Critical Evidence of Fraud Capability in Electronic Voting Machines
Compiled by Vickie Karp of VoteRescue and Coalition for Visible Ballots, 2008
“If voting machines were on trial for murder, the sheer avalanche of circumstantial evidence would result in an instant conviction and death penalty”….Vickie Karp and Abbe Waldman Delozier, Co-Editors, “HACKED! High Tech Election Theft in America http://www.hackedelections.com
On November 4th, 2008, 90% of American voters used some type of computerized voting system to cast or count their ballot. And not one election official in this country can guarantee to even a single voter that their vote was counted as cast. Consider the following about equipment manufactured by each of the top four vendors of electronic voting systems in the U.S.:
Regarding Diebold’s TSx voting machines (which are touch screen machines with printers added), the following is a quote from Harri Hursti, Finnish world-class computer expert, who examined these machines in Emery County, Utah in 2006:
* “There seem to be several “backdoors” …which are unacceptable from a security point of view. These backdoors exist … and they allow the system to be modified in extremely flexible ways and without even basic levels of security involved.”….Harri Hursti for Black Box Voting, 2006
Michael Shamos, a Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor and veteran voting-systems examiner for the state of Pennsylvania, said about Hursti’s findings: "It's the most serious security breach that's ever been discovered in a voting system.”
* Diebold also hacked by Princeton in 2006: University Study Reveals Malicious Code Can Be Easily Inserted into Voting Machine, Spread from One System to the Next, Resulting in Flipped Votes, and Stolen Elections…All Without a Trace Being Left Behind. Study Also Confirms that Voter Access Cards Can Be Created At Home to Defeat Security Protocols, Allowing Voters to Vote Multiple Times in a Single Election!
* Hart InterCivic – former Hart programmer William Singer sued Hart with a 2004 “whistleblower” qui-tam (fraud) lawsuit after writing letters to the Secretaries of State of Ohio and Texas to warn them that Hart systems had serious security flaws and that company representatives misrepresented facts about the equipment to election officials in order to sell it and to secure a share of the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) federal funds. The Secretaries of State did not respond. Among other allegations, Singer states that he has firsthand knowledge that Hart routinely failed to adequately test its software, which renders false or fraudulent every representation Hart made to potential purchasers regarding the system’s reliability, security, accuracy, or compliance with legal requirements. Mr. Singer has firsthand knowledge that Hart created a “dummy” machine to obtain system certification in at least one state – Ohio.
A copy of the entire complaint can be found here:
* Hart E-Voting System Adds 100,000+ Votes in One Texas County During 2006 Primary Election! Hart InterCivic Paperless Touch-Screen Systems Flat-Out Fails in Tarrant County, TX: story link is here: www.bradblog.com/?p=25
* Sequoia Voting systems were hacked in seconds by Princeton computer programming experts in February 2007, with findings stating the systems could be “easily…rigged to throw an election”. Says Princton’s Professer of Computer Science Andrew Appel, “We can take a version of Sequoia’s software program and modify it to do something different---like appear to count votes, but really move them from one candidate to another. And it can be programmed to do that only on Tuesdays in November, and at any other time. You can’t detect it.”
* Sequoia: 16,632 Votes Reportedly 'Unaccounted For' in Palm Beach County Primary Election 'Recount' – When just 18 Votes Separate Candidates in Circuit Judge Race Where Votes Are Said Lost in Re-tally on Sequoia Optical-Scan Voting Systems, August 30th, 2008.
* ES&S’s Ivotronic voting machines reported by Florida State University to be vulnerable to viruses that could be introduced by a single outsider and that could spread throughout a county. That means that a single outsider in a county that uses the Ivotronic with firmware version 8 could potentially steal all the votes in that county, without being detected.
* ES&S Ivotronicvoting machine “flips” voter’s choice as he attempts to vote in
November 2007 Texas election. Link to story:
* Clint Curtis, a software programmer from Florida, gave a sworn affidavit in 2004 that he had designed “vote-flipping software” at the request of Republican Speaker of the Florida House Tom Feeney, while he, Curtis, was working for a software company called Yang Enterprises. Link to his affidavit is here:
The above is but a fraction of the stories detailing the dangerously insecure voting systems which Americans were using on November 4th.
This is an emergency situation! We must do whatever possible to immediately halt the use of these voting machines across the country in all future elections!
We must return immediately to hand-counted paper ballots, with video cameras on the ballot box, with citizens running and monitoring the election and counting the votes, and posting the totals at the precinct.
Vickie Karp, PR Director
Coalition for Visible Ballots (.org)