For those who claim to believe in democracy but defend Diebold..

What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to allow a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot? What is your objection to having each precinct purchase $15 worth of paper to insure a voter-verified paper ballot?
It can't hurt..

to pay for the paper!

Does the IRS let me file my taxes for my business with no paper backup? No! I want the government to be held to the same standard as I am.

I too, would help buy paper.

I take these objections from TinfoilHatProgrammer and others

1) They say it will cost money to upgrade the printer that is already in the machine

The facts: I have the sales presentation made to Santa Clara County California by Diebold, and they put it in writing when asked a direct question. The printer already in the machine is sufficient to generate a voter-verified paper trail with the Mercuri method, the method used in Brazil and touted by many experts.

2) They say the paper is actually very expensive

The facts: No, it is the cheapest paper there is, thermal paper. Only about 300 people (max) vote at each touch screen. A large precinct may have seven touch screens, that's a LARGE one. Many just have two or three. Of course, if you have all the precincts in the county, you'd get the paper in bulk. It would cost maybe $15 per precinct to print those ballots.

3) They say the paper won't last

The facts: This is new, the Santa Clara presentation raises no doubts about their own paper system. The paper has to last the 22 months required by most states, because the reason the printer is in there in the first place is that it's supposed to print a report of the totals which is supposed to be sealed inside an envelope with the memory card containing the vote database. If the report will last the required 22 months, the ballots will too, if printed on the same paper.

4) Some officials claim the machines will keep jamming.

The facts: Actually, the printer is a very similar model to that used in supermarkets and at WalMart. Remember: total number of transactions, max, is about 300. Do you see the supermarket and the WalMart printers jamming every 15 sales? No. They can process thousands of printouts without jamming.

5) Some officials, like the one at the meeting DEMActivist attended last Friday, say the ink will run out.

The facts: There is no ink in a thermal printer

6) They say "well if we have a paper ballot record, and it doesn't match the machine, which one would be the legal vote?" (In Georgia, they say, the machine trumps the voter verified paper)

The facts: The voter-verified paper must trump the machine unless a mechanical defect or fraud is shown, because it is a physical record independently verified by thousands of individual voters, whereas the machine is bits and bytes that can be changed by a single technician.

7) They say "well if you have a paper ballot what's the point of these machines?"

The facts: The machines are very good for those with disabilities. (However, the argument that a paper trail is bad for people with disabilities is quite nuts -- a person in a wheelchair can vote on a touch screen equally well whether or not there is paper in the printer!) The machines can generate a quick, objective count and as long as that count is verified with robust auditing using an independent set of records (the voter-verified ballots) -- especially if you have the system we recommend, which is a quick independent verification done on 100% of the ballots and a detailed independent verification on a spot check sample, with the quick one done on a bar code with an over-the-counter scanner, and the spot check done by reading the ballots -- that is a pretty bulletproof system better than anything we've had before.

8) They say that paper ballot systems have been tampered with in the past.

The fact: Yes, and machines have been wrong (frequently) in the past. They often try to sidetrack the discussion and pretend we are against electronic voting -- no, we want them to put paper in the printer and use it for auditing.

9) They say that the officials wouldn't know what to do with the paper ballot and a whole new set of laws would have to be written.

The facts: Those laws and those procedures are available, all you do is follow the procedures set up for optical scans.

10) They say that once we get the paper trail we'll ask for more robust auditing.

The facts: Yes, we will, but it will still be cheap and efficient. A whole lot cheaper than the fight they are waging, which makes no sense.

The cabbie offered me a receipt. On the safety window separating the front and back seats was a sign:

"Take your receipt. It can't hurt."

You just might need it later. To report lost goods. For tax purposes. To prove to your suspicious wife that you were stuck in traffic.

When I first went into business in 1993, I bought one of those old-style faxes that burns the text onto rolls of shiny paper.

When I moved last month, ten years later, I found some of those old faxes in the backs of desk drawers. They were faded and discolored, but still perfectly legible.

This discussion about what is an acceptable means of vote counting using DREs in my view misses the best answer. Don't use them.

Why should the United States Voter stand for fixing any of these machines.

They have been sold to you by liars.
They did not perform the task for which they were purchased for. (They did not provide a secure system in GA - that is provable fact. Rob Georgia said this was so.... nothing Mr Behler has said has ever been countered by Diebold. Nothing.)

Therefore... the Maryland taxpayer is being asked to pay $56 million for something the maker of which is proven to be a liar. They haven't even produced certification documentation for the 2002 election!!!!

Further all evidence suggests the political voting technology purchase system - in both its democratic functionality and legal framework (see Jimmynochad on Cal.) - is so subnormal by international norms of democratic process that it cannot be trusted.

Therefore:

accepting these machines - that is anything made by diebold and ES&S at all and quite possibly all the other companies involved too as everybody seems to be so closely connected anyway. I.E. polling place software, GEMS, organisational advice, hardware, software, telecommunications services, technical support services and consultancy, spare part components everything MUST CEASE. Nothing less is acceptable. These companies should be sued. They should not be negotiated with. They should be indicted.

If the NZ media caught a private company which had been so thoroughly guilty of professional negligence whilst in trust of democracy, they would not be being defended by any politicians. Governor Perdue who has been ridiculed because of the GA result and the conduct of Diebold is the only politician so far to have shown any spine on this. Diebold should not be "granting permission" to people to show how their software is full of security holes.

Diebold should be in the dock.

For any voter to consider even buying the paper from these people is obscene. They should be out of business. Period.

So what then do you do.

The normal, cheapest and best method of counting ballots is and has always been:

- Paper ballots counted by hand at the place of polling and reported publicly at the place of polling.


Slashdot's first thread on this contained a discussion of this. For people who want to traverse some of the ins and outs.

Innumerable jurisdictions in the world do it this way. It works. It is the only way that has been proved to work. And it enables infinite flexibility in the ballot.

It is the gold standard.

(I seem to recall that GA the Diebold system could not conduct a ballot on the flag issue. From recollection several million dollars of charges were levied in order to conduct this ballot... I could be wrong on this though.)

The only role for computers in this process is to make it easier for people who could otherwise not vote to vote. And this in my view is the only purpose for which DRE touch screen machines should be produced... to produce paper ballots for people who would otherwise find it hard to do so.

Computers can also be used for counting and calculating results... this is particularly important when using Proportional Representation techniques such as STV... but there are acceptable public standards in numerous jurisdictions for how to do this.

Computers which can display complex ballots might seem useful on their face. But even that argument has flaws.

Far better... make the ballot easier.

Personally I think US democracy has been intentionally sabotaged for decades by interested parties and there are three fronts on which the system has been attacked.

Technology - and BBV is just the latest incarnation is one of these.

Increasingly complex ballots is another.

They:

1. drive the use of BBV tech, or worse internet voting
2. enable corporates to make money out of elections

and most importantly they:
3. drive away would be voters by making it seem arduous, too complex, intellectually vapid, and frustrating to exercise one's democratic rights.

Q: Why do so few Americans vote

A: Because doing so in some states is like sitting an exam.

And somewhat feudal campaign finance rules are probably the third significant front on which US Democracy has been bashed.

Al

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20030827/localnews/140871.html

This link also posted in new thread below...

I will be calling to thank him.

I can alter a printout on thermal paper by running my fingernail across it.

LOL. Very droll indeed...

.....the actual ballot is printed out under a glass or plastic window for the voter to see and accept if the ballot accurately indicates his / her vote. At this point the paper ballot is either spooled or cut and dropped into a locked container for possible later recount use. :)
No one can get their hands on any ballots without members of both major parties and independent witnesses present.
Well at least in theory! :evilgrin:

I think we should all be voting on paper ballots and each party should get their butts in gear to make sure all voting places count the votes right then and there. Enough of this electronic voting nonsense.

can we please stop framing it this way?

This issue is very important. I'm hoping that the Holt bill progresses so that there is a public debate in Congress over it.

But neither side represents democracy. Really I see this more about how the election reform money is going to be spent.

The Diebold side could make the same claim as you are to be representing
Democracy, and they would have a plausible case. If it turns out that using their machines result in better elections, then that's better for democracy.

an election we can not verify.... I don't care if is at half the cost. We don't need corporate controlled elections.

... how, exactly, do you know it's "better?"

It's not about money. The money for these machines has already been appropriated (and in a not very wise way, I might add). Beyond that, we waste, through fraud and mismanagement and bad planning and crappy accounting, hundreds of billions of dollars each year on defense, on war, on graft in government. The vote is the only say you have in stopping that--through the people you elect to run that government, and you're saying, "neither side represents democracy." ???

I know you're not joking. I wish you were. Because you're not, I have to assume you were sleeping in civics class.

In _all_ instances, one must remember what Stalin said about voting.

You are equating all the people fighting for transparency in the process with the people who want to hide their mistakes, and possibly their intentions, through dissembling and subterfuge.

I take that as an insult.

These people should be going to bankruptcy court. They should be indicted - not selling us more snake oil. See my reply to bev above... (edited to add no. #14)

"The Diebold side could make the same claim as you are to be representing Democracy, and they would have a plausible case."

Please!!! How so Cocoa... they are liars. They fail to deliver to specs. They refuse even to supply the specs that they deliver to..

"If it turns out that using their machines result in better elections, then that's better for democracy."

It "turns out" Cocoa that US elections... e.g. GA in particular... and if not that then Florida 2000 read Palast's book ... suck really badly.

What exactly would you consider a better election? One that cost more... one that took longer.... one that counted the votes more accurately? Or do you simply want one where the people who want to make sure their votes are counted go away? What are your standards?

Do you have any public opinion research on why it is that Americans don't vote. And do you really think it is because they want to do so on computers, but till now have not had the opportunity to do so?

the case could be made that part of that debacle is caused by outdated machines. That is the motivation for the legislation that mandates the new machines, if I understand it.

Then, any attempt to prevent the move to the new machines could be portrayed as impeding progress, making a Florida style mess in the future more likely.

So I don't see the activists owning the issue to the extent that you all are claiming to.

The same sort of hand counted paper ballots that have been used for centuries in democracies all over the world????

Oh right... Florida didn't use those. Why not?

that's new to me. I was never under the impression that if DRE machines were stopped that we'd go to hand-counted ballots. I completely assumed that we'd go back to the existing methods. Was I wrong about this?

Althecat puts hand-counting on the table.

"Well looookie... doesn't that look nice on the table", he says.

It's either going to be the new machines or the old ones.

If you stop the new machines, then the machines used in Florida in 2000 will be used.

Is to put it on the table.

I'm lucky. I've never voted any way but Datavote punch cards or hand counted ballots. (Your local print shop can do those hand ballots, complete with serial numbers!)

But Datavote punch cards are sorta satisfying -- it's always like I'm smacking my favorite candidates on the back while I mutter, "you poor S.O.B., you don't know what you're in for..."

Anyway, the current question is new machines vs. old machines. No one's going to hand counting so why bring it up?

How come you, Cocoa, think you can control the parameters of the debate?

I read yesterday's thread too. From today's efforts you are not so much being disruptive as simply thinking and posting rather slowly. I was looking forward to some actual debate of the subject matter... namely the state of democracy in the US and solutions to the problems... but all you can come up with is a bald... "don't go there".

If this is all the naysayers have become then it is truly pathetic.

Cocoa, you are doing TinfoiilHatProgrammer a disservice, not to mention the dialectic.

Al

But can't you see it is all BS Cocoa... are you on Xanax perhaps?

Yes butterfly ballots and lever machines are fuxored big time, and yes they were a problem in Florida... and yes they are made by ES&S and Diebold's predecessors.... and yes that election was fixed electronically as well as legally. (Have your read Palast yet?)

The election system did not suddenly get corrupt in the run up to Florida 2000, though that was definitely a low point.

My point is that Diebold ES&S, Cathy, Lewis, The ITAA, Brit Williams, The Election Center, the DNC, the GOP the ACLU and others have been screwing the US democratic system either deliberately or unintentionally into the ground for years... it took Florida to wake people up.

"Then, any attempt to prevent the move to the new machines could be portrayed as impeding progress, making a Florida style mess in the future more likely."

Yes this is what they will do/have done.....and the point is what? They ar wrong. The new machines are a bigger problem. Do you read DU? Or do you think Bev and I are really pen names for JK Rowland?

finally I don't even know what you mean by this Cocoa...

"So I don't see the activists owning the issue to the extent that you all are claiming to."

Are you suggesting that nobody else thinks that Diebold are negligent? Or that nobody else thinks that it is more than simply an issue of putting paper in the printer?

al

in Florida in 2000 being the problem. That was the Jim Baker spin.

The problem was the election administrators who failed on many, many levels with the punch card units. They failed to clean out the chads before the election. They failed to make sure the side adjusting strips were in place and seated the cards correctly.

And there were numerous other problems of many different types.

All human, error, typical, human error. Primarily carelessness, laziness, thoughtlessness.

Then of course, there were the disenfranchisement crooks but new voting machines won't have any effect on them.

And it would be the side defending and insisting on a separate paper ballot. PERIOD.

Cocoa, please build your best case for an unauditable election being better for Democracy. I'm sure one or two of us can blow your case apart in very short order.
I'm serious, we need the practice before we go forward with the main assault! :evilgrin:

All he does is keep repeating as if as a mantra.

"Handcounting is not on the table"
"Handcounting is not on the table"
"Handcounting is not on the table"

Probably some form of positive reinforcement meditation... meanwhile FW and THP have left the building too.... so there are no naysayers left to speak of & the dialectic is suffering for it as you say Pat. Just us good guys and gals.

Lets hear it for the BBVers... Give me a B...

:)

I'm listening to the various cases and trying to decide what I think. I've said all along that the outcome I would like to see is for the Holt bill to get to the point where there's a debate in Congress, with hearings and such.

What I'm saying about the framing of it is that of the various participants in this discussion, the only people that are claiming they are on the side of good, and laying waste to anything in their way, is Bev and her team. I think it's insane.

Maybe this hypothetical will help you see what I'm talking about. The health care debate among the candidates is very serious, right? Health care is about life and death. Each candidate has his own program for health care, and obviously thinks his position is the better one.

Now suppose Dean for example started saying that since his plan is better than Kerry's, that means that Kerry wants people to die. You'd think Dean had lost his mind wouldn't you?

As someone listening to the Dean/Kerry debate, trying to decide what they think about the health care plan, how would you react to Dean's claiming to be on the side of people living and Kerry's being on the side of people dying?

A MUCH better analogy?

What I'm saying about the framing of it is that of the various participants in this discussion, the only people that are claiming they are on the side of good, and laying waste to anything in their way, is Bev and her team. I think it's insane.

Maybe this hypothetical will help you see what I'm talking about. The health care debate among the candidates is very serious, right? Health care is about life and death. Each candidate has his own program for health care, and obviously thinks his position is the better one.


In the analogy you offer, both participants (opponents) at least share the same goal -- more healthcare for more people (roughly speaking).

In the discussion we've been having over lo these many months, the goal on the part of both sides is NOT the same. Diebold's goal is to defeat even the idea of paper ballots. They've gone so far as to convince legislators in Georgia and other states that the only "legal" vote is the "electronic" vote which would mean that vvpb would be useless in a recount.

As Bev has pointed out, and very well, the absence of an auditable paper trail is lousy goddamned accounting. Without good accounting (which has the tendency to keep more people more honest), you can't be sure your vote counted at all, or correctly.

So why the resistance (it really goes much farther than mere "resistance," in my mind) to vvpb? The ONLY conclusion, since none of their ridiculous excuses serves democracy, is that they're afraid of an audit trail. Why would that be the case?

Look at it this way. Some people here at DU (including you, if memory serves) have said, well, PROVE that fraud has happened. The problem is, under the current circumstances, that's quite impossible. You have no voter-verified paper ballots to (legally) use in recounts, you have an audit trail that is itself highly questionable, you have no access to the computer code, and if you want to do a recount you run the thing thru the same machines that produced the questionable results to start with. How the HELL could anyone prove that fraud has happened in any of the races where some of us suspect it? The voting machine companies -- Diebold and ES&S esp. -- have made it literally impossible. And frankly, as I contemplate the whole damn thing, I get mad all over again that there is ANY SoS ANYwhere who can't see this ultra-simple fact of life. No one who buys these damn things deserves to be in office at all. But I digress.

Frankly, you can argue about it if you want, but anyone who takes a nice, long, thoughtful look at some of the computer "election results" and the glitches and the amazing -- STUNNING, even -- unexpected victories that have happened where these machines have been used cannot come away with any other conclusion that that SOME of them at least weren't exactly true and accurate manifestations of the will of the people.

So, please don't tell me that Diebold and ES&S and Sequoia and probably others want free, fair, open, accurately tabulated elections, all which is essential -- the sine qua non -- for democracy itself. It's just not true. It's DEMONSTRABLY untrue. They want to make a gazillion dollars selling their machines, and knowing what I know, they want to be able to select winners of certain elections, and fully intend to do so, and probably selectively offer that as a "hidden feature."

After all, Cathy Cox DID win her re-election when two other even more popular Dems lost.

Eloriel

All this debate is good for one thing as pat points out below... we are sharpening our logic. Honing our truth rapiers for the battles ahead...

:)

and Common Cause, and the ACLU, and the election officials that want the machines. I think they can have a different position than you and still claim to be on the side of democracy.

And on some points the academics differ with the Bev's group, and I don't think that makes them against democracy.

I realize the manufacturers are looking after their own interests. I wouldn't take their word by itself regarding the reliability of their systems. In fact from what I've seen, the certification process looks pretty bad.

(who is my group, anyway?)

Please be specific. What position have I taken that the academics are on record disagreeing with?

And don't quote someone else and attribute it to me saying they are my "group."

Give me links. What disagreements, who specifically disagrees, what is your source?

Bev Harris

http://suburbanguerrilla.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_suburbanguerrilla_archive.html

....As an industry leader, Diebold has been the focus of much of the controversy over high-tech voting. Some people, in comments widely circulated on the Internet, contend that the company's software has been designed to allow voter fraud. Mr. Rubin called such assertions "ludicrous" and said the software's flaws showed the hallmarks of poor design, not subterfuge.

....of the total code! :evilgrin:
Those guys didn't have the balls to open any of the zipped files!
(Fear of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and all that BS.)
Don't forget Cocoa, we've all read the programmers comments in the source code that have the programmers themselves questioning what the fuck they were being asked to do and why! If you don't have a problem trusting those bastards with your vote fine. Sit down, shut up, do as you're told and trust them. That's your right. Just stay the hell out of our way as we fight for our right to see how our votes are cast and counted! :)

What's a good way to describe the portion they did see and evaluate? It was the very "upfront" stuff -- but I need a better term or description. ;-)

Eloriel

I said to source it and provide a disagreement from an academic to something said specifically by me, a quote. You picked this????

"Some people, in comments widely circulated on the Internet..."

That could be anyone, and the comments could be anything! Hope your analysis of the voting issue is better than your research.

I said "on some points the academics differ with the Bev's group."

Incredibly, you took exception to this.

First, let's make sure everyone knows that a key component of HAVA (the Help America Vote Act of 2002) was to help make sure that the upgraded machines -- upgrades from levers and punchcards -- would facilitate better access by the disabled. The groups you name were "sold" on HAVA and computerized voting machines -- esp. DREs (touchscreen) for that reason, I feel certain. They may have also been wined and dined and lobbied and contributed to by the vendors. I don't know for sure, but it's possible. I don't think there are any prohibitions against such. Now, here's how it worked:


Here's what Lynn Landes accurately surmised in her November 8, 2002 article, “Republican Voting Machines, Election Irregularities, and ‘Way-Off’ Polling Results” (emphasis added):

And for those who believed that the new election reform law does anything to protect the security of your vote...think again. The federal standards to be developed and implemented as a result of the new law will be VOLUNTARY. What Congress really did was to throw $2.65 billion dollars at the states, so that they could lavish it on a handful of private companies that are controlled by ultra-conservative Republicans, foreigners, and felons.

Landes’s charge was completely validated during the following exchange in the “secret” conference call on August 22, 2003, between R. Doug Lewis of the Election Center, representatives from most of the voting machine companies, and the former SAIC and Vote Here executive Harris Miller, head of the Enterprise Solutions division of the Information Technology Association of America http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3 :

Question: Would existing Elections Systems Task Force be reconstituted or reformatted in any way?

Answer: They have been more focused on the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) legislation but would be interested in meeting with this group. (The major companies involved are Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, Accenture and EDS.)

The Election Systems Task Force’s “goal was very limited. They just wanted to get the legislation HAVA enacted and to create more business opportunities for them as integrators. Their agenda was “how do we get congress to fund a move to electronic voting?”

Note: obviously, a wonderful way to get more U.S. Taxpayer money into their own coffers was to get everybody on board giving better access to the disabled! While upgrading those crappy hanging chad machines, which were such an embarrassment and annoyance. IOW, ITAA USED the disabled community.

If one looks back at the record, which I did recently, the progression is quite clear. Harris Miller of the ITAA got the ball rolling in January, 2001, in an article in the Washington Post (preserved here: http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0101/0076.html in an Australian newsgroup) by insisting that there would have been no election controvery in Florida had the votes been cast on modern voting machines.

Soon afterwards, the first meeting of ITAA’s Voting Reform Task Group took place in February, 2001. http://www.itaa.org/news/newslet/ITUArticle.cfm?ID=61

They did a demonstration for Congress in March: http://trace.wisc.edu/voting/

By April they were already announcing the results of the poll they commissioned showing high support (but of course) among respondents for computerized voting. http://www.fcw.com/civic/articles/2001/0402/web-itaa-04-02-01.asp

So there you have it. The disabled community got a little benefit (if you can call it that), but oh! the benefit to the companies -- all that nice, federal money. They used the disabled. I'd feel differently about it if the voting machines and software were good, reliable, safe, secure, and just counted our votes accurately. But it's not. We all know that now.

Eloriel

...while I agree that the old adage "follow the money" is very important in this case, the federal and state dollars spent on the voting machines themselves are just chickenfeed. These right-wing, defense related corporations have a MUCH higher stake in all of this and would probably supply the machines for free and write it off as overhead if they could insure the neo-cons 4 more years of "total war" and the billions upon billions, maybe trillions they will make off the war materiel and oil that comes along with that. Even the voting machine companies that don't have direct connections to the defense industry have board members with connections and stock holdings.

That is the golden ring, my friend. Please keep that in mind and keep up the GREAT work, all of you!!!

Most of these groups, hell, most people in general, find it hard to believe that anybody would be so bold as to mess with the people's right to vote (well, maybe), and add in the fact that these groups wouldn't understand the technical nuances even if it were explained to them in excruciating detail...

It is not a big suprise to me that they are for these machines, they don't have a clue as to what we think is probably going on here.

No???

:shrug:

Let me complement Eloriel's rebuttal of the "prove fraud happened first" argument. Think hard about that question. Think real hard. If the only person who can "prove" fraud occured is a technician who works for the voting machine company, how safe is our democracy?

We argue, that quite simply, a paper trail which John Q. Public can look at and complete an independent audit of the election provides the highest, and most transparent protection of our democracy, at very little cost! It doesn't mean you audit every single election, but candidates who feel the outcome is in doubt have the right to request a hand audit -- no different than the right they have today.

Your example is probably true of politics in general. But it has little relevance in this context.

Diebold Election Systems is not a candidate for public office (even if they behave as if they are) therefore they - in my view - have very little going for them in terms of a constructing a platform for taking a position in defence of democracy. As you have suggested that they do - they will do so.. but they have no chance... zero credibility and falling.

Diebold are no more nor less than a stinking cesspit of deceit, negligence and incompetence.

If your point is that it would be nice for there to be an articulate force arguing an opposing point of view to Bev et al. Then that is true. It would be good. And more informative and entertaining for all of us. At present it isn't so though..

All we have is a series of talking points which from the look of them all originate at the Election Center. From there they seem to find their way into articles in the media and from there to here... a couple of posters here including yourself and TinfoilHP are fighting a valiant rearguard. Fredda likewise is fighting... but she ain't valiant.

All in all you are right... opposition to our brand of rhetoric is rather pathetic... I agree.

there are other voices, that are credible to me, that are arguing that the concern over the machines is misplaced. The ACLU, for example, is not a cesspit of anything, although they got accused here at DU of being in bed with corporations. No proof of that, by the way, just the assertion and quick agreement from other people, which I found sad. It's like a scorched-earth policy, just trash anyone without thinking of the consequences.

Regarding Diebold, you may be right about how bad they are, I don't know. All I know is that in the one glimpse we got into how the manufacturers are conducting their PR campaign, it didn't seem to involve trashing anyone. They thought the meeting was private, and there was no talk of any kind of "opposition research" strategy against David Dill or Bev Harris. They talked of persuading their critics, not destroying them.

but I'm not talking about Diebold
there are other voices, that are credible to me, that are arguing that the concern over the machines is misplaced. The ACLU, for example, is not a cesspit of anything, although they got accused here at DU of being in bed with corporations. No proof of that, by the way, just the assertion and quick agreement from other people, which I found sad. It's like a scorched-earth policy, just trash anyone without thinking of the consequences.

Yes, I'd agree with you re the ACLU all other things being equal. AND now that I've got it figured out for myself (see my previous post), I'm feeling a little less critical of them (but only a little). When you've got companies throwing around sometimes more money than a contract is worth, or actually losing money on some contracts, you have to ask yourself what's going on and who else have they bought off when strange people (who are normally allies) start well, acting strangely.

Here's what you have to ask yourself, tho -- about the ACLU, LWV, Common Cause. How much do THEY know about these software systems? There they are, eager if not ecstatic, to see some positive change for a normally very forgotten group (the differently abled). There they are being lobbied by that group (probably) -- certainly a group they wouldn't normally oppose -- and lobbied by the "prestigious" ITAA (probably), and good Congresspeople supporting the bill (probably), whom they trust probably too much to know what they're doing, and probably lobbied by the companies themselves. But where is there ANY indication that they looked into the whole matter of computerized voting? Whereas the people here at DU have, small tho the group is.

Who, in fact, other than a few well-cloistered and too quiet academics (Mercuri, Dill, Jones) were raising any alarms back then when HAVA was passed? Not very many. I had my concerns, but even I never dreamed it could be this bad. Cocoa, it's BAD. Very bad. (You DO want to see George Bush defeated, don't you? You DO want to see the people's choice, whoever it is, get the Dem nomination, don't you Believe me, those two things are VERY at risk.)

Regarding Diebold, you may be right about how bad they are, I don't know. All I know is that in the one glimpse we got into how the manufacturers are conducting their PR campaign, it didn't seem to involve trashing anyone. They thought the meeting was private, and there was no talk of any kind of "opposition research" strategy against David Dill or Bev Harris. They talked of persuading their critics, not destroying them.

That's true enough, but it's NOT enough. They don't need to destroy their critics -- all they need to do is sell a willing public on the safety, etc., of the machines. They've got plenty of money they don't need to go negative (which doesn't mean they won't, OR that they will).

What I'm trying to say is that yes, the PR campaign sounded "benign" enough if "going negative" is your measuring stick on that issue. But what they plan to do, basically, is add lies over lies, to cover up the problems. Don't think for a minute that their "gold standard" plans are going to be anything substantive. And even if they were, there'll be no enforcement authority involved by the ITAA. It's a LOBBYING group, not a watchdog or government group.

That's what was so cynical about it. It was just way too much like one of George Bush's photo ops like when he signed the No Child Left Behind bill, or when he talks to Vets or troops -- it's all show and no substance. The reality is very different from the "show" they put on. It's lies, smoke and mirrors, mere PR, lavish lobbying. It's not real reform, it's not ensuring that these companies don't have nefarious code in their software. It's just -- lies, that's the best I can say about it.

And for R. Doug Lewis to be there was just awful. He's supposed to be a very neutral guy who if anything represents the SoS's and other election officials -- government employees! He's not supposed to be involved in making the commercial industry look better, shilling for them. Where was his concern that the software be RIGHT instead of "marketed as safe"? There wasn't any. (You only have to look at what we know about certification to understand where his lack of concern on that issue comes from.) He was the one who apparently started off the meeting. Did he bring the participants together? That would be VERY improper. Very.

Maybe some of us ARE too cynical, but certainly not by much. In fact, I more frequently err on the wrong side -- not cynical enough. Besides, with all that's going on in this world and with democracy itself at stake if the software is bad (and it is) -- you sometimes have to just agree with Lily Tomlin when she said: No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up. So if I happen to miss once or twice in nearly 3 years, that's still a pretty darned good track record. Believe me, I'm not too cynical on this issue, or if I am, not by much.

Eloriel

Cocoa...

Your persistence in this thread has been commendable. Sorry if I was at times a bit rude and dismissive. You are right that us BBVers should try not to be too single minded in discussing these issues. If we want to build a really big tent here we need to be inclusive... and as Pat said your contribution in giving us something to rail against is definitely positive.

al

So, are you saying, it is better to believe in what you can't see and affirm, than to clean up the mess that is our electoral system?

That belief is more important than facts?

If people stay away from voting, fraud wins. If people vote in hoards, fraud wins. In your scenario, the impression is more important than the reality. It is more important to go through the ritual, for that is what it becomes, than to insure the process is what it is supposed to be- our influence, our individual transaction, with government.

This argument is just another inane talking point. Don't let them pull that one on you.

They are very, very scared of people actually becoming involved and fixing the system themselves.

That argument is just another, "For the good of the country..... shut up."

That's happened one too many times in American history. Let's make our own history and let's be honest about it. I'm tired of polical and coprorate types who put the burden on the people to, "Do it for the sake of......" Time to stop the theft of our votes. Silence is only golden when it benefits all. Silence in this case is exactly what they would prefer.

Take back your government, take back your democracy. Yell and scream at the top of your lungs.

I second that motion.

I bow in your direction.

Surely your argument is worth more than a single line...

In my view the damage you talk about is very real and is all the more reason to discard absolutely the existing election apparatus. You need to restore the public's faith in the system. And for this to work not only is a mea-culpa needed from the SoSs and the county commissioners... but a fresh start.

... both sides of an issue. I may disagree strongly with one side or the other, but I understand their point.

There *is* no other side to this issue. There *is* no reason not to have a paper trail. None.

It astounds me that anyone without a serious conflict of interest could think differently.

Very well said.

Eloriel

paper ballots + locked ballot boxes + multiple sets of eyes + basic accounting = honest elections

An election system based on paper ballots is very easy to understand - too simple, it turns out. Diebold is able to snow the states with the complexity of their systems. If it turned out that paper ballots were "flawed", it would be easy to show, since they are inherently so simple. It is very, very hard for a non-technical person to win an argument with Diebold (and with many state politicians) that DRE systems are so problematic. I'm a technical person and have been arguing it for months, and I still need my cheat-sheet.

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20030827/localnews/140871.html
Democrats want election machine firm thrown out
Ohio Legislature
By LEO SHANE III

COLUMBUS -- Democratic leaders want a major Republican fund-raiser blocked from becoming the state's new voting machines supplier, saying his presence puts in doubt the fairness of all Ohio elections.

Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Inc., this week sent out letters to central Ohio Republicans asking them to raise $10,000 in donations in time for a Sept. 26 Ohio Republican Party event at his home.

His company, which specializes in security and election machinery, is one of three under consideration to supply new, electronic voting machines to replace punch card machines still in use in 71 Ohio counties.

House Minority Leader Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island, and Senate Minority Leader Greg DiDonato, D-New Philadelphia, on Tuesday petitioned Secretary of State Ken Blackwell to drop O'Dell's company from the list of potential suppliers, saying his presence could undermine Ohio's entire election system.


MORE HERE
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20030827/localnews/140871.html

Toooo funny (or it would be if it weren't ghastly):

In his invitation O'Dell states his support for the Republican Party and notes he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."

Redfern said letting O'Dell supply the machines for that election after making such a bold statement would be foolish.


Well, duh!

Eloriel

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1062063772274650.xml

Head of firm seeking Ohio contract committed to Bush victory

08/28/03

Julie Carr Smyth
Plain Dealer Bureau

(The quote eloriel used above is in the intro)

.. Snip ..

Diebold spokeswoman Michelle Griggy said O'Dell - who was unavailable to comment personally - has held fund-raisers in his home for many causes, including the Columbus Zoo, Opera Columbus, Catholic Social Services and Ohio State University.

Ohio GOP spokesman Jason Mauk said the party approached O'Dell about hosting the event at his home, the historic Cotswold Manor, and not the other way around. Mauk said that under federal campaign finance rules, the party cannot use any money from its federal account for state-level candidates.

"To think that Diebold is somehow tainted because they have a couple folks on their board who support the president is just unfair," Mauk said.

.. snip ...

Blackwell said Diebold is not the only company with political connections - noting that lobbyists for voting-machine makers read like a who's who of Columbus' powerful and politically connected.

"Let me put it to you this way: If there was one person uniquely involved in the political process, that might be troubling," he said. "But there's no one that hasn't used every legitimate avenue and bit of leverage that they could legally use to get their product looked at. Believe me, if there is a political lever to be pulled, all of them have pulled it."


******

Comment: Aside from the Chuck Hagel piece inspired by Bev. I think this is the first news story based around Republican connections to the voting machine manufacturers...

The voter would be given a handgun with enough bullets to cast their votes by shooting at pictures of the people they don't want in office.

The targets would then be kept to ensure a proper paper trail.


Fair & Balanced Buttons — The Cronus Connection

Just caught this thread tonight. Great thread,great discussion points.

Bev

The following is basically a hatchet job on Rubin... by a seemingly intelligent Georgian who can't see the wood for the trees... for some reason he thinks the 2002 election in Georgia is about as good as it gets. I figure he must be a republican... and pleased with Saxby Chambliss's huge unexpected election day swing.

http://www.citizenonline.net/citizen/archive/articleCF71155D6F8845E58423F938ABC137E2.asp
Perfidious professors and half-baked research

The history of Georgia elections is a long and sordid tale of crookedness and incompetence.
Stories of dead people voting in alphabetical order, buying votes with whiskey and cash, handing out premarked ballots, hauling in truckloads of voters from neighboring states, losing entire ballot boxes, sabotaging punch-card machines – you name the election misdeed, Georgia election observers have seen it.

....

As for Dr. Rubin’s “research,” let’s put it aside. Sure, flaws undoubtedly exist in electronic voting, as they exist in every system. However, our state and local governments, despite their checkered pasts, performed superbly in conducting the 2002 election. We set a national example for efficiency and cleanliness in ballot casting. We should be proud of that achievement in our government. We don’t have much else to brag about.

....

You can reach Bill Shipp at bshipp@bellsouth.net, Web address: http://www.billshipp.com

Cocoa wrote: "there are other voices, that are credible to me, that are arguing that the concern over the machines is misplaced. The ACLU, for example, is not a cesspit of anything, although they got accused here at DU of being in bed with corporations. No proof of that, by the way, just the assertion and quick agreement from other people, which I found sad. It's like a scorched-earth policy, just trash anyone without thinking of the consequences."

Cocoa....Bob Barr and Dick Army are now chief PAID consultants to the ACLU. Do you have any CLUE what these two extreme right wing fanatics have as an agenda? Google 'em! Look at their philosophies and associastions, and legislation they have supported.

If you think for ONE MINUTE that these formerly progressive, justice loving, justice serving organizations haven't been infiltrated by the right wing extremists, you've got your head so far in the sand, you couldn't hear if your life depended on it.

Unfortunately, your life DOES depend on it, and you're too blind to realize it. The good news is, there are a lot more Americans like you who are believing the propaganda and brainwashing they've been subjected to for the past 12 years. "Everything's rosey! Trust us!"

:kick:NOT!:kick:

and their working with privacy-minded conservatives is essential.

I stand by my opinion that trashing the ACLU for your narrow purposes stinks.

If I wanted to play your game, I would insinuate that you and Bev are moles for John Ashcroft, discrediting the ACLU to promote the Patriot Act. But that would be insane, so I won't.

:kick:

Eloriel

Hi Eloriel! Thanks for all you do for this cause.

Kicking it again now....

:kick::kick::kick::kick: