Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? See this blog, they are ALL OVER the voting fraud
http://www.bradblog.com/

In GOD we trust?
One can't trust the ACLU, or so it would seem...
This issue "cuts to the bone," how come it's NYU, not our billion dollar baby (the ACLU) who's telling us to tuck our head between...

Solving the problem is easily a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the people making the decisions have no clue about information systems or data handling.

Eliminate the gold-plating functionality and get to the core _purpose_ of the electronic voting: to ensure that a) the voter actually votes for whichever candidate he actually wants, and b) the vote is recorded accurately (i.e., no ambiguous 'hanging chad').

This can be accomplished with a simple change in procedure and some added hardware.

1) The voter uses the electronic tablet to record her votes.
2) Once she reviews the ballot and verifies it is correct, she presses the big red "vote" button.
3) A paper ballot is then printed. The ballot has the votes in text and a barcode at the bottom with the same information. The voter can verify that her vote was printed accurately on the ballot.
4) The voter drops her ballot into the vote box.
5) The ballots are run through a high-speed scanner that reads the bar code and tallies the vote.
6) In the event of a challenge, the ballots can be easily be counted by hand, with no ambiguity as to the voter's intent.

Using a database as the sole "system of record" of the vote is dangerous and frankly quite stupid. Changing the outcome of an election that relied upon such a database is as simple as the article suggested. Conversely, in order to change the outcome of a paper system, it would require a large-scale operation to print and substitute many votes.

Additional security could be implemented on the ballots, such as printing a hash key that ties the voter's ID number, the precinct number, time/date, and voting booth number together. It would then be even more difficult (nearly impossible) to print a fake ballot that passed muster, therefore eleiminating the ability to fake enough votes to sway many (any?) elections.

Detecting fraud after the fact and calling for a recount won't do a bit of good with crooked Neocon manipulation. They've got election stealing down to a science. We've already seen 2 presidential elections where the stolen election was proven afterwards and the usurper got to "serve" (or disserve) anyway. This June there's strong evidence of voting fraud in San Diego, where a recount has been called for, and the initial count hasn't been completed. But the newpapers announced a victory for the Republican candidate, Brian Bilbray. Though his election hasn't been certified by the county or by the state, he flew to Washington and was sworn in by Dennis Hastert--in the Neocon's trademark "bull's rush" around legality and reason to total power. It seems like easy-to-rig voting machines, the Supreme Court and the corporate-owned mainstream media are deciding the elections. In my opinion we need closely monitored paper ballot voting, even if it means holding an election a couple of weeks early for a longer, accurate count. Purposeful Neocon haste makes waste. Or as Joseph Stalin observed, "It's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes.