Electronic Ballot Boxes Safe, Says Right-Leaning, Clue-Free "Scholar"

In a recent Op-ed piece at the conservative newspaper website of the Washington Times, John R. Lott Jr., anti-gun-control and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute showed off just how little he understands computers, Republicans and humans, in general. I have taken the liberty of taking his article apart piece-by-piece. But first, here's his original piece. I don't think you need to worry about reading it since, the only parts of the article I don't include below are the first few paragraphs that outline what critics of electronic ballot boxes have said about them. So, if you feel you need to review, go ahead and check out the link above. Or, just read the more balanced text below. I hope you enjoy it!

Yet, these horror stories have one major problem: None of the electronic voting machines is hooked up to the Internet.

So, hacking didn't exist before the Internet came along? Just what was the movie "WarGames" about?

The machines are stand-alone units. It would be like someone trying to hack into your computer while it wasn't hooked up to the Internet. Impossible.

This shows your lack of knowledge when it comes to computers. Most people leave their computers plugged into the phone line, even when not logged onto their ISP. All it takes to hack into that machine is for the hacker to know that person's phone number.

Most electronic voting machines transfer the election results to a compact disk or some other "read only" format. These CDs are then taken to a central location where they are read into a computer. In the 20-plus years that these machines have been used, in many counties all across the country, there has never been a verified case of tampering.

Well, I find it hard to believe that electronic voting machines have been used since 1984. Compact Discs, themselves, were in their infancy at that time, so how could they be used back then? Time travel requirements aside, just because the results are burned to CD inside the machine, doesn't mean those results will be accurate. And just because there has never been a verified case of tampering doesn't mean there will never be a case. Also, have there been any unverified cases? This IS the presidency of the United States of America we're talking about here - if there's even a slight chance of tampering, shouldn't we do all we can to remove that chance?

When computer scientists warn of possible tampering with voting machines, they are not talking about hacking but about someone physically breaking open the lock on each individual machine and reprogramming it.

Are they? Personally, I'd be worried about any kind of break-ins. Electronics are simply not fool-proof. Just ask the movie industry about keeping their DVDs safe from bootleggers. You create an encryption, somebody will come up with a decryption.

Even if those breaking into the machines overcome the tamper-proof seals without being noticed, going through one computer at a time hardly seems like the way to steal most elections.

Sure, if the hacker doesn't have help. Even 911 required multiple conspirators.

What about the nightmare scenario that a Republican manufacturer secretly will program the computers to alter the election results? Such a scheme easily would be revealed as precincts check the machines for accuracy with sample votes both before and after the election. In California, machines were even randomly chosen to test during the day just in case their programs miscounted votes only during voting hours.

A machine can easily be programmed to only begin miscounting votes on a certain date, or when a certain series of commands on screen are given. The same way cheap DVD players from Asia can be reprogrammed by the user to play DVDs from other countries, an unscrupulous electronic ballot box programmer could show up to vote himself and reprogram the machine by performing the same commands any other voter would perform but in a particular order. In concert with other unscrupulous programmers, this could conceivably effect the outcome by enough votes to win one candidate a state. Which, as we know from 2000, is all that is needed to win, sometimes. Actually, one lone programmer could have easily have changed the outcome of the 2000 election since Bush only won by 500+ votes. As for Republicans (or Democrats) being nefarious and moral-free enough to use computers to gain the upper hand over their opponents, I can only point to a Boston Globe article from January 22, 2004 that reports on how "Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media..."

Check out the article for yourself here.

If, say, one out of every 10 votes were switched, it would show up when sample votes are fed into the machines.

What about one of every 100 or 1000? Would routine checks catch that? Again, in 2000, we saw Bush win by less than 600 votes. It may not make that much of a difference for just one machine, but if all the ballot machines were programmed this way, then it would make a much bigger difference.

A few electronic voting machines, along with even more optical scans, offer election officials the option to collect vote counts using encrypted modems in addition to removable read-only memory. A security expert commissioned by the state of Maryland reportedly "broke into the computer at the state Board of Elections" during a testand"completely" changed the election results.

Yes, I heard about this. He was able to hack into the system, change the outcome of the election and erase his tracks in under five minutes. How come you didn't mention this?

Yet, the tampering wasn't under real-world conditions, used an old system and really didn't change the results.

Not under "real-world" conditions? Used an "old system"? These are hardly things that assuage the skeptic's fears. Imagine what a person with a new system could do. With this old machine, it took five minutes to hack into this ballot box. Imagine how much faster a hacker could move with a top of the line machine. If you mean that the ballot machine the security expert was hacking into was an older model, again, the DVD decryption example comes to mind.

Hackers have not only to know what telephone number to call,

Didn't you see "WarGames"? The lead character in that movie, a high school student, programmed his computer to keep calling random phone numbers until he got computer tones. He then methodically went through the phone numbers his computer singled out until he found the number he was looking for.

bypass the modem encryption

Like I said above, ask the movie industry what DeCSS is and how it made it childs-play for bootleggers to decrypt DVDs and copy them.

and determine the password within a very narrow time frame,

Five minutes seems pretty narrow, but it can be done, apparently.

but two sets of calls reportedly from the same precinct would raise a red flag.

That's easy enough to avoid.

Even if all those things go wrong, the original data in the voting machines would not be compromised,

What if it already was? (See above.)

and it would still be possible to conduct an accurate recount.

Just like in 2000, when all they had to do was count cards?

Interestingly, no politicians so far have raised these same concerns about optical scans even though this threat involves hacking a central computer, not electronic voting machines.

Well, I'm not a politician, but I'm raising concerns about any computerized voting apparatus. If it were up to me, people would have to write the first initial of the candidate they are voting for on an index card. ANYthing computerized can be hacked. ANYthing. There's a saying I heard once that essentially goes like this: No human can create a code that another human cannot break. I think it comes from World War II, when the Brits were trying to hack the Nazi's Enigma coding machine.

So what about the claim that electronic voting machines make recounts impossible because they lack paper records?

I don't make that claim because if a computer can falsify a vote recorded onto a CD-ROM, it can falsify a paper ballot, as well.

Each electronic voting machine contains multiple redundant "readonly"memories. These unalterable memories are just as available to be rechecked as paper records.

Again, if the data written to them has already been manipulated, what good is "read-only"?

Paper ballots add nothing, except generating unnecessary costs.

I agree with you there. Although, it would make me feel better, nonetheless.

The redundant "read only" memories also protect against computer crashes or corrupted data.

Uh, unless your ballot box crashes in a way that it damages those read-only memories. That can happen. Such an occurrence could render your read-only memory with partial data, if the crash occurred during the writing/recording process.

Lever machines also have never used paper receipts.

But those were mechanical in nature and therefore are, at least in theory, difficult or impossible to hack. Certainly they're impossible to hack from far away.

It is remarkable that paper records with their history are now held up as the gold standard. Take just one exampleofhowpaper records could be misleading. Suppose that voters are given a chance to double check their electronic ballots and signal whether they are correct. If incorrect, the machine prints out a statement voiding the original receipt, and voters are allowed to vote again. If the programming fraud is rampant, as critics claim, a machine could simply void the paper record after the voter has left and then print out a new receipt.

You just made a good argument against computerized ballot boxes. Thank you! The American people need as much help as we can get on this issue. Indeed, no voting system is perfect. But giving unscrupulous individuals the ability to easily manipulate votes with a computerized system is no solution. Sure, it may make it easier for both the voter and the vote-counter, but since it is the presidency of the United States of America that we are talking about here, isn't it worth the extra effort?

The irony is that Democrats who complained the loudest about how punch-card machines and hanging chads in Florida disenfranchised voters are now complaining the loudest about what they earlier insisted was the "cure."

So, what? So, the first solution offered is supposed to be acceptable no matter how flawed? Excuse the Democrats for wanting a secure vote!

Speaking of which, this is also where you show your stripes. Clearly you are a Republican, or at least very Right-leaning, since you only think Democrats are interested in a fair, secure vote. I would expect everyone would want to make sure that every American who votes has their vote counted. Unless, that is you are for a fixed election.

For the record, I am registered as an independent, so, your "Democrats-only" stance falls flat with me, since I don't trust either party to not fix an election. I'm sure you've heard of the rumors that JFK only got into the White House because he had mob ties, right? Or was it Teamster ties? I forget who helped him allegedly stuff ballot boxes... but I digress.

Conspiracy theories may rally the political faithful, but at the risk of poisoning the political debate for years to come.

What? So, anyone who has a problem with computerized voting is a conspiracy theorist?? Surely, you're not that one-sided to label ALL those who disagree with you a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe in conspiracies, I just don't like it when election results are in question. In 2000 we saw the Supreme Court make a decision that, according to the Constitution, should have been made by Congress. In 2004, I'd simply like to see an accurate vote, with both sides being interested in making sure that every vote is counted. Since computerized voting is inherently flawed and allows for easy tampering either locally or remotely, I'd love to see it abolished all together. I'd also like it if you could read up on this stuff a little bit. My knowledge of computers is limited to being a PC gear-head for ten years. While I'm not trained in it, even I understand what can be done and what can't be.

John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served as the statistical expert for the minority report produced by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the Florida 2000 election.

Wow, a scholar, huh? Obviously not of computers.

Thank you, and good night!