News The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy

[franznietzsche]

Wrong, russ. We're not leaving because of the election or a president that sucks. We are leaving because of people like you and the fundamentalist christians who just don't 'get it'. We don't want your beliefs and morals shoved down our throats. We're a bit more open-minded and believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices - not have them made for us according to beliefs and religions that we do not wish to be goverened by. This country used to allow that. I'm just hoping we make it out before Bush slams the exit door on us and doesn't ALLOW us to leave - as I suspect he might try to do when he goes to Canada later this month.

Yeah, B***S***.

I will say the only words that i ever agreed with that came out of Kerry's mouth were when he said he didn't feel he could legislate his beliefs to other people.

You spout that now, but i don't buy it.

Should a doctor be allowed to refuse to givean abortion or birth control to unmarried women? Absolutely.

Should she be able to get them from a willing doctor? Absolutley.

Should people be allowed to chooseto end their own lives when terminally ill? Absolutely.

Should doctors be allowed to refuse to aid patients in this basedon personal beliefs? Absolutely.

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Absolutely.

Should a given priest/reverend/pastor/justice of the peace be allowed to refuse to marry a homosexual couple for personal reasons? Absolutely.

Do you agree with every one of those statements?I don't think you do, though i might be wrong. If you don't, you're full of it.

I would ahve voted for bush. I'm the most vehement atheist I've ever known. I was raised catholic, rejected it. I see reiligion as an a priori belief based on fear and ignorance without basis in reality. Hence why i am an atheist. I still would have voted for bush. Why?

Because Kerry talks about a war on poverty. Because he talks about government handouts to people who don't deserve them. It is not the governments job to make up for people's failures in life. I don't care what your reasons are.

I'm firmly against affirmative action.

I'm firmly against higher taxes, drivers license's for illegal immigrants, soda taxes for programs to teach not to drink soda, and minimum wages of $12 an hour for work that an untrained baboon could perform(and in the People's Republic of Santa Monica, that's what you see, untrained baboons making $12/hour at cash registers on the promenade).

Now your claims about bush closing emigration is just off the wall and irrational.

You want to run to Canada, because you're sore over having lost when you picked the wrong candidate from the get-go? Then go, but you'll only help gaurantee that liberal agenda is shut down politically. And for that, I must say:

Thank you.

 

[polyb]

franznietzsche,

What is wrong with being liberal? Or conservative?

As far as I can tell both camps have valid points, unfortunately we only here from the extremists as well as the bad news that corruption on both sides have been party to. Perhaps you should consider that divide and conquer works just as well in politics as it does in war. My question is does that serve we the people or the vested interests of a few?

 

[franznietzsche]

franznietzsche,

What is wrong with being liberal? Or conservative?

As far as I can tell both camps have valid points, unfortunately we only here from the extremists as well as the bad news that corruption on both sides have been party to. Perhaps you should consider that divide and conquer works just as well in politics as it does in war. My question is does that serve we the people or the vested interests of a few?

The vested interests of a few, without a doubt. Politicians will never serve the people. Not that they ever have.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess this probably deserves a [belated] reply:

Now russ, if you feel that the author of the papers in question were politically motivated then I say take it up with them and tell us their response, otherwise you are just "spinning" things.

I don't see how taking it up with him will accomplish anything. We already know his position and the position of the person who started the company that conducts the polls:

-Study writer: uncalibrated data is 'real' and calibrated data is purposefully altered to appear correct (an allegation of fraud).
-Exit poller: exit polls are not meant to be used this way and calibrated data has known polling errors filtered out (this is standard practice in all polls).

The judgement, to me, seems a simple one. I'm not trying to convince him: just you.

Oh yeah, please do your homework first because you are dealing with some heavy weights.

Could you be more specific? I was quite specific as to what I objected to and why.

Another thing, you have no problem supporting the notion that people voted "values" which were based on the same polls that you discredit. I find that a little odd, don't you?

There is a contradiction there, but you're looking at it backwards. The difference there is simple and obvious: I'm using (1) calibrated data (2) for the purpose it is intended to be used. The writer of the study is doing neither. But that isn't even where the contradiction comes in - the contradiction is that he all-but accuses the people who he got the data from of fraud! He is the one trying to have it both ways, not me.

The main reason I resurrected this thread though, is no one (should have been me) ever presented the real exit poll data, and I think its important to see what the exit polls really say about this election. I'll do Ohio and Florida (all the data can be found HERE).

In the study, there is a screenshot of the Ohio page from CNN, showing the uncalibrated data. It has:
-Male: 49%-51% (all are Bush - Kerry)
-Female: 47%-53%

But the calibrated data is:
-Male: 52%-47%
-Female: 50%-50%

The actual election results were:
-Bush 51%, Kerry 47%

For Florida, the article has:
-Bush 49.8%, Kerry 49.7%

But the exit polls actually showed:
-Male: 53%-46%
-Female: 50%-49%
(and significantly more women than men voted)

And the actual election results were:
Bush 52%, Kerry 47%

It should be obvious from the data that the entire study depends on whether or not it is right to use the uncalibrated data: the calibrated exit poll data closely matches the election results.

 

[GENIERE]

And from the same poll – College graduates… 52% (the idiots) voted for Bush vs. 46% voting for Kerry.

Jay Leno displayed a local ballot listing a GOP candidate... Rich White Republican.

I hope Richard won!

 

[polyb]

russ,

it looks like Dr. Freeman has addressed the issues you brought up, here is the link:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/Expldiscrpv00oPt1.pdf

As far as the data from Harris goes, do you have it? I certainly do not have the raw data to analyze nor do have the time nor understanding to so as well.

Personally the whole thing stinks to me and I was in FloriDUH for the last fiasco and I was very disappointed with how it worked out, a three ring circus affair with no clarity. Now that it has happened twice I really have lost "faith" in our election system and I wonder if I have any say so without a whopping load of cash. Face it, the game has been rigged and there is not much any of us can do about it short of disposing of the current system and starting from scratch. Corruption is an American tradition and now institution, I guess.

 

[russ_watters]

He's making the same allegation: that the calibration process actually matches the exit poll data to the election results. I'd like to see that substantiated - otherwise, this is just conspiracy theory. And even if the exit polls are calibrated by matching them with the election results (in order to use them for their intended purpose...), he still hasn't dealt with the issue of sampling errors in the raw data.

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001125.php that echoes my objection to the study.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I read all the articles, and I know a little bit about statistics, so I'd like to respond. Russ is right on account of the margin of error of exit polls, but what Freeman does is add up the cumulative probabilities from several sources (see bell curve on fig 2). What this does is diminishes the margin of error significantly. Even though Freeman puts the odds of a legitimate election at 250 million to one, there's no conclusive proof that Bush wasn't elected legitimately. However, there's not one shred of physical evidence that he was elected legitimately either, as about 30% of the country used un-auditable vote counting. No conspiracy theory needed. By the way, it would take less than a kilobyte of code to do the job.

 

[russ_watters]

However, there's not one shred of physical evidence that he was elected legitimately either, as about 30% of the country used un-auditable vote counting.

Data on a hard drive is physical evidence - in fact, its evidence of the highest quality.

 

[polyb]

And that is why I originally posted this write up. I have concerns that since there is no paper trail by which to audit the elections then that is just one more tool by which elections can be rigged. Freeman's inferences "seemed" to be correct, but that was only on a superficial reading. As far as all the vote tallies "red-shifting" with respect to the polls, that does raise legitimate concerns as to what is really going on. Then again we are talking politics and seldem does reason lend itself useful to politicians. And why any of them should be trusted is beyond me!

I know a little stats too, but as to the specifics of stats in polling and elections I really have no experience. You don't have those kind of stats in UG physics curriculum, only the thermo and QM kind.

 

[plover]

Data on a hard drive is physical evidence - in fact, its evidence of the highest quality.

It's a very good record of some input, there's just no way to know if it was the voter's input...

 

[loseyourname]

You know, people were asking for electronic voting last time because of the issues with paper voting. Now they're asking for paper voting because they distrust electronic voting. You can't have it both ways. At some point you have to have a little faith that either the programmers or the people counting the paper votes are not evil and out to manipulate results.

 

[loseyourname]

Or at least believe that both sides are equally evil and neither gains a clear advantage over the other through their cheating.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Data on a hard drive is physical evidence - in fact, its evidence of the highest quality.

Right. The quality is high, there's just no way to prove one way or the other that it reflects the data that was input. But yes, you're right-- those votes, if they can be called that, may possibly last for thousands of months.

 

[polyb]

What russ is also failing to mention is that those hard drives, which are privately owned, are apparently not open for public scrutiny. I find this to be profoundly disturbing and a definitive breach of public trust, if true! Question: will they be open for scrutiny? I do know that every bit registered on any hard disk can recovered regardless of overwriting. There is room to review them, but that is a tall order considering the costs involved. So will this happen and be publicly disclosed?

Another question also seems to be those odd unknown user log-ins that have popped up at some of the servers where votes were being tallied. Does anyone know anything about that?

Originally Posted by loseyourname

You know, people were asking for electronic voting last time because of the issues with paper voting. Now they're asking for paper voting because they distrust electronic voting. You can't have it both ways. At some point you have to have a little faith that either the programmers or the people counting the paper votes are not evil and out to manipulate results.

A few years ago I thought that electronic voting was a neat and efficient idea even at the dismay of some friends who thought otherwise. Well that was only because I was a technophile at the time and I let that blind me to the problems of voter fraud that has plagued this country for quite some time. Now I consider the best way to go about counting our votes is to do it the old fashioned way: only on paper and completely open to impartial and all partial observers. I guess you could say I flipped-flopped on that one but it was only in light of new understanding. Oh well, live and learn but that tripe about having it both ways is trivial considering the importance of having confidence in the elections process.

Originally Posted by loseyourname

Or at least believe that both sides are equally evil and neither gains a clear advantage over the other through their cheating.

Now that I have always held to be true! It seems our democratic-republic has been reduced to the likes of a football game where we choose one side or the other. That is why I go by the "lesser of two evils" approach. Seems more like divide and conquer to me though!

 

[russ_watters]

A few years ago I thought that electronic voting was a neat and efficient idea even at the dismay of some friends who thought otherwise. Well that was only because I was a technophile at the time and I let that blind me to the problems of voter fraud that has plagued this country for quite some time. Now I consider the best way to go about counting our votes is to do it the old fashioned way: only on paper and completely open to impartial and all partial observers. I guess you could say I flipped-flopped on that one but it was only in light of new understanding. Oh well, live and learn but that tripe about having it both ways is trivial considering the importance of having confidence in the elections process.

Choice A: Pros: people who are afraid of/don't understand technology trust it. Cons: Poor reliability, poor security, inaccurate, hard to use, maintenance intensive, slow, relies on fallible/biased human judgement.

Choice B: Pros: secure, reliable, easy to use, fast, accurate, unbiased. Cons: Unfounded allegations of security problems scare people who are afraid of/don't understand technology.

People are choosinig to revert to the dark ages.

edit: another thing. People say they don't like electronic ballots because there is no backup. Well paper ballots don't have a backup either!

I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a more sinister motive here: Boiled down, the main difference between paper and electronic ballots is precision: paper ballots have a margin for error (up to a full percent) and electronic ballots don't. You don't recount them because there is no chance of the kinds of counting errors you find in paper ballots (under/over votes, hanging chads, etc). It seems like democrats want paper ballots because they want ambiguity. Again, this goes back to democrats wanting to cloud a reality that they don't like.

 

[plover]

You know, people were asking for electronic voting last time because of the issues with paper voting. Now they're asking for paper voting because they distrust electronic voting. You can't have it both ways. At some point you have to have a little faith that either the programmers or the people counting the paper votes are not evil and out to manipulate results.

Both times people have been asking for vote reform because they were presented with a broken system. Also the dichotomy here doesn't work. In 2000, the complaint wasn't that the ballots were on paper, it was that they were punch cards, and that the equipment for reading them was often old, and the standards for hand counting them inconsistent. Plus, there was the problem of ballot design. And this year we had broken electronic system with no way to check accountability. The issue is not paper vs. electronic, it is security, consistency, transparency, and accountability.

Electronic balloting is helpful for ballot design issues and accessibility issues. But lack of a human readable physical ballot makes the integrity of the data impossible to monitor. Making the balloting software secret just compounds the problem. The issue is a lot like the one that leads to chain of custody rules for criminal evidence—the point is to prevent any possibility of tampering.

The current choice for best practice by those most familiar with computer security issues is electronic ballots that produce paper printouts.

Or at least believe that both sides are equally evil and neither gains a clear advantage over the other through their cheating.

Any balloting system which does not assume every party involved is possibly corrupt is rubbish. That's why there should maximum openness and redundant integrity checks. It is also why people are suspicious and incredulous when Republicans support systems that lack such openness and integrity checks (any Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or "Rights for Sea Slugs Now!" party members who support similar systems should be equally suspect).

 

[plover]

Choice A: Pros: people who are afraid of/don't understand technology trust it. Cons: Poor reliability, poor security, inaccurate, hard to use, maintenance intensive, slow, relies on fallible/biased human judgement.

Choice B: Pros: secure, reliable, easy to use, fast, accurate, unbiased. Cons: Unfounded allegations of security problems scare people who are afraid of/don't understand technology.

People are choosinig to revert to the dark ages: choosing rumor, myth, conspiracy theory over reality and progress.

This is flat out false. The people most concerned over the current electronic balloting systems are computer security experts (who are hardly afraid of technology). All the testing that's been done shows that the security of these systems is problematic at best. The problem is not electronic voting systems per se, it's the ones we have, the standards they were assessed with, and the people administrating them.


Computer security professionals concerns about electronic voting:

• Douglas W. Jones (University of Iowa)
• Bruce Schneier
• Rebecca Mercuri
• David Dill (Stanford)

Jones has struck me as providing especially even-handed assessments. He's worked on these issues for many years and has been on the board that certifies Iowa's electronic voting machines for a decade.

Pieces that provide good summaries of the issues involved are the Schneier article and Jones' March 2003 letter to Kevin Shelley (California Secretary of State).

 

[polyb]

People are choosinig to revert to the dark ages: choosing rumor, myth, conspiracy theory over reality and progress. For example: Those hard drives are not privately owned, they are owned by the government (local government, iirc). You're buying into myth and conspiracy theory.

OUCH! Got me there russ! Hey what does iirc mean? So answer these questions:
Who owns the code?
Who owns the data?
Who actually owns the machine? Local, state, federal?
Where do we find the sources for these answers because I for one want clarity. Proof!

Now obviously you don't seem to think that there is any vulnerabilities to the electronic voting process hence why you have insistantly deferred to the myth/conspiracy angle. I for one do not trust them because I DO UNDERSTAND technology well enough to also know that they are vulnerable to manipulation without a vast majority of people being able to understand how it would even happen! This is why I have posted this thread, unfortunately you just make assertions that they work and dismiss anyone by saying they do not understand. Your bias is showing!

So here is a real quest: How can you assure a tech savvy person that these systems are not vulnerable as well as the "common joe" out there who does not have the slightest clue!

As far as your hypothetical choices go and your dismissive attitude: GROW UP! Vote rigging has a long history and this is the newest version of it. Politicians have manipulated the votes for a long time and truthfully this is nothing new. Ever heard about dead people voting? How about good o'l boys violently threatening colored people? How about calls telling democrats that they have to vote on Wednesday because there are so many people voting(that is a testimonial from Ohio, apparently)?

If you think about russ, if Kerry had not concede on Wednesday and insisted on doing a recount just because, what do you suppose would have happened? I suspect 2000 would have looked like a field day compared to the civil unrest that could have been seen. I doubt you considered that.

One more thing, tell me why the polls were right on the "morals" issue but wrong on the candidate?

 

[russ_watters]

Both times people have been asking for vote reform because they were presented with a broken system.

No, we have people wishing there was a broken system. There is no evidence that there is anything wrong with electronic voting machines other than minor glitches.

And this year we had broken electronic system with no way to check accountability. The issue is not paper vs. electronic, it is security, consistency, transparency, and accountability.

Again, there is no evidence there is anything wrong with the electronic voting system. And like I said before, "accountability" isn't an issue. By "accountability," I assume you mean the ability to do a recount: since the ballots are electronic, recounts are irrelevant. Recounts exist to fix human problems. Security is better with electronic ballots than paper: they are harder to tamper with. Transparency? Since when is transparency even desirable? Its a secret ballot. Accountability? Accountability of what? There is no possibility for things like over/under votes or hanging chads in a digital system.

But lack of a human readable physical ballot makes the integrity of the data impossible to monitor. Making the balloting software secret just compounds the problem. The issue is a lot like the one that leads to chain of custody rules for criminal evidence—the point is to prevent any possibility of tampering.

What you see as a potential flaw is, in fact, the primary benefit of electronic voting: they are less subject to human error/tampering/flaws. How do you eliminate bias in counting? Don't have people count the ballots. How do you eliminate chain of custody issues? Don't have a chain of custody. How do you ensure the data is safe? Encrypt it and make it secret. Human readable physical ballots are a bad thing because they add human bias/flaws/errors/corruption to the equation. The whole point of electronic balloting is to remove these things.

The current choice for best practice by those most familiar with computer security issues is electronic ballots that produce paper printouts.

WHY? What purpose would that serve?

Any balloting system which does not assume every party involved is possibly corrupt is rubbish.

Again, that's the entire point of electronic ballots: less people involved means less chance for corruption.

That's why there should maximum openness and redundant integrity checks.

There are reduntant integrity checks! Jeez, you guys are acting like these machines come fresh from the manufacturer, get dropped off at the polling place (or worse, operated by the manufacturer) with no testing. That isn't how it works. These machines are owned, operated, serviced, and yes, tested by the government.

It is also why people are suspicious and incredulous when Republicans support systems that lack such openness and integrity checks (any Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or "Rights for Sea Slugs Now!" party members who support similar systems should be equally suspect).

I'm suspicious of people who want to discard an improved system in favor of one with severe and obvious flaws.

This is flat out false. The people most concerned over the current electronic balloting systems are computer security experts

Do you have a poll of computer security experts that supports that? In any case, what that first guy advocates (paper ballots that can be checked by the voter and re-counted by hand later) is not only irrelevant, unreasonable, and Unconstitutional, but its also more of a cross-check than paper ballots have! Why would you have two copies of your vote with electronic voting when there aren't two copies of your vote with other forms of voting? What's worse, this would add the possibility of two different counts and two different outcomes to an election.

 

[GENIERE]

No, we have people wishing there was a broken system. There is no evidence that there is anything wrong with electronic voting machines other than minor glitches. Again, there is no evidence there is anything wrong with the electronic voting system.

Hmmm, I’m not sure about that.

All in quotes from: http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/28/florida.voting.ap/

“The Miami Herald review goes against Internet-fed rumors questioning whether there was a conspiracy against Sen. John Kerry in those counties…”

“Reporters for the newspaper went over more than 17,000 optical scan ballots cast in three rural counties mentioned by doubters: Suwannee, Lafayette and Union. All three are overwhelmingly Democratic in registration, but chose President Bush.”

But suspiciously!

“Kerry won in much of South Florida, where voters vote on touch-screen machines that can't be checked.”

And by manual re-count!

“The Herald counted just under 60 percent of the votes in Suwannee County, where nearly 64 percent of the voters are registered Democrats. The newspaper's total from those precincts essentially matched the county's official total: 6,140 votes for Bush and 2,984 for Kerry.”

“In Lafayette County, 83 percent of voters are registered Democrats. But voters there, too, tend to be conservative and religious. There, the paper found 2,452 votes for Bush and 848 for Kerry, with 20 that couldn't be clearly counted.”

It seems to me that the Democrats rigged the machines in those areas of Florida that cannot be re-counted.

Hey! My conspiracy theory has at least some supporting evidence.

...

 

[russ_watters]

OUCH! Got me there russ! Hey what does iirc mean? So answer these questions:
Who owns the code?
Who owns the data?
Who actually owns the machine? Local, state, federal?
Where do we find the sources for these answers because I for one want clarity. Proof!

IIRC means if I remember correctly.

That statement is classic conspiracy theory mindset: No evidence of a conspiracy? No problem! Just assume there is one until someone proves (with absolutely perfect evidence) that there isn't one.

Well, I'll give it to you even though you don't deserve it (and could find it easily enough if you wanted to): HERE is a link that says the state of Nevada buys voting machines (meaning the State owns them). http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595048494,00.html is one that says Utah buys them. http://www.fairvotemn.org/articles/archives/machines_03012002.html is one that says in Minnesota, local governments buy them. http://www.monroecounty.gov/documentView.asp?docID=3254 is one that says Monroe County, New York owns, maintains, and programs its machines.

Now obviously you don't seem to think that there is any vulnerabilities to the electronic voting process hence why you have insistantly deferred to the myth/conspiracy angle.

I don't think I ever said there are no vulnerabilities. Every system has flaws. What I said was that the flaws of paper/mechanical systems far exceed the flaws in electronic ones.

I for one do not trust them because I DO UNDERSTAND technology well enough to also know that they are vulnerable to manipulation without a vast majority of people being able to understand how it would even happen!

I appreciate your honesty - that was my perception. Let me ask you this, though: do you trust your ATM? Do you do internet banking?

This is why I have posted this thread, unfortunately you just make assertions that they work and dismiss anyone by saying they do not understand. Your bias is showing!

? You just said you don't understand! I am saying that there is no evidence of a conspiracy here. This is fact. Bias doesn't come into the equation on my end. But because your opinion is based on the possibility of fraud, with no evidence to support it, your opinion is based on your bias - or worse, based on your willingess to accept conspiracy theory.

So here is a real quest: How can you assure a tech savvy person that these systems are not vulnerable as well as the "common joe" out there who does not have the slightest clue!

I, quite frankly, don't care what "the common joe" thinks because the guy you are labeling "the common joe" isn't really the common joe. He's the very small minority of people who want to find a conspiracy. For these people, nothing anyone can say will be able to convince them there is no conspiracy. But the real common joe doesn't understand how to program his VCR, but is not afraid that his ATM is going to steal money from him.

As far as your hypothetical choices go and your dismissive attitude: GROW UP! Vote rigging has a long history and this is the newest version of it. Politicians have manipulated the votes for a long time and truthfully this is nothing new. Ever heard about dead people voting? How about good o'l boys violently threatening colored people? How about calls telling democrats that they have to vote on Wednesday because there are so many people voting(that is a testimonial from Ohio, apparently)?

? Have we flipped sides? I know votor fraud has existed in the past. I'm the one who is arguing that! That's the whole reason we need more secure voting methods in the first place!

If you think about russ, if Kerry had not concede on Wednesday and insisted on doing a recount just because, what do you suppose would have happened? I suspect 2000 would have looked like a field day compared to the civil unrest that could have been seen. I doubt you considered that.

No, I have considered that. It seems in this election even more than the last one, there is a significant fraction of people looking for a fight. Fortunately, this election was won more decisively, and Kerry had no reasonable basis to challenge it. I'll also give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has a little class.

The neo-hippies that seem to be on the rise disturb me and scare me a little though. I fear we're in for a rise in domestic terrorism from people who would rather destroy this country than see it move in a direction they don't like.

One more thing, tell me why the polls were right on the "morals" issue but wrong on the candidate?

We've been over that. First, the purpose of the exit poll is to find out why people voted. Using it to check the outcome itself is misusing it. But setting that aside, the exit polls, once they had their sample bias removed did accurately reflect the outcome of the election.

 

[Smurf]

I may have missed this earlier, but what exactly makes voting fraud less likely with computers?

 

[plover]

I may have missed this earlier, but what exactly makes voting fraud less likely with computers?

You didn't miss anything. I include some links in post #48 on what the issues are though.

 

[russ_watters]

I may have missed this earlier, but what exactly makes voting fraud less likely with computers?

Encryption and lack of human intervention. As even plover's link acknowledged, the biggest avenues for fraud are ballot-box stuffing and deliberate miscounting (in fact, his main problem with electronic machines appears to be quality control isues, ie bugs). But it isn't just fraud that's the issue - the biggest problem with the Florida situation in 2000 was that the paper ballots are simply inaccurate: a siginificant fraction of the votes were uncountable.

What's more, electronic voting, if governments choose to expand the technology, could eliminate voter identity issues (the second leading means of fraud): dead democrats could only vote if they show up at the polling place to be fingerprinted, for example.

Oh, and where do hacking and easter-egging rank in terms of commonality? They don't: neither have ever happened. Remember, all these flaws in e-voting are just potential. Speculation.

 

[plover]

By "accountability," I assume you mean the ability to do a recount: since the ballots are electronic, recounts are irrelevant.

Bad choice of words perhaps. "Integrity" might have been better. The issue for a purely electronic system is not "recounting" but the "audit trail". From Douglas Jones' letter to Kevin Shelley:

It is important to understand that, while the NASED/FEC standards have long required that all DRE systems maintain something called an audit trail, this audit trail does not record the one thing that a bank examiner, for example, would expect to find there: a record of the votes. As a result, unlike the audit trails represented by the paper receipts and internal cash register tape maintained by an ATM, the audit trails of all but a few DRE machines on the market today offer no assurance that the votes were recorded as intended by the voter, and offer no possibility of a meaningful challenge to the honesty of the machine in the event that fraud may be suspected. This is unconscionable!
​

Transparency? Since when is transparency even desirable? Its a secret ballot.

I'm referring to procedural transparency, i.e. the ability to confirm what happens at each stage of the procedure.

How do you ensure the data is safe? Encrypt it and make it secret.

It's more complicated than that, but Jones thinks that secure electronic systems are most likely possible, they're just not what we have.

Do you have a poll of computer security experts that supports that?

I've been following this stuff for a few months now, if there's anyone credible who's arguing for a different point of view they're not doing it very loudly. But my floundering about on the web is only worth so much of course. Bruce Schneier is one of the most respected figures in the computer security world, and undoubtedly has a good sense of what his peers are thinking. He puts it this way:

Computer security experts are unanimous on what to do. (Some voting experts disagree, but I think we’re all much better off listening to the computer security experts. The problems here are with the computer, not with the fact that the computer is being used in a voting application.) And they have two recommendations:

1. DRE machines must have a voter-verifiable paper audit trails (sometimes called a voter-verified paper ballot). This is a paper ballot printed out by the voting machine, which the voter is allowed to look at and verify. He doesn’t take it home with him. Either he looks at it on the machine behind a glass screen, or he takes the paper and puts it into a ballot box. The point of this is twofold. One, it allows the voter to confirm that his vote was recorded in the manner he intended. And two, it provides the mechanism for a recount if there are problems with the machine.
   
2. Software used on DRE machines must be open to public scrutiny. This also has two functions. One, it allows any interested party to examine the software and find bugs, which can then be corrected. This public analysis improves security. And two, it increases public confidence in the voting process. If the software is public, no one can insinuate that the voting system has unfairness built into the code. (Companies that make these machines regularly argue that they need to keep their software secret for security reasons. Don’t believe them. In this instance, secrecy has nothing to do with security.)

Your post mostly proves you know little of the technical issues involved here. You seem to have picked up the reasons why electronic balloting could work better, without any of the details of why it currently does not. (And treating the issue as a partisan conspiracy rather than a technical problem is pure foolishness.)

 

[Burnsys]

"that Diebold Election Systems had been storing 40,000 of its files on an open web site, an obscure site, never revealed to public interest groups, but generally known among election industry insiders, and available to any hacker with a laptop, I looked at the files. Having a so-called security-conscious voting machine manufacturer store sensitive files on an unprotected public web site, allowing anonymous access, was bad enough, but when I saw what was in the files my hair turned gray. Really. It did. "

"They contained diagrams of remote communications setups, passwords, encryption keys, source code, user manuals, testing protocols, and simulators, as well as files loaded with votes and voting machine software. "

CAN THE PASSWORD BE BYPASSED?
Yes

CAN THE VOTES BE CHANGED?
Yes

In this site: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm

you can find all the steps to tamper the system. step by step. also you can find all the dataset files dieblod left unsecured in their web site..

Need more proof?

 

[russ_watters]

Bad choice of words perhaps. "Integrity" might have been better. The issue for a purely electronic system is not "recounting" but the "audit trail". From Douglas Jones' letter to Kevin Shelley:

It is important to understand that, while the NASED/FEC standards have long required that all DRE systems maintain something called an audit trail, this audit trail does not record the one thing that a bank examiner, for example, would expect to find there: a record of the votes. As a result, unlike the audit trails represented by the paper receipts and internal cash register tape maintained by an ATM, the audit trails of all but a few DRE machines on the market today offer no assurance that the votes were recorded as intended by the voter, and offer no possibility of a meaningful challenge to the honesty of the machine in the event that fraud may be suspected. This is unconscionable!​

Yes, I read that part: how is that any different from a paper ballot or a punch-card? They don't have a back-up copy either.

I'm referring to procedural transparency, i.e. the ability to confirm what happens at each stage of the procedure.

How is that desirable? Human confirmation adds error and enables fraud.

I've been following this stuff for a few months now, if there's anyone credible who's arguing for a different point of view they're not doing it very loudly.

That's the "squeaky wheel" effect: people don't complain if they don't think anything is wrong. Thats rather obvious from the abortion debate.

And frankly, I think much of this is motivated by "computer security experts" raising a controversy because its good for business.

Your post mostly proves you know little of the technical issues involved here.

You just listed two issues with electronic voting machines: neither issue is technical. The issues are human trust issues. Humans trust paper more than they trust a computer screen.

You seem to have picked up the reasons why electronic balloting could work better, without any of the details of why it currently does not. (And treating the issue as a partisan conspiracy rather than a technical problem is pure foolishness.)

Once more with feeling: no voter fraud via electronic voting has ever occurred. Saying it "currently does not" work better is factually wrong.

I asked a question before that wasn't answered: do you trust your ATM to not steal money from you? Why or why not? What recourse do you have if it does steal money from you (ie, how can you prove it)?​

 

[russ_watters]

Need more proof?

...more proof? How about some proof. Any proof. That link contained no proof that machines have been tampered with.

 

[Burnsys]

...more proof? How about some proof. Any proof. That link contained no proof that machines have been tampered with.

It show proof that the machines can be tampered