Via Seeing the Forest comes this analysis of the cost of stealing an election. It doesn't go into any technical details, but it does show that it wouldn't take that much of an investment to have a sizeable impact. Check it out.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on April 22, 2004 to Technology, science, and math | TrackBackDamn. I've thought about the larger principles involved, and I've thought about the need for greater technological security (which is frankly awful at the moment), and I've thought about the need for a paper trail, and I've thought about who owns companies that manufacture DRE equipment... but until now I had never thought about who had the money to buy themselves a hacked election. That's scary stuff.
Posted by: Steve Bates on April 22, 2004 9:05 AMThe dems already "steal" elections by paying people to vote in most major metro areas. Local organizers each pay hundreds of people a nominal amount, $10 or $20, and take them to the polls with the understanding that they will vote for a particular candidate. It's well-organized and widespread. And yes, it's primarily the dems.
Maybe this should be addressed before worrying about voting machine fraud, which would almost certainly be discovered, either by elections officials, the media or whistleblowers.
Posted by: TM on April 22, 2004 12:44 PMBottom line is, neither party is above doing it if they think they can get away with it and can afford to do so.
It's one thing to have a spirited yet civil debate on the ideology, political philosophy and agendas of the parties. It's quite another to pretend that all your guys have virtue and integrity, and all the other guys are sleazy, scandalous and criminal. I don't care whether you're Michael Savage or Michael Moore; it's true either way.