Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The transcript from the TAP breakfast in full....Dean disses Diebold.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 12:55 AM
Original message
The transcript from the TAP breakfast in full....Dean disses Diebold.
Edited on Sat Apr-22-06 01:03 AM by madfloridian
I know it won't be enough, nothing is ever quite enough but a start. I posted portions of the trancript a few days ago...but now they have it all up.

Here is the Diebold section with a question by blogger David Grossman.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11436

David Grossman: Governor, one question by way of the blog Daily Kos. How concerned are you and others at the DNC about Diebold voting machines, and...

Dean: Very.

Grossman: ...other issues of voting fraud?

Dean: Very concerned. I am actually calling Democratic public officials. I called one yesterday to try to head off the use of these machines. We spent half a million dollars after the election with a task force, headed by Donna Brazile but made up of academics that were relatively neutral and very careful, to look at these machines very carefully. We concluded that are easily hackable and cannot be verified and that they are not reliable. And we concluded the best machine you can use is an opti-scan machine because at least it has paper ballots and you still get the rapidity of the counting. There are Democratic officials who still use these because they get huge amounts of money from the federal government to buy these kinds of machines, well, not just ... the other machines, the Sequoias and Diebolds and such. I'm not an expert on these machines, although someone did actually teach me how to hack one on live TV once, which was kind of fun. It's pretty shocking -- I know so little about the intricacies of all this stuff so ... I wouldn't pretend I ... I did change the vote totals on the machines, but I don't know if it was really -- could have been a program that was elaborately programmed to fool me into thinking I was doing something I really wasn't doing.

But yes, our conclusion is that these machines are not reliable and they undermine confidence in democracy. I, as you know, keep in pretty constant touch with lots of people around the country, many of the people who supported me for President are people who are very much involved in exposing this. There have been some success stories in North Carolina, for example, the legislature wrote the bill so that essentially Diebold's unwillingness to provide source codes or any kind of reliability disqualified them from the bidding. So, we're pushing back on this hard. Republican legislators seem to think these are great things. We don't get very far in states that are controlled by Republican governors and legislatures, but we have had some success. We believe it's important to keep talking about these machines. These machines are a problem. This is not some Internet conspiracy; this is a serious problem that faces American democracy. These machines are not reliable and they shouldn't be used. We should not be using machines in this country where the results of the vote can't be verified after the fact. Period. Any machines.


I shamelessly borrowed that segment of the transcript from David's blog at Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/22/13728/8193



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good start, shame about promoting optiscan though
Paper ballots are no good if you can't prove the need to perform a recount. The Dems MUST get themselves fully informed on this issue once and for all.

The DNC called tonight, BTW. I explained that I've been donating to Dem candidates I like around the country, but contributed what I could in any case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-22-06 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. If there is a question about optiscan, the ballots are there.
Hubby and I have both been poll watchers, counting people in who were Dems and checking the tallies. That can be done everywhere. The machine can be used to change figures, but if you have poll watchers counting the voters coming in....you can do something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC