Home
Site Map
Reports
Voting News
Info
Donate
Contact Us
About Us

VotersUnite.Org
is NOT!
associated with
votersunite.com


Voting news articles are provided here for research and educational purposes only. We do not review each article in its entirety prior to its posting. Content in the articles themselves and on other websites to which they link may express opinions that are not those of VotersUnite!

Thu, 02 Sep 2003 12:00:00 PDT    Story Here  Archive
Published:Tuesday, September 2, 2003
California Vote Faces Security Flaws
Questions abound as to the security and accuracy of the new electronic voting machines being adopted by many counties. "We are going from the frying pan into fire," says Peter G. Neumann, principal scientist at SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., of the forced march from punch-card machines to touch-screen electronic voting. Neumann, a pioneer in the field of risk analysis for complex systems, says state certification is no guarantee that voting machines are safe from tampering. "They've been certified against lame standards," he says. [...] "We're anxious to move to more efficient technology, but we need the ability to audit, and there is no way to guarantee an independent audit without an independent paper trail. As an accounting principle, just pushing the red button and seeing the flash card again is not enough."


Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:00:00 EST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Sunday, August 31, 2003
Editorial: Paper or electrons?
U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, wants those electronic machines to print a ballot that voters can review and place in a box to allow a recount if one is necessary. That may seem counterintuitive to people who thought the new Direct Recording Electronic technology was supposed to eliminate the need for paper ballots. [...] What it comes down to, Rep. Wexler maintains, "the paper ballot is individually verifiable and speaks for itself, and the computer results are not. They're just not. To me, this is so fundamental that I am surprised that we're having a fight for it after what we went through. I don't think it is a partisan issue."


Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:00:00 PST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Sunday, August 31, 2003
Editorial: The chad you know versus the hacker you don't
The best way to address most of the risks in computerized voting is not to wait for foolproof software (imagine Bill Gates in charge of the election process) but by pairing electronic voting with paper backup systems, allowing voters to inspect their vote before leaving the polls, and maintaining a way for a county to compare the digital and the physical -- as opposed to currently favored, mathematical "logic and accuracy" testing before and after elections. [...] Anyone whose hard drive has crashed can testify to the need for backup. The Northeast blackout and the recent computer virus attacks should remind us that, with any system overly reliant on computers, what can go wrong eventually will. Yes, we should make the voting process more accessible and more efficient. But we should also move with caution and invest in additional safeguards, however redundant or expensive.


Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Thursday, August 28, 2003
Early voting starts today across state
The county today also is rolling out its electronic voting system, which uses touch-screen technology in place of the traditional paper ballots. Some have raised concerns that the electronic system might be vulnerable to manipulation and have suggested a paper copy of the ballot be printed out for voter review. The paper ballot then could be locked away as an independent verification of the vote, if needed, observers say. County officials contend the $8.1 million system is secure.


Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Thursday, August 28, 2003
Voting machine controversy
The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.


Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:00:00 GMT    Story Here  Archive
Published:Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Marquette to rent voting machines
Resident Vivian Lasich cautioned commissioners to make sure they choose a voting system that leaves a "paper trail" to avoid the possibility of manipulation. "It is imperative that the vote I vote and the vote you vote ... be a matter of record," Lasich said. Commissioner Dave Carlson assured her that the AccuVote system would allow tracking of ballots cast.


Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Monday, August 25, 2003
Electronic ballot under fire
Watchdogs have cited the Johns Hopkins study to demand that any type of electronic machine provide a paper ballot that could be used to double-check voting results. There's a growing momentum for a so-called paper trail.


Mon, 25 Aug 2003 05:46:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Monday, August 25, 2003
Forsyth County woman issues a challenge
A computer program developer from Cumming has proposed a challenge against the state. Roxanne Jekot, 51, says she and a few expert friends could crack Georgia's $54 million touch-screen voting system in just minutes. [...] Brit Williams is a retired Kennesaw State University professor who helped design the touch-screen security system. He says he welcomes the dare, but puts the odds of breaking into the software undetected at one billion to one.


Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Monday, August 25, 2003
State regs irk tech contractors
The state's Board of Elections came under fire recently for its decision to spend $55.6 million on touch-screen voting technology after a Johns Hopkins University study questioned the system's security measures.


Mon, 25 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Monday, August 25, 2003
A vote of no confidence
When a Hopkins computer scientist declared a new breed of electronic voting machinery to be junk, he cracked open a wide and costly debate.


Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Sunday, August 24, 2003
Electronic voting raises computer fraud concern
With Bexar County's first fully electronic election less than three weeks away, some are raising red flags about what they see as a vulnerable paperless ballot process.


Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:00:00 EST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Saturday, August 23, 2003
Dare accepted on electronic voting machines
Roxanne Jekot, a 51-year-old computer program developer from Cumming, said she and a few expert friends could crack Georgia's $54 million touch-screen voting system in a matter of minutes. Bring it on, said state election officials.


Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Saturday, August 23, 2003
Concerns Over 'Serious Flaws' in Electronic Voting Prompt New Examination by Members of Congress
A recently published study documenting a host of security flaws in a leading touch-screen voting system has caused elections officials across the United States to question the use of electronic voting machines.


Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:00:00 PST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Thursday, August 21, 2003
Touch Screen Voting: Promises Fraud
To date, voters have not been asked whether they would rather be given a print version of the ballots they cast, which they could then check for accuracy and deposit in a locked ballot box, or whether they want to just trust a paperless Digital Recording Electronic voting machine to register their choices correctly. When paperless DREs are used, election officials, county and state legislators have made that decision for us. These deciders tell us the DREs are foolproof and have been thoroughly tested by the National Association of State Election Directors. What they don't tell us is that the source of this assurance is the very corporations which produce and sell both the machines and the software to run them.


Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:00:00 PST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Thursday, August 21, 2003
Let Computers Do the Voting
If one futurist is right, democracy's downfall may be technology's fault.


Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:00:00 EST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Editorial: Check, double-check security of voting machines
"Anybody would tell you that anything that's man-made could be compromised," said Norfolk Registrar Elisa Long. That's true. New technology is often about getting around old technlology. And it's why localities that have invested millions of taxpayer dollars, along with voters' trust, have a duty to ensure that touch-screen voting computers are as secure as advertised. Norfolk has had several scrapes with exceedingly close elections in the past. The city can't afford to be dismissive of voting-machine security. It should make certain before 2004 that the touch-screen remedy isn't likely to become the problem.


Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 EST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Monday, August 18, 2003
Voting machines criticized by scientists
State and local election officials say Dill and other computer scientists are wrong. Government officials say the technology experts failed to consider the security procedures developed over decades to prevent dishonest partisans from getting access to voting machines. "Anybody would tell you that anything that's man-made could be compromised," said Norfolk Registrar Elisa Long. "It may be possible for somebody to do this, but you have to ask how easy is it for someone to do this. We're not Fort Knox, but it would be very difficult."


Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Monday, August 18, 2003
Study raises concerns about electronic voting machines
E-voting, once revered as the savior of an antiquated and problematic election system, is slipping off its pedestal. Legislators nationwide are backing off, rethinking their trust in so-called direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting systems. They want answers to mounting allegations of shoddy security. Diebold maintains its AccuVote-TS voting machine is safe, even though its own Web site sparked the criticism in the first place.


Sun, 17 Aug 2003 00:00:00 EST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Sunday, August 17, 2003
Scientists: unreliable software exposes California recall to fraud
As if elections officials in California don't have enough to worry about as they prepare for a bewildering Oct. 7 recall vote, computer scientists say shoddy balloting software could bungle the results and expose the election to fraud. Their worst-case scenario is the accidental deletion or malicious falsification of ballots from the 1.42 million Californians voting electronically - 9.3 per cent of the state's 15.3 million registered voters. The software experts also warn that, if any candidate contests the election, a meaningful recount would prove impossible because four counties - including two of the largest - don't provide paper backups.


Sat, 16 Aug 2003 12:00:00 CST    Story Here  Archive
Published:Saturday, August 16, 2003
Editorial: Electronic voting still needs a safety net
The folks at Citizens for Ethical Government, a local watchdog group, suggest one more step is needed to ensure that we have an accountable election system: a paper trail. The current system, they claim, is vulnerable to error and fraud. Although the voting machines have numerous fail-safes, anyone who has ever used a computer knows that no technology is error-free. Maybe there's a faulty chip, the batteries weren't fully charged or there's a programming glitch. [...] No voting system, paper or pixels, is error-free and tamper-proof. But we have a chance to make our system a little more trustworthy, a bit more secure. We owe it to the voters of Bexar County to make sure that every vote is counted, just they way it was cast.


Records: 6641-6660 of 6703
<< Prev      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336      Next >>

 
Favorites

Election Problem Log image
2004 to 2009



Previous
Features


Accessibility Issues
Accessibility Issues


Cost Comparisons
Cost Comparisons


Flyers & Handouts
Handouts


VotersUnite News Exclusives


Search by

Copyright © 2004-2010 VotersUnite!