It's the voting machines, stupid.

[garybeck]

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2019, 12:10 PM - Edit history (5)

I am hearing more banter lately about the possibility that the actual vote counts could have been compromised. there is a buzz in the news today about some funny business in PA where the vote totals are suspicious (see https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211677300). i'm not suggesting there is hard evidence at this point.

Back in the 2004 election when the voting machines were in a spotlight for short period of time, i became very involved and I learned a lot. not much has changed.

everyone needs to know the voting machines are still vulnerable. they are still owned and designed by a very few companies with political ties. the vote counting code on the machines is still proprietary and has no oversight.

I would like to explain a couple things about what I consider to be the most important problem with the machines.

Nearly all the voting machine technologies share one dirty Little secret:
They have removable memory cards. Before each election, these memory cards are physically removed from the machines, sent to a central location and programmed for the candidates and issues on each ballot. this is true of the touch screen machines and the optical scanners that use paper ballots. because all the memory cards are in one location, often for an entire state, this becomes an extremely vulnerable spot. However it gets almost no attention. It is there that the memory cards could easily be infected with vote switching software that could not be detected by any of the testing that is done on the machines.

people say the machines are safe because they are not connected to the internet. pure bullshit. with the memory cards, you don't need to be connected to anything. it is possible to infect a single memory card and program it to propagate its vote-switching "virus" to all the other memory cards.

let's be clear. vote switching it is not rocket science. any 8th grader who has studied the most basic computer programming techniques could write a few lines of code that would change the outcome. here is just one example algorithm that would do it.

-- every time the vote total increases by 10, add one to Trump and take one away from Hillary. That will give Trump an extra 10% over the final count.

dozens more similar algorithms could be thought up in minutes.

do it in a few key counties of a swing state and that is all it takes.

the memory card vulnerability has been documented and proven many times by computer security experts, but the press (and secretaries of state who are responsible for election security) ignore this problem. they talk about the lack of connection to the internet and how the machines are tested for accuracy. however the computer security experts have proven that the testing they do is inadequate and would not detect the kinds of problems that could be introduced to the memory cards. Think of Volkswagen and how they programmed the cars emission system to perform differently when it is being tested. a very similar thing can be done with the memory cards to pass the testing but change performance during the actual election counting.

here is just one video documenting how easy it is to program the memory cards to change an election.

We know very little about the places where the memory cards are programmed. in some cases it is by the same company that manufactures the voting machines. In others it is a third party company that we know nothing about. I live in Vermont and with some research I found the memory cards in my state are shipped to Massachusetts to a little known company called LHS, who programs the memory cards before every election. Who are they? do they have good security there? Any russians on staff? who knows.

It doesn't matter if there is a paper ballot or if it is a touch-screen voting machine. All of them are vulnerable to this. scientists have shown many times that anyone with access to the memory cards can do just about anything they want and never get caught. the only difference with the paper ballots being counted by scanners is that there is a paper record that could be counted by hand. but they never/rarely are, even in a recount. in my state of vermont, if there is a recount, they just put the paper ballots through the scanners again. the same vote-switching software would obviously do the same thing a 2nd time.

I have said several times that computer security experts are sounding the alarms. There are many independent studies at Universities and Institutions. The most thorough study was probably the Brennan Report. See the report here (and be sure to look at the list of experts who contributed):
http://solarbus.org/election/docs/brennan-summary.pdf

the conclusion of the report was:

CORE FINDINGS
Three fundamental points emerge from the threat analysis in the Security Report:
■ All three voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities,
which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections.
■ The most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied if proper countermeasures are implemented at the state and local level.
■ Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that
could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute successfully.

the ONLY way to protect against this is to have hand counted paper ballots, or to have statistically significant hand counted random audits. this is being done almost nowhere.

So as we move forward, and possibly start looking at the possibility that the russians could have hacked into our voting system let's remember a few key points:

-- anyone with access to the memory cards could change election results without any trace
-- most recounts would not detect the problems with the vote counting software on the memory cards
-- the fact that voting machines are not connected to the internet means nothing
-- the testing they do on voting machines before an election does nothing
-- to my knowledge the "recounts" that were done in limited areas after the 2016 election were not thorough and little if any actually hand counted the paper ballots.

The American people are going to have to learn a little about voting machine technology. two decades ago it was hanging chads. today there needs to be a discussion about memory cards. not just about 2016, but for 2020 and beyond, or Trump could be just the beginning if we don't get a handle on the security of our election systems.

ON EDIT: several people have asked about solutions. a great organization called Verified Voting produced this document that will answer that:
https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Securing-the-Nation-s-Voting-Machines-A-Toolkit-for-Advocates-and-Election-Officials.pdf

[brooklynite]

1. Know who's NOT "bantering"?

Any losing candidate, including Hillary Clinton

Any Party leader, including Tom Perez

Any Democratic Governor, Attorney General or Secretary of State

Any Campaign Manager

But perhaps bloggers know better than the folks directly involved in elections.

[garybeck]

3. what's your point?

i personally haven't heard any of those people raising the concerns I outlined.

and get your facts straight. it is not "bloggers" who have been talking about this for almost 20 years. it is computer security experts including the head of security for Microsoft and Lawrence Livermore Labs.

i can't tell what your point is anyway.

[brooklynite]

6. My point is that there's no hard evidence of vote hacking...

...nor does anyone actually involved in the election process say there is.

[garybeck]

7. your point is pointless

there doesn't have to be an evidence. and anyway you only find evidence if you look for it. and that has not happened. to say there is no evidence only shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

read what the experts said, if you really care about the truth.

http://solarbus.org/election/docs/brennan-full.pdf

the experts disagree with you. not bloggers. the most credentialed computer security experts in the world.

saying there is no evidence is simply wrong. you can say that no one has found evidence at this point. but to say there is no evidence is nothing but hot air and does not help our democracy.

[triron]

40. +10000

The naysayers are out there.

[diva77]

43. +1,000,000,000,000 THIS!!!!!

Computerized "voting" machines, Optical scanners, Central Tabulators -- all of this gear does NOT meet the burden of proof that a vote will be counted as cast.

[Baltimike]

44. this +10,000,000 nt

[DFW]

45. My brother does hi tech projects for DARPA

He told me back in 2002 how vulnerable those machines were, and says their software has hardly been updated since.

Also, never forget how Diebold and ESS went to court before the 2004 election to declare their machines "private property," and therefore no one was allowed to verify what they reported once they announced each machine's "results." The one machine in Ohio in 2004 that WAS forensically examined was one way out in some out-of-the-way precinct with 600 registered voters. That machine, examined before its owners came to collect it, gave Bush 3000 votes--OUT OF A POSSIBLE 600! The Republicans "generously" deducted 2400 votes from Bush's margin of victory in Ohio, but STILL refused to let the other machines used to count the votes in Ohio to be independently verified. Sure, you can say the one machine was a glitch, and that there was no evidence the others had defects--but that is because no one was allowed to look!!! Nothing here, as Rodney Whitaker once put it, offends someone's sense of rational probability?

[Amaryllis]

60. You are falling into a dangerous trap that many do: It is not the responsibility of us

to prove that they are unsafe; it is the responsibility of the vendors to prove that they ARE safe.
"There's no evidence of vote hacking" is a right wing talking point that shifts the responsibility from the vendors to the users.

[unc70]

9. In this case, some of us do know better

I have been in the software and security "trenches" at very high levels for fifty years and I know quite a lot about vulnerabilities, and I know a number of the true experts in these fields. I am offended at the flippant way you dismiss the extensive concerns of the experts like those with the Brennan Center and with major security organizations.

A head in the sand attitude leads to lunacy like the recent decision to go with no paper ballots in LA County -- a decision by Democrats!

[garybeck]

15. and it's not just you. the Brennan Report ....

take a look at who contributed to the 2005 Brennan Report

Government Experts
Dr. David Jefferson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Chair of the
California Secretary of State’s Voting Systems Technology Assessment
and Advisory Board
John Kelsey, PhD, NIST
Rene Peralta, PhD, NIST
Professor Ronald Rivest (MIT), Technical Guidelines Committee, Election
Assistance Commission
Academic Experts
Professor Matt Bishop, University of California at Davis
Professor David Dill, Stanford University
Professor Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa
Joshua Tauber, PhD, formerly of the Computer Science and Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory at MIT
Professor David Wagner, University of California at Berkeley
Professor Dan Wallach, Rice University
Private Sector Experts (Commercial and Non-Profit)
Georgette Asherman, independent statistical consultant, founder of Direct
Effects
Lillie Coney, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Jeremy Epstein, Cyber Defense Agency LLC
Harri Hursti, independent consultant, former CEO of F-Secure PLC
Howard A. Schmidt, Former White House Cyber Security Advisor for George W.
Bush; Former Chief Security Officer, Microsoft
Dr. Bruce Schneier, Counterpane Internet Security
Matthew Zimmerman, Electronic Frontier Foundation

and they all signed on to the conclusion:

CORE FINDINGS
Three fundamental points emerge from the threat analysis in the Security Report:
■ All three voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities,
which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections.
■ The most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied if proper countermeasures are implemented at the state and local level.
■ Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that
could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute successfully.

[garybeck]

11. these are some of your "bloggers" who say our election system is not secure

these are the contributors to the 2005 Brennan Report on the security of our election system. yeah right, they are just a bunch of bloggers:

Government Experts
Dr. David Jefferson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Chair of
the California Secretary of State’s Voting Systems Technology Assessment
and Advisory Board
John Kelsey, PhD, NIST
Rene Peralta, PhD, NIST
Professor Ronald Rivest (MIT), Technical Guidelines Committee, Election
Assistance Commission
Howard A. Schmidt, Former White House Cyber Security Advisor for George
W. Bush; Former Chief Security Officer, Microsoft
Academic Experts
Professor Matt Bishop, University of California at Davis
Professor David Dill, Stanford University
Professor Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa
Joshua Tauber, PhD, formerly of the Computer Science and Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory at MIT
Professor David Wagner, University of California at Berkeley
Professor Dan Wallach, Rice University
Private Sector Experts (Commercial and Non-Profit)
Georgette Asherman, independent statistical consultant, founder of Direct
Effects
Lillie Coney, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Jeremy Epstein, Cyber Defense Agency LLC
Harri Hursti, independent consultant, former CEO of F-Secure PLC
Dr. Bruce Schneier, Counterpane Internet Security
Matthew Zimmerman, Electronic Frontier Foundation

these people concluded:

CORE FINDINGS
Three fundamental points emerge from the threat analysis in the Security Report:
■ All three voting systems have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities,
which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections.
■ The most troubling vulnerabilities of each system can be substantially remedied if proper countermeasures are implemented at the state and local level.
■ Few jurisdictions have implemented any of the key countermeasures that
could make the least difficult attacks against voting systems much more difficult to execute successfully.

[brooklynite]

17. Nothing in "vulnerabilities" equates to evidence of actual hacking...

...and if the evidence is so solid, why aren't any politicians (including those responsible for elections) mentioning it?

[garybeck]

18. try actually reading something.

just because there isn't evidence right now means nothing. no one has looked, and it is virtually impossible to detect anyway.

read the conclusions of the Brennan Report.

i am amazed that you don't care that our system is vulnerable. it shouldn't matter if there is evidence. the very fact that it could be hacked without detection, a known fact, should be enough to bother you.

i think if you took a few minutes to actually research the facts as presented by the heads of security for microsoft and lawrence livermore labs and dozens of others (people you call "bloggers" which only shows your lack of knowledge on this subect) you would understand there is a serious problem.

you can't just hide your head in the sand and say that since Hillary isn't making a stink about something there is not a problem. well i guess you can do that. ... you just did. very objective research, congratulations.

[brooklynite]

19. I don't object to point out vulnerabilities...

...I object to people jumping to "we lost because the vote was rigged". The way we win is helped by recognizing why some of our candidates lose.

[garybeck]

24. did i ever say that "we lost because the vote was rigged." ?

no i didn't.

nothing in my posts suggests that.

is it possible? yes.

if it happened, would we be able to detect it? possibly not.

are there irregular election results such as major inconsistencies with past elections in specific districts, and vote counts not matching pre- and post- polling? yes.


we may never be able to say "we lost because the vote was rigged," depending on what your level of evidence requirement is. but if we found out there was a connection between the russians and a company that makes the voting machines or programs the memory cards, would that be alarming to you? would you continue to say there is no problem because Hillary hasn't said so?

the very fact that it COULD have happened and we don't have reason to have confidence in our election system is a huge problem in itself. and the fact that those people you list in your first response are not aware of the problem, is another huge problem in itself.

so I would ask respectfully that instead of ignoring a real problem that gives us reason to not trust our election results and saying that people who understand this are a bunch of "bloggers" that you take a few minutes to learn about it.

[brooklynite]

25. "I am hearing more banter lately about the possibility that the actual vote counts were compromised"

[Baltimike]

28. That's because there *IS* more banter about actual vote hacking

and no one has to deliver a smoking gun to you specifically for the preponderance of evidence to point to it either.

[garybeck]

31. and your point is? do you dispute that there is banter?

is it a crime to say there is banter when there is?

[Amaryllis]

59. THey are. Sen.Ron Wyden has done a lot of work on exposing vendors installing remote access

software, among other things, and has introduced a bill to require paper ballots nationwide.
IF you search this, you will find a lot more - this is just ONE article of many:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb4ezy/top-voting-machine-vendor-admits-it-installed-remote-access-software-on-systems-sold-to-states

Jul 17 2018, 5:00am
Top Voting Machine Vendor Admits It Installed Remote-Access Software on Systems Sold to States
Remote-access software and modems on election equipment 'is the worst decision for security short of leaving ballot boxes on a Moscow street corner.'

The nation's top voting machine maker has admitted in a letter to a federal lawmaker that the company installed remote-access software on election-management systems it sold over a period of six years, raising questions about the security of those systems and the integrity of elections that were conducted with them.

In a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) in April and obtained recently by Motherboard, Election Systems and Software acknowledged that it had "provided pcAnywhere remote connection software … to a small number of customers between 2000 and 2006," which was installed on the election-management system ES&S sold them.

The statement contradicts what the company told me and fact checkers for a story I wrote for the New York Times in February. At that time, a spokesperson said ES&S had never installed pcAnywhere on any election system it sold. "None of the employees, … including long-tenured employees, has any knowledge that our voting systems have ever been sold with remote-access software," the spokesperson said.

ES&S did not respond on Monday to questions from Motherboard, and it’s not clear why the company changed its response between February and April. Lawmakers, however, have subpoena powers that can compel a company to hand over documents or provide sworn testimony on a matter lawmakers are investigating, and a statement made to lawmakers that is later proven false can have greater consequence for a company than one made to reporters.

[Rene]

54. I support batch scheduling softwares for mainframe and distributed

batch processing on servers. We install batch programs/files/scripts on two servers (primary and backup) We can switch which server the batch is running their programs on, via URL/id using a very small 'switch' program.
We could be running good program on primary and rogue(same name) program on backup server. Flip votes and then with 'switch' job...send the altered files back to the original server. transparent to observer

[questionseverything]

57. actually hillary did say after she lost that the country needs paper ballots

so while she didn't go into detail....what other reason besides distrusting the system we have would make her want paper ballots?

while I have no hard evidence the votes were manipulated, you have no hard evidence the vote wasn't manipulated

we are living in this emperor has no clothes moment...we just lost 2 close elections in florida and 95% plus of the ballots were never looked at by human beings and somehow we call that a "recount"

citizens have the right to oversee every part of their elections, if we don't it is not a true democracy

[catrose]

2. Electronic Frontier Foundation published a critique of Diebold's (now ES&S) software

It was hair-raising by the standards of 15 years ago. I wonder how much it's improved.

[garybeck]

5. there are many many such reports. little if anything is ever done.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

4. Perfect.

Machines made by Diebold were the worst offenders. Diebold is a subsidiary of Cheneys Halliburton. 2004 was a pivotal year. Kerry was/is a true blue war hero. Amongst other things he got medals for, John Kerry rapid "PARKED" his swiftboat after an attack and ran down two viet kong and killed them, in the jungle. Meanwhile, Bush...snorting coke AWOL from the Texas Air Guard.

[garybeck]

8. that's just the beginning of the story. the other voting machine companies are just as bad.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

10. I'm picking up what your putting down. Completely agree about the "sim card"

chicanery. Great OP. Bookmarked.

[garybeck]

12. bookmark this too

http://solarbus.org/election/docs/brennan-summary.pdf

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

13. Wow. Looks good. Thanks for the info. Added to reading list!

i think, without a doubt, it continues today.

[FakeNoose]

14. Thanks for this valuable info - I'm bookmarking your post

I plan to share your thread whenever DUers get confused about voting machines and how they get hacked.
BTW I'm in Pennsylvania and our Gov. Tom Wolf is upgrading & securing all of our voting machines before the 2020 election. I believe they've already started doing it, or they will soon.

[Raastan]

16. K + R

[at140]

20. So what is your solution, assuming

Fraud exists, even though nothing has been proven in courts of law.

[garybeck]

21. well it starts with admitting there is a problem

evidently even some people here at DU are still hiding their heads in the sand

[at140]

29. I agree problem exists..what is the solution?

Because without a possible solution, we may be wasting our time.

So long our system consists of SECRET Ballot voting, it is impossible to stop ALL fraud.
Only way to make elections reliable is to do what India has done, they have federally issued voting cards with photo for 800 million voters, and there is no cost. No one can vote without the voter card. Every card has a unique number so duplicate votes are easily detected.

We use state based elections. If you move to another state, it is possible to vote absentee from both states. College students living away from home have this opportunity as well.

[garybeck]

46. i disagree

in the Brennan Report there are recommendations on making significant improvements to security. As well the independent organization Verified Voting put out this document that outlines the answer to your question:

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Securing-the-Nation-s-Voting-Machines-A-Toolkit-for-Advocates-and-Election-Officials.pdf

[at140]

50. You did not address the issue of multiple voter registrations

When I moved my residence from one state to another, I had to go through the trouble of informing the previous state to take me off their voter list. So if I was dishonest, I could keep voting from 2 states using absentee ballots.

Next point...I have lived in 4 different states and I am was not born a US citizen.
Yet no one ever asked me to prove I was a citizen when registering to vote. They all
should have asked me to show my naturalization citizenship certificate. Which tells me
non-citizens could be voting and no one knows or cares.

Voting machines are a separate issue. With 50 states using 50 different voting systems,
it is not difficult to hack voting machines. India has 4 times more voters than US. They
use one federal system to register to vote.

[LanternWaste]

51. You do realize that finding a solution is simply one step in a longer process of critical thought, y

You do realize that finding a solution is simply one step in a longer process of critical thought, yes?

That finding a solution, looking for one is predicated on so much more than simply asking the question, yes?

"cause it seems like either you're unaware of that, or are simply ignoring it.

[at140]

52. with 50 states allowed to use 50 different type of voting machines

one size fits all will not work. Believe me, if there was an easy solution to address voter machines fraud, it would have been done long time ago.

[Funtatlaguy]

22. I believe this all started in Georgia with Diebold flipping

Max Cleland.
Lots of smoke and speculation.
But, never proven.

Until a true whistleblower comes forward with a death bed type confession, we will never know the real truth on this issue.

[Liberty Belle]

36. I interviewed a Diebold whistleblower some years ago

who admitted to me that he helped flip votes in Georgia in a non-presidential race. Bradblog interviewed him too. You are right that Georgia was one of the first, if not the first place where the rigging took place. My interview was around 2005 but the vote flipping was earlier than that.

[Blue Owl]

23. Certainly Ivanka Trump's patented Chinese voting machines won't be corrupt

[Botany]

26. Ever since "they" passed HAVA the stats for a red state shift have been overwhelming

n/t

[Amaryllis]

63. Funny how exit polls were always accurate before HAVA. People ask the wrong

question when they say why don't the exit polls match the results any more. Should be why don't the results match the exit polls like they used to.

[benld74]

27. Introduced by GOP after 2000 election debacle

As manner to HALT election returns nightmares


Guy named Chad down in FL had the bright idea

[Initech]

32. And some of those companies that made the machines *COUGH* Diebold *COUGH*....

Were run by CEOs who donated heavily to the Republican party. George Carlin was right - it's a big club and we're not in it.

[Initech]

30. I remember after Bush's second election...

That there was a study done that said that it was easier to hack a voting machine than it was to hack a Vegas slot machine. I even saw one video where someone got a working copy of Tetris to play on a touch screen voting machine. If we don't get rid of these things it will be same shit, different day.

[Liberty Belle]

35. The Wash.Post did that article AFTER I ran this one and won an award for it:

http://sdcitybeat.com/food-drink/monkey-business/

In my acceptance speech at the national awards which I had someone read for me because I couldn't attend in person, I stated that voting machines were less secure than slot machines and urged the national media to pick up on this important story. The Washington Post did.

[JudyM]

41. .

This is so important to continue exposing and insisting congress respond.

[deurbano]

53. YAY you! It's such an outrage that this continues to be an issue.

[appalachiablue]

33. K & R. Valuable post, TY.

[Liberty Belle]

34. Spot on. I won a national jourmalism award for this 2005 article on the same issue:

Monkey Business: A look at vote-counting mischief and the potential for more
http://sdcitybeat.com/food-drink/monkey-business/

This article led then-CA Sec. of State Debra Bowen to decertify all paperless voting machines. But even optical scanners can still be hacked as this poster describes to infect a single memory card in any voting machine. When that is fed into a central tabulator at election central it can then infect it with a code to reverse votes once the tally gets to a certain level. San Diego's registrar of voters back then had a national activist arrested for trying to observe the vote count, by the way. What were they hiding?

Some say there's no proof of rigging. Trouble is you would never be able to see the proof if it happened, because these programs can be programmed to erase themselves the minute the counting is done.

I believe every ballot needs to be hand counted at the polls and then compared to whatever a central tabulator at election central shows. The counts at polling places should be video taped (with any identifying voter ID masked out on envelopes such as with absentee ballots turned in at the polls). If there is a discrepancy the videotaped count at the polls should stand unless a review of it proves an obvious error.

If there isn't a budget to do this for every race, at least do so for top-tier races starting with President, US Senate and Congress as well as state legislative races and Governor. Those are the ones most likely to have someone with a lot of money and influence trying to rig results, and the impacts would be the most damaging if rigging occurs.

[garybeck]

38. excellent work! ...adding to one of your points...

"to infect a single memory card in any voting machine. When that is fed into a central tabulator at election central it can then infect it with a code to reverse votes once the tally gets to a certain level."

i would add to this, it is not necessary to reverse votes on another district. that would be much more difficult because most districts make their own count, send it to the central, and then verify that it matches.

the much more easier way, as I outlined, is to infect the memory cards before the election when they are programmed at a centralized location. then they make the original count wrong but everything checks.

[Anon-C]

37. Telling the truth, Garybeck.

I have no direct evidence, but circumstantially I believe this CA-50 election of Duncan Hunter was fixed.

[garybeck]

39. do you need evidence to question the results?

the important point is that it COULD have been rigged. it doesn't matter at this point of the argument really, whether or not it was. the fact that they are proven to be hackable, especially through the memory cards as I have outlined, is the problem. this gives us the objective right to not have confidence in the results.

[dlk]

42. This is How Republicans Will Cheat to Win in 2020

They don’t believe in democracy, only in their right to be in control of our government.

[garybeck]

47. SOLUTIONS

several people have asked about solutions. a great organization called Verified Voting produced this document that will answer that:

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Securing-the-Nation-s-Voting-Machines-A-Toolkit-for-Advocates-and-Election-Officials.pdf

[diva77]

49. There is no computerized solution. Hand counted paper ballots at precinct level with

public oversight is the solution.

If people were summoned for counting duty via the jury duty system, they would only have to show up to count once every couple of years (or possibly less frequently) for 2-4 hours in their precinct (assuming a precinct of 500-2000 people).

[garybeck]

58. i disagree

100% hand counted paper ballots is indeed one solution to the problem.

it is not the only solution.

if there are hand counted random audits that are statistically significant, this would mitigate much of the problem.

[diva77]

62. unfortunately, audits can be rigged -- they may appear to be random when in reality they aren't

[Amaryllis]

64. REcommend everyone sign up for their email list and support them. They have been doing

excellent work for years and many of the computer experts Gary has listed are involved with them.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

48. paper ballots, counted by people

No electronic voting device can provide (a) a vote that the voter can verify, (b) an election that the public can verify.

Paper ballots, counted by people, in view of the public is the best way to have a free, fair, and verifiable election.

[Baltimike]

55. this. nt

[diva77]

56. +1,000 This!!

[Amaryllis]

61. More to support your point:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37486-the-shocking-truth-about-election-rigging-in-america
THe Shocking Truth about Election Rigging in America
Published just before teh 2016 election.

"If there is anything positive to say about the 2016 elections, it’s that they have finally forced an end to the official denial of computerized election rigging. In the past month, the fact that our voting technology is a hacker’s paradise has been validated by no less than all the major TV news networks: NBC, ABC, CBS, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, USA Today, The Hill, The Guardian, Mother Jones, Politico, and a dozen other outlets."
Lots more at link.