Since Diebold is making hackable voting machines.....

[Andy_Stephenson]

using Microsoft bug ridden software.

Why don't we form a corp...Write our own voting software and using off the shelf parts build a better mousetrap? Of course it would be open source. We make money on selling the machine...not the software. I wonder how Diebold licences it's software? I know MS will make bank on the licenceses for Access. I know in these times of tight state budgets if a local election board is faced with a double whammy of high dollar software and machine or, a machine with free open source software. They are going to choose the freebie IMHO. This scheme would cut Diebold off at the pass. If I am crazy...and this idea sucks...tell me and I will dutup.

Or make me the sales man and we can make a fortune. Just dont ask me to program...I hate it...bores me to tears!

[section321]

1. The best thing would be for people to hack the machines and...

register millions of votes per precinct. Then, when they tally the votes and realize that 85 billion Americans voted, they have to throw out the results and that cat will be out of the bag, just like the uranium....


BUSH KNEW!

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. Ah but hacking a voting machine would be

Considered a terrorist act and could get you sent to gitmo or one of the camps and held incommunicado.

I prefer a legal solution.

As should you.


:hi:
Peace

[acmavm]

2. I have a novel way of counting the votes, LET PEOPLE DO IT!!

And have Amnesty International (or whoever) come and monitor the election tallies.

[matt819]

11. Independent election observers

I've been calling here for the better part of a year for independent election observers from overseas and from the Carter Center. The Carter Center and dozens of NGOs have vast experience monitoring elections abroad, and we can use those services here. They will be on site in locations that are expected to be or have been problems in the past. They can monitor poll results with independent exit polls. Is it a big job? Absolutely. It will require thousands of people and a coordinated operations effort. But it is the only way we can be sure that the election will be as free of fraud as we can.

As for the hacking part, I've suggested here -- and I'd be interested to know Bev Harris's stand on this -- that someone set up a polling station using the Diebold or other computerized voting systems. Then run the test, which would include comparisons to concurrent paper ballot voting, possibly exit polls (to generate some sort of sample comparison to the final, computerized results), and hacking, both "internally" (using the so-called inside person who can modify the software) to external hacking via modem or other telecommunications interception.

Surely the funding can be found among international organizations and/or wealthy dems to set this up.

[htuttle]

13. Carter Center already said No

Somebody asked them already after the 2000 election.

Embarrassingly enough, the US election system isn't up to the minimum standards they require before they'll observe an election. The problems I remember include: Lack of consistent voting laws, no nationwide voting hours guidelines, lack of non-partisan voting officials, and a few others.

[matt819]

26. I know they did

But I'm hoping they reconsider.

Your other points are taken. Amazing, isn't it?

[ParanoidPat]

4. Might be DUable....

....Can we incorporate as a 'non profit' organization and operate as a 'non governmental organization' (NGO)? :shrug:

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. It is worth a try....

and like I said...I am a salesman since I was a wee tot. If I can't sell it...no one can...I think it is DUable.

[ParanoidPat]

10. First step....

....
develop specifications based on real world requirements. :)

We need a list of everything that this system would have to do for it's intended design lifetime.
Why design in a requirement for future upgrades? :shrug:

Keep in mind there are two key parts to this system that should be kept entirely separated from one another functionally. The voting terminal and the reporting server.

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. I agree on keeping the

terminal and server seperate. Micros makes touch screen cash registers. I know I have one.

There are a multitude of touchscreens out there and off the shelf parts is what Diebold is using. So should we.

Paranoid...thanks for not saying this was a dumb idea.

[madrchsod]

6. something very simple......

call your local county officer in charge of elections and ask them if they can ceritfy that your vote will be counted on the voting machine and there is no way that your vote can be changed. then ask them if they have been informed that these systems can be hacked....should make for an interesting discussion...

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. We here in Washington are getting these heinous

Democracy thiefs. As are several places...There is a short window of opportunity to act. We must not let the system become completely subverted.

[Eloriel]

7. Ummmm, just remember you might have to promise

certain Secretaries of State that they'll win their elections.

:evilgrin:

Just joking. Sort of. I hope, but can't be sure.

Eloriel

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. I never make promises I cannot keep.

That would be a case. Besides if the people are involved at the grass roots...I really think this is a viable and good solution.

Am I crazy or could this work? It would take a lot of effort and software/hardware skills I don't have. I can write simple vb programs but it is MS Software.

[ParanoidPat]

19. Unix / Open Source....

Check the other thread about the system used in Australia. :)

http://www.elections.act.gov.au/EVACS.html#code

Thanks to scottxyz for the original post! :hi:

[Pale_Rider]

43. In Switzerland ...

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=1578202

Switzerland’s first vote via the Internet passed successfully, with considerable enthusiasm shown on Sunday in the town of Anières in canton Geneva.

But the vote has raised several questions about the future of democratic elections in Switzerland.
In particular, there are fears about the potential security risks of using the Internet to register a confidential vote.

According to the authorities, a computer hacker working by trial and error has a one in five billion chance of getting into the system used in Anières.

The system consisted of a mixture of pass codes and personal questions designed to build a sufficient defence against anyone trying to access a voter’s details illegally.

Each registered citizen received a 16-digit pass code in the post, which they needed to access the system. They then had to input another pass code and answer a number of personal questions before they were able to vote.

To ensure that hackers could not access the system, the authorities in Geneva asked Hacknet, a company that uses hackers to test online security systems, to try to enter it.

[termite]

12. Gbnc

I think your idea is just fine. But you know I support most of your hair-brained crackpot ideas. But I admit things usually work out for the best. I married the male "Lucy"...Trust me on this.

Love ya.
"T"

[Andy_Stephenson]

14. When did you post this?

Where are you? Male "Lucy"? Aye carumba!

:loveya:

[greatauntoftriplets]

33. termite!!!!!!

How the hell are ya? Long time no see.

[msmcghee]

16. There's no reason to use an operating system.

This is such a simple application it should be coded as a complete ap and whatever comm code is needed can simply be included as function calls. The whole thing should take no more than 25k of object code. In fact, I can't imagine why it should compile to more than 10k but there might be things that it needs to do that I don't know about. Straight C, open source, should be used for visibility. A separate operating system for this is just silly.

Windows CE provides:

* Support for secure and scalable networking. (Not desirable or needed)

* Enhanced real-time processing. (not needed at all)

* Faster performance. (not needed at all)

* Richer multimedia and Web browsing capabilities. (Not desirable and not needed at all)

* Greater interoperability with personal computers, servers, Web services, and devices. (Not desirable and not needed at all)

Just my 2 cents.

[Andy_Stephenson]

17. Want to write the program?

I am looking up touchscreens right now.
http://www.touchscreens.com/aquapad-2k.html

[msmcghee]

18. Sure

Give me an accurate list of functional and certification requirements. That's all I need.

[Andy_Stephenson]

21. You and pat decide that...

I am not a programmer...just a salesman.

[msmcghee]

23. I just re-ead Pat's posts in this thread

He's right on track as far as I'm concerened.

[msmcghee]

20. On second thought . .

. . from what I've seen here at DU there are some very capable programmers who are more current than I am, I'm sure. But I know I could do the job as I've had a lot of experience with real time control and data montoring applications. I'm here if you need me.

[Capn Sunshine]

22. Excellent notion GBNC

now stay away from windows in tall buildings and small aircraft.
Is LINUX an option in this scheme?
:nuke:

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. Absolutely

MS software is prone to bugs as you know.

[msmcghee]

25. Linux and Windows are designed to support everything from

video games to large data bases to word processing to screen savers to web browsing to e-mail to . . . well, you get the idea. CE is a scaled down Windows operating system with real time capability - that means multitasking. That is not needed in this program and just complicates the code.

This is a simple counting program. The operator interface will consume most of the code (depending on how rich the ROM is that comes with the touchscreen) - plus some code for recieveing the names and offices information for each election and transmitting the results via modem.

Having an operating system that's designed to support a desktop computer with multitasking is an invitation to disaster. You want every bit of code to be there for the one purpose it was written for - and nothing else.

[htuttle]

27. There's slightly more to it than that

I'd advise starting with a stripped down Linux or BSD system.

One of the reasons is that I believe there are a number of regulations regarding accessibility, both for non-English speaking voters, and voters with various disabilities. With a Linux or BSD system as a starting point, you'd get a big head start on dealing with different character sets, generating an 'audio ballot', etc..

It would still be open source, and you could omit those parts of the OS that you didn't need.

Better yet, take a look at the open source system from Australia mentioned above as a starting point.

(and no, unfortunately I don't have time to work on this myself, other than the occasional, hopefully constructive, interjection).

[msmcghee]

29. You could be right about character sets and audio.

But from a systems standpoint it seems wrong to try to cover every possible situation in the code on every machine. Also character sets are just look up tables - unchanging data. I'm not sure how much of CE could be discarded - but a real-time multitasking kernel is typically at the heart of such systems - and would be difficult or impossible to disengage I think.

If it was my project - I'd insist on producing the simplest system possible on the first pass. That would solve 90% of the voting problems. The non-English reading/writing voters could perhaps use paper ballots for now. I don't know how audio ballots are handled right now but whatever that is it should suffice until several elections with several million ballots are counted with a simple version of the system

Then, as phase II you could carefully add features as necessary. You may decide to produce a simple machine for 90% of the voters and another version that can hadle multiple languages. But only a few of those would be needed out of the total. I'd keep the code separate - so the majority of machines would still have the simplest code possible.

Also, I believe too many projects like this go awry by trying to solve every aspect of a complex problem on the first try. I believe in an incremental approach. No matter how smart you are - you always learn a whole lot more about your problem after you try to solve it.

[ParanoidPat]

28. The source code file linked in post 19 is only 38K!

The complete zip of the .exe is 127K. :)

And it's Open Source! :evilgrin: Looks like a good start point for studying code requirements for our version.

[msmcghee]

30. That's seems strange to me.

Usually the source code for my programs is a larger file than the compiled code. I do include a lot of documentation - but C is very code efficient.

On edit: The compiled code is probably so large because of the OS resources included in it.

[ParanoidPat]

31. ..Sorry I just went back to the site and realized.

.....The Source .zip is 127K and the vacancy module is 38K. :evilfrown:
My mistake!

[jimmynochad]

32. There have been many that have tried before this

to make a voter verifiable system. Tru-Vote and Avante took two years to get their machines built and tested. Accupoll took even longer (they started out as WebTools Int.). What no one has mentioned is that no matter how good the machine you build is (all the power to y'all), you have to convince over 3000 counties to buy it. The lobbying power of the big four is so strong that the Ohio statewide RFP required that any bidders must have a minimum $1,000,000 in prior sales for the product that is being proposed to a single customer. That left out all of the start-ups from post 2000.

This is not a bucket of water on the campfire. I just want a part of the group to pull out some logs and make them into torches and lead us to the county and state offices and show them that they are rushing into disaster with their butts hanging out and their eyes closed.

The only problem with going off the shelf is the cost will be too high. Design it with COTS components but find a backer like Flextronics or JDSU to back the manufacturing. It will take about 450,000 machines to cover the US.

Also when designing the software, you will have to make 50 different versions because each state has their own versions about ballot rotation, straight party, recall, judicial recall, instant run off, cumulative, N of M, public questions, contest order, full face, etc.

Good luck.

[Andy_Stephenson]

34. But the voting act the new one I forget it's name...

Doesn't it require uniformity across the nation?

[jimmynochad]

35. Nope...just some simple rules

The uniformity is just in the state law that defines what a voter's intent is. No last minute dimple chad rulings. There is the after hours provisional, regular provisional, ADA requirements, and a few others that most machines already have. I mean the nitty gritty like the logic for a recall election which is not the same in every state. My educated guess (I have help on this one since I am not a programmer) is that the code on the voting machine to cover all US laws would be around 60K lines. I am told that is first pass educated guess from NSA programmer family member who lives and breathes politics.

[jimmynochad]

36. Help America Vote Act 2002 (HAVA) n/t

[Andy_Stephenson]

37. Thanks

[ParanoidPat]

38. Federal Voting Systems Standards...

Voting System Standards

On April 30, 2002, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) approved the Voting Systems Standards for release and publication. This document represents a three year effort by the FEC, it's Office of Election Adminstration, and election officials and administrators throughout the country. The Standards ensure that election equipment certified for purchase by participating states will be accurate, reliabile, and dependable.

Drafts of this document have been released for public comment twice, generating significant public interest and comment from a variety of interests including vendors, election officials, academics, technical experts, special interest advocacy groups, and concerned citizens. Many sections of the Standards have been revised to reflect issues raised by these comments.

The Standards are divided into two volumes. Volume I provides preformance standards and functional capabilities for voting systems that are seeking qualification. Volume II addresses documentation required to be submitted by the vendor prior to testing, the tests conducted by the Independent Test Authorities (ITA’s), and the products generated by the test process. Also included is an Overview that discusses the particular content of each Volume, and provides a background of the Standards process.

Overview Word
Volume I, Performance Standards
Section 1 - Introduction Word
Section 2 - Functional Capabilities Word
Section 3 - Hardware Word
Section 4 - Software Word
Section 5 - Telecommunications Word
Section 6 - Security Word
Section 7 - Quality Assurance Word
Section 8 - Configuration Management Word
Section 9 - Overview of Qualification Testing Word
Appendix A - Glossary Word
Appendix B - Applicable Documents Word
Appendix C - Usability Word
Volume II, Testing Standards
Section 1 - Introduction Word
Section 2 - Technical Data Package Word
Section 3 - Functionality Testing Word
Section 4 - Hardware Testing Word
Section 5 - Software Testing Word
Section 6 - System Integration Testing Word
Section 7 - CM & QA Testing Word
Appendix A - Qualification Test Plan Word
Appendix B - Qualification Test Report Word
Appendix C - Qualification Test Design Criteria Word

For public comments on the Draft Voting System Standards and other earlier documents visit the Draft Voting System Standards page.

:kick:

[jimmynochad]

39. That is the start...

After you read this 3 inch package, then you have to ask NIST for their changes. Then go to the IEEE working group meeting in Denver this month. They are beefing up the security and electronics specifications.

Then you go to each state for their rules and laws. An example is CA election law at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

Then you have to test at Wyle, Ciber, or Systest (which will take 6 months). Then you go in front of each state which can take from 6 hours to 6 months depending on the state and who sits on their testing board (Brit Williams types take a while). Then you have to wait for the Secretary of State to approve the system. Then you have to sell to the counties and or state. They have RFPs that take months to compete. Then you build them and finally up to three years later after delivery(like in OHIO) you will get all your money.

Can you finance 5 years of development and heavy lobbyists before you see the money? If so, I could use a loan...Going to sleep, have fun coding.

[ParanoidPat]

46. One down, 49 more to go!

Thanks! Anyone else have a link to their states election law? :shrug:

Please post it here! :evilgrin:

[BevHarris]

40. God-n-Bush-n-Cheney -- Thank you for a wonderful post

Of the people, by the people and for the people. THIS is what it's about.

We had an "interesting" day, and that's all I'm going to say.

:)

Stay tuned.

Bev Harris

[Andy_Stephenson]

41. Your quite welcome Bev

I am sure!

[loudsue]

42. In spite of the naysayers, GBNC....You sold me!!

I can't program and I can't sell.... but I can lead cheers and spread information!!! I think it's a great idea. We've GOT to get something done about the elections in the good ole USA. The repukes have taken the "US" out of USA!! I'm ready to DO something!

[scottxyz]

44. Talk in DC of overhauling FEC

Bear in mind there's lots of talk in Washington now about overhauling or even eliminating the FEC.

Don't know what to make of this...

http://news.google.com/news?q=FEC&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G&edition=&scoring=d

[jimmynochad]

45. The HAVA created two things

It created the Election Assistance Committee and it mandated that NIST take over the voting standards. The EAC info is in HAVA and also at FEC at http://www.fec.gov/hava/eac.htm. NIST is already gathering information about the new standards.