Some questions on BBV - Bev's demo with Dean...

[TrustingDog]

Could someone answer these, please?

1. How is the password known to get into the GEMS program?

2. How many voting machines are networked (they Are networked right, nothing to do with the internet??) to the one PC that records the numbers? each station, each county? Can you give a high end number and a low end.

3. About how many of these pc's stations are there involved in the whole system as it stands now?

4. Some are saying that there are 'witnesses' from each party at this central tabulation pc. (They're probably thinking of the old paper days, tho). As I understand, there is no accountability to anyone.


thanks.

[TrustingDog]

1. bump.

[liveoaktx]

2. What it looked like to me (your question number one)

It wasn't so much the GEMS program as it was that it uses MS Access databases which reside on the hard drive. On the demo, Bev went to *My Computer* and brought up the database that had the totals, and simply altered the number (which would be reflected in the GEMS program). The idea, of course, there, is that the PC is not in kiosk mode and anyone who understands Windows OS could get to Access. One can put passwords on Access DB files-I don't know this for sure but I tend to think that the company putting this out probably has one password for the whole deal, so that if you cracked it (via, say, spyware) on one pc, you'd know it for another pc. In the demo, however, she did not show a password being entered for the Access database.

[RedEagle]

4. May not need password

If I recall correctly, Bev took Dean into the program the election supervisor sees with a password. I do believe that password is simple and the same for all systems.

For the hack, through "My Computer," I don't remember if a password was needed.

In any case, in one of these programs the password was, "password."

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Logansquare]

5. Hi Wally!

Welcome to DU!

[SidDithers]

8. Heheheheh. nt.

Sid

[Andy_Stephenson]

9. I wish I had time to address this full o shit post...

but I don't so I will come back to it shortly.

BTW...The "nutjob" has worked to help a Republican in Riverside County to right an election that was thrown to a Democrat. Before you make blanket statements do some research.

Bev is and remains non-partisan. now I am going to alert this post.

[ParanoidPat]

11. I already did Andy.....

.....check your in box RE; tomorrow. :evilgrin:

[Strelnikov_]

14. Before You Do, Let Me Record This Statement For Posterity

" . . 100% of problems have been human . . "

Three Mile Island, Exxon Valdez, those mistakes were 100% human.
9/11, humans again.
Nazi Germany, again, those pesky humans.

Humans are (either by corruption, incompetence or honest mistake) fallible. That is why there needs to be a voter verified paper trail to provide for an independent recount.

I don't think the right-wing plan is to throw the upcoming election by manipulating the machines. I think the plan is to create enough electoral chaos through the use of these machines so the election gets thrown into the courts/legislature's in key states.

Why else would they be opposed to a paper trail? As was pointed out, any election using these machines can just as easily be thrown for a Democrat or Republican.

[TrustingDog]

15. yes, 'they' don't need many stations to infiltrate...

and get the results they want - just the right few at the right spots. What is needed is a full a coverage as possible so they can selectively pilfer.

[Andy_Stephenson]

10. I wish I had time to address this full o shit post...

but I don't so I will come back to it shortly.

BTW...The "nutjob" has worked to help a Republican in Riverside County to right an election that was thrown to a Democrat. Before you make blanket statements do some research.

Bev is and remains non-partisan. now I am going to alert this post.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Junkdrawer]

18. The software SHOULD detect direct entry - it does not.

The software SHOULD prevent entry of negative numbers for votes - it does not.

And it's worse: the edits only effect the Election Summary Report and the Java based real time reporter while leaving the Statement of Votes unchanged. Thus an election night spot check would pass.

Moreover new passwords generated on new databases should not be able to be pasted into the users table to allow entry into a different database. But they are.

All in all the software appears to me to be designed to allow such cheating.

The demo you saw on CNBC Sunday was sanitized to a great extent.

[ParanoidPat]

37. Don't forget that the referential integrity is turned OFF!

Default for Access is ON! :evilfrown:

Referential Integrity Definition

[mzmolly]

21. Ever heard of a "hacker" ??? That is what the demonstration was about.

H-A-C-K-E-R-S.

The rest of your rant is worthless because you fail to realize the premise of her position.

Also Bev doesn't say WHO might steal an election, she exposes the simplicity in which it could be done and appears to want integrity in the process.

[Junkdrawer]

23. Well, hackers and corrupt insiders...

The worst nightmare is tabulating machines with dishonest software reachable via modem by corrupt individuals with insider contacts.

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case.

[mzmolly]

25. Exactly. Either or will do. Hacker on the inside and/or outside is just

either is of concern.

[liveoaktx]

33. Here's a video clip from that program

BBV Topic A

[mzmolly]

36. Thanks!

:hi:

[ParanoidPat]

6. Everything you're asking has been covered in Bev's book.....

.....available for free here! :evilgrin:

:kick:BLACK BOX VOTING - Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century:kick:

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9*
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13*
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Appendix
Footnotes
Index

* graphics, allow time to load

Requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view. :)

1) The password (1,1,1,1) was printed in the Diebold Accu Vote TS manual. Even worse, everyone can log in as 'Administrator' so you can't tell who did what to the system!

2) Each terminal contains a modem but doesn't have to be networked to transfer it's results. The memory cards can be removed and plugged into the central tabulator unit to upload the results. There is no legitimate reason to network the voting terminals especially during the election as most, if not all, states prohibit vote counting until after the polls close. Anyone who votes in a precinct that uses touch screens should look for any cables other than a power cord hooked to the machine during the election and question the poll workers as to what they are and why they are connected during voting hours!

3) I don't have an accurate number off hand but will try to calculate a 'ballpark' figure when I get a chance.

4) Witnessing someone pushing a button to start the printout of the results is just a sad joke. One would need to witness everything that happens to every terminal from he time the software for a given election is loaded and the logic and accuracy test is performed, right through the end of the election. Even then, anyone with the knowhow, a key and a memory card could compromise the machine during the election. Remember, all of the machines use exactly the same "security" key!

[Andy_Stephenson]

7. Whenever you create a new tabulation database...

1. GEMS automatically creates a password. The password is GEMSUSER. So even if you don't have the password to go in the front door...just create a new one...go in the backdoor...change it and voila. But you don't really need as password because the back door is left open wide.

2. The machines are not "networked" perse. They have modems that the election workers use to call in results to the central tabulator. The number of modems can range from as few as 6 to as many as 48 as is the case here in king county. Each one of those modems is a potential attack point.

3. GEMS is on a server. So for every county that uses Diebold wether Touch Screens or optical scan ballots...they have a GEMS server...with 6-48 modems attached... aye aye aye

4. What are they going to watch? Not much to see except for a computer desktop.

The new GEMS version does not address any of the original concerns raised by the Hopkins, RABA etc etc...well let me take that back...they did fix a few minor problems and called it secure. Bev and I showed the County registrar in Mojhave County how easy it was to manipulate vote totals in his system. All of the above does not even address the multiple set of books the system keeps. That is a whole other can o worms.

Andy

[TrustingDog]

13. thanks so much! and about that extra secret set of books...

oiy veh, now That's a 'gem'.
This is what raised my eyebrows 14 stories when I first read Bev's story on Scoop, more than a year ago.

I hope you or Bev get on another talk show soon and point this juicy one out.

can you make a short list of what to watch out for - re: that point you made about the extra plugs on the voting terminal. It's so important - maybe Skinner can have a thread 'sticked' at the top with this info.

[TrustingDog]

17. and if those extra 'plugs' are on the voting terminals...

what recourse does the voter have?
Is there some legal mumbo jumbo that specifically lists this as against the law? If so, where can this be found, copied and perhaps taken with one when voting to show you are voting under protest but expect some investigation further on. Like at a baseball game (heh, baseball has Rules tho.) - if the ump calls something that is questioned, the team can put in a protest but carry on with the game.

[ParanoidPat]

19. Election laws vary by state.....

.....You can find the laws for your state here.

http://www.lawresearch.com/v2/statute/statstate.htm#elections

Look up the section on vote counting for your state and print out the relevant section(s) to carry with you to the polls. :)

You can also check your Secretary of State web site for information on what voter rights you have in your state.

[TrustingDog]

20. thanks, but I'm Canuckistani... ;)

your link should be on a permanent sticky thing along with some basics everyone should know before they vote - like that extra plug thing.

[mzmolly]

27. Dean asked Bev a question on the show he did. It never had a chance

to be answered. Perhaps you can help.

Are there any states that are 'doing things right' and which states are of particular concern?

Thanks :hi:

[Andy_Stephenson]

40. Right now I would say if a state is using Diebold equipment

they are at risk.

[Fleshdancer]

41. YES...I want that question answered too!!!! n/t

[DubyaSux]

16. Oh puleeze...

Oh yeah...I'm a freeper because I'm tired of Bev Harris labeling democrats so stupid, that we're powerless to stop election fraud among 5 different evoting manufacturers in 50 different states.

I want ALL votes counted so we can throw the current idiot out of office. Ballots won't get that done.

[mzmolly]

22. Ballots won't get that done?

What the hell are you talking about? Ballots have been used for ages.

Democrats are NOT stupid, thanks to people like Bev Harris.

People like YOU on the other hand are a Republican dream ...

[Junkdrawer]

24. I work daily with Terabytes of data. In that case, powerful computers...

are necessary. But adding up a few hundred or a few thousand precinct totals is something even the most humble computer running any spreadsheet is more than capable of.

And hand counting the hundred or so votes in a single precinct can be done quickly and easily.

Folks, this is not rocket science and all this "computers are absolutely necessary" nonsense is one of the most insulting lies I've seen in a long time.

[TrogL]

30. Canadian elections

are done with paper ballots and volunteer poll workers (with scrutineers). The results are tabulated in time for the 11 p.m. news.

[harmonyguy]

38. Actually, Canadian Federal poll-workers AREpaid...

Actually, Canadian Federal (it may be different for provincial or minicipal) elections are done with paper ballots and PAID poll workers. All the poll workers (yes, thousands of them but well organized thousands) are paid an hourly rate depending on their responsibility, plus a flat amount for training time. They are ALL put under oath.

Scrutineers, on the other hand are at the mercy of the political party they're representing (I really don't have a clue if the parties pay them or not), but even they are required to be put under oath.

In the last Federal Election, we were done the count, packed up and on our way home listening to other results on the radio 45 minutes after the polls closed. I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't have been there. Pay was direct deposited within 14 days.

HG

[ParanoidPat]

26. If ballots won't work in an election to remove Bush*.......

......what are you suggesting? A coup? Armed insurrection? :shrug: :evilgrin:

[DubyaSux]

28. No...

...I'm not talking about rebellion, riots, a coup or whatever. I'm talking about common sense.

I don't want the election to come down to some bug-eyed guy eyeballing pregnant-hanging-dimpled-chads. I want every fricken vote counted. Everyone of them.

With evoting, there are no undervotes or overvotes. The impaired (visual, etc) can vote in secret and with dignity like the rest of us. No more confusion with butterfly ballots. No more devining the intent of a voter. Each vote counts.

To think that honest hard-working democrat volunteers at election sites would allow anybody - even another democrat - to alter an election at every precinct in every state is ludicrous. Things could happen at isolated precints, but these could happen with paper ballots. In it's entirety, it shows promise to be the best system if you want to win through the voters (versus the Supreme Court).

My point is, is that Bev Harris and her supporters leave smart honest democrats out of the equation and I think that is entirely disingenuous. This big sham she claims is ongoing can't work because we wouldn't let it. There are not big evil repugs at the other end of the phone line when they upload results. There are big evil repugs AND good honest democrats. That's what you people fail to see. There can be no conspricy because we're there to stop it.

Folks, this is hysteria. Most of this crap exemplified can't happen in the real world and Avi Rubin has already stated as much. The election officals and poll workers do their jobs well. No matter what system is used, there will be security problems and people work hard to fix that. But ballots will NOT get all votes counted and the impaired cannot vote in secret like these rest of us have a RIGHT to do.

You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you want to call me a freeper, then fine. I don't care. But you can't call me a mindless sheep without any faith in my fellow democrats.

[Junkdrawer]

29. Canada just did a nationwide election with paper ballots...

They had results an hour or two after the polls closed.

And if the handicapped want to vote on special equipment, I say fine. But the able-bodied should use paper ballots.

NOTE: Dimpled chads are a feature of punch cards - an early computerized technology.

[TrogL]

31. In Canada the handicapped are alllowed to have someone help them

[RedEagle]

32. If People were the solution, then Florida would never have happened

The fact that the punch cards failed in Florida was due to the failure to clean out the chad trays.

Where were the Democrats to make sure the chad trays were emptied?

Punch cards were the shell game. "Look here, don't look there." Meanwhile, the optical scan count in Volusia was entered as a negative 16,000 votes for Gore and only one person caught it. Did this happen elsewhere with no one noticing?

I live in a county where they use punch cards. Everyone likes them. We've had no problems. The election personnel like them. But they have to replace the system because it's been mandated by the secretary of state and because they can't get parts any more.

And touch screens DO undervote. It's a PR sham to claim they don't. There's the infamous case in Florida where 130 people apparently turned up to not vote- and it stands out because it was the only race on the ballot. I'd say that's a pretty healthy "undervote."

DRE's have their own form of overvoting, too, if you want to count the times they have added, say, a few million voters to a county that should only have a couple thousand.

DRE's leave zero evidence of voter intent. DRE's cannot be recounted. Touch screen machines are taken home by election personel.

But that doesn't even have to happen. Take a look at any computer magazine and see the proliferation of devices like Blue Tooth. That can be contained on a card, antenna and all, inside the machine. Who's gonna know? Your average election worker/county official is going to disassemble the machine as part of the L & A test?

Read Black Box Voting and explain all the errors and malfunctions Bev accumulated that have happened with DRE's. Keep in mind that all of that is referenced and documented.

As for the disabled, they can have touch screens if they print a voter verified paper ballot. But there is a simple, low cost, low tech solution used in Europe and in several states in the U.S.- ballot templates. Ballot goes in a template, voter votes via tactile input and audio via cassette. Call it a low tech and much less costly DRE. And it can be mailed to the voter, since for many of the disabled, the main obstacle is getting to the polls.

One of the failings of lever machines was no way to decide voter intent if there was a malfunction. Touch screens are nothing more than a high tech lever machine, unless they have a voter verified paper ballot.

More to the point, elections should never become a function of only the computer elite. Any citizen with a 6th grade education should be able to recount/audit an election. Tangible evidence is a must.

Our country runs on a checks and balances system. When any one part of it gets too much power, it fails drastically.

Elections can be no different. They must meet the checks and balances criteria too. Voter verified paper ballots, auditing, open source code. If any of those are missing, we don't have election integrity.

[RedEagle]

34. Avi Rubin

You don't even have to go as far as tampering to know that a voter verified backup is necessary in case of computer malfunction.

Computer scientists know the potential. Accountants know what is needed to produce an auditable election. DRE's without voter verified paper ballots contain unacceptable risks both on a computer science level and on an accounting level.

Counting votes is just accounting. Computers are one of the means, one of the tools. Good auditing requires an independent, verified source. A DRE without a voter verified paper ballot cannot be audited. A system that cannot be audited will do MORE to cast doubt on elections than any paper ballot ever could.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/editorial/9349147.htm?1c
(You'll have to register)

The perils of electronic voting

Trust in paperless systems ignores chances of fraud, unforseen failure

8/8/04

-snip-

"There is a reason that the vast majority of the computer-science community, the very people who dedicate their lives to pushing the envelope of technology, are in almost uniform opposition to the rapidly growing phenomenon of fully electronic, paperless voting. It is not because the computer science community has suddenly decided that computers are bad. Rather, those who deal with technology daily know that there are risks associated with electronic systems that are not as apparent to those with less experience."

-snip-

"The question to ask is wheter there is a potential for catastrophic breakdown of the system, not whether a particular failure has been experienced. And the answer is that every fully electronic system has that potential."

-snip-

"Paper ballots can be stolen, misplaced or burned. But if proper procedures are employed, it is likely to be obvious when something amiss occurs. There are measures that can be taken to protect paper ballots, including poll-worker training, redundant observers and chain-of-custody tracking.

But even the most experienced computer scientist cannot tell by external observation whether a hard disk has failed or whether a file system is corrupted. When problems occure with paper ballots, the affect the election LOCALLY. Software glitches in widely used DREs could affect votes cast on ALL of those machines."

-snip-

"Ballots should not be invisible. Several states, including California, Nevada and Missouri have realized this and moved toward voter-verified paper. These ballots have tremendous benefits over their electronic counterparts. Having tangible, humanly readable ballots that voters verified before casting protects agains unexpected computer failures and malicious tampering or rigging. They also allow for recounts in close or controversial elections."

-snip-

[ParanoidPat]

35. I wouldn't call you a 'Freeper' (It's against the rules :) )

Just grossly misinformed! :evilgrin:

Let me reply to your post 1 item at a time.

I don't want the election to come down to some bug-eyed guy eyeballing pregnant-hanging-dimpled-chads. I want every fricken vote counted. Everyone of them.

On this point we both agree! (Although I don't remember the "bug-eyed" requirement to be an election judge!) Where I don't agree with you is that you imply that punch cards are the only form of paper ballot available. Optical Scan ballots work just as well if not better than punch cards but you chose not to mention them.

With evoting, there are no undervotes or overvotes. The impaired (visual, etc) can vote in secret and with dignity like the rest of us. No more confusion with butterfly ballots. No more devining(sic) the intent of a voter. Each vote counts.

Well your first mistake is the "no under votes" part in as much as the machines can't force you to vote in a race if you don't want to. The machine can flag you to the fact that you haven't voted in a race and ask you to confirm your decision.

The second mistake is in assuming that there can be "no over votes" Perhaps you've forgotten the 16,000+ negative votes added for Al Gore in 2000. (Allegedly to correct for a situation where results were added twice and had to be removed!)
While you are correct that the machine can be programmed to not allow for more than one candidate to be selected in any given race, the same holds true for O.S. ballots. An over vote results in the ballot being rejected by the machine when that feature is turned on.
The problem lies in dishonest elections officials who turn that feature on in predominantly Republican districts but disable that feature in poorer Democratic ones as has been reported in the past.

The fact that you bring up a 'straw man' argument about "confusion with butterfly ballots" leads me to believe that you think Democrats in general and those of us here at DU who have been following this very closely for over a year now must be too stupid to know that the 'butterfly ballot' you're referring to was illegal to begin with! It should never have been accepted in Florida to begin with and you can bet no one will ever get one accepted in the future.

While you are technically correct that a touch screen would allow for a blind voter to cast a ballot without help, adding a printed ballot to the machine would not change anything that would impede a blind person from using it. You do however neglect to mention that someone who is blind and deaf would still require help as well as someone who is a paraplegic! There will always be those who need help voting! Adding a ballot printer will not hurt the disabled.

To think that honest hard-working democrat volunteers at election sites would allow anybody - even another democrat - to alter an election at every precinct in every state is ludicrous. Things could happen at isolated precincts, but these could happen with paper ballots. In it's entirety, it shows promise to be the best system if you want to win through the voters (versus the Supreme Court).

Well what do you know, another straw man! One would NOT have to "alter an election at every precinct in every state" in order to throw an election. Just a few precincts in the right states during a close election is all that is required. Did you forget about the election in 2000? How many votes did Bush* 'win' by in Florida?

My point is, is that Bev Harris and her supporters leave smart honest democrats out of the equation and I think that is entirely disingenuous. This big sham she claims is ongoing can't work because we wouldn't let it. There are not big evil repugs at the other end of the phone line when they upload results. There are big evil repugs AND good honest democrats. That's what you people fail to see. There can be no conspricy(sic) because we're there to stop it.

As one of Bev's supporters, I take great offense at that bold-ed statement above! I have a 184 IQ which I believe would classify me as at least "smart", I obey the law and have never been arrested, in fact, in 30 years of driving, I've never even gotten a ticket! I guess you could say that I'm honest and I've been a Democrat all my life.
Bev included me as part of the equation when she made the source code public. As a supporter, I invited quite a few other "smart, honest" computer professionals to examine the system for themselves and draw their own conclusions. They all found the same problems I did.
Everyone I've worked with as part of this equation have been honest, intelligent and for the most part, DEMOCRATS! Where the hell were all of these "smart, honest, Democrats" you speak of while uncertified software was loaded and used in 16 of 17 Counties in the last couple of elections right here in California? Where the hell were they while voters were given the wrong electronic voter cards in the last election? Have you forgotten it was one of your "smart, honest Democrats" that designed the 'butterfly ballot'? Where were these people while partial results were being uploaded to Diebold's server from Pima County in the middle of an election?

Don't worry, I won't call you a Freeper, mindless sheep, whore or nut job as I'm smart enough to have read and understood the rules of this forum unlike someone who had their post pulled above. :)

I will go as far as to say you are woefully uninformed about the problems these systems present and what has been occurring while your "smart, honest, Democrats" have been watching. Perhaps you of all people should read the book.

[Andy_Stephenson]

39. Oh your agenda becomes abundantly clear.

"With evoting" are you a shill for VoteHere, Sequoia, Diebold who exactly?

Of the County officials we talked too...none of them kept records of who had access to the central tabulator. NONE OF THEM! So that kind of blows your theory of "Bev Harris and her supporters leave smart honest democrats out of the equation" theory out of the water. It is also noted you left the central tabulator out of the equation as well. That is what Bev showed the TABULATOR. Why tamper with as many as 4,000 DRE's in a county when all you need to hack into is the central TABULATOR and tamper with a million votes at once.

DRE's for the visually impaired are a great thing. They can use tactile ballots...those that are not blind don't need em. This statement is BS "the impaired cannot vote in secret like these rest of us have a RIGHT to do." Horseshit tactile ballots gives them that opportunity. I have talked to many blind voters and they want paper as well! So try that somewhere else.

Read this if you want the truth. This DubyaSux is saying exactly what Jim Adler of VoteHere said to Linda Lamone.

www.blackboxvoting.org/VoteHereDocs.PDF

Dubyasux is talking about a votehere solution a "Complex Logarythmic mathematical equation" per David Jefferson of the California VSP (a great fan of Jim Adler and his so called solution). Sorry...votehere's solution is no solution. Unless my 84 year old mother, Or my Sister or anyone here can go down to the court house and audit the election without a bunch of programmers...it's not a solution...As Ronald Reagan once said...trust but VERIFY Let me rework it a bit...Trust, but demand a VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT

[ParanoidPat]

43. Agenda? Ya think?

:evilgrin: :kick:

[JohnGideon]

44. Tsk! Tsk! There Ya Go Again

Making accusations that are only partial truth and leaving out the rest of the story.

"David Jefferson of the California VSP (a great fan of Jim Adler and his so called solution)."

That's a true statement, Andy, but you leave out the rest of the story, on purpose. David Jefferson has also stated that while voter verification software is a good solution it should NEVER be a solution without a voter verified paper ballot.

I don't understand this need on your part to discredit everyone who has been working on the issue of voting systems for the past year. Instead of working together with others; you are being divisive.

Stop! Take a deep breath! Consider if what you are doing is really the right thing to do!

[Bushfire]

45. Who has the password?

Of the County officials we talked too...none of them kept records of who had access to the central tabulator.

My official has been replaced who had the password, and said she was the only one with the password. Unfortunately I have her assistant on record saying there were 3 people who had the ES&S optical scan central tabulator password including their rep.

[ParanoidPat]

46. One of the problems with the way passwords are used......

......is that when you first create the database, you must enter the default password and then change it. A lazy poll worker may neglect to take that all too important step thereby allowing access to anyone who knows the published default. Worse yet, all one needs to do to gain access to a system where the password was changed is to select 'create new database' from the drop down menu, access the new database with the default password, change the password, and now you have access to all of the existing databases on that system! Make whatever changes you want and then delete the database you've created and it's as if you were never there! :scared:

Crack security! (or security designed by someone on crack! :evilfrown: )

[kiahzero]

42. Trust, but verify

Especially when it comes to things as important as elections. The problem with current implementations of electronic voting is that there is no method of verification - there is no manual way of going back and ensuring that the votes were counted accurately.

You set up a false duality: either we do nothing to verify the votes, or we are stuck with the problems of the old systems.

The fact is, there is something that can be done, and that's what the BBV crew is pushing for: A voter-verifiable paper ballot that is generated by the machine. All votes are still counted, the impaired can still vote in private, and we can verify that all votes were counted accurately.