Reuters seems to already be giving it a brush off:

"These machines are vulnerable to attack. That's the bad news," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

"The good news is that we know how to reduce the risks and the solutions are within reach," Waldman said.

The only way to reduce the risks I have seen is to not use them - period!

Remember, we demand FULL CONFIDENCE.

Not "tweaks to glitches" or incremental improvements.

It's easy to get lost in process arguments. But that's not our role. We must demand confidence in all processes.

Our demand puts the burden back where it belongs.

Check out what the "blogs" of 1988 were saying (link here).

You can shock the hell out of the electronic election machine audience with these quotes from a 1988 official report:

4.13 Summary Of Problem Types

4.13.1 Insufficient Pre-election Testing
4.13.2 Failure to Implement an Adequate Audit Trail
4.13.3 Failure to Provide for a Partial Manual Recount
4.13.4 Inadequate Ballots or Ballot-Reader Operation
4.13.5 Inadequate Security and Management Control
4.13.6 Inadequate Contingency Planning
4.13.7 Inadequate System Acceptance Procedures

...

Concern had been heightened by a series of articles published in the summer of 1985 in the New York Times. The articles cited statements by two computer experts reporting that a computer program widely used for vote-tallying was vulnerable to tampering. Several elections were identified in which losing candidates claimed that it would be possible to fraudulently alter the computer programs that were used in their contests.

(link here, bold added).

For decades the same obvious things have been revealed and the same obvious nothing has been done about it.

Keep the faith baby, because that is the real system. Faith in the system. Blind faith.

There's a poll on Lou Dobbs RIGHT NOW... on if we think the evoting machines should be disallowed... go to www.loudobbs.com

Lou Dobbs Poll as of this moment.

Do you believe that e-voting machines should be disallowed until their integrity can be assured?
Yes 98% 9194 votes
No 2% 192 votes
Total: 9386 votes

THEY'RE GETTING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#4
Thanks, Robert. I just voted in the Lou Dobbs poll. Results now:

Yes 98% 9582 votes
No 2% 206 votes

And Lou Dobbs himself finally appeared to be building up a head of steam! 'Spose it's catching??

Not only does Lou Dobbs get it, but I saw this on their sister channel. They led with this story. I went to vote at Lou Dobbs for the poll, its now 97% to 3%. Who in the hell are those 3% of Americans who trust these machines. They must be those morans(morons) that post here to try and educate us. hahaha

Bluebear2 #1

Michael Waldman said:

"The good news is that we know how to reduce the risks and the solutions are within reach,"

Hey Waldman! REDUCE THIS!

Sounds like ole Henry KissKiss saying "Peace is at hand."

If there's one thing that stops the trolls from calling us "moonbats" and "crazy libs," it's a poll showing that 98% of the public agrees with us.

Remember when the trolls called us "two-percenters?" That's exactly what they are now.

As a computer professional and someone that FULLY understands the potential for abuse in computers, it's MY opinion that there should be NO MACHINES involved in our voting system. There is no need for it, and it brings a HUGE number of potential problems/abuses.

Even when they say "we have now closed ALL 'security breaches' ", they WON'T say "and we know for 100% certian that there is no malicious code introduced by the company who made the machine".

Paper ballots, hand counted on CCTV and broadcast to local cable/tv stations. It's not like we don't have the channels with 70+ channels in the basic cable lineups in most places (or sattelite).

The story made it into the back page of the Oregonian today but they water it down so much no wonder the public does not care.

Dave K, Maybe this is why they water it down ?
Link

Using corrupt software to switch votes from one "candidate to another is the easiest way to attack all three systems. A would-be hacker would have to overcome many hurdles to do this, the report says, but none "is insurmountable...."

What hurdles..? Some one witnessing "a would be hacker" changing the software...? "Not insurmountable"..like taking the computers home where a "would be hacker" could change the software "with out being seen"??

Dave K (#13):

THE OREGONIAN has a horrible record of covering the issue of election fraud. That's why I cancelled my subscription two years ago. I just re-subscribed for a week to get a free $25 gift card (that they dared to ask me to give back) and then cancelled again after 7 days (nice profit of $19). I recommend the subscribe and cancel process to anybody --- it's well worth the time and serves them right for failing to deliver on their promise of actually being a newspaper.

And I told them (twice) that the reason I cancelled is because they don't cover the issues that matter to me, or bury them.

Charlie L
Portland, OR
(Where 100% of our paper, mailed-in ballots are counted on ES&S or Sequoia machines (using secret code they won't share) and the only thing between us and 51%-49% Republican wins in every major race is the most stand-up and honest SoS in the USA --- Bill Bradbury)

As a computer professional and someone that FULLY understands the potential for abuse in computers, it's MY opinion that there should be NO MACHINES involved in our voting system. There is no need for it, and it brings a HUGE number of potential problems/abuses.

RIGHT ON, Savanster!

Floridiot #14

Great article! When did you find that?

I don't know Larry,a couple of days ago, just mulling around on google
I have a few yet to be put out there, just not so many at a time, people get tired of reading after a while