Electronic voting machines do not malfunction, and they do not produce errors

[Orrex]

In my former job I was responsible for building and maintaining databases to handle payments to clients based on their holdings in several hundred different mutual funds. To do this, it was necessary to correlate a zillion different data sources, often customizing the payment structure for for each individual client in each individual fund. These payments were calculated and processed both monthly and quarterly, and they involved billions of dollars and had to be accurate to the fraction of a penny.

Everyone knows that I'm super-duper smart, but even so, I'm not the mostest smartest guy around. I expect that anyone who actually designs software for a multi-billion dollar company is probably a good deal smarter than I am, especially as it relates to computers.

Therefore, the only possible reason that every electronic voting machine isn't 100% accurate and 100% tamper-proof is that these traits are not desired by the manufacturer, and these apparent "errors" aren't errors at all. They're deliberate elements of the design, and the machines work exactly as intended.

Hell--if an ATM's software routinely made a fraction of the errors shown to be common with electronic voting machines, then you can bet that the company that designs the ATM's software would have a tough time making its next sale.

Your thoughts?

[iceman66]

1. This is especially true when you consider that

Diebold does also make ATM machines which are NOT prone to these "errors".

[BuyingThyme]

2. Yep. I wrote "better" programs in high school.

And there's nothing proprietary about he code they use.

[backscatter712]

3. They're vote-stealing machines, and voter intimidation machines.

Building a voting machine isn't that hard - you're putting GUI widgets on the screen, accepting input and incrementing counters.

Not. That. Hard.

Unless you want a secure voting machine. That's hard.

Because adding a "feature" to a voting machine's source code to do things like altering the vote counts is quite easy. What's funny is that the voter doesn't even have to know about it. He pushes the onscreen button for Obama, the Obama button lights up, confirms he's voting for Obama, then silently records a vote for McCain on the memory card.

That's vote-stealing.

So why do we see machines where you push the button for Obama and it lights up the button for McCain? That's voter intimidation, folks.

The machine was deliberately programmed to do this. Don't tell me it's a miscalibrated touchscreen. That technology's been around since the 70's, and is not only used in Diebold/Premier voting machines, but in Diebold ATMs. ATMs that are located outdoors, in the elements, but still put together in such a way that when you touch the screen, it registers the touch correctly every single damned time. Banks count on these machines to be reliable - we're not just talking about votes. We're talking about shitloads of money, and the banks aren't gonna tolerate their money being fucked with.

What you're seeing when those touchscreens suddenly become unreliable when used in Diebold voting machines instead of ATMs is a message. Those voting machines are programmed to send you a message saying "Your vote does not count. We're going to cook the totals, and you can't do anything about it, so you might as well give up."

Voter intimidation.

It's not a miscalibration. It's hostile action.

[Orrex]

9. That's a good analysis

I hadn't even thought of outright intimidation--I was caught up on the absurdity of the "errors." But your analysis, sadly, makes a great deal of sense.

[Overseas]

4. Sure, most glitches are planned. Here are links to Clinton Curtis and Stephen Spoonamore info

AndyA Thu Aug-24-06 12:15 AM Clinton Curtis testimony regarding election fraud

I don't know if this has been posted before, or if DUers know more about this guy than what's on the video, but Stephen Pizzo has suggested that everyone watch this video, and pass it on to others. In it, Curtis testifies he was asked prior to the elections in 2000 to write a program that would flip an election! And you won't believe WHO ASKED HIM TO WRITE IT!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=811282555920238...

====================================
And then there's Spoonamore

9/26/08:
New Spoonamore Interview - E-voting Machines are a National Security Threat
Last week, VR interviewed GOP Cyber security expert Stephen Spoonamore about the upcoming election and his testimony in the new Ohio litigation to take depositions of Karl Rove and others.

The video is posted in full below with ten short clips for You Tube viewing. This interview is so important and explosive that we urge everyone to watch it.

Spoonamore says that the GOP wanted e-voting to steal elections but now foreign governments will be hacking and the winner will be determined by the best hackers. He says that if the GOP wins the hacking competition, McCain will win 51.2 percent with three electoral votes over Obama, and it will be a stolen election.

Spoon also makes a crucial point about the people who have been implicated in much of the election theft: "They are religious extremists." He names those who know about stolen elections, and he insists that the only way to protect this election is with paper ballots, hand-counted. Check out this extraordinary interview here.

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/spoonamore_revelations

[j_loe]

5. Oh noes....

I saw the video, I am scared. Damn!!!! No wonder that rat bastard McCain guaranteed a win on MTP. These f*ckers never quit.

[PermanentRevolution]

6. The ATM at my bank crashes at least 3-4 times a week.

It's a Diebold ATM. It freezes, the graphics display craps out, it misreads touch-screen inputs, etc. I think they make crappy electronics and don't care because they have enough lobbyist and legislator friends to keep them in nice juicy contracts whether their stuff works or not.

Mind you, it's entirely possible that BOTH are true - that their machines just suck, AND they've left deliberate ways to tamper with them for their own reasons.

[Orrex]

10. Crashing is one thing, and a major pain in the ass, but...

Does the machine credit your deposit to Joe the Plumber's account? I'd hope not, and even if it does, the corresponding paper trail and audit process will catch the error pretty quickly.

But these uber-secret voting machines are shielded against all audit and paper trail, so...

[MarjorieG]

7. ATMS are 100% cross-audited, and voting machines not at all. Experts say junky design.

The privatization and lack of transparent observability are very deliberate. Having the ability to steal and leave back doors, etc, also very deliberate.

[bonecrusher3k]

8. It sure would be nice

if they made the code to these machines open source, or at least posted it so the code could be independently examined. Why isn't this the norm?