Guest Blogged by John Gideon, VotersUnite.Org
As I briefly reported in Friday night’s “Daily Voting News” a New Jersey Superior Court Judge has ruled that a court-ordered Princeton University report critical of the state’s Sequoia Advantage DRE (touch-screen) voting machines could be released to the public. The only stipulation was that four paragraphs and a number of appendices were to be redacted.
The 158-page report [PDF] was released publicly on Friday afternoon warning, among other things, that:
- The lost votes during New Jersey’s Super Tuesday elections “were caused by two different programming errors on the part of Sequoia”
- “New Jersey should not use any version of the AVC Advantage that it has not actually examined with the assistance of skilled computer-security experts.”
- “The AVC Advantage’s susceptibility to installation of a fraudulent vote-counting program is far more than an imperfection: it is a fatal flaw.”
- “The AVC Advantage is too insecure to use in New Jersey.”
Before the Princeton report was even released, however, Sequoia Voting Systems issued a press statement [PDF] and a scathing response to the Princeton report. The Sequoia response, all 19 pages, is a strongly worded attack on the Princeton computer scientists and their motives, but fails to respond at all to, perhaps, the most crucial point in the devastating Princeton report…
One paragraph is typical of the language of Sequoia’s response report:
But while Sequoia was busy throwing darts at the Princeton research team, culled from computer scientists and security experts from around the world, and calling their motives into question, the voting machine company seems to have forgotten to mention something in their response. Something very important.
As previously reported by The BRAD BLOG (
Sequoia’s response goes through the Princeton report section by section, sub-section by sub-section but when they get to Section VI — and specifically sub-section 56 where the Princeton team discusses the specific failures of the machines to count the voters votes accurately — Sequoia is silent. No comments.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), Section 301(a)(5), requires that the vote-counting error rate of each voting system used in federal elections must comply with the 2002 Voluntary Voting Systems Standards. It does not matter whether the system, as pointed out by Sequoia several times in their response, was tested and certified to the 1990 standards or the 2002 standards. Federal law requires that for operation in an election, the allowable error rate is 1 error in 10,000,000 ballot lines (0.00001%).
It appears that Sequoia has no arguments to respond to the failure of their voting system to accurately count votes; a failure that is a violation of federal law.
I know of no other industry where such an egregious error rate would be tolerated. The white noise of Sequoia’s response is just so much chaff to get attention from the obvious…that being their machines FAIL.
It’s called, Attacking the messenger.
If we had a non fascist media.. never mind, what’s the point, I sound like I am rambling again.
The other industry is corruption in government, they work hand in hand behind the scenes.
I don’t know really what to think. I have read both reports and Sequoia seems to point out the key is that these machines are protected by procedure. The simple fact still remains that perfection isn’t reachable.
I am not sure where you can describe these machines as Failed? Red team attacks can overcome any system in any area of computer science. If these systems are protected as you would protect paper ballots, then what would the issue be? There seems to be a trend on this website of anti computers yet this website is hosted on, non the less computers. Propoganda in its wide variety of forms is what seems to be the deciding factor on situations of this accord. The squecky wheel system seems to be more harmfull than good. We need to learn to stop talking and start listening.
If these systems are in place due to inconsistencies in paper ballots then what is the solution? To go back to paper ballots? WHAT? Seems to be just more propoganda. Maybe you say your for election integrity but really want paper back so that you can outsmart the system, because you can not do so with computers in play.
Tell you the truth this all stinks like horse shit
Prove that there is a problem or shut the fuck up. What if’s are not probable cause. Whats possible and whats probable are not one in the same. Bumps in the road are inevitable, the key is to find diagnose and fix these bumps in a timely manner.
I am not a computer expert, but even I can see that Sequoia chose cheap off the shelf components that are easy to reprogram. For “undecided” to say Brad is “anti-computer” shows that “undecided” doesn’t know anything about computers. The hacking that Princeton describes is simpler than writing a computer virus. This kind of unsecure system should never have been incorporated into a voting machine. Sequoia didn’t even take the simple precaution of soldering in the eprom to prevent hackers from walking up to an unattended machine and popping it out. People should not be put off by the length of the report — it is non-technical, easy to read, and very informative.
“The skills and methods we used to create this program are those available to many thousands of computer programmers with a bachelors degree equivalent education in computer science.â€
These academics are being awfully conservative. You don’t need a “bachelor’s degree in computer science” – just a few courses in assembly language programming and the Z80 chip, which is much less complicated than the processor in a standard PC. Or the equivalent in self-instruction.
Undecided, you say ‘go back to paper ballots?’ Absolutely, paper with a check-off vote and count them on site in public. I helped preside over several elections for a fraternal organization and that worked just fine- over 15 years of voting and not one complaint or grumble about the process and no taint of vote rigging opportunities. People may not have always liked the outcome of a vote but the integrity of the vote was NEVER a matter of question or concern.
‘Prove that there is a problem or shut the fuck up.’ Please read the other articles on this blog (or read about the same problems elsewhere) dealing with first person accounts of vote flipping in TN and WV. There, that’s your problem. I checked my state (MO) log of complaints after the 2006 election and there were two complaints of vote flipping and two complaints of vote slamming- a poll worker (Republican) commandeering a voting machine and voting repeatedly for Republicans. There were other complaints about broken machines, prohibitively long lines due to a lack of machines and a host of other problems many specific to the machines.
No one here is anti-tech from what I’ve read here; they’re/we’re anti-election fraud and pro-election integrity.
Hacking in voting is not knew but no body is taking care for applying a transparent voting system which is must for survival of democracy. There must be remedy for it.
Beat Long Poll Lines with Absentee Ballots from StateDemocracy.org
Many state and local election officials are encouraging voters to use Absentee Ballots to avoid the long lines and delays expected at the polls on November 4th due to the record-breaking surge in newly registered voters.
Voters in most states still have time to obtain an Absentee Ballot by simply downloading an official application form available through http://www.StateDemocracy.org, a completely FREE public service from the nonprofit StateDemocracy Foundation.
Read More: http://us-2008-election.blogspo...-absentee.html
Wow thanks I feel special. I wasn’t attacking anyone. My point is strictly one of rational. There are plenty of ways to make a computer system more transparent. Paper in all my imagination is not even close to a logical answer. Sure in your controlled environment paper works!! But so do computers in their controlled environment. Thank You.
How about we call on a red team attack against paper ballots!! LOL Makes you think doesn’t it. No people in the room just paper experts. Computers don’t have people to protect them in a lab environment so paper ballots should also be subject to the same discriminatory attack.
The fact still remains that the monies are not there to provide the outcome you want. Period!! 85 Billion to corrupt businesses but your vote isn’t that important anyways. With the electoral college in place and not a popular vote. Whats the difference anyways. My point was that your chewing on the wrong end of the stick. This page holds an attitude towards a personal vendeta against voting system companies.
The free market is established to provide jobs outside of government controll. By the people. These companies are strictly there to provide assistance in providing a service to the people. The counties are responsible for the outcome of their elections not the vendors who provide them with equipment to do so. If the equipment has issues than force the resolve of these issues and move on.
I am here to tell you that transparency as you like to call it, is very well within reach with computer and hardware combinations. Nothing new under the sun, its about how its done. Paper is just to easy to decieve. Work at a solution not a deletion. The political parties that control our government would be very satisfied when you achieve debunking voting so they can elect your leaders for you. QUOTE me on that. Time will tell.
Undecided, have you read any of the voluminous articles on this website about trying to work with the eac or the lone certifying expert? Obviously not, or you wouldn’t be attacking us for recognizing that at least with paper ballots you get the most direct record of a voters intended vote, and have something to actually recount if need be. Sure, safe guards need to be in place for the chain of custody of the ballots, but don’t accuse us of throwing in for paper ballots without having tried to deal with the proprietary source code companies and the multilayered bureaucracy of appointed not elected officials! Ever hear of Ockham’s Razor? 🙂
http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor