Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a
suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting machines. Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at the next municipal elections. The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the system, it seems... -- Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske beslutning at undlade det. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
"Leif Neland" wrote in message ... Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting machines. Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at the next municipal elections. The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the system, it seems... Er, perhaps you should just go back to whatever gaming planet you happen to be on at the moment, eh. Oh and cut out the Skunk, too, you are just providing more funds for criminal gangs to invest in things far more sinister. Hope that helps. |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
In the US, at least one company manufacturing such machines was a strong
supporter of conservative politicians. It was assumed (but not proven, as far as I know), that this company had given their machines a "back door" through which to alter the votes. People will have to stand up and reject computerized voting machines. They are too-easily compromised. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... In the US, at least one company manufacturing such machines was a strong supporter of conservative politicians. It was assumed (but not proven, as far as I know), that this company had given their machines a "back door" through which to alter the votes. People will have to stand up and reject computerized voting machines. They are too-easily compromised. Have you been watching that U.S. series "Scandal" by any chance ... ? :-) Arfa |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper
trail". The thought had crossed my mind that a heavily encrypted system could be used, and voters could check the "voting database" to confirm their vote had not changed. But I'm sure someone would figure out a way to compromise even that. |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting machines. Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at the next municipal elections. The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the system, it seems... Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we have a paper trail if there is any doubt. Bill Gill |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put finger to keyboard and composed: Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ... In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing the ballot box". Very easy to do ... And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%. Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like. Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty, when it is locked. And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat. It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000 election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all alike, could be done by very few. The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it was OK?" Leif -- Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske beslutning at undlade det. |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 08:40:36 -0600, Bill Gill
wrote: On 1/12/2013 4:05 PM, Leif Neland wrote: Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, and replace it with electronic voting machines. Even if almost all IT-professionals complain that you can't have both secret and verifyable e-elections, they still insist on having trials at the next municipal elections. The only IT-professionals which are positive, are the companys which think they can earn hundreds of millions on trying to implement the system, it seems... Well, Here in Oklahoma USA we have a double acting system. We vote with a paper ballot and it is counted electronically. That way we have a paper trail if there is any doubt. Bill Gill Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent elections: If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker preferred, of course). Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot is valid. In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again, verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for the official recount. PlainBill |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
|
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On 2013-01-12, Leif Neland wrote:
Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? A friend of mine who used to own an electronics company (he is now retired) had an idea to make something like that to take out traffic cameras and other surveillance cameras, similar to a gadget police are considering for immobilizing late-model cars involved in chases: http://gizmodo.com/5454295/this-emp-...most-instantly (This of course would not stop cars from the 1970s and earlier that do not have computer-contolled engines.) If it can be done with cars it should be doable with voting machines, or cameras, or any non-hardened computerized device for that matter. My friend never actually built anything as far as I know but it is an interesting idea. You would want the pulse to be as focused as possible to eliminate collateral damage, including to your own vehicle and/or personal electronics. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.) "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
|
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put finger to keyboard and composed: Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ... In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing the ballot box". Very easy to do ... And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%. Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like. In some countries voting is not compulsory, so your extra 10% would go undetected when the turnout was 50%, say. Believe or not, in Australia the only requirement for identifying yourself at the polling station was to tell the booth attendant your name. S/he would then locate it in a paper directory and draw a line through it. This meant that you could vote several times at several polling booths by impersonating other electors. IMHO, paper ballots are an anachronism that should have died long ago. I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that electronic voting is safe and reliable. AISI, electronic voting is an inevitable progression. The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it was OK?" I wouldn't trust Putin with any ballot, paper or otherwise. Would you? - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter
put finger to keyboard and composed: But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in the voting machines. Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is to the ballot boxes: "And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat." - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:37 +0100, Leif Neland put
finger to keyboard and composed: But, back to the question: Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12-mains voltage(120/230V depending on location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of disabling a computer? To me, you are just like those Green zealots who want to impose their anti-GM ideology on the rest of the world by destroying experimental crops. If you don't agree with something, then you feel justified in vandalising it. To me the solution is simple -- if you don't like electronic voting, then vote against it. ISTM that a referendum would be in order. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring
that electronic voting is safe and reliable. It's quite capable of being safe and reliable. It's just that the people who manufacture the voting machines aren't safe and reliable. |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
In article ,
Leif Neland wrote: Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element. What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying electronics? I gather that these things put out a magnetic field with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Leif Neland wrote:
Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put finger to keyboard and composed: Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ... In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing the ballot box". Very easy to do ... And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%. Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like. Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty, when it is locked. And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat. It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000 election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all alike, could be done by very few. The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it was OK?" Leif Here in Canada our last federal election has been tainted with a possible Robo-Call attack on voters. The way this works is first a party figures out who is likely to vote for them and who is not, then the day of the election they call the people (a robot does the calling) to tell them that the polling station has moved to a new location... Now you only need to do this in a few close-call ridings and you only need to divert a few people so you don't tip your hand... However Elections Canada is looking into this and if they can ever figure out who Pierre Poutine is (Poutine is a Canadian 'delicacy') they might be able to track down who set this up. So, even paper ballots with scrutineers of all parties can be defeated by unscrupulous people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall_scandal Sad when this sort of things happens, but it generally ****es people off enough that they get involved with other parties than the ones suspected of perpetrating the robo-calls (I hope!). John :-#)# -- (Please post followups or tech enquiries to the newsgroup) John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9 Call (604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games) www.flippers.com "Old pinballers never die, they just flip out." |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Jan 13, 6:22*pm, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article , Leif Neland wrote: Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element. What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying electronics? *I gather that these things put out a magnetic field with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) I don't know, but to use it at a polling place you would have to adapt it to battery operation and then lug around an awfully big battery box. |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 20:03:37 +0100, Leif Neland
wrote: har bragt dette til verden: Even those are suceptible to manipulation. Some examples from recent elections: If a voter failed to indicate a choice in a particular race, a poll worker would mark the ballot (for the candidate the poll worker preferred, of course). Some voters didn't understand the process and would vote for their choice in the main section of the ballot, and also write in the candidate's name in the write-in section. Those ballots were not counted, even though courts have ruled that if there is a clear indication of an intent to vote for a particular candidate, the ballot is valid. In a close race a recount was mandatory. The process would be to run the ballots from precincts chosen at random through the counter again, verifying the results matched. If a limited number (5%?) produced no mismatches, it would be assumed the initial count was correct. The preliminary recount was scheduled for 10:00AM. The election workers were there at 7:00AM, running blocks of ballots through the counters and identifying precincts that matched. Those were distributed at random, then tagged so the workers could pull known good precincts for the official recount. There is an easy remedy for this: the poll workers are not civil servants or otherwise employed by the government, but selected from the general population by the parties. In this way, both sides watch over each other. And the task is so simple and transparent, that everybody can understand it after a few minutes if instruction. But, back to the question: Would a 12V MC-battery, a 12-mains voltage(120/230V depending on location) and a microwave generator from an oven do the trick of disabling a computer? Maybe, maybe not; it depends on the degree of shielding around the computer. As others have suggested, you are using the wrong approach. If you manage manage to disable the voting machines you will probably be identified rather quickly, the suitcase would certainly arouse curiosity. A more effective approach would be to illustrate obviously incorrect results in an election - one where the total number of votes for certain candidates (ideally those belonging to parties who have few followers) receive more votes than there were voters. PlainBill |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Franc Zabkar formulerede spørgsmålet:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter put finger to keyboard and composed: But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in the voting machines. Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is to the ballot boxes: "And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat." It is easy to find 10000 people who can understand how paper ballots work and how they are secured. To find ten people who understand how electronic voting works and how to make it both secure and anonymous is hard. You might find 100 who *thinks* they know. And if the rest of the population doesn't trust the machines, or the machine-attenders democracy is in trouble. Leif -- Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske beslutning at undlade det. |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On 1/14/2013 10:26 PM, Leif Neland wrote:
Franc Zabkar formulerede spørgsmålet: On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:00:04 +0100, tuinkabouter put finger to keyboard and composed: But you do not have a proof that the compiled source code is loaded in the voting machines. Leif's scenario could just as well be applied to the servers as it is to the ballot boxes: "And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat." It is easy to find 10000 people who can understand how paper ballots work and how they are secured. To find ten people who understand how electronic voting works and how to make it both secure and anonymous is hard. You might find 100 who *thinks* they know. And if the rest of the population doesn't trust the machines, or the machine-attenders democracy is in trouble. By pressure of a hacking group "we don't trust voting compters" the Netherlands is back to a paper ballot system. They found that with a simple receiver you can say what a person is voting. More to read: http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Jan 13, 5:22*pm, (Mark Zenier) wrote:
In article , Leif Neland wrote: Would it be possible to make a device, which could be carried in a suitcase, which would destroy/disable a computerized voting machine? It might kill a few mobile phones too, but that would be a small price to pay to defend democracy. Surfing through the over the air TV the other day while checking the electronic program schedules, I ran across an infomercial from some outfit selling a portable countertop induction cooking element. What kind of effective range do these things have for destroying electronics? *I gather that these things put out a magnetic field with several hundred watts in the 20-100 kHz range. Mark Zenier Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com) Rather narrow band and fairly easy to protect electronics against. It's the ? to multi GHz that do the most damage, since very few electronics can effectively protect against the WHOLE spectrum. Envision how the EMP finds the resonances and then .... |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
"I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that
electronic voting is safe and reliable. " Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
wrote in message ... "I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that electronic voting is safe and reliable. " Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology when we believe it isn't. Gareth. |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On 1/16/2013 11:36 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
wrote in message ... "I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that electronic voting is safe and reliable. " Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology when we believe it isn't. Gareth. Just chill out and wait. Won't be long before we all have 'chips' and big brother knows exactly where we are at all times. Will be hard to impersonate someone without creating a network address conflict. And our leaders will be selected by power brokers and lobbyists...just like they are now. Problem solved!!! |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
"mike" wrote in message ... On 1/16/2013 11:36 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote: wrote in message ... "I refuse to believe that technology is incapable of ensuring that electronic voting is safe and reliable. " Sure it can, the question is whether is actuallY IS Well actually, the question here is how can we destroy that technology when we believe it isn't. Gareth. Just chill out and wait. Won't be long before we all have 'chips' and big brother knows exactly where we are at all times. Will be hard to impersonate someone without creating a network address conflict. And our leaders will be selected by power brokers and lobbyists...just like they are now. Problem solved!!! Hmm, George Orwell couldn't have been more wrong. But then he didn't foresee the Internet, and how could he have done. The idea that you can "rise up" and "destroy the machines" is an idea just as outdated, IMHO. Gareth. |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
The idea that you can "rise up" and "destroy the machines" is an idea just
as outdated, IMHO. Oh, didn't Arnie do that though? And he got to be Governor of California for quite a while? Hmm, maybe there's something in that after all then. Gareth. |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper trail". Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and compared with the machine-readable tally. Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine. Jon |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Jon Elson wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper trail". Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and compared with the machine-readable tally. Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine. What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read by the machines in the voting precincts. |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:29:47 +0100, Leif Neland wrote:
Franc Zabkar udtrykte præcist: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:10 +0100, Leif Neland put finger to keyboard and composed: Some politicans in my country wants to jeopardize the trust the peoples trust in our paper ballot system, which everyone can understand, and is very, if not impossibe to cheat, ... In English we refer to cheating during a paper election as "stuffing the ballot box". Very easy to do ... And easy to detect, when you have a voting attendance of 110%. Otherwise you would also have to remove votes you didn't like. So, nobody told you about the graveyard voters? Let alone people with multiple addresses? Cooking the vote with paper ballots is a century old practice at least. Here, everybody are allowed to witness that the ballot box is empty, when it is locked. And the entire election, in every election site, is being monitored by members of all the parties. (ordinary party members, not the elected party members), so it is not easy to cheat. That might help some. It discourages stupid ways of cheating. It would take a massive conspiracy to fix the election in 10.000 election sites, while hacking the machines, especially if they are all alike, could be done by very few. The test of any voting system is "Would you trust Putin if he said it was OK?" Leif |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Følgende er skrevet af josephkk:
So, nobody told you about the graveyard voters? Let alone people with multiple addresses? Cooking the vote with paper ballots is a century old practice at least. I forgot to tell that I live in a country where everybody is registered at birth with a "Person-number". We get sent a voting card printed from that registry sent to our registered adress. This voting card is exchanged with a blank ballot at the voting place. So there is not possible to vote twice. In Egypt 2000 years BC they had proper registers of the population, but I guess this is too complicated to have in USA :-) Leif -- Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske beslutning at undlade det. |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Jon Elson wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper trail". Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and compared with the machine-readable tally. Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine. What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read by the machines in the voting precincts. Yes, the states that use mark-sense cards certainly have physical ballots that can be checked in a recount, or just spot checked to assure the computer counts match the physical ballots. I think Ohio may be one of the states that used touch-screen voting with no paper generated at the polling place. That is worrisome, and there have been some anomalies reported, like zero votes for some candidate in an entire precinct. Jon |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
EMP weapon
Jon Elson wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Jon Elson wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Any voting system can be compromised. But electronic voting leaves no "paper trail". Actually, many systems DO leave the paper trail. By state law in Missouri, all electronic voting machines must record a tamper-resistant paper record right inside the machine, visible to the voter through a window. It is basically the same as a cash register tape. It has both printed human readable info and a 2D bar code that can be scanned more quickly at the county government center. If there is doubt about the accuracy of the bar code, a roll can be counted by humans in a half hour or so and compared with the machine-readable tally. Why every state doesn't do this, I can't possibly imagine. What states don't? Florida also keeps the paper ballot that's read by the machines in the voting precincts. Yes, the states that use mark-sense cards certainly have physical ballots that can be checked in a recount, or just spot checked to assure the computer counts match the physical ballots. I think Ohio may be one of the states that used touch-screen voting with no paper generated at the polling place. That is worrisome, and there have been some anomalies reported, like zero votes for some candidate in an entire precinct. Another good reason to have left Ohio, so many decades ago. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Racism is the only weapon a progressive losing an argument has. | Metalworking | |||
Frying pan murder weapon | Metalworking | |||
Table project - defensive weapon | Woodworking | |||
Battlebots Good Weapon Material? | Metalworking | |||
Building full-auto weapon | Metalworking |