A New Role for Defense Contractors?: Counting Votes

By The Editorial Board

There has long been good reason to worry about Diebold voting machines. Many are “black box” electronic machines that do not produce paper records, so voters have to accept the results they report on faith.

Diebold, however, has not inspired much faith. It has been accused of illegally using uncertified software on its voting machines, exposing elections to possible tampering, and of making glitchy machines that misrecord votes.

Then there’s the little matter of the company’s CEO signing a letter before the 2004 election — in which his machines would be counting many of the votes — saying that he was committed to helping deliver Ohio to President Bush.

(The Onion has a hilarious video up on Youtube, a mock news report about Diebold accidently releasing the results of the 2008 presidential election before the voting occurs. View it here.)

Now, there’s a new reason to worry that Diebold plays such a large role in presidential elections. United Technologies has made an unsolicited $3 billion bid to take over Diebold.

United Technologies is one of the nation’s leading defense contractors, which means it has an enormous corporate interest in who gets elected President.

When we heard the news, we couldn’t help thinking of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous warning, in his farewell address, about the dangerously increasing influence of the “military-industrial complex.” (Watch a video of a key part of the speech here.)

Eisenhower told the American people that

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Given his blunt warning, we suspect that Eisenhower would be appalled to learn that a defense contractor could be counting the votes in the next presidential election.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Bob in Oregon March 3, 2008 · 9:39 pm

As Stalin is reported to have said, “It doesn’t matter who votes, but who counts the votes.” United Technologies couldn’t be any less trustworthy if it was a front-company for the Bush warmongering Republicans — oooh, I guess it is. And we all thought it couldn’t get any worse than Diebold. I suppose that’s what we get for doing our own thinking without consulting K. Rove, et al.

steve weir March 4, 2008 · 12:19 pm

At least for California, we have a paper trail for all ballots cast. Having said that, once we certify the results of the Feb. 5 Primary (March 4th is the deadline), a neutral party ought to do a clear headed, data driven analysis of what an election looks like when we return to paper as our primary voting method. I suggest that most of the problems associated with the California Presidential Primary are paper based. It also appears that the Electronic Machines (required for accessibility purposes) performed extremely well.

seo March 4, 2008 · 1:31 pm

The problem isn’t who’s making the machines. It’s who’s setting the standards for the machines, and who’s running the vote count. If you have crooks like Blackwell in Ohio, or Harris in Florida, they’ll find a way to rig the election, even if it’s done by a show of hands.
SEO

Ralph March 4, 2008 · 2:04 pm

There is no substitute for a paper ballot with an X properly marked beside a name that can be recounted at will until the results are accepted by all parties.

The people of America have allowed this charade to go on too long.

Many countries watch the American election now just to marvel that anyone would believe a machine telling them who their leaders are going to be.

America needs to grow up and get back to basics.

THOMAS POPE March 4, 2008 · 6:22 pm

Acidently?

Wuzzat?

A Reading March 5, 2008 · 4:22 am

In Britain paper ballots are universal. The vast majority are marked and put in sealed boxes at the polling station. Postal ballots are allowed for some people but must be accompanied by a signed and witnessed certificate that the ballot was sent in by the person for whom that ballot paper was authorised.
At the count the counting staff are watched by all the candidates and their appointed representatives so that there can be no miscounts. This I believe is the way to avoid virtually all possibility of cheating since the watchers will ensure that no ballot is misallocated to another candidate.

Tom Courbat at SAVE R VOTE March 5, 2008 · 7:39 am

I would like to correct a factual misstatement by Steve Weir who is the President of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials (CACEO). He stated, “… the Electronic Machines (required for accessibility purposes)…”

The federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA), written by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, DOESN’T require electronic voting machines for anyone (it allows for mechanical ballot marking devices for disabled), but the four major voting machine companies who paid Jack to pass the $4 billion law, have sold machines on the premise that HAVA DOES require them.

Let me repeat, e-voting is NOT required by HAVA or any other law or regulation. It is a $4 billion scam foisted upon us after the “hanging chads” in FL in 2000. Now every study conducted concludes the same thing – the machines security is so weak that a high school student could penetrate it in a heartbeat and elections can be rigged without leaving a trace.

And the machines are left out for up to 10 days before an election in unguarded locations (called “sleepovers”) where anyone with the desire could steal them or compromise them with a vote-rigging virus.

Mr. Weir makes two other unsubstantiated statements in his brief entry.

1. “I suggest that most of the problems … with the …primary are paper based.” He offers no substantiation for such a statement.
2. “It also appears that the electronic machines…performed extremely well.” Again, a statement with no substantiation.

I have been monitoring elections on the ground at the grass-roots level for over three years now. I have seen numerous problems with e-voting machines from compromises in the chain of custody to loss of voting cartridges to machines flipping votes from one candidate to another.

And without paper ballots (not paper trails that can be printed with whatever the virus commands it to print) that are hand-counted in the precincts, we can never know for sure that what our friendly Registrar of Voters tells us is the correct count, actually is.

Anne March 5, 2008 · 12:44 pm

Why can’t we chuck the whole charade and institute a one man, one number, one vote system where your social security number is the i.d. rather than your name. Voting takes place via your own computer or one, carefully inspected and overseen, at the local library or Post Office. Using Social Security numbers, since they are easier to cross-check than names, would avoid the confusion of duplicate names and would make it easier to weed out the dead,the felons and non-citizens. Since everyone has a SS# there would be no more game playing at the polls where the very old or poor are asked to provide additional documentation they may not have. And think of the money saved by not having to invest in voting machines!

I also believe that it’s time to get rid of the caucus system. It has certainly outlived its usefulness and gives me the feeling that my vote is subject to back-room deals.

Margalo March 5, 2008 · 12:49 pm

Paper ballots are good, but there is no security on the counting software. Some states, including the recently passed bill in Oregon, do not require a percentage of all votes to be tallied by hand to check against the computer count but use a random count, which is much less reliable. I am a co-founder of the Institute for Fair Elections, and we have been monitoring elections since 1992. We have extensive data nationally on registration fraud. Because the Dept of Justice is not holding Secretaries of State accountable for clean lists, despite the Motor Voter and HAVA requirements, there are hundreds of thousands of duplicate, nonpersons (pets, Mickey Mouse,) and dead people in every election who vote, particularly by mail. The citizens of the US seem to be willfully blind to these facts, or they would rise up in huge numbers and demand a clean elections system.

Dan Henderson March 5, 2008 · 1:45 pm

Diebold’s sins go way beyond those mentioned in the article. A Diebold programmer was instructed to insert code in the machines which allows flipping the results with a sequence of two secret mouse clicks. Please watch the chilling documentary Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections (//www.uncountedthemovie.com).

Diebold’s response to the furor over their decimation of the electoral process? They changed the name of their voting machine division to Premier Election Solutions. The Wikipedia article on them is instructive.

If anyone thinks paper ballots are a guarantee of free and fair elections, take a look at what happened in this year’s New Hampshire primary:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

But, as the maker of Uncounted told me at a screening I saw this week, at least with paper ballots it *requires* a conspiracy to invalidate an election. With voting machines, all it takes is one person and less than 60 seconds.

Bob Kroshefsky March 5, 2008 · 2:35 pm

I have now worked seven elections as a trouble-shooter in my home county in Ohio. In those seven elections, we have been using ES&S iVotronic DREs. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no untoward results or questions on the veracity of the elections. However, we are a “small potatoes” county with only about 30,000 registered voters. It’s not worth a self-respecting conspiracy’s time to mess with us. That’s probably not the case with the “prize” counties in Ohio.

Nevertheless, while I am satisfied with the performance of the DREs, I now agree with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner that they have got to go. She is driven by the lack of security presently inherent in the devices, a position on which I initally was skeptical and am now coming to recognize. Rather, I say they have to go based upon practicality. It simply takes too damn long to open the devices in the morning, process the voters throughout the day, and then close the devices at night. In short, the logistics and efficiency of using DREs are horrible. Optical scan paper ballots are the way to go.

Optical scan ballots presently have some of the same security issues as do the DREs because they are counted electronically. However, I believe these issues can be overcome because of the overall simplicity of the paper ballot counting process, which makes vetted, open source operating software a reasonable possibility. In short, today’s counters might be hackable, but security methods can be devised to overcome that. And, as mentioned by others, having the actual voter’s ballot for future review is ideal.

I also think that precinct ballot CHECKING (for over- and under-voting) is desirable. I have yet to settle upon a position regarding precinct ballot counting. Right now, I believe that centralized counting is preferable.

molinmi March 5, 2008 · 11:39 pm

Hard to beleive…the USA, hot bed of democracy and freedom,where every vote (should)count, is considering to allow the wolf into the barn (again)with the expected results (2000 & 2004).
How hypocritical to then demand to “monitor” elections going on in other countries to ensure their integrity. The USA has no moral standing to show in this respect.

Ron Watt March 6, 2008 · 2:28 am

As a former election department employee, (one who was trained by the De La Rue Corporation, parent company of Sequoia Voting Systems) I can speak with some authority as to the vulneabilities of the electronic voting systems. I along with others have proven that theses systems do not have security controls in place that can guarantee each vote will be counted and accurately recorded. Architecturaly the current available systems cannot be modified to have in place a security system that will provide that guarantee. Mr. Weir is aware of these failings but chooses to overlook them. Fortunately, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, along with officials in other states have decertified these electronic systems. This nation needs to be made aware that elections have been and might continue to be literally stolen when conducted with electronic systems that are so easily compromised and manipulated. The money behind these systems and the people like Steven Weir who tout them must be called to task.
Ron Watt
Election Integrity Advocate

Michelle March 6, 2008 · 9:45 am

I would also like to add my comments in response to Steven Weir, head of the California Association of County Elections Officials. I don’t think that all election problems have the same weight or the same effect or potential effect. To say that looking back at the CA primary that most of the issues will be about paper is really trying to put a spin on the issue. Votes counted accurately is the primary goal because without that the rest doesn’t matter.

In the last election in California, the February 2008 Primary,The 3 major disenfranchisement issues were:
1. The estimated 49,000 double bubble uncounted ballots in LA county.
2. The 36,000 Vote by Mail (VBM) ballots received after election day.
3. Many counties,including Alameda and Santa Clara, ran out of ballots.

First there is the problems in LA County, one county alone that is larger than many states This is a ballot design issue. There are ballot design issues whether you use paper or electronic. Any ballot design that is not Intuitively Obvious is going to fail. And this one did, in a major way.

If you are a Vote By Mail voter, if your ballot comes in after election day, it is not counted. So you are supposed to somehow Intuit how long it will take to get to the county by mail. How the US mail service handles the delivery of your ballot is out of your control – how can you know when to send it?
So this is part a voter and voter education problem and part a total loss of chain of custody when you mail a ballot.

Finally, many precincts ran out of ballots. Although a full analysis of the causes is not available, there is much anecdotal evidence on
confusion by poll workers on procedures for handling VBM voters and provisionals. In San Mateo County there were reports of ballot printers that were not used to print more ballots. Where were the contingency plan for an election that everyone knew going into it was going to have record turnouts?

A colleague of mine cynically stated that whenever an election does not run smoothly the officials have a hierarchy of blame: first the voter,
second the pollworker, and third is an out of the ordinary event with this particular election. Never the elections official or the machines. But this is a new one – it’s that having paper, which has been used successfully for over a hundred years, is the problem.

–~–~———~–~—-~————~——-~–~—-~

Janet March 6, 2008 · 11:05 am

And isn’t the fellow running McCain’s campaign a lobbyist for United Technology? And won’t he now have interests in Diebold as well? Who is minding the store??

Martha Klems March 6, 2008 · 11:12 am

Does anyone else see possible problems with vote buying due to allowing voting by email and by mail?

Previously, though people could theoretically “buy” your vote, there was no way for them to verify that you actually cast your vote any particular way when you had to vote at the polling place. If you can vote over the internet or by mail, someone can stand over your shoulder and watch you cast your vote – then pay you.

Groups now spend millions of dollars on commercials trying to influence your vote. Think how much cheaper it would be for them to just buy it directly. It will happen.

Voting should be done at polling places on election day on paper ballots. Exceptions should only be made for those whose physical disabilities require
other accommodation.

Secure procedures for voting, securing ballots after the vote, and counting the vote are essential. Ballots must be preserved for possible recounts.

NO DRE’s are secure – and they make it easy to automate massive or targeted vote stealing. The
security problems with our current DRE’s have been well document by Computer Scientists.Even “honest” machines are subject to malfunctions that will cause votes to be lost. Paper is the ONLY secure ballot medium.

I will happily wait as long as it takes for paper ballots to be counted – in the open – where the
counting can be observed by any interested party.

scott March 6, 2008 · 11:25 am

PLEASE encourage your elected officials to ensure a fair & accurate voting system. Our democracy certainly hinges on it.

Gail Work March 6, 2008 · 11:35 am

These comments are in response to Steven Weir, head of the California Association of County Elections Officials. He claims that paper ballots are the problem however most voters PREFER paper ballots after learning about the lack of security from machines run on secret, proprietary software.
(Paper trails are a poor alternative to ballots as the results are usually not verified)

The voters (of all parties) don’t want privatized elections or processes that are not transparent enough to assure the accuracy of the vote. If Mr. Weir has his way there would be NO public input, no paper to deal with, and no observers to monitor “his” elections. These elections belong to the voters, not to Mr. Weir. He is a public servant, not the king of elections.

Please see the security tests run by our CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen, all machines failed to provide election results that We The People can be confident in. //www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm

For the sake of our democracy we can never let the likes of Mr. Weir decide that the ease of their jobs is more important than an accurate vote count. He has been a strong advocate for voting machines for many years, even despite the extensive research showing lack of security. He cannot be trusted to represent a secure vote and the voters choice for paper and polls.

Our next challenge: forced vote by mail. This would eliminate transparency, break the chain of custody and would represent loss of control to voters.

Vote paper at the polls — use ’em or lose ’em!

Stuart Schy March 6, 2008 · 1:08 pm

Steve Weir, President of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials (CACEO)has been a steadfast and influential supporter of electronic voting machines and seems to think that paper ballots are not as reliable. He cites that electronic voting is needed by disabled persons and is mandated by HAVA. Here are some facts about the use of electronic voting machines in Sonoma County, California: With about 240,000 registered voters and 350 Hart InterCivic eSlate voting machines deployed:
June 2006 – 165 votes cast
November, 2006 – 225 votes cast
February, 2008 – 99 votes cast
The cost of purchasing, testing, maintaining, warehousing and transporting these machines is over $20,000 per vote cast.
I know some disabled people who have no problem marking a paper ballot, some who vote absentee, and some who can’t use any type of machine and require help by a caregiver. So HAVA’s main contribution seems to be the enrichment of voting machine companies and the ability for interested parties to utilize computer vulnerabilities to achieve their own ends.

Hand marked and hand counted paper ballots, counted at the precincts by multi-partisan teams is our best bet to eliminate the gaming of our elections.

SusanMarie Weber March 6, 2008 · 2:05 pm

Paper Ballot voting is the only solution to meet voting standards:

1. Observation: Anyone can watch the counting when the paper ballot is counted.

2. Verification: Count the ballot at the precinct BEFORE the ballots leave. This can help prevent fraud from missing or altered ballots. Witnesses present all day verify that elections are done properly.

3. Transparency: We need to stop having programmable black boxes count the vote, tell us the totals, and then assure us that it has checked itself and everything is fine. Shades of “2001, A Space Odyssey”, when HAL assured Dave not to worry.

4. Excitement: Counting ballots at precincts directly after the election will bring back interest in elections. Voters will hang around precincts to find out how their neighborhood voted. No need to wait for hours or days to have a count released by Registrars of Voters.

Mikki March 6, 2008 · 2:23 pm

I don’t understand why this is even being debated. Oklahoma has a paper and electronic voting system. If the machine breaks down or there is a reason to recheck the votes you can count the paper votes.

Why aren’t the other states using this system?

FLO March 6, 2008 · 3:39 pm

PAPER………

beth March 7, 2008 · 3:48 pm

God bless President Eisenhower; not only did he warn us about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, he also warned us against getting involved in land wars in Asia.

Donald Goldmacher March 7, 2008 · 4:27 pm

As a CA voter,I would like to take issue with Mr. Steven Weir’s comments on how things went here on election day. His comments are indirectly aimed at our Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who severely restricted the use of electronic voting machines as a result of a top to bottom review conducted by computer scientists from the University of CA. That study showed that the machines are highly vulnerable to hacking and manipulation of the software that counts our votes ever so secretly. As a consequence, CA is moving toward the use of paper ballots that are being counted by optical scanners. We thus will have an opportunity to examine the paper ballots cast in any election that is really close or looks suspicious, such as Sarasota County, FL in 2006 when over 13,000 votes cast on electronic machines appear to have been lost, and there were no paper ballots to check.

Mr. Weir of course failed to mention the debacle in LA county because of a poorly designed ballot by that county’s registrar, who Mr. Weir obviously wished to shield from any possible criticism.

Diebold’s record as a voting machine company is atrocious. Why should we expect a defense contractor to do any better?

Harry Lehmann March 7, 2008 · 8:24 pm

Tom Courbat, whose thorough remarks on this issue were posted above, is a member of the Board of Directors of Tangible Ballot Initiative Inc., the California citizens group which is fighting for paper ballots as the legal ballot of record. Please visit //www.tangibleballot.org.