Vote, Verfiy, Count, Verify Again

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000002123 StartFragment:0000000489 EndFragment:0000002106

 

That is what the seeVote system does. It is an open source program which does not claim “proprietary” reasons for not inspecting the source code. It is truly better than hand counted because it not only audits itself in the counting process, but allows the voter to verify their vote was counted as they desired, plus gives the results of all votes in their precinct while still maintaining privacy.

The seeVote system is not only the answer, but, unfortunately, is so good that lawmakers will not adopt it because it cannot be “programmed” to ensure they will be re-elected.

This system is meant for the true democracy as it will ensure fair elections. The Fascist form of government as we now have must have control over the electoral process in order to ensure the “right” people remain in office in order to ensure the corporations rule.

Check out seeVote at http://www.seevote.com

by Dennis Kaiser (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 279 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 4:45:12 AM
 

Sorry, but no cigar

Dennis, nice pitch, but open source is not "the answer" either. After a trusted competent programmer has inspected the source code, it must be compiled and loaded into the machines.

The only way to be certain that the software is clean is to have the documented source code, verify its legitimacy, compile it with a trusted compiler, compute and save a checksum* of the verified compiled code, and run a checksum calculation of the code during use in every machine. But this also assumes that there is no malicious code in the operating system (OS) including any part of the OS that resides in firmware (programmed on a chip such as the BIOS). Also, there should be no computer input port available external to the scanner/ballot box case. If this is not possible there are several known ways to manipulate the outcome.

*A checksum is an electronic fingerprint. Change anything in the software source code--even comments--and the fingerprint of its compiled object code changes. Another thing you ignore is that the process of voting and vote counting must be transparent and publicly observable. Computer tallying is not observable.

 

by Jerry Lobdill (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 5:14:29 AM
 

is something wrong with that link?

it doesn't appear to be an article, at least not one a non-geek can read. I'll give Feinstein a piece of my mind, once i can see what you're talking about

Paper ballots, with a publicly-accountable chain of custody, hand-counted on election night in the local precinct with results immediately publicly posted for all to see, and corroborated by exit polling, is the most secure, transparent and reliable method, and after 6 years of fiascos in every election where emachines are used, any pol who still promotes them instead of paper BALLOTS, imho, is unfit to serve the public- although they're now likely get "reelected" by these machines, without organized public opposition.

by Better World Order (4 articles, 432 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 926 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM
 

That's odd...

The URL works for me.

by Jerry Lobdill (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 12:05:10 PM
 

Whoops!

No it doesn't. I'll try to get it fixed.

by Jerry Lobdill (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM
 

usually there's a time "window" in which you can edit

or post the actual link in a comment, minus the http:// , which will make the link try to html and end up not working. 

working html links are easy to create in a Word doc, then copy/paste to your article 

 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 432 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 926 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 1:16:06 PM
 

Bad mojo

Jerry-  Does that mean you prefer intellectual property protected code running the systems-  ?-  From what you tender-  Do you, assuming you acknowledge the existemce of computers , prefer a system where the source code is not viewable?  Though I have not heard of this SeeVote system , don't you applaud the efforts of the open source pioneers trying to break the current cartel  ? It is dangerous work with mucho gravity-  

 

I think trying to create sytems that might actually be used is higher ground than just complaining and/or wishing for a return to the good 'ol days before computers. Remember-  Kenya , Mexico and our own history show the perils of a hand marked, hand counted system. Though it is preferable to what we have now, we are unlikely to return  to it-  BTW-  when you utilize a ballot printer you get much higher reconcilliation as voters can't draw smilley faces that allow for the election official to justify a lack of reconcilliation- (+ you don't run out of ballots---)

The arguments you make against open source would likely scare a layperson who might not understand the deterrent benefits of an open system-  In other words-  you should always explain that a criminal vendor with trojan horse bugs is more likely to do time in the gray bar hotel within the open source arena as the geeks of the world can provide oversight.  You should also mention that removing the intellectual property protection breaks the cartel's grip on the security-   and exposes the price gauging.

 I'm sure you are aware how we got in this mess-  I'm sure you also know that when we have open source language put into state and federal legislation -  Microsoft has it taken out.

It's not that I think you are with Microsoft-  It's just that your position makes you look like you are-  Please advocate transparency with your brothers abd sisters in the open source community-  It is not a panacea-  just an obvious starting point- 

 We always need high audits- paper ballots, and, yes, when using computers, open,publiuc, software code-  Please get up to speed- 

best  -

Brent Turner 

by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM
 

Hello again, Brent

I haven't heard from you in a long time. You and I have had this discussion before. You appear to be wanting to have it again.

Why not write your own Op-Ed piece instead of telling me how I should have written mine?

To other readers: Brent is one of those who are committed to bringing computers into voting regardless of the fact that they don't provide the great majority of voters the ability to be sure their vote is counted as cast.

You can see the commonly advanced accusation that my position is that of a Luddite.

 

by Jerry Lobdill (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 5:59:28 AM
 

Conclusion

"Why the hell do arrogant legislators keep bringing up ideas like this that they should know by now are flawed and not the best solution proposed by the scientists who have studied this for years?"

The last thing in the world people in power want is to transfer that power to the people. It would end their jobs. If we indeed had fair, honest elections tomorrow 99% of those currently in office would not only be out of work the next day - they'd be in jail a day following that.

If voting could change things - they'd make it illegal.

by Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1678 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 6:19:44 AM
 

Well...

Actually they are trying to effectively make it illegal. If your vote doesn't count there's no need to make it illegal. Making it irrelevant accomplishes the same goal without (apparently) causing a public uprising.

 

Thanks for reading. 

by Jerry Lobdill (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 6:28:04 AM
 

We Need Hand-Conted Ballots Now

Dear Jerry,

Thanks for such a great paper.

 Here are some papers published by me that also call for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots (HCPB) NOW.

1) ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HAND-COUNTING OF PAPER BALLOTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GENERAL ELECTIONS OF 2008 http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sheila_p_070718_on_site_observations.htm  
 

2) Hand-Counted Paper Ballots Now.
  http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/article.2006-04-10.1693298872
An updated version of this paper is at
http://electionfraudnews.com/archive/HCPB/Parks.htm
 

3) What Went Wrong in Ohio & Black Box Voting.
  http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/reviews/article.2006-01-06.7975946864 Tikkun Magazine on line.  January 6, 2006.

4) Hand-Counted Paper Ballots: Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sheila_p_070511_hand_counted_paper_b.htm 
Hacking Democracy, a DVD first shown on HBO in 2007 and repeated again during June of 2008, shows Finnish computer scientist Harri Hursti, working with Black Box Voting, publicly hacking both DRE's and optical scan machines. This DVD, which is a must see by all who care about democracy in the United States and world-wide, can be purchased at www.newvideo.com.    See also,  http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/6847.html.

Given this hacking, voters cannot safely know that with either DRES's or optical scan machines with their paper ballot that their votes are counted as cast. Paper ballots are not the answer.  The paper ballots must be counted by hand, at the precinct level on election night and results posted that night at the precint.

 We must go to hand-counted paper ballots now with a secure chain of custody, if we are to have open, fair, honest elections in this country and world wide.

 Thanks again for all your work.

Sheila Parks, Ed.D.

by Sheila Parks (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 6:52:20 AM
 

Paper ballots

I, too, believe that hand-counted paper ballots are the only option that satisfies all requirements for a secure, honest election. Of course, as you say, proper chain of custody procedures must be a part of the process.

 I don't see why voters shouldn't be called to serve at their precincts as ballot counters the same way that citizens are required to serve jury duty.  After all, election integrity is as important to a democracy as justice.

 Thanks for all your good work, and thanks for reading!

by Jerry Lobdill (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 7:52:20 AM
 

I wonder if it's a re-make of S.1487

Last May (2007), Feinstein introduced a truly horrible bill, S. 1487. I wrote about it here: (http://www.votersunite.org/info/s1487Report.asp).  Not only did it take elections out of the hands of the people, the local governments, and the states, putting them solidly under the control of the EAC; but it also quite sneakily provided for expanding the disenfranchisement of previously disenfranchised "distinct communities." That bill, co-sponsored by Clinton BTW, died in committee -- though not because of these reasons -- so apparently she is trying again.  

by Ellen Theisen (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 8:10:53 AM