I must have missed this: Connie McCormack at SFV Dem grassroots event

[rumpel]

CA: 12/7/05 was this posted here before?
There is so much going here at DU, I usually do not have the time to keep on top of all that I am interested in.
This must have already been discussed before here, but if not, (did search) I thought it is interesting to know.

I downloaded the transcipt sometimes it get's very contentious. (Total 23 pages)
example snip

CONNY: Well, I think it’s so interesting, everybody talks about Ohio because there was not a single Diebold touchscreen in all of Ohio in the presidential of ’04. Not one in the entire state. Therewere other types— AUDIENCE MEMBER: (very faint) –there was—CONNY: Not a single – there was optical scans. There was Diebold optical scans – optical scans that could have been hand-tallied. There wasn’t a single Diebold touchscreen in Ohio without a paper trail in November of’04. Not one. Not one. Not a single one.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (very faint) – ... about corporate control of the software...CONNY: It’s proprietary software. That’s what’s being sold out there and that’s what’s being certified by the federal government through their independent testing that— CONNY: Well, you know, I don’t know why you’re attacking me about this. This is the process, this is theprocess, folks. If you don’t like it, you need to go to your elected officials and complain about it. FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Then why are you here?
CONNY: Well, then, keep doing it. I mean, I can’t fix this. I mean, I don’t know what this meeting is supposed to be. Am I supposed to fix this? I can’t do that. I’m not capable of doing that.

snip

What I want to ask was this: you seem to have made policy regarding that in deciding that absentee and early voting would not be included in that one percent recount. Is this an example of where you can make policy ornot? CONNY: Well, there’s no legal requirement. It’s so hard to try to figure out how to do a one percent manualtally of absentees when you have about a half a million of them. And that’s a tremendous number, if you call ita precinct, to go in and say, well, we going to look at one percent of those. There’s been no legal requirement to do so and we just haven’t done it.
later
MICHAEL: But I’m confused about that. The election code that I just read demands that recount—CONNY: At the precincts. That’s the way we’ve interpreted it. MICHAEL: But that’s an interpretation, I guess—CONNY: It is, it’s an interpretation.

snip

MARC: And are you planning on having the PBR unit wireless equipped?CONNY: Well, at this point in time, I t’s not part of the plan. But I’m hoping, that at some point in time, it could be, for unofficial results, because I think it would make it good to have quick results. But again, thatwould be a decision of the Board, if they wanted to have quick results or not. I have a feeling they probably do,especially when it’s unofficial. MARC: On AB1638 you know that it’s illegal to make equipment wireless now.CONNY: Oh, I think it’s AB1636— MARC: Okay, AB1636—CONNY: – it says DRE equipment for official results, that what it says. It doesn’t say optical scan, it doesn’t say unofficial. And neither will the voter – uh, voluntary system guidelines that the federal government when it comes out. So I don’t think it’s prohibited, but again, well, at this point in time it’s not one ofthe plans on the front burner because that’s just an upgrade that’ll have to happen at a later time because the current equipment does not have that capability, as far as I know. At least it wasn’t part of the testing.

In any event, I think every voter of the LA County must and every voter should read the transcript of the exchange particularly now with the HAVA!

http://www.dpsfv.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=82

[Peace Patriot]

1. Thanks for the heads up, Rumpel! I'm going to go read it now.

McCormack is one of the worst Calif election officials (--and a Democrat, yup). (Diebold shill.)

[Peace Patriot]

2. Note: "SFV" is San Fernando Valley, near Los Angeles. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

3. Oh, boy, this is one slippery character. Here's for starters:

"The questions revealed much doubt about electronic voting systems and the proprietary software that runs the systems. McCormack said that she is not a technical expert, and she evaded answering several questions. She claimed that she does not favor one voting system over another, but she defended Diebold whenever comments about this vendor were made." --report on the Valley Grass Roots Meeting of the San Fernando Valley Democratic Party

"McCormack said that she is not a technical expert."

Funny thing, when voting rights advocate Kim Alexander (who runs a web site on electronics in government) questioned McCormack's support of paperless voting, McCormack dissed her with, "She's not an expert."

Meaning McCormack is. Meaning, you have to be an expert like McCormack to understand what the hell's happening to your vote these days, inside those black boxes. And only the lords and ladies of the Electronic Voting Curia know the answer, and they can't really explain it to us peons and serfs.

But now that people are wising up and starting to ask questions, suddenly, McCormack is not an expert.

She's running "the largest voting jurisdiction in the country (Los Angeles)...larger than several foreign countries," and she's not expert.

Sure, she said "technical expert." But that's what I mean by slippery. One, what does being a "technical expert" or any kind of "expert" have to do with being for or against private corporations counting our votes with "proprietary software"? A straight answer would have been, "I trust private corporations to count our votes in secret"--and, if the issue of the partisanship of these private corporations, which are owned and controlled by Bushites, came up, she should have said (if she was being straightforward), "I trust private Bushite corporations to count our votes in secret."

That is the truth. It has NOTHING to do with technical expertise. And it is an INDEFENSIBLE position. So she slips around it.

--------------------

And I'm not even to the transcript yet.

-------------------

I don't know if this will come up in the Q&A of McCormack, but just for FYI:

1. Connie McCormack's best friend--the person she wines, dines and vacations with--is Deborah Seiler, formerly chief salesperson for Diebold in Calif.

2. McCormack was a featured speaker at an electronic voting hogfest last summer--a week of fun, sun and high end shopping for election officials from around the country, at the Beverly Hilton, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia. It was at events like these that our birthright--our right to vote--was sold away to Bushite corporations.
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

Now to the transcript itself.

[Wilms]

5. Yes, the transcript. Good idea.

:eyes:

[nicknameless]

12. Did you know that Seiler is now Elections Manager for Solano County?

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65120,00.html

Diebold Rep Now Runs Elections
An influential employee of voting machine maker Diebold Election Systems left the company recently to take a job as elections manager for a California county.

Deborah Seiler, a sales representative for the beleaguered voting company, was hired a week ago and started Monday in Solano County, northeast of San Francisco in California's wine country. The position puts her second in command of elections in the county, under the registrar of voters.

The move raises eyebrows because Seiler played a role in a recent scandal involving Diebold and the county. As the Diebold sales rep, Seiler sold Solano County nearly 1,200 touch-screen machines that were not federally tested or state certified. When the state banned the machines because of Diebold's business practices, the county had to find a replacement for the machines and pay Diebold more than $400,000 to get out of its contract.

"This is outrageous. This is just a total runaround of the democratic process," said Douglas MacDonald, of the Community Labor Alliance, an activist group that pressured Solano County to end its contract with Diebold. "There was an open debate and discussion, and the county (supervisors) decided that Diebold is not the company, is not the philosophy, that we want behind the running of elections in Solano County. Then what happens? They go out and hire the person who was advocating that philosophy."

[Peace Patriot]

23. What an incredible meeting! This is IT, friends! This is the beginning

of the end of corporate control over our elections.

I've read through the transcript, and I'd say that this meeting is an extraordinary development. That all these Democrats would be so well informed on electronic voting, and that Connie McCormack would be going to meetings like this, trying to defend herself, and would be so-o-o-o-o defensive about it--and would bring her husband along as a potential intervenor between herself and the citizens who are questioning her (see transcript section quote below)--all very amazing, and indicative of a major shift on this critically important matter.

The word is out, my friends. Revolution is in the air!

---------

McCormack's bio, as summarized by moderator Peter Rothenberg:

"Let me give you a little bit about her bio, as well: Educated at Penn State University in Journalism, Virginia Polytechnic University in Poly-Sci, University of Miami, Politics and Public Affairs, a master’s degree, EmoryUniversity in Political Science, did doctoral studies in Poly-Sci there. She has worked as a chief administrative assistant to the Vice-Mayor of Atlanta, Director of Jury Services in Dallas County, Elections Administrator in Dallas County, TX, Registrar of Voters down at San Diego County, an election consultant to the Institute, or International Foundation for Electoral Systems in Russia and now is helping us hopefully get our systems straightened out as we switch, apparently from our old systems – we all remember the old punch card systems – now we’re working with a combination InkaVote, I think that’s what it’s called, InkaVote systems and some kind of combination of electronic systems."

Atlanta, GA
Dallas, TX
San Diego, CA
Russia

Some of the most problem-ridden election systems that we know of, outside of Ohio--and some of the most questionable jurisdictions as democracies. Georgia, where Max Cleland was Diebolded. Texas, where Tom Delay has ruled. San Diego, notorious for its election problems. Russia--where Vladamir Putin, like George Bush, is setting himself up as a dictator. The dates of McCormack's service in these jurisdictions, and the nature of her duties, needs investigation.

---------------------

The Transcript:

Some of my summary impressions...

McCormack speaks paragraphs and paragraphs--pages of single space response--without answering the question that was asked.

She frequently falls back on two things: 1) I am not an expert. And 2), I don't make the decisions (on voting systems) ("I've never bought a voting system in my life.") She says the Supervisors make the decisions. She does make recommendations, however--but how she plays it is that her recommendations mean nothing, really. If there's any fault here, it's with the Supervisors, not her. She's just a non-partisan professional. What a big load of bull.

This woman was/is an advocate of Diebold and of paperless voting. (She's the one who said that a paper trail would make voters "more suspicious.") She was also a POLITICAL OPERATIVE of Diebold's in the foul campaign against former Sec of State Kevin Shelley, who had sued Diebold and decertified the worst of their election theft machines (touchscreens, DREs) prior to the 2004 election, and who denied HAVA money to the counties for the purchase of this crappy machinery--to howls of protest by some Diebold-friendly county election officials, led by Connie McCormack. (She told a legislative committee she wanted to "bulldoze the Secretary of State's office" to get that money for this Bushite corporation).

She doesn't make the decisions? What dissembling this is! She was leading the whole state on a rampage against one of the few honest election officials in the entire country, trying to INFLUENCE him on his voting machine DECISION, and helping to drive him from office because she didn't like that DECISION. So, who is really making the decisions?!

Luckily, this is a very knowledgeable and very uppity audience--a couple of hundred grass roots Democrats in San Fernando Valley--who won't stand for her non-answers. (--and one of the moderators, Michael Jay, comes back to the issue of her advocacy of Diebold.)

The audience keeps trying to ask questions about proprietary software, and she keeps not answering, and blathering on and on. Finally, one of the moderators brings the question back round...and then an extraordinary thing occurs. Her husband tries to intervene...

MICHAEL: (mentions several concerns--proprietary programming, and corporate control of elections, then reads an audience QUESTION): "why would any government election commission forfeit oversight and transparency in the voting process byentrusting the process to private corporations?"

CONNY: I think we already did that question. That’s the question that’s up there, and I’m just going to continue to say, I don’t make these decisions. I’m not an elected official. I did not pick the voting equipment—

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (faint) –the question—

MICHAEL: Would you, I think—

CONNY: Why should I answer the question? I don’t choose the voting equipment.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Why don’t you take responsibility? You are very well-educated and well-qualified person—

CONNY: And I’ve said that I think the equipment works well.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You’re saying you don’t make any decisions –but can we give you a lot of input?

CONNY: Well, I get all the input, believe me, I get all this input. I also get a lot of input from a lot of people that are happy to have the electronic voting, especially people who speak a different language or are blind, or have physical disabilities who get to use this equipment. And others who really, they just really like it. It’seasier to use, frankly, then—

(Audience rumbling – Conny’s husband interjects, unhappy with the tone of the questions being put to Conny –cannot make out his comments)

MICHAEL: Excuse me, we may take – we may take—

CONNY (to her husband): All right, I can, I can handle the questions—

MICHAEL: Thanks though. You know—(Conny’s husband continues to speak – cannot make out comments)

CONNY: Please don’t do that, I can handle the questions. He gets upset more than I do. (laughter)

MICHAEL: I think people would like to know your opinion about this regarding—

CONNY: I’ve said my opinion. I think the equipment works very well. I think the electronic voting equipment has been proven to work very well. It hasn’t been proven with evidence that it doesn’t work well. So that’s my opinion. Apparently it isn’t yours, but again, in Los Angeles, people have three choices.

MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let me try to reframe the question. The question is, central tabulating devices– not the touchscreens out in the field – central tabulating devices have software on them that are owned by corporations that do not allow you to oversee them specifically. Does that exist? Is that part of the Diebold or ES&S situation, and is that—

CONNY: Is it proprietary software, is what you’re asking? Yes, it is.

PREVIOUS MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: --you not have oversight over that machine and control what it does?

CONNY: Well, that’s not the case, because we’re doing what – they’re – they’ve got the proprietary software, of course, but we’re actually coding it in, as to who the candidates are and all of that. And, if it’s an optical scan system, like we have, we’ve got the ballots. We’re doing the one percent manual anyway, which is a random selection and we – I always do when people come in and say, “Well, my race is kind of close and you didn’tpick anything.” Well, we have to do one for each race. It’s one percent for each race. But if they say, “Well,this was really close, too, why don’t you add that one?” I’ve added that in a lot of precincts. That’s making you worry? Let’s hand count that one, too. So as long as we’re using paper ballots, which can be hand tallied, it seems to me that concern about the proprietary software is a little bit misplaced.

MICHAEL: I think we’re concerned because we see HAVA forcing a future of electronic machines on us, and we see that future coming. So, we can talk about paper now—

CONNY: Electronic machines or electronic counting? I think his question was about—

MICHAEL: DREs is what I’m—

CONNY: --central counting or optical scanning – optical scanned ballots, right? Is that what you’re talking about?

PREVIOUS MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: –the special tabulator device—

CONNY: Right.

PREVIOUS MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: –that takes all the—

CONNY: --the optical scan – and it counts them all together, yes, yes. That’s why I’m a little concerned – you’ve still got the paper to go back to, to verify. And now with the electronic, it’s still going to be the paper on the voter verified receipt. So I think a lot of the angst should be lessened by knowing that there’s this paper –whether you have an optical scanned system or now the voter verified receipt. I thought that was the whole point of the voter verified receipt, was to lessen this angst about bit and bytes and stuff.

MICHAEL: That’s true, but I believe that—

CONNY: But I guess the angst is still there.

MICHAEL: The angst is there and here’s one question I’ll jump to, and this may be the source of some of that angst. Our impression is that you have advocated for DREs and electronic machines when they didn’t have apaper trail.

CONNY: I did, because they worked good. We’ve been using them for five years and our experience has been very positive. And if I had seen experiences that weren’t positive and I had erroneous results, do you think I’dbe advocating for that? We haven’t seen that. No, the last time I checked, all the parallel monitoring the Secretaries of State done has been accurate, so we don’t have evidence of that. We do have evidence of problem elections, like poll workers who can’t turn the equipment, battery failure, that kind of thing.We don’t have evidence of inaccurate tallies.

(--then it gets really raucous for a few minutes--as audience members challenge her statements...)


------------------------
------------------------

This full transcript is well worth reading. It addresses issues that are at the heart of the Bush junta--the seeming OBLIVIOUSNESS of our election officials to an EGREGIOUSLY non-transparent election system controlled by Bushites, and the difficulty of getting straight answers from them. The San Fernando Valley people are MAGNIFICENT in their persistence on the fundamental issues: secrecy, corporate control, non-transparency. It's great reading--as McCormack meanders all around their questions, and they keep coming back at her.

The upshot is: The entire system is still riddled with non-transparency, with the central tabulation machines run on Diebold secret source code. We may have a "Voter verified paper ballot" in future elections--now required--but there is only a ONE PERCENT automatic recount (supposedly at random)--not nearly enough for electronic voting, where massive fraud can occur at the speed of light and be untraceable. Calif voters are increasingly using absentee ballots because they don't trust electronic voting (it's up to 50% in Alameda, and I think about 30% in L.A.), but these votes are NOT included in the early results, thus the system lends itself to early "calls" on the basis of the electronic totals only, by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who have used that power--the power of getting "early results"--to influence election outcomes. McCormack and the corporate news monopolies are into SPEED, SPEED, SPEED. And that's one of the ways that election fraud occurs. McCormack--and many other election officials--are advocates of voting systems that facilitate election fraud on a massive scale.

[nicknameless]

6. She's a DINO.

[Wilms]

7. Don't be surprised if she's simply ignorant on the subject.

But then, you may be right. A lot of Dem voters seem like DINO's, to me.

-on edit-

AND Conny is probably ignorant. Read the transcript. She essentially admits as much.

[nicknameless]

8. Oh, please.

[Wilms]

9. Quite serious.

Look how many DINO's have been elected by Dems.

They all call themselves "moderates". That's a cop-out. They're DINO's.

Think about it. You know the type.

[nicknameless]

10. Obviously, that wasn't the part of your post that I replied to.

"Don't be surprised if she's simply ignorant on the subject."

Give me a break. McCormack is a right-wing bitch on wheels whose every move is a contrivance to end clean elections.

[Wilms]

13. You know, Nick. You're probably right.

And the task at hand may have blinded me to that insight.

You see, a lot of the people I deal with don't respond well when my arguments are insult-laden.

So I say to them, "e-voting has led to considerable concern that our election management system is unreliable, potentially inaccurate, and has various, demonstrated, security flaws. Further, our county BoE is, at best, unable or unwilling to reckon with that. At worst, she may be on the take as evidenced by her behavior and one personal relationship, in particular."

And they respond by asking me to tell them more about the problem.

At one time, I approached this sort of thing by saying things like, "Our BoE is corrupt. A liar. A turn-coat. A shill for the corporations. A Bush-bot. She epitomes this countries slide into fascism. AND she probably has a movie-poster of GuvenGropin on the wall of her office. She's a pod-people."

And it remained a monologue. Diatribe, actually.

The difference between the two approaches, you'll notice, is a lot more info conveyed to the LISTENER with the former paragraph. I get a lot more mileage out it, too.

You'll have to pardon me. I've been generally sarcastic as I've become more disappointed that the CA discussions on this forum aren't more about digging through the issues. It's more often a place to scream, hurl insult, and worse. Shelley has barely come to his own defense, but that's what a lot of CA ER Activists want to keep yammering about.

It seems off-topic to me for that discussion to seemingly crowd out "where do we go from here" topics. Everything is looked at through the lens of Shelley, McPherson, Bowen, Arnold, Conny, Diebold, etc. I understand and share much of that anger/concern, but I feel that I'm blinded, not sighted when it is given too much of my time.

There is so much that goes undiscussed one could wonder if a conspiracy was afoot to stifle sober consideration. An example we share: your eagle-eye nailed Seiler as a current county clerk/former Diebold employee. I googled to confirm. No one responded to us. Put up a Shelley thread, and the roof comes off. Another is SoS voting systems documents that are posted without much of a response.

So that's why I'm so pissy. Thought you deserved to know.

[nicknameless]

15. Since when is it an “insult” to point out the truth?

Since republicans said so?

Why not simply be honest? No diatribe is necessary. Feigning ignorance isn't the answer either. So I disagree with both of your approaches.

We know what McCormack’s track record has been. We know that EVEN NOW, with all that’s been exposed, she continues to defend Diebold.

The Kevin Shelley matter is VERY important. It points directly to election, government and media corruption, and is a classic example of someone being persecuted for their attempts to insure clean elections. We don’t need Shelley to come to his own defense. We know why they smeared him and took him down. He dared to decertify Diebold machines and sue the company.

Why are you recommending that we stay away from the topics of “Shelley, McPherson, Bowen, Arnold, Conny, Diebold, etc.”? How do you solve a problem if you refuse to look at those involved? That’s like saying that we should solve our national problems without bringing up the topics of Bush, DeLay, Abramoff, etc.

You're free to post threads that interest you. But people will continue to reply to those that are of interest to *them*.

[Wilms]

17. Uh-oh. Where did I say any of that?

But we've been down that road.

And of course you know what I mean. It's possible to point out the truth without being insulting.

I didn't recommend feigning ignorance. What did I say that left you with that impression?

And it's fair game to point to Conny's track record, and more to the point when it's not laced with insults.

I'm sure we disagree about the degree of "importance" the Shelley's situation represents at this time. Again, he's barely said a word in his own defense. What are we supposed to do? And I'd feel better pinning the whole thing on Diebold if he said that's what happened. But in the meantime...

You misconstrued. I didn't recommend "that we stay away from the topics of “Shelley, McPherson, Bowen, Arnold, Conny, Diebold, etc.”", nor that we not bring up the topic. I cautioned that we may be missing parts of the picture when "everything is looked at through the lens of Shelley, McPherson, Bowen, Arnold, Conny, Diebold, etc."

Can you tell me that you see the difference that a little less selective snipping may have revealed? If we really understand where one another is coming from, and disagree, that's one thing, Nick. But if we aren't understanding, and aren't trying to, that's a pity.

And people will certainly respond to posts that interest them. So it seems curious that CA ER activists have had, up to the time of this post, no comment to leave about this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x409638

Would you tell me if you have any idea why that is? I would appreciate it.

[Peace Patriot]

27. Wilms, McPherson is a shill for Diebold. Rather than decertifying the

worst of their election theft machines--the touchscreens--as he clearly should have done, if he was acting in the public interest, he sent the matter upstairs to the Feds, who use PRIVATE CONTRACTORS in a SECRET, PROPRIETARY testing process, owned and controlled by the electronic voting companies, totally removed from the purview of the people of California, and from California's hot, active, vigilant, persistent election reform activists. McPherson is obviously fearful of this election reform movement in California, and (currently in office as a Schwarzenegger APPOINTEE) wants to get elected. He knows we've got his number, and he cannot do all of what he wants to do for Bush's buds at Diebold.

The reason no one commented on your post is possibly that it wasn't worth commenting upon. (My reason was I didn't see it.) McPherson is not doing the citizens of California any favors by saying things like "ES&S stepped up to the plate."

And the writer of the article in The Record (Greg Kane) is clearly one of these corporate cleansing writers (cleansing facts of their meaning and of the truth). He writes:

"The state asked Diebold last month to submit the software for federal inspection before it can be certified for use in the June 6 primary."

Do you realize how much information this sentence leaves out--and how it twists the truth about McPherson's devious move into a positive for McPherson, which he does not deserve?

Hundreds of citizens showed up at the June meeting on Diebold in Sacto. And thousands have written and called, objecting to the state certifying these machines. THAT is why he sent the matter to the Feds. He's caught between a rock and a hard place--between what his backers expect him to do (get these election theft machines installed, pronto) and a vigilant citizenry, who will spread the word up and down the state, prior to the Nov. election, if he does certify them. He therefore CAN'T certify them, and must rely on the EAC's secret process to get the job done for Diebold.

A Sec of State who was acting in the public interest would have decertified the Diebold machines after the machines colossally failed state tests. McPherson is NOT acting in the public interest, and puff pieces like Kane's do nothing but obfuscate the truth--that the public was royally screwed by the previous Republican Sec of State Bill Jones, who authorized these election theft systems, and then went to work for one of the companies (Sequoia), and by the vicious, lying campaign to oust elected Democrat Shelly (an honest Sec of State, who was anti-Diebold), and is now being screwed yet again by this weaselly Republican appointee, Mr. McPherson.

If you can find news reports that tell the truth, I think you will find DUers leaping upon them with joy. If you post stuff like Kane's--of which we are very, very, very, very, very, very weary--you can expect to be ignored.

[Wilms]

29. I'm not understanding some of the points you're making...

...or, at least, they're not my understanding.



So walk through them with me. If I'm wrong about any of it, disabuse me, otherwise, please play along for a moment.

You said that McPherson didn't decertify Diebold. Diebold's TouchScreens already have been de-certified by Shelley. Is that not correct? So the the only thing McPherson can do is keep them de-certified or, re-certify them. Isn't that correct? Why are we asking him to de-certify it, then. :shrug:

When Shelley de-certified them. Did he ban them from the state? I don't think so. I don't think the SoS has the authority. And wouldn't Shelley have been obligated to re-test the machine once Diebold claimed to have fixed the problems? Seems to me, if they pass federal and state testing, like Sequoia has done, the SoS would have no recourse with which to boot Diebold. Am I missing something? (Unfortunately, Diebold, or DRE's have not been outlawed.)

I'm not thrilled with McPherson being less than forthcoming about ES&S, but it's not like we had to rely on a leak to know. Further, why did he even get on their case? Just to cover his rear? But now the ES&S machines have to be re-tested by the state. Isn't that a more or less open process (like the one Diebold flunked in June)? As it stands, he de-certified ES&S without any prompting that we're aware of. Correct me if I missed something. I was away for quite awhile.

There is a difference of opinion about McPherson sending Diebold back to the ITA's. One, like yours, is that he trying to get them to certify it for CA, but that ain't how it works exactly. First, the ITA sort-of certified it already, but not in it's current configuration. So sending them back to the ITA may, may (I'm not trying to defend the guy so much as trying to figure this out) indicate something else. Like he's following the law (if only under threat of being burned at the stake).

There's some caution that this may not be right, but, apparently, the "interpreter code" is something that Diebold should not, by FEC Standards, employ. Yet they do. http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=113
National implications? If the EAC/ITA turns them down, we're off the hook (until they comeback with another version or, until we outlaw DRE's), and Diebold will have a lot of splainin' to do across the country.

That's why I put down the torch and pitchfork and grabbed a bag of popcorn. ;)

Of McPherson, you said, "he therefore CAN'T certify them, and must rely on the EAC's secret process to get the job done for Diebold." That's not how it works. According to LAW (let alone his political predicament), he is not allowed to certify a machine not tested by an ITA. The particular version has not been tested, so he sent Diebold packing. No complaints here. Too bad he hadn't told them this sooner. With time running out, Diebold would have rather known about this earlier. Too bad. :evilgrin:

Now, assuming the ITA signs off, it still has to be tested in CA. That's law too, and McPherson knows it. It's in McPherson's letter to Diebold. http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=602&Itemid=113

And all this is taking a lot of time. Seems like the affected counties would follow Yolo County's lead and use VOTE-Pad.

Do you see evidence of McPherson running out the clock?


Your assertions about McPherson seem to rely on a misuderstanding of the law, as outlined above. He may actualy be a _______ (fill in rant), but you'll need a different argument as yours doesn't currently square with the law.

Here's what might help. Show me where McPherson is/may be breaking the law.

[Amaryllis]

4. K and R. Very important to know what Conny is all about. She could be the

downfall of CA, as Cathy Cox was GA.

[nicknameless]

11. More Conny McCormack background:

Election protection people had to call the police on her -- election night last November.
Tue Nov-08-05
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5307538&mesg_id=5307711

Police to intervene in Los Angeles

Just got an email:

Phew! The Watch Commander from the Norwalk Sheriff's department just acknowledged our plea for intervention on behalf of Election Code 15204. Moments ago I got a call informing me that the Conny McCormack was denying the public access, including Bev Harris is there, to view the Central Tabulation for Los Angeles.

Well, tomorrow we'll know what the outcome is after the officers arrive tonight.

Conny McCormack has been pushing for corporate involvement at polling places.
DECEMBER 16, 2003
Excerpt from link below. Transcribed to eliminate all-caps format.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JM6UV6ZAQFoJ:lacounty.info/BOS/SOP/TRANSCRIPTS/12-16-03%2520Board%2520Meeting%2520Transcript.pdf++%22recognizing+the+Corporate+Poll-Worker+Program%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Conny B. McCormack, registrar/recorder: “I really appreciate the supervisor recognizing the Corporate Poll-Worker Program. This is a new program trying to get corporations more involved in giving their employees to work at the polls on election day. And we’ve got quite a few corporations who have done that and we’re trying to grow the program, so thank you for the recognition and the publicity on the program.”

She has some history of involvement in Texas election fiascos.

From:
http://www.geocities.com/stoutdem/z0209archive.html

“... She presided over the 1982 ballot debacle in Dallas County, where amidst the long recounts (I was there on the recount committee) suddenly extra ballots turned up on a desk in her offices. She then went to Orange County, California, and presided over a disaster of a Congressional election that was fought out in courts and Congress for years. –Stoutdem”

As the Dallas County Elections Administrator, she also presided over the disputed 1985 Dallas election.
http://www.ecotalk.org/SaltmanIrregularitiesList.htm

and an excerpt from:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/2000-02-10/news/schutze.html

<snip>

“Our own municipal history offers an instructive case in point: In 1985, Pleasant Grove hardware-store owner and perennial gadfly Max Goldblatt, who was then 74 years old, came within fewer than 500 votes, or a tenth of a percentage point of the overall vote, of forcing A. Starke Taylor, the Citizens Council candidate for mayor, into a runoff.

Goldblatt was an old, funny-looking, not terribly well-spoken guy who raised pathetic money to run against a very smooth, well-known, lavishly funded, silver-haired golf-cart guy. But Dallas people thought Max Goldblatt was clean, and they stormed the polls to vote for him.

In 1988, the Federal Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology published a report on computerized voting in which the 1985 Goldblatt-Taylor race in Dallas was described in some detail. The report explained how Goldblatt actually had been winning on election night when suddenly the vote-counting computer in Dallas experienced an unexplained power failure. When the power came back on, Starke Taylor had moved mysteriously ahead during the downtime. It should have been impossible for the computer to change its mind while it didn't have any electricity.

Subsequent re-counts produced even stranger results, according to the report. When the Texas Legislature tried to investigate the Goldblatt election, Dallas officials reported that all of the ballots had been prematurely destroyed. The Goldblatt election was an important factor in laws passed later by the Legislature requiring tighter security measures for ballots and voting equipment.”

<snip>

[Wilms]

14. Excellent post. Thank you.

I remember "Police to intervene in Los Angeles".

And I was waiting to see what happened with that, but the poster never got back to us.


Go easy on her with the poll worker thing. We need poll workers like crazy and can't find them. This may actually be a good thing to get the corps to give people time off (paid, hopefully) to do it. Yes, you'd need to monitor it, but I think you need to do that anyway.


She also served as an election consultant to Armenia as it emerged from Soviet rule.

http://lavote.net/connybio.htm

Election Fraud there is now rampant. I'm just sayin'.

[nicknameless]

16. Corporate involvement at the polls is a horrible idea.

Corporations have a vested interest ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$) in who winds up in office.

My condolences to any country, state or county that has been in any way affected by McCormack.

[Wilms]

18. Do you think we should have Election Day as a holiday?

Need poll workers. Especially if you want to hand count one day.

[rumpel]

20. Oh boy, the Dallas story, notice how she stutters at the question of

Franklin Ohio question....

[nicknameless]

32. Yes. What is it about these voting machines that causes them to lose

power when the Democrat is ahead or too close?

You should check out this story about Riverside County (posts #3 & #4):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x409284

[Amaryllis]

26. Unbelievable that this is not seen as the blatant conflict of interest

that it is:
Conny B. McCormack, registrar/recorder: “I really appreciate the supervisor recognizing the Corporate Poll-Worker Program. This is a new program trying to get corporations more involved in giving their employees to work at the polls on election day. And we’ve got quite a few corporations who have done that and we’re trying to grow the program, so thank you for the recognition and the publicity on the program.”

[nicknameless]

31. The conflict is so obvious.

There is so much corruption at the level of election officials. Many of them are among the most vocal in their opposition to having a paper trail.

[rumpel]

19. I am back before I go to have my zzzz's. Please note on the incident when

she did not let the 3rd party into the computer room to monitor, She claims, she does not want "anyone pulling the plug on the computers", and therefore it is off limits.
There are about 2 or 3 Q&A's on thi in the transcript

What a lame excuse.

[Wilms]

21. Did you notice hubby was there?

I'd have to go thread diving, but there was a link suggesting Conny's husband had a financial interest in the Ink-A-Vote system currently used in LA.

It was one story. Wish there was two. But I found that very interesting.

[furrball]

22. He was an observer for the recent Iraq elections

[rumpel]

30. Yes, and the way she protests that she can handle the questions.

Connie being friends with with Diebold insiders and hubbie an interest in Inka Vote, that I would call conflict of interest.

[Peace Patriot]

24. Anybody know about McCormack's husand and Inkavote?

I recall some research was done here at DUer about her husband's financial connections to, or involvement in, this voting system. Maybe that he developed it? It's L.A.'s own unique voting system, which I believe replicates punchcard voting, only electronically, and it's hooked up to Diebold's GEMS tabulators (in the "secret room").

Anybody remember (or have urls for) this research on McCormack's husband?

[Wilms]

25. I posted a link.

During last spring, on one of the CA Coup Threads, I posted about it with one link I had found. You probably could find it through a search.

Here's their site.
http://www.inkavote.com

Ink-A-Vote isn't electronic until it's OpScaned. You do, essentially, start out with a hand-marked paper ballot. But in LA, they scan it, so all bets are off at that point.

[Peace Patriot]

28. To NOT see election reform in California and the U.S. through the lens

of the Kevin Shelley story, and to NOT see it also through the lens of 2004 election fraud, is to FLY BLIND toward the smashup of our democracy. We have got to keep our eyes open. These are treacherous times. The forces out to destroy this democracy are without conscience. They will destroy whoever gets in their path. This means that we must act collectively to defeat them--we cannot rely on individual leaders. And we really DO need to understand the fear of blackmail, fear of ruination, and fear of death that our representatives, such as they are, may be experiencing; as well as the awesome corruptive power of the Bush junta.

Witness the SILENCE of virtually the entire leadership of the Democratic Party throughout the installation of this fraudulent, Bushite-controlled election SYSTEM (in the 2001-2003 period).

Witness the Democrats in the CA legislature who were strong-armed by the new Dem leadership NOT to support Shelley, when some Dems wanted to.

Witness the CONTINUED silence, even of people like Howard Dean--on this egregiously non-transparent election system, and its plainly fraudulent results in 2004.

Witness the silence of virtually the entire body of US Senate Democrats--but for one courageous woman, Barbara Boxer--even on the outrageous violations of the Voting Rights Act against black voters in Ohio. They couldn't even bring themselves to investigate THAT.

And how much of this is fear? And how much of it is corruption?

This is the REASON we cannot get real election reform. Fear. Corruption.

The 2004 election was stolen long before the voters voted, when this election system was installed, during that 2001-2004 period, and THAT is what we must address and understand.

Real election reform means throwing these Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor'! No half measures here. No "voter verified audit trails." These are half-measures for a wholly corrupt system. We need to demand real reform, and we need to understand why we're not getting it--now!--and how we arrived here, with our right to vote GONE, sold away--to Bushite corporations.

Because if we don't understand this--and if don't see election reform through its clearest lens--the lens of how it got corrupted in the first place, and what forces are behind this--we will be fooled again, and will continue to be disenfranchised.

A "voter verified paper audit trail" is nearly useless with only a 1% audit recount, when the tabulation is done by Diebold's GEMS program--a secret, proprietary program, that can be altered to commit massive fraud at the speed of light, without leaving a trace. We might catch some things. We will not catch them all--and the bulk of the fraud may entirely escape us.

GEMS and all secret programming should be banned. Diebold should banned just on the basis of its partisanship alone. (So should ES&S.) Why isn't the DNC demanding these and other 100% transparency measures? How can they go INTO an election without demanding 100% transparency?

Russ Holt has a bill (HR 550) that would ban secret software, but even with 169 sponsors, it doesn't have a prayer in this illegitimate Bushite Congress.

Anyway, you see my point. Ignoring what happened with Shelley, and ignoring blatant election fraud, lead us down a path of FAITH that should never have any part in election returns. SKEPTICISM is the only reasonable position to have. And I mean total skepticism. With GEMS tabulating our votes, we need to PRESUME fraud--until a 100% hand count of the vote proves otherwise.

Are we going to get that? No. Why not? Because either the Dems are afraid to demand it--afraid to demand what is their RIGHT, a transparent election--or they have been corrupted in some way. Maybe they fear being Shelleyed. Maybe they fear being Wellstoned. Maybe they fear their own Dem election officials who have too much power with these electronic systems. Maybe they fear Diebold will Diebold THEM--and they will be out of power.

These are the questions we need to asking--and we need to know that fear and corruption are the heart of the matter, not peripheral issues.