I got a very encouraging reply today from the SF Chron's readers' rep

[EFerrari]

I had emailed him to ask about the lack of follow up on the Kevin Shelley story in the Chronicle, and to point out that the man now in Kevin's SOS office has quietly recertified Diebold.

Dick mailed me back and expressed dismay at the fact the the Chronicle didn't cover this decision. He mentioned the fact that because the printers wouldn't be used in our area, the story wasn't "newsy" -- and that he disagreed with this view.

It seemed to me that he is keeping up with this problem AND that he is interested.

Should any San Francisco Bay Area resident care to ask him about the Chronicle's coverage, he can be emailed here: [e-mail]

Please be cordial to him if you write him. He is a conscientious man and I'd go on teevee for him.

[Amaryllis]

1. Kick! Good news. Keep at it!

[EFerrari]

2. It's amazing because despite the scope of his job, Dick Rogers

knew exactly what I was talking about and one-upped me by telling me that the paper needs a local hook.


We don't use touchscreens here but Opti-Scan. Amaryllis -- can you tell me again how the tabulators are vulnerable? I feel that he is asking me, indirectly, for a way to make the story "local".

In any case, I appreciate Dick's diligence. Compare and contrast with the WaHo disaster. :hi:

[Amaryllis]

3. Do you use Diebold tabulators? This website would be a great one to

refer him to: www.whoscounting.net

Have him read the stuff about whatever company makes your tabulators and op scans. The techonology on op scans is JUST as vulnerable as that of DRE's. Same basic stuff. I am not the best person to give you details on this; try guvworld. He knows it better than I do. I think Wilms probably does too.
Send him to Bradblog. See if you can get him reading it regularly. Sounds like you have got a hot prospect here!

If you are using either Diebold op scans or tabulators, taht willl give you your local hook. you can tie it right in with what's happening with McPherson and recertifying, and maybe tie in the good thing Shelley did by decerifying Diebold at the same time, and maybe some of the other good stuff Shelley did too! A lot of which McP has undone.

[EFerrari]

4. I don't know whose tabulators we use, ashamed to say.

But I will find out on Monday.

This is the way to get this story moving here, imho.

[Amaryllis]

5. There are plenty of people who post on here who probably would know.

[GuvWurld]

6. Local Hook

Palo Alto Human Relations Commission adopts Voter Confidence Resolution. Palo Alto City Council likely to consider this groundbreaking statement in March. San Francisco Supervisors hearing increasing support for the resolution from their constituents. Berkeley embarrassed to be so far behind the curve. Anybody seen Santa Cruz lately?

Catapult the propaganda.

[EFerrari]

7. A couple of DUers in Santa Cruz.

Will keep wooing SF supes.

[GuvWurld]

8. Who else is helping you?

I have a Bay Area list of GuvWurld subscribers and some readers do occasionally inform me of some random act of support. Missing is the coordination needed for a sustained campaign. I can't lead that from Humboldt. How do we get a core group on the VCR in SF? Or Berkeley, Santa Cruz or anywhere else for that matter?

[EFerrari]

9. In San Francisco, it's Chris and Ross. They are the best bet

along with Jake.

They are beloved for their service, rightfully.

[GuvWurld]

10. Are you saying...

that it will take these Supes to build a campaign of supporters to win over other Supes? I'm guessing that's not what you mean at all. At least it wasn't what I was imagining. I'm thinking that we need grassroots people to go after Chris, Ross and Jake to get them solidly on board. At that point, I'm guessing, they know how to politic their way around with the other Supes and we will be on to something. But who gets this started, at least beyond the point you've taken it to since I know you've already approached these guys? How much help will the Green Fuse article be to spur organizing?

[EFerrari]

11. I'm not sure, Guv. I'll have to mull a bit. n/t

[EFerrari]

12. Okay, this is what I think. I need to print out that thread

that explains in plain language for civilians like me WHY San Francisco's voting system is insecure. Because most liberal type people I know feel their vote is safe because WE DON'T HAVE TOUCHSCREENS. One buddy who was running for (I forget) told me, "Oh, I think our voting machines are safe."

(Smacks forehead)

And I need to physically hand it to the Supes I have met in some way. And it has to be asap while McPherson is doing our work for us -- being as openly mendacious as possible.

At the same time, we have to keep on finding opportunities to repeat the message endlessly -- in articles, LTTE, to anyone who will listen. To your grocer and your next door neighbor. That's how we get fusion.

[Amaryllis]

13. This is the problem we all face when we don't have touchscreens. In

OR we have paper ballots but they are counted on ES&S scanners and tabulators; vendors supply the software and do the programming.

[EFerrari]

17. Yep. I have emailed someone who used to be in a group

called "The Progressive Voter Project" here in SF. They were working on registering everyone to vote absentee and we used to ask them to reg at our events. Maybe she can help me find a way to hook Guv up with our Board of Supes.

The group who are or were in that project are a natural for Guv's VCR.

[Amaryllis]

18. What;s the VCR?

[GuvWurld]

19. VCR = Voter Confidence Resolution

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-resolution.html

[Amaryllis]

20. Oh. I know what it is...just didn't recognize the acronym.

[Amaryllis]

14. Very important point to make: election officials DO NOT do the programming

The vendors do.
At the national election reform summit we had in Portland in Oct., Clint Curtis said they weren’t actually doing their own programming even though some of them said they were. I set it up for Clint to show one of our county election clerks why what they do really isn’t programming, and why what they get from the vendors is vulnerable. After he showed her, she said that she now understood why we were concerned about software vulnerabilities in what came from the vendors. Later I emailed Clint and asked him what he showed her

This is what he sent back:
“The conclusion they were working on is that by setting up the database to reflect the specific races and candidates that they were actually programming. In actuality all the programming is done in the executable and they are only configuring the setup file. Why they would believe that they were operating on the coding level I am not sure. I showed them where the code actually exists and demonstrated how the internal code can effect the totals to the races they configured. Fairly easy stuff. “

This had been one of our big hurdles because they would keep saying they did their own programming so it was hard for us to know how to get them to see that what they got from the vendors could be problematic. One of our coalition members is now working on a demo to show the other county clerks

[Wilms]

16. I found an article that may help explain.

A jurisdiction "outsources democracy" to the vendor for each election. The vendor charges $2,100 to set up each election. The vendor will sell you the software for $50,000.

If you do two elections per year, it would take 12 years to pay off that software.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x414278

[Amaryllis]

15. Also I think McP certified Diebold's entire line so if you have Deibold

scanners and tabulators, it applies to your county.