[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Those are California Democrats--not all Democrats. And of course, you should have to present ID before voting.

I realize there are Democrats who believe that--I am simply responding to Paq's thread as to why I don't take seriously the concerns of voting integrity by the same people who oppose voter ID laws.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I realize there are Democrats who believe that--I am simply responding to Paq's thread as to why I don't take seriously the concerns of voting integrity by the same people who oppose voter ID laws.

But do you take seriously the concerns of voting integrity overall in general? Are you saying that voter IDs are the "only" way to insure voting integrity?

I agree that when voter IDs are faked there is a valid problem to be solved - just another criminal act which should result in arrests and prosecution no matter whom does the evil deed, eh? Especially, if the faked voter IDs are a result of computer cracking the vote!

-- Tom

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

But do you take seriously the concerns of voting integrity overall in general? Are you saying that voter IDs are the "only" way to insure voting integrity?

I agree that when voter IDs are faked there is a valid problem to be solved - just another criminal act which should result in arrests and prosecution no matter whom does the evil deed, eh? Especially, if the faked voter IDs are a result of computer cracking the vote!

-- Tom

My point is the voting machines issue is not the problem its been painted to be since the 2004 elections. I am far more concerned with unlawful votes than I am someone rigging the machines. The process is a lot more secure than what you have been led to believe.

Again--the bigger problem is voter ID, remedies for which Democrats are deliberatly blocking because they know it means less votes for them.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

My point is the voting machines issue is not the problem its been painted to be since the 2004 elections. I am far more concerned with unlawful votes than I am someone rigging the machines. The process is a lot more secure than what you have been led to believe.

Again--the bigger problem is voter ID, remedies for which Democrats are deliberatly blocking because they know it means less votes for them.

and its a valid point, mulder...but where do you get your info on voting machines?....mit hacked into a diebold machine and installed a simple program that both skewed results and masked it's workings....depends, of course, on the human element for implementation...

my point is that the weakness is not any particular party's fault or desire...only that it exists, and particularly during this time of transition 'tween technologies, the ease with which it could be accomplished is disturbing....

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

and its a valid point, mulder...but where do you get your info on voting machines?....mit hacked into a diebold machine and installed a simple program that both skewed results and masked it's workings....depends, of course, on the human element for implementation...

Almost all votes are tallied by computer today. The same concerns were raised in the past when voting was to be done by computer--that it could be manipulated and experts showed how it could be manipulated and on and on and we've been counting by computer for years now.

Here is a good paper on pros and cons:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,11...1/article.html

You have to read a lot more than that though. The problem is the computer experts that have demonstrated security problems have all had to violate security protocols to accomplish the manipulaiton. In other words, you need collution to do this. As a former accountant/audito, I know that no system of security is flawless--in the end they all rely on human intervention and security. Right now if someone wants to they can manipulate the voting--perhaps easier with paper ballots than touch-screen if they have access to the ballots and someone always has to (i.e., ballots can simply be destroyed).

I'm not stating that there aren't concerns, but you've got lots of people involved from both sides that monitor this process. I expect further improvements to be made and they are working on audit procedures that are better and more secure than paper trails. 30 years from now touch screen/online will be the standard and accepted.

Again--the bigger problem is people voting that don't have the right to vote--that's actually happening. These claims of voting machine fraud are all just fears and concerns--no one has ever proved any manipulation of an election with these machines (i.e., fake votes). All they've done is proved its possible--but again it requires quite a bit of collution and violations of security protocols--its more conspiracy theory hysteria than it is reality. That's not to say it can't happen, but I again stress it can happen with the systems we have now and just as easily if not easier.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

The problem is the computer experts that have demonstrated security problems have all had to violate security protocols to accomplish the manipulaiton. In other words, you need collution

sorry....just couldn't resist...(tho, 'cause its you, what struck me was some mulderesque hybrid between collusion and coitus )....it's your own dang fault 'cause of that silly signature about mass instruction

ok...moving on

to do this. As a former accountant/audito, I know that no system of security is flawless--in the end they all rely on human intervention and security. Right now if someone wants to they can manipulate the voting--perhaps easier with paper ballots than touch-screen if they have access to the ballots and someone always has to (i.e., ballots can simply be destroyed).

yeah...i'm sure i need to read more about it, but here's my thoughts on your link....
it strikes that the biggest arguement in favor of the touch screen machines is that
"they're easy"

in a nutshell

The people who run elections love the machines, says Hugh Gallagher, an independent consultant to state and local election committees nationwide. "If you got a couple of these registrars over a cup of coffee, they'd tell you it is a pain [to deal with paper ballots]," he says. "People put boxes of ballots on top of their car at the end of the day and drive off. You end up out on the freeway with the local sheriff, picking up ballots off the road."

Voters like them too, as e-voting skeptic Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins professor who coauthored a scathing review of the machines' potential security holes last year, discovered when he volunteered as an election judge at a Maryland district in March. Rubin reported his experience online (see "My Experience as an Election Judge in Baltimore County") and was struck by the popular enthusiasm for the same Diebold machines that his report had blasted. "With very few exceptions, the voters really loved the machines," he wrote. "The most common comment was, 'That was so easy.'"

i guess i'm just old fashioned....easy doesn't just slide right into "good" for me....it's a bit of a philosophical plunge (not the kind of pool you like swimming in), but why is voting supposed to be easy?....why is it "better" just because it's easier it is to tally votes? to me, one of the biggest problems in the process today is voter turnout...is "easy" supposed to help get more voters out?....more folks who don't know the issues before them from a hole in the ground, but who'll come out now because it's somehow "easier"?

in the same vein, from the other side of the booth....why is it better if the registrars and volunteers have an easier responsibility? (where does THAT trend end?)

in a sense, my arguement is exactly your's about "mommy government" taking care of us all.....i thought this voting thing was OUR responsibility, not the government's?

I'm not stating that there aren't concerns, but you've got lots of people involved from both sides that monitor this process.

i know you're not, mulder....and i do (still) understand your concerns about voter ID....but that is a different thread topic....

I expect further improvements to be made and they are working on audit procedures that are better and more secure than paper trails. 30 years from now touch screen/online will be the standard and accepted.

undoubtedly....but this is the concern today....from your link again

Wasn't the software on these machines certified before the election?

Yes. But according to Harvard research fellow Rebecca Mercuri, a computer scientist who has worked elections for two decades, the certification tests look for logic errors and vote-counting mistakes, not security holes. Much of the testing is automated, and layers beneath the voting applications--compilers, OSs, firmware on the machines' chips--are not examined. Technically, she says, "The certification process is a joke." What's more, voting machine vendors have distributed uncertified code upgrades to their machines after the certification process was complete, but before an election.

All they've done is proved its possible--but again it requires quite a bit of collution { } and violations of security protocols--its more conspiracy theory hysteria than it is reality.

maybe...but conspriacy theory "what if's" are to me based in after-the-fact "evidence" surrounding unanswerable questions, bolstered by a general mistrust of one thing or another....this "what if" scenario simply validates the real potential for abuse, an abuse compounded by a/ the consensus that touch screen voting is easy, and b/ the illusion of certification, which provides the level of assurance and trust we require.

That's not to say it can't happen, but I again stress it can happen with the systems we have now and just as easily if not easier.

see what i mean?

[Mulderator]

I was smply expressing by cynicism (sp? ) in the Democrats "concern" over the voting process. I don't mean to make light of the situation, but to give you a parallel every time a new drug comes out, there are lawsuits afterwards and all kinds of wacked out concerns over side effects because every kook in the country correlates something that went wrong in their health to a drug they started taking. After a few years when all of the garbage is sorted out 99 time out of a 100 all the claims are bogus.

So my point is yes there are some valid claims over the voting machines, but mixed in with those is a myriad of speculaiton and "what-ifs" that simply don't amount to any valid concerns. I have no problem with whatever makes people feel safe EXCEPT this idea that there must be a "paper trail." There needs to be an audit trail, but it doesn't have to be paper.

I'm always amazed at how hard it is to get older people to give up the things they've been doing for 30 years even when its easier. I remember an audit of a plant I did in Montreal where the plant manager who refused to use computers. He had his staff do all the accounting every month with manual systems--basically the old fashioned way. The plant wasn't any less profitable than any other and he was the boss--there was no real reason the computer systems were needed--so no one ever forced him to do it.

That was about 20 years ago and I am sure today, he's probably retired and even if he isn't, there is no way that could continue because I am sure that the system are linked through the Internet so he'd have to have computers.

The point of all this is that some people simply feel safer with a boxes full of paper ballots because they've been doing it that way for 30 years--as your link pointed out though, people don't realize how easy it is for a box of ballots to simply disappear--or a box of fakes to appear. Paper ballots do nothing to decrease the chances of fraud by collution ( ). And that's the concern of the tough screen system--that some evil Republican is going to rig the election because Democrats don't do that sort of thing!

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I'm always amazed at how hard it is to get older people to give up the things they've been doing for 30 years even when its easier.

and i must confess....as "progressive" and "openminded" as i may be, i'm at that age where changing somethings really upsets my apple cart

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Mulder

My point is the voting machines issue is not the problem its been painted to be since the 2004 elections. I am far more concerned with unlawful votes than I am someone rigging the machines. The process is a lot more secure than what you have been led to believe.

Again--the bigger problem is voter ID, remedies for which Democrats are deliberatly blocking because they know it means less votes for them.

Do not rigging the voting machines create unlawful votes? Exactly how is the process more secure if there is no audit trail to verify?

I agree that voter ID is crucial, but to say it means less votes for the Dems is not proven, only speculation at this point. Come back with proof on that issue and I'll at least listen. Election voting could swing either way depending on how the voting public feels about the current administration of the government at the point in time when they are in the voting booth.

-- Tom

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Do not rigging the voting machines create unlawful votes? Exactly how is the process more secure if there is no audit trail to verify?

I didn't say it was more secure--I said that paper ballots don't mean jack if you get someone with access to the ballots, they just add fake ones or throw out real ones. The voting machine problems have been based on unrealistic access to the machines and violations of the security protocols. If you leave the door open to where the paper ballots are stored, what kind of audit trail are they going to provide after they're gone? Because that's exactly what the critics of the machines are doing--to make the concerns synonymous, you'd have to have no security over the paper ballots--of course people can tamper with them if the secirity protocols are violated.

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

I agree that voter ID is crucial, but to say it means less votes for the Dems is not proven, only speculation at this point. Come back with proof on that issue and I'll at least listen. -- Tom

I gave you proof--the legislation recommended by a bipartisan commission to improve voter ID security by requiring picture ID was universally rejected by Democrats. We all know that illegal aliens vote heavily in favor of Democrats so that means less illegal votes are less votes for Democrats. If that were not the case, why are Democrats oppossed to it?

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I didn't say it was more secure--I said that paper ballots don't mean jack if you get someone with access to the ballots, they just add fake ones or throw out real ones. The voting machine problems have been based on unrealistic access to the machines and violations of the security protocols. If you leave the door open to where the paper ballots are stored, what kind of audit trail are they going to provide after they're gone? Because that's exactly what the critics of the machines are doing--to make the concerns synonymous, you'd have to have no security over the paper ballots--of course people can tamper with them if the secirity protocols are violated.



I gave you proof--the legislation recommended by a bipartisan commission to improve voter ID security by requiring picture ID was universally rejected by Democrats. We all know that illegal aliens vote heavily in favor of Democrats so that means less illegal votes are less votes for Democrats. If that were not the case, why are Democrats oppossed to it?

I agree that access to paper ballots and substituting illegal ballots and throwing out valid ballots is a security protocol issue that needs closure where it is a possibility.

"We all know" is speculation on your part. Yes, if illegal aliens vote it is an invalid vote. Just because Democrats vote against such a proposed picture ID does not mean that Republicans would not take advantage of any loop holes, or are not already doing so. You should dig deeper as to why the Dems rejected the proposal - but, we know that you won't or can't see past your partisan prejudices to really find out why and understand the broader implications.

-- Tom

[linskyjack]

Hey don't worry---the government is investigating a link between Hugo Chavez and a company that makes voting machines that are being used in our elections.

[lotuseclat79]

Perspective: Every vote counts, right?
http://news.com.com/Every+vote+count...l?tag=nefd.top

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

New worries abound about reliability of US voting machines
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061103...g_061103092147

Officials say that nearly 40 percent of voters on Election Day next week will be using paperless touch-screen machines that have raised concerns among many experts nationwide as they leave no paper trail and are vulnerable to hackers.

-- Tom

[linskyjack]

By the way, didn't anyone see the HBO documentary on voting fraud----very scary stuff.