Love Bev at BBV but she's a geeky interviewee Need straightalker

[FullCountNotRecount]

to talke to media.

[senseandsensibility]

1. Where did you hear her?

I've heard her a couple of times and thought she did great.

[skylarmae]

2. what'd I miss - who had her on and when?

[Bobbie47]

3. Isn't Bev

the gal that goes on Coast to Coast with George Noory.

[gristy]

4. Well, it's a tough subject

And without Bev we wouldn't be as far along as we are now, though I'm all in favor of as many folks talking up issue as can fit on the bus.

[Cleita]

5. Huh? She did great when Howard Dean interviewed her

a couple of months ago.

[sally343434]

6. She's getting better

I agree that she has difficulty explaining this issue in interviews. She has been making the rounds lately, last night I heard her on Mike Webb's show. I don't know if it's entirely her fault, as it sometimes falls to the interviewer to make a topic clear.

However, whenever I hear Bev on the radio, I'm still reminded of that scene toward the end of "The China Syndrome" when "Jack Godell" (Jack Lemmon) tries to explain what happened to a TV reporter and does so poorly that, back at the station, you hear the director say, "He's blowing it."

[NightTrain]

7. In case you didn't know, Bev Harris posts here.

I'm sure she'll appreciate your calling her a geek. :eyes:

[FullCountNotRecount]

10. I Love Bev...but we all need lessons to be on TV to get our

message across. Kerry could make thinks too complicated also. There are simpler ways to get important points out. I LOVE BEV. I meant Computer Geek as in intelligant...not pejoratively.

[claudiajean]

13. Prior to becoming an election integrity activist, Bev was a professional..

...publicist.

She has substantial media experience, both broadcast and print. In fact, she actually knows more about working with the media and appearing in interviews than she does about voting issues, which is saying quite a bit, as she has become an expert in voting issues over the past 2 years, as well.

There are specific skills for maximizing a TV interview, and Bev hits them all. She also does so on the radio, from the interviews I have heard.

To be able to understand the nature of your concern and to be able to use your feedback, it is really important for us to understand what it was, specifically, about the interview that you heard that you felt was too complicated of a description of a "simple" subject.

[claudiajean]

8. What, specifically, were your concerns with her interview?

I serve as Bev's technical consultant for election administration and procedures (as well as serve this role for several other of the election integrity organizations).

If you have something specific that concerned you, we'll be happy to look at it. But we need more than "...she's a geeky interviewee Need straightalker to talke to media."

If I sound like I'm defending Bev without fully understanding your concern, perhaps I am.

Election procedures integrity is not a particularly sexy subject when one gets to the meat of the issue. Sure, "We wuz robbed!" gets people excited, but the minute the actual issues are addressed, such as tabulator security, modem hackability, residual vote, unofficial counts, official counts, provisional ballots, voter verified paper ballots, MS Windows holes, etc., etc. etc., an awful lot of people's eyes roll back in their head as they pass out from sheer boredom.

However, those issues are the real issues, not "We wuz robbed!", and the system is not going be corrected without a discussion of those type of rather dry, academic issues.

Part of Bev's great success is attributable to the fact that she has been substantially more successful in communicating what the election problems are, in a bottom-line, everyperson manner, than most leaders on this issue. Bev IS a good spokesperson for an extremely complicated problem, the resolution of which is made difficult by the tense dynamic between election officials, voters, candidates, media and all other stakeholders.

If you have a more specific constructive criticism of Bev's current presentation, please share. We can look to refine the current message to address legitimate communication concerns or holes.

Thanks.

[sandnsea]

12. Something concrete

That would be a great place to start. Not vague possibilities. Stick to the cases where computers actually did wacky things, where elections were overturned when the problems were discovered. Stick to the fact that exit polls are used to monitor elections in dictatorships. Pick 5 easily understandable "glitches" and focus on those. The actual fraud may be completely different, but you have to get people to understand that it's very easy to do before they'll even listen to the idea that it's been done.

[claudiajean]

14. By "something concrete", what exactly do you mean?

I am truly not trying to belabor the issue, but I'm not understanding what you would categorize as "something concrete". Can you give an example?

No election has ever yet been "overturned" (and by overturned, I'm assuming you mean by court order) due to a computer malfunction, hacking, electronic fraud, etc.

Electronic voting in the "Black Box" sense is very new territory, legally speaking. All of us working on this issue are breaking completely new ground. There is no case law, there is precious little anecdotal evidence from past elections.

Part of this is the insular nature of election offices (and remember, I speak as an election official - this is the view from inside), and the overwhelming chokehold private companies have on the election process. The vendors can still pull "fast ones" on the election officials, because they have the advantage of knowing the flaws in their product, and can spin the election officials when something goes wrong. Often it is weeks after the election before the election officials know that something may have been wrong with their results that they relied upon, and at that point, the legal remedies are limited. If there is no legal remedy, then you don't go to court. So no case law. And very little statutory law.

As for exit polling... And I want to be perfectly clear, on this issue I am speaking ONLY for myself and my opinions as an elections expert, but exit polling is never going to match poll results in a democracy where people are free to speak their mind and cast a secret ballot. The simple fact is, there are enough people who do not convey their true choice to exit pollsters, mostly due to a principle-based desire to preserve their completely secret ballot, that exit polling will never match the actual polling. This has been proven in studies time and again. To try to use differing results from exit polling to the polls as a basis for proving fraud is complete folly and legally worthless.

It doesn't mean that there wasn't provable fraud, but exit polling is not the place where proof of such fraud will be found.

[sandnsea]

15. Concrete

There have been at least 2 results that were overturned due to finding errors in this election. Not through the law, but just through discovering electronic voting "glitches". That concretely shows people that there are problems. Connect those exact same voting systems to odd results in other areas. Concrete.

We've had several people in the mainstream media who have pointed to exit polling as the means by which elections are monitored in 3rd world countries. If you don't use that information, you're throwing out another reason for mainstream America to listen to you.

You have to START with people being willing to listen, mainstream America. Complicated legal technicalities and lines of code are never going to break through to mainstream people. It's all junk lawsuits and speculation to them, whiny liberals using activist judges to overthrow the will of the people. You have got to show them something that actually happened, that they can easily understand, before you ever get them to believe what happens in a court of law.

I swear, I do not know why Democrats don't see a gift horse when it's sitting right on top of them. Exit polling and the bizarre memory card counting errors are the gift horse. For heaven's sake, USE IT.

[claudiajean]

19. OK, here's part of the communication disconnect on this thread, I think...

The election has yet to be certified in any state, so how can any results have been overturned yet?

I think we are talking about apples and oranges (or apples and aircraft parts) here...

Errors are a part of life in running elections -- people are human, and there is far more of the human factor in elections that in other project-based government endeavors. The reason there is a canvassing period after an election is to give officials enough time to correct errors that are found, and to ensure accurate results are certified.

And again, just for clarity, I'm an election expert that Bev consults with to ensure that she has the facts correct on election administration, procedures and law. I am not speaking officially for Black Box Voting.

Bev's message is Bev's message, my words are my words. I just simply talk to her daily, so if there's a good, clear suggestion from someone out there about how to best communicate this complicated topic -- without making claims that cannot be supported -- than what is happening now, I'm in a better position to communicate it quickly to her than random postings on DU are.

Back to the matter at hand:

I know of three widely publicized instances from the November election where there have been tabulation problems due to previously KNOWN functionality errors in the equipment being used. In all cases, the manufacturer knew of the flaws, but did not notify the county using the equipment (in one case, inadvertently, as the manufacturer had the wrong model number logged as the equipment for that county)

The two types of situations that I am aware of are both design flaws that affect the function of the apparatus when a specific number of total votes cast is reached. In one situation, the device begins counting backwards one it reaches a certain number of votes cast in a single contest, in another, after a certain number of voters have cast ballots, no more ballots can be stored on the memory of the device.

All of these instances were caught by election officials and corrected before certification.

Are these instances good reasons to lobby for voter verified paper ballots and not all electronic systems? Very much so. Are either of these indicators of fraud? NO. And to present either of these examples as "fraud" is very likely to harm the credibility of the person or organization using them as such.

As far as exit polling:

Exit polling is not a gift horse if it is an inaccurate measure on which to base a claim. Nothing will hamper Bev's, or anyone's, credibility faster than basing a claim upon data that simply isn't reliable the way that it is collected in America. Keep in mind, we are talking about finding 1% and 2% discrepancies - not discrepancies of double digit percentage points. 3% is the minimum margin of error in any poll, so again it is not a reliable piece of evidence on which to base a claim in a close contest.

I have heard the "third world exit polling" claim multiple times, and as someone who has actually observed elections outside the US, I can tell you that there is a gross misunderstanding of what the observation and monitoring procedures are. But that's a long topic for another whole thread.

However, using an exit polling comparison in the US to show election problems is just like shouting "we wuz robbed!" -- it makes for sexy copy, but there's no there there -- it simply can't be supported as a factual basis for a claim.

People who run elections for a living, lawmakers, judges, and policy makers are the people that are going to have to be swayed to help this situation immediately, before the electoral college convenes. And those folks will see right through specious claims because they have the expert staff or their own experience to be able to assess the validity of these claims.

Would it be good to have a massive groundswell of public support? Yes. But is it more important to get this information into the hands to those people who can actually remedy the situation before it is too late? Of course. And those people are not going to be swayed by flawed claims, no matter how compelling the backstory may be. And anyone who has made a specious claim in the course of trying to make the issue easier for public consumption is going to be ignored when it really matters.

What the BBV people are doing right now is collecting public documents and information from election offices all across the country with heavy emphasis on key states and counties. They are finding information within those documents that can "hang them on their own petard", so to speak. This is concrete information, but it's still in the analysis stage.

Without discussing the real issues, not unsubstantiated ones, how can the message be made more mainstream? Really. I'm asking. Maybe I don't see it because I'm too close to the situation.

I hope we are not making the mistake of assuming that the general public is stupid. I certainly don't think so, and I don't think most Democrats think so. Why do we think they can't process a complex issue?

[sandnsea]

22. Never mind

Good luck. I hope you turn up something that will stand up in a court of law as more than an unintentional glitch, I really do.

[claudiajean]

26. Thank you. I hope so, too. n/t

[LTRS]

16. Well for one thing....

She should stop claiming "fraud" when the only evidence she has is that the potential for ballot fraud exists because of the poor security measures present in our voting machines. She really, really, has to stop that if she wants those in power to find her credible. These are complicated issues and we need credibility more than anything in order to get those people to listen all the way through. Consider hiring a professional spokesperson, or getting Bev some media training.

Secondly, the web site needs to lose all those geeky pictures of people expressing "wtf" expressions and comments. With all the folks here at DU you should be able to get someone to help make the site look more professional, and serious rather than replete with fringy protestors (and again, credibility). If she was a PR / media person before doing this, I am at a loss as to why she doesn't already understand that.

I love what she is doing, but this is serious shit now, and you guys need to become a first class organization. I donated money, my partner donated money, and hopefully lots of Randi Rhodes listeners donated money. I hope you use it wisely.

[claudiajean]

23. I think you have some good thoughts...

And again, I just want to make clear, I consult with Black Box Voting, I talk to folks at the BBV office daily (yes, there is an office, not someone's basement) and I'm going to pass on the good suggestions made on this thread, but I don't speak for Black Box Voting. I am an independent election procedures expert.

Part of the problem is that the evidence of the potential fraud that has been uncovered so far is being put together in a systematic way -- public records requests, gathering of witness statements from the affected counties, etc. etc.

The BBV staff are doing a good, thorough job of their investigations, is my observation. If you have donated, your money will be well spent on insuring election integrity and addressing the issues that have arisen from this current election.

For Bev to come forward with everything they have right now would also give the counties being scrutinized the opportunity to do a document scrub -- a common practice in government when you know that an FoIA request is about to come your way that will be damaging.

Bev IS a professional spokesperson. I have been in studio with her (and I have media training myself, so I have some ability to assess her performance objectively), and she does a good job. But what I'm hearing is that the message is being muddied because there isn't a "smoking gun" that can be slapped down for a "gotcha" moment - Is that what you are saying? Because that does make for good radio...

Is it possible that the problem is that the truth of the situation is serious, but not very interesting to the general public?

I'll point out your concerns with the web site and the posting. That was a new article today.

I can tell you, I've observed these folks first hand, and they are definitely a first class organization. They have opened up an office. They switched ISP providers and web host to ensure better bandwidth service. They have added volunteer staff. They are working 12 - 14 hours a day, seven days a week. They are frugal beyond belief, and are only spending money where they have to - such as paying counties for copies of public documents that factually support the claims. They are digging up facts that no one else is.

I really think, when all is said and done, that you will be proud of the work they have done.

P.S. I charge other clients, but the consulting I give to BBV is donated, just as that of many other experts is.

[ParanoidPat]

27. Have I told you today just how much you rock?

:yourock: :toast: :hi:

:kick:

[claudiajean]

32. Oh, you too, Pat! :) n/t

[LTRS]

29. I just watched the vid clip with Dean

... that was excellent. Clear, and succinct, keep it simple stupid, you know what I mean? More of that kind of stuff and we can wake the public up about this problem.

My main criticism is the the posts here and the declarations on the web site of FRAUD! FRAUD! Let's prove it before we shout it, or we lose credibility for crying wolf. That's all I am saying (and certain politicians have also said this to me about BBV, though no, I'm not naming them).

[claudiajean]

31. I think that is a very good point..

..and one that I also make when my "everyperson" meter goes off while reading new articles on the site.

I think that maybe part of the problem is that fundraising and educating gets kind of blended together, and the tone for each should be different.

(I like the Dean clip, too. I think we both agree that's the direction the message needs to go.)

[Bozos for Bush]

24. I'm looking for an update on how contributions are going

Bev put out a call to raise $50,000.

How much have you collected so far?

[Cha]

30. I heard Bev on the Guy James Show

and she was amazingly interesting and forthright in her understanding of the problems and her ability to communicate them.

I have no idea what the op is talking about.

[peekaloo]

9. It helps if the interviewer has a clue about the subject matter.

I've heard Ms. Harris on Democracy Now and thought she did an excellent job at pointing out the potential for fraud and misrepresentation concerning e-voting.

:shrug:

Amy Goodman needs to revisit this story.

[tommcintyre]

11. She was great in Votergate! link here

http://www.independentmediasource.com/evotingfraud.htm


Sections:

Article Sections:

11-2-04 and newer:

Featured

Evoting

On Site

Other voter fraud

Older



Other Sections:

Web sites

New Additions

Legislation

Things you can do



Hundreds of resources available through these pages

UPDATED CONSTANTLY. CHECK THE "New Additions" PAGE EACH TIME YOU COME BACK


SPREAD THE WORD. PROPAGATE THIS EVERYWHERE!

(Lots of bandwidth)
Du post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=28512&mesg_id=28512

[quiet.american]

17. ...to tell you the truth....

I consider her a modern-day hero, but really wish the Black Box Voting site were better organized. I can never find the info I'm looking for on there in a concise format.

[claudiajean]

25. I think that is a reasonable suggestion...

The BBV site gets attacked a lot (now why would anyone out there want to crash Bev's site???), and it was simplified on an html level at one point to help prevent damage. And some archived documents were temporarily taken down due to bandwidth issues at election time.

But your observation has been made internally at BBV, as well.

One of our best webmasters just got back from donating three weeks to the Kerry Campaign in hard-fought Philadelphia, so maybe BBV can brush up the organization on the site in the next week.

[quiet.american]

28. Thanks for the feedback!

n/t

[Bluebear]

18. Don't insult a fellow DUer

That's how people choose Pretzledents by the way. "He's plain spoken and folksy!"

[goclark]

33. Don't mess with Bev!

She has been working her heart out at great risk to her personal safety to be a voice in the wilderness for all of us.

I don't care if she says it in pig latin,she is telling the truth and she is on our side.

The enemy is Bush not our DUer BEV!

[DS1]

20. It's really a shame

that people think they have to dumb everything in life down so even the simplest idiot can "understand"

:wtf: :grr:

[PretzelWarrior]

21. why don't you see if she's looking into getting training

they do it for pro athletes and all kinds of other people. They teach them how to interact well in an interview both from a visual perspective (on TV) and in the way they sound (radio interviews)