posted by
mrcoolbp
on Friday April 24 2015, @11:50PM
from the never-trusted-those-things-anyways dept.
from the never-trusted-those-things-anyways dept.
From the Wichita Eagle:
A Wichita State University mathematician sued the top Kansas election official Wednesday, seeking paper tapes from electronic voting machines in an effort to explain statistical anomalies favoring Republicans in counts coming from large precincts across the country.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Statistician Sues Election Official over Voting Machine Anomalies
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 36 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:42AM
And why wouldn't any malware installed on the voting machines change the paper trail as well? It seems incredibly unlikely that any fraud that could of occurred would not have changed both records simultaneously.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:48AM
Depends on at what stage alleged fraud would have taken place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:30AM
I know what it means for an event to "have occurred", but I'm not sure what it means for an event to "of occurred".
(Score: 3, Funny) by deadstick on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:28AM
It means fraud occurred in the poster's high school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @05:03AM
Nope it means that they used the wrong homophone. "could of" is an incorrect spelling of the contraction "could've".
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:37AM
whoosh.
Had he been educated properly, perhaps he would not have made that mistake?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mth on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:31AM
If the paper trail can be inspected by each voter at the time of voting, malware changing what is printed will be caught on the day of the election. I don't know if the voting machines that were used were designed to show the paper version to the voter though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:03PM
And why wouldn't any malware installed on the voting machines change the paper trail as well?
Because it might be installed on vote tabulation machines instead. I don't know about all the elections that this researcher has looked at, but I understand that the 2012 Republican primaries, which showed this statistical anomaly in a fair number of states (more than ten) didn't keep the paper ballots or perhaps didn't have them. Also, this anomaly doesn't show up at all in the 2008 Republican primaries, IIRC. It's either on (and in the case of the 2012 Republican primaries, always favoring Romney), or off.
(Score: 1, Troll) by wisnoskij on Saturday April 25 2015, @06:37PM
I bet 1-5% don't even remember who voted (a lot of them make up their minds with the ballot in front of them), and a further 1% would lie who they voted for for some reason, and there is probably another 1% who mistakenly pressed the wrong button and have no idea they voted for the wrong candidate. I really doubt that you would ever get the same recount, and if the race was close this amount of random drift would be very significant compared to any fraud trying to tweak the votes a percentage or two in someones favor.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:53AM
If US elections are being tampered with in a way that makes a real difference. Then the state is in effect a dictatorship.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:02AM
Not really. Nor is it a fascist state, police state or any of the other things that get thrown about. It might be *int the future* but not now.
It is a captured democracy in that there is a democratic process but this has been subverted so that there is very little difference in overall policy in relation to the outcome of the elections and this policy tends to agree with the elite rather than the majority.
And it does not require this voting fraud for that to be so right now. That is just good ol' corruption and has been around in various forms since the outside of the USA.
IOW: The pretence of democracy.
In a dictatorship there is no pretence...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @06:39AM
Gotta love this endless hair splitting... and legal wanking around.
US is democratic like Russia or North fucking Korea.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:18PM
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @05:12PM
I didn't know the Nazis were from Russia or North Korea. That's news to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:38PM
Well if you watched FOX news you'd know that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 25 2015, @11:29PM
I didn't know the Nazis were from Russia or North Korea.
Reading comprehension would help you here. I wasn't claiming the Nazis were from Russia or North Korea. I was pointing out that Godwin's observation extends to all the pointless comparisons to the ultimate bad guys of the day.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:24AM
It is not hair splitting. I am right and you are so very wrong.
Simple as that.
You do a disservice to all those millions of people who have suffered under those forms of government by comparing the *relatively* (i.e. compared to the most evil) benevolent government you have to the fascist states that have existed.
Meh. I am wasting my bytes here...I am sure there is no convincing you.
Discussion over.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday April 25 2015, @12:58AM
These cases only reinforce the argument that all e-voting machines should use open-source operating systems and that the source code of both the OS and the voting software ought to be easily downloadable for inspection and analysis. When every facet of an election is not completely open and transparent, corruption seeps into it.
Now, on a different subject, if it turns out that this statistical anomaly is indeed evidence of vast electoral fraud, those who are responsible ought to be publicly hanged by their balls or tits.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Sir Finkus on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:15AM
Something similar to the bitcoin blockchain may work, where everyone gets a private key and signs a public transaction record. The only concern I might have in that case would be anonymity, although I think it could be designed in a way that votes could be traced back to people.
Of course the problem with that is that I don't see how it would prevent fraud by the creation of new voters. Maybe some kind of goofy web of trust thing. I'm not a cryptonerd.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 1) by dingus on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:53AM
You could require all keys to be signed by whatever beaurocracy runs elections, and keys are only signed for a limited time on election day.
Of course, this is all fantasy, many people have a sort of reflexive distrust of any kind of technology, even the kind that is mathematically guaranteed to be trustworthy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @04:31AM
And early voting? Because there shouldn't be just one election day. That is merely a means of oppressing the poor.
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:00AM
Well, that would be pretty easy to fix. Just make any modifications to the blockchain after election day invalid. They could issue the "votes" as early as they'd like.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:52AM
Actually, it's a very very strong argument that a computer is the wrong tool for handling this kind of record-keeping.
What actually works, and works really well, is a piece of paper with names on it that the voter marks and places in a box. In my home state, after multiple debacles involving the fancy electronic software machines, they switched to that, with a "fill in the bubble" sheet and a machine that can count them automatically. But the key point is that the legal vote is the one that the voter physically handled and physically put in the voting box - they do hand recounts of randomly selected precincts to verify the machines are accurate, and will hand-recount everything if it's really really close.
One aspect I will never understand about elections, at least in the US, is the silly notion that all elections should be called by 11 PM EST on Election Day.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:02AM
These cases only reinforce the argument that all e-voting machines should use open-source operating systems and that the source code of both the OS and the voting software ought to be easily downloadable for inspection and analysis.
This will not help, as you have no way to verify that the software running the machine is not tampered with, or that it was compiled from unmodified sources that you were reviewing earlier. Or that the hardware is executing the program correctly. Or that the touch screen is not off by quarter of an inch. Or that the tape printer that shows you a printout does not modify the data. You can hide an elephant among several microcontrollers that are invisible to a software reviewer.
A complex voting method results in many vulnerabilities. A simple method, like counting of physical objects, is more reliable.
If you are intent on electronic voting, it is necessary to ensure that the vote is unchangeable. Someone has already mentioned the blockchain - and indeed that would be a very hard nut to crack if someone wants to change the results later. Perhaps you would be given a certain token; you plug it into your smartphone or a PC and generate a vote; then you submit that vote into the blockchain and wait for confirmations. A token could be a high density QR code, for example.
In terms of digital currency, at the polling place, after checking your right to vote, you'd be given several different digital coins. each valid for one election/office. You can spend each coin by "paying" to the account of the candidate that you support. You can do it from home, though the polling place might also have a few computers set up - but it would be recommended to vote on your own hardware. The unissued coins will be then submitted to special addresses to demonstrate that they haven't been used "to stuff the box." Some small number of coins will never show up anywhere - because, for example, the voter chose to not vote.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mth on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:50AM
A desirable property is if no voter can prove who they voted for. This reduces the ability to bribe or coerce people to vote for a particular party or candidate. That might not be possible if you hand out tokens to be used outside of the polling place. In fact, even if the vote itself could not be traced to the token used after voting, if the token is handed out someone could look over the voter's shoulder as they vote or simply take the token.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheLink on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:39AM
May not be so good at fulfilling one of the requirements of a voting/election system.
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=6515&cid=157399 [soylentnews.org]
You missed out one major requirement of any voting system (and elections).
0) Convincing enough of the losers that they have lost.
If a voting system can't meet that requirement it's a waste of time and resources and could make things even worse.
So while there are fancy crypto techniques that can be used to implement a secure online voting system, these systems are unlikely to satisfy that requirement.
In contrast this requirement can be satisfied by a simple paper ballot box system where voters and observers can see the votes go in, not go anywhere and get counted one by one in front of their preferred side's representatives/electoral monitors/observers. Some magician could tamper with the votes, but you'd need magicians in enough polling stations..
Convincing enough of the losers they've lost should be a major requirement of any election system. Whether it's rigged or not ;).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:32PM
Sigh...do you even understand what source code IS? It is just that, the source of the code that MIGHT be on the machine. It isn't magical pixie dust that protects you from attackers that control the hardware and to think otherwise is either beyond naive or simply ignoring reality to push your FOSS agenda.
If there was rigging it was done by people that control the hardware which means it means exactly jack and squat if you have the source because 1.- The source you have may not be what was running at the time, 2.- The source does not in any way stop them from loading malware, and 3.- The source does not magically keep them from removing said malware after the election.
Source lets you fix bugs IF you are a developer OR have the money to hire some, it does NOT create a magic malware shield.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday April 25 2015, @10:03PM
I am a programmer. I think I know what source code is. And I recognize that making it available creates some sort of "magic malware shield", but complete openness makes it harder for someone to do some unkosher (or non-halal if you prefer).
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:10AM
Alright smart guy lets here EXACTLY how source code is gonna keep an attacker that controls the hardware and has unfettered access from doing any damned thing they want. While you are at it explain 1.- How EXACTLY you are gonna prove that the source YOU have was the source that was running at the time, 2.- That there wasn't malware loaded during the critical election period, and 3.- That said alteration wasn't taken off after the fact.
Because I really want to hear this because it sounds EXACTLY like you are assigning magical pixie powers to source...so lets here it, elucidate us with your wisdom oh wise one.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:17AM
Earlier this week, the voting machines that many places in Virginia have been using for years and years were finally decertified after it was shown that the WEP password was hard-coded and the machine had no firewall. [schneier.com]
...and the OS it was running was MICROS~1's (XP, no less). [xkcd.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:00AM
And I ride the main track
Searchin' in the sun for another hack
I see corruption on the wire,
The state officials must resign,
And the Wichita statsman is still on the line
- after Glen Campbell and Jimmy Webb
(Score: 3, Funny) by Paradise Pete on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:53AM
1. Your cadence seems a bit off.
2. You are old.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday April 25 2015, @02:46AM
Why would the election officials ever choose use paper ballots? The whole point of using computers is to perform voting fraud.
At least, given their reputation for security, I can't imagine any other purpose.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:53AM
You can't imagine any other po$$ibility for why $omeone might want to automate a ta$k?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @06:23PM
Not if making computers preform that task in an adequately safe way costs more than centuries of paper voting, both in terms of money spent and work hours used.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @01:16PM
I'm wondering whether this is an attempt to get ahead of the inevitable rehash of Florida's election history. The strategy would be to make a big mess in Kansas so that the unholy trinity of network news spends their eyeball time on being "outraged, and appalled" somewhere OTHER than a Bush state.
Any election committee that isn't expecting the next presidential election to be the most fraud ridden one in U.S. history hasn't been paying attention. It is also likely to see more scrutiny from the public than before. Of course it doesn't matter if they get caught, because the effect on public confidence will have the same seditious effect as the actual vote tampering. One is obliged to consider whether that is the point to begin with.