Important MSM (Newsweek) editorial confirms e-vote concerns are valid:

[Wordie]

It's by Steven Levy and should be read by everyone who has gotten frustrated over the lack of coverage:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6595385/site/newsweek

<snip>
Of course, verification is only one component of voting reform. Why is it that the companies that make the machines are run by executives who favor one party over another? For that matter, why is it that the so-called referees of the process are often partisan politicians themselves? When tackling the problems of provisional ballots, supplying precincts with sufficient voting machines and handling recounts, wouldn't it make sense to have neutral parties in charge?

After the 2000 debacle, one might have expected that our leaders would move mountains to make the next election an exemplary one. The fact that we cannot convince the doubters proves otherwise. Don't call them paranoid, but recognize their passion for fairly run, accurately tabulated elections. If only their zeal were more contagious.
<unsnip>

So, take heart, DUers! We're getting the coverage, finally!

[Buzz Clik]

1. Ok, but the outcry is not universal, even from those leaning to the left

Election Heist That Wasn't

Dec. 1, 2004

Ohio Comes Together

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/01/opinion/main658540.shtml

A strong case that the election was stolen — either in Ohio or Florida — still has yet to be made. Statistical arguments are not convincing without concrete evidence (or widespread support among statistical experts).

The emails keep pouring in. Please investigate voter fraud! Here's evidence the Republicans stole the election! We're watching YOU cover the election irregularities! A number of Americans — is the number growing? — believe George W. Bush only won the election because the voting was somehow rigged. And each day they disseminate via email what they consider to be proof — or, at the least, reasons to be suspicious. In pieces for The Nation magazine, I've noted that there is good cause to worry about the integrity of a voting system that is overseen by partisan players and that relies in part upon paperless electronic voting machines that are manufactured by companies that are led by pro-GOP executives and that refuse to reveal the computer codes they use. But I've also cautioned against declaring that the potential for abuse means the system was abused to flip the results. Exit polls that differ from reported vote counts are not necessarily proof of foul play, and statistical analyses that seem to raise questions need thorough vetting before they are waved about as signs of chicanery.

---more---

[Melodybe]

2. My ony problem with this article is that he fails to mention that

the voting company executives that favor one candidate over another ALL favor Bush.

Before that he mentions that bills to require paper trails have been held up by Republicans.

Leaving out that it is republicans that own the voting machines and republicans in congress are holding up a verifiable paper trail is quite sinister.

[Wordie]

3. But he did call out the companies ownership!!!

<snip> Why is it that the companies that make the machines are run by executives who favor one party over another?

This guy stuck his neck out, big time! This is really an important article!

[Melodybe]

4. true that

[Wordie]

6. The disappointing thing is that he doesn't show much hope of reversal of

the election's results. That was the part I didn't like. But I guess maybe I'm willing to put up with it because so much of the rest of the article is really good!

[Vidar]

5. Good article. Thanks for posting.