Can Democracy coexist with scanners counting votes? (LTTE published!)

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=15655

Can Democracy coexist with scanners counting votes?
10/4/2006

Dear Editor,

Jerry Partain raises a good question: Aren’t we being taken for fools? (Sept. 30). On Aug. 25, this paper covered the results of a recent Zogby poll showing 92 percent of Americans believe we have a right to know and see how our votes are counted. Why, then, does Humboldt County use optical scanners containing “interpreter code”? This type of computer programming obscures the public’s view of the vote-counting process by scrambling all of our ballot information into Diebold’s proprietary language, called AccuBasic.

Isn’t it foolish to put blind trust in Diebold’s “interpretation” of the results, when the California secretary of state, the Government Accountability Office and independent computer scientists have all published reports explaining exactly how to hack the machines and change election results without leaving a trace of evidence?

Isn’t it foolish for Humboldt County to do business with Diebold, a company that employs felons convicted of computer fraud, makes partisan donations and statements and faces at least six class action lawsuits filed by its own shareholders alleging fraud?

Isn’t it foolish to aggregate precinct vote totals using the GEMS central tabulator program labeled as a national security threat by the Department of Homeland Security?

Isn’t it foolish for the media to report election results as fact without questioning or verifying the information provided by only one source — the very same government whose grip on power is at stake?

Isn’t it foolish to believe that Democracy can coexist with secret vote-counting?

Yes, as Partain says, we are being taken as fools. But worse, we are acting the part. Government (and media) legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed. Isn’t it foolish for the 92 percent of us who know better to consent to such election conditions?

We must count the ballots by hand, the most transparent, secure and verifiably accurate way to conduct an election. Isn’t it foolish to assign legitimacy to any government that prefers counting votes in secret?

No fooling — if this letter is published, an annotated version will appear at wedonotconsent.blogspot.com with links to support every claim above.

Dave Berman
Eureka

* * *

Permalink to annotated version:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/10/arent-we-being-taken-for-fools-ltte-of.html

DU'ers looking to learn more about protecting our elections can find good talking points and references at that link.

Also, if you want to see this letter go further, please rate it up at dKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/4/21728/6409

I want to steal your stuff.

Thank you!

:D

Democracy will fail, is failing. The only reason bushco is in power is through election theft. They started in 2000, improved upon it in 2002 and got away with grand theft democracy in 2004.

It's all over but the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Unless heroes such as yourself are able to pull victory from the jaws of diebold. Of course it will take all of us working together to do so.

Who's up for the challenge?

:blush:

In the letter I wonder if Democracy and secret vote counting can coexist but the title is Democracy and scanners.

I've written quite a few that have been printed to the surprise of many. Check this out:

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/06/holding-media-accountable-part-2-of-2.html

Please feel free to recycle it elsewhere, or to simply borrow some of these talking points and/or references.

Peace.

Isn't it foolish to believe that Humboldt is immune from problems with voting machines when the 6/9/06 Eureka Reporter revealed we had failed memory cards and scanners unable to transmit data to election headquarters during the June 6 Primary? You can even read about it here (.pdf) in the words of Elections Manager Lindsey McWilliams.

Isn't it foolish to think that County election administrators can guarantee conclusive and accurate results will put the correct candidate in office when the courts have decided to let Congress nullify elections and appoint their members, as happened recently in San Diego?

Somebody forwarded her the letter from the Reporter. She flipped over it and searched out my phone number. She asked me to be a contributor to OpEdNews.com. I already am, though I hadn't posted this letter. Now she has:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_ber_061004_aren_t_we_being_take.htm

WA State had the most thorough audit of opscans possible in 2004, in which one machine counts and one handcount agreed within 0.01%. In addition, all three gubernatorial candidates gained a few votes in the hand count, which is the exact direction of error you'd expect with central tabulation.

Overall, having two different counting methods agree so closely raises confidence in the results a lot. Likewise, paleontologists are thrilled when counting tree rings gives them a date close to the carbon-14 results.

just a percentage of the ballots? Just curious.

--the DRE ballots in Snohomish and Yakima counties. There was machine cheating in favor of the Republican in the former (Sequoia) but not the latter (different company). Whether that was accidental or intentional will never be known--that was what Land Shark's suit was about.

Here is the direct URL for the full piece:

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2853