Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will the Next Election Be Hacked?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the privatizing-vote-counting dept.


plasmacutter writes to let us know about the new article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Rolling Stone, following up on his "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" (slashdotted here). Kennedy recounts the sorry history of electronic voting so far in this country — and some of the incidents will be new even to this clued-in crowd. (Had you heard about the CERT advisory on an undocumented backdoor account in a Diebold vote-tabulating database — crediting Black Box Voting?) Kennedy's reporting is bolstered by the accounts of a Diebold insider who has gone on record with his concerns. From the article: 'Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia... "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from [president of Diebold election unit Bob] Urosevich...' According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties, the state's largest Democratic strongholds. The tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. (Hint: Republicans won.)

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

America? (1, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270451)

Why can't you just get it through your head
It's over, it's over now
Yes, you heard me clearly now I said
It's over, it's over now

I'm not really over you
You might say that
I can't take it, I can't take it
Lord, I swear I just can't take it no more

Re:America? (3, Funny)

mencomenco (551866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270475)

By the time this crowd is done we'll be eating our tinfoil, not wearing it.

Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270643)

If democrats win then clearly no and it won't be brought up by any democrat / liberal media (Slashdot included). When the republicans win then yes, it was unfair / miscounted / cheated / hacked / [Insert other bullshit here]. Democrats can't win because they cannot even get along themselves.

Re: Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270863)

I think I speak for the bipartisan majority here when I say "please shut the fuck up, mmkay?"

Re: Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (4, Insightful)

OmnipotentEntity (702752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270915)

I'm not saying the Democrats commit election fraud. I'm not saying the Republicans commit election fraud. What I am saying is that at no presidential election before 2000 was election fraud even brought up.

Not in 1996, 1992...1976, 1972, 1968 etc.

So, why is it that accusing someone of election fraud is now automatically a Democratic trait? The Democrats didn't accuse anyone of election fraud when Reagan or Bush Mk.I took office, not when Nixon destroyed McGovern. Just as the Republicans didn't call shenaigans when Clinton, Carter, and Johnson won.

Maybe there's evidence this time? Something that wasn't there every other election.

As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270455)

the process is over. It doesn't matter who votes for who, it only matters who counts the votes.

Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. (5, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270551)

It also doesn't matter who wins. The losing side will claim the winners stole the election. I fail to see how electronic voting has changed this. It is being going on for a long time.

Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270853)

Electronic voting removes what semblance of vote verifiability existed with paper votes (real recounts) while enabling easy, broad tampering.

Re:As soon as you have people willing to cheat.. (3, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270755)

In that case, might I recommend that Americans bring in the Swiss in order that they may have a supervised election run by an impartial third party? Given that the US has such a hard time ensuring fair elections, they shouldn't be too proud to ask for help.

Oh goodie! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270459)

More leftie rant fodder.

"news for nerds?" I think not

Re:Oh goodie! (1)

Bohnanza (523456) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270487)

More leftie rant fodder.

I guess that's true. You never hear Republicans complaining about these voting machines. Therefore, they must work "perfectly".

Re:Oh goodie! (5, Informative)

Entrope (68843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270521)

Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, a Republican, ran into stiff opposition after (Diebold?) voting machines caused major problems in the state's primary elections this year. Ehrlich wanted to switch to paper-based methods that were known to be reliable. The opposition was NOT from his own party, but from the state's Democratic majority and career bureaucrats.

Re:Oh goodie! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270569)

Hey, don't offer evidence contrary to the standing line of crap around slashdot... we're not really interested in proof... We just support our own little fantasies and make up things to make ourselves feel good.

Re:Oh goodie! (4, Insightful)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270567)

Actually, a few weeks back, Slashdot covered how Maryland Governor Ehrlich (R) was trying to seek an injunction on the use of Diebold machines.

The reality of the situation is that it's not a Democrat/Republican's a power thing. If a Democrat were in office, the Republicans would be shouting vote fraud, etc.

Re:Oh goodie! (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270781)

If a Democrat were in office, the Republicans would be shouting vote fraud, etc.

And chances are, it would be just as nonsensical as this.

It's similar to "AIMBOTZ!" and "HAX" in online gaming.

Re:Oh goodie! (4, Insightful)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270503)

You'd think with the evidence and coincidences that are showing up, that people may actually think these guys have something it say. Instead, some of you just dismiss it as BS. I'm a card carrying libertarian, and I'm siding with the liberals on this one. There's something fishy going on here, and I think it should be investigated.

I wonder, if the positions were reversed and you felt you were losing your country, would you:

A. Still give a fuck?
B. Be outraged that fellow citizens don't listen to you, just because they have a different stance on abortion?

patch code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270467)

Any hope that the patch code is available?

two words. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270491)

exit polls.

they have always been acurate to a very slim margin, yet they were off by hundreds of thousands of votes in 2004. think about it - oh wait sorry, the apathy, i forgot.

Three words. (2, Informative)

Entrope (68843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270577)


American exit polls have never been that accurate. Their margins of error have come down somewhat, but statistically speaking they have never been "accurate to a very slim margin".

Re:Three words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270685)

I heard that the "Dewey defeats Truman" error was because the Chicago Tribune used data from a telephone poll. It seems that at the time there were a lot more Republican voters with phones than Democrats. Not sure how true this is, but it would explain the mistake.

Re:Three words. (1)

Entrope (68843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270835)

The Chicago Tribune [] itself says that the numbers were based on a combination of early election results and a Washington correspondent who was wrong just once in the previous 20 years (20% error?). Private polls did show a significant Dewey lead before the election. Between the two, it was surprising Truman won the election, but I do not think even die-hard Republicans would claim the election was stolen. And just reflect: That headline was based on early election results, which lack a number of biases present in exit or telephone polling. (The major hard-to-address biases early results have are limited sample size and geographical bias.)

Re:Three words. (1)

eav (701231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270901)

Being wrong once in 20 times is a 5% error rate.

Re:Three words. (1)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270939)

Not if there's only one (presidential) election every five years.

Duh - Every four years (1)

Shimmer (3036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270957)

Typing too fast

Re:Three words. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270925)

Numbnuts, we (America) have consistantly used exit polls to verify the authenticity of every election result in every country in the world -- except ours.

Two words: Wake up.

Re:two words. (1, Interesting)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270613)

One of the major problems with exit polling in the 2004 election was that there was a radically different turnout in terms of demographics compared to the 2000 elections. The big group that was motivated to vote was the Christians who were damn sure not to let gays get the right to vote.

In fact, it was pretty damn lucky for the republicans to get an issue to motivate a large group of voters to show up that soon before an election.

Re:two words. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270701)

Please explain how demographics alter an EXIT poll?

Re:two words. (4, Informative)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270963)

It's because typically they don't perform exit polls at all precincts, just those that are seen as particularly close. Thus they may make an election-night projection based upon pre-election polls for the majority of precincts, and exit polls at a select portion. If the results in the precincts that weren't specifically exit-polled turn out differently than expected, then the overall election results will differ from predictions made by those exit polls.

Re:two words. (1)

EsJay (879629) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270703)

Why would a change in demographics cause a major problem with exit polls?

Re:two words. (1, Informative)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270803)

Why would the demographics Exit polling is just randomly selecting people who are exiting the polls, and asking who they voted for. Take that data, extrapolated it out using scientific, mathematical methods, determine how many people actually voted for which candidate, within a margin of error.

Basically, what are you claiming? Demographic changes from the 2000 to the 2004 elections caused the exit poling to be wrong? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Whoa, there. (1, Informative)

PineHall (206441) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270913)

One of the major problems with exit polling in the 2004 election was that there was a radically different turnout in terms of demographics compared to the 2000 elections. The big group that was motivated to vote was the Christians who were damn sure not to let gays get the right to vote.
Please stop and consider what you just said. You said 3 things that are wrong.
1) Exit polling is not affected by demographics, only by those who vote.
2) Christians are not all anti-gay and Republican.
3) Gays had the right to vote then and have the right to vote now.

Re:two words. (3, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270641)

This has always bothered me, ever since I heard about it.

Aren't statistics a science?

So for all you geeks out there who believe in objective, external reality, who believe in science as a way of knowing reality, here we have the best science to date to detect electoral fraud telling us that the election was stolen, and people are fucking quoting Mark Twain "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" and shit like that.

Where is the outrage? Almost everyone who frequents /. should have a good idea of how shitty these diebold machines are and how easy they are to hack. Can't you see what is going on here?

Re:two words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270707)

Where is the outrage? Almost everyone who frequents /. should have a good idea of how shitty these diebold machines are and how easy they are to hack. Can't you see what is going on here?

Both parties cheat, the Republicans are just better at it.

Re:two words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270651)

Is it possible that people were just too embarassed to admit they voted Bush???

Re:two words. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270713)

Oh, so "exit polls" is where the snake oil salesmen have set up shop?

How do we satisfy ourselves they are valid? Have all major constituencies conduct their own? Do we then publish a false exit poll to muddy the water when we dislike the will of the people as expressed?

There is no un-riggable system under the sun.

Re:two words. (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270831)

I, for one, welcome the overlord's abolishing of those scurrilous exit polls (apologies to you-know-who for using your infamous line here).

But wait, what about this [] ?? But no, that can't be right, that might cause people to begin thinking conspiracy ...

News for Nerds No Longer (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270501)

Once upon a time, Slashdot was a non-political website that posted stories about the latest computer hardware, gadgets, and other aspects of geek culture. But that all changed when a Republican became President, and now Slashdot's tagline really should be "Anti-Republican/pro leftist Nerds and for nerds". They don't even try to balance the coverage, the slant is so obvious.

With the Bin laden story Taco posted today from left field, I realize that Election Day must be coming soon, and the "politics" news will overshadow any other postings on the front page.

Once upon a time, Taco himself said this kind of stuff doesn't belong on slashdot.

Re:News for Nerds No Longer (2, Insightful)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270529)

Take a quick peak at the url. Oh!! What kinda dumbfuck wouldda guessed that this particular section would contain politics?

FFS, even the motto is different.

Don't like seeing it on the FP?

Uncheck the option. Some of you fuckers are too dumb to even be here, and that's saying a lot.

Re:News for Nerds No Longer (1)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270565)

I like this story, but the ending sucks. Maybe over time it will change back to the truth.

Re:News for Nerds No Longer (1)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270589)

Hate double posting, but by truth I meant "News for nerds" The story the parent posted was true.

Re:News for Nerds No Longer (5, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270669)

The slant is so obvious.

Always the conservatives are screaming about "balance." Reality itself is not "fair and balanced." The Republicans are destroying the country, the environment, and the Earth. Not the Democrats. So get over it. The very notion that media needs to be "balanced" is how we got into this position in the first place.

Media is supposed to report on what is happening. Not make you feel better about your political views if they suck, or make you feel as though you're just as good as everyone else if you're not.

Do something! (1)

lessthan (977374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270871)

!!!! Again with the "slant!" Fine, post something with a pro-Right slant. If the Editors won't post as a headline, post as reply. You posted AC, it won't hurt you! Refute the story, PLEASE! Isn't anyone else horrified by the implications that EITHER side could steal this election?

Maybe.. (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270513)

Maybe we should take Fidel Castro up on his offer to monitor U.S. Elections.
Or bring the United Nations in on it.

It seems like the main difference between a certain 1st world country and many 3rd world ones is the scale of election fraud, not the type or quality.

International monitors anyone?

Re:Maybe.. (1)

Lord Balto (973273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270639)

Sounds good to me. Perhaps the Canadians who manage to vote on paper ballots without any signicant delay.

UN disallowed from monitoring (4, Interesting)

Tony (765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270681)

The US government outright refused to allow the UN to monitor the 2004 election. They won't let any monitoring happen at all, no matter what the citizens want.

Can you imagine the government's reaction if Venezuela refused election monitoring?

Re:UN disallowed from monitoring (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270841)

How this doesn't disqualify them (the government) from spreading "democracy" is beyong me.

Re:UN disallowed from monitoring (1)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270885)

That's because the citizens don't want the UN to monitor the elections. Just in case you've been in your bubble too long, /. is not representative of the country as a whole.

Simple -- Whatever interest of the Establishment (1)

SRA8 (859587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270515)

The winner will be whoever is most in the interest of The Establishment. That will determine whether crucial issues such as voter fraud even enter the national debate. One must wonder why the NY Times and Washington Post, supposed "liberal media" centerpieces, do not even confront the likely truth -- that the last two elections were likely stolen. Isnt a full investigation in the national interest? Or is that just unpatriotic?

Re:Simple -- Whatever interest of the Establishmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270615)

-- One must wonder why the NY Times and Washington Post, supposed "liberal media" centerpieces, do not even confront the likely truth -- that the last two elections were likely stolen. --

Because there is no evidence.

Re:Simple -- Whatever interest of the Establishmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270709)

Because there is no evidence.

There is evidence. Like the evidence of the face on mars, Area 51, and Roswell.

Re:Simple -- Whatever interest of the Establishmen (1, Interesting)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270753)

Agreed. People have way too much faith that some 'Woodward' type journo will just stand up and sort it all out automatically. That was then, this is now. There has been no evidence that any of the mainstream liberal media is prepared (or allowed?) to question some of today's thorny issues.

I've done my own reading too, and it seems highly likely that the last 2 elections were stolen. That means the US is in the middle of an ongoing coup and it's going to take a lot more than typing on teh interweb to sort it out. How long will it take for this realization to become mainstream? Can it become mainstream without the MSM to help? Is this going to be the time the internet comes to our rescue by enlightening more or more people or will society simply become more polarised until some sort of civil war starts?

Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (3, Insightful)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270533)

Absoutely. There will be wide margins in exit polls for Democrats and the Republicans will win anyway. They'll blatantly steal it and dare us to say it was stolen.

See, they've already tested the waters on the "will anyone believe an election is stolen" question. (Whether the 2004 election was stolen or not.) They know the general public will not believe it to be stolen, no matter how compelling the evidence.

So 2006 is a wash.

Re: Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270875)

There is much truth in what you speak. The nice thing about being in such a position to be corrupt is that people don't _want_ to believe it.

You bring the pitchforks, I'll bring the torches (2, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270905)

It may well be that elections, op-ed columns and snarky blogs won't make a damn bit of difference any more. It may well be that as a nation we have lost all ability to rein in an out-of-control government intent on consolidating absolute power over our lives.

It may well be that it will take an uprising of unprecedented proportions if we can ever again expect to have a free United States of America.

This breaks my heart, because as the son and grandson of immigrants, of veterans, of union members who spent their lives working in support of a nation of free people. I was taught that as an American we have a blessed status as people who actually control their government, not the other way around.

But with the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, we have entered a period where those that are in power have decided that their constituents live and work only at their pleasure, and that real power flows from their government down to us, instead of the other way around, which was the belief of the Founding Fathers.

We have lived through a decade when the people who are entrusted with our government have brazenly grabbed power and wealth and DON'T EVEN CARE THAT WE KNOW IT.

I'm afraid it's going to take people, citizens, lots of them in the streets. Angry and willing to break the social contract to take back their rightful position as the source of the government's power. "Of the people, by the people and for the people" was the way the great men of the Enlightenment expressed it. "For the rich and on the people's necks" is the way the emergent Right-Wing in America have twisted it. And the worst of it is the decent working people of middle America have had their vision twisted by a Public Relations machine so powerful that they will willingly vote against their own interests. I have a home in Rolla, Missouri, and I've seen it with my own eyes. Mothers whose children have given their lives in Iraq shedding tears and proud in the belief that their children avenged 9/11 by invading Iraq - because Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh told them it was so.

It breaks my heart but it might just take people, a lot of people, in the streets and willing to disobey the law to express their unwillingness to allow their nation to descend into an authoritarian nightmare. It might take general strikes, civil unrest and maybe a few bombs being thrown for us to once again see the light of freedom burning in this Land.

It's happened before.

Re: Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270909)

I HOPE THE ELECTIONS ARE HACKED, in fact I will help. How about we, the united hackers of the new world give the election to someone who is ABSOLUTELY not going to win otherwise such as the constitution party, or Green party, or Libertian party. That way absolutely no one will doubt the elections are a fraud and no one will be able to ignore the situation any longer.

Re: Will the Next Election Be Hacked? (1)

Whumpsnatz (451594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270947)

Absolutely. Or as I put it, well, DUH! You've said exactly what's going to happen. That 'soap, ballot, ammo' thing is looking inevitable.

People don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270535)

Given the lack of any public outcry regarding the known issues with these machines, the only conclusion to draw is that people don't care.

The last two presidential elections (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270543)

The last two presidential elections were hacked. Remember the "infamous" butterfly ballot, made by a Democrat. Bzzzt. Wrong. The Democrat who made the confusing ballot for a high elderly population in a swing area of the state of Florida was a recently converted Republican. Within months of succeeding with her confusing ballot design, she went right on back to the Republicans and even ran for Congress. Of course, it helped to have Bush's brother as governor of the state and the Supreme Court intervening to stop the mandated (under the law of Florida) counting of the vote.

In 2004, we have Diebold getting plum government contracts around the country to make "voting machine". Look it up and see what the President of Diebold, a die-hard Republican, said about using his machine to deliver the election to George Bush. Then do a little investigation of Ohio and its secretary of state's successful attempts to disenfranchise the voters there (read up on his suddenly-required abnormally thick paper be used for submission of absentee votes).

If anyone thinks a future election is in danger of being hacked, they haven't looked very close at the last two presidential elections.

Re:The last two presidential elections (0, Flamebait)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270821)

Interesting recollection of the Florida ballot controversy. The sad fact (for you at least) is that both PARTIES approved the ballot, not some lone republican super spy who was pretending to be a dem.

Diebold ATMs? (4, Interesting)

kherr (602366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270563)

Since Diebold has a crappy track record with electronic voting, why should we as consumers have any confidence in their ATMs? Even if you don't buy that elections have been stolen, there's enough evidence that Diebold is at best sloppy with their design, implementation and support of their voting machines. With a corporate attitude this lax, how can any banking customer feel good about how Diebold treats money transactions? I've noticed Diebold rolling out more complex ATMs with a lot of useless features. It's not a positive trend.

Re:Diebold ATMs? (1)

Burning Plastic (153446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270663)

Diebold seem to feel that they have a responsibility to make reasonably secure, transaction trackable ATMs so while the adding features is a hassle, the general security/operation of the machines isn't too bad...

It's a shame that they can't be bothered to make their voting machines as secure/tamperproof... (I guess there just isn't the same quality control pressure as the financial services place on them)

Re:Diebold ATMs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270779)

Ummm, because there are federal laws in place protecting ATM users (the Electronic Funds Transfer Act); there is no equivalent in the electronic voting world.

Re:Diebold ATMs? (1)

beavis88 (25983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270819)

If voting machines were held to the same standards as ATMs, I would be very happy to cast my vote on even a Diebold machine.

Re:Diebold ATMs? (2, Informative)

Durandal64 (658649) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270951)

ATMs are different from voting machines. Diebold doesn't really do much to design an ATM. They use already-existing APIs to interface with the ATM network. Pretty much all they do is grab input, send it across the network and interpret some output. They don't validate a user's account or manage the communication channel or anything complicated like that. The only thing that happens is Diebold code is probably a call to some function like send_withdrawal_request(char *card_number, char *PIN, short amt).

With a voting machine though, they had to design a system from the ground-up that was supposed to be computationally secure. Needless to say, they suck at it. Badly. It's almost unfathomable how idiotically flawed these things are. Why they even have any kind of networking capabilities at all is completely beyond me. But when you've got the company's founder saying that he was "committed" to delivering Ohio's electoral votes to Bush in 2004, it's not all that surprising. It's far easier to take advantage of incompetence than to try and overtly cheat. So by designing the machines so horribly, the thieves at the GOP manufacture an opportunity to alter votes while making it plausible that the machines were just badly designed.

Naturally, no one will ask why nothing is being done about it, why the flaws just happen to benefit one party in virtually every case, why the people who contracted these bad designs should be allowed to remain in power or why we're still letting Diebold near our voting booths. No, such concerns are far beyond the American people. The American people are good ole "salt of the earth" types, who are unsophisticated and treasure "small town" values, like inbreeding, detesting intellectuals and willfully remaining ignorant of the world at large. Demanding that Republicans put someone competent in charge of eVoting would be "elitism" and catering to those Volvo-driving, latte-sipping leftists, whose ultimate goal is to destroy American society as we know it.

Seriously, if the eVoting catastrophe is solely the result of massive incompetence at Diebold, I'd start a petition demanding that the programmers working there have their credentials stripped and be black-balled. You just can't get incompetence like that without actively trying.

Edison was wrong (4, Interesting)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270593)

When Edison first made an vote counting machine, the patent office rejected his invention citing concerns that could lead to vote tampering and yet, over a hundred years later, we have all of these problems...Maybe we should just GET RID OF ELECTRONIC VOTING until somebody can make uncrackable DRM software.

Don't confuse DRM with Security. (2, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270761)

Maybe we should just GET RID OF ELECTRONIC VOTING until somebody can make uncrackable DRM software.

DRM has no place in an election. DRM is about restricting the rights of a computer owner. WiMP, for example, has DRM but the OS that uses it is still unfit for network use. DRM is not what the local election commission needs to keep elections honest.

What they need is free and secure software. If the software is free, it can be inspected by anyone with any doubt. If it's secure, inspections won't harm the vote. The problem is that Dibold and M$ own the software used in voting machines and anyone using them has to take the machine's honesty as a mater of faith rather than knowledge. That kind of centralized power is easy to abuse. When election commissions use free software, they own the equipment and can verify it's honesty. This increases the number of people overseeing the process, which makes it exponentially more difficult to rig. The public should accept nothing less.

Only a free election will be an honest election.

Re:Don't confuse DRM with Security. (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270849)

Free software isn't any better for this. Yes, anyone can analyze the official source code, but not one can see the source code that was compiled and installed on any given machine by a technician. With proprietary software, a company is responsible for a given build of their software, not some random technician who happened to take a permanent vacation the next day.

Now, you can make Free software just as good by requiring specific builds with authorizations keys and what not to install on voting machines, but I am under the impression that would violate the GPL v3. Thanks Richard Stallman!

no trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270611)

Whether it's republicans stealing elections or democrats, the election process can't be trusted. How do we institute an entirely new process that can verified by third parties and is resistant to tampering? Well.. violent revolution anyone? :P

Give me a printout! (5, Insightful)

Tod DeBie (522956) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270635)

I don't mind the idea of electronic voting, just be sure to give me a printout of my vote in plain english with a tracking number so that I can validate it later on. We cannot just take them at their word on this. This is one of the few cases where I think a paper trail is a must!

Re:Give me a printout! (4, Insightful)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270787)

This idea is brought up many times, but is inherently flawed. The moment you allow people to take back physical records of how they voted, you open up the possibility (or even inevitability) that people will start selling votes, or start being forced to vote a certain way.

Additionally, if their machines are flawed, it is entirely possible that the printout that you get and the actual vote tally won't be the same anyway. So getting physical printouts really doesn't solve anything at all.

Re:Give me a printout! (1)

Fanro (130986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270795)

Your boss called, he wants to see your printout before next week or you can forget about your raise.
Dont know why he asked me to tell you instead of telling you personally, he mumbled something about "plausible deniability", that lazy ass

Paper trail, yes. Tracking number, no. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270867)

If you have a tracking number, there is the possibility that voters can be bought or threatened into voting a certain way.

I tell you that unless you vote for Mr. X, I will break your legs. You go vote and I demand your tracking number (or I break your legs anyway). I can verify that you voted how I wanted you to.

The best paper trail is for the voting machine to spit out a form/card/whatever with the name of the person you voted for printed/punched on it. Then you drop that into a locked box. Later, that locked box is opened in front of anyone who wants to watch and the votes are sorted and counted.

We have the technology to do that already.

But it seems that having an easily verifiable paper trail is not something that our politicians are interested in.

wow (2, Insightful)

treak007 (985345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270649)

2 left biased politcal stories on the frontpage, I wonder how much karma conservatives are gonna lose today. By modding conservative posts as a troll, you admit that you are afraid of the truth.

Considering there is no unbiased proof (yes, speculation and people pushing an overly biased agenda don't count) that the 2006 election was stolen, I doubt there is any point to discussing whether the next one will be. No system is perfect and there is always room for improvement, but there is a line between constructive comments and conspiracy theories.

Re:wow (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270689)

I'm conservative. I'm against the easily hacked Diebold voting machines.

It's not an ideological issue, you just like it when our side wins, even if it's not the will of the people.

Re:wow (0)

treak007 (985345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270711)

whoever loses will always complain the elction was stolen. I am tired of seeing the same complaining on /.

Re:wow (0, Troll)

treak007 (985345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270775)

I would love for someone to explain to me how my parent post is a troll, other then the fact that the modder doesn't agree with me.

Watch Cuyahoga County Ohio (1)

Compulawyer (318018) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270659)

Cuyahoga County is where Cleveland is located. The county is using Diebold machines [] and Cleveland was seen as the area that gave Bush the votes needed to win in the 2004 presidential election. Draw your own conclusions.

A proposed grand compromise (-1, Troll)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270661)

1) The Republicans agree to everything the critics want regarding electronic voting machines: greater security, paper trail, whatever, or just ditch the whole idea and go back to paper ballots. 2) The Democrats agree to picture ID for voting (available free to anyone too poor to have one), thorough cleaning of all voter rolls (to eliminate the cemetery voters, and situations like Philadelphia's where there are more registered voters than adult citizens over 18), and increased penalties for vote fraud (snowbirds who vote in Florida and New York, college students who vote at home and at school, bribing the homeless with cigarettes for votes, illegal alien voters, etc.).

My guess, though, is that Republicans would agree to this but Democrats wouldn't, because Democrat vote fraud is widespread and well-established, while Republican vote fraud is rare or is, as in the recent electronic voting machine cases, still hypothetical.

Re:A proposed grand compromise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270773)

My guess, though, is that Republicans would agree to this but Democrats wouldn't, because Democrat vote fraud is widespread and well-established, while Republican vote fraud is rare or is, as in the recent electronic voting machine cases, still hypothetical. Can you say Reconstruction? Only the largest and longest case of vote fraud the country has ever seen.

Security expert Robert F. Kennedy (2, Insightful)

Chardish (529780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270677)

Only a nonpartisan, centrist voice like Robert F. Kennedy is unbiased enough to announce that only the Republicans engage in voter fraud, trickery, and manipulation. There's no corruption in the Democratic party - hasn't Air America Radio taught us anything?

Another great article, kdawson. :/

Re:Security expert Robert F. Kennedy (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270789)

Only a nonpartisan, centrist voice like Robert F. Kennedy is unbiased enough to announce that only the Republicans engage in voter fraud,

and yet republicans refuse to make sure there is a paper trail, continue to push for diebold machines.. I wander if it has anything to do with the anecdotes relayed by this diebold insider regarding georgia.. my vote was one of those defrauded.. yes i live in bush country y'all!

If you want to start screaming about how black the kettle is you need to scrub the pot first pal!

Handing responsibility to a single corporation (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270683)

Doesn't seem very clever to me. All very secret, all very hush hush, giving responsibility to a chosen few.

With paper, it's open to hundreds of eyes.


Damn (-1, Flamebait)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270723)

The vast right wing conspiracy strikes yet again. Will the noble Democrats every have a chance?

Minnesota (2, Interesting)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270733)

We have a paper trail.

Get it through your think head: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270749)

We just don't give a fuck. The Prime Minister of Hungary is caught admitting to lying to the public about the economy on tape and Hungarians are out RIOTING (including tear gas!) in the streets. Our President has all but been caught lying about everything, royally fucking up everthing he's touched in the process, and the best we can muster is Bill Clinton, Richard Clarke, and Cindy Sheehan.

Kennedy? (2, Insightful)

deanj (519759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270759)

I find it really ironic that a Kennedy, of all people, should be warning people about election fraud.

Especially with what happened in Chicago when "John F" was "elected".

And I find it particularly sad that the people who are warning about election fraud don't want to do a damn thing to prevent people from voting twice (or more....Just witness what happens in Wisconsin).

Don't want fraud? Simple: Give people free state-issued id cards, and make them prove who they are when they vote. Do it by paper ballot. And enforce the election fraud laws when someone is caught tampering with ballots.

Other countries at least make you dip your finger in ink that lasts a few days when they vote. They should at least do that here.

why liberals lose (-1, Troll)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270785)

They are sore loosers....For some reason, they think they are "entitled" to hold office and that the rest of us in "flyover" country, are redneck,nascar,trailerpark idiots that can't hold a job. The reason that liberals don't win elections, is that they do NOT give an alternative. All they know how to do is whhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnneeeeeeee if they don't get their way. Go back and look at the 1960 election. If anyone had reason to dispute the election, it was Nixon! Asked why he didn't dispute the election he said that it would divide the country. Well DUH! Look, for the last 6 years, all we've heard out of the democratic moonbats is that the election was stolen. Well, GET OVER IT! You think conservatives liked having Clinton elected twice? Nope, but did I whinnneeee about it? Nope....but I did laugh when he got caught LYING before a federal judge and was impeached. Too bad the non-conservatives in the senate didn't impeach him also. And no, he wasn't impeached for "lying about sex". He was impeached for LYING under oath! THAT, is a crime. Period. It's black & tell the truth or you LIE. I know that is something a lot of liberals don't like. Everything is gray with that bunch. Explains why we have so much political correctness. Look at the major cities that have such a problem with crime, and you'll find they are the same BLUE states that keep electing liberals. THANK GOD we have an electoral college to even out the small less populus states with the large populated states. Read the documents the founding fathers wrote as to why we have an electoral college.

Re:why liberals lose (0, Flamebait)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270851)

wow.. you're very deluded.. and are hell bent against your own interests.

Democrats are no more "condescending" than the elitist republican snobs are, but there is a difference.. while all politicians regardless of party are annoyingly disconnected with the common man, the democratic party has been centered for the majority of the 20th century on the idea that if you're a worker then they will make sure you're middle class, that you can afford to send your kids to college, and that you'll have the spare cash to engage in that one expensive hobby you want to.

Republicans want to eliminate the middle class, they shout "moral values" and demonize "democratic condescension".. then turn around and destroy the basis of the "flyover country's" income streams.. then turn around and scream "class warfare" when democrats try to take 1 million of the waltons' 100 trillion dollar annual budget to help feed the poor.

Think about it before you go off on rants about the great democratic conspiracy. You're not sticking it to the man when you vote republican, youre sticking it to yourself.

Re:why liberals lose (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270919)

By electing this President and this Congress, you red-staters have made us in New York City more vulnerable, not less, to terrorism. And still you red-state tourists come to Ground Zero and wave your fucking red-state flags while smiling and posing in front of the pit. Ever stop to wonder why even after 9/11, the Manhattan vote goes as solidly to Democrats as ever?

Fuck you. Your vote is making the world less safe.

Re:why liberals lose (1)

LifeNLiberty (975116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270927)

It might help if most of you weren't redneck, nascar, trailerpark idiots who elected the worst President in our history TWICE. It would also help if you didn't equate stealing elections with getting someone you didn't like elected.

Re:why liberals lose (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270965)

Large cities have crime because they're large cities, not because they're run by Democrats. People in large cities tend to vote Democrat/liberal because living in close proximity with a lot of other people gives you first-hand evidence that you have to have some sense of cooperation and tolerance in order to get along. It's all well and good to Vote Jesus when you live in a town of 50 people, but taking the same thing to Chicago or New York just doesn't work.

Can I "whiiiiinnneeeeeee" about it when the next Republican gets unfairly and illegally elected into office, and blows even more of this nation's future on groundless wars and funding Christian programs with public money? When exactly does going directly against the constitution become something I'm allowed to "whiinnnnneeeeee" about?

Also, your statement about the electoral college is bullshit. Low population doesn't necessarily mean the population is not concentrated in cities and thus more likely to vote Democrat. Washington has the Seattle metro, and Spokane, and the other 95% of the counties in the state vote Republican, but it's still a heavily blue state when everything's counted up.

How expected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270807)

This article would be a lot more intriguing as a fair criticism of the voting process if it didn't have such a deep anti-capitalist bias. Much of the author's criticisms stem from the suggestion that private companies cannot possibly implement a functional and transparent electronic voting system. This would imply that the government itself would naturally be much more effective in this role, which is absolutely ludicrous when considering its innumerable other failures.

The voting process should absolutely be more transparent, but this doesn't preclude the involvement of private firms providing technological solutions. The possibility for fraud because of a lack of government oversight and security is exactly that, not entirely the failings of electronic voting systems.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270813)

I always forget what a bunch of delusional retards generally are here posting.


"and some of the incidents will be new even to this clued-in crowd"

Clued in crowd? You mean the crowd that believes conspiracies lay at everyones doorstep? Tell you what... there are plenty of movies to watch that will fulfill your need for that, you don't even need to leave your house. Whatever else you do, please do everyone a favor and revoke your internet access.

Thank god for At least when stupid posts like this are submitted they can be buried.

WHY OH WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE ALLOWED TO BREED? Please don't answer that... you've already said far too much. kthxbye.

Times change... (2, Interesting)

Herger (48454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270857)

I lived in Atlanta, Georgia from 1998-2004, and moved to Augusta, GA a couple months ago. To say that the Georgia election was "stolen" neglects that Georgia has heeled way to the right politically over the last 5 years or so, to the point where the teachers' union did not endorse the Democrats in 2002 (I do not think they went so far as to endorse Republican candidates, but the damage was done). To say that Democrats should always win traditionally Democratic districts (or groups, e.g. teachers) neglects harsh reality: as long as they rest on their laurels, thinking they will always win the traditional districts (e.g., downtown Atlanta), they will be very vulnerable to the intense Republican smear machine that is grinding away here. This, more than anything, is why Republicans are gaining ground. To blame election rigging smacks of desparation: we used punch cards in 1998 and 2000, and look how well those worked in Florida! It's just as easy to rig punch cards as electronic voting machines, just the former is slightly more labor intensive. Plus, gas prices are down again, and there have been few military casualties in Iraq lately, so unless the Democratic party starts hammering on their traditional domestic issues (labor, education, health care), they will lose again, at least in Georgia.

Still, several Georgia counties were experimenting with ScanTron ballots prior to the statewide Diebold deal. This system has several advantages; notbaly, there is a paper trail. On the whole, I'd feel a little better if that is the system they had gone with for statewide electronic voting.

wake up folks (4, Insightful)

grozzie2 (698656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270861)

When are you americans gonna finally get it ? Why do you think so much effort goes into fund raising for a campaign, and, the press virtually declares the one with the most funds a winner, months in advance. Elections are not won on the campaign trail in the usa, they are BOUGHT on the campaign trail.

Raising funds / winning elections. There is a cause/effect relationship here folks. Wake up, smell the roses, elections are just like anything else in america, sold to the highest offer. If that wasn't the case, then fund raising wouldn't be the most critical part of an election campaign.

I live in Dekalb County (0, Flamebait)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270899)

So had I voted, it wouldn't have counted.

Seems I was right. Not that I liked either canidate. Kerry back'ed out to soon, showing even he was approving Bush.
There was no election, only an illusion of one.

Perhaps the US government needs to be honest to the people it is supposed to represent.

No president has ever been impeached.... why is that? The system doesn't work as intended.

The government should fess up about who was really responsible for the anthrax attacks on the media.
Though it should be obvious it didn't have to be a conspiracy, just one military personal who had enough clearance, rank and knowledge as to how to deal with anthrax, to not be questioned when he took a very small amount, hardly noticable, from the military base.

What kind of country is this that does such things?

Oh I know, They wanted to show the terrorist that they can be worse then the terrorist.

Terrorising the terrorist...

Yeah, America is safer now.....Bush said so.

I understand the military is going to try out some new non-lethal weapons on Americans first.....

What really started the chain of events leading to 9/11 was wrongful world economic manipulation via world stock market manipulation --- google "trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript. Know where dot com boom money came from and what really caused the bust and failures like Enron, Worldcom and the likes...

Politically controlled military backed worngful world economic manipulation.... What were the three targets of 9/11?

Did it really make a difference whether or not the election was real or a hacked? NO as the real problem is clearly larger than that,

We have a government that has enough power to threaten the media that most americans listen to and believe. To threaten the media into saying whatever the government wants it to say.

Ultimately any exposure of this reality will accomplish what?

How could americans remove the lil'hitler adminastration?

So the answer is that this country has turned into a dictatorship under the guise of a democracy.

It has become the evil it claims to be fighting against.

And there is not a damn thing the American People can do about it. Mainly because most don't believe it.

When you know your voe doesn't count, will you still vote?


Solution: absentee ballot (2)

Serveert (102805) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270907)

I've seen enough evidence to never vote electronically again.

Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16270929)

>Will the Next Election Be Hacked?

Yes if the dems loose...ANYTIME a dem looses they cry foul play.

How hard can it be? (2, Informative)

uira (883607) | more than 7 years ago | (#16270955)

And here I am, in Brazil. Just voted this afternoon and we already have 87% of the votes (about 124 million people voted) processed and in a few hours we will know the results. Sure, less than 1% of the voting machines had problems, and were they had we used paper voting. Electronic voting works just fine :) The current results (ipdated every 5 minutes): 06/eleicoes/apuracao1.html []
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>