decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Voting machines? | 283 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Voting machines?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST
"We own our equipment, we own the software, ...
How come they own their software when we the people are mere licensees?
A: It seems ownership gives them the freedom to use
untested, non-state certified software

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Voting machines?
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST

In the present case it might be useful to look at demographics on where the voting machines with the changed software would have been used. Our old friend Solon used to be wont to ask "Who Benefits?".

The plaintiff in the case appears to have been involved in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio over the 2004 election results, but not the 2008 election results. (He appears to have instituted an organization for heading off voter fraud for the 2008 election).

The complaint alleges that there is a back door into the voting machines.

You could note that in the book What Happened in Ohio? the blurb mentions both voting machines being pulled back and ballots being tampered with.

What Happened in Ohio? includes trucking receipts that show voting machines were pulled back from minority districts; ballots that contain evidence of tampering; mathematical analysis demonstrating the statistical impossibility of voting totals; testimonials from hundreds of voters, campaign workers, and poll workers about conditions that effectively disenfranchised thousands of voters; copies of flyers instructing Democrats to “vote on Wednesday”; official letters sent to tens of thousands of longtime voters incorrectly informing them they had been deemed “inactive” and ineligible to vote; photos taken of the original exit poll data broadcast on election night before it was retroactively “corrected” by the networks; and much, much more.
Blocking the use of voting machines with non certified software appears to be a prelude to enjoining further suit should the plaintiff's candidate not persevere.

Personally I'd think any voting machines without an audit trail in hard copy shouldn't be used. Any appearance of the possibility of impropriety should be eliminated.

From the book blurb alleged problems with electioneering in Ohio appear to be much greater than just that of voting machine firmware. As a Congressional candidate for the Green Party in the 3rd district of Ohio and a previous candidate in the 12th district in 1992 by the Democratic party allegations of electioneering fraud might be seen to paint both major parties, through actual fraud or inaction.

One can't help but wonder if the plaintiff isn't wily enough to understand the benefits of disrupting electioneering at this late date to a third party candidate. Were you to visit Bob Fitrakis For Congress web site you'd find other more blatantly political statements, but that the website is also included in the Library of Congress historic collection of Internet materials related to the U.S. 2012 election.

The question might be why do the two major political parties tolerate practices that might lead to electioneering fraud? At Would range voting reduce election fraud? we find that those promoting range voting believe it's to perpetuate the two party system, which happens to be in line with the plaintiff's apparent political ambitions.

The protests of those defeated by election fraud and/or manipulation have been incredibly faint in the USA. Why? Our theory is that both sides continually benefit heavily from the same election-rigging techniques and any protest – and most election reform more generally (and investigations leading toward it) such as abolishing gerrymandering – is therefore counterproductive for both sides and hence is not undertaken.
In the alternative actual admissible evidence might be sparse, and heavy handed investigation serves mostly to raise distrust on the fairness of elections, in particular when no convictions are ensuing.

You could also note that Ohio law will eventually lead to voting machine use requiring a voter verified paper audit trail, the matter at issue the phased expenditure on new machines, the requirement relatively new. It seems unlikely the particular issue might arise so easily in the next national election. You could contemplate that this particular squeaky wheel is being oiled.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Voting machines?
Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST
I do not trust ANY of the US voting machines. They all seem to be designed to
encourage MASSIVE fraud.

However, some are worse than others. I sort of feel OK about the ones that scan
marked paper ballots. There's an audit trail, and one that it is actually
plausible to check and validate. (I'm not sure this is ever done, however. And
it should ALWAYS be done.)

As for the software, no secret software should be allowed anywhere near a voting
machine. The problem isn't that it's software, it's that as it's secret, you
can't tell what it's doing. And there is no justification whatsoever for having
the software be secret except to enable fraud.
(It's not like counting votes is a complex program, after all.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Voting machines?
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 10:26 PM EST
The winning side is never going to seriously investigate or
legislate with regard to election fraud, in my opinion.

So it seems we're doomed to have it in the USA.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Get real
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 12:14 PM EST
Open source will never come to voting machines. Most folks think that having
the source code means it's _easier_ to crack the system.

Go back to 2000, and research the Diebold debacle. IIRC, someone release the
source code for their machines, and some CS professors analyzed it, and found
many holes. How about intentionally putting holes in the code? Not backdoors,
but security holes. Beautiful! No one could prove it was intentional.

Computerized voting machines need to be eliminated. We already have too much
fraud in the system.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )