Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Missing election boxes found in the home of officialFollow

#1 Feb 08 2008 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Link

Quote:
The New Mexico Democratic Party caucus may be tainted by three ballot boxes that spent the night in the home of the Rio Arriba County party chair or the homes of other local election officials instead of being reported to the state party.

Those ballots still haven’t been counted, but they have been retrieved by the state party.

Several sources told me the ballot boxes spent the night at the home of Rio Arriba County Democratic Party Chair Theresa Martinez, whose state-lawmaker husband, Sen. Richard Martinez, endorsed Hillary Clinton. But Richard Martinez told Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Kate Nash that the boxes actually spent the night in the homes of three polling-place managers. He gave Nash no explanation for why the results from those ballots weren’t reported to the state party last night and why they were instead kept overnight in officials’ homes.


And when they counted 1% of that missing vote Hillary went up by 1100 votes against Obama
#2 Feb 08 2008 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,760 posts
They probably started partying too hard and said "hell with it, we'll take care of it tomorrow."


____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#3 Feb 08 2008 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton election machine to do a little ballot box stuffing, that seems like a pretty dumb way of doing it...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 Feb 08 2008 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton election machine to do a little ballot box stuffing, that seems like a pretty dumb way of doing it...


Well, not everyone can make it worth Diebold's while to rig the voting machines.

#5 Feb 08 2008 at 5:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ambrya wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While I wouldn't put it past the Clinton election machine to do a little ballot box stuffing, that seems like a pretty dumb way of doing it...


Well, not everyone can make it worth Diebold's while to rig the voting machines.



With the millions floating around during campaign season, it's not like there aren't ample ways for candidates to "cheat" if they want. Bash the electronic voting machines all you want (and yes, there are some problems with them), on their worse day, they're 10 times harder to rig then a cardboard box with a piece of tape over the top, loaded into some guys car (and apparently in this case taken home for the night...).

To stuff a typical ballot box, all I need is 5 seconds of time alone with the box. Come up with a way to bribe/distract my counterpart in charge of the box, and I'm done. With an electronic system, I also need access to the box, but now instead of just dropping a bunch of pieces of paper into the thing (or just swapping it with one I've pre-prepared), I've got to "hack" the box. Which takes far more time and equipment and the average guy who can easily handle the technical aspects of stuffing a traditional ballot box isn't going to be able to do it.


Don't be fooled. While there are some security concerns with the electronic voting machines, the reason most people oppose them isn't because the represent some sort of increased risk of tampering or stuffing, but exactly because they make it harder for people to rig an election.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Feb 08 2008 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
/WHOOSH


Way to miss a point.

As a Bush supporter, you are the LAST person on earth who has any place pointing fingers about ballot tampering.
#7 Feb 08 2008 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Don't be fooled. While there are some security concerns with the electronic voting machines, the reason most people oppose them isn't because the represent some sort of increased risk of tampering or stuffing, but exactly because they make it harder for people to rig an election.
Most people's opposition to them is in the case of paperless electronic machines which don't give you any recourse in the event of an error, malicious tampering, etc. Illinois uses a paper ballot system read by an electronic scanner which is the best of both worlds -- quick reporting of results and a paper trail in case of questions. Relying on a purely electronic system seems moronic.

Having worked the polls in Illinois, I can confidently say that you'd have a hard time messing with the returns. Why other states who use paperless electronic machines don't adopt a paper ballot/electronic scanner system is beyond me.

Edited, Feb 8th 2008 9:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Feb 08 2008 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ambrya wrote:
Way to miss a point.


Not missing the point at all. There are far more ways to tamper and rig an election using the traditional paper ballot system then an electronic one. More importantly, those ways are much much easier to do.

Is the uproar over electronic voting machines really because they are less secure then paper ballots? Or because they are more secure and those who like their ability to stuff ballot boxes today don't want them replaced?



Quote:
As a Bush supporter, you are the LAST person on earth who has any place pointing fingers about ballot tampering.


Funny. Got any source that lists the total number of confirmed cases of election fraud during the 2004 election and which party benefited from them? I think you'd be surprised.

The problem is that when anyone talks about "voting fraud" during that election, all they talk about are the allegations about the electronic voting machines (just as you are doing). What they ignore are the mountains of cases involving not allegations, but actual cases of voter fraud committed during that election that had nothing to do with the machines. Don't make assumptions based on a single popular story. Do some research...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Feb 08 2008 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Is the uproar over electronic voting machines really because they are less secure then paper ballots?
Paperless machines? Yes.
Quote:
Or because they are more secure and those who like their ability to stuff ballot boxes today don't want them replaced?
No.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Feb 08 2008 at 7:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is the uproar over electronic voting machines really because they are less secure then paper ballots?
Paperless machines? Yes.


No. Even without any paper trail, the possibility of ballot tampering an electronic "box" and a paper "box" are exactly the same.

In a normal box, the only paper trail is the contents of the box itself, right? That's *exactly* the same as the electronic media. In both cases, you have a box with something inside that is the only record of that set of votes. Period.

The difference being that's it's vastly easier to simply add extra paper ballots to said box then to hack the electronic one.


Obviously, an additional paper trail would make electronic voting even more secure but not having one does not make them any less secure then a traditional box with ballots inside. Compare them side by side and the electronic ballot system comes out ahead in terms of security in every single category (except of course for potential electronic hacking, but that's far harder and less likely then any random person with workable opposable thumbs being able to stuff a traditional ballot box).


You list off all the ways an electronic voting system can be tampered with, and I'll list off all the ways a traditional paper ballot system can. I'm betting my list will be much much longer then yours and will contain methods that are much much easier. That's just a fact. All the talk about how insecure electronic systems are just plain ignore the fact that they're still vastly more secure then the alternative.


Quote:
Quote:
Or because they are more secure and those who like their ability to stuff ballot boxes today don't want them replaced?
No.


Sez you!

Given that actual confirmed cases of traditional voter/election fraud occur on behalf of Democrats over Republicans by something like a 10 to 1 ratio, this would seem to be a valid assumption, right? Allegations in the media end out being 10 to 1 the other way of course, but that's a whole nother issue...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Feb 08 2008 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
/cue the discussion on voter registration and identification

3, 2, 1...

Totem
#12 Feb 08 2008 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Totem wrote:
/cue the discussion on voter registration and identification

3, 2, 1...

Totem


Sigh... Yeah. It's strange that Dems seem to be able to clearly see speculative possibilities with regard to electronic voting systems, and assume how they might just possibly hurt them somehow, but are apparently blind to the systemic actions their party uses to bloat up voter rolls and the very real impact that has on elections.


What's doubly funny is the faux-outrage when some "evil" Republican does something as monumentally unfair as going through the voter registration rolls and actually removing the names of people who don't exist. Odd, huh?

Or.... OMG! You can't send officials out to neighborhoods to verify that the people on those lists actually exist and live at the addresses they wrote on their registration forms! Cause see... That might just scare people. And that's apparently voter intimidation or something. Oh. And checking IDs at the voting places is intimidation too!

How convenient that this leaves us with absolutely no method for determining if the registrations are accurate, or if everyone voting is actually the person they claim to be, or exist at all, or isn't voting like 10 times or something...

Nope. Can't do any of that stuff. But darnit! We've got to get rid of those evil electronic machines. They're clearly allowing massive fraud to occur, right?


Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Feb 08 2008 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. Even without any paper trail, the possibility of ballot tampering an electronic "box" and a paper "box" are exactly the same.

In a normal box, the only paper trail is the contents of the box itself, right? That's *exactly* the same as the electronic media. In both cases, you have a box with something inside that is the only record of that set of votes. Period.
Who spoke purely of tampering? Electronic machines are prone to malfunction which a box of paper isn't. Even most physical events which might befall a box of paper would prove detrimental to the actual "box" part of the electronic machine.
Quote:
You list off all the ways an electronic voting system can be tampered with, and I'll list off all the ways a traditional paper ballot system can.
You list all the ways a box of paper can lose its data and I'll list all the ways an electronic machine can lose its data. I bet my list is longer.

If your argument is going to rely on "I can ninja-vanish from the other polling officals and shove a thousand ballots into the box", it's just as easy for me to say "I'll ninja-vanish and make a thousand electronic entries." This is ignoring things such as making sure that the signature books match the ballot count, etc. If you're going to rely on cahoots with the other officals, it's even more of a moot point.
Quote:
Sez you!
Well, yeah. I think purely electronic machines are stupid and it has nothing to do with a desire to stuff the ballot. Feel free to assume whatever you want, though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Feb 08 2008 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Who spoke purely of tampering? Electronic machines are prone to malfunction which a box of paper isn't. Even most physical events which might befall a box of paper would prove detrimental to the actual "box" part of the electronic machine.


Same in either direction though. Yes. The actual voting machine is more prone to malfunction (although arguably less so then the punch systems they were primarily intended to replace). However, the storage media is *less* prone to problems. They're basically memory cards, like the ones you carry around in your pocket all the time. I guarantee that they're less likely to be damaged by dropping, spilling, rain, sleet, snow, cold, heat, etc then a box filled with paper ballots.

And they can't be folded spindled or mutilated (the individual votes anyway).

I'm specifically talking about what may or may not happen between the time you drop a vote into a cardboard box or have your vote recorded on the electronic media and the time the box is opened back in a counting station and tallied. The simple fact is that there are vastly more things both deliberate and accidental that can result in lost or falsified votes using paper ballots.


We can debate this all day long and you'll just be wrong all day long.


Quote:
Quote:
You list off all the ways an electronic voting system can be tampered with, and I'll list off all the ways a traditional paper ballot system can.
You list all the ways a box of paper can lose its data and I'll list all the ways an electronic machine can lose its data. I bet my list is longer.


No. It's not. Barring massive electrical activity, or some sort of industrial crushing device, there's almost no way to lose the information stored on the media devices used by those voting systems. Whereas paper ballots in a box are vulnerable to water (probably the single most common cause of ballots being lost btw), fire, tearing, and of course the same sort of crushing that would be required to break the casing on the electronic storage device and actually cause the data inside to be lost would probably completely demolish a box full of paper ballots.

Basically, a huge electrical storm might be a problem. But that's vastly outweighed if we count only the number of ballots lost simply because it's raining where the polls are, and the boxes are carried around and may leak and destroy some of the contents.

You'd lose that listing Joph. I think you're thinking that the voting machine stores the data or something. The votes are actually stored on removable media that are then handled exactly the same way a sealed ballot box would be handled. And those "boxes" are much more resistant to tampering and loss of data then a cardboard box filled with pieces of paper.

Edited, Feb 8th 2008 8:09pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Feb 08 2008 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
And they can't be folded spindled or mutilated (the individual votes anyway).
They can be, and the one issue I have with electronic voting is that there's no way, at this time, for a (theoretically) impartial third party to examine the source code to ensure that the voting software isn't designed to fold, spindle, and/or mutilate certain voting patterns.

Which is a shame. Electronic voting is a good idea, but not when the system you're using for voting is a black box (and there are only two real ways to ensure it isn't - either the impartial third party views the source code of the software to verify that there's no "adjusting" going on, or any paper trail is made available both to the voter AND the officials).
#16 Feb 08 2008 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm specifically talking about what may or may not happen between the time you drop a vote into a cardboard box or have your vote recorded on the electronic media and the time the box is opened back in a counting station and tallied.
Lesson #1: Don't use a shoe box for your ballots. Believe it or not, a solid metal lockbox* isn't easily damaged by "dropping, spilling, rain, sleet, snow, cold, heat, etc" Problem solved! Anything catastrophic enough to destroy the ballots isn't going to do your memory card any favors either.

I'm not specifically talking about just that time because I realize that the act of voting and having your vote tallied relies on more than the car ride to the county clerk's office after 9pm.
Quote:
We can debate this all day long and you'll just be wrong all day long.
Smiley: laugh Oh, well if YOU say so...

*In the interest of disclosure, I'll note that we used a cardboard box to transport the ballots at the end of the day but that was after the machine had printed out three copies of the scanned results. One copy went right into the hands of the county officer who was waiting for us to close the machine, one copy was posted at the polling place and one copy went with the ballots. The ride to the town hall would have been the worst time to try to tamper with the physical ballots.

Edited, Feb 8th 2008 10:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Feb 08 2008 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Archfiend MDenham wrote:
They can be, and the one issue I have with electronic voting is that there's no way, at this time, for a (theoretically) impartial third party to examine the source code to ensure that the voting software isn't designed to fold, spindle, and/or mutilate certain voting patterns.
Indeed. And that's part of the problem (and one skipped when all you care about is what happens after the polls close). With a paper ballot system (scanned or otherwise), you start by ensuring that the ballot box is empty in front of the other officials, independent poll watchers, etc. You know that the box is empty because you're staring at a physically empty box.

With an electronic system, you take on faith that when the system says "Nope, no votes here", it's actually starting from zero. It almost certainly is but you can't actually prove it then and there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Feb 08 2008 at 11:45 PM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Quote:
The New Mexico Democratic Party caucus may be tainted by three ballot boxes that spent the night in the home of the Rio Arriba County party chair or the homes of other local election officials instead of being reported to the state party.

Those ballots still haven’t been counted, but they have been retrieved by the state party.

Several sources told me the ballot boxes spent the night at the home of Rio Arriba County Democratic Party Chair Theresa Martinez, whose state-lawmaker husband, Sen. Richard Martinez, endorsed Hillary Clinton. But Richard Martinez told Santa Fe New Mexican reporter Kate Nash that the boxes actually spent the night in the homes of three polling-place managers. He gave Nash no explanation for why the results from those ballots weren’t reported to the state party last night and why they were instead kept overnight in officials’ homes.


Why am I not surprised? I really hate my state sometimes.
#19 Feb 09 2008 at 1:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
I'm not opposed to an electronic balloting system. In fact, I think if done properly you could design a ballot system that would be more secure and accurate than a paper system. The technology we have in place today though is not secure enough. Most of the voting machines out there, including the infamous diebold units, are running on a microsoft access database. Not SQL, not access as a SQL frontend, but an actual *.mdb file. Those of youw ho ue acess on a regular basis know that access is unstable in the best of times, and downright suicidal in the worst.

If someone came to me and handed me a pile of money and said "design a better balloting system" this is what I would do.

1. The machine itself would be roughly the same type, touch screen, computer inside, transmits to a central box, but lock everything down better. Fiber optic link cables between the booths and the central unit to eliminate taps or the chance of interception. Completly sealed units at the voting booth end with tamper indicator cases (something along the lines of an oxygen exposure color change if the plastic is cracked, the unit would erase itself if a sensor inside detected a loss of pressure, etc.), requireing all maintenance be completed at the factory. The main unit would also be sealed, but would contain an integrated printer and optional data transmission features. No air vents, passive cooling. Design the whole thing so it can only be accessed by a specially designed and keyed docking station socket, and use somethign other than Access for storeing the data. seriously.

2. Your government issued ID becomes your voteing key. When you vote, the machine records a picture of you, your fingerprint from the touchscreen, and your ID. You are also required to sign in with the vote monitor people at the door.

3. The voteing machines live in a bank vault year round when not in use. Cameras broadcast over the internet to the public 24 hours a day pointing at the units. All maintenance is secheduled in advance.

4. Issue electronic tokens and Pin numbers to all voters. That would get expensive, but would be very hard to crack, and would provide a barrier to people simply stealing an ID card and voteing that way.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#21 Feb 09 2008 at 10:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"...a solid metal lockbox..." --Jophiel

Gore face! Gore face! Gore face!*

Totem














*For those of you who don't know, Bill Simmons from ESPN has coined the term Peyton face, and now Brady face in regards to the expression on these quarterbacks after they lose the Big Game.
#22 Feb 11 2008 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Lesson #1: Don't use a shoe box for your ballots. Believe it or not, a solid metal lockbox* isn't easily damaged by "dropping, spilling, rain, sleet, snow, cold, heat, etc" Problem solved!

...

*In the interest of disclosure, I'll note that we used a cardboard box to transport the ballots at the end of the day but that was after the machine had printed out three copies of the scanned results. One copy went right into the hands of the county officer who was waiting for us to close the machine, one copy was posted at the polling place and one copy went with the ballots. The ride to the town hall would have been the worst time to try to tamper with the physical ballots.


Uh huh...

And the box folks drop their ballots into? Is it a solid metal "lockbox" or a cardboard box with a slot cut in the top?


You're also missing the point. I said between the actual voting location (ie: where the voters drop their ballots into the box) and where they are tallied (ie: the machine that spits out the three copies of the scanned results you mentioned). Some sites do the tallying right there, many do not. In either case though, the box moves from where the voters put the ballots into the box, to some other location (may just be a back room of the polling place, or another location entirely), where they're dumped out, fed through a machine and tallied. Then the box is re-filled and they're sealed and sent to a central housing area and stored in case of a recount.


My point is that this process right now is less secure and more susceptible to tampering then any electronic replacement. The scanning machines are just as likely to be tampered with whether they're reading pieces of paper, or data on a storage device.

More to the point, it's vastly easier to arrange to get "your guys" into the tallying areas (or handling the boxes between the voting and tallying areas) in order to stuff the box(es). All you need is the right people in the right places. A handful of extra ballots dropped into each box worth at the tallying station can easily add an extra 5 point margin for your candidate. All it requires is someone with the ability to carry something in their hands, or enough money to pay off the 2 or 3 people involved, or just the one person who's in charge of scheduling the counters.


There are just so many ways to stuff ballot boxes it's not even funny. There's only really two ways to tamper with the electronic system. You have to either tamper with every single voting machine in the country and manage to program it to put extra votes for your guy onto their memory cards (very very hard to do without being incredibly obvious, and hard to do anyway given the volume of voting machines involved), or somehow hack the counting machines themselves to incorrectly report the tallies on the cards.

The first method would be "clean" but despite claims is virtually impossible to do on any sort of large scale and not get caught. Every machine would have to be physically re-programmed before each election to make this work.

The second method is easier, since it could be done on a site by site basis. However, it's still much much much easier to simply stuff a traditional paper ballot box. You'd need to reprogram a much more complicated system *and* you'd have to also change the data on the card (or you'd leave an obvious trail). Most scenarios talking about how to "hack" an election require some sort of methodology to gain read-write access to any given card and change its contents. That's doable, but you're far less likely to avoid being spotted hooking cards up to a laptop you brought along and twiddling bits, then you are just dropping extra ballots on a table (or swapping boxes).

I suppose you could swap memory cards, but that's still exactly as likely as swapping ballot boxes. With the exception that the very "proprietary" nature of the voting machines means that there are checksum matches done to verify that the card being read is the correct card. Not so much with ballot boxes. Since you've worked elections before you know that the ballots and the boxes are made en-mass prior to the election, stored in huge warehouses with literally hundreds of random volunteers handling them. It's pretty trivial to grab a pallet full of folded boxes and ballots and then use them wherever you want. It's a heck of a lot harder to get your hands on properly initialized and checksummed memory cards for electronic voting machines.


I've done a considerable amount of research on this subject. Yes. The electronic voting machine system isn't "perfect", but in every single way it is more secure then the traditional paper ballot system.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Feb 11 2008 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And the box folks drop their ballots into? Is it a solid metal "lockbox" or a cardboard box with a slot cut in the top?
Hell if I know. For all I know, every other state has you write your choice down on a Post-It and hand it to a monkey. The point being that the box situation is very easily handled if you care to handle it.

Unless you meant here in Illinois. Then, yes, you drop your ballot into a metal box. Technically, you feed it through the scanner which deposits it into the metal box.

I largely disagree with the rest of your post. I don't care enough to listen to you say "Nuh-Uh!" over and over. I'm sure that you wrote a very nice paper on voting machines as part of your Computers 101 course which qualifies you as an expert. By in large, you rely way too much on collusion with other agents to negate the entire oversight process. If you're relying on that, you may as well make up examples where collusion allows you to cheat in any other circumstance.

Now you may start saying "Nuh-Uh!" --- Ready.. GO!!

Edited, Feb 11th 2008 8:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Feb 12 2008 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
They just need electronic voting machines that print out your vote immediately after you vote. One goes into a lock box, the other is kept by the person who voted so they can verify their vote (carbon copy paper would be best here). If there's any question you now have legible copies to verify the votes with.

Counts are now instantaneous and cheating is much more difficult as you would have to both hack the electronic systems and stuff the ballot box with matching copies.
#25 Feb 12 2008 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Not that i want to get involved in this discussion about the minutiae of the mechanics of voting in the US when I personally feel that 'democracy' in the US is a a farce from the get-go, but......

in an e-mail from Diebold Election Systems technical writer R&D Nel Finberg in 2003, responded to an internal query over a security problem thus.


Quote:
To: "support"
Subject: alteration of Audit Log in Access
From: "Nel Finberg"
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:31:30 -0700
Importance: Normal


Jennifer Price at Metamor (about to be Ciber) has indicated that she can access the GEMS Access database and alter the Audit log without entering a password. What is the position of our development staff on this issue? Can we justify this? Or should this be anathema?

Nel


The reply from Diebold Election Systems principal engineer R&D Ken Clark was

Quote:
To: "support"
Subject: RE: alteration of Audit Log in Access
From: "Ken Clark"
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:55:02 -0700
Importance: Normal

Its a tough question, and it has a lot to do with perception. Of course everyone knows perception is reality.

Right now you can open GEMS' .mdb file with MS-Access, and alter its contents. That includes the audit log. This isn't anything new. In VTS, you can open the database with progress and do the same. The same would go for anyone else's system using whatever database they are using. Hard drives are read-write entities. You can change their contents.

Now, where the perception comes in is that its right now very *easy* to change the contents. Double click the .mdb file. Even technical wizards at Metamor (or Ciber, or whatever) can figure that one out.

IIt is possible to put a secret password on the .mdb file to prevent Metamor from opening it with Access. I've threatened to put a password on the .mdb before when dealers/customers/support have done stupid things with the GEMS database structure using Access. Being able to end-run the database has admittedly got people out of a bind though. Jane (I think it was Jane) did some fancy footwork on the .mdb file in Gaston recently. I know our dealers do it. King County is famous for it. That's why we've never put a password on the file before.

Note however that even if we put a password on the file, it doesn't really prove much. Someone has to know the password, else how would GEMS open it. So this technically brings us back to square one: the audit log is modifiable by that person at least (read, me). Back to perception though, if you don't bring this up you might skate through Metamor.

There might be some clever crypto techniques to make it even harder to change the log (for me, they guy with the password that is). We're talking big changes here though, and at the moment largely theoretical ones. I'd doubt that any of our competitors are that clever.

By the way, all of this is why Texas gets its sh*t in a knot over the log printer. Log printers are not read-write, so you don't have the problem. Of course if I were Texas I would be more worried about modifications to our electronic ballots than to our electron logs, but that is another story I guess.

Bottom line on Metamor is to find out what it is going to take to make them happy. You can try the old standard of the NT password gains access to the operating system, and that after that point all bets are off. You have to trust the person with the NT password at least. This is all about Florida, and we have had VTS certified in Florida under the status quo for nearly ten years.

I sense a loosing battle here though. The changes to put a password on the .mdb file are not trivial and probably not even backward compatible, but we'll do it if that is what it is going to take.

Ken


The response to that was....


Quote:
To: "support"
Subject: RE: alteration of Audit Log in Access
From: "Nel Finberg"
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:48:16 -0700
Importance: Normal

Thanks for the response, Ken. For now Metamor accepts the requirement to restrict the server password to authorized staff in the jurisdiction, and that it should be the responsibility of the jurisdiction to restrict knowledge of this password. So no action is necessary in this matter, at this time.

Nel


Linkage..

So, in short, a problem was identified, discussed and no action was taken.

As I say, I think the process that is labelled 'democracy' in the US is nothing of the sort, but by using electronics to record votes, thereby leaving no reviewable paper trail, can't be doing much to raise peoples perception of 'free and fair' elections.

The fact that Bush II was awarded the post of 'El Presidente' by a bunch of judges who were appointed by his dad shows to me that this 'democracy' that you speak of is a flawed process.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#26 Feb 12 2008 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You can see the machines that Illinois uses on this page. You fill out an optical scan sheetand insert it into the ballot counter. The machine will alert you if your ballot has an error such as selecting multiple presidents and you have the option of allowing it to count (it won't count the invalid offices such as your botched president vote) or spoiling the ballot and starting over. There's a judge at the machine to assist you as you enter it.

As you can see, the scanner sits atop a large, locked metal box. A slot in the box allows election judges to drop in provisional ballot envelopes into a separate compartment. At the close of the election, the scanner prints out several copies of the vote tallies, one of which is taken by a county officer waiting for you to close out the machine. The box is unlocked and opened (which requires breaking a seal) and the ballots removed and placed into a cardboard box. The box is then sealed with a tape bearing the signatures of the election judges. Another copy of the scanner tally goes with the ballots and a third copy is posted at the polling location. The ballot box is delivered directly to the county clerk by at least one judge from each party. Also, the voter's register is delivered bearing the card copies and signatures of everyone who voted (and the party breakdowns in the primaries).

This system is magnitudes better than a solely electronic process. You have your preliminary results immediately and you have a paper trail in case of questions. The paper ballots are not prone to tampering without breaking the seal and, really, you'd need a pretty major event to render the ballots destroyed. Short of collusion with all of the other judges, you're not going to be able to effectively stuff the ballot since the only place to do it is at the scanner itself by forging signatures in the voter log and shoving ballots into the machine.

I know that Gbaji was comparing purely paper ballots to purely electronic ballots but why other states don't adopt the same system is beyond me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 304 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (304)