn't even have to be an actual election, just an unofficial facsimile that uses the same setup, procedures, and trained personnel.

Since you addressed your question to "naysayers" I'm assuming you actually want my input, even though you routinely ignore or dismiss it. If not, feel free to just not count my vote. Ahh, the sweet, sweet irony.

JC

Just asking...

BTW: I checked Andy Fastow's calculator and found nothing amiss. Likewise his copy of Excel. The man's obviously innocent! Case closed!

Seriously though... since Andy Fastow and Ken Lay pass the TinfoilHatProg's rules of evidence (ie: "show me the specific line of code that made them do bad things") shouldn't we just sweep this whole Enron business under the rug and move on?

Just asking...

the calculator and the Excel sheet.

So, if an evildoer goes in and overwrite votes with his own, according to the logic of some here, that doesn't prove vote-tampering, because it isn't hard-wired into the code.

Bev

How many posts would you say she needs to dismiss before it qualifies as "routine"?

Thanks for "contributing". Oh wait, that word's not the right one either.

JC

Finally got your answer. Very good.

Show me the code
Sniff sniff. "What has it got in its pocketses?"

This may amaze you, tinfoil, but the story of the code is not going to break on DU or in a personal email to you. Have patience.

I suppose (d) would suffice in the absence of your qualifier at the end.

Good. Will bookmark your response and will you offer to eat your shoes if nefarious code is reported in the mainstream press?

You didn't list it as an option, but if you could (hypothetically speaking, of course) use your newfound insider technical knowledge of the Diebold software, procedures and equipment to demonstrate successful rigging of an actual election using the security holes/backdoors/exploits we're supposed to be worried about, I guess I'd buy that too.

Will you eat your shoes if you see such a demonstration on national television? Will you eat your shoes on TV?

Bev

If you can pull some code out of your stolen archive which miscounts votes as they come in, changes valid totals, or implements a secret back door through which Diebold or its operatives secretly enter to alter the results, I will eat my tinfoil hat. I say this with the confidence of someone who's already looked at the code and is qualified to interpret it. You can't produce it.

Show me what I'm asking for and you'll make me a believer.

Screaming "Access! They use Access! Shame!" is not going to do it. While that seems to be enough for most of the people here, it doesn't really qualify as "nefarious".

Screaming "They link against RPC libraries for God's sake!" is not going to do it. That doesn't qualify as "nefarious" either, and it's entirely laughable to boot.

(As an aside, whatever happened to that whole RPC *cough* scandal *cough* anyway? If memory serves, you'd claimed a few days ago that Diebold wrote some code to intentionally open a security hole that was reported last week in order to exert remote control over... something (I suppose it must have been the central computer). Was that just irresponsible "reporting" on your part? I never caught the end of the discussion, it was wiped out in yesterday's data loss. The last I saw, you were invoking the Bush defence, i.e. "I didn't really know what I was talking about so I can't be held responsible for what I said.")

Show me the specific lines of code or the source code files that actually do something along the lines of what I've suggested. I want none of your usual far-fetched theorizing about packet-sending, self-erasing makefiles or "malicious" linkage against benign stadard system libraries. It's simple. I don't require or expect it to "break" on DU, the administrators here have already stated their reticence to allow posting of copyrighted material. You have a whole web site devoted to the subject, why not "break" it there?

I guess I will wait for the big mainstream media expose.

As for your television scenario, demonstrating how to operate Microsoft Access to play with a database isn't going to do it for me either. Set up some machines in a realistic configuration and enter some fixed number of votes on them, then show me that the totals on any individual machine are incorrect. Or show me how someone can just walk into the polling station and hack the election. Or show me how they can hack it from their car with a laptop computer, I'm sure someone suggested that scenario over the last week. Or show me how someone can hack the GEMS computer or any of the voting stations over the internet. Or over the phone, even. Open the Microsoft security hole you claimed they built into the program last week and use it to change the results. If you're just going to demonstrate that a corrupt person in charge of the election could mess with the results with Access after the poll closes, be sure to have them do it in a simulated post-election frenzy with media present and the clock ticking, and don't forget to show how the fudged totals in Access are reconciled with the pre-fudging paper reports that come out of each vote machine. And don't forget to show how the same corrupt election official is prevented from throwing boxes of paper-based ballot results into the river... because that actually happens.

JC

"I say this with the confidence of someone who's already looked at the code and is qualified to interpret it. You can't produce it."

The source code is found in 19,300 files which contain perhaps a million lines of code. 2,400 files are in cvs.tar; 15,900 files in another repository. Some source code files specifically referenced in "include" statements are missing. 300 files in the large repository are damaged and can't be opened. Some of the source code files would print out to 800 pages long.

The code is written in at least four computer languages: C++, hex, java and a customized language they made up themselves. Some very interesting code files are passworded and inaccessible, at least to me and my sources.

But we have his assurance: tinfoil has looked at every line of code and pronounced it sound.

Bev

On edit: Tinfoil corrects me, that hex is not a computer language. There are, however, a number of .hex files that contain nothing but strings of hex addresses, and a total review of source code would explain what those files are and how they function within the system. Since tinfoil has done this comprehensive review, perhaps he'll explain what the Central Count ROM hex files are doing, and what the entire suite of "cm" hex files are used for, specifically. And yes, this is me in my ignorance, the computer folks who consult with me have more important things to do. I'm curious, especially about the "cm" hex file series which comes with "readme" files -- that doesn't mean I'm saying the hex files are nefarious, I'm just curious about what they do.

It's SUPER GEEK!

:evilgrin:

Eloriel

"Hex" is not a computer language. Seriously. But ignorance is bliss. You may as well add "Delphi" to the list, there's some of that in there. I guess you didn't notice. Maybe you could throw in some "binary" too, do they have any of that?

I've looked at the files in cvs.tar, which contains the source code to the evil ballot station program. I never pronounced it "sound" -- I declared that I found nothing in there that miscounts or alters totals or exerts remote control over the main computer.

Which source code files referenced in "include" statements are missing? Please please tell me you've verified they're not header files that come with the compiler.

Which repository has 15,900 files? Is that the one with the nefarious Windows CE platform SDK?

Go ahead and dismiss my posts... I don't blindly accept your uniformly proofless and often demonstrably inaccurate claims and so I am clearly to be ridiculed and ignored. I've answered every one of your questions but you've yet to answer any of mine. You can't.

What happened to last week's mendacious claim about exploiting a Microsoft security hole to exert remote control over the host computer? Do you still insist that's true, or do you now admit that it was a big, sensationalistic, fear-mongering lie?

JC

You appeared on this site out of nowhere and immediately started in with completely snide and sarcastic rhetoric. I know nothing about programming but I do know something about manners and you're getting as good as you give.

Sticks and stones. All I want is for someone to show me the code that's doing what Ms. Harris claims, and to demonstrate a provable case of election-rigging. I don't think it's unreasonable, after all the story is "bigger than Watergate" and all. We're supposed to "question W", as well we should... so why are Ms. Harris' claims beyond question?

JC

You have been a registered user here since July 14th, and I don't think we have had a lot of posts about our Question W campaign since that time. It shows up in a post or two here and there.....but our BIG push for that campaign occurred in early June. And certainly the talk about it was well before the July 4th holiday.....a couple of weeks before you joined.

AND, it was all on our old DU system that went to the wayside July 6th.

So.......you sure do seem like a quick study on the DU culture and lingo and activism campaigns.....for a "newbie".

Gosh, I would be interested to know why and how you have reviewed all this source code if you haven't been a member of DU and following our research threads. And how coincidental that you happened to come to DU as well, since it's an important discussion topic we have here, and you are so well versed in it already.

On the other hand, did you by chance used to post here under a different name by chance????????

EDIT: Maybe you have been "routinely" dismissed by Bev on this matter but under a different handle. But if that's the case.....why chance handles? Kind of makes you seem disingenuous and dishonest. Which isn't a good quality to have in co-researchers on a matter that involves dishonesty at karmically tragic levels.

I am impressed at the new version, and though tinfoil clearly has an agenda, his posts are of much higher quality than previous Black Box naysayers.

He still hasn't told me what flavor shoes he wears.

Bev

And let him choose which he prefers.

Tinfoil: your address please?

And an upgrade is quite a good sign. Evolving to higher levels of discourse is always a very good thing -- no matter where you start on the continuum.

the main thing is that you've really got to chop that shoe up. shred, chop, and boil baby boil. add some spice (and skim all that polish and other shoe stuff that boils up off a few times), some noodles and chopped veggies.

or of course if you're a man you'll do the right thing - charcoal grill the sumbitch.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not going to contest your assertions on TFHP's motives.

That said, I believe his questions (feel free to call them demands, if you wish) are entirely appropriate.

Ms. Harris is making some bold claims ("Bigger than Watergate" springs to mind, as one example). I absolutely hope her claims are correct. Yet because Ms. Harris is advancing a proposition, asking her to support that proposition seems eminently reasonable to me.

Do you really think the right-wing thugs will go any easier on Ms. Harris' claims than TFHP?

I don't trust TFHP. After all, I don't know him.

But I also don't trust Ms. Harris. Because I don't know her, either.

What I do know, and trust, is my basic common sense that tells me bold claims need to be supported in order to be taken seriously, and critiques of those claims (and IMO, TFHP is asking some intelligent and reasonable questions) are just par for the course. And reasonable.

IMO, TFHP is being unfairly criticized by certain people here, and I for one would love to see his questions answered.

DTH

....and a question. :)

First, can you post a link to where Bev ever made the claim that this would be "Bigger than Watergate"?
IIRC, that reference was made by the people at Scoop and echoed here by several 'nay sayers'. The phrase I recall Bev using was equating this to the 'Pentagon Papers' and in the respect that this is leaked confidential information that was never supposed to be known by the general public, she is correct in her statement.

With that said, many people have worked long and hard to corroborate the things that have been found so far. Exposing every detail of what is hidden in the code at this time would be self defeating. Look at it like this, we are operating as an 'ad hoc' Grand Jury for the people.
We are only collecting evidence of the 'fitness for purpose' of what we were sold as a secure voting system. Claims were made about the safety and reliability of these systems for choosing the leader of the free world. Those claims were, to say the least, greatly exaggerated! When the extent of those 'exaggerations' has been fully explored and corroborated by recognized experts in various overlapping fields, a case can be publicly presented to determine if criminal intent was present in the decisions surrounding the sudden rush to push a technology that, by many accounts, has performed miserably in the last two elections. When everything that has transpired over the last several years is presented in context, a very disturbing picture emerges. When all of the facts are presented by recognized experts, I'm sure few will doubt that this has been a worthwhile pursuit.

Although I keep hearing the same few people repeating the same 'allegations', I've yet to see any of the people actually involved in the research spout them. I've seen the same few people claim that we have, or demand that we should, lest there be no merit to our claims.

"Repeat the lie often enough....." :evilgrin:

When someone claims to have seen nothing wrong if we can't prove that elections were indeed 'rigged', that's their right. When someone repeatedly distorts what our claims are and continually demands PROOF NOW, that, IMHO, is just plain disruptive!

In the end it will not be Bev alone that goes out and makes the case about the Black Box issue. It will be a number of independent experts who might not have otherwise been involved without Bev's little push. :)

So, what are these "intelligent and reasonable questions" you feel we owe an answer to?

First, can you post a link to where Bev ever made the claim that this would be "Bigger than Watergate"?

I can't, since by my recollection, it was on DU1. But if Ms. Harris says she didn't say it, I have no reason to doubt her. I have seen the term bandied about quite a bit, however, and I could swear I saw her say it. But memories are indeed fallible.

Claims were made about the safety and reliability of these systems for choosing the leader of the free world. Those claims were, to say the least, greatly exaggerated!

I'm sure the security on the software is not foolproof, and I'm pretty confident it could be improved quite a bit.

That is a far cry from deliberate manipulation and fraud, however.

When someone repeatedly distorts what our claims are and continually demands PROOF NOW, that, IMHO, is just plain disruptive!

Whether someone is distorting or not remains to be seen. As for demanding proof, anyone can demand anything they want on this forum; that certainly doesn't mean anyone else has to respond or comply. And perhaps TFHP's bothersome questions might be disruptive to Ms. Harris and her supporters, but they may not be disruptive to the truth or this board at all, depending on how valid they are.

Regardless, seemingly reasonable requests which cannot or are not satisfied, however, will generally impact directly upon credibility.

So, what are these "intelligent and reasonable questions" you feel we owe an answer to?

"Owe?" I don't think anyone "owes" anything. I do think that certain points and questions raised by TFHP appear to be legitimate ones, however, and Ms. Harris and her supporters might do better convincing the unconvinced (which is, after all, the point of this thread) by trying to answer them, rather than placing TFHP on Ignore (as Ms. Harris already appears to have done).

For your convenience, here is a compilation of some questions that TFHP has raised which (in my mind) have not been fully addressed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=44603&mesg_id=44603&listing_type=search#45137

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=38507&mesg_id=38507&listing_type=search#40201

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=38507&mesg_id=38507&listing_type=search#40593

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=49976&mesg_id=49976&listing_type=search#50551

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=60865&mesg_id=60865&listing_type=search#60914

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=54574&mesg_id=54574&listing_type=search#55650

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=54574&mesg_id=54574&listing_type=search#55854

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=54574&mesg_id=54574&listing_type=search#59513

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=54574&mesg_id=54574&listing_type=search#61052

DTH

....in answer to TFHP's questions, go check out http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf :evilgrin:

This is only the beginning! :)

This is only the beginning! :)

I saw the NY Times article earlier this evening, and if this gets more media play, then fantastic.

Don't get me wrong; I absolutely hope this causes the downfall of paperless, untraceable voting, and also causes a big scandal for the right-wing.

That said, I am still inherently skeptical of most conspiracy theories, and again, there are big differences between a less-than-foolproof system, a horribly negligent system, and outright fraud and vote tampering.

DTH

You have a link to that? LOL! :evilgrin:

Please go look through all of the links you posted and look at who was making those claims! Find one single post where any of the researchers claimed we had proof of fraud, a conspiracy, or a stolen election! :)

You make the perfect case study of how easy it is to 'Gore' somebody!
The same small group of people have been 'repeating the lie', putting words in Bev's mouth, and you took the bait! Hook, line and sinker!

Every claim Bev has made, like Dr. Brit William's denial that uncertified code from Diebolds FTP server had been loaded on the Georgia machines, have all been carefully documented.
She provided the document where he denied it and the statement by 'Rob', the technician of Rob Georgia fame, that proved the code was indeed from the FTP site and that Dr. William's was there when it was loaded!

She made the claim that Diebold lied about the code that was loaded having been certified. She provided the proof in the form of FOIA requests seeking copies of all documents proving the certification had taken place. No documentation could be provided by either Diebold or the Georgia Secretary of State!

Look at what we all said about Access, Windows, Modems, Cryptographic Security Keys and everything else. Compare it to what the experts are saying.

Go back and look at every claim Bev or DemActivist has made. Then look at what documentation they have provided to back their claims. It's all there if you choose to look for it!

While your at it, keep an eye out for who the people were that kept denying that what we said was true and kept suggesting what she was really saying. COINTELPRO come to mind? :)

There seem to be a few people here hell-bent on discrediting Bev's work! Or do you consider that just a 'conspiracy theory'? :tinfoilhat:

In the post you are replying to, where exactly am I accusing you of making any claim? I'm not even sure what you're referring to, to be honest!

DTH

...for my post. :)

"I Certainly *Hope* So, But"

"I am still inherently skeptical of most conspiracy theories, and again, there are big differences between a less-than-foolproof system, a horribly negligent system, and outright fraud and vote tampering."

So which do you think applies to these systems? :shrug:

Regardless, I thought I was simply making a statement of fact.

:shrug:

DTH

Please please tell me you've verified they're not header files that come with the compiler.

They're not header files that come with the compiler.

I've answered every one of your questions but you've yet to answer any of mine.

Some of the other questions you pose will be answered, but not here and not today, and in a more formal way.

Bev

....that TFHP may claim to be a 'professional' programmer but that is no indication that he's a 'good' programmer. His constant demands about pointing him in the right direction is the best evidence that he really doesn't know what he's looking at. How can I make that claim without ever having met him? EASY, I'm NOT a programmer in any way shape or form. I'm a programmers worst nightmare!

I've spent years in the unenviable position of being a 'systems integrator' for a Fortune 100 computer related company. I'm the poor schmuck who configures brand new, untested, computer systems designed by teams of highly educated hardware engineers and loads brand new untested software designed by highly educated teams of software engineers and then performs the 'debug' to make them work together. The systems rarely, if ever, work the first time! It's been my job to be the final arbiter of the finger pointing battles between the two engineering groups who each claim the others product is at fault.
In short, I have to know enough about the hardware and the software to conclusively prove where the problem lies and then justify pulling overworked engineers off their new assignments to go back and fix something that was considered a 'done deal' under a closed out budget. Not an easy job.

So how does that qualify me to make judgments about someone whose work I've never seen? Simply put, TFHP has, in his short time here, made it clear (as have others) that he has looked at the code and "found nothing nefarious". That in itself tells me quite a bit. Add to that the constant refrain of "show me the files" indicates a basic lack of logical thinking required as a programmer!

Every single 'professional' programmer I've worked with on this has intuitively gone right for the 'tar ball' (cvs.tar) and began by isolating the routines that record, store and tally the votes. Understanding of the methodology used in those regards is paramount to understanding anything else about the machine. That shortcut method of finding the 'needle in the haystack' not only leads you to the heart of what is in question about the machines, it also leads you directly to the 'programmers comments'.

In order to survive, programmers tend to be extremely logical thinkers. They exhibit that logical thinking in the way they write their comments into the source code. Each section of code produced by a 'good' programmer has a 'plain english' explanation of what that section does. You might call it a 'professional courtesy' to other programmers who have to work with their code downstream. It's a shortcut that quickly lets you know where to focus your attention rather than study every line of code to find what you're looking for. That same logical attitude also drives them to 'ask questions' in their comments when they're asked to do something that's 'illogical' or perhaps they don't understand!

It seems the Admins rightly worry about us posting anything within the code verbatim so I'll paraphrase some of the comments you would have seen, had you actually looked, that raised questions in the programmers minds about what they were asked to do.

When you find comments that say things like 'this is baloney, you don't have to do this, this function is already built in to XXXXXXX, just use the XXXXXX command' or 'the (insert critical flag here) flag is broken so I did this and that to get around it' and even things like 'I don't know why you want me to do this, it will let this and that happen....unless that's what you want to happen then I guess it's OK'! :scared:

Comments of this type naturally lead a 'good' programmer looking for problems to investigate what is going on in those routines. The fact you claim to have "found nothing nefarious" indicates that either you never looked, or if you have seen these things and thought nothing of them, you're used to dealing with junk code! :(

Election systems are 'mission critical' in keeping the full force and power of the United States from falling into the wrong hands. The kind of crap in this code would make it, IMHO, unfit for even checking my e-mail! :evilfrown:

that every programmer dreads.

Great post, PP.

Bev

I was equally hated by all! :evilgrin:
The hardware engineers hated to be told that their creations couldn't do what they were supposed to do to a provable specification.
The software engineers hated to be told that their creations wouldn't drive the hardware in a reliable manner.

And if that wasn't bad enough, I always had to be in the middle of the war between the 'BOGs and the FOGs'! In english, that's the 'Back Office Guys' (Engineering!) and the 'Front Office Guys' (Management!)

No matter what problem I would identify, or who was at fault, it inevitably took extra time and cost extra money and would therefore piss off the Finance Department for the extra cost and Production Planners for the implementation delay!

And lets not forget the internal ISO Audit Team who had to verify the test methodologies I had to develop to prove my findings! :crazy:

It takes a special kind of masochist.......
They only kept me around because, in the end, whatever it was I worked on at any given time worked as advertised and I could prove it! :)

What you have so far is a story about computer security holes
and a sloppy product rollout in Georgia. For this story
to resonate at all it has to be about changing votes. You have
to find computer code that changes votes or a programmer who has
written such code. Bribery and racketeering would be nice but
companies putting money in the pockets of pols to have them purchase
certain products is just run-of-the-mill corruption.

Another suggestion might be to not over-hype what you have. Suggestions
that your story is "bigger than Watergate" or that people are
trying to have you killed seriously detract from the story's crediblity.
So does your supporters habit of denouncing skeptics as paid operatives
of voting machine companies. The most whacko conspiracy theorists have a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with them a part of the conspiracy. Such activities do nothing at all for your credibility.

If you find actual vote fraud then you indeed have a big story. But
the public, the media and the pols are going to yawn at a story
about computer security lapses.

whose accounting and verification practices were so horrendous.

Having worked in several I can tell you that there are dozens of people and programs verifying each transaction, not including the state and federal bank examiners as well as the FDIC. Not to mention the fact that the customer at least gets to view paper documentation of their transaction after it's made.

I'd like my vote to get the same attention, thank you.

I don't need any further evidence that we have at the very least a potential for problems. I refuse to bank on our current electronic voting systems.

at the polls and the bank. I'm not sure how practical the paper-trail can be made but I certainly think that the code should be at least open
to inspection by election authorities of all parties.

My objection is to the extreme over-hype of this rather
mundane information and the total lack of evidence that any
votes have been changed. I see it repeated here frequently
that the Democrats have no chance next year unless the "voting
machine issue" is solved. And yet there hasn't been a shred of
evidence produced to show that even one vote was changed by these
machines.

Until there is such evidence this is a non-story to the public and the media.

Time to cue Peggy.

You have to find computer code that changes votes or a programmer who has written such code.

I will bookmark that and get back to you. Thanks for answering. (By the way, don't lock your car, leave your front door open, leave your valuables laying around while you turn your back. Because why worry about it, it's not an issue until someone steals.)

Bev

Woo woo!

Whee!

I know it's not over, and we haven't won a damn thing. But, we've budged the thing -- I can feel it moving. Kudos to all for all your hard work. Just talked with one of the experts....he's spent all day talking to media, gave me a list of numerous folks working on stories, including CNN and Minnesota Public Radio.

Re above post: "it's not an issue until someone steals" your stuff, if you leave it lying around unprotected. So, that means someone wouldn't even want to hear about it unless you have a video of the bad guys stealing your stuff. And, they have to stop in front of the videotape, smile, and show their driver's license so we are sure who the crooks are. </sarcasm>

I think democracy should not be lying around for anyone to steal. That's enough of a story for me. It should be a lot harder to steal democracy than stick up a convenience store. Looks to me like they are equally easy targets. If fraud and election-stealing in the past are proven, all the better.

So, Bev, tell us the year and brand of Merlot. Maybe we should all lift a glass of the same thing, for budging this thing.

Exactly.

JC

would you trust your vote to a machine of which you know it is insecure?

would you trust your vote to a machine of which you know it is formally impossible to check its security? (that is to say, the voting system as a whole does not include checks and balances wrt securiy).

To do the former, one would need actual evidence of vote fraud (at a minimum). To do the latter, all that SHOULD be necessary is proof that it COULD be done, by somebody, somewhere.

If one could show that an outsider (not Diebold) could hack into the system or use some sort of wireless connection or whatever, then Democrats and republicans alike would have a vested interest in protecting the system.

I think it's very plausible that the voting machines could be intentionally configured to aid Republicans. I support the effort to make sure that there is a verified paper-trail for every vote and that every vote is counted. That is the crucial piece of the 2004 electoral puzzle that not enough people are paying attention to. I applaud you and your allies for your efforts in this area.

However, I have stopped reading your updates entirely. At first I found them exciting, but the more I read them the more I was struck by the fact that you interpret absolutely everything irregular (and even a few things that are not at all irregular) as evidence of vote fraud. There is no attempt to deal with stubborn facts, and frankly no consideration of hypotheses other than your preconceived idea of what form vote fraud might take.

In short, this effort reminds me of a BushCo op. You've decided what you think - you're just looking for handy bits of evidence to help you prove it.

This post is about contempt prior to investigation. You call attention to the prejudices of others - I submit that your own prejudices may be hindering your efforts.

jb

Asking for what would convince you. Answers?

However, to answer the direct question, I would have to say

i. nothing

That is, nothing that you say or write will convince me of anything. I don't find you to be a reliable source on the subject, for the reasons I have noted, and which you have ignored.

jb

any mainstream media outlet.

Forget about me. Suppose a mainstream media outlet reports -- which of the things in the first post would convince you? Any of them? All of them?

Bev

I already think these machines are a terrible idea. I'm already protesting and trying to block their use. I'm not one of these people following you around thread to thread and trying to smear you. This is my first post on the subject.

One thing that makes me reluctant to pick any of these is your use of the word "evidence" in place of "proof." There is "evidence" of a lot of things. There's evidence that I killed Chandra Levy. She disappeared near my apartment, she went to the same gym as my girlfriend, and she grew up in my hometown. It just so happens that I never met Chandra Levy and had never heard of her until she appeared in the news.

Someone who already thought I was evil might think the evidence I outlined above is enough to implicate me in the crime. A more fair-minded person might wait for proof.

In any case here's my take on your choices.

b) Evidence of changing votes (specify what kind of evidence will suffice?)

Solid evidence of changing votes would obviously do it. The trouble is, the whole problem with these machines is that there is no verifiable audit trail. You ask specifically what kind of evidence - you tell me? As far as I can tell, there's no way to establish this.

c) Evidence of deliberate malfeasance, i.e. voting manufacturers knowingly lying to certifiers about material facts

This would prove that the manufacturers are corrupt and point out why we shouldn't be using these machines. It wouldn't prove that someone rigged an election.

d) Evidence of deliberately nefarious programming, i.e. items in the program which could facilitate election-tampering, for which no benign explanation can be offered

Here is where I get skeptical. I have personally seen you tout perfectly innocuous code as "nefarious." It's sometimes difficult to give a reasonable explanation to an unreasonable charge. If I say "can you give a reasonable explanation for your presence at Dick Cheney's barbecue this weekend?" I might not think a denial is a reasonable explanation. However, since you did not attend a Dick Cheney barbecue (to my knowledge) that's the best explanation I'm going to get.

e) A confession by someone in the know (what would they need to confess to?)

Sure, if someone comes out and says "we set the machines up to favor one candidate over the other" that's as good as it gets. But that's what they would need to confess to.

f) Evidence of improper computer code (i.e. code that is expressly forbidden by the FEC that is not satisfactorily explained by the manufacturer)

OBVIOUSLY this is a matter for the Federal Election Commission. If I read a news report - no matter where it appeared - that said that an election system had violated FEC rules, I would at the very least want to see a quote from the FEC explaining what action, if any, is being taken and why or why not.

However, an accusation by the FEC is not proof. This is elementary logic.

g) Evidence of bribery or racketeering among those who certify, recommend or purchase the machines

Again, this would be proof of nothing except that the officials are corrupt. It casts further doubt on a dubious system, but no more than that. George W. Bush is a corrupt gangster but it doesn't necessarily mean that everything the executive branch does is invalid. Hmm, maybe that's a bad example. :D

h) Proof that the triple set of books, bypassable passwords and overwritable audit trail exposed earlier this month (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm) is actually being used in the programs used in county election offices

This is proof of an unconscionably shitty system, one that no one should be using. It is not proof that anyone rigged an election.

I completely agree that these machines should not be in use, anywhere. However, I don't see why we can't make that case based on the available evidence instead of tilting at Perl windmills.

Very clear and well thought out. However, you re-framed the question I asked.

The specific question was "might be rigged. Which of the following would change your mind to the extent that you would call for a paper trail AND open source, along with an immediate moratorium on electronic vote-counting until solutions are in place?"

Yes, I do care what you say -- the purpose of this thread is to vet out what doubts people have, and what kind of information they need in order to form opinions.

As posted, I am now working with several mainstream reporters, and the current story we are working on, which has not been posted anywhere, is awfully technical. All of us are trying to figure out how to make it comprehensible to the general public.

Sorry that I haven't been dead-on on all my posts -- I have always considered DU to be a focus group, not an outlet for reporting finished news stories. Sometimes leads do not pan out, but some things that people dismissed as irrelevant will rear their ugly heads again when put in context with other files.

In the end, it won't matter what Bev Harris thinks about it, writes about it, or opines about it. In the end, the data will speak for itself, and some of us are content to let that play itself out in the background while we do a few other things to prepare for follow up stories.

Bev

It DOES matter what you think and how you approach it. All data is not created equal, and in this case the playing field is not level.

Let's say you're able to convince a reporter to run this story. Let's say the published story is basically accurate but due to a misinterpretation and maybe a little excess zeal, one minor aspect of the published story turns out to be wrong.

If you were running a story about how black people are too stupid to vote, no one would care that you made this minor error - they would call it a masterpiece and ignore the problems. However, in this case it's going to become the entire story. The very idea of vote-tampering in electronic vote systems will be held up to ridicule.

I'm not saying you shouldn't go ahead with what you're doing. It could be exactly what the American public needs right now. I'm just saying you have to be careful. What looks to you like evidence of wrongdoing could turn out to have an innocent explanation. If you aren't looking for that innocent explanation, you may not find it until it's too late.

jb

And, in the same way, did several financial fraud investigations.

First you wear the black hat. You suspect everything and run down hundreds of leads, and most don't pan out. This culls out a handful of very strong leads, things that look suspicious.

Then you put on the white hat, and see if you can find benign reasons for them.

It is generally a mistake to try to wear both hats at once, because you miss information that's important. DU has been a tremendous help, because it has allowed me to get black hat and white hat thinking going at the same time, accelerating the process of weeding out the good from the bad.

For some reason, people here love to tell me what the press will do. You'll see what the press will do, but I will categorically say now that I'm working with mainstream reporters, bigboys, and from several different media outlets.

Bev

One of the ways people have of inoculating themselves against other people's ideas is to say "the public will never go for it" or other such appeal to what the "mainstream" will accept. It's a way to avoid dealing with what we ourselves think on the subject.

I assure you that's not what I'm trying to get at here. I just mean, tread carefully. The mainstream media is a strange beast. I'm sure you know the story of Gary Webb.

As long as you conduct the white hat portion of your inquiry with the same dogged determination with which you seem to be conducting the black hat portion, you are at least doing all you can to avoid Webb's fate.

Good luck.

jb

If you didn't "routinely" respond in a defensive then aggressive manner to those who politely wear the white hat.

That, combined with the fact that your own dubious and nefarious actions and conclusions have already been listed out ad infinitum for your perusal day after day would cause any reasonable naysayer to conclude that the only reason for starting this thread is to generate conflict.

And it's a little disappointing. Didn't you have any big "Pentagon Papers" style story to break today? No new "security hole" you want everyone on DU to "pick up their oars" and start investigating for you? C'mon Bev, there are willing fans here just waiting for you to instruct them as to what to do next.

Come on now...even birdman answered the question. Even TinfoilHatProgrammer answered the question. What is your answer?

I found the answers to be helpful and informative, in that they show what issues are most persuasive to skeptics.

Now, your turn: What would convince SDent?

Bev

But if anyone wants to claim that elections "have" been rigged, then there has to be concrete evidence. So, a confession would be nice. An election official saying "Yeah, I changed the vote results to give my guy the election" would certainly get some attention.

I've said this in other threads, but since I'm just on the sidelines on this, I'll say it again in case anyone missed it before (or cares) -- the fact that the machines can be tampered with is just as important as any evidence that the machines have been tampered with. (excuse the poor grammar) You need rock-solid evidence of past malfeasance to deflect any charges of "sour grapes". Look at how we vilify the recall effort in California -- the Republicans are trying to undo a legitimate election because they didn't like the results. If all we say is "the machines are flaky, and my guy lost, so the election must have been rigged" most of the public will just laugh it off.

But the fact that the machines are not secure is a big enough story in itself -- it's EXTREMELY important to get the word out that future elections are at risk because (1) it's true, and (2) it can become a bipartisan issue. Joe Wingnut should be just as worried about a nefarious Democrat changing the election results as we are about a nefarious Republican changing them.

btw, I'm assuming that so far there isn't any evidence that the machines all dial into a single, centralized national location to get tampered results -- that is, is there any strong evidence that the Diebold central office is coordinating the election results of EVERY district in which Diebold machines are used? From what I've gathered from the threads here, isn't the issue something more about risk of rigged election results at the local/precinct/county levels? (And maybe state levels?) That doesn't make it any less serious, but you have to be careful of mockery from naysayers who will scoffingly say "Oh sure, there's some Mr. Big in his evil lair decreeing who will be the new dog-catcher in Peoria". The point must be made clear that local elections can be corrupted by local officials with no evidence of wrong-doing. A state-wide coordination of local officials can then put larger elections at risk, too. Mr. Big is not necessary.

I'm also not convinced that open-source is the only way to go (I've had to deal with proprietary code before), but if proprietary code is used then there has to be a hell of a lot of safeguards in place, and I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. I've been checking around the Maryland election sites (you know of course that the state just bought several thousand new Diebold machines), and haven't seen anything satisfactory about software control processes. It could just be that it's not on the web, but it could also be that it just doesn't exist. Very frustrating.

So, does that make me a skeptic or not? :)

So I am voting for the public in general:

I choose option e, with a confession of b, g, and/or h.

If you want to capture the imagination of the media and the general public (both too busy and ADD for complex theories), find yourself a whistleblower. Otherwise, this isn't getting major media coverage.

Sorry.

The procedures for distributing the code are eggregiously insecure.

The machines themselves offer no ability for traceable recovery of votes.

If this were an ATM system proposed to banks, #1 no bank would buy it and #2, no customer would bank there.

The laxity of governments which buy these machines is beyond comprehension.

with a uninque hash code -printed on it that could only be generated by someone with my voter ID, voting in my precinct and casting the particular set of votes I cast. If that means I need another card in my wallet with some sort of moderately long PIN number, I'm OK with that. It would stink for same day voter registration, which is a good thing for Dems, but surely we could come up with a same day registration package that would generate the PIN.


Right now, we have machine read paper ballots. I'm OK with that. If we were to go to an all bits voting system, unless they are prepared to eliminate the ability for recounts, I think I would write a check and get on the ballot just to demand a recount of every election until they got tired of it.

I think that some people do your cause a disservice by mingling the two.

Based on what I've read in previous threads, arguments that there was electronic voter fraud in 2000 or 2002 take over and it starts to read like there has to be hard evidence that there HAS BEEN voter fraud before the question of whether or not there COULD be becomes relevant.

Obviously, if you convince people that there was fraud, the issue of whether or not there could be becomes moot. But that is impossible to prove (precisely because there is no paper trail). You would need a confession by someone who participated before most people would pay attention. Arguing swings from pre-election polling isn't enough because there is always an alternate explanation (e.g., misestimated turnout).

It seems to me that concentrating on the possibility that someone COULD tamper with the machines would be easier to prove and easier to sell. All it would take to convince me would be a plausible story by recognized computer experts that someone could hack in, etc.

I would think that if you concentrated on the hacking/tampering issue (by an outside source, not a plot by Diebold), you would get regular people from both parties on your side. After all, if it were possible to tamper with the count remotely, then a nefarious Democrat could do it, too.

IF it's possible to tamper with results, does either party's voters really want someone other than The People selecting their various races' nominees during the primary?

In GA for example, there was a big primary fight between Bob Barr and John Linder for a newly-drawn Congressional district in 2002. While I'm not suggesting there was any vote tampering in this race (I honestly don't know one way or the other and I don't think Diebold machines were in use in that District), we do know that Barr had been uncharacteristically (for a Repug) outspoken about such things as the Patriot Act, and was seen by the administration as a pain in the neck (at best). We also know that this administration doesn't really "appreciate" disloyalty and has gone after disloyal Repugs in the past (think Jeffords, among others). IOW, plenty of "motivation" on their part.

On another subject, IF vote fraud happened in Georgia resulting in the first election of a Repug governor in 130 years, and the defeat of a well-thought-of war hero Senator, what about the Dems who didn't get defeated? Namely, the Secretary of State (who bought the machines in the first place), the Attorney General, and possibly the most curious of all, the Lt. Gov. It seems counterintuitive to me to elect a Repug Gov and re-elect a Dem Lt. Gov.

Eloriel

I wouldn't put anything past the BFEE, but to be 100 percent convinced, I'd have to see a physical demostration of a real machine (or an exact mockup) actually having done to it whay you say can be done to it--from the changed totals to the remote control.

Bev, I think this is the standard that the big time mainstream media is going to have as well.

j) A demonstration.

I want to see a set of Diebold machines set up to run a mock election which is then rigged before the media and the public at large. From looking at portions of the code and following discussions here at DU, I have serious problems with the way Diebold works. However, I think that many people here have simplified what is required to rig an election. I suspect that rigging an election requires physical access to machines either before or during an election. If this is the case, you should be able to compile a list of people that had such access in specific previous elections, thereby obtaining a list of "suspects".

I stumbled on this and thought it was interesting
http://certcities.com/certs/microsoft/columns/story.asp?EditorialsID=20
(snip)
System Monitor Secrets
So now a few "been there, done that" Windows 2000 System Monitor-related secrets:
System Monitor now runs as a service, not an application. This allows you to log off of the Windows 2000 machine running System Monitor without disrupting the logging process.
Many BackOffice and ISV applications provide pre-configured System Monitor templates. These are typically found on the CD-ROM Disc that accompanies the software and represents the critical object:counters the developers feel you should monitor. If you're monitoring a Windows 2000 Serve, run System Monitor from a Windows 2000 Professional machine. If you run System Monitor on the server, it's likely you may create some false reads.
An often overlooked way to view the data you log in System Monitor is to use a Web browser. This is simple to do: In the logging view, right-click the log file listed in the details pane of System Monitor and select Save As. Save the log file as an HTML file so that you can open it in a browser. The resulting view (see Figure 6) isn't just a pretty picture; it's actually a Web-enabled copy of System Monitor, allowing you to add counters and so on.(snip)

on edit: forgot to add the snips, it's near the bottom

It's specifically designed to steal votes. There is absolutely no other reason to design a computer voting machine that doesn't spit out a voter verified ballot custom-voted with the voter's choices, that the voter secretly inserts in a separate container for safekeeping and recounts.

But I had no evidence. Compare this situation to the Holocaust for example. The Swansea meeting was not known, therefore the conspiracy and setup could only be imagined. The event was invisible despite reports and a few witnessses. There was immense resistance to the idea for all sorts of reasons. EVEN to the point where it should not be raised so that the Holocaust would not be worsened! That the important thing was to win the war first. Afterwards, s"shock and surprise" forget dropping the ball and try the criminals, mostly, but the fact-burying and dodging sort of continues too. Some Nazis go to work for the GOP.

Here I expect some decent organizations suspect cheating but think it is important FIRST to win elections, THEN clean them up. A dumber more inexcusable illogic than FDR ever had. Lots of resistance and denial because they have been coopted, powerless, and NO visible shocking evidence. Lack of power and will to do anything.

But this is HERE and can be acted upon, hopefully, despite the mesmerizing invisibility of the accused dangers. Until then, to the horror of those getting shafted and knowing it completely, it advances. And this is not a byproduct of war, it IS the war and if it succeeds only revolution can change it. We need squealers, research, the RNC(or subgroup) plot, the smoking guns and spine in any oversight group or individual we can find. Like 2000 expect the GOP to outrageously pre-empt the issue with countless small stories, true or otherwise of Dem cheating. The first setback is that when the issue comes up ALWAYS the flamboyant Democratic frauds(sometimes merely getting out the wino vote that dates back to the 1800's) of Daley, Tweed, Earl Long are the icons, not the corporate pressure and bribery of their captive work force.

I hope Bev is right about the heat to come. Right now is the lame time. In 2000 Bush just LOOKED like he was in the catbird seat. I feared for some military adventure. Instead it was a very self-confident campaign blitz that succeeded very strangely indeed.
Guiliani thinks they can take NY. And the machines are pouring in.

So my standards are: if it's possible to cheat, it's Not Acceptable. No Way, No How, No Place.

2002 sold me on it. The repuke talking heads were so arrogant pre-count. And George Stephanopoulis, etc. were simply stunned, as was I.

I think you should go with the "bribery and racketeering" terminology, because so many people know that terminology from mob movies (dumb it down for the consumer culture). I think a lot on non-techies' eyes glaze over when you hit them with techie-talk, and it's kind of a waste to try to explain it to them because they won't understand the explanation, either.

I called the League of Women Voters and got tranferred twice and put on hold and then referred to a voice-mail. I really appreciate all your courage and hard work!

I have been trying to catch up on the US's hidden history after a lifetime of non- or mis-education. Stealing elections goes way back, probably all the way. Why not computerize it like so many other things? But the Colliers' book Votescam was what brought it into the present for me and shocked me by revealing a ruling structure, both Dem and Repub, that was most reluctant to have any light shed on this corrupt process.

BTW, I just discovered a copy of the book on the Web.
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

But its easier to read on paper.: www.votescam.com

that the voting system does not comply with the law and that the law is not written to be as tight as it should be.

These two things would stop the voting systems from being deployed which is our main objective.

I wouldn't want to lose trying to prove intent and not stop the machines. At the beginning, we can state that they are not compliant with the federal standards.

Intent may be proved later on.... think of how obstruction of justice cases start -- ie Martha Stewart. Someone is caught violating the law (in Martha's case, maybe violating the law). They start to lie and cover their tracks to hide this violation. Next thing you know they have obstructed justice.

Just build the case slowly and let it simmer and have all the full bodied stench permeate the atmosphere.

devastating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=71703&mesg_id=71703&page=

And I think f) is really e) in disguise ;-)

Bev, I have seen none of the code so far, but from what I've read it is a complete and utter joke. That aside, I don't want *any* vote tallied, unless it first resides on a physical ballot that the voter can look at and plainly confirm their choices. Then the physical ballot can be scanned, and held for an audit or hand-count.

Trusting in the current diebold code is like trusting criminals to put themselves in jail -- it's possible it could happen, but it's stupid to believe it would last..

The burden of proof should be to show that fraud WASN'T committed.

This means that we must assume that a system that CAN be used to commit fraud WILL be used to commit fraud. Isn't that the way it always is in all other areas of life? A touch-screen system with dozens of security flaws built in is a golden opportunity for high-tech ballot-stuffing.

So I guess I'm either (h) or (i).

Some folks seem to be looking at the thread's question as if it were asking for a verdict on whether election fraud has already happened. If that were the question, then I can see the need for solid evidence that a vote was changed, etc...

But that is not the question, as I read it:

Some DUers have poo-pooed the idea that the voting machines
might be rigged. Which of the following would change your mind...

The question that is really being asked is whether you trust these machines to accurately count your votes in future elections.

That's where a simple (and previously given) analogy can clear things right up.

To the point, would you put your business and life savings in a bank if you had some reason to suspect that the vault may not be safe from unauthorized entry, if the bank neither sent you a monthly statement of your account, nor even kept such a record, if the bank officials were your direct business competitors and swould stand to profit if you lost money, and if the bank refused to be subject to normal third party oversight?

Or would you trust this hypothetical and potentially enimical bank with your entire financial future?

It really doesn't matter if you think the vote machines worked yesterday (well, ok it does matter, but not for the sake of this conversation). I want to know if you trust them to work tomorrow.

-----help is on the waaayy---

towards seeking the truth on b) c) d) e) f) g) and h)

:)

I'd want completly open source code, paper receipts, the ability of any voter to verify the count, spot checks at each precinct, Any software can get hacked and alot of programmers put in "back doors" to get around security checks. If touch screen voting is used, have it print out a bar coded receipt that links it to all the voters data(not personal info, but a serial number to that ballots selection of candidates) then have a completely seperate machine scan the voters receipt before they leave. Then you have a counter checking your counter. Now here you need some type of process control so that no one walks out before getting there receipt scanned.
I'm going to get involved locally here in MI. For now we have optical scanned but after what happened in Florida, when I insert my ballot into the counter I have this vision of it getting shredded. The only evidence I have is a green light went on saying the ballot was good and the total vote counter went up by one. Then there's Seminole, see my PM

:kick::kick::kick::kick: