Just what is up with the Republican party in the US?

[Nekojin]

Because they haven't alienated the only voter block that matters - the manufacturers of the computerized, no-paper-record, voting machines. You know, the ones which provide absolutely no way of verifying that the "magic number" they spit out matches the buttons the voter actually pushed. That scene from the Simpsons was a documentary.

While the cynical in me wants to agree with that, the truth is less sensational: They're actively courting the one bloc of voters that is easy to fire up, to get motivated to vote: The deeply religious, particularly the Bible Belt. Give them an Outrage du Jour, just one item on the ballot that they think they need to stop at any cost (or pass at any cost), and they'll show up and vote on everything. Made easier if you make them believe that they (or their way of life) are under attack, and point them at a perceived enemy.

The potential problems with voter machine fraud are the very reason why so-very-technophilic California still uses good old fashioned ink stamp voting - there's a paper trail. Every vote has a corresponding ballot that can be hand-counted.

[Racket_Man]

slightly off topic

if you want to observe/watch some of the alledged shanangins involved in the "new electronic ago of voting" check out www.blackboxvoting.org or search and watch the documentary Hacking Democracy

[fireheart17]

Because they haven't alienated the only voter block that matters - the manufacturers of the computerized, no-paper-record, voting machines. You know, the ones which provide absolutely no way of verifying that the "magic number" they spit out matches the buttons the voter actually pushed. That scene from the Simpsons was a documentary.

and this is why we still insist on paper voting. No need for murderous machines.

[SkullKing]

I have worked in three elections that used electronic voting. and they went pretty smoothly.

Can anyone here tell me what orientations is given to the people who work on the voting boots in the U.S.A?

Here among other things before the voting started every urn prints it's currently vote count so it can be verified that all begin at 0.

after the voting is over every urn prints a minimum of 3 prints, that need to be checked by 3 people each in order to confirm that the number of votes is the same number of people that actually voted there.

And every running party has the right to demand a print of each urn for their perusal.

And what guarantee do you have that paper voting is more secure?

[Andara Bledin]

And what guarantee do you have that paper voting is more secure?

Since paper ink-stamp voting has both the cards attached to the machines to show precisely which marks go to which candidates, and the actual cards that get marked, there's a full paper trail so that if there's an question of trouble, they can go back and check what happened.

With electronic votes, there are a lot of hinky shit you can pull with the program that won't ever show up outside of the actual voting period. The only way you could possibly confirm that the machines are acting according to spec would be to have a random machine set aside in every polling place that would then be fed a randomized list of votes that would then be checked at the end of the day to confirm that it matched.

Otherwise, they can, say, flip the votes put in for the one side versus the other, which is one of the claims that they were doing in one district where the exit polls gave the exact opposite results as the vote counts, which stood in stark contrast to every other exit poll in that same region generally matching the reported counts for each polling place.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Why is that "the only way?" Why not test the machines *before* the actual voting, then clear them off? For that matter, what's the difference if the *software* is tested on one or a handful before being cloned off onto other, identical machines?

I've also heard of people who want receipts showing how they voted. How would that prove anything? It wouldn't prove the vote was actually recorded the same way it was printed, and it couldn't be used for a recount because you'd never get all of them back for one.

[Andara Bledin]

Why is that "the only way?" Why not test the machines *before* the actual voting, then clear them off? For that matter, what's the difference if the *software* is tested on one or a handful before being cloned off onto other, identical machines?

Because you can tell computers to act in different manners at different times. If I can tell my phone to vibrate instead of ring between certain hours, I'm sure it's child's play for someone determined to screw with an election to embed a program that only activates during voting hours. Thus, the only way to be entirely sure that the machines are acting appropriately is to audit during the election itself. How that is done, is not set in stone, however.

I do agree that the receipts would be pointless in the hands of the voters. If someone's programmed the things to be bad, they'll print bogus receipts. However, if held in tandem with the electronic records, they could be used in the event of a recount or to determine the integrity of the electronic system.

^-.-^

[Racket_Man]

Why is that "the only way?" Why not test the machines *before* the actual voting, then clear them off? For that matter, what's the difference if the *software* is tested on one or a handful before being cloned off onto other, identical machines?

I've also heard of people who want receipts showing how they voted. How would that prove anything? It wouldn't prove the vote was actually recorded the same way it was printed, and it couldn't be used for a recount because you'd never get all of them back for one.

in the documentary in my previous post there are 2 instances of hinky things happening

one was where in 2000 (I think) there were -16000 votes cast for Al Gore (YES you read that right negative 16000 votes.

the second was where some candidate in Louisiana went in to test the touchscreen voting machines right before the election. when she pressed the screen button for HER name, the secondary display showed a vote for her RIVAL. she tried the same thing on another machine. same result. they tested the whole room full of machine and got the SAME result.

at one time Diebold had unsecured pages on their FTP server with the source code to the GEM voting machine. the lady at Black Box Voting managed to d/l ALL of it and show it to a computer expert. the expert found soooo many ways to "game" the system and to break it or get it to spit out errounerous results..

the problem with electronic voting machines is that the whole package is propritary. Meaning that it comes under patent and copyright laws. the machine and the related software is "supposed to" be independantly test for validity and security but it appears to be a whitewash. NOT even the "officials" who pruchase the machines can get inside the hardware nor look at the software for validation.

The computer expert mentioned above was able to "break" and break in to the machine in many different ways with just the source code

The independant testing service did not certify the machines hardware or software's security.

[HYHYBT]

Because you can tell computers to act in different manners at different times.

So you set the machine's clock to a time within the voting period. It won't know the difference.

[FArchivist]

How did it end up bugfuck insane like this? How did it come to the various presidential candidates trying to outdo each other in discrimination against their own compatriots (gay marriage etc) and being cheered for doing so?

See Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party by Geoffrey Kabaservice. The essential gist is that the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives do not have a sufficient external enemy to unite them anymore (Communism being long dead and the War On Terror insufficiently frightening/imposing) and so are splitting along their natural inclinations.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

That is an excellent book, FArchivist. Another really good book on the subject is this one:

Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus It's about the 1964 presidential campaign, and how it was actually the birth of modern conservatism.