NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone here live in California?

Well, a small bit of advice: If the voting machine you happen to be using is made by Sequoia, search around the back for a little yellow button.

It sends the machine into 'Manual Mode' and you can cast as many votes for your guy (or the other guy, if you want to make it look like he cheated)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3714

Oh yea:

Concerns about the flaw were first reported some thirty days ago to California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's office by Ron Watt, a Tehama County, CA precinct inspector who has been a poll worker in the county for the last fifteen years. And yet, as recently as a radio interview last Tuesday, McPherson — who has been crowing about having the country's most stringent security process for voting systems — denied he was aware of any security issues with Sequoia systems.

what a bastard

Can't say, I worked on the Diebold Machines. You can't do that with them.

Black box voting is one of, or even the biggest threat to democracy in the US today.

Nah, here in NC we still use paper ballots.

Black box voting is one of, or even the biggest threat to democracy in the US today.

No. It isn't.

And cut the polemics.

No. It isn't.

And cut the polemics.
Sure it is, and cut the naysaying....:rolleyes:

Sure it is, and cut the naysaying....:rolleyes:

You're the one making the claim, provide evidence that your claim is true. Until I have seen your evidence, I cannot know where you believe the threat to be, and as such, I cannot refute.

Furthermore, using emotion loaded language doesn't help the discussion at all. What you manage to do is create fear when you use polemics like that, you and George W. Bush, riding in the same boat.

You're the one making the claim, provide evidence that your claim is true. Until I have seen your evidence, I cannot know where you believe the threat to be, and as such, I cannot refute.
I didnt realise refuting it was an urgent priority of yours. You could always start with the OP. I dont see how you can have a functioning democracy based on free and fair elections when you cant ensure the elections were fair.

Furthermore, using emotion loaded language doesn't help the discussion at all. What you manage to do is create fear when you use polemics like that, you and George W. Bush, riding in the same boat.
I didnt use emotion loaded language...

I didnt use emotion loaded language...

"Black Box Voting" is clearly a term designed to scare.

Well, as to the machines in question, apparently the little button is on the back of the machine. As it stands, the machine is attached to the base unit, with the back of the machine flush against the base unit. To reach this button, you would have to detach the machine from the base unit, flip it over, press the button, and start all over again.

Tell me, is there any way in which this wouldn't attract attention?

Furthermore, you told me to "Cut the naysaying." Well, without anything to argue against, I can do naught but naysay.

"Black Box Voting" is clearly a term designed to scare.
I would have thought the primary purpose of the terminology was to convey the computerised and the 'secretitive' aspect...perhaps I'm just not as sensitive as you.

Well, as to the machines in question, apparently the little button is on the back of the machine. As it stands, the machine is attached to the base unit, with the back of the machine flush against the base unit. To reach this button, you would have to detach the machine from the base unit, flip it over, press the button, and start all over again.

Tell me, is there any way in which this wouldn't attract attention?
Even if it were impossible to do so without attracting attention, the existence of the button is disturbing and unacceptable. Whatever purpose it achieves should be achievable by means that dont include an exterior button that could potentially change the vote tally. It's just basic sense to not include such a button simply on a PR basis. So far as I am concerned any company not competent to get that straight oughten be trusted with providing the machinary being relied on to count my vote.

Furthermore, you told me to "Cut the naysaying." Well, without anything to argue against, I can do naught but naysay.
And yet you managed anyhow...:rolleyes:

For example, to quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black):

"In the Western world, black is most often used with a negative connotation."

Not only that, but black is associated with many negative things:
-Blacklists
-Black Markets
-Black Thursday
-Black Hats



Furthermore, the previous connotation of the word "Black Box" was primarily associated with the mass deaths of people in airplane accidents.

"Black Box Voting" is clearly emotionally loaded, and is used as a way to attract negative attention to the other side of an argument, without any real negativity necessarily being associated with the other side. Whereas other, more emotionally neutral, terms exist, the choice to use "Black Box Voting" has a specific intent to scare and demean without using actual evidence.

I would have thought the primary purpose of the terminology was to convey the computerised and the 'secretitive' aspect...perhaps I'm just not as sensitive as you.
Arugmentum ad Hominem, delightful.

I laid out exactly how the term is emotionally loaded.

Even if it were impossible to do so without attracting attention, the existence of the button is disturbing and unacceptable. Whatever purpose it achieves should be achievable by means that dont include an exterior button that could potentially change the vote tally. It's just basic sense to not include such a button simply on a PR basis. So far as I am concerned any company not competent to get that straight oughten be trusted with providing the machinary being relied on to count my vote.
Yes, it is disturbing, and the choice to purchase the Sequoia machines with this button was a mistake, but it's an error that can be neutralized by taking some simple precautions.

For example, to quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black):

"In the Western world, black is most often used with a negative connotation."

Not only that, but black is associated with many negative things:
-Blacklists
-Black Markets
-Black Thursday
-Black Hats



Furthermore, the previous connotation of the word "Black Box" was primarily associated with the mass deaths of people in airplane accidents.

"Black Box Voting" is clearly emotionally loaded, and is used as a way to attract negative attention to the other side of an argument, without any real negativity necessarily being associated with the other side. Whereas other, more emotionally neutral, terms exist, the choice to use "Black Box Voting" has a specific intent to scare and demean without using actual evidence.
I'm not arguing what was meant by those that coined the term, I can only argue what I know my own perception to be, and the phrase didnt carry frightening connotations for me. I dont make any claim regarding yours or someone else's interpretation, no number of wiki links will prove to me that I percieved the phrase other than as I did, nor that I intended it to convey something I didnt intend it to convey.

Well, without anything to argue against, I can do naught but naysay.

I worked on the Diebold Machines. You can't do that with them.

Andaluciae, don't demand evidence and then present yourself as an expert on the topic, providing no evidence yourself. That's just the height of hypocracy. Not to mention it's a claim anyone could make. Back what you say up with links and references (referring to your claims regarding the boxes, not your personal history [clarification; as I see you enjoy nitpicking posts]), not with a bland "oh i worked on this stuff".

I'm not arguing what was meant by those that coined the term, I can only argue what I know my own perception to be, and the phrase didnt carry frightening connotations for me. I dont make any claim regarding yours or someone else's interpretation, no number of wiki links will prove to me that I percieved the phrase other than as I did, nor that I intended it to convey something I didnt intend it to convey.

And part of my point is that it's an unconscious interpretation of the word.

Arugmentum ad Hominem, delightful.

I laid out exactly how the term is emotionally loaded.
It's a fairly simple statement, if you choose to interpret non-existent personal attacks (or have some other understanding of ad hominem), that really isnt my responsibility.

Yes, it is disturbing, and the choice to purchase the Sequoia machines with this button was a mistake, but it's an error that can be neutralized by taking some simple precautions.
I've seen no particular indications that precautions sufficient to safeguard the voting process (so far as electronic voting technology and machinary) will be put in place in the near future, hence my perception that a significant risk exists.

Andaluciae, don't demand evidence and then present yourself as an expert on the topic, providing no evidence yourself. That's just the height of hypocracy. Not to mention it's a claim anyone could make. Back what you say up with links and references (referring to your claims regarding the boxes, not your personal history [clarification; as I see you enjoy nitpicking posts]), not with a bland "oh i worked on this stuff".

I'm not presenting myself as an expert on the topic. I have experience with the Diebold AccuVote TSx, but I'm not the standing expert on the machines.

Furthermore, I would have attempted to provide links describing the physical characteristics of the Diebold AccuVote TSx, but, because there are none readily available, in depth sources for the physical description of this machine, I cannot do so very easily.

In Germany, we still have old fashioned paper ballots. Nobody here thought of buying voting machines.

Many people are suspicious of machines taking the votes. They are afraid that the machines could be manipulated. Of course, paper ballots can be manipulated as well, perhaps even much easier than a voting machine. But the extend of such a manipulation is normaly limited to a few ballots, whereas a manipulated voting machine could create a totaly different result for the whole election.

PS: In my eyes, "Black Box Voting" sounds totally neutral to me. I studied computer science, and for me a black box is a system, where you see the input and the output, but not how the output is created. But most times this is not interesting at all.

By the way, do you get a recipe for your votes in the US? Is there any control of the machines?

By the way, do you get a recipe for your votes in the US? Is there any control of the machines?
If by recipe you mean the source code, I dont believe there is any obligation for it to be open to public scrutiny/oversight.

By the way, do you get a recipe for your votes in the US? Is there any control of the machines?

It varies from state to state. Most states, like Ohio, have the voting machines running two counts at one time, one is the digital tally, the other is the VVPAT, or Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail. While the source code for the digital tally is proprietary, there is no source code for hand counting the paper ballots.

Many people are suspicious of machines taking the votes. They are afraid that the machines could be manipulated. Of course, paper ballots can be manipulated as well, perhaps even much easier than a voting machine. But the extend of such a manipulation is normaly limited to a few ballots, whereas a manipulated voting machine could create a totaly different result for the whole election.



"Sonny, in my day we didn't use none o' this highfalutin't technology, we disenfranchised dem blacks the old fashioned way: Intimidation."

To paraphrase Jon Stewart.

PS: In my eyes, "Black Box Voting" sounds totally neutral to me. I studied computer science, and for me a black box is a system, where you see the input and the output, but not how the output is created. But most times this is not interesting at all.

In the eyes of the general public, though, it doesn't.

In the eyes of the general public, though, it doesn't.

But everyone else who has posted has considered it a neutral term so who are you to say what "the general public" considers it. Besides, he just described it as best he knows how, that is how it is described and if you have a problem with that then sorry but...

"Black Box Voting" is clearly a term designed to scare.

Well, as to the machines in question, apparently the little button is on the back of the machine. As it stands, the machine is attached to the base unit, with the back of the machine flush against the base unit. To reach this button, you would have to detach the machine from the base unit, flip it over, press the button, and start all over again.

Tell me, is there any way in which this wouldn't attract attention?

Furthermore, you told me to "Cut the naysaying." Well, without anything to argue against, I can do naught but naysay.
To quote a source the blog originally referenced:

"It's not the voters we're worried about doing this," Courbat said. "It's the Precinct Captains and Elections Officials across thousands of precincts across the country. This isn't unique to Riverside or Tehama. Tens of thousands of votes can be stolen across the country," he added.

I.e., individuals with easy opportunity to detach the base unit, flip it over, etc etc.

In any event, you are expected to spend a couple minutes in the voting booth in complete privacy. For someone clever, it's not out of the question to do so.

The general public has in the past heard the term "black box" to refer to airline flight recorders, which are infamously black boxes designed to survive crashes.

The general public has in the past heard the term "black box" to refer to airline flight recorders, which are infamously black boxes designed to survive crashes.


You really think that the average person is so dumb that they can't differentrate between the two?

You really think that the average person is so dumb that they can't differentrate between the two?
No. But do you really think the public has that much baggage attached to flight recorders?

No. "Black box" is a simple descriptive term, without any particular negative or positive connotations not related to the qualities of something being a "black box."

And part of my point is that it's an unconscious interpretation of the word.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

It's amazing how diebold settled for millions with whistle-blowers like bev harris when they're products work perfectly well and are no threat to vote mismanagement. You usually settle because you know you're wrong and want to limit negative exposure.

We need to go back to putting an 'x' in a box and counting by hand...even optical scans or something that is harder to tamper with and can be checked easily.

It sends the machine into 'Manual Mode' and you can cast as many votes for your guy (or the other guy, if you want to make it look like he cheated)

Do they charge for that service?

We need to go back to putting an 'x' in a box and counting by hand...even optical scans or something that is harder to tamper with and can be checked easily.

I don't think we americans would like that either, given our current McDonalds' mindset...we get pissed off when we don't get our cheeseburger in 2 minutes...and we seem to want to know who's winning the election before it's even started/finished (e.g. Zogby polls, exit polls, etc).


Not to mention that we really don't have the work force to do it all by hand. Most election officials are volunteers, and from what I've heard (and noticed in my personal experience), they tend to be elderly, and there's less and less every year. Maybe we could 'force' high school kids to get involved in the process? Make it a requirement for graduation?

Of course, I'm skeptical of pretty much any voting system; I tend to think that ballots can be tampered with just as easily. It's really about who scans the ballots, looks at the ballots, evaluates if the chad is 'hanging' or 'dangling' or 'dimpled'. I tend to think that if someone wants to cheat, and gets themselves in that position of authority, then they're going to cheat for their guy or gal, regardless of the ballot medium...

I don't think we americans would like that either, given our current McDonalds' mindset...we get pissed off when we don't get our cheeseburger in 2 minutes...and we seem to want to know who's winning the election before it's even started/finished (e.g. Zogby polls, exit polls, etc).
There isnt a constitutional requirement that elections be likable, there is a requirement that they be free and fair, so if there is some conflict between 'likeable' and 'free and fair' it seems that going with free and fair is best practise.

Not to mention that we really don't have the work force to do it all by hand.
But you could have the workforce if the resouces spent on electronic voting technologies was redirected. Countries with smaller income per capita (than the US) manage to deal with the costs of paying electoral workers, I see no inherent barrier to the US doing the same.

Most election officials are volunteers, and from what I've heard (and noticed in my personal experience), they tend to be elderly, and there's less and less every year. Maybe we could 'force' high school kids to get involved in the process? Make it a requirement for graduation?
Perhaps, although forcing someone to participate and having their negative attitude manifest in intentional disruption isnt necessarily a good move. It would be better to hire election workers who count the ballots in public and whose count is subject to challange by those members of the public who do choose to scrutinise the ballot counting. This was managable for the US in the past. There are more voters now, that is true, but then there are also more people to employ, more tax-payers resourcing the elections and more 'members of the public' to act as scrutineers. There is no obvious reason for supposing that the 'effort per voter' is necessarily greater just because there are more voters.

Of course, I'm skeptical of pretty much any voting system; I tend to think that ballots can be tampered with just as easily. It's really about who scans the ballots, looks at the ballots, evaluates if the chad is 'hanging' or 'dangling' or 'dimpled'. I tend to think that if someone wants to cheat, and gets themselves in that position of authority, then they're going to cheat for their guy or gal, regardless of the ballot medium...
I dont disagree about the determination of some cheaters, however I believe that the greater the scope and opportunity for cheating the greater the indicident of cheating and I firmly believe that black box voting increases the scope and opportunities for cheating when compared to 'tick the box' paper and pen ballots.