This story is archived

E-Vote Memo Is a 'Smoking Gun' »

Posted by: Digidave 2 years, 9 months ago

Archived 175 0 drops

A memo sent last year by a voting machine maker to election officials in Florida has reignited controversy over the reliability and accuracy of the company's machines. Voting activists are now renewing calls to examine source code used in the Election Systems & Software machines during a close election last November.

Read Full Story at wired.com »

Submitted By:

Digidave

I am a freelance science and technology writer, or what I like to call a "geek writer."

My main interest is taking what I know ...

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 25

Avg rating: (+14/-9 5)
ningyo
March 22, 2007, 7:41 p.m.
smoking gun pointing to what? that computers sometimes have glitches that are hard to predict and harder to recreate?and why do these voting rights groups only seem to have problems with elections where dems lose--we heard for weeks on end ad-nauseum last fall about how the dems had platoons of layers ready to hit the beaches of election fraud and miscount that they KNEW was going to happen..suddenly when they win a little bit..oh well these machines seemed to have worked perfectly..well i guess we dont need all these recounts ..why these computers are just as efficient and accurate as can be---wait till they lose in 08---and speaking of election fraud..lets not forget about washington where the repub lost by a couple hundred votes and they found them for the recount in all sorts of places..behind the radiator..in back of the do-nut shop..stuffed down somebody's pants..more dem votes found than you could imagine..somehow none for the repub seem to surface...hmmm..
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
wallyone
March 22, 2007, 7:43 p.m.
don't forget the bush vs gore presidential election or bush vs kerry. seems to me there was controversy due to electronic voting and diebold, bush senior's buddies..
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
March 22, 2007, 11:19 p.m.
It looks like Diebold is bad no matter who is voting.
What a great Republican name, though. Die Bold.
The ultra-conservatives are really trying to do that, as they fall...
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Allee
March 22, 2007, 11:23 p.m.
Another way of looking at it is - if the dem lost by 400 votes then another 18000 votes means the dem would have lost by more than 400 votes. (_?_) 's
Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)
KYRed
March 22, 2007, 11:35 p.m.
Better to die bold than to die afraid and cowering.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
March 22, 2007, 11:38 p.m.
And it's even better to live and create open democracy like our Founding Fathers intended.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
crespi
March 23, 2007, 12:11 a.m.
The American Heritage Dictionary-
Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
You're right. they knew better than to have direct democracy.
If we had that today, Britney Spears or some other super-popular celebrity would have become president.
And you're also right, the notion that only white land holders could vote was the original idea.
But they made it pretty clear that these documents were looking ahead.
Did the Founding Fathers see ahead to when slaves were free citizens? Not very many of them. But a couple of them seemed to know that their concept would grow to encompass issues beyond their present imagination.
One state, Vermont excluded the landholder restriction, and Ben Franklin said, "A propertyless man with the vote is a better ally than one without."
Besides, we got a Democracy now.
And that means NO ONE fixes the votes, Republican or Democrat.
palamaComment has been removed: User banned.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
Commodore1
March 23, 2007, 8:06 a.m.
Yes, very good. Let's have a recount to see if all those dems were legitimately elected. I like that idea. I'm sure there's something shady about it.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
redVerbal
March 23, 2007, 11:18 a.m.
maybe we should vote by cell phone?
anyways, it doesn't matter. voting is an illusion from where i sit:)
Avg rating: (+23/-0 23)
willottica
March 23, 2007, 11:50 a.m.
It's be pretty simple to adjust the odds in an election if you had access to the source code.
- Touch-screen buttons for two candidates appear the same size on the screen
- Make the pushable area for the preferred candidate slightly larger than the visible button
- Make the pushable area for the non-preferred candidate somewhat smaller than the visible area... or off-center.
- People wanting to vote for the preferred candidate, no problem, first time.
- People wanting to vote for the other have trouble, have to try pushing many different times... frustration builds and they start blindly stabbing. Sometimes they give up (vote lost). Sometimes they accidentally push the wrong button (preferred candidate 1, other -1).
In a close election, this could easily swing the vote. Did it happen -- source code would show the active button sizes, if you looked in the right place and looked at ALL the code. (Anything done can be undone.)
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Amazing1
March 23, 2007, 12:14 p.m.
YOu can't get gas without a receipt. YOu can't go to the ATM without getting a receipt. It is not rocket science. Surely we can have a system that allows for a paper trail, auditing and verifying. As long as we are counting votes, let's count them correctly and let the chips fall where they may. If we do not insure that our voting systems are accurate, there is really no point in voting and it is nothing but a charade.
onlyaccutaneComment has been removed: User banned.