16 ms·

Georgia defends voting system despite 243-percent turnout in one precinct

141 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

woofyman 8y ago
>appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.) The headline is incorrect. The turnout was 18 percent.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  I think the point is that the system thought there was 276 registered voters. The system was clearly wrong, and was only corrected after the lawsuit.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    But that system is not the one who cares about if the voter is registered, nor does it know who has arrived in front of it - that's checked by the officials before that. It only counts anonymous votes. The only reason why it "needs" to know the number of registered is for cosmetic reasons, to display some statistics , i.e. to go from "x people voted" to "x% of expected people voted" that are nice to have but don't affect the integrity of the votes in any way.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Perhaps, though it’s not a good sign and we don’t have all the details.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  No, the headline is correct in that the issue is that it was reported to be 243 percent.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  In my opinion, the headline did not intend to reflect the actual number of voters who turned out to vote. Instead, the headline highlights the shocking disparity between the data reported by the voting machines and their supporting software compared to the actual data. I suspect it will be clear to the majority of readers that 243% turnout is unreasonable and impossible.
  - nerpderp83 8y ago
    America goes big, I am proud of our 243% turnout. Why be satisfied with 100%? This great country wasn't built by standing around or sticking with the status quo. No Old-European socialist has managed to break a 100, but we did and we should be proud.
- HelloMcFly 8y ago
  This is the best comment on the reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_defends_voting_system_despite_243percent/e3u7lqg/?st=jklqd4h6&sh=b379e73f https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_def... It's not exactly a "nothing to see here" issue just because the issue was fixed. Further, I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that the new numbers themselves are accurate. Why should I be?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we simply made a fairly common error and now we fixed it ??? I mean, that's what these people are alleging. That the system is prone to errors. So whether you believe the original numbers are correct, or you believe the new numbers are correct, or you believe there are likely a different set of numbers altogether that better reflect the reality, the premise underlying your belief has to be that numbers have been reported in error. Logical consistency for adherence to any of the possible positions demands a concession that either the first set of reported numbers were erroneous, or the second set of reported numbers were erroneous. Or, indeed, both sets of reported numbers were erroneous.
- monkeydreams 8y ago
  Thank you. I'm one for thinking the Republicans are crooked but the headline claim borders on tinfoil-wearing conspiracy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jimrandomh 8y ago
Independent of whether paperless electronic voting systems are specifically banned by law, buying and using them creates the appearance of deliberately enabling fraud; the consensus among professionals in the relevant fields is that they're unacceptably insecure. So why don't we prosecute the voting officials who did this? Or at the very least get them out of sensitive positions?
- janekm 8y ago
  They should be voted out of office immediately! Oh, wait...
  - taneq 8y ago
    "Despite some early hiccups, polls show that 417% of voters support using these voting machines."
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  The thing that really bothers me about this is that there's zero reason for something like a voting machine to not have at least a minimal paper trail and proper air gapping. Municipal townships should not be putting anything online without hiring a professional company that's actually required to maintain standards (such as bill pay). Since most poll workers are volunteers, there's zero way that this is possible. Using magnetic cards that aren't good enough for financial transactions doensn't pass muster. Voting should be at least if not more secure than financial transactions.
wheaties 8y ago
I love that they wiped and degaused the servers holding key evidence. Cause why would you do that if you had anything to hide?
- everdev 8y ago
  It doesn't look good, but isn't proof of guilt. Did they say why they did it? I'm wondering if they're required to reformat the machines X days after an election result has been certified. I can't think of other legitimate reasons though.
  - Brass 8y ago
    It's not good. "On July 3, Marks' organization and state voters filed their lawsuit, and on July 7, technicians at KSU wiped the server. When the case later moved to federal court in August, technicians wiped at least one additional server one day after a federal judge was assigned to the case." https://fcw.com/articles/2017/12/08/wray-fbi-georgia-election-johnson.aspx https://fcw.com/articles/2017/12/08/wray-fbi-georgia-electio...
    - someone454 8y ago
      AFTER the fbi imaged the drive, so nothing was lost. Unlike Hillary’s email server.
  - washadjeffmad 8y ago
    It's not that formalized or that well thought out of a process overall. How voting is conducted is fairly federated, and CES had a huge unsecured dump of voting data from all over the state open to anyone who knew about it. The guy at the Black Hat conference covered it pretty completely, I think. Just assume that the people involved in the voting process don't understand data management and storage practices or things like access control or asset value and have no budget to train or retain, and it makes sense. The upload interface was depracated, unpatched Drupal of that's any indication of their IT effort. Set it and forget it. From what I was told, the FBI already had copies of the data, and I'm sure a college who gave the state some space and services to run things didn't want to be responsible any more than a datacenter would want to be for hoating a MEGA storage node after the Dotcom raid. Get the hot potato out of there, let the law enforcement handle it. This means no data was lost or rendered unavailable, just that it would be the FBI's responsibility to furnish that evidence in event of any further lawsuits.
powvans 8y ago
I've lived in Georgia most of my life and we've used these voting machines as long as I can remember. I've never felt comfortable voting on these machines. You get the card from the poll worker, you put it into the machine, you make some choices, and then you hand the card to another poll worker on the way out the door. Nothing about that process gives me confidence that the votes are actually counted after they are cast. I believe they are counted because I still have some confidence in government. Unfortunately confidence in government is eroding and these poor processes are not helping.
- drb91 8y ago
  There's a similar process in California, but you get a receipt. Does georgia offer a voting receipt?
  - pazimzadeh 8y ago
    I voted in Missouri using one of these machines. You can print a receipt but you cannot actually have the receipt, you just see it slide behind some clear plastic.
    - powvans 8y ago
      The machines used in Georgia do not print receipts. Full stop.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    The California receipt lets you know later that your ballot was counted- very handy when you mail it in or cast a provisional. The ballot itself is paper. Or, at least, that’s how my county does it.
  - powvans 8y ago
    No, there’s no receipt. That’s what’s so confidence eroding out it. All you have to show for your effort is an “I voted” sticker with a peach on it.
hnaccy 8y ago
I find the use of paperless voting machines extremely suspect. In the best case supporters of paperless are naive or have had their palms greased by the machines' suppliers. In the worst case they're actively being used to tamper with election results. The longer officials hem and haw over replacing them the more I fear the worst.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  I want a paper trail and an id. I don't see why we cannot have both as each camp has reasons for it piece of the puzzle. proof of residence is just as important as the paper trail. but what good is a paper trail that does not include a code that can be scanned to verify it was actually accounted for?
  - bdamm 8y ago
    > what good is a paper trail that does not include (feature) A hand-recount then becomes possible.
  - unclenoriega 8y ago
    It might be possible to have a system that allows you to prove that your vote was counted, but if you want to prove it was counted correctly, then you open the door to vote buying and coercion. Edit: It seems that technologies now exist to fix this problem. Link below courtesy of tzs.
    - dmix 8y ago
      > but if you want to prove it was counted correctly, then you open the door to vote buying and coercion. How so?
      - bastawhiz 8y ago
        If you can prove that you voted for who you voted for, you can sell your vote to a third party. They can ensure that you're not betraying them.
madengr 8y ago
Current KS Republican primary spread for governor is 197 out of > 300k votes. This system needs to be accurate and verifiable.
- redler 8y ago
  And one of the candidates is the Kansas Secretary of State, overseer of the process.
  - madengr 8y ago
    Which is good, as he is one of the few concerned about vote fraud.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Kobach has only ever been concerned about forms of vote fraud that don't show any signs of actually existing, and only then as a pretext for policies that make legitimate voting more difficult as a tool to disenfranchise populations likely to vote against him and his party. Thinking he is actually concerned about vote fraud is like thinking Donald Trump's cries of “fake news” are signs of a deep and abiding concern for journalistic integrity.
  - Brass 8y ago
    Same goes for Georgia. Brian Kemp is currently the Secretary of State of Georgia and has indicated he will not step down. https://www.wabe.org/kemp-robust-systems-will-keep-georgia-elections-secure/ https://www.wabe.org/kemp-robust-systems-will-keep-georgia-e... https://www.wabe.org/candidates-set-abrams-kemp-will-compete-to-be-georgias-next-governor/ https://www.wabe.org/candidates-set-abrams-kemp-will-compete...
williesleg 8y ago
System working as designed.
exabrial 8y ago
... wasn't the election integrity commission was mothballed by blue states?
- joelkevinjones 8y ago
  That "integrity" commission was largely tasked with voter fraud, not overall integrity. See which states are doing the most egregious voter-list purging (i.e. using first name, last name comparison to determine if two database entries are the same; ignoring: middle initial, race, DoB, etc.)
davidw 8y ago
In the form of a press release, but Senator Wyden gets it: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paper-ballots-and-audits-are-essential-to-secure-american-elections-against-foreign-hackers https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paper...
jackfoxy 8y ago
I spoke with a voting reform activist in San Francisco about a year ago. I expressed my opinion that one's vote should be securely auditable. He was horrified. Such a system could be used to buy and sell votes. (In other words you could prove who you voted for to someone else, if you were so inclined.) I can't help but think both sides intentionally talk past each other in order to maintain the status quo.
- basementcat 8y ago
  What would be so horrifying about buying selling votes? (other than the fact that it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison :-) Political campaigns could be run more efficiently (directly paying voters instead of a barrage of ads on radio, tv, youtube, billboard, every yard sign). Citizens may even pay more attention to important issues as they decide from whom they wish the accept payment. There would be a strong economic incentive to ensure that all votes are reliably cast and accurately counted. Depending on how voter incentives are taxed, local jurisdictions may even have an economic incentive to discourage (or encourage) gerrymandering.
  - jancsika 8y ago
    Just to be clear: Our current election system is rag-tag, federated state-by-state, mostly-insecure, run by non-technical volunteers, and cannot leak a national database which links citizens' identities to their vote. Your election system perfectly implements a standard set of zero-knowledge proofs, probably implemented and maintained by experts. These experts can count and cryptographically prove the totals without being able to link citizens' identities to their respective voting choices. At the same time the citizen is granted ultimate control over their data such that they can reveal it to a third party in exchange for payment. Thirdly, a given citizen's voting data is plausibly deniable to any other party so that the third party offering payment cannot aggregate and sell the data. (Otherwise you'd be building a public nuisance that tyrants could leverage to punish citizens for anything in their now non-repudiatable voting history. This is also why I write "perfectly implemented" above.) Do I have this right so far?
    - 8y ago
diogenescynic 8y ago
This is part of a trend—Georgia deleted election data from 2016 when a lawsuit was filed: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/26/computer-files-heart-georgia-election-security-case-deleted-day-after-suit-filed/803579001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/26/computer-file... How is that not destruction of evidence? Seems clear Georgia has a lot to hide.

141 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

>appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.) The headline is incorrect. The turnout was 18 percent.

ggggtez 8y ago
I think the point is that the system thought there was 276 registered voters. The system was clearly wrong, and was only corrected after the lawsuit.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  But that system is not the one who cares about if the voter is registered, nor does it know who has arrived in front of it - that's checked by the officials before that. It only counts anonymous votes. The only reason why it "needs" to know the number of registered is for cosmetic reasons, to display some statistics , i.e. to go from "x people voted" to "x% of expected people voted" that are nice to have but don't affect the integrity of the votes in any way.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Perhaps, though it’s not a good sign and we don’t have all the details.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No, the headline is correct in that the issue is that it was reported to be 243 percent.
cmiles74 8y ago
In my opinion, the headline did not intend to reflect the actual number of voters who turned out to vote. Instead, the headline highlights the shocking disparity between the data reported by the voting machines and their supporting software compared to the actual data. I suspect it will be clear to the majority of readers that 243% turnout is unreasonable and impossible.
- nerpderp83 8y ago
  America goes big, I am proud of our 243% turnout. Why be satisfied with 100%? This great country wasn't built by standing around or sticking with the status quo. No Old-European socialist has managed to break a 100, but we did and we should be proud.
HelloMcFly 8y ago
This is the best comment on the reddit thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_defends_voting_system_despite_243percent/e3u7lqg/?st=jklqd4h6&sh=b379e73f https://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/95o3g8/georgia_def... It's not exactly a "nothing to see here" issue just because the issue was fixed. Further, I'm not exactly brimming with confidence that the new numbers themselves are accurate. Why should I be?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  That's kind of the issue. The suit is alleging that the system is prone to error. To say that there is no problem, and no need for a suit, because - um - we simply made a fairly common error and now we fixed it ??? I mean, that's what these people are alleging. That the system is prone to errors. So whether you believe the original numbers are correct, or you believe the new numbers are correct, or you believe there are likely a different set of numbers altogether that better reflect the reality, the premise underlying your belief has to be that numbers have been reported in error. Logical consistency for adherence to any of the possible positions demands a concession that either the first set of reported numbers were erroneous, or the second set of reported numbers were erroneous. Or, indeed, both sets of reported numbers were erroneous.
monkeydreams 8y ago
Thank you. I'm one for thinking the Republicans are crooked but the headline claim borders on tinfoil-wearing conspiracy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jimrandomh 8y ago

Independent of whether paperless electronic voting systems are specifically banned by law, buying and using them creates the appearance of deliberately enabling fraud; the consensus among professionals in the relevant fields is that they're unacceptably insecure. So why don't we prosecute the voting officials who did this? Or at the very least get them out of sensitive positions?

janekm 8y ago
They should be voted out of office immediately! Oh, wait...
- taneq 8y ago
  "Despite some early hiccups, polls show that 417% of voters support using these voting machines."
cannonedhamster 8y ago
The thing that really bothers me about this is that there's zero reason for something like a voting machine to not have at least a minimal paper trail and proper air gapping. Municipal townships should not be putting anything online without hiring a professional company that's actually required to maintain standards (such as bill pay). Since most poll workers are volunteers, there's zero way that this is possible. Using magnetic cards that aren't good enough for financial transactions doensn't pass muster. Voting should be at least if not more secure than financial transactions.

wheaties 8y ago

I love that they wiped and degaused the servers holding key evidence. Cause why would you do that if you had anything to hide?

everdev 8y ago
It doesn't look good, but isn't proof of guilt. Did they say why they did it? I'm wondering if they're required to reformat the machines X days after an election result has been certified. I can't think of other legitimate reasons though.
- Brass 8y ago
  It's not good. "On July 3, Marks' organization and state voters filed their lawsuit, and on July 7, technicians at KSU wiped the server. When the case later moved to federal court in August, technicians wiped at least one additional server one day after a federal judge was assigned to the case." https://fcw.com/articles/2017/12/08/wray-fbi-georgia-election-johnson.aspx https://fcw.com/articles/2017/12/08/wray-fbi-georgia-electio...
  - someone454 8y ago
    AFTER the fbi imaged the drive, so nothing was lost. Unlike Hillary’s email server.
- washadjeffmad 8y ago
  It's not that formalized or that well thought out of a process overall. How voting is conducted is fairly federated, and CES had a huge unsecured dump of voting data from all over the state open to anyone who knew about it. The guy at the Black Hat conference covered it pretty completely, I think. Just assume that the people involved in the voting process don't understand data management and storage practices or things like access control or asset value and have no budget to train or retain, and it makes sense. The upload interface was depracated, unpatched Drupal of that's any indication of their IT effort. Set it and forget it. From what I was told, the FBI already had copies of the data, and I'm sure a college who gave the state some space and services to run things didn't want to be responsible any more than a datacenter would want to be for hoating a MEGA storage node after the Dotcom raid. Get the hot potato out of there, let the law enforcement handle it. This means no data was lost or rendered unavailable, just that it would be the FBI's responsibility to furnish that evidence in event of any further lawsuits.

powvans 8y ago

I've lived in Georgia most of my life and we've used these voting machines as long as I can remember. I've never felt comfortable voting on these machines. You get the card from the poll worker, you put it into the machine, you make some choices, and then you hand the card to another poll worker on the way out the door. Nothing about that process gives me confidence that the votes are actually counted after they are cast. I believe they are counted because I still have some confidence in government. Unfortunately confidence in government is eroding and these poor processes are not helping.

drb91 8y ago
There's a similar process in California, but you get a receipt. Does georgia offer a voting receipt?
- pazimzadeh 8y ago
  I voted in Missouri using one of these machines. You can print a receipt but you cannot actually have the receipt, you just see it slide behind some clear plastic.
  - powvans 8y ago
    The machines used in Georgia do not print receipts. Full stop.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  The California receipt lets you know later that your ballot was counted- very handy when you mail it in or cast a provisional. The ballot itself is paper. Or, at least, that’s how my county does it.
- powvans 8y ago
  No, there’s no receipt. That’s what’s so confidence eroding out it. All you have to show for your effort is an “I voted” sticker with a peach on it.

hnaccy 8y ago

I find the use of paperless voting machines extremely suspect. In the best case supporters of paperless are naive or have had their palms greased by the machines' suppliers. In the worst case they're actively being used to tamper with election results. The longer officials hem and haw over replacing them the more I fear the worst.

Shivetya 8y ago
I want a paper trail and an id. I don't see why we cannot have both as each camp has reasons for it piece of the puzzle. proof of residence is just as important as the paper trail. but what good is a paper trail that does not include a code that can be scanned to verify it was actually accounted for?
- bdamm 8y ago
  > what good is a paper trail that does not include (feature) A hand-recount then becomes possible.
- unclenoriega 8y ago
  It might be possible to have a system that allows you to prove that your vote was counted, but if you want to prove it was counted correctly, then you open the door to vote buying and coercion. Edit: It seems that technologies now exist to fix this problem. Link below courtesy of tzs.
  - dmix 8y ago
    > but if you want to prove it was counted correctly, then you open the door to vote buying and coercion. How so?
    - bastawhiz 8y ago
      If you can prove that you voted for who you voted for, you can sell your vote to a third party. They can ensure that you're not betraying them.

madengr 8y ago

Current KS Republican primary spread for governor is 197 out of > 300k votes. This system needs to be accurate and verifiable.

redler 8y ago
And one of the candidates is the Kansas Secretary of State, overseer of the process.
- madengr 8y ago
  Which is good, as he is one of the few concerned about vote fraud.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Kobach has only ever been concerned about forms of vote fraud that don't show any signs of actually existing, and only then as a pretext for policies that make legitimate voting more difficult as a tool to disenfranchise populations likely to vote against him and his party. Thinking he is actually concerned about vote fraud is like thinking Donald Trump's cries of “fake news” are signs of a deep and abiding concern for journalistic integrity.
- Brass 8y ago
  Same goes for Georgia. Brian Kemp is currently the Secretary of State of Georgia and has indicated he will not step down. https://www.wabe.org/kemp-robust-systems-will-keep-georgia-elections-secure/ https://www.wabe.org/kemp-robust-systems-will-keep-georgia-e... https://www.wabe.org/candidates-set-abrams-kemp-will-compete-to-be-georgias-next-governor/ https://www.wabe.org/candidates-set-abrams-kemp-will-compete...

williesleg 8y ago

System working as designed.

exabrial 8y ago

... wasn't the election integrity commission was mothballed by blue states?

joelkevinjones 8y ago
That "integrity" commission was largely tasked with voter fraud, not overall integrity. See which states are doing the most egregious voter-list purging (i.e. using first name, last name comparison to determine if two database entries are the same; ignoring: middle initial, race, DoB, etc.)

davidw 8y ago

In the form of a press release, but Senator Wyden gets it: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paper-ballots-and-audits-are-essential-to-secure-american-elections-against-foreign-hackers https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-paper...

jackfoxy 8y ago

I spoke with a voting reform activist in San Francisco about a year ago. I expressed my opinion that one's vote should be securely auditable. He was horrified. Such a system could be used to buy and sell votes. (In other words you could prove who you voted for to someone else, if you were so inclined.) I can't help but think both sides intentionally talk past each other in order to maintain the status quo.

basementcat 8y ago
What would be so horrifying about buying selling votes? (other than the fact that it is punishable by up to 5 years in prison :-) Political campaigns could be run more efficiently (directly paying voters instead of a barrage of ads on radio, tv, youtube, billboard, every yard sign). Citizens may even pay more attention to important issues as they decide from whom they wish the accept payment. There would be a strong economic incentive to ensure that all votes are reliably cast and accurately counted. Depending on how voter incentives are taxed, local jurisdictions may even have an economic incentive to discourage (or encourage) gerrymandering.
- jancsika 8y ago
  Just to be clear: Our current election system is rag-tag, federated state-by-state, mostly-insecure, run by non-technical volunteers, and cannot leak a national database which links citizens' identities to their vote. Your election system perfectly implements a standard set of zero-knowledge proofs, probably implemented and maintained by experts. These experts can count and cryptographically prove the totals without being able to link citizens' identities to their respective voting choices. At the same time the citizen is granted ultimate control over their data such that they can reveal it to a third party in exchange for payment. Thirdly, a given citizen's voting data is plausibly deniable to any other party so that the third party offering payment cannot aggregate and sell the data. (Otherwise you'd be building a public nuisance that tyrants could leverage to punish citizens for anything in their now non-repudiatable voting history. This is also why I write "perfectly implemented" above.) Do I have this right so far?
  - 8y ago

diogenescynic 8y ago

This is part of a trend—Georgia deleted election data from 2016 when a lawsuit was filed: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/26/computer-files-heart-georgia-election-security-case-deleted-day-after-suit-filed/803579001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/10/26/computer-file... How is that not destruction of evidence? Seems clear Georgia has a lot to hide.