THE PAPERLESS TRAIL TO THE NEW JERSEY'S GOVERNER'S MANSION: THE VOTING MACHINE DILEMMA By Karen DeSoto
In a press release last week, Jon Corzine was quick to point out that you need to vote because "every vote counts". Does it really? New Jersey's last election cycle resulted in four tied local elections, four elections decided by one vote, and the margin of victory in 66 races was less than 1 percent, according to a report issued by the New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate.
What the report does not highlight is that three months ago a very important trial ended regarding New Jerseyans fundamental right to vote. The result of a suit filed more than five years ago, the trial lasted six months at great taxpayer expense, and the outcome may conclude that the very machines New Jersey residents will be using this Tuesday are not secure and should not be used.
The Governor's election next week is not only contentious and promises to be close, and so the allegations that the voting machines are unsafe, corruptible and paperless are even more of a concern. I asked Penny Venetis, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit what her greatest concern for Tuesday's Governor's election would be. She responded, "That someone will manipulate the machines, throw the results and substitute the will of the people."
Ms. Venetis is confident that the six month trial proved irrefutably that New Jersey's voting machines are unreliable, inaccurate, easily hacked and unable to be audited. The main witness was not any expert witness but the head of Princeton University's Computer Science Department. "The science doesn't lie," Venetis stated. But even though the trial ended last July, the judge has yet to render a decision.
How can New Jersey verify any election? The Sequoia voting machines, store votes electronically on a computer chip that is removed from the voting machine at the end of the election. A paper tape in the machine records the number of votes but does not have the capability of storing an individual record of each vote cast, and so there is no audit trail through which votes can be later verified.
The New York Times reported just this week that the Pentagon is aware of the risks to using commercial technology and that less than 2 percent of the computer chips used in computers are made in the United States. It was also reported that a White House employee, Melissa Hathway, in an email acknowledged the deliberate subversions of computer hardware. She wrote, "These are not hypothetical threats, and we have witnessed countless intrusions that have allowed criminals to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed nation-states and others to steal intellectual property and sensitive military information."
New Jersey's voting machines appear to be easy pickings. Ms. Venetis stated that at trial, the evidence demonstrated that the software used in the voting machines could be corrupted by a computer savvy 12-year-old. So why has New Jersey played fast and loose with its citizens' fundamental right to vote? Of course, it must be the money! However, it was reported that when New York realized the fundamental flaws in the Sequoia voting machines, it wasn't until after they had ordered and contracted for hundreds of machines. To be on the safe side and in an effort to protect the voters, New York breached that contract and allegedly settled out of court with Sequoia for millions of dollars. I guess New York State, unlike New Jersey, believes that securing their voters' fundamental right to vote was worth more than the money.
The New Jersey Legislature passed legislation in 2006 directing that by 2008, New Jersey would have to have voter verifiable voting machines. What happened? It appears that New Jersey didn't have the money to fund that legislation and the Governor and the State Attorney General requested that the compliance date be put off indefinitely. The trial court's decision appears to be the only way to resolve this dilemma.
The unreliable security of the voting machines' software being inadequate and unreliable is a non-partisan issue that may have a very partisan outcomes depending, not on the will of the people but the choice of a skilled hacker. It looks like Jon Corzine's directive in his press release urging New Jerseyans to vote and that every vote counts, is more of a campaign promise than a reality.
Ms. Venetis is confident that the six month trial proved irrefutably that New Jersey's voting machines are unreliable, inaccurate, easily hacked and unable to be audited.
That seems to be a feature of the electronic voting machines, but chronic inaccuracies don't seem to be a concern for the electorate. It does make you wonder what part of Truth, Justice or the American way we still have. Fantastic article by the way, give it a vote so it gets picked up by the tracker! :~)
...the voting maching issue is perplexing to me.
When actions defy rational thinking there's one of two explanations, stupidity or greed.
A combination of both seems to be the foundation of representation in modern American government. It is probably skewed toward more stupidity in the public and more greed in those who purport to serve them, but by any measure the many lose for the few who gain.
Elections are stolen only when democrats lose.
The Spirit..
Sorry but LOL.
Jon Corzine is a dem.
We are complaining that a dem governor in a close race, refused to get rid of the easily hackable voting machines. Suggesting it would be the dems who would be cheating.
Both me and pamela joined in on the complaints. WE tend to be seen as left of center on the vine. Funny isnt it... some of us have real ideologies and it doesnt matter who abuses them..this is a common trait in dems.. unlike the GOP that cheered bush as he ran the country into the ground, that march in lock step to what ever is the outrage of the day. Doesnt matter that Bush had more czars than obama.. beck told them to be mad so they are mad.
the voting machines are ridiculous, they were rushed in over the hanging chad nonsense when we have been voting for hundreds of years without a heck of a lot of trouble.
They replaced something error prone(when we had plenty of other proved working methods) with something corruptible.
If they go electronic it needs to be open source and have a paper trail period, to suggest anything else is very naive to the point you wonder if the ignorance is purposeful.
They replaced something error prone(when we had plenty of other proved working methods) with something corruptible.
Since when have paper ballots been non-corruptible? They get "lost", they can be counterfeited, and who knows what other ways they have been intentionally manipulated to throw an election.
Quite frankly it isn't the lack of a paper trail that is a problem so long as the system is in place so that we can properly track, audit, and authenticate the vote record (and yes we have technologies that allow us to do this reliably - not to say that we necessarily do, only that we can).
That said I personally think that any electronic voting process should generate a paper trail. That the voting booth should print out the ballot that is then read by a tabulating device. Modern cryptography also needs use to authenticate and secure the voting record. This should be a the foundation of a authentic voting system.
On the notion that the vote code should be open source. Personally I prefer the term visible as the term open source implies anyone can take and make changes to it. At the very least the code needs to be audited and tested by independent security experts.
Great article, Karen.
I'm wondering if Corzine will stay in office, regardless of the "results" of the election. So many people are disgusted by Corzine. Basically, everything he ran on, and was elected on (as for not doing), he did. Property taxes continue to run rampant in Jersey, and the state seems to not care. When I left there, after 11 years, we were paying nearly $16,000/year in property taxes. They were just a little over $4,000/year when we moved there. But, despite the huge rise in the cost of living, and all that fun stuff that Corzine brought with him, FY2010, the state troopers don't have money to open their academy next year. They don't even have the money to pay their retired officers their pensions (All retiring officers of this year don't have a pension..)
And, it irks me to no end, that Obama has decided to support Corzine, just because he's a democrat. In the end, even though I support many of the things Obama has done so far, it shows that he is just another politician that's party over policy.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |