Blogcritics Comments on Candidates challenge Diebold

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:01:26 EST

I wasn't able to look at the See Vote site because it is offline. But, I believe most of the difficulties that plague voting are solved with voting by mail, as practiced in Oregon. Though the ballots are read by optical scanners, there is a verifiable paper trail. Signatures are checked against those on file. Unless there is undetected fraud at the software level, the system seems reliable to me. As I said in my entry about voting at Mac-a-ro-nies, much of the 'excitement' of voting is eliminated. The recount in New Hampshire is ongoing. Wired has some preliminary coverage. Notice the dig at the Dems by the Naderite.

Comment by Temple Stark on Candidates challenge Diebold

Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:08:00 EST

Paper, paper. My kingdom for a paper trail. These computers are as weak as any other (that's not a Macintosh :) ). Crash. Boom. Splat. There goes an election - the possibility is very real and I am not happy about it.

Comment by Mark on Candidates challenge Diebold

Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:22:40 EST

Fraud free public verification voting system demo Submitted by eCentricDan on November 17, 2004 - 10:25pm. seeVote.com is an easy-to-understand and simple-to-use electronic voting process. A revolutionary approach to trusting our democracy. seeVote reveals ALL votes for public review, for verification of their personal vote, and to count every vote, while ensuring voter privacy. This process includes the seeVote machine, voter staff training materials, and fool-proof verification of votes with a paper-trail for voting staff and voters. This internet demonstration of seeVote has many security and multi-vote-by single-voter flaws that are resolved once the off-line and stand-alone seeVote machine is properly setup in an official voter poll environment. This seeVote process is made of many parts, all of which are not innovative in and of themselves, but together, arranged in this unique way, ensures true democracy, through a safe verifiable voting process. The real benefit of this seeVote process is that it allows the public to verify and trust their vote has been counted. This voting process will change the way voters insist on democracy. Begin your seeVote Demonstration http://www.seeVote.com

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:52:59 EST

Aaman, I am in favor of the safeguards. What Hal says above, that the process needs to be monitored from before the vote through after the counting process makes sense to me. What I am wary of is very loose claims of conspiracy. I am not a mathematician, but a significant part of 'odd' voting this year has to do with non-voters coming out to vote for the gay marriage amendments in eleven states. In a close race, they were enough to skew the results. We should gain additional insights from the recounts that may occur because of this burgeoning movement and close races. Mike Kole, again, Badnarik was not in the first news stories about that recount. There was no 'blackout.' (A word you should be careful with, btw.)

Comment by Aaman on Candidates challenge Diebold

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:14:19 EST

MacDiva, It should not be wrong to study the validity of election results - every democracy is in danger of tyranny of the majority, and the safeguards against this are for citizens to be watchful. If quality assurance in the form of audits were not done, no product would ever get developed correctly. I've blogged about yr site on my blog http://selfaudit.blogspot.com

Comment by Hal Pawluk on Candidates challenge Diebold

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:06:16 EST

While a paper trail would be useful in a recount, and should be required, it doesn't foreclose on the possibility of computer fraud. It would be no problem to have the vote printed as entered, but saved to a database as a vote for someone else. In fact, if I were the one doing the dirty deed, I'd raise the issue of the necessity for a paper trail as a red herring. I'd let them "force" me to add printouts to the voting machines after a long struggle, because then they wouldn't be worrying about the integrity of the software. I'd just have to make sure that when I adjusted my candidate's votes I'd make them high enough to prevent a recount. I'd also have to make sure that the code was reliable enough so it would never come up with more votes than voters. Oh? You say that has happened already? Son-of-a-gun.

Comment by Mike Kole on Candidates challenge Diebold

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:52:01 EST

Oh, a blackout on including a Libertarian? There's a surprise. Cough. Likewise, I think that Badnarik makes a mistake in getting too close to Cobb. Fortunately, I can clear up any questions with Badnarik in a couple of hours, as I will be speaking with him on the air in Indy. My bet is that he is trying to boost third parties ballot access iniatives in Ohio, where it is extremely difficult for them to get on the ballot.

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:32:48 EST

Typo: Ignore 'Ben Brandon.' I dumped the name there temporarily. Forgot to cut it.

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:30:56 EST

Did some checking. Badnarik is asking that funds he says will used for the recount be sent to his campaign organization. In other words, they could be used for any purpose, even a salary to himself. (Alan Keyes does that.) Considering that Badnarik picks and chooses what bills he pays (taxes being last on the list apparently) I think Cobb made a mistake to align himself with the man. Ben Brandon

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:17:09 EST

I wasn't aware Badnarik is involved. That information was not in the news stories I read. Is he contributing money?

Comment by boomcrashbaby on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:40:48 EST

I don't particularly like that Badnarik is putting in this kind of effort that really doesn't make a difference Many people think the 2004 and/or the 2000 elections were not legit. If a recount does not change anything BUT gives some people peace of mind about deceit, then it would be worth it. Perhaps that is Badnarik's line of thought, working towards a greater healing.

Comment by Mike Kole on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:54:35 EST

Mac- Why did you leave Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik out of this report? He is on the actions with David Cobb in Ohio. I don't particularly like that Badnarik is putting in this kind of effort that really doesn't make a difference, but there we are. As for Cobb, it's telling that he could raise more money after his campaign was dead than while it was alive. For the record, as a candidate for Secretary of State in Indiana, I will be campaigning for a voting system that produces a receipt or other paper trail.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:46:16 EST

nothing I have seen leads to any thoughts of anything other than the usual minor mistakes and errors, nothing intentional, nothing out of the ordinary, but I agree entirely there should be something tangible generated by any kind of electronic voting system as a means of independent verification

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:25:27 EST

This topic has been a staple at some liberal blogs. I've not blogged it until today. That is because I am wary of conspiracy theories -- whether they come from the Left, Right or in-between. I can't make the jump from Diebold executives are gaga for Bush to they hack their systems to produce false votes for him. I would need to see proof. That said, I do believe there should be a paper trail leading back to individual voters. Much of the distrust would dissipate if Diebold and ES&S offered a form of tangible verification. What would be the outcome of proof of massive voter fraud by Diebold? It boggles the mind to even think about it. I suspect the Bushites would declare military rule before they would agree to give up the White House. So, let's not think about it unless we have to. Wired says: But if the New Hampshire recount uncovers problems with the machines, the Nader campaign will consider seeking a recount in Florida, since the state uses many of the same Diebold and ES&S optical-scan machines as those in New Hampshire. The process in Florida, however, would be more complicated and expensive. New Hampshire makes it very easy to ask for a recount. But Florida requires you to file a lawsuit. You have to get a court order," Zeese said. "And we need to have a compelling reason to request a recount." Some mathematicians in Florida say some really fishy stuff happened there. But, that state, and most others, make it difficult to challenge election results. As I mentioned in my entry, the average Joe usually lacks legal standing to do so. So, to answer your question, even if proof exists, it is unlikely to see the light of day. First page of the Wired article is here.

Comment by boomcrashbaby on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:52:37 EST

Mac Diva, I am curious, if fraud is found, but cannot be traced to the White House, does that change the election results? Kerry conceded already. If no fraud is found, but errors are found that show he won, does that change the election? What are the possible results that can come about from this?

Comment by Mac Diva on Candidates challenge Diebold

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:19:49 EST

The recount in New Hampshire has begun. Nader says it may be a precursor to others. Read the story here.