how many other papers carried this? electronic voting (Bev also mentioned)

[Stone_Spirits]

my local paper carried this today,

http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/editorial/42144




Critics say electronic `touch screen' machines carry too much risk for hacking, abuse
By Newhouse News Service
Sept. 20, 2003 3:37 p.m.

By Kevin Coughlin

[gristy]

1. That is a very good article

and I learned something: Rep. Rush Holt is a physicist. THAT explains it!

And this burns me to no end:

California groups against mandatory paper verification range from the American Civil Liberties Union and League of Women Voters to organizations representing disabled and minority voters.

That, sir, pisses me off. The ACLU, no less.

[Dudley_DUright]

3. Actually Rush is one of two physicists in congress

the other being Rep. Vern Ehlers (a republican), so I am not sure what lesson you can draw. However, Rush certainly does know about the importance of verifiable data and error analysis. I agree about the ACLU. I am a member, but I also don't like the fact that they are joining with Ken Starr (of all people) to argue against the McCain-Feingold bill in the supreme court.

[G_j]

4. I 'googled' and found this,

letter from the ACLU

http://www.bulletinboardforpeace.org/papertrail.htm

Paper Ballots — A Verifiable Paper Trail

Current proposed legislation is faulty and heartily opposed by liberals because of the provisions which actually impede voting by new residents and the homeless by requiring photo ID. There is also a question of using social security numbers as ID, which could encourage theft of identity. Here is a copy of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)'s letter urging representatives to oppose the conference report on HR 3295, Help America Vote Act: http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/ACLU.doc

A good brief general discussion of the issue is found in "The Need for a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail": http://www.calvoter.org/votingtech/vvpat.html

Gurus of the movement are Lynn Landes of http://www.ecotalk.org and Bev Harris of http://www.blackboxvoting.com (Harris' book is due in July).

The definitive article of the research compiled by Landes and Harris has been summarized in the article "Now Your Vote Is the Property of a Private Corporation," by Thom Hartmann, published March 6, 2003 by CommonDreams.org. Two suspect examples are destined to become common knowledge in the near future. The first is that of Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, the former head (and then stockholder) of the voting machine company that sold virtually all the voting machines in Nebraska. He was elected (to everyone's surprise, by all demographics including Black communities and following a Democratic voting record of over two decades) and neglected to tell the Senate ethics investigators about his interest in the company. The second instance is that of Dan Spillane, a former software engineer for a voting machine company who sued his employer for firing him when he pointed out holes in their system that he claims could lead to vote-rigging. Hartmann's article can be found on the ACLU site: http://forums3.aclu.org/messageview.cfm?catid=88&threadid=3947

Lynn Landes, in her article " Voting Machines Violate Constitution — Who Will Launch Legal Challenge?" makes the point that we have a constitutional right to a verifiable (of necessity, this means paper) vote: "Once the machine is in the polling booth critical parts of the voting process become unobservable and, therefore, violate Articles I & 2 of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Reprinted by Alternet, the original article can be found on her website: http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachinesUnconstitutional.htm

Ms. Landes has been unable to interest groups in taking on the constitutionality of voting machines: "to my knowledge no individual or organization, such as the NAACP, ACLU or Common Cause, have challenged the constitutionality of voting machines. Although plenty of distraught candidates have gone to court accusing the voting machines of miscounting their votes, but to little avail."

Perhaps a less radical approach is in order in that voting machines are big business and many states already have a huge investment in previously purchased apparatus. Joanna Glasner, in "Voting Machine Leaves Paper Trail," published in Wired (http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,58738,00.html), has outlined a compromise. She has detailed a way in which touch-screen machines can be adjusted with a minimal investment of printer and OCR equipment to drop a paper ballot. Rebecca Mercuri, in "Explanation of Voter-Verified Ballot Systems," published by the Risks Digest (http://www.notablesoftware.com/Papers/VoterVerify.html), establishes criteria for adopting such plans.

We need the ACLU involved in this. You can submit a request to the national office on their Feedback page: http://www.aclu.org/feedback/feedback.cfm, and on the same page you can find a reference to your closest regional chapter. Ask them to draft a paper on the constitutionality of having a verifiable paper record of each person's vote.

For an example of a what a regional group (the Teller-Woodland Green Tea Party) in Colorado is doing to interest their ACLU, see http://www.greenparty.org/greentea.html

Of utmost importance is the issue of transparency, and it needs to be addressed before the next election. Above all, we cannot allow machines to be hacked into by modem or satellite. It is a frightening thought, but here is how the code could go (using a random math sequence):

go to X occurrence of Democratic vote, change this to Republican;
go to next X occurrence . . . and so on;
delete this code;
close program.
For a detailed look at how to rig elections, see
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm by Bev Harris
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00064.htm by C.D. Sludge.

In addition to contacting the ACLU, both national and regional, mail to your three representatives in the House and Senate asking them to move on this issue!

[G_j]

5. from the League of Women Voters,

http://www.lwv.org/where/promoting/votingrights_hava_drevm.html



Representative Government
Voting Rights
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Machines and HAVA Implementation

The possibility of election fraud resulting from the use of DRE voting machines has been a topic of discussion as part of the implementation of the new Help America Vote Act. In an effort to address the concerns that have arisen, the League has considered expert opinions from all sides of the debate.

..more..

[Brucey]

2. Yes, the repugs passed the Help America Vote act

so they could install electronic machines made by their friends (who raise funds for Bush and guarantee his reelection), then pay for the machines using tax payer money. Tit for tat. Bush hands them our money, then they pass some back to his re-election campaign, then they build some voting machines that will allow states to do what Florida did in 2000. It's depressing: we need to get the news out to voters, and the Dems need to form an investigative committee.