From the New York Times: How Design Can Save Democracy

…recently, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law issued a report outlining the importance of well-designed, easy to understand ballots.

Duh. And, I guess we’re giving up on electronic voting.

Two very important things: I have every confidence that the NH Primary results were correct and accurate, and, most importantly, unmolested. And, I’m also quite happy with them. But that doesn’t mean I’m not anxiously awaiting the results of the hand recount that Congressman Kucinich has requested.

Conspiracy theories abound, and Diebold is a despicable company worthy of general derision, but at least our AccuVote OS machines have paper ballots. The company says they’re the greatest thing (though they seem to have withdrawn them from the market in favor of their touch screen systems), but they’re easy to open, and the software is a complete unknown. Kucinich figures they’re all basically broken, and he may be right.

What I don’t believe, however…. What would really destroy me, is to learn that the people involved with our primary might have manipulated the results. For, despite their faults, these machines can’t throw elections on their own. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that there are people who might take advantage of these machines to do that, or that there’s such widespread fear that such people exist. Democracies are built on the character of their people, not their machines, and if there’s anything New Hampshire prides more than our primary, it’s our yankee honesty.

I’m not sure what to think of Richard Sambrook appearing to struggle to find a place for traditional journalism in the age of the internet, but the story’s worth a read.

David Weinberger [...] talked about the crisis in US journalism with failing trust in the big news organisations. He pointed out that Google now provided a news service with just an algorithm where there used to be a newsroom of dozens of people — and suggested algorithms were probably more reliable than journalists anyway! So if information is commodotised, and the public can tell their own stories, what’s the role for the journalist? I came up with three things — verification (testing rumour and clearing fog), explanation (context and background) and analysis (a Google search won’t provide judgement). And journalists still have the resources to go places and uncover things that might otherwise remain hidden. Citizens can do all of those things, but not consistently, and with even less accountability than the media.

bloggers, blogging, citizen journalism, democracy, google news, news, news reporting, reporting, richard sambrook

This should be no surprise — especially to those who’ve been appropriately concerned about electronic voting machines: Lyn Davis Lear is reporting on a GAO report that concluded the 2004 election was fraudulent and a Diebold insider is blowing the whistle (via Engadget).

What does the report confirm? Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman summarize:

1. Some electronic voting machines “did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected.” In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush’s official margin of victory.
    
2. “It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate.” Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.
    
3. “Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level.” 3. Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.
    
4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a “widespread conspiracy” but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.
    
5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.
    
6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.
    
7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the Presidency of the United States was decided.
    
8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

stolen, fraud, bush, george bush, w, george w bush, ohio, election, 2004, gao, report, confirmed, findings, conspiracy, democracy, selection