Florida election system broken?

[Neu!Turismo]

hi n dry, I'm confident that anything I'm about to say will fail to persuade you otherwise. It's clear that you're on Mr. Padgett's team. That's fine. However, I firmly believe that you have good intentions but are sorely misguided and spread misinformation. Are you the writer of recent letters to the editor or one of his campaign workers? I think you use remarkably similar language.

I have no reason to believe that Mr. Padgett would run the office with "high tech savvy" and expertise as you and the candidate claim. I know the incumbent knows the voting system and understands the laws, procedures, and guidelines that his job requires. The 2004 election was administered with no problems. He's been involved with Walton County elections for years. Mr. Padgett has zero election experience to my knowledge.

I'm not confusing verified "receipts" with "ballots." I'm very aware of the distinction. I also know Mr. Beasley never had choice "between touch screen voting with a paper trail and those machines without paper records." Why? Because SOE's have not been certified to do so by the Florida Division of Elections. He's just doing his job. Just like your other man Ion Sancho (a "political indepedent" that speaks at Democratic Women's Clubs conventions" and uses the same Diebold equipment he bashes.)

Your "University sources" are not even studies of the current versions of elections machines in use here. It's easy to set up a scenario to produce results between George Washington and Aaron Burr with three or four votes if you're in the graduate department of computer science at Princeton. If I had the resources and funding and access, I could make a Diebold machine produce erroneus results. I could make it print out nonsense. If you want to revert to a paper ballot box, would that not be susceptible to tampering as well?

It's a matter of trustworthiness and security - an honor system. And I don't entrust Mr. Padgett. He seems to be running on scare tactics, undocumented claims, and as a motivated partisan. Mr. Padgett ought to continue being a voter activist and public watchdog. That's commendable. He and Otto are just barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Beasley is not rigging anything. Such a claim is absurd. Your belief that the votes are not secure indict your neighbors and the good people who volunteer their efforts in the elections as well. You should know better.

If you wish to continue with your strawman strategy, this voter won't be persuaded by your claims.

 

[ShallowsNole]

I attended EVERY political event prior to the primary, and what Mr. Padgett advocated at each of these was that the voter should be able to walk away with a receipt. He also proposes an instant run-off system, in which you would rank your candidates in order of preference. As explained by a poster above, my understanding is that what Mr. Padgett proposes is currently out of the realm of what is legislatively allowed. If legislation is passed that supports such a system, I have no doubt that Bobby Beasley will have the necessary equipment installed.

What I do NOT want is for the employees of the SOE's office, or anybody who picks up a receipt that I may drop, to have a paper record of who I voted for. Such a record, attributed to my individual name, could make things VERY uncomfortable for me and my family if it were to fall into the wrong hands. Under Mr. Padgett's proposed system, which is not currently backed by Florida law, that's what could/would happen.

Mr. Beasley has done an EXCELLENT job. I have nothing against Mr. Padgett, or anyone else who seeks a political office, but in this instance, I see no need to replace an official with Mr. Beasley's integrity who has performed outstandingly, both to the public that he serves and privately to the people he employs.

Those are the things that are important to me. Of course, other factors are important to other people, and each citizen has the right to vote accordingly. Often, the candidate I vote for does not win. But, I am confident that my vote counted.

 

[Ray Padgett]

My primary concern for our Walton County voting system is that there is no verification that the computer voting machines recorded and counted our votes correctly. This can easily be done by performing an audit of the vote count after each election. A vote count audit requires two things:
1. Physical evidence of each vote independent of the computer that counted the votes. This is the "voter verified paper record" ; i.e., the paper ballot or a copy of the touch screen ballot that the voter can verify their vote was recorded correctly. A voter verified paper record, left at the polling place (ballot box) is legal in Florida (as you indicated a paper reciept that the voter carries home with them is not legal in Florida); in fact that is exactly what is provided by the old paper ballots - a "Voter verified paper record".
2. An actual audit to verify the computers counted the votes correctly. This can easily be done by using the voter verified paper records (ballots). Currently, such an audit is not being done by Walton County or the state - at least that is what both groups told me.

My goal is to verify, after each election, that our votes are recorded and counted correctly. I believe the above approach is legal and accomplishes this goal.

According to Ion Sancho, Leon County does this now. When I last checked, seventeen states now require both the "voter verified paper records" and the mandatory audit after each election.

I agree that hacking a system may be difficult; it is far easier for the software developer to include software that intentionally or accidentally creates inaccurate vote counts. Such code can be hidden in a way that testing does not detect.

My position is that we must provide the voter proof that their vote was recorded and counted correctly. We cannot do this without a valid audit mechanism. The new touch screen voting machines do not provide a voter verified paper record of each vote and there is no audit of the computer vote counts being done at this time in Walton County.

I would be happy to discuss these issues with any Walton County voter, please call me. Like you, I believe voting is the foundation of our democracy and must be protected.

 

[hi n dry]

hi n dry, I'm confident that anything I'm about to say will fail to persuade you otherwise. It's clear that you're on Mr. Padgett's team. That's fine. However, I firmly believe that you have good intentions but are sorely misguided and spread misinformation. Are you the writer of recent letters to the editor or one of his campaign workers? I think you use remarkably similar language. .........

......Your "University sources" are not even studies of the current versions of elections machines in use here. ...............


Mr. Beasley is not rigging anything. Such a claim is absurd. Your belief that the votes are not secure indict your neighbors and the good people who volunteer their efforts in the elections as well. You should know better.

If you wish to continue with your strawman strategy, this voter won't be persuaded by your claims.

I am a registered Independent and I vote for the person not the party.
I am not on anyone's election team as you seem to be. But thank you for the idea and I will contact Mr. Padgett to volunteer and help all I can.

Regarding writing letters to the editor, I hope to have a letter in the Sun this coming weekend . Be sure to watch for it.

No one is accusing anyone in the county of planning to tamper with the machines or rig the election. That is not a problem as far as I know.

In fact I am rather stunned that you would suggest that such an appalling scenario could happen in Walton county. No ones integrity is being questioned. Perhaps it is an imaginary issue you have made up in an attempt to distract from the real problems.

The problem is Mr. Beasley has not taken the necessary steps to protect our votes from the well documented problems with touch screen machines. A Supervisor of Elections with the proper technical background would have made the right choice to buy the more secure version of the machines.

Mr. Beasley could have bought touch screen machines that would print out a paper statement in front of the touch screen machine. The voter could then in the privacy of the voting booth examine that "receipt" to make sure the machine registered the vote she/he intended. In other words that would allow a voter to ?self audit ? his own vote.

This is called a ?voter verified record?. This paper record stays at the polling place it is not a store type ?receipt ? that you can take home.

Mr. Beasley chose machines that do not have that safeguard . Under state law he had that option.

Your assertion is irrelevant that the machines researched by Princeton and and John Hopkins are not exactly like the ones in Walton County. It is the type of technology that is in question not necessarily any specific brand or model.

All touch screen computerized machines are prone to problems just like any home computer. They can crash, freeze up, get a virus or worm, or be hacked into or tampered with.

I assume Mr. Beasley is well intentioned. However, Mr. Beasley obviously does not have the technical capability to protect our election system.

The pertinent concern is that Mr. Beasley is making our voting process more vulnerable than it has to be. In this modern age of computer voting Mr. Beasley is in over his head.

 

[Neu!Turismo]

I am a registered Independent and I vote for the person not the party.
I am not on anyone's election team as you seem to be. But thank you for the idea and I will contact Mr. Padgett to volunteer and help all I can.

Regarding writing letters to the editor, I hope to have a letter in the Sun this coming weekend . Be sure to watch for it.

No one is accusing anyone in the county of planning to tamper with the machines or rig the election. That is not a problem as far as I know.

In fact I am rather stunned that you would suggest that such an appalling scenario could happen in Walton county. No ones integrity is being questioned. Perhaps it is an imaginary issue you have made up in an attempt to distract from the real problems.

The problem is Mr. Beasley has not taken the necessary steps to protect our votes from the well documented problems with touch screen machines. A Supervisor of Elections with the proper technical background would have made the right choice to buy the more secure version of the machines.

Mr. Beasley could have bought touch screen machines that would print out a paper statement in front of the touch screen machine. The voter could then in the privacy of the voting booth examine that "receipt" to make sure the machine registered the vote she/he intended. In other words that would allow a voter to “self audit “ his own vote.

This is called a “voter verified record”. This paper record stays at the polling place it is not a store type “receipt “ that you can take home.

Mr. Beasley chose machines that do not have that safeguard . Under state law he had that option.

Your assertion is irrelevant that the machines researched by Princeton and and John Hopkins are not exactly like the ones in Walton County. It is the type of technology that is in question not necessarily any specific brand or model.

All touch screen computerized machines are prone to problems just like any home computer. They can crash, freeze up, get a virus or worm, or be hacked into or tampered with.

I assume Mr. Beasley is well intentioned. However, Mr. Beasley obviously does not have the technical capability to protect our election system.

The pertinent concern is that Mr. Beasley is making our voting process more vulnerable than it has to be. In this modern age of computer voting Mr. Beasley is in over his head.

Yes. I do have a keen interest in this race.

The Walton Sun article is a far cry from objective, hard reporting. Real reporters who care about hard news never write in such a provocative and interpretive style. I realize it says "Special to the Sun," but the page layout in which it is set gives it the initial appearance of an objective piece. It is propaganda masquerading as a newspaper report. Commentary and articles like that should be reserved for the op/ed section, alongside the letters to the editor(including the one pasted in this thread I previously addressed) that some of Mr. Padgett's backers have been sending to local papers recently. When I saw it posted here, I simply had to respond.

Don't mince my words. None of my comments regarding the voting equipment in use are as you say "irrelevant" to this discussion and I'm not trying to divert any issue. I'm very clear and I have backed my claims. Particulars and specifics have everything to do with the integrity of the elections. I never suggested the possibility of any "appalling scenario" occuring. My stance is actually the opposite. I'm not the one that is playing on fear and anxiety about the local voting system, or the election system in general.

You assert that Bobby Beasley is "in over his head." That is simply false. He puts in extra-long hours and works hard to ensure the public that everything is in its right place. He takes his job very seriously. He is well-versed in computers and electronics. He is technically-gifted and a he is a methodical manager. I'm also certain he has a more systematic understanding of the processes and minutiae involved to carry out his duties than his opponent -- from the statutes and rules and procedures involved -- all the way to the physical structures, logistics, and machinery. On top of that, he's a gregarious and dedicated person.

It is not my intention to incite, provoke, or start arguing with anyone on these boards. I've lurked here for some time to keep up with local happenings. I felt the need to defend someone that I know very well. He is an exceptional and honorable public servant.

As for me, I'm reasonable, freethinking and I'm not an ideologue. I respect your opinions, but I respectfully disagree. It looks as if we a have entrenched positions and have forged our alliances and I do not want to spend my time firing salvos. Especially when Mr. Padgett himself has posted here. I consider Mr. Padgett a worthy man, but I strongly disagree with his campaign rhetoric. So, I'll politely remain anonymous so nothing gets too personal. The election is soon enough, and all this will be resolved. I rest my case here.

 

[john stratton]

I am the author of one of the letters published in the Sun, Log, & Daily News. Prior to writing I talked to both candidates for Supervisor of Elections. I had not previously met Mr. Beasley. However I knew his late wife as I was an independent candidate for School Board in 2002. She was a fair and very helpful Election Supervisor. I'm sure Mr. Beasley is the same. I had met Ray Padgett once before. I believe him to be a person of high integrity.
He did not ask me to write the letter to the editor; in fact he did not know I intended to.

The issue is should we have the most secure and voter verifiable system available? One that can be audited? That's what I want. We could have it today. Ray Padgett has advocated this type of system; therefore I urged voters to support him. If that makes me part of his team so be it.

I'm think by 2008 we will have a system with a paper trail because the voters will demand it. With Ray Padgett I'm sure of it.

When I write for publication in the press or on the internet you will always see my name, not an alias. John Stratton

 

[John R]

i like tomatoes.

 

[goofer]

I just received my absentee ballad from Florida. I want my vote to be an informed vote. I am not knowledgeable on the local issues but I care deeply about environmental issues that effect Walton County and the Panhandle in general. Which candidates both on the Federal , State, and local level reflect a real concern for the environment and will best serve the interests of our area of Florida. And I mean the candidates who really buck the establishment and just not pay lipservice. Please help me out on the really good candidates for public service. I also want to vote for candidates who are against the war and advocate a dramatic shift in direction. I do not vote party. Rumsfeld must go !!

 

[hi n dry]

More problems with Diebold touch screen machines.

These are the same type of machines that Walton county current
Superintendent of elections Bobby Beasley bought and is now using in this election.

http://www.abcnews.go.com

By JAKE TAPPER, REBECCA ABRAHAMS and EDUARDO SUNOL

Oct. 22, 2006 ? Cheryl Kagan, a former Maryland Democratic legislator, was shocked when she opened her mail Wednesday morning.

Inside, she discovered three computer discs. With them was an anonymous letter saying the discs contained the secret source code for vote-counting that could be used to alter the votes cast through Maryland's new electronic voting machines.

"My understanding is that with these disks a malicious person could skew the outcome of an election," Kagan said.

Diebold, the company that makes the voting machines, told ABC News, "These discs do not alter the security of the Diebold touch-screen system in any way," because election workers can set their own passwords.

But ABC News has obtained an independent report commissioned by the state of Maryland and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation revealing that the original Diebold factory passwords are still being used on many voting machines.

The SAIC study also shows myriad other security flaws, including administrative over-ride passwords that cannot be changed by local officials but can be used by hackers or those who have seen the discs.

The report further states that one of the high risks to the system comes if operating code discs are lost, stolen or seen by unauthorized parties ? precisely what seems to have occurred with the discs sent to Kagan, who worries that the incident indicates the secret source code is not that difficult to obtain.

"Certainly, just tweaking a few votes in a couple of states could radically change the outcome of our policies for the coming year," she said.

Worry That Elections Could Be Hacked

Computer experts and government officials have voiced serious concerns that if these machines malfunction, no paper record will exist for a recount. Even worse is the fear that an election could be hacked.

Princeton University researchers using an Accuvote TS ? a touch screen version of the Diebold machine ? showed how easy it would be to deploy a virus that would, in seconds, flip the vote of any election.

We're taking the vote-counting process and we're handing it over to these companies ? and we don't know what happens inside these machines," said Edward Felten, a professor and a researcher at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, which ran the study.

Diebold called the Princeton study "unrealistic and inaccurate."

But many computer scientists, including cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore, disagree, pointing out that the Accuvote TS was used in the 2004 presidential election and is still used in at least four states ? including all machines in Georgia and Maryland. Spoonamore said the hack attacked the operating system layer of software and would affect any touch screen machine built by Diebold.

Diebold argues that the software from the 2004 elections has been updated to fix any possible security problems. But Spoonamore is not convinced, saying Diebold's "system is utterly unsecured. The entire cyber-security community is begging them to come back to reality and secure our nation's voting."

There is also the matter of computer glitches. In primary elections and test runs this year, there were glitches with electronic voting machines from Diebold and other companies.

Machines malfunctioned in Texas, where 100,000 votes were added.

In California, directions for voters with vision problems came out in Vietnamese.

And in Maryland, screens froze and memory cards went missing.

Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican running for reelection, advised residents to vote by absentee ballot because he had no confidence in the machines.

"I don't care if we paid half a billion dollars or $1 billion," Ehrlich said. "If it's going to put the election at risk, there's no price tag for a phony election or a fraudulent election."

Many are concerned about how the confusing technical issues will be handled by poll workers, who tend to be senior citizens and who are not necessarily tech-savvy.

Electronic voting machines were supposed to be the solution to the paper ballot problems from the 2000 presidential election. But to many critics, America's voting system has gone out of the frying pan and into the fire.
?PREVIOUS 1. 2.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Technology/story?id=2596705&page=2

 

[DBOldford]

This is perhaps the most misinformed and misguided political discussion that I have ever seen and I have seen a lot. The incumbent runs on his qualifications and his record and the challenger should be running on his own qualifications. Too bad that a non-incumbent has the luxury of promoting any agenda that fuels controversy or otherwise rings the voters' chimes, when the challenger is not bound by state laws that determine how voting is done in the State of FL.

The truth is that during the elections of 2004, when Florida made history for its ineptitude in voting standards, Walton County's voting sample was remarkably clean and accurate. When a new Supervisor of Elections assumes the office, they spend their first year or more learning how to do that very complicated job and some with the contrarian rhetoric spend it finding that they have been promoting an agenda that is not only ineffective, but one that is not even legal. Don't be suckered in by this kind of rhetoric, which is a substitute for credible credentials for the office.

Is our voting system perfect? No. Is it effective? Yes. Is it working in Walton County" Yes. Is your current Supervisor of Elections working to insure that every vote is counted and is one legally cast? Yes. Vote for a proven record. I cannot vote in Walton County, but hope that informed voters will cast their votes for a proven public servant, Bobby Beasley.