Diebold and the Carlyle Group rigging voting machine. The CEO of Diebold promising to deliver the electoral votes to Bush by any means possible? Can it become any more obvious that they are going to steal the 2004 election for Bush? My GOD, they practically have this written on their forehead. And this forces me to ask…

WHERE
ARE THE
DEMOCRATS!!!!

Where is the DLC on this?
Has Dean spoken on this?
Has Denis K spoken on this?
Has John Kerry spoken on this?
Has Al Gore spoken on this?


Do they not know about this? Are they just stupid? How can I take any of these Democrats seriously when they can not seem to see this? Why are they silent? Do they WANT the Repugs to control every thing? Do they WANT the next election to be stolen away, just as it was in 2000, just as it was in 2002? Are we to "just get over it," even though we can see it coming? In December, will they stand around and be surprised.

This is unacceptable folks. If the DU has ANY POWER AT ALL, than we must wield it now. We must inform our own leaders about the facts. And we must DEMAND that they speak out on this and that they demand action. WE MUST DEMAND THIS or it will not happen.

Some of us have been meeting with our officials and Congressional Representatives, sending letters /faxes/phone calls to Senate offices, etc.

Bev Harris, DemActivist, Eloriel, and many others have been getting information published and distributed.

You're right, it takes a huge grass-roots effort.

Join the BBV Activists!

Heh, now that I am blind from the bold face type, but you got to "wield" the correction first.

Why are they (the Democrats) not acting on this information! Answer THAT question.

PS: Thanks for the spelling corection.

for the source of this information. thankyou.

seems to help.

But, the DNC/DLC is doing all they can to shut us up.

A whole lot of Democrats actually wrote the checks for these machines - like Cathy Cox.

The Georgia Democratic party called Governor Perdue's request for an investigation "a partisan attack on Cathy Cox."

The major Democrats are fighting AGAINST us on this.

It would be really GRAND if a well-known (or heck even not that well known) would address this very issue in an article.

Between this and McKinney, I'm thinking about donating to the Green Party of Georgia.

Honestly....from what I've seen over the last 2 years, I'm fearful for what Democrats in Georgia have gotten themselves into.

At a bare minimum, they are completely ineffective and useless.

However, at 130+ years of unfettered control over the state, I suspect we're looking at much worse than incompetence.

on edit:
I'll be happy to arrange a meeting with Hugh Esco of the Green party of Georgia if you would like. Hugh is a super guy who has been more than helpful on this issue. In fact, I rode to the Cathy Cox meeting with him.

Are you saying she's corrupt, or...? Help me out, not sure I follow you on this one.

Nor is she a part of the Georgia Party machine. Hell, it was the Georgia Democratic party which threw her to the wolves first. Remember Zell Miller's comments about Cynthia? He's (supposed to be) a Georgia Democrat.

Cynthia was the one person who sat down and listened to us. She heard what we had to say, she knew immediately that the machines were rigged and offered us advice on how to proceed. Despite the fact that the machines were never used in an election where her name was on the ballot.

Oh, and it was Hugh Esco of the Georgia Green party who arranged the meeting with Cynthia on this issue.

I knew she wasn't corrupt, just read the comment wrong. Whew! :)

The Carlyle Group, as yet, is _not_ "making voting machines." If you read the previous posts on the subject, Frank Carlucci, who is the Chairman Emeritus of Carlyle, is on the advisory board of Populex, which does make voting machines, but that company has not sold any, subject to certification, as far as I know.

I'm sure that Populex thinks having Carlucci as an advisor is a great thing. They may think otherwise once the news is widely publicized. I don't know if anyone knows that Carlyle has invested in Populex.

And, just for the record, no one has asserted (or proved) that Diebold has "rigged" voting machines. Have some people maintained that their security stinks? Yes. That their code is exceptionally sloppy? Yes. That they've made public statements which have later been proven wrong, or which they've recanted? Yes. That their president has made partisan political statements and funding appeals at a time when orders for his company's machines are pending in at least three states? Yes. That they've lobbied states and the Feds to ignore a paper audit trail as unnecessary? Yes.

Accuracy in this is important.

Right now, the best thing everyone can do is write their reps and ask them to sign onto Rep. Rush Holt's bill, HR 2239, which addresses many of the serious issues surrounding electronic voting.

But, at this moment, making the charge that Diebold is "rigging" their voting machines has no proof.

Cheers.

And, just for the record, no one has asserted (or proved) that Diebold has "rigged" voting machines. Have some people maintained that their security stinks? Yes. That their code is exceptionally sloppy? Yes. That they've made public statements which have later been proven wrong, or which they've recanted? Yes. That their president has made partisan political statements and funding appeals at a time when orders for his company's machines are pending in at least three states? Yes. That they've lobbied states and the Feds to ignore a paper audit trail as unnecessary? Yes.

Accuracy in this is important.

Ahem. At what point do we call it rigged? While it is true that accuracy is important, "accuracy" can vary quickly turn into an argument in semantics. Such legal minutia belongs in the courts. But this ISN'T in the courts, is it. Remember the audience, the people. You must gain their attention, and move them to take to the streets in protest. This is the only way that enough pressure will be brought against the DLC to stop the opposition to this. This is the only way the lazy media will cover it. This is the only way for formal investigations to begin, and THEN you take it to court.

Am I to believe you would tell the people that Diebold is NOT "rigging" the machines? Remember that its CEO promised to deliver electoral votes to Bush. And clearly, he has the means to deliver on this promise. It is no distortion to make the claim to the people that the machines ARE rigged.

... rather than a concerted effort to change minds and law to include a paper ballot and open source code, to bring transparency to the voting process, are wild, unsupported charges.

Let's take O'Dell's promise. Can it just as easily mean that he is going to get people to vote for Bush? Yes. Should we be concerned that along with being a partisan political supporter, he runs a company which makes electronic voting machines? Yes. Does that _prove_ he is going to rig an election for the benefit of Republicans through the machines his company makes? No.

Charging such without proof is a good way to lose people's support, rather than gain it.

And, I assure you that making the claim that Diebold is rigging the machines is, without proof, a distortion which is legally known as libel.

Please, understand--I'm not a supporter of any of the manufacturers. I'm a supporter of changing state and Federal law to make the voting process accurate and auditable.

Cheers.

Haven't seen your take on the San Luis Obispo file yet -- am interested to get your perspective.

You summed up what we do know nicely -- but I'd like to add what we now know about that SLO county file, your take.

Bev

But, for DU, yeah, it's got some legs. Still would like to know who or what "Sophia" is, for sure. (Wouldn't I and others like to see Diebold's FTP logs.)

I'll couch what I say on this presumption: if the time/date stamp jives with the audit log, and several people say it does, and there's evidence of the clocks being checked, then it's _prima facie_ evidence of election wrongdoing in that primary. Second, it invalidates much of what Diebold has insisted about security of communications on election day. Last, and this one could get very hard to prove, from what I know of it, if the file was generated on a host computer operated by a Diebold employee using election data during the election day, then they have hacked an election themselves. That ought to bring criminal charges and makes all their protestations about security moot.

Since I have not yet seen the audit log, does it have any indication of the computer generating the file?

Cheers.

1. About the clock - they can't START the election without setting the clock. The machines don't boot the software without doing so.

2. The audit log in the file indeed says it was generated by the GEMS (host computer at the election center) software, and the file format is one used by GEMS only as a backup file. The file is GBF (programmatically written in GEMS to represent GemsBackupFile). There's an audit log entry indicating "Backup Election File" at the appropriate time and date.

It shows them setting up the election ballots, candidate positions etc. from about Feb 25 through March 4, add this, change that...actually, it goes all the way back to the Spring of 2000. hundreds or maybe thousands of entries.

On election day it shows them opening the election, getting a count, closing the election. They did this three times, once at about 7:20 in the morning, once around 2 p.m., and then at 3:31 p.m.

You can't export out of GEMS. I could export the audit log out of Access into Excel, but that converts the date/time stamp to something not read by us normal people.

I don't have a lot of time for this, but that does seem like a worthwhile thing to do -- get that Excel version of the audit log printed out.

I hope someone else can do it, though. I have to run back and forth between computers.

Bev

Any suggestion that Diebold employees were in attendance or around the host computer?

If election officials for the county were "just checking" on the election results, why, since it's against the law? And, the overriding question is still: how did they get results from machines that were supposed to be disconnected from communications during the election, not once, but three times? The scanners had to be connected all day, by some means. No two ways about it.

Cheers.

speaking tonight and mentioning that bush has not funded the money he promised for the election reform. She said if we can help Iraq with democracy it is absolutely necessary to make sure the American people have democratic elections restored. She surely must know bush cares not for democracy!

Let's take O'Dell's promise. Can it just as easily mean that he is going to get people to vote for Bush? Yes. Should we be concerned that along with being a partisan political supporter, he runs a company which makes electronic voting machines? Yes. Does that _prove_ he is going to rig an election for the benefit of Republicans through the machines his company makes? No.

Charging such without proof is a good way to lose people's support, rather than gain it.

Sounds to me like you expect to find to guns to fire one bullet. Beware by setting the standers of "proof" too high, for they may never be crossed. And indeed, you better believe that O'Dell will stay within the letter of the law, even as he grotesquely violates its spirit. Your fixation upon semantics only serves the GOP's agenda. Three questions:

One: Motive
Two: Means
Three: Opportunity.

In any court of law, if you can show that all three conditions can be met, you can return a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. If it's good enough for the court of law, than it ought to be a high enough standard for the public debate.

The problem with the strategy that you advocate is that it’s a policy of petrifaction. After the 2000 election was stolen, we were told to "get over it." But now that we are in fact seeing the election of 2004 rigged before our eyes, you would tell me that "I can't prove any thing." Even though it has already been shown that Motive, means, and opportunity are all present. A condition of conflict of interest clearly exists.

I am not advocating that we arrest O'Dell for stealing an election that has not taken place. Nor am I advocating that we crawl into O'Dell's head to read his mind as to his true intentions. But such things are not necessary. The Ohio's election system REGARDLESS of intentions is being compromised. And sense O'Dell and other republicans are still pushing this, despite the serious security flaws being noted, than I don't think it is tin hat by any stretch to charge that nefarious activities are taking place. Your argument that "he might not" steal the election is irrelevant.

Please, understand--I'm not a supporter of any of the manufacturers. I'm a supporter of changing state and Federal law to make the voting process accurate and auditable.

By what means? Let the courts handle this? But you yourself said that we can't talk about this because it might be construed as libel. Perhaps you think magic democracy fairies will come and save America. The people have a right to know what is going on. And you have a responsibility to inform them. And telling the people any thing short of "they are trying to rig the elections" is dishonest, and may as well be defending the GOP because you directly enable the theft of the election. The people need the truth to be spoken, not legal minutiae. And if they think this is libel, then let them defend their position in court.

... Diebold intends to steal elections for the Republicans. Will that create law which will enable the tools to expose that theft?

Cheers.

Can you say you have a better stratigy? By NOT talking about this? By all means, stick to the truth. But if you must always give the GOP the benifit of the doubt, than you will never find them crossing the line.

If you have a better idea, I am all ears. But once again we find that Bush's first line of defence, is the DLC. How can you even beleive that changes are posible by normal political channels?

No, I emphatically did not. I said, in essence, it's pointless to make charges for which there is no proof. That gains nothing.

My friend, I've spent hundreds of hours researching this issue, and writing about it in the last several months. If I find that there is evidence of collusion, supportable in court, or by reasonable journalistic standards of proof, you can bet I'll be saying something about it.

As for 10,000 people in the streets, that stopped the war, didn't it?

The only way is to let people know that the law now is insufficient to the task of finding election fraud, and have them insist that their legislators change that. Without that, you don't have the tools to determine fraud, and it's your word against the word of someone else. That won't stand up--in the papers or in a court of law.

Now, how have you helped to inform your legislators, your neighbors and yourself of the real issues in this matter?

Cheers.

Did I say not talk about the issue? No, I emphatically did not. I said, in essence, it's pointless to make charges for which there is no proof. That gains nothing.

No. You do worse, by choosing to dictate how the issue is framed, then attacking any one with a different interpretation, even as they may be using your OWN FACTS as conspiracy theorists. I will thus ask this of you again. How can you possibly NOT CONCLUDE that they are not attempting to "rig the election." A critical question given that it is YOUR task to provide evidence to culpability. The GOP is presumed innocent, and SHALL BE innocent, until the mater is raised with the public.

My friend, I've spent hundreds of hours researching this issue, and writing about it in the last several months. If I find that there is evidence of collusion, supportable in court, or by reasonable journalistic standards of proof, you can bet I'll be saying something about it.

But you are not saying this. You instead insist on giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt. Especially in light of past behavior in 2000 and 2002. 2002 also saw Diebold machines at work in Texas, whey the machine, not the voter, would select the candidate. What level of proof are you waiting for to call it rigging the election? Such conclusive evidence only exists in mathematics.

As for 10,000 people in the streets, that stopped the war, didn't it?

At least they tried.

The only way is to let people know that the law now is insufficient to the task of finding election fraud, and have them insist that their legislators change that. Without that, you don't have the tools to determine fraud, and it's your word against the word of someone else. That won't stand up--in the papers or in a court of law.

And pray tell, how do you think such public opinion is brought about? First, they must be informed. And informing the people means more than throwing facts and figures at them. As an investigator, you must present to them your findings AND your conclusions. You refuse to draw conclusions at all until any and all risk of failure is taken away by a level of proof and evidence that dose not exist. I am not talking about preparing a case for trial, but a case for the people.

Now, how have you helped to inform your legislators, your neighbors and yourself of the real issues in this matter?

And pray tell how can I do this, with no reinforcement from Democrats. Until and Democrat stand up and cries foul, none of us shall have credibility, despite having all of the fact in the world. Which is entirely my point. Until YOU stand up and say the election is being rigged, I don't have a brick to stand on.

Take Hauns Blixx(sp), chief weapons inspector for Iraq just preceding the war. On at least three occasions, he gave detailed reports to the Security Counsel about the progress about investigations in Iraq. And in these reports (I paraphrase here) he said this, "we can not conclusively certify that Iraq dose not have any chemical or biological weapons." He also said that "we need more time to conduct our search for WMD" and even submitted a time table of six months for the investigation to be conclusive.

When taken within their broader context, these comments are 100% accurate. They were no doubt precisely chosen to present an exact meaning, and back up with details, statistics, and other findings and evidences.

But this didn't stop the Republicans from taking his comments out of context. These two frazes were stated over and over again on the Rush Limbaugh program, and being used to prove his "incompetence" in one show, and in another, to demonstrate Blixxe's "suspicions that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction." In fact, if you were not aware of the broader context, as few Americans were at the time, you might even think that Blixx was calling for intervention. And Blixx was either unable, or unwilling to correct this record.

The damage comes when those of us against the war, was left with little ammunition from Blixxes own report to set the record straight. There is an old saying here, "Within exacting detail, is a great deal of ambiguity." Or another one is "figures never lie, but liars always figure."

But this ambiguity could have been avoided if Blixx would have stood before the chamber to give an oral version of his report, stating "Despite searching all suspect sights, my team has not uncovered any weapons of mass destruction." This isn't precise language, and if it isn't precise, than how can it be accurate? But the aim here isn't just to be precise. Blixx should have also stated the obvious. "The weapons of mass destruction were not their."

It has to do with getting in the "first word." (as oppose to getting in the last word.) The first word sets the tone of the debate to follow. Blixx made the mistake of letting his report speak for him. Thus when the Repugs took him out of context, they got out the first word, "Blixx can't find them," a half truth. The left is then placed on the defensive by digging into the minutia. If Blixx had gotten in the first word, than it would have been the Republicans that would have been on the defensive, and the clips of "we can not conclusively certify that Iraq dose not have any chemical or biological weapons." The lefts response would then be to add to the details given from the first sound bite.

This brings up another saying I know. "It may be redundant to state the obvious, but never foolish."

having an objective and safe standard for comparison ...because you know people will try to put their thumb on the scale (but, you can watch for the thumb and anyway the scale doesn't start-out against you)...and under the aegis of an impeccable standard...most people won't want to put their thumb on the scale. I believe, deeply, that honesty works for people rather than against them and that is what gives consent to compliance to balanced laws. If it's not personally beneficial, it wouldn't be socially desireable.

Well, there are always exceptions...the starved people who need more.

But, I don't understand why this issue isn't self-evident...start-out with an honest system...what's so hard about that? Is contrived and complicated a new form of predatory intelligence and will that type of system work (no!.)?

Why not just do it right to begin with?

second edit to explain edit (being polite) 'cause I'm still burnishing html skills...

of people who simply can't resist stealing no matter how hard they try.

My guess is Diebold falls in that category.

the ability to 'see' what's going on and to cry out. 90% of our elected representatives don't have the ability.

I haven't, however, heard much news today - if any representative spoke out today, please mention it.

Then, let's keep a tally each day - the midnight count of voices.

Democrats want election machine firm thrown out
Ohio Legislature
By LEO SHANE III
NH Columbus Bureau

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.

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

The right wing will wait to see if BBV issues peter out.

If not, they will test to find out how many people even know about it or care.

If enough, they will start a slander and sneer campaign.

They won't set up a Homeland Security type Department.

The press may give it about 30 seconds.

So it's up to us.

There won't be people in other countries around the world marching with us as they did to protest the phoney war.

The election officials in every single state have to become educated. It's our responsibility to allow the light to shine on their little world just as it has started to break through in some states.

Only when it is safe to speak will the majority of our elected representatives do anything. Safe equals not losing votes.

or anybody else for that matter?

They're all hiding under rocks somewhere.

LO: In the intro of “The Great Unraveling,” you mention how you came across
an old book by Henry Kissinger from 1957 that you believe helps explain
what’s happening in American politics today. How so?

PK: What Kissinger told me was not so much what the people running the country
are doing, as why it’s so difficult for reasonable, sensible people to face up to what it
is in fact dead obvious.

He talked in very generic terms about the difficulty of people who have been
accustomed to a status quo, diplomatically, coping with what he called a
“revolutionary power.”

The book is about dealing with revolutionary France, the France of Robespierre and
Napoleon, but he was clearly intending that people should understand that it related
to the failure of diplomacy against Germany in the 30s.

But I think it’s more generic than that. It’s actually the story about how confronted
with people with some power, domestic or foreign, that really doesn’t play by the
rules, most people just can’t admit to themselves that this is really happening.

They keep on imagining that, “Oh, you know, they have limited goals. When they
make these radical pronouncements that’s just tactical and we can appease them a
little bit by giving them some of what they want. And eventually we’ll all be able to sit
down like reasonable men and work it out.”

Then at a certain point you realize, “My God, we’ve given everything away that
makes system work. We’ve given away everything we counted on.”

And that’s basically the story of what’s happened with the Right in the United States.
And it’s still happening.

You can still see people writing columns and opinion pieces and making
pronouncements on TV who try to be bipartisan and say, “Well, there are
reasonable arguments on both sides.” And advising Democrats not to get angry –
that’s bad in politics. And just missing the fact that – my God, we’re facing a radical
uprising against the system we’ve had since Franklin Roosevelt.


http://www.liberaloasis.com/krugman.htm

"It’s actually the story about how confronted with people with some power, domestic or foreign, that really doesn’t play by the rules, most people just can’t admit to themselves that this is really happening.

"They keep on imagining that, “Oh, you know, they have limited goals. When they make these radical pronouncements that’s just tactical and we can appease them a little bit by giving them some of what they want. And eventually we’ll all be able to sit down like reasonable men and work it out.”

"Then at a certain point you realize, “My God, we’ve given everything away that makes system work. We’ve given away everything we counted on.”

"And that’s basically the story of what’s happened with the Right in the United States. And it’s still happening."

===================

Really nails it. Thanks so much for that!

Bev

Everything we believed in was a crock.

The sham of democracy, votes, voice, rights -
means one thing...

...to use a popular term from the 50's

...we've been snookered.

It's time to crawl out of the crock.

It can't be too late...can it?

If FDR never established the foundation which led to a society with such a wealthy middle class, there wouldn't have been such a big pot of gold for the Republicans to covet so intensely. Clearly, so much of what they do is desperation. It's the alternative to modifying their positions to ones that appeal to half of the Americans. Cheating is how they maintain power without having to be responsive to the public in a democratic sense.

The power of concentrated wealth has been their big enabler. However, the same thing they want -- the wealth of the middle and working class -- is alsoe our greatest defense. And we have to start using our wealth and our power to stand up to the right. It's a winnable battle, but only if we get it together.

:kick:

These so called 'black boxes' that many have made an industry around, pro & con, are in fact coming. Better, in my opinion, to concentrate on the systemics or it will all be lost in a great swirl and that is where the elections will be lost; 2004 and/or beyond.

'they' just love that, "Oh my God! The sky is falling!", 'everybody bumping into each other's forehead thing' all over the political landscape.

Again...my opinion ~

huh?

sys·tem·ic
(s-stmk, -stmk) adj.
Of or relating to systems or a system.

Relating to or affecting the entire body or an entire organism: systemic symptoms; a systemic poison. Relating to or affecting a particular body system, especially the nervous system: a systemic lesion. Physiology Of or relating to systemic circulation.

I understand your concern here, Ms Harris, but having been trained as a systems analyst I can assure you that there is a systemic thread that is woven through all...systems. Whether mechanical, electrical, biological, political; whatever! And, if indeed there is not then there should be. This is the job of a Technical Writer. To understand the otherwise grand incomprehensible and explain it all to the lay person hence; IT operating systems and such. Absent a systemic understanding of a given template tends to cast that template into the realm of: phe·nom·e·non,

phe·nom·e·non
(f-nm-nn, -nn)
n. pl. phe·nom·e·na (-n)
An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses. pl. phe·nom·e·nons An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel. A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon. See Synonyms at wonder. Philosophy In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is perceived by the senses, as opposed to a noumenon. Physics: An observable event.

And so-called 'black boxes' are not "phe·nom·e·na" they are systems calling out to be understood and only then used properly.

The Nazi Enigma Device was in fact not an 'enigma'. Albeit a difficult systemic and as such designed as such; even The Enigma operated within a systemic framework. It was hard to understand and used for nefarious purpose because...it...was...designed that way.

Systemic approach should not be pooh-poohed ~

And probably 90% of America would call them that if they were to publically state that there are problems with the voting machines of this country...at least, portions of this country. This is something that is very difficult to sell to the majority of this nation. It is almost impossible, under present circumstances. People simply do not believe it. It is too far out for them to even entertain the thought that it might be credible...

Even the hardcore Bush supporters where my husband works respond to his stories about the machines (from me) say simply....

"I knew we couldn't trust those damned computers."

It's not at all hard for anyone to understand. They have a very basic distrust of the machines because of years of hearing "the computer did it."

The DLC is practically working out of Rove's office when it comes to the opinion polls. And shrieks at the merriest mention of the word "un-American" or "weak on defense." The DLC has turned its back on its own base. What relevance do you think they will second-thought-Republicans? And all this as they peruse the ever mythical "Ragan-Democrats" and campaign donations. Some times, I think they care more about raising money, than winning elections.

If Republicans are having second thoughts own their own, deep in the heart of Limbaugh territory, just imagine the energy a Dem could bring by answering some of their questions with the truth. Dean has already shown that he is being extremely well received in the South, even as Gepeardt only finds stunned silence for supporting the war.

The DLC is completely out of touch with reality.

All the sponsors are dems, I believe.

Rush Holt is in the DLC.

So that answers your question, that's where the dems are.

The basterd is plugging the war. Telling us just how much good we are doing over there. It's raining rose pedels as he seems to tell it. He is a small time player. But he wants into the inner cercle soo badly. Calling him would be a waist of my dime.

I will.

GBNC will call anybody! :evilgrin:

But I sure as hell haven't seen John Lewis sign up to support the bill. Nor Nathan Deal.