Fallout From California's Ban on Electronic Voting Machines
-
http://www.alternet.org/story/59077/
The Fallout From California's Ban on Electronic Voting Machines
By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet.
August 8, 2007.
Thousands of electronic voting machines will be out of circulation in
California after the secretary of state pulls them -- and the House Democrat
in D.C. in charge of electronic voting reform applauds the decision. Tools
The decision by California Secretary of State Debra Bowen to replace an
estimated 33,000 electronic voting machines in 20 counties before the 2008
presidential primary wasn't that surprising because the machines' security
flaws were known, said Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., the lead sponsor of the House's
first bill to regulate the machines.
"It is not really new," said Holt, speaking of the design flaws that prompted
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, also a Democrat, to issue a series
of directives ordering counties to replace most of the touch-screen voting
machines made by Diebold Election Systems and Sequoia Voting Systems by the
Feb. 5, 2008, primary. Bowen acted after University of California computer
security experts issued a detailed report finding the machines could not
prevent people from altering vote counts.
"The report is one more strong piece of evidence, but it is not dramatically
different from what's been found in New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, and by
independent investigators over the last few years," Holt said. "It all adds up
to a really compelling case that we have to have new standards for
verifiability, accessibility, accountability and reliability. We need federal
standards, and that is what H.R. 811 (The Voter Confidence and Increased
Accessibility Act of 2007) will do."
Last week, Bowen decided that certain touch-screen electronic voting systems
could not be used in precincts because of security flaws that could corrupt
the vote count. The voting machines could only be used in limited ways, she
said, such as for voters with disabilities, who prefer the machines. In
isolation, the security threats are minimized, Bowen said.
While Bowen's decision has been greeted with dismay by many California county
election officials who have transitioned to the new paperless electronic
voting systems -- and will now revert to voting with paper -- Holt said
California's actions will increase the chance that HR 811 will come before the
full House later this year.
Holt's bill would require electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail
for every vote cast and encourages states to return to using paper ballots
that are counted by computers. Bowen opted for the later of these choices, the
optical-scan ballot system, because marked paper ballots show the voter's
intent if there is a recount. Adding a printer to the new all-electronic
voting systems has been problematic, she said.
"It just adds more weight, more urgency to the need to pass federal
standards," Holt said, speaking of Bowen's decision to restrict the
touch-screen machines. "We can't go into another federal election with
machines that do no allow voters to verify their votes and have people in 20
states saying they do not believe the results."
On Tuesday, Kentucky's attorney general, Gregory Stumbo, asked his state board
of elections to re-examine their paperless voting machines, citing
California's actions. Earlier this year, Florida's Legislature followed its
Republican governor, Charlie Crist, and passed an election reform package that
included returning to paper ballots and optical-scan counters by 2008.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Rep. Holt misses the big one
Posted by: rjf7r on Aug 8, 2007 5:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, Rep. Holt, in his comments, misses the big one: openness. Our
election processes need to be open to the public, with citizen and multi-party
participation. The complexity of software-based systems precludes that, and
makes testing to whatever standards are enacted a practical impossibility (I
write that as a professional software tester and security consultant).
Unfortunately, Rep. Holt's bill, HR 811, has a complexity that rivals that of
these machines, since special interests of the industry are reflected on every
page (and there are many pages).
We need to have some simple legislation that sets out a voters' bill of
rights, rather than a bill that tries to patch the flaws in defective
machines, and hides the rest.
This voters' bill of rights must guarantee transparency, multi-partisan
administration and supervision, citizen participation, a real, visible,
physical ballot, with systems available to mark and cast that ballot for those
who need that assistance, a system that is fully auditable and actually
audited (beyond the limitations of the secret ballot) but which has the
highest probability of getting the count right the first time, and a system
where tamper resistance and evidence is inherent, not an add-on.
The counting and handling of ballots must be visible and open to public
scrutiny at every step. They certainly must not be hidden in private software.
Most importantly, the overall election system must be simple enough and open
enough that all citizens can convince themselves that our elections are fair.
Adding hidden complexity surely destroys that confidence.
The people, not some vendors, own elections. Voting is the foundation of
democracy. Anything that diminishes that, or threatens it, does the same to
our very system of government.
Bob Fleischer
Groton, MA
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
» RE: Unfortunately, Rep. Holt misses the big one Posted by: gathaiga
» But how do you get honest legislation past the Republicans and Democrats?
Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: But how do you get honest legislation past the Republicans and
Democrats? Posted by: rjf7r
» RE: But how do you get honest legislation past the Republicans and
Democrats? Posted by: ssegallmd
Biased article
Posted by: ScottP on Aug 8, 2007 10:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a revolting article, quoting people with vested interests in electronic
un-auditable voting systems while not quoting a single person who supports
verifiable voting (besides Holt, who proposes a water-down bill that is as
much cover up as it is solution). Not one computer scientist is quoted. Not
one of the people involved in the Ohio 2004 investigations and lawsuits is
quoted. No mention is made of numerous election results claiming more votes
for a candidate than there were registered voters. No mention is made of the
predominantly black Ohio precinct in which 40% of the votes were given to a
white supremicist by Diebold machines in 2004. No mention is made of the
various corrupt practices of the industry, such as paying speaking fees to the
Los Angeles County Clerk. And the claims that the clerks can't handle the
change are left unchallenged, even against the obvious fact that every single
precinct in California already plans to accept absentee ballots. Not to
mention that I haven't heard a single voter claim that same-day election
results are more important than correct results, or that they think it's a
waste of money to replace untrustworthy voting machines.
The author feels that cheap and quick voting is the way to go, even if the
results are wrong. But he won't state it directly, he obscures his point with
selected quotes from people who agree with him. His plan will probably work,
he'll probably trick some readers into supporting the continued dismantling of
our voting system for profit.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
» This is not a biased article Posted by: srosenfeld
» RE: thanks for confirming that you'd rather have quick results than correct
ones Posted by: ScottP
» absentee ballots can be a problem Posted by: srosenfeld
What about Ron Paul and Iowa??
Posted by: Reader11722 on Aug 8, 2007 11:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The upcoming, important Iowa Straw Poll will be using the Diebold vote
counters (the ones banned in California) to tally the winner on primary night.
Vote rigging is alive and well and is also yet another infringement on our
rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and
banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies
and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
» Ron Paul is sexist and racist Posted by: goatini
» RE: What about Ron Paul and Iowa??!! What about 'em? Posted by: DaBear
» RE: What about Ron Paul and Iowa?? Posted by: EKSwitaj
Not quite accurate....
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 8, 2007 12:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Bowen opted for the later of these choices, the optical-scan ballot system,
because marked paper ballots show the voter's intent if there is a recount."
Um... Ventura county uses optical scanner machines (made by Sequoia Systems)
and Bowen decertified these last week. This article is quoting people without
verifying or fact checking. Come on, Alternet!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
» Mr. DaBear, you are mistaken Posted by: srosenfeld
» RE: Mr. DaBear, you are mistaken... AH, not quite, Mr. Snarky Posted by:
DaBear
» RE: Mr. DaBear, you are mistaken... AH, not quite, Mr. Snarky Posted by:
srosenfeld
» Sorry guys, you're both wrong. Read the docs... Posted by: BradBlog
Rep. Holt lied to you, Steve...
Posted by: BradBlog on Aug 8, 2007 5:39 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His bill does NOT require paper ballots as he told you, eg. when he said that
under his bill, "By November 2008, every voter would be given a verifiable
paper ballot".
Full details on his lie and the above article here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4930
While I appreciate Steve's good work on this story, it is, of course, the
responsibility of the media to not pass on such nonsense unchecked. This fact
could have, should have been easily checked and/or rebutted.
Holt's comments here are pure, shameful, propaganda at this point. As I worked
on the bill with his office before it was introduced, I can tell you for a
fact: It does NOT require paper BALLOTS, only the trails of the type that
Bowen decertified after her study found that they could not keep an election
safe (thus her requirement to count any DRE paper trails 100% by hand).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
» RE: ep. Holt lied to you, Steve... Posted by: srosenfeld
» RE: ep. Holt lied to you, Steve... Posted by: BlueBlogsTV
Canada
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Aug 8, 2007 6:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canada votes on paper so should we. Ok so some ballot boxes will get stuffed.
But elections will only be stolen retail not wholesale like they are today
with the machines.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
One voter, one vote...every time
Posted by: Lani Brown on Aug 8, 2007 6:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are to secure one voter, one vote…every-time integrity in our election
process, election laws must be brought in line with technology to protect us
from machine and human error, and human interpretation of our election
results. And we must think more like a profitable business. Test for quality
before we rush to buy, before we squander votes. Implement high-bar guidelines
for voting machine providers and elections officials. Until we do, our
election process will continue to be broken.
Lani Massey Brown, MARGIN OF ERROR BALLOTS OF STRAW, a novel.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
ALL EQUIPMENT RUN OFF SEQUOIA'S WINEDS CANNOT BE USED AT ALL
Posted by: loganmonique on Aug 8, 2007 6:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi,
My name is Gerard Gonzalez.
Today I concluded my review of contracts all over the use with vendors.
I have prepared a formal ELECTION COMPLAINT FORM and will finalize by next
week. I also made several attempts to and called directly to the SECRETARY OF
STATE'S OFFICE ELECTION FRAUD INVESTIGATION UNIT in Sacramento in order to
file a formal complaint.
I could not believe what happened next. Wow, it seems the gravity of this
situation involving CA top to bottom review showed before it even started that
they would never be able to be DRE and other machines ever again in CA and
(ALL STATES).
THE REASON!!!!
1.
THE PRIMARY CONCERN CANNOT BE WITH SECURITY BECAUSE THEIR IS ALWAYS SOMEBODY
TO HACK A SYSTEM. (YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND SOMEBODY SMARTER THEN YOURSELF)
2.
THE REALITY THAT A? (IMPORT PROCESS) TO BRING IN THE BASIC PAPER BALLOT DATA,
WAS OUT OF CONTROL!!! AND IS THE STARTING POINT FOR WHICH TESTING SHOULD
BEGIN.
By withholding information about software packages to streamline a process in
favor of a vendor creates the ability to earn huge amounts of revenue.
I need to talk with Steven Rosenfeld, We as taxpayers need to stop the
spending now.
I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A SINGLE PERSON IN CA THAT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE
GRAVITY OF OUR SITUATION.
I CAN DEMOMSTRATE A SOLUTION TO THIS NECESSARY PROCESS OF AN IMPORT OF DATA
THAT REPRESENTS A PAPER BALLOT.
IT SHOULD BE 100% ACURATE. That is the goal in delivering quality.
But, yes our paper ballots have errors that get past every check process to
date by every print vendor.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3
- 4 - 5]
The power of one.
Posted by: mom'z the word on Aug 9, 2007 12:16 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A way around the political shenanigans of an election where voters are forced
to vote for the lesser of two evils on a preprinted ballot is the write-in
vote. A write-in vote allows you the freedom to vote for none of the above
which I have never seen on a printed ballot. I find the write-in vote a very
useful voting tool and the method used by our founding fathers.
I have not seen anything about the ability to write-in candidates on the
computer version of voting. Running as a write-in candidate greatly reduces
many of the political and economic pitfalls of running a campaign. It also
truly allows for people to vote their conscience and speak their mind as a
matter of their first amendment right to free speech by writing in their
choice. Just as a side note it is also a very good way to keep tabs on the
counting of votes cast.
Just because write-in voting is not currently the most popular does not mean
it couldn’t become so in the future. It has been available in the past and I
believe for good reason. It is a sleeping giant. Like many freedoms if
write-in disappears from the ballot as an option to casting a vote there will
be hell to pay trying to get it back again. It has the potential to becoming
the voting tool that wins elections. This may be a good reason for organized
politics to make it disappear from our ballots.
You see write-in votes eliminate the need for primaries and party
endorsements. I dare say this is where a lot of the campaigning funds are now
spent and would not be necessary in a write-in campaign. The ability to
write-in my vote is the quintessence expression of free speech and when it is
on a ballot it is officially recognized and recorded. Voting, and in
particular, write-in voting, is the power of one and I would like to keep it
that way for everyone’s sake.
2007 Independent Media Institute.