Some big problems I have with the NYTimes article on e-voting

[garybeck]

Once again the focus is only on the DREs and there is no mention of any problems with opscans, in fact it calls them:

"Optical scanning is used in what many elections experts regard as the “perfect elections” "

The point of the whole article is that the DREs are bad and the Opscans are good. There is no mention the need for audits. They say that a third of the votes are on DREs (untrustworthy) and fail to point out how many more votes will be on un-audited Opscans, which are actually easier to rig/hack, because there are more votes on each machine and thus more centralized. Even John Kerry himself once noted that there were suspicious results that correlated to the precincts that used optical scan systems in 2004.

The author incorrectly portrays Ion Sancho as a big advocate of Opscans. Anyone who has seen HBO's "Hacking Democracy" knows that Ion Sancho does NOT trust the Opscan results, as he should not. He has even stated that he believes he has gotten incorrect results from his Opscan system in a previous election.

So I give NY Times a C+, for putting the issue on their magazine cover but what's inside is does a poor job of discussing the problem, and actually states the opposite of the truth in more than one instance.

[Wilms]

1. And I give you an A+ for pointing out...

"...Opscans, which are actually easier to rig/hack, because there are more votes on each machine and thus more centralized".

[peacetheonlyway]

2. Thanks Gary for Giving us the Heads UP on Times Article

and they way they sell OPSCAMS ...

I'm so frustrated when folks say "but we have to have computers count the votes, hand counting is too slow"
jeezuz..

FOLKS REALLY NEED TO CONNECT THAT IN DIEBOLD AND ES&S, the CENTRAL TABULATOR AND SOFTWARE IS EXCACTLY the same for OPSCAMS and DRES...

jeez.. why is this so hard for folks to Grok?

Thanks for the Anti Voting Machine Press NY Times but No thanks, I'd rather go back to folks calling us tin foil hat conspirators, at least then, folks believed me a little more that ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING MUST GO ....

gary, I should update you on the voterga.org lawsuit.. we'll have big news in Feb. and it was a statewide challenge to the constitutionality of the citizen's right to a ballot which machines obliterate when the PROCESS that replaces the ballot is not verifiable or auditable.. check out our suit www.voterga.org..

keep up the great posts! your election work is stellar!

[GuvWurld]

3. K&R - Thanks for posting, Gary

This article must absolutely not get a free pass. In comparison to DREs opscans are a false alternative and must be called out as such. I have written my own review of the article, now found in three places:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x488651
(needs one more R for greatest page as of right now)

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/nytimes-can-you-count-on-these-machines.html
(original posting)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_dave_ber_080105_commentary_on_nytime.htm
(now main headlined)

[Kurovski]

4. Sounds like Ion Sancho should be dashing off a LTTE to the NYT.

[kster]

5. K&R...nt

[truckin]

6. Thanks Gary, this needs to be pointed out. I sent the following

to fellow election advocates in Connecticut.

"My biggest issue is that the article gives the impression that opscan is a cure all even if there are no audits to verify the accuracy of the machines. Opscan, without any handcounts of the paper ballots to verify the accuracy of the machines, is not much better than DREs. And if audit differences are found, and the SOTS decides not to investigate, then even the audits are of limited value. I know I’m preaching to the choir but this is an important point to make to the CT legislature."

[garybeck]

7. very good! now my question is...

if people like you and I can "get it" why is it that these supposed "journalists" and "investigators" for the NY Times who are getting paid probably more then you and I combined, can write such a lame article with fundamental inaccuracies in it?

[truckin]

8. That's the big question, isn't it. I wish I knew the answer.

[Votergater]

9. Hacked off with the New York Times....

As a producer and director of the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" I'm staggered and left wondering if the NY Times article's author has bothered to see the Optical Scan hack for himself in our film. It's easily availible on DVD. Now that the touchscreens are largely banned in Florida, California and Ohio the security of the Optical Scan machines is even more crucial.

(It's also important to remember that after Harri Hursti carried out his ground breaking hack Ion Sancho decided to dump his entire Diebold system and replace it. But the other vendors refused to sell him one.)

Not to report the full story is tantamount to falsifying the truth.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. actually, the article does cite problems with opscans

Still, optical scanning is hardly a flawless system. If someone doesn't mark a ballot clearly, a recount can wind up back in the morass of arguing over "voter intent." The machines also need to be carefully calibrated so they don't miscount ballots. Blind people may need an extra device installed to help them vote. Poorly trained poll workers could simply lose ballots. And the machines do, in fact, run software that can be hacked: Sancho himself has used computer scientists to hack his machines. It's also possible that any complex software isn't well suited for running elections. Most software firms deal with the inevitable bugs in their product by patching them; Microsoft still patches its seven-year-old Windows XP several times a month. But vendors of electronic voting machines do not have this luxury, because any update must be federally tested for months.

There are also serious logistical problems for the states that are switching to optical scan machines this election cycle....

(emphasis added)

It's fine to think the article is too positive toward op-scan; I certainly wish it had talked about the importance of auditing the scanner results. But let's get it right.

(If John Kerry knows of statistical evidence that op-scans were hacked in 2004, I hope he will let the rest of us know about it. There was the Hout study immediately after the election, but I think even Hout agrees that that just didn't hold up.)