The Problem with Vote.orgs

[BeFree]

I have a list on bookmarks of twenty or so Vote.orgs.

Looking them over, I have yet to find one of them that claims to want Paper Ballots Hand Counted. They all seem to buy into the use of machines to count our votes.

Knowing of the BIG money behind the use of voting machines, I can only conjecture that they all are bought and paid for by the BIG money which corrupts the very core of our country and our democracy.

Today on the DU - Election Reform Forum, we see evidence of the purchase of Vote.orgs. We even see some members actually supporting the BIG money corporations in one way or another.

Now, I have leaned at times to believing that machines have a place in the voting process. No longer. The proof of BIG money corruption demands that all of our efforts go into demanding that human beings are the first, last, and everything in between, of casting and counting our votes.

Not one line of software between us and our votes!

[Boredtodeath]

1. Get to DC. Hurry.

I'm sure you'll find a legislator who agrees with you and will write the legislation!

Go.

Now.

Hurry!

:sarcasm:

[BeFree]

3. Isn't Georgia

infected by Diebold?

So are you happy with that? You must be because you don't seem to support the activities that would get rid of Diebold once and for all.

In my voting jurisdiction, partly because of my efforts, our county went from DRE to op-scan paper ballots already. It is just a matter of time before it will be HCPB, mark my words, as I have marked your's.

[Boredtodeath]

5. Hey, I went to DC

to get my legislation. It's HR550.

Get your ass up there.

[BeFree]

6. HR 550

You have failed. I don't see 550 as law, but I have success in my town, my county, and my state. That is true success, but I look at Georgia and what do I see? The biggest failure of all. What's up with that?

[Boredtodeath]

8. Not a clue

Don't live there anymore. Don't do activism there anymore. Can't do activism when ghouls like Bev Harris and APN make it impossible.

[mod mom]

10. No activism just counter-activism-great!

[BeFree]

11. It is all we have recently seen, eh?

What credibility is there in this counter-activism?

[Boredtodeath]

13. TRUTH is not counter-activism

Even though I know you DESPERATELY try to avoid it at every turn.

[Boredtodeath]

12. Sorry, truth is NOT counter-activism

You mean like you? Accusing good DEMOCRATS of spying and stealing?

No thanks, I don't do that kind of activism - I see it as nothing but a pot of lies and distortions.

[mod mom]

17. Choicepoint is no friend of democracy-do a little research.

The spies who shag us: The Times and USA Today have Missed the Bigger Story -- Again
by Greg Palast
May 14, 2006

<snip>

The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed in 1997, called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect if for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

<snip>
ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.

more at:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2006/1968

[Boredtodeath]

19. Greg Palast is full of shit

Like I said in the other thread:

You may not like what Choicepoint does, but there's a reason they are still in business - what they do is perfectly LEGAL.

You don't like it? Go find a congresswoman/man and change the law.

Sitting on your ass accusing good Democrats of being spies and killing organizations like VTUSA isn't accomplishing a damned thing.

Get off your ass and do something about it.

And, YES, I DEFEND CHOICEPOINT AS BEING PERFECTLY LEGAL.

[mod mom]

21. I am an activist with several ER groups as well as volunteer with

freepress.org and I also just organized 2 events with Greg Palast, whom I greatly admire. I am woking with several groups to put on a democracy conference this coming fall. You are the one who just mentioned you're not an activist. I am working full time as a volunteer n this issue. I even closed my small business, which I had over this issue, so perhaps it is you who need to give off your...

So here you have a huge corporation (whom you refer to as good Dems) who disenfranchised 97,000 African American voters in FL in 2000 (btw in case you are this misinformed, African Americans vote with the Dems 90% of the time) and you are willing to defend them? You are okay with this, saying it is legal?

Not worth my time.

[BeFree]

26. And,

You are very admired. If we only had 10% of the people doing what you do, America would be a much better place. You are a real ispiration, mod mom.

[Boredtodeath]

29. IT WAS NOT CHOICEPOINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No wonder you like Palast so much.........

DBT prepared the felon list.

DBT gave sworn testimony before congress.

DBT IS THE VILLIAN.

NOT CHOICEPOINT.

[mod mom]

33. Choicepoint:

The spies who shag us: The Times and USA Today have Missed the Bigger Story -- Again
by Greg Palast
May 14, 2006


<SNIP>
The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed in 1997, called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect if for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

Who ARE these guys selling George Bush a piece of you?

ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.

<SNIP MORE AT:>

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/20/2006/1968

[Boredtodeath]

42. Greg Palast is a liar.

.

[mod mom]

35. More Choicepoint:

Database giant gives access to fake firms
ChoicePoint warns more than 30,000 they may be at risk


By Bob Sullivan
Technology correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 6:38 p.m. CT Feb 14, 2005
Criminals posing as legitimate businesses have accessed critical personal data stored by ChoicePoint Inc., a firm that maintains databases of background information on virtually every U.S. citizen, MSNBC.com has learned.

The incident involves a wide swath of consumer data, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, credit reports and other information. ChoicePoint aggregates and sells such personal information to government agencies and private companies.

Last week, the company notified between 30,000 and 35,000 consumers in California that their personal data may have been accessed by "unauthorized third parties," according to ChoicePoint spokesman James Lee.

California law requires firms to disclose such incidents to the state's consumers when they are discovered. It is the only state with such a requirement but such data thefts are rarely limited to a single geographic area.



<SNIP>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6969799/

[Boredtodeath]

43. It's LEGAL

whether you like it or not.

[mod mom]

49. " personal data may have been accessed by "unauthorized third parties,"

Is legal whether I like it or not? The fact that you don't have a problem with this is very telling.

[Boredtodeath]

55. So.......where's your posts on all the other (more dramatic)

identity releases from OTHER companies???????

Only Choicepoint is your issue, right?

That's your bigotry speaking.

[robinlynne]

50. It's legal. We don't like it.

[Boredtodeath]

56. You don't have to - but you CANNOT LIE about it.

Lies will not go unaddressed.

[tbyg52]

84. Ummm....

There's a difference between "legal" and "moral." I certainly feel entitled to deplore legal actions that are also immoral. I may wish and work for legislation against them, but that doesn't mean I have to shut up in the meantime.

[Boredtodeath]

89. It also doesn't mean you can LIE

And I'm calling folks on LIES.

[BeFree]

96. Don't be swayed, tbyg52

By the negative remarks. Just think of them as a bad apple. One bad apple won't spoil the whole bunch.

[mod mom]

39. More Choicepoint:

Washington, DC) -

Statement by Rep. Cynthia McKinney (GA)
On the ongoing disenfranchisement of Black Voters
On June 20, 2006, the eve of the reauthorization of the Voter Rights Act

Thank you Madame Speaker. On the eve of the reauthorization of the Voter Rights Act, I come to the Floor to say that the dream of full participation by all Americans has yet to be fulfilled. And in fact, even at the dawn of a new Century, Black voters are still confronted with a concerted effort to deny their right to vote when it is politically necessary and expedient to do so.

We can start with the fiasco that brought the current Administration to power: the Florida vote of 2000. First of all, in testimony from African American voters in Florida outright voter intimidation is documented dozens of cases.

You know, the passage of time is a wonderful thing. It makes wine taste better; it makes women look better; it makes us long for the days of good music—however we define good music. The older songs always seem best. So, too, it is with information. For with the passage of time, truth crushed to the earth, rises. The ashes of the phoenix rise. And as a result of a town hall meeting that I organized in Georgia, bringing in the Vice President of Choicepoint, the company hired by the Florida Board of Elections—under the control of the then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris—we now know that Choicepoint was asked to provide an incorrect list of supposed convicted felons who would be denied the right to vote in Florida. Only thing is that the list compiled by Choicepoint imported data from several states—Ohio, New Jersey, and Texas. Now, Voinovich was the Republican governor of Ohio, Christy Todd Whitman was the Governor of New Jersey, and George W. Bush--our current President—was the Governor of Texas. Now, the interesting thing about this list is that the Texas list that was given by the State of Texas to Katherine Harris in Florida was not a list of convicted felons. The Texas list was a list of misdemeanors, thereby enlarging the number of entrants on the Choicepoint list destined for Florida.

Now, why was this important? Because the method of disfranchisement in Florida was to deny people the right to vote based on fictitious felony conviction records. And since Katherine Harris had told Choicepoint that she only wanted an 80% match, an example is that John Smythe who had committed a misdemeanor, say in Texas, became John Smith, a convicted felon in Florida.

<SNIP>
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga04_mckinney/blackvoters.html

[Boredtodeath]

44. The executive she speaks of said......

I am the CEO of DBT.

He was NOT FROM CHOICEPOINT.

I suggest you listen to American Blackout carefully.

[mod mom]

41. More Choicepoint:

Volume 8 Issue 3


Unequal Protection: Disenfranchisement in the 2000 United States Presidential Election

by Erin Chlopak*



<SNIP>

Voting Irregularities in the 2000 Election: Florida

The most pervasive irregularities in Florida resulted from the use of polling equipment of varying quality in racially disparate communities. A December 3, 2000, Washington Post survey found that heavily African-American precincts in Florida were subject to more ballot disqualifications than heavily white precincts. In Duval County, for example, 1 in 14 ballots were invalidated in mostly white precincts, whereas 1 in 5 ballots were disqualified in mostly black precincts. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel similarly found one-third of the 22,807 disqualified votes in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties were cast in predominantly black voting precincts. In particular, it found that votes cast in largely African-American areas of Palm Beach and Broward counties were more than twice as likely to be disqualified than votes cast in other counties throughout the state.

<snip>

Compounding these discrepancies was the wrongful purging of voters from official lists, which had a particularly detrimental effect on the African-American vote in Florida. This dilemma was, in many instances, a function of election officials' failure to process voter registration applications properly. African-American voters in low-income communities who had been purged improperly from voter lists were less likely to have the mistake remedied than were white voters in wealthier areas, because there was no effective way to verify their eligibility to vote. In wealthier, predominantly white precincts, election officials often had access to laptop computers to confirm a voter's registration. In heavily black precincts, the use of such technology was less prevalent. The absence of laptops in these precincts was particularly damaging to African-American voters, whose turnout in Florida increased by 65 percent from the 1996 election. A December 6, 2000, Boston Globe article reported that in one instance, a poll worker at a predominantly African-American precinct in Fort Lauderdale admitted denying 100 people the opportunity to vote-despite their claims of being registered-because their names did not appear on voter lists, and she had no other available means of confirming their registration.

Florida's law disenfranchising convicted felons also contributed to voting irregularities. In an effort to implement this policy, a list of 8,000 "possible felons," generated by Choice Point, Inc., a state-employed private corporation, was circulated before local election officials had investigated and confirmed whether "possible" felons were "definite" felons. Because the majority of the names on the list consisted of African-Americans, its circulation amplified the already disproportionate likelihood that black voters would be purged from official voter lists.

The underlying consequence of these irregularities was the manifest inequality in the voting rights of citizens who cast their vote by using the punch-card technology, or who never cast their vote because of the state's administrative negligence. The fact that such disparities fell largely along racial lines raises further concern. Indeed, the consequences constitute more than a dilemma injuring a random sample of Americans, rather they constitute violations of the civil rights of African-Americans.

<snip>

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/08/3disenfranchisement.cfm

[Boredtodeath]

46. IT WAS NOT CHOICEPOINT

And you can repeat the lie as often as you like. But it will NEVER BE TRUE.

It was DBT.

[mod mom]

51. A Legal Resource for the International Human Rights Community

[Boredtodeath]

9. Oh, and BTW.....

you DO know that the first proposed legislation for hand counted paper ballots came from the GEORGIA activists, right?

The first EVER hand counted paper ballot legislation was introduced in that state.

But, thanks for spreading their wonderful idea!

[Boredtodeath]

14. Is that crickets I hear?

So, BeFree stole Georgia's idea and gives them absolutely NO credit.

Activism as defined by this bunch = lies, theft, distortions, cheating, and personal attacks.

I think I'll stick to truth.

[BeFree]

16. I stole their idea? That's crazy.

But yet they have the worst record of all states? I think now I know why.

[Boredtodeath]

18. Try again.

Oh, and BTW, you can thank the Georgia DEMOCRATS for killing that legislation.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

81. Georgia and Maryland share alot in common

Georgia and Maryland both are in a titanic battle with Diebold.
These two states seem parallel in many ways.

Both have politically powerful women in charge of their elections,
both defend Diebold with every breath,
both are being sheilded by Democrats even though it smothers the vote.

Cathy Diebold
Georgia's Secretary of State, Cathy Cox, (Democrat) could easily
be considered the official Poster Girl for Diebold Election Systems, Inc. ...
www.countthevote.org/cathy_diebold.htm

Parallel story, with equally passionate voting integrity activists -

Maryland's Elections Administrator , Linda Lamone (Democrat) is a staunch defender of Diebold:
Maryland is of national interest because Lamone is the President of the National Association of
State Election Directors (NASED) and the most vociferous advocate for paperless voting in the United States.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5932

[w4rma]

58. After reading many of your posts, I see why your legislation failed.

You have to be able to get along with other people to get legislation passed.

[Boredtodeath]

63. Bzzzt, not MY legislation

I had nothing to do with it.

But, BeFree still stole it from the Georgia activists.

[w4rma]

78. LOL. How do you "steal" legislation? (nt)

[Boredtodeath]

90. Idea. I-D-E-A

simple, right?

[robinlynne]

2. recommended.

[mod mom]

4. HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS, COUNTED AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL W

FULL PUBLIC WITNESS. Not one bit of proprietary controlled oversight involved in elections. UFB. What is going on here? DUers wanting to hand over our elections to private corporations? NOT ME no way!

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Right! So who will now vette

all these volunteers for such work? Most poll workers are 50+ and their eyesight is not the best. In my county you have about 4 people per precinct. To re-use my example elswhere and consider a small precinct with 1500 votes cast, with 25 races to determine, that will take 25 man hours to determine the count, or 6.25 hours working non-stop by four people who have been in the precinct since 6:30 AM. Wait a minute, for accuracy's sake, we have to count twice, so that jumps to 12.5 hours, and we have our crew on the job over 24 hours straight.

[mod mom]

36. funny...other democracies can do it in 4 hours. Do you realize the cost

difference between e-voting and hand counted paper ballots? I believe we could find paid workers who care enough about democracy to keep it out of the hands and control of private partisan corporations.

[IndyOp]

40. Kelvin - I live in pretty small county and I am pushing for

paper, hand counted for November -- because there isn't time/money to retrofit the DRE's with ballot printers, or to replace the existing DREs without VVPBs.

Why you couldn't have a counting team of 4 go to each poll at the end of the voting day to let the pollworkers go home?

Also, can you give me a link to some of your more elaborate estimates of amount of time it would take to hand count? I think your estimates are lower than my local officials are claiming...

:hi:

[Kelvin Mace]

67. Lower? In what way?

I am NOT saying that hand-counting cannot be conducted in SOME jurisdictions. I am talking about the logistics of a general election in MOST of the country.

Even with a team of counters, do the poll workers have to stay at their post until they arrive, or will you have multiple teams going to the polls simultaneously?

I recently was a roving tech for a primary election in a small county (16 precincts) that would mean SIXTY-FOUR counters would be needed, and even then it would take several days to count a 25 race ballot.

EVEN if we could get the man power and the money, you are greatly increasing the likelihood of problems with the count.

With OpScan, the voter handles the ballot, hands it to a precinct official who feeds it to the counter. It is counted and then the ballot is locked away until after the election. After the election, precincts are selected randomly and the ballots unlocked and and hand-counted, the totals hand-eye totals compared to the digital count. If there is ANY deviance, the hand-eye count is the OFFICIAL count. If the deviance is beyond a statistically expected norm, the WHOLE precinct and possibly the county is counted by hand.

If a machine's software has been vetted and proper security maintained, the odds of a fair and accurate election are VERY high. The more people that handle the ballots, the more the probability falls.

[IndyOp]

70. Work *with* me please --

I understand that Opscan with mandatory manual random audits is a very good system.

There is *NOT* enough time between now and November to sway my county to purchase all new equipment or to retrofit the existing DREs -- we have MicroVote machines and the company does not sell printers. Not new DREs with printers, not printers separately.

The last Congressional election went to the Republican by a margin of 250 measly votes -- a recount was ordered and there was nothing to recount! (Absentee votes were recounted, but they were a very small proportion of the total).

So no one can prove that the R did not win. Can't prove he did either.

For a moment, please back away from your favored system and give me a little help. Please.

[Kelvin Mace]

73. Sorry, didn't mean to seem as though I were giving you grief

I completely understand your predicament, and handcounting is the only way to go.

It's not my favorite system, it is the best system we can come up with that addresses all the variables.

Hand counting is still workable in some jurisdictions or in some circumstances, such as yours. :)

[IndyOp]

75. Thanks. Until we have elections more frequently so that

there are fewer votes on each ballot, it seems highly unlikely that we will go to 100% hand counts. Any tips/source regarding how to hand count? The nuts and bolts.

:hi:

[BeFree]

77. Here is one new idea

From someone who has a great deal of respect. John Washburn

http://www.washburnresearch.org/HandCountingPaperBallots.htm

It is a way of weighing Ballots that have been properly sorted.

I think it has merit, let me know what you think.

Of course, for years, many areas have hand counted votes the traditional way. It really is not to complicated, and dedicated people can figure out the kinks as they progress.

[Kelvin Mace]

79. I read a sudy on hand counting that Dr. Ted Selker (MIT)

showed me which did time studies, accuracy ratings, etc. I'll have to email him to remind me of the title.

[neoblues]

7. Onto Something There...

Hand Counted Paper is the way to go. So simple, so cheap, so easily verified...

[BeFree]

15. Exactly, HCPB

So simple and so diverse that not even BIG money can buy enough votes.

Why is America in so much trouble? BIG money has bought our democracy, we have a government BIG money has bought, and it really took off with the buying of just a few election vote counting companies.

[Bill Bored]

20. Stay Tuned.

You will soon see some auditing protocols that will require significant hand counts. These things take time to develop. They are not simple. They are not exit polls, parallel elections or other techniques subject to bias and human error and conditions on the ground. They are scientific.

You believe in science don't you? (Global warming and all that stuff.)

The fact is that if you can hand count 10-12% of the ballots in the Bilbray-Busby race, you can determine with a very high degree of certainty if there was any machine fraud sufficient to change the outcome. Do the full hand count if you can get one and you're willing to pay for it, but unless you think you can hand count 100% of every race in November, it would seem that random audits are the best bet.

FYI, there has been PLENTY of election fraud in the past when ballots were hand counted. It just wasn't high-tech machine fraud. I direct you to the comments of Rep. Jerrold Nadler at the Conyers hearings in DC on the 2004 election which you can find on C-Span. Lynn Landes testified in favor of HCPB and Nadler was dead set against it for reasons of historical fraud that he said would "make your head spin." I think Conyers' guys are on our side, don't you?

No system is safe without checks and balances. Can you imagine what would happen in a state like FL or Ohio if the thugs in charge could get their hands on hand-counted ballots? Instead of the Texas strike force making a few phone calls, they'd be ripping off a few ballot boxes in Dem strongholds with the cooperation of law enforcement who would just look the other way or conveniently happen to be out to lunch every time it happened. It's a lot harder to walk off with an optical scanner. That's why you have to rig them electronically. And that in turn is why independent audits are absolutely essential.

So are there any Vote.org's who aren't in favor of audits?

[BeFree]

22. How much in favor?

That is the question. Audits are the next step back to confidence. Do I see a lot of the Vote.orgs leading with audits? No. Do I see them posting ideas of how audits should be designed? No. I favor citizen audits... have any Vote.orgs helped citizen audits to be accepted?

What I have seen is an approval of machines, pretty much across the board. And my experience tells me to look out for the BIG money, and what do I see pretty much across the board? BIG money taking over elections via machines.

Anyone familiar with elections knows theft will be attempted at every point. What bothers me is the BIG money sitting at nearly every point along the way. These are things I am sure you agree with, Bill, and I don't disagree with your words here.

But I can no longer place any of my limited power behind the machines, it must all go against the machines, and let the chips fall where they may. In the process it will lead to audits of the machines left standing, and more confidence in the whole process, and many more HCPB elections controlled by people not machines.

I will not bed down any longer with the machines. I will oppose them at every turn and turn away from those who support the BIG money machines. It is all I can do.

[Cookie wookie]

87. The problem is not with the orgs, although

since this thread doesn't list them it's hard to know just exactly what kind of orgs you are researching (for instance if it's electionline.org, then they back DREs and are not an election integrity organization even though they say they are).

The problem here is a lack of information and assumptions based on ignorance of the issues. I'm not sure where someone could get something like a history lesson on evoting, but probably the best place to start would be to join one of the .orgs in one's state. Taking part in their activities and efforts will help bring newbees to the issue up to speed.

Another option to use as a starting point would be to read the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). It's posted online: http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm

Once that is read, it's possible to begin to have an idea of what states, their citizens and their elections officials, have been facing in terms of meeting the requirements of HAVA for access by the disabled community to independently and privately being able to vote. HAVA is the Trojan Horse, so to speak, that ushered in all the evoting machines, because vendors used that requirement in a dishonest way to persuade state election officials to purchase evoting technology because it was supposed to be accessible for the disabled. Some in the disabled community threatened or sued states to try to force evoting technology. Other states, like Georgia, were sued by the ACLU and NAACP, which was settled out of court by bringing in the machines. That's another story.

Some politicians, like Senate Democrat Christopher Dodd, for instance who was one of the authors of HAVA, made a public statement (via a letter) that putting voter verified paper ballots on paperless DREs would disenfranchise the disabled. That was good for killing legislation in a couple of states, Georgia being one, in 2004. It also was not true.

There has been so much misinformation spread by vendors to elections officials and then from them to legislators and citizens that combating it, without a free, independent and truth-seeking press, has been a long and arduous process.

This is a very complex subject which takes lots of time to learn about, but for those who wish to make statements and offer suggestions about how to solve the country's election problems, it's never too late to jump in and do the work of learning.

The premise of this thread, that the elections integrity movement is in it for "BIG money" is in itself an example of ignorance of the issues involved. The elections integrity movement and their .orgs are almost all composed of citizens with jobs and families and responsibilities and pressures etc. They dedicate their time, skills, and effort to the issue because they want to take our country back. Any suggestion it's for money is ridiculous. There is no money to be had in getting secure, accurate, transparent, verifiable elections.

The money and corruption is in trying to do the opposite.

[BeFree]

88. Howdy

Welcome to the ER, cookie wookie, and thanks for that education. The newbies can use it.

Glad to see you have faith in the .orgs, and Lawd knows I wouldn't want you to lose any of that well founded faith... but I am not worried that you or any of the other knowledgeable folks might, just 'cause ol' BeFree posts a rip at Vote.orgs.

The fact is, however, there is no money in HCPB. So it pays to be aware, and, as they say, follow the money.

Now, I think HCPB are the way back from the brink and machines are over the edge. And HCPB are a lot harder to steal by the millions, something that machines can do at the click of a mouse. So for me, HCPB are the gold standard, and any real voter group that wants the gold standard and not just gold, should say so, right up front. IMO

[Cookie wookie]

91. Read HAVA yet?

The point being, it's easy to say HCPB, but another thing entirely to make it happen.

Something that's good to know and that has a bearing on what activists are doing and effects their decisions on strategy -- politics. Getting legislation passed is all about politics. Grassroots activists aren't elected officials or in control of elections in their state. It's not as if one gets the idea in their head (lightbulb flashing), walks down to their local Board of Elections, says they want HCPB, and voila! woopee there it is.

[BeFree]

94. Yes I have read HAVA do a search for my discussions

There is nothing in HAVA that discourages HCPB.

America has used HCPB for years. It isn't a new idea. But it still is the most accurate and least prone to widespread fraud.

I also know a good bit about legislation and how politics works. And I did get my BOE to at least ponder HCPB, but the free HAVA money was to enticing for them.

Tell ya something about HAVA. It's funding will be drying up after this election without further appropriations. So, soon it will come before the congress and we will be there (unified?) to argue our case. My case will be de-fund most of HAVA and return to HCPB, or a system that can be proven to be better than HCPB. That's a damn good argument, don't you think?

Too, HAVA may not be refunded. What happens then?

In any case, we will be there to press our case for, against, or whatever, and using the argument I laid out above may just lead to substantial improvements overall. Do you have a better argument? I am all ears.

[Cookie wookie]

98. So, you know more than it seems.

It's hard to tell because of your criticism of the ".orgs". You then do understand that the ".orgs" were facing the same politics that you faced with your BOE. Many of them have gotten paper on their evoting machines by working incrementally, not trying to do it all in one fell swoop. They may not have stopped the DREs from coming, and they may not have all gotten paper on the DREs, but activists in 26 states did (because it sure wasn't the politicians or the elections officials who did that) and 12 of those states also got requirements for regular audits.

As for me, I worked with the group who wrote the Vote Count Protection Act which calls for hand counts of voter-verified paper ballots on election night in all precincts. It was introduced with bipartisan support this legislative session in Georgia, SB591 (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb591.htm).

In addition to that, I've been working with the group, Georgians for Verified Voting , to get Diebold decertified in Georgia before the November 2004 election and to get paper ballots for that election, with significant audits of optiscan counts.

[BeFree]

100. Good for you Cookie

I bet things have been a lot better in Ga. since the bad apples fell from the tree?

I see now why I've gathered such ire... I blasted the Ga. situation and several of you Ga. people took notice. That's fine.

But I tell ya... I don't have blind trust for anybody or anything, .orgs included. I only 'conjectured' about why .orgs didn't have HCPB on the front pages. I didn't accuse any of them of anything except to point out that I can only conjecture that BIG money may have some influence.

You do know there has been a spate of financial questions on this board recently? Well, I too took displeasure, at first, of these types of questions. But sitting back and reflecting on things I begin to see the wisdom of asking questions about such things, hence this thread.

I am sure you agree that people who have questions have the right to ask those questions, and maybe even conjecture a bit?

[Cookie wookie]

101. Is that what it's called, conjecture?

How about some indication of wrong doing prior to conjecture? Anyone can cook up anything out of the clear blue.

So before conjecturing, one might actually do the research to see if there is any reason on God's earth to be calling the integrity of groups into question.

You might find that with a couple, or maybe just one, exception, election integrity activist groups made up of grassroots activists don't have ANY money. Just guts, no glory either, obviously from the behavior of many at DU.

[BeFree]

102. Well, yes

I did find something wrong.... the fact that they don't have HCPB on the front pages. That they are playing along with the game of using computers to capture our votes. A game we are losing. I say change the rules, change them to where we don't play the computer game.

Or do you like the game in which they make all the rules?

I don't like your 'tude. You have come on to me like I don't know anything, and it continues. You don't know who you are messing with do you?

[Kelvin Mace]

25. Now don't go injecting science, logic

and rational discourse into this, you'll just contradict the truthiness.

We require random handcounts in ALL our counties following an election. The number of ballots to be sampled is determined by a statistician at UNC.

Why is it these folks have complete faith in exit polls (projecting winners based on sampling), but not random handcount sampling, which can detect fraud with the same accuracy?

[MH1]

38. Key phrase: "if the thugs in charge could...."

Yep, if you have precincts with election boards composed solely of members of one party, and the other party can't even muster enough trained poll watchers on Election Day to cover those precincts....HCPB won't help you at all in those precincts.

With or without HCPB one of the most important steps for the Dem party is to have poll workers and watchers in EVERY precinct on Election Day - and make sure they know what they are there for.

[Bill Bored]

82. Sounds good to me. E-fraud isn't the only fraud. It's just more subtle. nt

[Cookie wookie]

86. Evoting carries other dangers that paper ballots

don't. If someone steals a box of paper ballots or even 20 boxes, someone is going to notice if all the rules and regulations regarding the transparent and unbroken custody of the ballots are in place and observed in the state at the time of the incident.

If someone steals an entire state's election using the software in the DREs, very few accomplices are needed, and actually this could be done with one person, as stated above (according to findings in the Brennan Center report).

So really the two kinds of fraud are not comparable. Evoting fraud is not just subtle, it can be done without leaving any fingerprints and effect the whole nation, if evoting machines all have corrupt software (which doesn't strike me as farfetched given the ownership of the vendors, and the flawed regulatory processes in place).

[Wilms]

83. Excellent point.

I've worried about that as my bias is HCPB.

Stands to reason that HCPB should be rigorously audited, too.

[Cookie wookie]

85. "With or without HCPB one of the most important steps for the Dem party"

I'd say that statement is incorrect if the object is to have a clean election and that election is conducted on electronic paperless voting technology. Having Democrats as poll workers and poll watchers in every precinct on election day wouldn't stop a hack, or a Trojan Horse that had been installed at any number of vulnerable points in the process of getting the software from the vendor to the voter's DRE (for instance during ITA testing, in COTS software which the Voting System Standards don't require to be examined, or during the creation of ballot definition files). If someone goes to all the trouble to try to steal an election, they are not going to get far if they are trying to hack a DRE at the precinct on election day in person, which is what observers might catch maybe if they knew what they were looking for. They could even hack wireless DREs from a near location and not be seen .

According to the Brennan Center report one person could change the results at the top of the ticket for an entire state by using a Trojan Horse, inserted as stated above. No one at the polls on election day could see it anymore than they could see an actual virus if someone had been in the room the night before coughing.

[Bill Bored]

97. Yes, yes. No one is arguing for paperless e-voting or not auditing paper

ballots. Are they?

The same Brennan report makes it quite clear that paper ballots are of little use if they're not randomly audited. And they only looked at statewide races. The problem is much worse with smaller races.

[Cookie wookie]

99. Yes, true. n/t

[troubleinwinter]

47. There ya go! Right straight on.

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Anyone who is serious about this issue has learned

that you are never going to get hand-counted paper ballots. It is impractical given the the size of many ballots and the lack of sufficient volunteers for such a task and the time it would take to count major elections.

Please spare me the comparisons to Canada, as that country does not have ballots involving 30/40/50 races/issues at a time.

[BeFree]

24. Solution

Break down the elections into manageable parts that can be hand counted. So never say never. It can be done, it is just a matter of will and using our heads, eyes and hands. And the first thing we do with our appendages is unplug the damn machines!

I don't want electrified elections!

[Kelvin Mace]

28. If you don't want "electrified" elections, move

to a country with no electricity.

No matter HOW you break things down, you will create a logistical nightmare and require an army of counters. Personally, I would prefer machine counts (OpScan) with an a small army watching the random sampling hand counts, which, like exit polling, are highly effective at spotting fraud.

As someone pointed out, it's called science, and is all the rage.

The more humans you insert into a system, the more chances you have for mishap (fraud, miscount, destruction/altering of ballots whether accidental or deliberate.

Assume a simple election with 25 races on the ballot. Assume a small county with six employees of the BoE doing the counting. In order to have any chance of ACCURATELY recording the results you would have to count each ballot 25 times (each ballot is about 11x17). If a person can count 25 ballots a minute (remember, you are dealing with large pieces of paper which must be counted ACCURATELY, and you must deal with people not marking the ballot exactly according to instructions) and there are 25,000 ballots cast, you need 16.6 man hours to count ONE race, 416.7 man hours to count the entire election. Divide by the six employees, and it takes 69.4 hours to count this small county, almost THREE DAYS working 24 hours a day. REalistically, we are not going to have these people working 69 hours straight, so we break it up into 8 hour days and we don't get our election results until almost NINE days later.

Oh yeah, folks are going to wait NINE days to find out who won the election.

So, what can we do to speed things up? We can add more people, right? But WHO vettes these people? Who will insure that the folks volunteering to count ballots aren't GOP staff members (remember Florida)?

And should we not count the ballots TWICE to be sure our count is accurate? Now we have to wait almost THREE weeks for the results. And what happens if the results differ? Do we counts a THIRD time? How big a deviation is acceptable?

What happens when we move into my county which has 12 employees, but must count 300,000 ballots? How about in places like NYC where a million people will vote?

Any attempt to speed things up requires more people, more money and more supervision (which requires more people and more money) and increases the likelihood of ballots being lost or damaged.

And as we add people, can we only add one counter? Don't we need a counter from each party who will then cast votes to determine if they agree that the vote on the ballot is for a particular candidate?

Folks, do the MATH!

No election is "tamper-proof". The best you can hope for is "highly tamper-resistant". You pick the most reliable means to tally the votes, you employ various safeguard to prevent chicanery, and your prosecute the living daylights out of anyone caught screwing around.

In this day and age this translates into OpScan, random hand-counts of a statistically significant portion of the ballots, with reasonable trustworthy people watching.

This gives us the safety of paper, the speed of computers, with human guardians armed with statistical mathematics for fairness and accuracy.

[BeFree]

53. Move? WTF? Hell no!!

I can't believe you would say such a thing - "MOVE", if you don't like it. That reminds me of the damn redneck warmongers from the 60's. You hit a nerve there, son.

But then you say the exit polls are good at spotting fraud. Good, I will compromise with you.

Money: $4 billion in HAVA dollars would pay an awful lot of wages to people to hand count the ballots. And pretty soon, HAVA will be unfunded leaving us with machines that will be defunct pieces of crap, where will more machine money come from then? I will await your answer.

One count of the ballots would suffice. Then an audit to compare.

Time: it took a full month for many races to be finally counted by machine, so that throws the time factor out, try again.

Look, we can go round and round. It is obvious you want machines and I don't. Tell you what, put up a thread with your ideas and see what everyone thinks. No sense hiding our fine arguments deep down in this one.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. It's called sarcasm...

sheesh.

Sorry you dislike my view that hand counts are impractical. But, that is reality. You are NEVER going to convince this country to go back to hand counting. If we had tried to make this point in NC we would have been laughed out of th office.

An audit woulod be a second hand count, which goes back to days, possibly weeks for races to be decided.

Yes, a few races were up in the air (here in NC we had one race undecided 18 months after the fact, but that had NOTHING to do with paper versus electrons). But 99% of the races were resolved in 12-24 hours. You are not going to get a modern civilization to wait a week or more to resolve its elections.

And also, you didn't address the point that even IF you get more people (and spend the money to do it EVERY election, you just are making your security problem WORSE.

Time to come back to reality, Dr. Pangloss.

[BeFree]

68. Pangloss? WTF?

I'll take it as just another of your misspellings. <grin>

Anyway.... you may wish to continue to hold hands with ES&S, but as for me, I am breaking my bond with them, until such time as a process better and more reliable than the machines we currently live under are truly reformed.

I know you don't believe the election was stolen by the machines, and so, we disagree. That's fine.

For me, I chose to be free of the machines and their ilk, and I will fight them all the way. I will not pretend to be their friend for they represent all that is wrong with my country.

Live free or die!

[Kelvin Mace]

71. Nope, not mispelling

look it up. Dr. Pangloss was a fellow who had problems dealing with reality.

In the best of all possible worlds, your solution might just work. Sadly, this is the real world.

I resent the ES&S crack. I don't hold hands with ANY voting machine company and have a long enough record to prove it. Are you implying that I have some affiliation with them? If so, speak up and make your accusation.

[BeFree]

74. You support having ES&S machines in your state

Right? I didn't say you had a hand in their pocket or that they were feeling you up or that you had sex with ES&S, just that you are holding their hand as they reap the money and count the votes while you hope and pray they are honest enough no(t) to roll you over and.....I'll stop.

Its an analogy.

I will not hold their hands, I did for awhile... I allowed them room to operate. And you know what? After giving them an inch, they stole a mile long list of votes. No, settle down, not in your state, necessarily, but all over the country.

I noticed you did not refute my idea that you don't think the election was stolen election. Well yes, we have gone over that before.... I guess that's why.... ah, never mind.

strike and (t) on edit

[Kelvin Mace]

80. I support OpScan system

with all the appropriate safeguards in place. Safeguards so stringent, Diebold refused to comply with them and left the state behind rather than risk criminal prosecuion for failing to comply.

[Boredtodeath]

31. So, I assume you've volunteered to be a pollworker?

So you can learn the ropes?

[BeFree]

48. When it all goes paper, hell ya.

This election I will spend a lot of time to get us in a position to audit the damn machines. An herioc task, I am afraid, given the secretive nature of the machine lovers. I may have to bust some balls along the way.

[Kelvin Mace]

72. So, you don't wish to be bothered to actually LEARN

how the system you wish to change works, you just want to change it with no idea what would result from those changes, how much they would cost o whether they are even possible.

[BeFree]

76. Wrong

And not worthy of a further reply.

[Wilms]

27. How come some jurisdiction still Hand Count, then?

It ain't many, and it's a lot less since so many people think HAVA mandates electronics.

But there are a handful of jurisdictions that still Hand Count the vote.

Sufficient numbers volunteers? The trend seems to be we are losing poll workers who can't or don't want to deal with electronic voting. And the way that's being addressed is by reducing the number of polling places. Not cool.

I'm not entirely against PBOS with rigorous auditing, and I can't reasonably dismiss Hand Counts.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. Some jurisdictions hand count

because they are very small and the ballots tend to be simple.

Can you imagine handcounting the California recall which had 200+ candidates to pick from?

I spent an election day with a small county using OpScan. The opinion was universal from the voters and the election officials. They loved it.

Only one county, but you couldn't persuade these people to go NEAR a DRE.

[Wilms]

45. I'll bet most precincts are "very small and the ballots tend to be simple"

The CA recall is a pretty unique example. Too, unique.

I didn't know that we were discussing people that "loved" OpScan. The issue is could hand counts be done.

[Kelvin Mace]

62. No, it is not unique, it is pretty common

throughtout the US. During an general election you can get 30+ items on a ballot when you count city, state, county and federal elections, propsitions, bond issues, etc.

[Kelvin Mace]

69. Because they can, because their voting base

is so small that it is actually cheaper to do things that way.

Might I remind you that under the electoral system, it is the major population centers that carry all the weight?

There are 3500+ counties in the United States, and thus 3,500+ ways to count ballots, 3,500+ definitions of how one qualifies to vote, and 3,500+ definitions of what constitutes a ballot.

Yes, some states have laws that supersede local jurisdictions, but even then, many things are left to the discretion of local voting officials.

The laws governing elections in NC is 1,400+ pages long. I lay odds that the law books in CA and NY are even bigger.

[Kurovski]

34. K&R!

Paper ballots, hand counted. It's the only way. It's the best way.

And every other Democracy on god's green earth damn well knows it.

[IndyOp]

37. The Mexican election using paper ballots was just stolen.

Venezuala just had a lovely election on voting machines that printed paper ballots. (If anyone lurking here thinks Chavez got in because he cheated, I suggest that you go to Venezuala. Chavez has offered to let people come count the paper ballots by hand).

There IS no perfect system. The price of free and fair elections is eternal vigilance.

There must be voter-verified paper ballots and mandatory manual random audits or 100% hand counts.

I am working to get paper ballots, hand counted in my county for November because there isn't enough time to purchase new equipment or retrofit the existing DREs with paper ballot printers.

Also - I can say that VotersUnite.org has on it somewhere a letter that reassures a counties with paper ballots that they do NOT have to buy electronic machines that they can keep on with their paper ballots, 100% hand counted.

BeFree - I read, and respect, your posts. This one, IMO, is needlessly inflammatory. The people from VotersUnite, VerifiedVoting, VoterAction, FairVote, VelvetRevolution, and Solarbus who are working their asses off to improve the system don't deserve to be the target of a circular firing squad. I don't know who you had in mind, but these are the sites I refer to most often.

[mod mom]

52. Indyop, certainly any system can be subject to fraud, but with proper

oversight and procedure, HCPB, counted at the precinct level with public viewing is a much better method that privatized electronic voting equipment with proprietary software, absurd failure rates and severe security issues. Our elections must be audited and transparent or else we end up with diastrous results like we are witnessing right now.

The ES&S system my county currently is using has a paper ballot so miniscule, as to deter those who wish to audit. How convenient-right?

[BeFree]

66. IndyOp, that's fine

Mine was a general question, an alarm if you will, and also a prompt to the groups to not casually dismiss HCPB.

It came in response to the seeming Choicepoint influence upon on or more groups. That got me thinking and my suspicious mind wandered a bit and found in the back of it the seeming casual dismissal of HCPB. That coupled with the other thread about all the other influence upon our voting systems by the CIA, etc, really began to feed the suspicion.

You will note, I did not single out any particular dot org. I do sincerely hope none are encumbered by any undue influence.

Peace.

[troubleinwinter]

54. smears of activist orgs being "bought and paid for"

I have a list on bookmarks of twenty or so Vote.orgs.

Knowing of the BIG money behind the use of voting machines, I can only conjecture that they all are bought and paid for by the BIG money which corrupts the very core of our country and our democracy.

Are you insinuating that whatever orgs who you refer to, working for removal DREs, demanding voter verified paper ballots, enacting proper thorough auditing and random recounts are 'on the take'?

I also do not support all hand count. Am I then 'on the take'? "Bought and paid for"?

The smearing and trashing of legitimate election reform orgs and activists by the Branch Bevidians is despicable.

[Boredtodeath]

57. ROFLMAO - Branch Bevidians!!!!!!! I LOVE IT.

And, yes, it IS a cult.

[BeFree]

59. Wait!

Aren't you the one who has been claiming this group or that group needs to be coming clean with their money? Don't tell me you pick and chose at will? What's good for one, I say, is good for all. Right? I knew you would agree.

And I will not stoop to name calling anymore. It got my thread locked, and many posts deleted, and rightfully so. We don't need to be calling each other names, although, you are rather successful at it, dear trouble.

[troubleinwinter]

60. Yes.

Yes, I believe in financial transparency. "Coming clean with their money".

How many 990s have you looked at? How many have I looked at?

I don't know about you "Name calling", "thread locked", "posts deleted"? I really don't know. I usually don't read most of your posts. To paraphrase Ronnie Raygun, "Ya seen one tree, ya seen em all."

I only know that you dropped into the threads regarding BBV 990 a couple of times... just momentarily, only long enough to utterly dismiss the subject of actually LOOKING at a 990.

Some very interesting questions there.... Why were payroll taxes not deposited for an entire year? Did contributors donations pay the IRS "big penalties" (Bev's words)? Why doesn't the supposed Qui Tam "donation" show? Why wasn't this form prepared by a CPA when Bev spoke many times of a CPA? Why is it such a mess with errors and annomalies? Where is Schedule B?

Since you have made insinuations about 20 organizations, maybe we should discuss these "20" and the issues of BBV's 990.

[BeFree]

61. Since you do not read me then

I'll say it again: The obsession on those threads was stupid, when there are so many other, bigger enemies to battle.

I just found it curious what you pick on and choose to vent about, especially when really big problems like Choicepoint and Diebold loom over your country.

Like I say: do what you want, but don't expect others to not notice and comment upon.

I appreciate your comments on my conjecture about the 20. Lets hope I am totally wrong, eh? But knowing the forces we face, and that Bev is comparatively minor, it is a question that someone of your disposition might tackle. Don't you think?

[Cookie wookie]

64. Georgia had legislation introduced in 2004,

2005 and 2006 for voter verified paper ballots. In 2004 and 2005 the bills called for paper technology to be put on the Diebold voting stations. The 2004 bill went through the Senate before being killed under the leadership of Cathy Cox (currently running on the Diebold ticket for governor).

In 2006, a bipartisan group of legislators led by Vincent Fort, a Democrat, introduced legislation authored by a group of Georgia activists, the Voter Choice Coalition, who had been trying to get legislation introduced for full hand counts at the precincts on the night of the election of voter verified paper ballots.

Information about that and other legislation is posted on the Georgians for Verified Voting (GAVV) website: http://www.gaforverifiedvoting.org/legislation.htm

I don't know if Georgia is the only state to have legislation that calls for full hand counts of voter verified paper ballots, but if you've only looked at twenty or so voting organizations, you might want to use the GAVV activist links to research more: http://www.gaforverifiedvoting.org/docs/voting_activists.htm.

[Cookie wookie]

92. the link above had an error.

http://www.gaforverifiedvoting.org/docs/voting_activists.htm

[flyingobject]

93. have you tried to change things?

Did you want someone else to do all of the hard work for you?

Have you talked to -
your county and state election officials
your county commissioners
your local and state political party
your state lawmakers
your US congressmen

Have you
started an organization
set up an email list
done presentations to groups
set up a website
set up fliers
set up a petition
asked a lawmaker to sponsor legislation
written letters or op/eds to the editor

[BeFree]

95. Who are you?

What have you done but criticize and be negative?
To answer your questions:
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO, he's one of the biggest pukes, but I have publicly criticized him and will soon be working on the dem campaign against him as I did the last time he ran and was GIVEN re-election by machines that I helped our BOE, county, and state get rid of.
I am it in my locale, yes
no
no
Yes
no
no
Oh yeah, lots

Like you really care, right?

And I worked on several very big local issues that were won after many people telling me I was wasting my time.

Thanks for asking. It brings back some good memories, ahhh yes, good memories. We kicked some ass!