An HBO special "Hacking Democracy" revealed significant problems with the electronic voting system. In the 2000 presidential election, an electronic voting machine recorded minus 16,022 votes for Al Gore in Volusia County, Fla. "The faulty tally alerted computer scientists, politicians and everyday citizens to the very real possibility of computer hacking during elections," according to a synopsis of the documentary.
It also records that, "David Dill, professor of computer science at Stanford, says the problem is that there are ‘lots of people involved in writing the software, and lots of people who could have touched the software before it went into that machine. If one of those people put something malicious in the software and it's distributed to all the machines, then that one person could be responsible for changing tens of thousands of votes, maybe even hundreds of thousands, across the country.’"
"Harris brought this proprietary 'secret' information to computer security expert Dr. Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins University, who determined that the software lacked the necessary security features to prevent tampering. Her subsequent investigation took her from the trash cans of Texas to the secretary of state of California and finally to Florida, where a "mini-election" to test the vulnerability of the memory cards used in electronic voting produced alarming results.
Diebold software, or other software like it, is installed in thousands of counties across 32 states. David Dill, professor of computer science at Stanford, says the problem is that there are "lots of people involved in writing the software, and lots of people who could have touched the software before it went into that machine. If one of those people put something malicious in the software and it's distributed to all the machines, then that one person could be responsible for changing tens of thousands of votes, maybe even hundreds of thousands, across the country."
In Florida, Leon County supervisor of elections Ion Sancho presided over a trial "mini-election" to see if the vote could be hacked without being detected. Before votes were actually cast, computer analyst Harri Hursti "stuffed the ballot box" by entering votes on the computer's memory card. Then, after votes were cast, the results displayed when the same memory card was entered in the central tabulating program indicated that fraud was indeed possible. In other words, by accessing a memory card before an election, someone could change the results - a claim Diebold had denied was possible."
It concludes with this startling claim, "Beverly Harris' research proved that the top-secret computerized systems counting the votes in America's public elections are not only fallible, but also vulnerable to undetectable hacking, from local school board contests to the presidential race. With the electronic voting machines of three companies - Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia - collectively responsible for around 80 percent of America's votes today, the stakes for democracy are high."
In the 2006 state elections, there were a number of complaints regarding electronic voting machines in El Paso County. The County Attorney's office interviewed voters regarding their difficulties in casting the votes desired. Yet, months later there has been nothing done.
Can El Paso County voters have confidence their electronic voting system is not being tampered with? In light of the billions of dollars at stake in the take-over of downtown, can candidates who oppose forced takings be confident votes cast for them will not be hacked away by interests supporting candidates who support expropriation of private property for billionaire private interests?
We don't know. But, the questions must be answered by the County Attorney credibly, expediently and transparently.
El Paso voters must have the confidence elections are clean in El Paso and that voters are being given the respect owed.
Return to top.
This perspective first appeared in Border Observer, Jaime O. Perez, Editor