How To Spot E-Vote Tampering? 507
Precinct Election Judge writes "I am one of the Republican Party Precinct Chairs in Harris County, Texas. Since in 2006 Republican Rick Perry won the Governor's race in my precinct I will be the head election judge at my polling station this November. (My Democratic counterpart will be assistant election judge.) I have read with interest the stories about voting machine hacking, and I want advice from those of you who are experts on what to watch for to make sure there is no fraudulent activity at my precinct during the election. What activities should I look for? Keep in mind my restrictions: I will be at a table in the front of the room with the voter rolls signing people in, I can only approach the voting machines if a voter asks a question or if I have strong reason to believe there is fraudulent activity, the last thing I need is for someone to say the Republicans are trying to keep people from voting! And finally, although each station and voter will be visible from my seat each machine has 'blinders' around it so I will most likely not be able to see the hands of each voter while they are at the station. Thank you in advance for all suggestions."
Vote Verification by Internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not you (Score:5, Interesting)
Sad to say it to the submitter, but for many people "Republican" and "E-Voting" instantly casts suspicions of tampering for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to significant monetary connections between Diebold (now PES) and the Republican party and a claim from someone from Diebold that they would "deliver the election" or something like that.
So, sadly, the question as a Republican election coordinator is not
"How do I prevent tampering", but it is
"How can I prove that the election was not tampered with" and "How can I prove that *I* did not tamper with the election"
How? I'm not sure, but based on other requirements a voter-verifiable paper trail is the first step, and not using Diebold/PES is the second (although there is lots of evidence that most other E-Voting vendors are not giving any thought to security whatsoever.)
Re:Not sure about Texas... (Score:3, Interesting)
And now your current governor has been implicated [chicagotribune.com] in the recent trial of Tony Rezko.
Is there something in the water of Lake Michigan that makes Illinois politicians ethically-challenged?
Not that Texas has any right to gloat, being (in)famous for "Landslide Lyndon" [wikipedia.org]
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason we have them is to fully enfranchise *all* voters. Every voter should be allowed to vote with every voting right given to us. Previously, voters with some disabilities had to have assisted voting, which meant that they had to have someone else read them the ballot, or mark the ballot, or otherwise participate in the voting process with them. We have electronic voting in order to comply with election and disability laws that previously were not being enforced. My goal -- and that of the people I work with -- is fully enfranchising every voter.
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to see a system where the computer accepts your input, verifies the integrity of your ballot (e.g. you haven't selected more than one person in the same race, etc.) and prints out the ballot you'll be casting for you to see. Having approved it, but without being allowed to touch it, the ballot is dropped into the box and also added to a matching electronic tally.
When the polls close, the two totals should match. Just to be sure, we select a small percentage of the devices at random and verify the two totals do indeed match by manually counting the paper ballots. Devices that have statistically different results from their adjacent devices would also be automatically hand verified. Finally, we give each party a set number of devices that they can choose to have included in the manual recount.
Given this statistical sampling, we'd have timely and verifiable results while only needing to count on the order of 1% of the actual ballots.
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:5, Interesting)
The paper ballots are on a roll that is held in a secure paper trail unit, which is sealed with a uniquely coded seal that cannot be disturbed from the time the unit is certified prior to election day until the unit is returned for verification and tallying. If the seal is broken or disturbed, that unit is immediately reported for auditing, etc.
When I am assisting voters, I make sure to highlight that the paper vote that displays is the "paper trail" they have heard about, and that to ensure their vote's integrity, they should be careful to seriously check the vote and verify it matches.
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, how would you enable a blind and deaf person to vote, using electronic voting? How does the machine verify the vote with such a voter?
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the things that happens to me when I work elections is that my voters will say they don't understand why we do this or that thing, because so many of them have never experienced voting disenfranchisement. I always cheerfully explain that while I'm glad they have no experience with it, that the laws and procedures exist because in many places, people don't have the luxury that my voters have. I grew up in the south, and I marched in voting rallies in support of voting rights. I understand what you're speaking of, but I don't think it follows that because *your* county or state isn't using our procedures, our reasons for using the procedures aren't valid.
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:2, Interesting)
Automatic paper trail. Over-vote detection.
(One touch-screen machine per precinct is available for handicapped individuals. Not having voted on it myself, I don't know the particulars.)
Re:Let me be sure I understand.... (Score:4, Interesting)
especially if you aren't allowed to ask for any type of verification.
every time i vote, i laugh at the ability to just tell them my name and then get a ballot and vote.
nothing ever done to verify i am who i say i am.
ever.
so i can go vote as my now deceased grandfather very easily, all i have to do is go to his polling place and tell them i'm him.
it's actually so shamefully easy, i'd be surprised if even half the votes cast are real.
There is Election fraud and Voter Fraud... (Score:5, Interesting)
Voter Fraud is where a voter misrepresents some element of their vote cast. Maybe it's casting more than one vote, a vote in the wrong place, a vote without entitlement to vote, etc...
The GOP seems focused on the latter, BTW. It's a touchy subject for sure. IMHO, you are doing the right thing, and will have the high ground if you are focused on getting as many voters to vote as possible, not keeping as many voters from voting as possible.
The key here is that Voter Fraud is some act on the part of the voter.
Election Fraud is where the result of the election is being manupulated. That difference between preventing as many voters as possible, and promoting as many voters as possible, is one that can be election fraud, as well as being voter fraud. One example that serves to demonstrate election fraud would be to publish information that would disqualify voters that would not otherwise be disqualified. If this is done in a discriminatory fashion, there is a solid case for it potentially being voter fraud. Could be ignorance too, and that's gonna be one for the courts for sure!
Another case of election fraud would be mis-programmed voting machines, or deliberate under / over allocation of them to impact the numbers of votes and the accuracy of the votes. (and I'm getting to the topic of accuracy in a moment) We saw some of this in Ohio big time in 2004, BTW.
Still another would be manipulating the record of the vote. This could be done to impact or prevent a recount, for example. That's totally election fraud, not voter fraud. Maybe every voter did the right thing, but the election is still hosed. That's one way to tell the difference right there.
Now, can you trust the damn things?
No. Absolutely not. I don't care if they have a paper printer fitted or not, and here is why:
When you make a mark on media, as the voter, the chain of trust between your intent and the record of the vote is complete! You know what who you want to vote for, and you can directly see the record of the vote cast. This record does not require any enabling technology to be observed and verified as being true to the intent and therefore the "right" vote cast.
When you vote with electrons, this chain of trust is broken! Really, the voter knows who they want to vote for and does something to tell the machine their intent. So far, so good. Now, here's the kicker and why we should NEVER, EVER use the machines.
What gets recorded is what the machine thinks the voter intent is! Think this part through. Let's say we walk up to the machine and cast a vote for Bob. We push the Bob button, get visual feed back, and a printed piece of paper that shows that the vote was for Bob. Feeling good right?
What if the electronic record of the vote is for Jane? How can we know? We can't actually see the electrons now can we? The machine can easily show us a Bob vote and contain a Jane vote in the record used for the tally and there is absolutely no way we can verify that didn't happen, short of direct observation and a real time tally, keyed to each vote. (and that's just stupid)
Here's another very simple way to look at it. Say I am the voting machine and I'm keeping a mental record of votes cast so that I can contribute them to the final tally. You vote Bob, and I count one for Bob. Then, I change that to Jane, after you have verified it. What evidence is there for that vote having ever been Bob? There is none. Electrons can just change, where paper will show some evidence of having been changed. The physical media is rendered less than perfect in the process of counting votes. Electronic storage devices don't exhibit this same quality on a directly observable human scale.
Put simply, it's a vote by proxy and therefore cannot be trusted.
Some will say the paper can check the electronic results. I would agree, but invoking the check i
Tamper evident tape (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone is determined to hack a voting machine, there will be little you can do to stop it. The key is being able to detect that some change was made. I doubt you'd have the kind of access or knowledge to detect software changes, but since nearly all voting machine hacks require access to the hardware you will be able to do something. Use tamper evident tape to seal the case, cover keyholes and block any open ports. The important part to this is to have multiple witnesses around when you apply the tape, and when you verify the tape is still there at the end of the day. Get them to sign an affadavit if you can. If a machine (or machines) have been tampered with under your watch, then you can alert the appropriate authorities.
Here's a manual for election observation... (Score:3, Interesting)
This was written for the Stonewall Democrats. It includes boilerplate public records text at the end, some examples of dirty stuff seen in public records, examples of screwed-up facilities (with pictures) and more.
This is an example of an after-action report written along these principles:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/sequoia/Maricopa-County-Elections-Report.pdf [bbvdocs.org]
I'm doing another right now for Monterey County California for the election of June 3rd '08. Found all sorts of crazy stuff. That should be posted at http://blackboxvoting.org/ [blackboxvoting.org] in a day or two.
Jim March
Member of the board of directors
Blackboxvoting.org
Secrecy? Was: Re:Do you have a paper trail? (Score:3, Interesting)
Secrecy? Do you really think your vote is anonymous? In Ohio: When I walk in, I wait in line.. The LOL'S (Little Ol' Lady Squad) asks for my Name and ID. After They Find me in the books, I have to sign in on a numbered page. That Signature is compared on my Voter registration page. They never look much the same, but I don't think anyone really cares. The last lady gets told the sequential line # that I'm signed in on, and punches that into the diabold (I think) card reader thing.
That Card links me to my vote. I then go and vote my votes. at verification time, it is printed... I can then choose to change it, and I have in the past if I misread a name, etc.
After changes it is verification time, again. after final verification is printed, and I have agreeed that that is my vote, it prints off lots of #'s and stuff and then form feeds the sheet out of the window.
I'm (I shouldn't) assuming that those #'s link back to the Card # / translation to my voter line # / name. If they don't, I'd be surprised because that is the audit trail that NEEDS to be there, and that is what I want.
I do not care about a secret vote because I am not ashamed of my vote.
The only people that need secret votes is if they are afraid of who they are voting for, and if it is that bad, then we have other problems beyond voting machines to worry about.
Now, My UNION that I belong to has indicated that THEY want to take away anonymous voting... THAT is wrong because with such a smaller sampling of people, then there can be revenge directed and extracted onto a worker who didn't vote the "correct" way. As for General election, I don't think that will be an issue.
BTW,
If I'm not carrying ID or have a non photo ID, I can vote provisional. But that doesn't really count unless a recount is asked for. This is where a lot of dead people vote. It's all paperwork that you don't have to verify, just swear under "oath" that the information provided is correct. (Right...)
Re:How To Spot E-Vote Tampering? (Score:2, Interesting)