PDA

View Full Version : "I'm Back" Diebold Redux


ndebord
May 9th, 2006, 10:13 AM
Remember all those allegations of electronic voter machine fraud in the last few elections?

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=65420

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/4-1&fp=4460b2c77d9021c4&ei=y7BgRK2VDYGaHKrm0bgG&url=http%3A//www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf%3F/base/cuyahoga/1147163536185140.xml%26coll%3D2&cid=1106246550

Judy G. Russell
May 9th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Sigh... there has got to be a better way...

ndebord
May 10th, 2006, 03:07 AM
Sigh... there has got to be a better way...


Judy,

Yeah, I just read about it, but some kind of mail in ballot system in Oregon. Supposedly foolproof and with the added benefit of being cheaper.

Judy G. Russell
May 10th, 2006, 09:53 AM
Oregon has a lot of good ideas... like physician-assisted suicide.

davidh
May 10th, 2006, 10:59 AM
Oregon has a lot of good ideas... like physician-assisted suicide. Of course automation would be the way to go. State government could write up the specifications for the suicide machines and license them. And manufacturers like Diebold and Microsoft could write the firmware to control the machines.

David H.

Judy G. Russell
May 10th, 2006, 02:30 PM
That wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I said the state had good ideas.

Mike
May 11th, 2006, 12:24 AM
Permanent absentee status, with a paper ballot to be returned in the mail. :-)

Judy G. Russell
May 11th, 2006, 10:00 AM
Permanent absentee status, with a paper ballot to be returned in the mail. :-)That works for a few individuals but probably not so well for the entire electorate.

ndebord
May 11th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Permanent absentee status, with a paper ballot to be returned in the mail. :-)

Mike,

http://www.metacrawler.com/info.metac/clickit/search?r_aid=03B53F0531184235887A7529CC773070&r_eop=4&r_sacop=3&r_spf=0&r_cop=main-title&r_snpp=2&r_spp=1&qqn=2%3Adg%2B%27zt&r_coid=239138&rawto=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40032-2004Dec31.html

Oregon's vote-by-mail system has proved reliable and popular.

Mike
May 12th, 2006, 12:48 AM
That works for a few individuals but probably not so well for the entire electorate.
Until the people has spoken.

Judy G. Russell
May 12th, 2006, 10:11 AM
It's more a matter of practicality than anything else. Hand counting millions of mailed ballots is going to slow down election results enormously.

ndebord
May 12th, 2006, 10:58 AM
It's more a matter of practicality than anything else. Hand counting millions of mailed ballots is going to slow down election results enormously.

Judy,

Considering that FIVE of the new electronic voting machine companies have connections to the Republican Party and/or fundamentalist Christianity, I'll take write-in ballots every day of the week.

Judy G. Russell
May 12th, 2006, 01:17 PM
Sigh... we'll just have to get some kids who are Democrats to build new machines!

Mike
May 13th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Fortunately (I think), our mail-in ballots are scanned.

Judy G. Russell
May 13th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Fortunately (I think), our mail-in ballots are scanned.That's still a relatively labor-intensive process, though, since every ballot has to be fed into a scanner of some sort. I'm not saying something along those lines isn't a better idea than relying on machines developed by contractors with political ties to a single party (almost anything is better than that!), just that there are practical concerns that need to be addressed in any system considered.

Mike
May 14th, 2006, 12:07 AM
There needs to be something for those civil servants to do!

Judy G. Russell
May 14th, 2006, 09:47 AM
There needs to be something for those civil servants to do!Hmmm... good point. If they're scanning ballots, they won't be bothering us with other nonsense!

ndebord
May 14th, 2006, 10:31 AM
Hmmm... good point. If they're scanning ballots, they won't be bothering us with other nonsense!

Judy,

More and more info understandable by Joe Public (me) is coming out.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_runner_060513_diebold_s_accuvote_t.htm

The Diebold system’s use of "smart-cards" provides an open door for any voter or poll worker to commit vote fraud.

http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf

Judy G. Russell
May 14th, 2006, 07:18 PM
I'm not sure there is any system that's not open to fraud of some sort, Nick. What bothers me is that (a) any kind of computer-based machine may be subject to systemic fraud (a lot easier to pull off than fraud in an election district here and there) and (b) there is no paper trail.

Lindsey
May 14th, 2006, 09:45 PM
I'm not sure there is any system that's not open to fraud of some sort, Nick. What bothers me is that (a) any kind of computer-based machine may be subject to systemic fraud (a lot easier to pull off than fraud in an election district here and there) and (b) there is no paper trail.
All of which adds up to a system whose results are open to serious question, and I think that's the most insidious problem of all. In a democracy, the voters need to have a high level of confidence that election results are reliable, that there are mechanisms in place to prevent rampant fraud. And I just don't think most of the current electronic systems provide that sort of assurance.

It's very bad when election officials cannot demonstrate positively that the results they have in hand are correct and above-board.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 14th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Unfortunately, I'm not sure most people understand the concerns.

ndebord
May 15th, 2006, 08:50 AM
Unfortunately, I'm not sure most people understand the concerns.


Judy,

Are these the same people who don't know who we fought in WWII?

<sigh>

Judy G. Russell
May 15th, 2006, 09:09 AM
Are these the same people who don't know who we fought in WWII?They're the ones who think we bombed Pearl Harbor...

ndebord
May 15th, 2006, 04:10 PM
They're the ones who think we bombed Pearl Harbor...

Judy,

What? Don't they know it was that guy Mitchell who bombed Pearl Harbor!

;-)

Lindsey
May 15th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Unfortunately, I'm not sure most people understand the concerns.
I wouldn't be so sure; I think most people understood the problems that arose out of the debacle in Florida in 2000. And certainly hacking into computer networks is a common enough story that the ordinary Joe is capable of understanding how that could be a problem in a voting system that did not allow for a paper trail.

--Lindsey

ndebord
May 16th, 2006, 11:33 AM
I wouldn't be so sure; I think most people understood the problems that arose out of the debacle in Florida in 2000. And certainly hacking into computer networks is a common enough story that the ordinary Joe is capable of understanding how that could be a problem in a voting system that did not allow for a paper trail.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Diebold to provide patch for security flaws in one of its machines.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125700,00.asp

They "promise" in time for November elections. This story provides details on the flaws and links to more detailed analysis.

Judy G. Russell
May 16th, 2006, 04:23 PM
I hope you're right, but don't trust people not to think: "Oh! It's a computer! I'm sure they know how to run it [because I sure don't!]."

Lindsey
May 16th, 2006, 04:23 PM
This story provides details on the flaws and links to more detailed analysis.
I love this:

A Diebold spokesman did not dispute Hursti's findings, but said that Black Box Voting was making too much of the matter because the systems are intended to remain in the hands of trusted election officials.

"What they're proposing as a vulnerability is actually a functionality of the system," said spokesman David Bear. "Instead of recognizing the advantages of the technology, we keep ringing up 'what if' scenarios that serve no purpose other than to confuse and in some instances frighten voters."
The famous, "It isn't a bug -- it's a feature!" :rolleyes:

Do they think people are stupid? Of course critics are posing "what if...?" scenarios. That's what they should be doing, because you'd better believe that someone with nefarious intent is going to be doing exactly that. Better that the good guys find the vulnerable places in the system before the bad guys do! You can't rest the security of the system on the assumption that election officials will never be corrupt, any more than a bank can forego things like dual controls and separation of duties on the assumption that their employees will always be scrupulously honest.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
May 16th, 2006, 04:25 PM
I hope you're right, but don't trust people not to think: "Oh! It's a computer! I'm sure they know how to run it [because I sure don't!]."
That may have been true 20 or 30 years ago, but I think most people have had enough exposure to computerized foul-ups at this point to have a healthy skepticism of what comes out of them.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 16th, 2006, 04:25 PM
I'm a little uneasy at the company's "we'll fix it" promise when they swear it's a feature, but also uneasy that most of the flaws are being pointed out by a competitor. Where's the government oversight here?

Lindsey
May 16th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Where's the government oversight here?
That's a rhetorical question, right?

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 16th, 2006, 05:13 PM
That's a rhetorical question, right?Right. I mean, putting this Administration into an oversight role would be like setting Dracula to guard the blood bank...

Lindsey
May 16th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Right. I mean, putting this Administration into an oversight role would be like setting Dracula to guard the blood bank...
More like the Laurel and Hardy version of Dracula...

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 16th, 2006, 09:03 PM
More like the Laurel and Hardy version of Dracula...Not nearly as funny, unfortunately. And a lot more scary.

Lindsey
May 17th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Not nearly as funny, unfortunately. And a lot more scary.
You're not kidding about that. :(

--Lindsey

Lindsey
May 17th, 2006, 09:21 PM
Not nearly as funny, unfortunately. And a lot more scary.
You're right. Not funny at all (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000678.php).

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 18th, 2006, 08:44 AM
Oh my Lord... add to that the refusal to clear Justice Department investigators trying to investigate whether the law was broken in some of these programs... oh my...

Lindsey
May 18th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Oh my Lord... add to that the refusal to clear Justice Department investigators trying to investigate whether the law was broken in some of these programs... oh my...
It's hard to know where the venality stops and the incompetence begins...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
May 18th, 2006, 10:12 PM
It's hard to know where the venality stops and the incompetence begins...
And as if further illustration were necessary: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000690.php

:(

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 19th, 2006, 02:02 PM
Sigh... doncha just love seeing your tax dollars at work?

ndebord
May 22nd, 2006, 08:01 PM
That may have been true 20 or 30 years ago, but I think most people have had enough exposure to computerized foul-ups at this point to have a healthy skepticism of what comes out of them.

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

And now Newsweek has weighed in the Diebold story.

Will Your Vote Count in 2006?
-- 'When you're using a paperless voting system, there is no security,' says Stanford's David Dill.

by STEVEN LEVY (Newsweek)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12888600/site/newsweek/



Additionally:

"If Diebold had set out to build a system as insecure as they possibly could, this would be it," says Avi Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer-science professor and elections-security expert.

Lindsey
May 25th, 2006, 04:18 PM
Sigh... doncha just love seeing your tax dollars at work?
Sounds like FEMA and DHS are just as feckless as ever, too. I heard on the news this morning that the portion of a hurricane evacuation exercise in Louisiana that dealt with a FEMA trailer park (there's a lot of concern about what is going to happen to those folks who are in FEMA trailers from Katrina) had to be cancelled because FEMA severely limits access to those parks and the people running the exercise ran into trouble getting the needed access. :rolleyes:

--Lindsey

ndebord
May 25th, 2006, 05:35 PM
I wouldn't be so sure; I think most people understood the problems that arose out of the debacle in Florida in 2000. And certainly hacking into computer networks is a common enough story that the ordinary Joe is capable of understanding how that could be a problem in a voting system that did not allow for a paper trail.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

From New York Magazine we get this on the 2000 elections:

"Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?

Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. "There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, "but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. "In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution."

Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. "He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political," Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? "I think he does—and he’s right."

Judy G. Russell
May 25th, 2006, 08:59 PM
Sounds like FEMA and DHS are just as feckless as ever, too. I heard on the news this morning that the portion of a hurricane evacuation exercise in Louisiana that dealt with a FEMA trailer park (there's a lot of concern about what is going to happen to those folks who are in FEMA trailers from Katrina) had to be cancelled because FEMA severely limits access to those parks and the people running the exercise ran into trouble getting the needed access. :rolleyes: I read about that too. FEMA will never learn.

Lindsey
May 26th, 2006, 07:39 PM
I read about that too. FEMA will never learn.
Not as long as this administration is in charge of things, anyway. :(

--Lindsey

Lindsey
May 26th, 2006, 07:40 PM
Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. "He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political," Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? "I think he does—and he’s right."
I absolutely agree with Gore's comment.

Al Gore is looking more and more interesting, but it remains to be seen whether he can get back into the game at this point. Sad that it comes down to that.

--Lindsey

ndebord
May 27th, 2006, 12:45 AM
I absolutely agree with Gore's comment.

Al Gore is looking more and more interesting, but it remains to be seen whether he can get back into the game at this point. Sad that it comes down to that.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Feckless is the adjective that comes to mind when I think of Gore. I don't say that lightly, because I believe that anyone who wants to be President has to have fire in their belly...enough to fight to the death for the job. Otherwise, imo, they ain't serious.

earler
May 27th, 2006, 05:36 AM
Take a look at slate's take on gore and his documentary. Slate's editorial stance is hardly pro republican, but it shows gore to be the same hypocrite, with fuzzy scientific ideas, as he always has been.

http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/


-er

ndebord
May 27th, 2006, 08:10 AM
Take a look at slate's take on gore and his documentary. Slate's editorial stance is hardly pro republican, but it shows gore to be the same hypocrite, with fuzzy scientific ideas, as he always has been.

http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

-er
Earle,

Gore, when he ran for President, caused me dental problems. When he spoke, I gritted my teeth at best. Voted for him nonetheless, as I saw Bush as the ultimate degenerate silver spoon offspring. Bush's stated desire for a stronger unitary executive is just a eupehnism for a different kind of government than the one we see enshrined in the Constitution. The oft repeated words of his propaganda minister calling for a 40 year rule by Republicans (of his stripe) remind me of similar calls for long reign that echo out of the dusty bins in history to macabre effect.

ndebord
May 29th, 2006, 12:01 PM
I absolutely agree with Gore's comment.

Al Gore is looking more and more interesting, but it remains to be seen whether he can get back into the game at this point. Sad that it comes down to that.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Gore supposedly told New York Magazine (I think) that he would not be running again for Prez.

Meanwhile about those Diebold machines, this one slipped by without my noticing it.


The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a critical lawsuit aimed at improving the security and integrity of Ohio's voting technology will be put on hold indefinitely. The ruling halts case proceedings until the appeal of the government's motion to dismiss is decided and seriously jeopardizes the chances that critical procedural improvements will be in place by the time voters enter polling places in November.

http://www.eff.org/

Jeff
May 29th, 2006, 12:45 PM
Nick & all, did you see George Will's column on Sunday? If not, find it. It's called "McCain's reliance on private funds ironic", and it has some interesting comments on the brave new world voting machines.

- Jeff

Lindsey
May 29th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Feckless is the adjective that comes to mind when I think of Gore.
No; I think "ill-advised" is closer to the mark. And one of the things that makes Gore interesting at this point (to me, at least) is that he seems to have thrown the image advisors and the ultra-caution away.

The 2000 election was a no-win situation for Gore, in part because the Bush people recognized immediately that the PR battle, and not the legal battle, was the one that was the most important. They managed to put Gore in a no-win situation, critized from the right for hanging in for too long, and from the left for not hanging in long enough.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
May 29th, 2006, 08:32 PM
Gore supposedly told New York Magazine (I think) that he would not be running again for Prez.
They all say that; what's important is what is happening with the fund raising.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a critical lawsuit aimed at improving the security and integrity of Ohio's voting technology will be put on hold indefinitely. The ruling halts case proceedings until the appeal of the government's motion to dismiss is decided and seriously jeopardizes the chances that critical procedural improvements will be in place by the time voters enter polling places in November.
What is with the federal courts that they were eager to jump in to interfere with the 2000 election, but any other election issue they treat as if it were radioactive?

--Lindsey

ndebord
May 29th, 2006, 09:33 PM
They all say that; what's important is what is happening with the fund raising.


What is with the federal courts that they were eager to jump in to interfere with the 2000 election, but any other election issue they treat as if it were radioactive?

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Judy would probably know for sure, but certain circuits are now as conservative as the hard right wing.

Lindsey
May 29th, 2006, 10:16 PM
Judy would probably know for sure, but certain circuits are now as conservative as the hard right wing.
Another aspect of the hard-right's long-term strategy. Now even moderate judges are too "liberal" for them. :(

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
May 30th, 2006, 09:19 AM
certain circuits are now as conservative as the hard right wing.
The Fourth (based in Virginia) and Fifth (based in Texas) in particular.

ndebord
May 30th, 2006, 11:24 AM
The Fourth (based in Virginia) and Fifth (based in Texas) in particular.


Judy,

Why am I not surprised about the geographical juxtaposition.

<sigh>

Judy G. Russell
May 30th, 2006, 04:11 PM
Why am I not surprised about the geographical juxtaposition.
<sigh>Hmmm... I'll have to think about this...

Lindsey
May 30th, 2006, 05:06 PM
The Fourth (based in Virginia) and Fifth (based in Texas) in particular.
Note, BTW, that the Fourth Circuit's Michael Luttig (who had been mentioned a couple of times as a possible Supreme Court appointee) recently resigned his seat on the bench to take a job as general counsel (and senior vice president) of Boeing, so Bush will have yet another opportunity to name some egregious wingnut to the federal bench and move the Fourth Circuit completely off the edge of the page.

I'm sure the offer from Boeing was a huge incentive to step down, but I do have to wonder if at least part of the motivation had to do with (a) disgust at the way the administration had played the judges of the Fourth Circuit for fools in the Padilla case (it was Luttig, after all, who had written that stinging rebuke to the administration when the Fourth Circuit refused to allow the administration to move the case to the Florida criminal court by arguing a different set of facts than those they had argued in favor of designating him an enemy combatant); and (b) personal pique at being passed over twice (three times if you count the short-lived nomination of Harriet Miers) for a seat on the Supreme Court.

--Lindsey

ndebord
June 1st, 2006, 10:18 AM
Hmmm... I'll have to think about this...


Judy,

One of those interesting coincidences that drive us all mad, I would think, but still...

<weak grin>

sidney
June 2nd, 2006, 10:02 AM
Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)

ndebord
June 2nd, 2006, 10:48 AM
Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Was the 2004 Election Stolen? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen)

Sidney,

RFK, Jr. was on the Factor yesterday to talk about it and did not do a good job of it imo.

Judy G. Russell
June 2nd, 2006, 02:40 PM
Unbelievable. Just plain simply unbelievable.

Judy G. Russell
June 2nd, 2006, 02:41 PM
I do have to wonder if at least part of the motivation had to do with (a) disgust at the way the administration had played the judges of the Fourth Circuit for fools in the Padilla case (it was Luttig, after all, who had written that stinging rebuke to the administration when the Fourth Circuit refused to allow the administration to move the case to the Florida criminal court by arguing a different set of facts than those they had argued in favor of designating him an enemy combatant); and (b) personal pique at being passed over twice (three times if you count the short-lived nomination of Harriet Miers) for a seat on the Supreme Court.Both of those are very likely to have been big factors.

Lindsey
June 2nd, 2006, 04:51 PM
Unbelievable. Just plain simply unbelievable.
Whether or not the cataloged irregularities actually swayed the election, the real problem is that there were all these irregularities to begin with, and that in many cases (like the 20,000 ballots which registered no presidential choice), there is no way to go back and verify what actually happened. You can't have a viable democracy if people can't trust the election process to be reasonably clean. That's why we need serious reform. Why should people bother to vote if the outcome is fixed?

If I'm not mistaken, New Mexico has now banned the touch-screen machines and has gone back to paper ballots. (Yep, I'm right about that: see here (http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/40228.html).) I think more states should do the same. Yeah, it's costly, but I should hope people would feel that restoring integrity to the election process was worth spending a bit of money on.

Interesting discussion (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/31/1330240) on this topic (potential problems with touch screen voting machines) on "Democracy Now!" earlier this week.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 2nd, 2006, 04:53 PM
Both of those are very likely to have been big factors.
And I can't blame Luttig for pique for being passed over in favor of Harriet Miers. Not that I have anything in particular against the woman, but she didn't have anything like the credentials that Luttig has.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 2nd, 2006, 07:22 PM
And I can't blame Luttig for pique for being passed over in favor of Harriet Miers. Not that I have anything in particular against the woman, but she didn't have anything like the credentials that Luttig has.Criminy, even I was a bit annoyed at being passed over in favor of the likes of Harriet Miers!

Judy G. Russell
June 2nd, 2006, 07:23 PM
This comment kind of says it all:

I think the most frightening thing about electronic voting, in general, is that you can't tell whether something like this has happened. People have said that there's no documented case of electronic voting machines being hacked. That's true, so far as I know. The frightening thing is that there’s no way to know if they have been hacked, so how do we know if the results of our elections are accurate?

Dan in Saint Louis
June 2nd, 2006, 09:59 PM
I have to admit that I never wrote a paper with over 200 references!

ndebord
June 3rd, 2006, 12:15 AM
This comment kind of says it all:

Judy,

After reading the entire Rolling Stones article and re-reading some stuff from Brad's Blog, I have to say that the Republicans, in Ohio, particularly, were equal opportunistic exploiters. They stole votes with new technology and as old as pasting over white labels on Kerry votes and manually inserting black marks for Bush.

Just one such example:

One way to steal votes is to tamper with individual ballots -- and there is evidence that Republicans did just that. In Clermont County, where optical scanners were used to tabulate votes, sworn affidavits by election observers given to the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were filled in to replace them. Rep. Conyers, in a letter to the FBI, described the testimony as ''strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud.'' (184) In Miami County, where Connally outpaced Kerry, one precinct registered a turnout of 98.55 percent (185) -- meaning that all but ten eligible voters went to the polls on Election Day. An investigation by the Columbus Free Press, however, collected affidavits from twenty-five people who swear they didn't vote. (186)

Finally, no less an expert on polling than Lou Harris said this about the Ohio election in 2004:

''Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,'' Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. ''You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.''

P.S. This from Brad's Blog today:

"It's only a vulnerability to those who would commit a felony [tampering with an election], says Diebold spokesman David Bear who says the so-called security hole is really a "functionality" that allows the software to be efficiently updated.

Judy G. Russell
June 3rd, 2006, 08:47 AM
What galls me, both as a citizen and as a former news reporter, is this:

Why is this story being "covered" in Rolling Stone, and not on the front pages of every newspaper in the nation?

ndebord
June 3rd, 2006, 09:38 AM
What galls me, both as a citizen and as a former news reporter, is this:

Why is this story being "covered" in Rolling Stone, and not on the front pages of every newspaper in the nation?


Judy,

You worked mainstream press. When Kerry (Gore) refused to go public, then the press backed away. Only Keith Olberman at MSNBC reported on the issue and he has said that it was because of his Sports reporting background that he saw the numbers coming out of Ohio as suspicious and so went public.

Why the press has been so lapdog? Don't know.

Judy G. Russell
June 3rd, 2006, 11:07 AM
Why the press has been so lapdog? Don't know.Beats me, too. It sure puts paid to any ridiculous notion of a liberal press bias!

Lindsey
June 3rd, 2006, 09:32 PM
Criminy, even I was a bit annoyed at being passed over in favor of the likes of Harriet Miers!
LOL!! Good point!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 3rd, 2006, 09:51 PM
This comment kind of says it all:
...The frightening thing is that there’s no way to know if they have been hacked, so how do we know if the results of our elections are accurate?

Exactly my point. Without sufficient controls and procedures for accountability, without a process that is completely transparent, there can be no assurance that the election has been honest. And if the citizenry cannot be reasonably sure that the people in authority over them have been honestly elected, then why should they agree to be governed by them? The whole democratic process falls apart.

Here is another matter of concern about these voting machines: They cannot be independently verified without voiding the manufacturer's certification. That's what got that Utah county clerk in trouble: he had brought in people from BlackboxVoting.org to perform an independent analysis of the machines (granted, probably not the most judicious choice of auditors), and Diebold told the county they were (understandably) withdrawing their certification from the machines because they had been accessed by unauthorized third parties.

This is the great problem of turning over the running of vital parts of the election process to private entrepreneurs.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 3rd, 2006, 09:57 PM
One way to steal votes is to tamper with individual ballots -- and there is evidence that Republicans did just that. In Clermont County, where optical scanners were used to tabulate votes, sworn affidavits by election observers given to the House Judiciary Committee describe ballots on which marks for Kerry were covered up with white stickers, while marks for Bush were filled in to replace them. Rep. Conyers, in a letter to the FBI, described the testimony as ''strong evidence of vote tampering if not outright fraud.''
That, at least, is something that could be verified or disproven by visual examination and recount, something that cannot be done with most touch-screen installations.

"It's only a vulnerability to those who would commit a felony [tampering with an election], says Diebold spokesman David Bear
Geez -- that's like saying leaving your house unlocked is only a vulnerability to those who would commit the felony of breaking and entering...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 3rd, 2006, 10:16 PM
Why is this story being "covered" in Rolling Stone, and not on the front pages of every newspaper in the nation?
Because the mainstream press works largely by moulding stories to fit what some mass psychology has decided is the "master narrative." In 2000, the master narrative of the campaign was that Gore was stiff and wooden, and prone to exaggeration, so no matter what Gore did or said, everything that was reported about him was crafted to fit within the parameters of that master narrative. After the election, the master narrative was that the Democrats were sore losers, and that's how the story got reported. It was ignored that it was the Bush camp that first took the case to court, ignored that it was imported GOP rabble-rousers (under the leadership of John Bolton) who were largely behind the "riot" that shut down the recount in Miami County. Those things weren't consistent with the master narrative.

In 2004, the master narrative was that Kerry was an ineffective campaigner, a Massachusetts liberal oblivious to the chief concerns of the electorate, which the MSM had decided centered around moral issues, with the subtext of "angry" Democrats as sore losers. Thus, any suggestion that there were irregularities in the 2004 election was met with derision from the MSM.

--Lindsey

ndebord
June 3rd, 2006, 10:18 PM
That, at least, is something that could be verified or disproven by visual examination and recount, something that cannot be done with most touch-screen installations.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

If I read the news properly, the chariot is turning back into a pumpkin in Ohio sometime this summer. Statue of Limitations will allow the SoS and his minions to destroy all 2004 ballots.

Lindsey
June 3rd, 2006, 10:30 PM
If I read the news properly, the chariot is turning back into a pumpkin in Ohio sometime this summer. Statue of Limitations will allow the SoS and his minions to destroy all 2004 ballots.
And I'm sure he'll jump at the first opportunity to do it, too. I believe I read several years ago that the same thing had happened to at least some of the Florida ballots from the 2000 election.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 4th, 2006, 12:12 AM
Here is another matter of concern about these voting machines: They cannot be independently verified without voiding the manufacturer's certification. That's what got that Utah county clerk in trouble: he had brought in people from BlackboxVoting.org to perform an independent analysis of the machines (granted, probably not the most judicious choice of auditors), and Diebold told the county they were (understandably) withdrawing their certification from the machines because they had been accessed by unauthorized third parties.Oh for pete's sake... that's ridiculous... there has to be some independent verification somewhere!

Judy G. Russell
June 4th, 2006, 12:13 AM
That's too much of a conspiracy theory for me.

sidney
June 4th, 2006, 06:32 AM
That's too much of a conspiracy theory for me.

Lindsey didn't say it was a conspiracy. She attributed it to some "mass psychology", and I tend to agree. Whatever the process is, it seems that the mainstream press as a whole settles on broad, general, shared realities that conform to their view of their place in the political and cultural spectra. The mainstream press will not rock the boat. They don't have to conspire with each other -- The ones that are mainstream are in their position because they are mainstream.

-- sidney

Judy G. Russell
June 4th, 2006, 10:05 AM
Lindsey didn't say it was a conspiracy. She attributed it to some "mass psychology", and I tend to agree. I suppose in those terms I'd generally agree. But it only makes it even more disappointing that we don't have any real mavericks or eccentrics in the so-called mainstream media. We used to...

ndebord
June 4th, 2006, 04:56 PM
Oh for pete's sake... that's ridiculous... there has to be some independent verification somewhere!

Judy,

Of course there's independent verification. In fact, two entities enjoy that power: Rowe's personal computer and the mainframe at Diebold!

<g,r&d>

Judy G. Russell
June 4th, 2006, 05:12 PM
Of course there's independent verification. In fact, two entities enjoy that power: Rowe's personal computer and the mainframe at Diebold!Sigh... why am I not terribly comforted by that???

Lindsey
June 4th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Oh for pete's sake... that's ridiculous... there has to be some independent verification somewhere!
I agree that there needs to be independent verification; but it's not going to happen so long as the technology is proprietary.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 4th, 2006, 11:57 PM
That's too much of a conspiracy theory for me.
No, it's not a conscious conspiracy; more like a mass psychology, the same sort of thing that has all the high school kids converging on the same clothing styles.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 4th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Lindsey didn't say it was a conspiracy. She attributed it to some "mass psychology",
LOL!! I should have read your message before I replied to Judy -- that's exactly it.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 5th, 2006, 12:00 AM
I suppose in those terms I'd generally agree. But it only makes it even more disappointing that we don't have any real mavericks or eccentrics in the so-called mainstream media. We used to...
There are still mavericks, but they tend to be in the second-tire publications and in the blogosphere. And the MSM feels free to ignore them. Or disparage them.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 5th, 2006, 10:31 AM
There are still mavericks, but they tend to be in the second-tire publications and in the blogosphere. And the MSM feels free to ignore them. Or disparage them.Makes you wonder where H.L. Mencken and folks like that would be today...

Judy G. Russell
June 5th, 2006, 10:33 AM
I agree that there needs to be independent verification; but it's not going to happen so long as the technology is proprietary.Nor as long as there could be a good (political) reason for not doing it.

Judy G. Russell
June 5th, 2006, 10:34 AM
No, it's not a conscious conspiracy; more like a mass psychology, the same sort of thing that has all the high school kids converging on the same clothing styles.As I said to Sidney, I can understand that.

Lindsey
June 5th, 2006, 09:40 PM
Makes you wonder where H.L. Mencken and folks like that would be today...
Oh, man -- did I really write "second-tire"? I meant, of course, second-tier. :(

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 5th, 2006, 09:42 PM
Makes you wonder where H.L. Mencken and folks like that would be today...
Probably disparaging everyone. :p

--Lindsey

Lindsey
June 5th, 2006, 09:54 PM
Nor as long as there could be a good (political) reason for not doing it.
I suspect the chief reason is business rather than political. The machine vendors want to protect their trade secrets, and they do that by disallowing any access to the inner workings except by their own technicians. And, in fairness, how can they take the responsibility of certifying those machines when people they have no control over are allowed that sort of access? The only answer is to force the technology into the public domain, and have the certifications performed by an independent agency. (Not, I hasten to say, another private corporation.)

That said, however, it is truly inexplicable why the whole notion of printed receipts and facilitation of recounts is so fiercely resisted -- by both vendors and local officials -- except that there really is a political motivation behind that issue. The technology exists and is not terribly expensive. I was completely stunned in 2000 when calling for a manual recount became characterized as an unpatriotic thing to do.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 5th, 2006, 10:34 PM
The only answer is to force the technology into the public domain, and have the certifications performed by an independent agency. (Not, I hasten to say, another private corporation.)And NOT one controlled by a political apparatus or apparatchik.

it is truly inexplicable why the whole notion of printed receipts and facilitation of recounts is so fiercely resisted -- by both vendors and local officials -- except that there really is a political motivation behind that issue. The technology exists and is not terribly expensive. I was completely stunned in 2000 when calling for a manual recount became characterized as an unpatriotic thing to do.I continue to be amazed at what passes for unpatriotic these days...

Judy G. Russell
June 5th, 2006, 10:35 PM
Oh, man -- did I really write "second-tire"? I meant, of course, second-tier. :( I understood ya!

Judy G. Russell
June 5th, 2006, 10:36 PM
[H.L. Mencken would be] Probably disparaging everyone. :pSigh... I sure hope so. And if there is an afterlife, I expect that he is doing just that.

Lindsey
June 6th, 2006, 10:24 PM
And NOT one controlled by a political apparatus or apparatchik.
Well -- I agree with you that it shouldn't be under direct political control, like the Secretary of State's control over elections in Florida and Ohio, where there was flagrant maneuvering for partisan advantage. But it's going to have to be controlled by some entity, and your basic choice is (a) a private concern; or (b) a government body. It seems to me that the best choice is a government commission that is shielded to the greatest extent possible from political pressure. Of course, we've seen in recent years that even the most shielded of independent commissions are not completely insulated from political pressure. Look at what has happened to the Civil Rights Commission, the FTC, the FCC, the FDA, the CPB, the CDC -- not to mention the federal courts. Under the right circumstances, anything can be politicized, but at least with a government entity, the people have some hope at having a say.

--Lindsey

ndebord
June 8th, 2006, 09:18 PM
I agree that there needs to be independent verification; but it's not going to happen so long as the technology is proprietary.

--Lindsey

This from Brad's Blog (which is frothing at the mouth over the mainstream media's inability to cover the latest round of voting machine irregularity).

Want real evidence of computers mucking up an election? This from Iowa's Tuesday elections:

After optically scanning absentee ballots in a Republican Primary on Tuesday in Pottawattamie County, a popular, long-time incumbent was trailing a first-time college student candidate by 20 votes. Since that seemed odd, the County Auditor decided to count the absentee ballots by hand and indeed found that the incumbent had won the count instead!... By 128 votes instead of having lost it by 20!

Here is the blow by blow account:

The counting in Tuesday's Pottawattamie County primary election came to a sudden halt shortly after midnight today when Pottawattamie County Auditor Marilyn Jo Drake announced to the waiting courthouse crowd that something wasn't right with the new computers purchased to count the ballots.
As a result, all of Tuesday's ballots were in the process of being counted by hand today. Drake said the winners in Tuesday's election might not be known until around midnight this evening.
"We have no clue," she said of the cause of the problem. But, something wasn't just right from the very beginning, she added.
Things began to look fishy, Drake said, when the county's new computers counted the absentee ballots in the Republican Party's county race between longtime Recorder John Sciortino and newcomer Oscar Duran.
Absentee ballots are the ones counted first.
When all of those were counted, Duran, a University of Nebraska at Omaha student, had 99 votes, while Sciortino, the county recorder since 1983, had just 79.
"John is such a popular candidate," Drake said....
Drake said she decided to count the absentee ballots by hand to determine if the computers were counting correctly.
They weren't - not by a long shot.
The actual absentee ballot count in the recorder's race when done by hand found Sciortino had 153 votes and Duran just 25.
It was then that she decided to stop the computer counting in all the races.
"They could be tainted, we don't know," Drake said.

The Ka-boom: new optical scan computers being used for the first time were reportedly made by ES&S. (Not as well known as Diebold, but alleged to suffer from the same defect: they can only count Republican votes.)

P.S. In this case, one republican vs another and the argument seems to be that these machines are just plain flakey, as in the vendor made them, didn't test them, took the money and ran for the hills.

Lindsey
June 8th, 2006, 09:50 PM
Wow -- but this is a perfect illustration of why it's crucial to have paper ballots whose vote count can be verified independent of machines.

--Lindsey

ndebord
June 9th, 2006, 12:20 AM
Wow -- but this is a perfect illustration of why it's crucial to have paper ballots whose vote count can be verified independent of machines.

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

There is hope perhaps on the horizon.

Avante International Technology got into the electronic voting machine business after the 2000 election. Based in NJ, they have produced a machine that allows a voter to see the entire ballot along with a paper record confirming the vote. They call it a "full-face ballot touch screen." So far, only Warren County, NJ has opted to use this technology.

Lindsey
June 9th, 2006, 04:22 PM
I don't think Avante is the only company that offers something like that, but for reasons that I don't quite understand, the vast majority of state and local governments have bought into the paperless system, and now it's very difficult to convince anyone that they need to change.

--Lindsey

ndebord
June 27th, 2006, 11:45 PM
I don't think Avante is the only company that offers something like that, but for reasons that I don't quite understand, the vast majority of state and local governments have bought into the paperless system, and now it's very difficult to convince anyone that they need to change.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Perhaps this article can help convince local elections officials.

Report: Many e-voting systems flawed (AP)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_hi_te/e_voting_study;_ylt=AsgrT5YIyv72EY_NAcy3k4sRSLMF;_ ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

Lindsey
June 28th, 2006, 12:33 AM
Perhaps this article can help convince local elections officials.

I came across that story myself -- can't remember now just where; NY Times, maybe -- and I thought about you!

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
June 28th, 2006, 09:24 AM
Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has introduced legislation requiring paper records and random audits for federal elections in at least 2 percent of precincts in each state.We do produce some good guys....

ndebord
June 28th, 2006, 09:34 AM
I came across that story myself -- can't remember now just where; NY Times, maybe -- and I thought about you!

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Whenever a story comes out of the wire service (A.P, that is), it is picked up by just about everyone. (Probably not Fox though!)

ndebord
June 28th, 2006, 09:41 AM
We do produce some good guys....

re: Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has introduced legislation requiring paper record and random audits for federal elections in at least 2 percent of precincts in each state.

Judy,

A particularly relevant piece of legislation since almost all the NJ voting machines are flawed with a printout that can't be audited properly.

Judy G. Russell
June 28th, 2006, 02:30 PM
It'll be interesting to see how the GOP treats this legislative proposal.