First documented case of e-voting fraud

In the US state of Kentucky, five persons were arrested under the accusation of electoral analysis

Bureworders of electoral machines have long been able to attach the argument for a long time that there were no documented cases of electoral fraud by means of electoral machines and the possibilities of electoral analysis were therefore purely theoretical idiots without practical relevance. Now it is over.

Last week, Kentucky Funf persons were arrested in Clay County. They are accused of working on machines and to have led others. According to the prosecution, both federal and state and local elections were affected.

Ivotronic electoral machine. Image: Lucerne County, PA

Clay County uses Ivotronic electoral machines of the manufacturer Election Systems Software (itS). The system is currently being used in 18 states, with immediate suspicion of electoral manipulation. Now he could be underpowered for the first time so concrete that it came to arrests.

ItS-electoral machines function with touchscreen and have (like the other manufacturers) a weighty disadvantage, which, among other things, the Federal Scarf Court as an unacceptable: The results of the election gangs carried out with them can be very difficult to understand because the voting is not by expression or something comparable is documented. Even the Wahler can only control whether his voice was properly evaluated. So it was only a matter of time for many observers until someone is caught who could not resist such an temptation to election falcification.

However, the advances in Kentucky came to light only because the electoral falscher from the picture book-backswald region of the most primitive method used to behave noteworthy carefree. Other manipulation possibilities require a little more technical skill, but are much harder to prove. The most problematic is the possibilities that are open to manufacturers of such machines – especially because proprietare models were allowed, whose source codes and functions are largely in the dark.

Initially, the election falscher in Clay County manipulated votes in the fact that they were paying payable for the manipulated voting tax. When checking the purchased Wahlers, they made the lack of user-friendliness of the gates: bribe should ask in the election after technical support for the voting ie. There was then controlled by the elective falsters taped as supervisors, whether they really deserved their bribery money. Over time, the defendants noted that the apparatus had a much more cost-pricable opportunity for electoral analysis: they only had to suggest the electors that they have on printing "Vote" had given her voice. In addition, one of them went to the machine, which demanded a repeated confirmation without knowledge of the Wahler, and changed the voice to another candidate.

In this respect, the trap now had a very strong traditional electoral fraud, as is already more frequent in the USA. In Germany, election manipulations have been rarely proved, but always suspected moments have come up. Unfortunately, there were evidence in the election of the current Bavarian Minister of Justice Beate Merk to Neu-Ulm Oberburgermeisterer, which she won in 1995 with only three votes lead, and at the beginning of the career of Federal Minister Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: