Black Box Voting: A beginner's summary -- Now you, too can get involved!

[BevHarris]

Many at DU have not yet become familiar with the issue, because it has many facets, some of which are technical. DU has been an excellent sounding board for this investigation, but if you jump in late it can be confusing.

Perhaps now is a good time to do a beginner's summary. Please weigh in with your thoughts.

1. Secrecy: What has always been a transparent process, subjected to many eyes and belonging to all of us, has very recently become secretive and proprietary. This happened when voting systems, which should be considered part of the "public commons" were turned over to private companies. These companies now assert that the process underlying the vote must be held secret from the voters.

- No voter, no citizens group, not even any academic group of experts is allowed to examine a voting machine.

- Likewise, citizens, academics and voters are not allowed to examine the software that tells the computer how to count and tally the votes.

- In addition, the process of voter registration is now going to private, proprietary and secret software.

2. Ownership: When a system that belongs to the public becomes secret, it becomes doubly important to make sure we can completely trust those who run it. Because voting systems have recently become proprietary secrets, we began to ask whether we can trust those who run these companies.

- Voting machine companies are not required to tell us who owns them.

- Several voting machine companies have been as secretive about ownership as they are about their voting systems.

- Two of the top six firms have been foreign-owned: Election.com, owned by the Saudis until an acquisition by Accenture a few weeks ago, and Sequoia, now owned by DeLaRue (Great Britain) formerly owned by Jefferson Smurfit (Ireland).

- Three of the top six firms have owners and/or directors who represent vested interests:

--- Election Systems & Software, the largest company. Main owner is a company owned by Senator Chuck Hagel's campaign finance director, Michael McCarthy. Hagel has owned shares in both the voting company itself and in the parent company run by his campaign finance director, and Hagel was the CEO and Chairman of the voting machine company while it built the machines that counted his votes.

--- Diebold, the second voting machine largest company. CEO is Wally O'Dell, who recently visited George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch along with an elite group of Bush supporters called the "Rangers" (formerly called the "Pioneers") where they set strategy on how to help him win the next election. Days later, he penned a letter to Ohio Republicans promising to help "deliver the votes" for Bush. O'Dell sponsored a $600,000 fund raiser for Dick Cheney in July. Diebold director W.H. Timken is also a Bush Pioneer/Ranger

--- VoteHere, the company striving to get its cryptography software into all the other companies' machines (already has a contract with Sequoia), has as its Chairman a close Cheney supporter and member of the Defense Policy Board, Admiral Bill Owens. The SAIC, an "independent" firm doing an evaluation of Diebold security for the states of Maryland and Ohio, has Owens as it's Vice Chairman. Former CIA director Robert Gates, who heads the George Bush School of Business, is also a director.

- Voting companies also have a somewhat incestuous group of key players -- Todd Urosevich and Bob Urosevich founded ES&S, but Todd now is an executive with ES&S while Bob is president of Diebold Election Systems. Sequoia and ES&S share software and optical scan machines.

3. Disabling the safeguards: Voting systems have always had people trying to rig them, with varying degrees of success. Here is what has changed:

- The scale of potential vote-rigging has suddenly grown much bigger: Whereas it used to be that one had to run around bribing someone to shave the wheel on each lever machine, or collect up ballot boxes, stuff them in a trunk and do something dastardly, nowadays a programmer can, essentially invisibly, create a back door into the vote system for millions of votes at once. Whereas vote-rigging has always required physical access before, modems and wireless communications devices now open up possibilities for remote vote rigging that no one can observe.

- The audit trail is being taken away: An audit is simply the act of comparing two independent data sets that are supposed to match. Probably the most important understory to the voting issue right now is this: The voting industry is spending literally millions of dollars, and going through amazing feats of contorted logic that can best be described as marketing gymnastics, to convince us that we should discontinue proper auditing. The key words here are INDEPENDENT sources of data which should be compared. Instead, they want us to eliminate the ballot which you verify, and trust the secret system sold to us by manufacturers, without the ability to audit it using any independent means.

Even with the optical scan machines, which retain a paper ballot, states are now passing laws to prevent us from looking at the paper ballot to use it for a proper audit.

- Methods of access are changing: One key to election security is to reduce physical access to the votes. We've done this in various ways before; the typical attack point was always in the transfer of the votes from polling places to the county office. For this reason, the most secure paper ballot systems, in places like Canada, France, and Germany, require counting right there at the polling place. That also gives another security function: the "many eyes" method of security.

Computer technology can allow people to gain access using remote methods. Right now, you are reading this on the Internet. You have remote access to the forum at Democratic Underground. Imagine if the wrong people can gain remote access to view the votes as they come in. It would be much worse, if remote access allows them to write data into the vote system.

- Programmer access: One thing we've never had until we got electronic vote-counting (which includes touch screens and optical scan machines, and punch card tabulation as well), is software programming errors. A lever machine can be tampered with, but you don't have any software programming errors with it. Incorrect software programming has now been identified in at least 112 elections, often flipping the race to the wrong candidate, even when the election was not close.

No one knows how many elections have actually been misprogrammed, and as we remove the paper ballots, no one will ever know. We do know that incorrect programming producing errors as high as 25 percent is not uncommon, and software programming errors have been documented as high as 100 percent, and in one small Iowa county, a single machine miscounted by 3 million votes.

Incorrect software programming can take two forms: Accidental or deliberate. Either one takes away our right to have our vote counted as we cast it.

4. Secret certification and testing, which gives a passing grade to flaws -- The whole reason we are supposed to accept secret software and secret ownership is that, we're told, these systems go through extensive and rigorous certification and testing. However, this turns out not to be the case.

First of all, the certification officials refuse to say what tests they do, even when sent official questions by the California Task Force on Electronic Voting, which includes Dr. David Dill and other experts. We are told we cannot ask them any questions, and all questions must be asked of R. Doug Lewis.

Second, this person named R. Doug Lewis, who is unelected (no one quite know what his credentials are or who hired him) -- well he refuses to answer questions either.

Third, the testing that supposedly takes place at the state level quickly falls apart. It turns out that the states generally do not look at the secret programs at all; they simply ask some routine questions ("Can you vote more than once? How hard is it to set up?") and the states do a "logic & accuracy test" in which they set the machine to "test" mode, put in some test ballots, and if it counts right, they call it good. This will not detect fraud, and has proven to miss huge software programming errors quite often, but everybody feels good when they say "we do an l&a test and you, too, can watch."

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

What's the big deal with Diebold?

We have no reason to believe that any of the other secret, proprietary systems are any better than Diebold. The reason that Diebold has come under such scrutiny is that, for the first time ever, citizens have gotten the opportunity to examine one of these secret systems.

The reason we've been able to examine the Diebold system is that they left 40,000 files on an unprotected web site. Why did they do this? You'd have to ask Diebold.

- At first, they said that no one used those files and people didn't download files from that site and put them on voting machines.

- Then they said that maybe people used them but it was a few files and they were years old. (When they said this, the most recent file had been put on that site just 12 days earlier.)

- Then they said that some of the material was used, but it was over a year old.

- Now they are admitting that it was a huge security mistake.

What has the examination of Diebold revealed so far?

- Rob-Georgia and unexamined patches: With so many files, it was hard to know where to start. However, within 15 minutes we knew there was a problem: On the web site was a file called "rob-georgia.zip" which instructed the user to replace voting machine files with new ones.

While some on this list have contended that putting replacement files on voting machines without certifying the changes is legal, I now have my hands on an internal Diebold document that shows they were aware that making any modifications without going through certification again was illegal in Georgia. Because we now know that all 22,000 machines in Georgia were given program updates taken off the unprotected web site, not once, but several times, and that no one certified any of these, we contend that Diebold broke the law.

- Overwriteable passwords and easy to fake audit logs: We have now shown that it is easy to substitute your own password for the administrator password, and although an "audit log" is supposed to document every event, you can easily change it.

- Sloppy software programming and incorrect encryption A report by Johns Hopkins and Rice University computer security experts shows that the software is riddled with flaws. One of the four researchers was later shown to have a conflict of interest, but the flaws the four programmers identified have also been identified by others -- in fact, right here at DU, weeks before they published that report!

One of the flaws they identified has been confirmed by many people: At the polling place, everyone uses the same supervisor password, which is 1,1,1,1. They all use the same one because someone hard-wired it into the code and the election officials can't change it! One voting machine examiner was livid when he saw this; he had identified the same flaw five years ago and ordered them to fix it, but they didn't.

- Weak physical security and questionable practices regarding remote access Recently a file was found which shows that mid-day tallies were collected in San Luis Obispo County. It is illegal to show a tally before the polls close, but this tally was placed on the Diebold web site. Why it was there at all has not been satisfactorily answered. It seems likely that it was placed there on election day, since the file was tagged with the name "sophia" and a Diebold employee named Sophia was present on election day, but returned to Canada afterward.

In this case, the county elections official swear they did not put the file there, that no one but them was allowed access to the only computer that could produce this report, and that they did not authorize Sophia to put the file there. Sophia also denies that she put it on the web site. The fact remains, somehow a file was removed from the county computer and placed on a Diebold web site, apparently on election day; it contained mid-election tallies and no one will admit who put it there. So much for bulletproof security surrounding the computers.

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

Where do we go from here?

1. Certification: Now we are working on getting documentation as to whether the systems used in the last general election were certified at all. If not, we contend that the companies that used uncertified systems should be barred from bidding on new contracts, and the officials who allowed them to be used should be held accountable.

2. Legislation: HB 2239, by Rush Holt, is a good thing to get behind. It requires voter-verified paper ballots, eliminates remote access mechanisms like modems and wireless cards, and requires using the paper ballots for proper auditing. But watch out. Another bill, 2289 (? doing this from memory, is this the right number?) appears to do the right thing, but actually does the wrong thing.

Watch wording carefully when you push for these bills -- do everything you can to pass 2239, but the other actually does an end run around paper ballots. There is a movement by VoteHere, the manufacturer with tight connections to the defense industry, to shift away from paper ballots in favor of cryptography. That is not a sufficiently transparent or trustworthy system, in my opinion.

Okay, so there's the primer. Hope this doesn't bore anyone, but I keep seeing people saying they've gotten confused. Hope this was helpful. Feel free to print it and adjust it if needed.

You can find more information at http://www.blackboxvoting.org.

Bev Harris

[efhmc]

1. I like that you presented the problem, which we all know, and that you

gave us some suggestions for change. Too often I see only problems, which all of us smart DUers can see, presented with no hope or ideas as to how to make a difference. Thanks for the information.

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. Bev, you are a hero.

Now that it is beginning to look like there is no way Bush can win with legitimate means, your work may become the most important piece of the puzzle for the next election. Thank you!

[SharonAnn]

3. Thanks, this is a great summary and I love the information about

what people can do.

I've had several people ask me about BBV and what it's all about, why it's a problem, and then - what can they do about it.

So, this link is going to get emailed to my activist list.

[althecat]

4. Kick... n/t

[GregW]

5. Don't forget the SLO phone home that wasn't a phone home

Nice little bit of mass hysteria that thread caused!

[althecat]

7. The jury is still out on that Greg...

[efhmc]

9. I am always SO out of the loop. Explain, please.

[efhmc]

10. I am always SO out of the loop. Explain, please.

[BevHarris]

13. Actually, the SLO piece was a smoking gun -- and here's more

We were recently sent an employee list with home numbers for all the Diebold employees. Some of us have been making some calls, as in "do you know anything that could help us understand this?"

Tonight I was sent two more files sourced to a Diebold employee, both for San Luis Obispo County. That means they had three SLO vote files -- and they deny having any.

I'm looking at those files now.

The reason that SLO was a smoking gun is that, since only two SLO County elections officials are allowed physical access to the machine and neither one authorized putting that file on the Diebold company web site, and they say they absolutely did not put it there themselves, and it has a Diebold employee's name on it, and that employee was present on election day but not afterwards, we can see that the security of the GEMS machine was compromised somehow.

I reported Julie Rodewald's story, but also noted the discrepancies in her story.

Bev Harris

[althecat]

17. For those who missed all the fun...What this is about.. (Thread links)

For those who missed all the fun...What this is about..

The latest information about SLO County is here
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00067.htm

Bev's site Blackboxvoting.org in the midst of all that follows got knocked off air. It is presently migrating... and is the authoritative source for Bev's latest info.


BBV has had a very big weekend... it is all at the below threads several of which were locked after people misbehaved.. there was also a discussion on the misbehaviour which was also locked. So please behave... The following contains some of the discussion of all this... from the looks of things some threads on this subject have also been deleted. Which is disappointing. Someone maybe able to confirm this or provide links to the earliest SLO threads(Thursday last week.. I cannot find by searching bevharris...)

Locked BBV SLO threads

Do BBV industry workers participate in threads on DU?http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=290689

Black Box; SLO update -- get tomatoes ready!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=288085

(this is the embarrasment Greg is referring to.. and in my mind Bev has taken her medicine rather gracefully on this point.)

Meanwhile this one has not been locked..

Black Box: A plea for mirror space -- from "Make My Day"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=283649

and Jim March's website is definitely worth a look as is the Slashdot assault on this story...

[4dog]

109. Al, thanks for the links; please do this again.

I can't sleep next to the computer; sometimes I even have work to do and go a day or two without visiting, whereupon many threads come and go.

[BevHarris]

21. Update on the new SLO files

Precise accounting is good.
Confusing accounting is bad.

As I mentioned, we've been making some phone calls. A Diebold employee sent me two more SLO County files they have in their possession for some reason.

Okay, first, this is not what I can call a bulletproof source since I don't know whether the files are bona fide or a little honey pot just for me. (Honey pot: booby trap, in computer lingo.)

It turns out that neither file has votes in them. Both are configured for SLO County votes to drop into. I haven't had time to compare the layout to see if they are updated with the right candidates for the 3/5/2002 primary that the smoking gun file is.

Here's the weird part: Both have an extensive audit log, going back to 2000. So does the smoking gun file. I haven't had time to see if the audit logs are the same. But these have an audit log that stops in December 2001. In both, they have an entry in the audit log that saves the file as the March 5, 2002 SLO County primary.

Possible plausible explanation: The elections person wanted to have a template to start setting up the election to take place four months later, so she just made a copy of a December file for a March election, intending to update it with March information.

Still not satisfactorily explained: That makes sense for the elections officials in SLO County, but WHY DOES A DIEBOLD EMPLOYEE HAVE THESE FILES, instead of the SLO County elections staff?

And so it goes. Possible plausible explanation: Diebold sets up the elections for the county officials? If so, that would give an uncertified, unelected Diebold employee detailed access to the candidate information and file structures. Not a great idea given that they also have access to the port settings and communications protocols.

G'nite.

Bev

[BevHarris]

53. Well heck, these files are the same file, earlier version

All they did was a "save as" of the same SLO file that's had all the attention, but they saved it in December as the March Primary file.

That's no big deal, probably were using it for a template. I would bet that Diebold helps create the vote databases for its election officials -- a procedure that gives a delicious amount of inside access, but also not an unusual procedure.

A system like electronic voting is much safer it is is modular -- that is, no one entity having control of too many components. Generally a bad idea to have the company gain intimate knowledge of ballot layout and candidate positions while at the same time having intimate knowledge of ports, modems and access information.

Bev

[scottxyz]

43. Gawd what a big mess at San Luis Obispo (SLO)

After only skimming the article on SLO, I think I'm still entitled to make this comment on the whole thing: Gawd what an awful mess.

This is transparent, auditable voting? No democracy should have to wade through such a mess of crap to try to understand how votes are recorded in one particular county. This is definitely not "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

We need to reaffirm the letter and spirit of our "Equal Protection" laws not only for VOTING (access for handicapped, translation for speakers of other languages) but also for VOTE-TALLYING.

I'm a computer programmer and I cannot sit through the giant mass of gobbledy-gook that constutes SLO's methodology for tallying precinct and absentee votes. I doubt many accountants could sit through that morass either.

SIMPLICITY. TRANSPARENCY. VERIFIABILITY. Just like the ACCESSIBILITY concept implied by the Equal Protection clause and precedents, we need to demand that the SIMPLICITY + TRANSPARENCY + VERIFIABILITY of vote-tallying also mandated by the Equal Protection laws also be enforced. The SLO vote-tallying system is a disgrace, and illegal on its face.

For every one of these screwed-up vote-tallying systems, we should simply be able to bring class action suits to our courts showing that THIS MESS OF COMPUTER SPAGHETTI CODE AND BUREAUCRATIC BUNGLING VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. The burden of proof doesn't have to be "Diebold cheated" - the burden is much lower: "Diebold designed such a screwed-up mess no reasonably trained adult can be expected to ever properly understand or run the damn thing." THAT burden of proof has been met all over the country. Throw these rickety overpriced incomprehensible totally-hackable malfunctioning machines out. An X on a piece of paper in indelible ink (with special high-tech options for the handicapped), counted and audited by independent parties on-site, costs way less and works way better. And most importantly: It is the only method which "the People" can PROVE actually works right.

Signed,
A Microsoft Access Programmer

[efhmc]

83. The bottom line to me is, can we really make enough people aware to

make a difference?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pobeka]

8. 5. Simplicity

A ballot should be created, and marked, so the average citizen can aid in an audit. Anything less can reduce to esoteric arguments from technical experts in court.

[John_H]

11. Good Work

Simple is always best, IMHO

[frank frankly]

12. Bev Harris!!!

I will print this and read it carefully. I live in Pittsburgh and the national correspondent for the Post-Gazette, Ann McFetters, ran a story about voting machines, and mentioned you in the article.

Bush can't get a 5-10% blackbox push in 2004. He can't. I think you'll stop that. We'll help.

Keep sending the hard data.

Thank you so much, Bev.

Rosa says thanks, too.

PS. I just joined DU today, but been reading for all 2003, and it is truly thrilling to speak with you! It's been said, bares repeating: you are a hero.

[BevHarris]

15. Wow! Thanks Frank. It's thrilling to have you speaking up!

And, upthread answer, yes you hit it on the head: It needs to use the K.I.S.S. method -- Keep It Simple.

What the heck are we trying to spend millions on cryptographers and special secret software for anyway? Mark the ballot and be done with it. Costs less anyway, and when we say "Of the people, by the people and for the people" I really think "the people" would like to be involved in our own voting process. Why reduce it to bits and bytes when it can be human beings?

Thanks!

Bev

[scottxyz]

41. Also this was a great soundbite Bev:

What the heck are we trying to spend millions on cryptographers and special secret software for anyway? Mark the ballot and be done with it. Costs less anyway, and when we say "Of the people, by the people and for the people" I really think "the people" would like to be involved in our own voting process. Why reduce it to bits and bytes when it can be human beings?

I think this could be a pullquote or blurb on other summaries of this issue.

This rhetorical style - simple and popular - is often used by the right wing to disguise proposals which in reality are anything but simple and popular - like "what do we need all those damn regulations to protect the power grid or media diversity or endangered species or a level playing field?".

Look at all the buzzwords so often hijacked by the right: "spending millions" (big-government), "special" (those pesky homos that want "special" rights), "be done with it" (get over it). You're reclaiming them for the left, showing how convoluted and overpriced and anti-freedom these right-wing voting technologies really are.

How refreshing to see popular language used once again to promote a popular agenda!

I bet the right wing works long hours to come up with nasty-sounding names for things that are really good, and vice-versa: good-sounding names for things that are really bad. We might invest some time in coming up with good-sounding names for the programs we want.

What would be the name of the voting system we propose?
"Transparent Voting"?
"Accountable Voting"?
"Verifiable Voting"?

We've got the ugly name "BlackBox Voting" for the ugly right-wing technology - it might be cool if some people worked on ideas and language summing up the kind of voting we envision in its stead.

[ConsAreLiars]

44. "Honest Voting"

"Do these computerized machines actually do what they say they do?"
"Do they give honest results?"
"How can we be sure?"

[scottxyz]

54. Open Voting

"Open Voting"

Sort of like "open source" from slashdot.

"Voter-Verifiable Voting"

VVV?

Another point to note: It is often said that in our modern age for many people the "Machine" is a sort of god. The myth of infallibility enjoyed by the machine is exploited by the right when they proclaim "touch-screen voting" (but sorry, no auditable paper trail!) - it sounds almost holy, like the "immaculate conception". There's also "DRE" - Direct Recording {Something}. They all sound to me like that spark of electricity, pure energy, you see zapping out from ET's hand or between Man and God's hands in that Michelangelo fresco. So many religions are about shuffling off this mortal messy coil for the cool purity of the Ethereal. Machine-worship is no exception.

How do we counter this powerful imagery of purity and perfection covering up a rigged Rube Goldberg contraption? Very carefully!

Any other suggestions for a name for a "good" voting system?

"votes tallied by a board of one's peers"
etc.
"votes cast and counted BY THE PEOPLE"
etc.

84. Key point

Computers and cryptography are valuable for MANUAL, RECURRING TASKS

So for example, each of us may have multiple interactions with financial institutions each day. And, while these transactions are important, they are not tied to a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT like voting.

Why then are computers appropriate for voting, which doesn't occur but once or twice per year? Why are Republicans so sneaky, invested, and insistent with regard to this technology, as has been exposed recently in the news?

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. Thanks Bev. That is the clearest communication I've seen on this

I think it will go a long way towards convincing people that something is wrong here and that there are fixes that will work while some people are going balls to the wall to prevent the fixes.

I'd like to talk to one of the people who doesn't want a paper ballot. I want to ask them what their motivation is. What could possibly motivate someone, a citizen in a democratic country no less, to want to create and maintain a situation where the ballot cannot be perfectly and beyond a doubt verified accurate. What do they get out of having the voting system be in such doubt?



Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets!>

[Zhade]

42. I've found that a lot of people are very receptive to this question:

"Do you think it's a good idea for a private corporation to count our votes using a process we're not allowed to see?"

Always hooks 'em. Then I spill the info and give them the url to Bev's website. I've found that people are extremely distrustful of corporations. Who knows, the memory of Enron may end up doing some good after all!

[scottxyz]

45. That's a very good way of phrasing it

"Do you think it's a good idea for a private corporation to count our votes using a process we're not allowed to see?"

I like the strategic analysis this BBV thread is taking. I think by titling the thread "For Beginners", Bev managed to draw in people whose eyes used to glaze over on all the technical issues on other threads. (Not to mention how helpless they must have felt to parse tech-talk when the trolls so often tried to hijack threads. It's nice to be strategizing about how to get the message out, rather than bickering with some two-bit programmer over the fantasy of "one-way modems" and other phantasmagorical beasts.) The issues are much simpler, as summarized above: do you want some privately-held company (run by guys who hang around on George W Bush's Crawford ranch or sit on Carlyle) counting your votes in secret using incomprehensible technology - or should THE PEOPLE count the votes?

THE PEOPLE sit on juries. THE PEOPLE run for office. THE PEOPLE serve in the military. THE PEOPLE should count the votes.

Let Diebold go back to making ATMs - which I understand they did a heck of a lot better than these flimsy voting machines. Let Diebold stay in the ATM business (and see how many people would keep using a particular bank if its ATMs occasionally swallowed thousands of dollars or modemed your bank balance to some lady named "Sophia".) The much-vaunted right-wing concept of "the efficiency of the marketplace" only works when there really IS a marketplace - ie, multiple vendors for the customers to choose from.

Voters aren't some kind of "customer" who can simply walk away from precincts that fail to count their votes because some crummy vendor got the bid.

Voters are citizens entitled to have their votes counted by a voting board composed of their peers. (Someone edit this down so it echoes "by a jury of one's peers" better. What's the one-word name for a "voting board"? See what I'm driving at? Kelly Girls and Manpower don't staff juries - why should Diebold and ES&S staff our voting boards??)

Getting the message out - using DUers' skills
As we can see, many different kinds of skills are needed to expose rigged voting machinery and bring back clean voting methods. Programmers and techies are useful for exposing how the rigging is done. Writers, illustrators, strategists also have important work to do to get the story out.

Like it or not, in a way we are the media now. CNN and NYT just aren't going to come up with the right questions and the right analysis if we sit around and wait for them to do it. The army of dedicated, unpaid writers and investigators swarming over the web on bulletin boards and blogs has much more brainpower than the narrow, corporate media. We have more talent for discovering and communicating.

Spreading the message beyond the Digital Divide
I like the idea of helping this to spill off the web. If brochures or fact sheets or summaries can be printed out (Bev's article at the head of this thread would be a great start), then a lot more people would know the facts about this corporate attempt to hijack our voting systems. Other media - cartoons, audio - would also be great. There's a lot of talent here at DU - and voting is a core issue where lots of people can contribute their skills.

Signed,
A Microsoft Access Programmer
(developer of AUDITED departmental financial-analysis systems for banks)

[Zhade]

52. Damn straight!

Voting is the single most important thing I can think of to focus on.

Our right to vote is one political issue I can instantly say, without hesitation, I would die to protect. This, to me and I'm sure everyone else here, is much larger than myself, and of far more importance than anything I could be doing right now.

We are the media. We The Media. I like that. And I want to get out on the street and get people informed.

Together, those of us here and around the world who are dedicated to freedom will save this democracy. We have no other choice.

BEV: I will host files. I have a website that has laid fallow for months now. It is at your disposal. Just tell me what you need me to do, what I need to host, and I will see that it is done. My webhost, btw, is open-source-based, and ultracool. I fathom less struggle with them.

Peace.

[Unforgiven]

16. Kick This Article!

Kick It!

[RedEagle]

22. The Bad Amendment

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7841&dbname=2003_record

This is the site I have for it. It's HR 2989. Watch out for this, as it appears in there with a lot of other amendments including one by Holt, on a money issue. In fact, the whole thing, in a scan, appears to deal with funding. They are all under the banner of 2989.

The Amendment by King of Iowa is the one to watch out for. My guess is that they will try to ride this one in on the coatails and under the radar, of the other amendments.

HR 2989 looks like it was customized for VoteHere. In fact, given VoteHere's past, they probably have a hand in it. Dan Spillane says they "helped" craft the original HAVA Act, one reason it is so bad.

HR 2239 is the GOOD bill.

2989 is a dangerous piece of legislation. Many legislators, pressured about verification, are likely to think this is the ticket. Contact them NOW and tell them not to support King's amendment and to ONLY support HR2239 on the voter verified paper ballots.

This is important, I smell a rat.

[BevHarris]

24. THANK YOU for clarifying: good = HR 2239 (bad=HR 2989)

And yes, the origins of the HAVA bill are most definitely not what the publicity says.

David Allen, publisher of Black Box Voting, got into a meeting of voting industry insiders in which they admit that defense contractors and procurement agents, specifically Lockheed-Martin and Northrop Grumman, among others, were the driving forces behind the HAVA legislation, which mandates the rush to new voting machines. This meeting also reveals that they did it for profit, not out of some altruistic motive.

You can read the notes of that meeting, along with my publisher's opinions, at http://www.blackboxvoting.com.

80. WATCH OUT! King amendment lacking temporal element

This new amendment looks like nothing other than an attempt to *cover the tracks* of whomever influenced the major hack to HAVA in S2900, which was already forced into Election Reform by Republican Senator Ensign--events and parties yet to be fully exposed.

The King amendment lacks temporal (time)association of the audit record with the paper, allowing electronic verification schemes.

The S2900 hack to our law by Republicans "just so happens" to have occurred when, at the same time, a phony certification was issued by a Secretary of State on behalf of my former employer, and "just so happens" to have occurred at the time that company new it was being sued.

At first glance, the King amendment is not materially different from the Ensign amendment. So why is it needed at all?

!AN ATTEMPT REINFORCE, AND TO HIDE WRONGDOING!

As I pointed out on my website, S2900 appears innocent, but when examined in the light the the law and the internals of a voting system, is worded in a specific way, which is is INTENTIONALLY DECEPTIVE. I already checked this out with a lawyer.

It is my belief that this new amendment would in effect take the focus off what was done by Ensign (and the fact that it was done by Ensign on the date he did it).

I see this amendment as a direct response to what I exposed on my website--once again, an attempt to reinforce non-auditable voting.

ARE WE GOING TO GO AFTER THE SMOKING GUN, or let this slide?

Dan S.
(Website temporarily down.)

[althecat]

26. This may deserve a separate thread RedEagle...

[RedEagle]

30. I went looking at King....

....but he still seems to be an odd one for this amendment, not on any committees that appear to be anything.

It's not like Senator Ensign on the HAVA bill, who had an amendment saying one thing in the morning, and another, "modified" amendment when it was passed, that affected the auditing. Ensign was also on a technology committee and probably quite in contact with entities like Cisco (did I spell that right this time?) who have interests in VoteHere.

I guess though, if you don't want to raise suspicions...

Althecat, I've pointed out the problem with this amendment on other messages and it just doesn't get anyone's attention in particular. It think it's the detail that doesn't grab people's attention, but it's the detail that's dangerous! :shrug:

[scottxyz]

51. I think BBV deserves a whole forum

It would be appropriate, since our name is DEMOCRATIC underground.

The idea of voting is core here.

[BevHarris]

55. Well it has a whole forum -- but that one is multipartisan

Though it was booted off the server it's been on, it has a new host, and we are migrating all the files over right now. Should be good to go in 24 hours or less., thanks to DemActivist who has done heroic work in relocating it this weekend.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org has a forum that is fairly lively already, though new. It does include libertarians, greens, democrats, independents, Republicans, and six-gun totin' Jim March ("Diebold: I cordially invite you to bite me. Bring it on. Make my day!" -- he has posted a new stash of files which folks are getting mirrored around.)

Hey, wouldn't it be nice if this was just a temporary issue? As in, one that we solve so we can put it to bed?

Bev

[scottxyz]

69. Good point Bev - "multipartisan"

Yes it is important to remember that Republicans and other parties want to have their votes counted too!

Thanks for reminding me that voting transparency is a "multipartisan" issue, Bev.

Forgetting that an issue transcends left/right categories is a great way to lose potential supporters.

(Deleted)

(DELETED)

81. Rep King is apparently also a "gay-basher"

"During his term in the Senate, King successfully sued Governor Vilsack over Executive Order Seven, which granted preferential treatment to homosexuals, transsexuals and transvestites"

http://www.house.gov/steveking/biography.htm

Dan

[althecat]

18. Keepin it kicked n/t

[madfloridian]

19. Copy/pasted and emailed to myself for easier sharing.

This has helped me a lot. The technical aspects were bothering me, and I did not know how to present a case.

This is good.
:-)

[Dude_CalmDown]

20. Thank you thank you thank you spank you (teehee)

I really needed this summary. I've been trying to follow along when I have the time (and often when I don't) but I've missed too many of your topics/threads so I really needed this. I personally believe that the only way the Chimp can possibly have another term is by manipulating the votes again. In other words, I think this is the most important issue right now. Plus, I can now send this to my repuke sister, and my repuke-leaning father (who, by the way, hates Shrub as much as I do) and know that they will at least read it - they only read the short e-mails. Thanks again Bev, and all the DUers who have contributed to this.

[Vadem]

23. :kick: :kick: :kick: n/t

[Bushknew]

25. Bev, thanks for the summary and your commitment

:hi:

Were you the Bev on the Michael Moore forum?

[BevHarris]

31. Nope. Never been on that forum.

Didn't know about that forum!

[DEMActivist]

27. Get back up there

kick

[TrogL]

28. If you've got any spare CPU cycles...

..PM me.

[WaterDog]

29. I'm no techie but

I've been following this for a little while. Some of it still makes my head spin, but I think I get the gist of it.

Someone from Commonweal Institute (a liberal think tank in CA) was telling me tonight that they are working on a report to detail the links between the voting machine companies and right-wing interests. He seemed to feel that a lot of the Democrats take this issue as a technical one rather than a political one. If someone could credibly explain it to them, they might see the imminent danger we're all in.

Also, what happened with LWV? I called my local office, had a great conversation with a girl there, then got no follow-up so called back and was told how this was a national policy so they had to go along with the national office's statements. Tried to do my share.

Also want to offer my heartfelt and gushing thanks to everyone on BBV!


:hi: DUers

[DEMActivist]

33. We've worked with the Commonweal Institute for a while now

The folks there are really well organized and effective.

They're a great bunch and it's nice to see them take on this issue.

[BevHarris]

34. Thanks for the good work -- but this is not a Dem vs Repub issue

even though there are vested interests in some companies.

I believe that the true problem is not Dem vs Republican, but representing corporate interests and greed vs. representing the people.

Sort of the same problem we get when instead of having publicly funded elections, we've got candidates auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder. Both parties become infected.

Bev

[WaterDog]

46. Understood, but just to try to clarify and

not misrepresent the guy from Commonweal, he was saying how it can't be made a Dem vs. Repub issue in public. We want the Repubs on our side in this as they should be. Yet if at least many of these companies are owned by right-wingers, it really is mainly Dem office-holders in jeopardy. They should realize this while they are still in a position to do something about it. If key Dem officials work earnestly on it, they can try to get Repubs with them. Only then, if the Repubs won't go with them, maybe it's time to make a big noise about the right-wing interests. We have to convince key people first of the seriousness of it and it would more likely be Dems than Repubs. I think that is how his reasoning went.

[scottxyz]

57. Dear WaterDog

It's okay if you're not a techie. You don't need to be a techie to sit on a jury - or to watch "The Practice" and check whether you agree with the way the jury voted, or to watch "Judge Judy" and see if you agree with her.

You also shouldn't need to be a techie to check and see if you agree the votes got counted right either. THAT should be our point here.

We don't need to go to lawschool to check whether we think a jury did the right thing - we shouldn't need to go to MIT to check whether a precinct counted the votes right either.

Deciding legal cases, writing laws, voting, and vote-tallying are jobs that are done by THE PEOPLE - not by a secret priesthood of technicians talking gobbledy-gook.

Just think - we could figure out who won an election without having to understand Visual Basic and SQL and encryption and TCP/IP! Wouldn't that be cool! Bet that's the way the framers wanted it too!

To hijack another rightwing rhetorical ploy: "I don't see any mention about 'Remote Procedure Calls' or 'ActiveX' controls or 'DLLs' anywhere in the Constitution, do you?"

[BevHarris]

58. Another great analogy -- thanks!

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand a jury verdict
Why should you have to be a computer scientist to understand your voting system?

Lots of good sound bytes in the above post!

[Eloriel]

32. Bev, check your PM

And great work as usual.

Eloriel

[4dog]

35. Thanks, we really need introductory material.

And not just for DUers. I would like to find or develop something as compact as possible - a one-sheet brochure, a fraction of a page, whatever - that helps spread the simple idea that electronic voting is terrible bad, paper ballots are good. As simple as possible, but vivid, memorable. Maybe a cartoon would help.

I'll look over this in the morning. Thanks again, Bev.

[punpirate]

37. Well, my freehand skills were never good...

... but I still do storyboard description. Scene from "Wizard of Oz," huge machine (with a big, big touch screen, too tall for most people to reach), line of voters standing in front of it, with question marks above their heads, bells, whistles, flashing lights, big marquee with "Vote Here!!!" on it, one guy in the background, just leaving the machine, scratching his head, saying, "uh, wait a minute, don't I get a ballot?"

Little dog, labelled "Bev Harris," pulling the curtain away to reveal classic fat-cat in striped vest and spats, pulling the levers, marked, "Diebold," and the caption reads, "We're not in Kansas anymore, folks."

On edit, one could just substitute "Voting Machine Companies" for "Diebold." With the news lately, though, I prefer the former. *smile*

Cheers.

[ConsAreLiars]

39. Nice images

How about "TrustMe Voting Machine Corporation"
Maybe a slogan "We count so you won't."
And a "Warning! Top Secret! No peeking!"

Maybe a selection of agitprop materials could be compiled at BBV.org by target group. Bev's piece is just what I wanted for emails to a couple of local officials who I know, and for some others I expect to be receptive, but the cartoon would be a bit better for some other friends unless they ask for more.

[punpirate]

40. Yup, those would work, too....

Geez, where's the DU gal that did the "These Dogs Don't Hunt" cartoon when you need her? *smile*

Cheers.

[BevHarris]

49. Hah! Those are great one-liners

Now I've got to save this whole thread. Love PunPirate's storyboarding, love the one-liners.

[punpirate]

59. Still thinkin' and hopin' for a cartoonist.....

Long power-station style levers, long and tall, big handles, marked, along their length, "Congress," "White House," "Lobbyists," "Defense Contractors."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Find me an artist!

Cheers.

88. If you find an artist

Have you checked with ianbruce on DU?

[ParanoidPat]

91. SoCalDem and Jen....

....are the names that grace the 'lapdogs' cartoon!
(I saved it to my BUSH file!) :evilgrin:

[punpirate]

111. Thanks... think I'll ask.... n/t

[Generic Other]

36. Just the facts Ma'am. Thank you very much!

This really makes it easier to get the word out. Those of us that can't make heads or tails of the technical stuff can still smell a rat. This guide makes it easier to understand the big picture.

on edit: typo

[ibegurpard]

38. Many thanks for this

You have no idea how great it is to have all of this stuff in an easily digestible nutshell. I'm going to print it out and give it to several people I've discussions with about this.

[Booberdawg]

47. Bookmarked!

Thanks!:kick:

[Zhade]

48. Printing this one out...

And I'm going to give copies to people at work who are open to information like this, along with a few copies for them to share with people. And so on, and so on.

[BevHarris]

50. TO SAVE US ALL TIME

I'm getting lots of PMs on this --

YES! Use it wherever you want. Since this is customized to DU, you might want to do some minor editing to make it more generic.

With some editing and layout, you'll be able to get it on two pages, to be printed front/back.

Be ruthless, I'm too wordy.

[Eloriel]

70. I've got it to 2 pages in Word -- if anyone wants it

PM me with your regular email address.

It's NOT a particularly beautiful document, but it's on 2 pages. Edited very slightly to make it fit.

The title is Black Box Voting -- A Primer by Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org.

I won't get them sent out until tonight, probably.

Eloriel

[DEMActivist]

71. Please send it to me Eloriel

I'll do a plain text and html version for folks.

[scottxyz]

72. Suggestion to Mods or someone with web space re: Wiki ("Edit This Page")

Bev says to use her original post here as a flyer and feel free to edit it and "be ruthless".

Multiple people contributing content to a single document can do a really good job - this is something that is being done elsewhere on the web, with really good results - for example, using the new group-editing structure called a "wiki".

What is a wiki? Here's an intro:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki

A user-written encyclopedia, called a Wikipedia, is up and running at:

http://www.wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

In general, a "wiki" is a collection of documents where the readers are also able to be writers. If you look at a Wiki, there should be a little button somewhere on the page that says "Edit This Page". Which means just that! Cool!

Kind of like a DU thread in that ANYONE can contribute - but in a Wiki everybody just works on rewriting and refining just the FIRST post in the thread, so you don't get a long list of posts. Pretty much anyone can add and delete at will, and rather than hijacking a thread on a side issue, you can create a link to that side issue and keep the original document on-topic and within a manageable size.

Yes, vandalism from trolls can be a problem in this sort of situation, but different policies and controls such as "change history" and "user reputations" and others have proven able to minimize disruption and lead to excellent-quality content in a very short time. If you check out some of the content pages on the Wikipedia or look for some other wikis, you'll likely be very impressed by the clear, straightforward content.

The free-wheeling group-editing of a wiki is turning out to be an excellent way to get great content fast. Many pages from the Wikipedia are so well-written and frequently read now that they have floated to the top of google's popularity-based pagerank.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank

Heavily vetted pages tend to gain in accuracy and clarity over time, thus gaining in readership and traffic, creating a snowball effect. An everlengthening thread snowballs in a different way: dragging out vertically into flamewars and hijackings as well as legitimate discussions and spawning new threads horizontally, making it hard for newcomers to know where to break into the hottest topics. A bulletin board always grows - it never summarizes, unless somone like Bev sits down and says 'I'm going to write a summary'. (And lots of new people seem to be very thrilled that she has provided this.) A wiki can always be as compact as you want, because instead of just adding posts and threads, you can add, edit AND delete.

So my suggestion to the mods is: What if we had a "wiki" for certain important documents that DU wants to work on collaboratively?

Awe have seen here, just because Black Box Voting involves technical issues doesn't mean only the techies should be working on it. Once the technical issues have been ironed out, it's just as important to communicate them to the press, the people and the politicians, which involves entirely other skills such as public relations, writing, illustrating, page-layout, speaking, etc.

Bev has had the foresight to rein the whole metastasizing mass in periodically with summaries and this "Beginner's Info" piece. A wiki for Black Box Voting (which could be hosted anywhere of course) would provide a good framework for making sure such summaries are always up-to-date and available for the day some crack graphic artist or PR whiz or FreeHand artist or MacroMedia animator or rapper or orator happens to wander over to DU to hear what all the hubbub about BBV is about...

[americanabroad]

56. Thanks Bev and everyone!

also to kick this :kick:

I'm completely "nul" (sorry can't think of the word in english anymore) about this stuff, but this is a good clear explanation...

Sending an email to my Rep about the two house bills today...

[DEMActivist]

60. Kick

for the weekday crew.

[TacticalPeek]

61. Kick KKKarl while he's still around to kick.

got votes?

[DEMActivist]

62. Kick

again

[seemslikeadream]

63. Bev -- Project Vote Smart???

I'm involved somewhat in Interfaith Network News. I have been talking about you to them for months now. Last month though I did not have much contact but the current newsletter has this:

Project Vote Smart
Project Vote Smart (PVS), a citizen organization dedicated to serving all Americans with accurate and unbiased information for electoral decision-makiing, has a new ambassador for the DeKalb County area, Joe Pourroy is contacting local organizations to schedule informational meetings. "I got involved because I wanted to do my part for democracy and this seemed like the best way to help our leaders keep this country great", says Pourroy. "And viewing this site on the web I knew I had to get the word out.....
Described by the New York Times as "one of the most comprehensive campaign information sites on the web" PVS is becoming recognized as the answer for objective and trustworthy information.

Forgive me but I don't remember if you have already given your thoughts on PVS. And also maybe you could suggest best approach when I call Joe tonight. Probably just bring him a copy of your original message?
Thanks

[loudsue]

64. E-mailed this to my ENTIRE ADDRESS BOOK! (Risky!)

Cut and pasted in an e-mail and sent it to about 90 people or so... Even the little blue-haired old ladies that have voted repuke since they could vote -- hope I don't cause any strokes, though I know I will probably make enemies out of some life-long friends.

I don't care what price I pay personally. As someone up-thread said: I would give my life for this issue. My vote is NOT negotiable, nor is my absolute right to have all votes counted equally and thoroughly.

Thanks, Bev & crew, for your dedication to this issue...and thanks to all the great DUers who care enough to notify your elected (?) officials about this!

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

[dmr]

65. Thank you Bev!!

This has been cut and pasted, bookmarked, emailed, printed and saved to the hard drive.

Thank you so very much.

[Cocoa]

66. did anyone else notice...

this seems to be a radical step back from some very dramatic claims of proof of specific wrongdoing.

From my point of view, this apparent change is a good thing.

[scottxyz]

73. Cocoa - It's still unclear who made claims about proof of wrongdoing

Cocoa - It's still unclear who made claims about proof of wrongdoing.

In many cases Bev and others quite correctly confined themselves to pointing out the MOTIVE and MEANS for wrongdoing, also reminding us that proof would be hard to come up with specifically because there was no "gold standard" (paper trail) to audit against.

In many cases, people who argued that there was no PROOF of wrongdoing were considered disruptors, while others were arguing that the bar was lower anyways, and MOTIVE and MEANS were bad enough. In other cases, people who claimed there was proof may have just been setting up straw men to shoot down - perhaps so that once proof couldn't be found, we'd be stuck with these suspicious, incomprehensible, buggy machines.

Now we're hearing another very important spin on this thread:
"You don't have to be a lawyer to understand a jury verdict - You shouldn't have to be a computer scientist to understand a voting system"

This is also very good, and further prevents the topic from being hijacked by trolls who raise techie issues nobody is qualified to rebut. The new idea is: For something as simple as voting, we don't NEED or WANT a system so complicated that only computer scientists can understand it.

Proof was hard to find before because of the tech issues - if not outright impossible because of the lack of anything to audit against. The discussion is back on track now: BlackBox voting systems are too complicated to understand or discuss and too paperless to audit and therefore against the letter and spirit of our laws, and who wants private corporations counting our votes in secret anyways?

We're learning not to confuse the two anymore:
VOTING is private and secret by law.
VOTE-COUNTING is public and open by law.

VOTING is done behind a closed curtain.
VOTING-COUNTING is NOT done behind closed doors.

VOTING is done in private.
VOTE-COUNTING is done in broad daylight.

[Cocoa]

74. maybe we've reached common ground then

If the BBV issue had been discussed this way all along, I'd have no problems.

To common ground. :toast:

[scottxyz]

79. Sounds good to me

I think it's great that we've reached common ground.

[ParanoidPat]

104. Somehow I doubt that.....

...."If the BBV issue had been discussed this way all along, I'd have no problems." :evilgrin:

You know, with Bush* in office and everything else going on! ;-)

To regime change starting at home! :toast:

:kick:

[srubick]

67. Black Box Voting

This could be the reality behind all the smoke and mirrors. The Bush gang has been operating as if they had no regard for any voting constituancy except the radrites. This could very well be their plan, to just steal any election they want.

[DEMActivist]

68. Get back up there.

The BBV story is our biggest challenge. If they use these machines, Bush has the election in his pocket.

75. DEMActivist, where do you live in Seattle?

Send me a private message.

Dan

[DEMActivist]

76. Huh?

I don't live in Seattle.

85. Who on DU interested in this issue...

I am confused. One of the DU voting activists besides Bev was in Seattle, I thought.

[hunter]

77. Thank You Bev!

This is great. I can breathe again. The SLO "phone home" tomato turbulence had my knuckles turning white and my face turning blue.

Well, that's past... Many thanks for creating something we can explain ourselves with. First copy goes to my wife, who was saying, "What the hell was that all about?" Also my mom, who will be muttering "Oh dear, oh dear..." as she unpacks her lefty activist flamethrower and heads down the hill to her county election office.

KICK!

[ParanoidPat]

78. Thanks Bev!

That's a good portion of the outline I was looking for! :evilgrin:

:kick:

[donsu]

82. kick

nt

[mithnanthy]

86. Thank YOU! Bev

Thanks for making this subject easier to explain to others.

[mrsteve]

87. Let's keep this on the front page

So a kick for Bev!

:kick:

[Eloriel]

89. Yup

Let's do.

Eloriel

[dmr]

90. Kick

:kick:

[RedEagle]

92. Page 1 please

Kick!

[shirlden]

95. Here's to my favorite slogan

K.I.S.S. Keep it simple, stupid !!!!

That's the message.....get it out

:kick:

93. Calling anyone in SEATTLE or GEORGIA

I need help with local support, and a contact in Georgia.

Thanks
Dan

[goobergunch]

94. kick

:kick:

[leftchick]

96. kick

thanks again Bev! :)

:kick:

[Pobeka]

97. Our Democracy Rests Upon This Question

WAAAYYY too wordy, but this is a shot at the keep it simple idea.
---

Introduction
Since the inception of democratic societies, the right of "one person, one vote" has been recognized as the
most basic process needed to allow equal participation by the people. One person, one vote is also depends
on a voting system that minimizes the chance of votes being inaccurately counted, or fraudulently cast,
or fraudulently changed by notorious people after the vote was cast.

The quickest way to count votes is using automated methods. There is no question about that. But speed
is the least important aspect of vote counting, if that speed makes it possible for fraud to exist. If we
wanted speed, we could count only 1 vote in a 100. That would certainly be faster. Do you want to be one
of the other 99? No, nobody does. A desire for faster counting must not comprimise the intent of the voter.


Our Democracy Rests Upon This Question

If you did not see with your own eyes the physical ballot with your vote on it go into the certified ballot box,
how do you personally know that your vote would not be changed? If it was an electronic vote, it could be
changed. Do you trust a computer programmer who says his program is trustworthy? Nearly all
programmers don't trust computers enough to rest our democracy on that clandestine technology. Programmers know
that even the most extensively reviewed programs still have a chance of having an error, and that the hardware
the programs run on also have errors. And how do you audit a program which may have an error so that your vote
is incorrectly cast? -- you cannot. There is no way to see how the program changed your vote, because computers
transfer information from one part to another using electrons, and those electrons are long gone when it comes
time for an audit.


Safeguarding Your Vote

Your vote, to be safeguarded, needs to be permanently recorded on a piece of paper, birch bark, piece of metal,
something, *anything* that is a permanent physical ballot. You look at that ballot, and know that your choice
is immediately obvious to anyone who later looks at that ballot, either to count your vote, or to undertake
an audit of an automated vote counting system which is being challenged.

What can you do?

If you care about your vote, then you need to demand a "voter verified paper ballot" from your legislator.
~

[gristy]

99. Pretty good. Change "trail" to "ballot"

"voter verified paper ballot"

If is important that this piece of paper have legal precedence over any electronic count. That it be the record of first choice in any dispute. That makes it a "ballot".

[Pobeka]

101. Thanks!, changed "trail" to "ballot" n/t

[gristy]

98. Thank you for the very good summary, Bev

Just knowing I had this information spurred me to contact the two Democratic Reps on the MN State Plan Committee. Spoke to Sentator Chuck Wiger for 10 minutes, and left a message for Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba. My goal is to meet face to face with each of them. I was very surprised when Senator Wiger said I was the FIRST person to conact him on this issue. He is one of only FOUR State reps on the committee! Also requested the "final" State Plan from the state. They had been working on it over the summer, after the comment period which closed in early July.

100. CIBER systems crashes on NYSE

This is the main voting systems certification lab. Bev, is Mr. Southworth still there??? Notice, LAYOFFS!

1:38pm 09/08/03 Ciber top percentage NYSE decliner, off 11.3% - CBS MarketWatch.com

10:12am 09/08/03
Ciber tumbles on poor Q3 outlook (CBR) By Michael Baron
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- Ciber (CBR) shares lost more than 15 percent to $9.13 after the Greenwood Village, Colo., provider of systems integration consulting services forecast $175 million to $177 million in revenue and earnings per share of 7 to 9 cents for the third quarter. Analysts polled by Thomson First Call were looking for earnings of 10 cents per share on revenue of about $179 million. The company also cut about 140 jobs in its software consulting operations as an unidentified telecommunications company reduced its business with Ciber.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?siteid=mktw&dateid=37872.4256481481-806947335&

Dan S.

[seemslikeadream]

103. send this to the top

for sure

[ramblin_dave]

102. High-tech voting machines could be rigged, experts say

Long article from Cleveland Plain Dealer:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1062927138187161.xml

"We will put these voting devices through an extensive security assessment and validation process," promised Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who has asked Science Application International Corp. of San Diego and InfoSentry Services of Raleigh, N.C., to test the machines and report back in six weeks.

[loudsue]

106. Up we go!

:kick::kick::kick:

[linazelle]

105. I needed this--I'm spreading it far and wide

Just got back a post from a reader saying he appreciated learning about it. I stayed up until after midnight posting it last night.

EACH ONE TEACH ONE

[4dog]

107. Tons of good stuff in this thread, so - kick!

[Eloriel]

108. Just a reminder --

I'll send it as a 2-page Word doc to anyone who wants it. Plus, DEMActivist is doing some magic with it and will put it up somewhere.

PM me with your email address if you want it. Works fine photocopied back-to-back.

Eloriel

:kick:

[ParanoidPat]

112. El, be sure to post this as it's own thread on the BBV site!

Thanks, and a :kick:

[preciousdove]

110. Kick

:kick:

[oasis]

113. Important for DUers to get a grasp of this.

sooooo :kick:

[RedEagle]

114. Everyone Needs to Read

Kick!