"Hacking Democracy" is on right now on HBO

lew · 11-02-2006, 11:03 PM

It's pretty good. It shows how easy it is for someone to hack into the election system and steal an election.

RMNIXON · 11-02-2006, 11:41 PM

The rush to electronic voting was a big mistake! Let us all thank Al Gore and his army of lawyers for that!

The old punch card system was flawed. But when you think about it from a logical point of view a close race would bring about as many errors to voters of both candidates. That is simple random chance. But when you have the possibility of deliberate tampering by either party or by people in support of either party then you have real serious fraud on your hands. I would rather have a minority of uncounted votes because people were too lame to punch a chad or too lazy to check their ballot as I have for many years now.

garbagemanlb · 11-02-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The rush to electronic voting was a big mistake! Let us all thank Al Gore and his army of lawyers for that!

The old punch card system was flawed. But when you think about it from a logical point of view a close race would bring about as many errors to voters of both candidates. That is simple random chance. But when you have the possibility of deliberate tampering by either party or by people in support of either party then you have real serious fraud on your hands. I would rather have a minority of uncounted votes because people were too lame to punch a chad or too lazy to check their ballot as I have for many years now.

agreed.

AVengeance · 11-03-2006, 10:40 AM

Can someone explain why the punchcard or ScanTron ballots couldn't just be fed into a computer, and the computer "assist" people with completing the ballot? The program for that would be really simple, and would require no network connection, and no electronic counting of votes on the same machine the ballot is created on.

God, it's SO DAMN SIMPLE, and the lawyers had to go and make it something so complicated and screwed up.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:41 AM

I don't know why they require a network connection as it is.

Thanks Al Gore and the rest of the Democrats!

lew · 11-03-2006, 10:47 AM

The documentary showed that it doesn't matter if you use a punchcard or paper voting. All the results are still calculated by a machine, and the software used is very easily hackable. So, it's no difference between paper voting and e-voting.

The ONLY advantage to paper voting is that you can cross check between the signed official copies and the results in the computer. However, as the movie showed, this process doesn't happen for weeks afterward, and by then, no one cares anymore.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by lew

The ONLY advantage to paper voting is that you can cross check between the signed official copies and the results in the computer. However, as the movie showed, this process doesn't happen for weeks afterward, and by then, no one cares anymore.

Everyone cared in 2000

lew · 11-03-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Everyone cared in 2000

No they didn't. Gore cared. And because Gore cared, others got behind him. There was considerable evidence that the elections were hacked in '04 in some measure, but because Kerry didn't pursue it, neither did anyone else.

People may "care" but they don't care enough to do anything about it.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by lew

No they didn't. Gore cared. And because Gore cared, others got behind him. There was considerable evidence that the elections were hacked in '04 in some measure, but because Kerry didn't pursue it, neither did anyone else.

People may "care" but they don't care enough to do anything about it.

You're saying that the whole world was watching simply because Gore cared?

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't know why they require a network connection as it is.

Thanks Al Gore and the rest of the Democrats!

Thanks Diebold and the contracts they have been getting through the Republican leadership.

It's fun to point fingers.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Thanks Diebold and the contracts they have been getting through the Republican leadership.

It's fun to point fingers.

You'd say that about any company the Republicans chose to go with, which they did as a result of Gore and the Democrats in 2000!!!

It's hard to imagine why Diebold would care about tinkering with the systems to help the Republicans, considering this deal only accounts for 2.4% of their profits. That's not worth screwing everything up, especially your name in some scandal.

lew · 11-03-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You're saying that the whole world was watching simply because Gore cared?

Yes. People "cared" because Gore had the means to pursue it. Look what happened in Ohio in '04. There were just as many, if not more, pissed off people there than in Florida in '00; however because Kerry didn't pursue it, nothing was done. Bush was elected and everyone forgot about Ohio. It didn't drag on and on like Florida precisely because Kerry didn't pursue it like Gore had.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes. People "cared" because Gore had the means to pursue it. Look what happened in Ohio in '04. There were just as many, if not more, pissed off people there than in Florida in '00; however because Kerry didn't pursue it, nothing was done. Bush was elected and everyone forgot about Ohio. It didn't drag on and on like Florida precisely because Kerry didn't pursue it like Gore had.

I see what you're saying; I'll agree with that.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You'd say that about any company the Republicans chose to go with, which they did as a result of Gore and the Democrats in 2000!!!

It's hard to imagine why Diebold would care about tinkering with the systems to help the Republicans, considering this deal only accounts for 2.4% of their profits. That's not worth screwing everything up, especially your name in some scandal.

No I wouldn't. Look at the politics involved.

You don't see any issue with hiring a highly partisian company to make voting machines that leave no paper trail? What about the fact that nobody is even allowed to know how they wonrk since it's propriatary software?

This is like handing your vote to someone from the republican party and hoping they won't lose it.

lew · 11-03-2006, 10:59 AM

I don't even really care that much about Diebold or the Republican Party rigging the election. While it could be done, they'd have way too much to lose if it was found out.

I'm more worried about some 20 year old in his parent's basement hacking the election.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No I wouldn't. Look at the politics involved.

You don't see any issue with hiring a highly partisian company to make voting machines that leave no paper trail? What about the fact that nobody is even allowed to know how they wonrk since it's propriatary software?

This is like handing your vote to someone from the republican party and hoping they won't lose it.

No matter what company is chosen, they will be considered 'highly partisan'. They are the leaders in the market. They weren't chosen for their politics; they were chosen for their abilities.

garbagemanlb · 11-03-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No matter what company is chosen, they will be considered 'highly partisan'. They are the leaders in the market. They weren't chosen for their politics; they were chosen for their abilities.

Yeah, any voting company CEO would have been quoted as saying that they are determined to deliver Bush the vote in 2004.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I don't even really care that much about Diebold or the Republican Party rigging the election. While it could be done, they'd have way too much to lose if it was found out.

I'm more worried about some 20 year old in his parent's basement hacking the election.

I do because it seems that every mistake on these machines have slanted things towards the republicans. Law of averages aren't at work here.

Scrum · 11-03-2006, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Yeah, any voting company CEO would have been quoted as saying that they are determined to deliver Bush the vote in 2004.

lew · 11-03-2006, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I do because it seems that every mistake on these machines have slanted things towards the republicans. Law of averages aren't at work here.

So some 20 year old couln't be wanting Republicans to win?

I agree that I am worried about Republicans stealing elections, as much as I am about Democrats. But when you start to say how the Party at large is hacking elections, it's getting close to believing in shadow governments and such. That's a little too far for me.

I think it's much more likely that someone that is of little significance hack it.