Dick Thornburgh&Richard Celeste:We better have backup plan for elec voting

[kpete]

Dick Thornburgh and Richard Celeste: We'd better have a backup plan for electronic voting
So many things could go wrong with new systems, and so much is at stake on election day.
Dick Thornburgh and Richard Celeste
Published: September 01, 2006


Dick Thornburgh and Richard Celeste: We'd better have a backup plan for electronic voting


Jeffrey Mallow and Steven Lubet: Teachers shouldn't rally their students behind Pluto's cause
For many years, election officials have kept the machinery of American democracy running in the face of sometimes overwhelming difficulties. But this November's elections will pose unprecedented challenges to them.

For many jurisdictions, the 2006 elections will see the first large-scale use of electronic voting systems. Many organizations have learned the hard way that deployment and use of new technologies on a large scale virtually guarantee big surprises and unintended consequences: sudden system crashes, corrupted data or painfully slow systems. The usual remedies are to develop, test and evaluate small-scale prototypes before committing to organization-wide upgrades in technology, and to keep both old and new systems running for a while so that failures in the new system do not paralyze operations.

Unfortunately, faced with the deadlines for deploying enhanced voting systems that were set by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, most electoral jurisdictions have been unable to follow this prudent path. That's why we believe it will be essential this year that jurisdictions have backup and contingency plans that anticipate a wide range of possible failures in their electronic voting systems, including those that occur in the middle of the voting process on Election Day (or days).

more at:
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/648605.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. Gee, why is that? Bust the Machines--Vote Absentee!

"...faced with the deadlines for deploying enhanced voting systems that were set by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, most electoral jurisdictions have been unable to follow this prudent path."

This was because Tom Delay, Bob Ney and Christopher Dodd--the biggest crooks ever to walk the halls of Congress--fast-tracked the installation of electronic voting, which uses TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations--with virtually no audit/recount controls--by appropriating a $4 billion electronic boondoggle for Bush's buds at Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia*, using that money as a bribe or a bludgeon, and furthermore permitting unregulated lavish lobbying and other corrupt practices to spread this blight all the faster.

The only concern of the election theft corporations, in profiting from this boondoggle, is that their machines be extremely insecure and insider hackable, so that they could rig the elections in favor of bad government. They didn't care if the machines break-down, miscount, count backwards, etc.--in fact, they prefer it. It provides all the more opportunity for corporate personnel to access the machines and run the elections, because nobody--that is, no elected or authorized person--understands the TRADE SECRET programming like they do.

It reminds me of Rumsfeld and the looting of Baghdad. Profit from chaos.

Why do so many analysts of this situation--an absolutely compromised, non-transparent voting system--come at it backasswards, by STARTING with the smaller difficulties of running an election theft system. Breakdowns? I'm not sure I care about "breakdowns"--if the machines are putting a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites and warmongers (which I have no doubt they are doing). Maybe "breakdowns" are good. Then we can spot the unauthorized Diebold hacker who is switching memory cards; or, maybe paper ballots will have to be provided, so everyone can vote, while this crapass machinery is "fixed."

They rammed it through. It is a train wreck on purpose. Go back to how it was born--in the Anthrax Congress, with the chief engineers of it, Tom Delay and Bob Ney now indicted or resigned in bribery scandals. HAVA was passing over Bob Ney's desk at the same time as the Abramoff bribes. The election theft bill was DESIGNED to put Bushite corporations in charge of our elections with powers of SECRECY and technical control that could not be challenged. It is difficult to understand--nay, it is mind-boggling--how this bill got through Congress, except that they all inhaled too much anthrax. As for Bilderberg 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd--he's now running for president. Did you hear him on the Al Franken Show yesterday (just as they were axing Mike Malloy)? Christ. Mr. Diebold himself wants to be the President of the United Corporate States of America--and Diebold does owe him a big one, I'll say that.

BOYCOTT THE MACHINES THIS NOVEMBER! DON'T VOTE ON THEM! VOTE ABSENTEE!

As I've said, AB votes are not "safe" either--and will not insure accurate vote counts this fall--but if we have MASSIVE AB voting, FLOODING these corrupt election officials with MOUNTAINS of paper AB votes, the point will be made that citizen confidence in this system is GONE, and we CAN thereby FORCE them to the table NOW, with demands for a return to TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE voting counting--and save the '08 primaries and general election from TRADE SECRET corporate control of the results.


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

* And here they are:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by Wally O'Dell, a Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer," right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship; they are run by two brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich.

These are the people who "counted" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004, under a veil of corporate secrecy.

The third big election theft player, Sequoia, employs Republican former CA Sec of State, Bill Jones, and his chief aide, Alfie Charles, to peddle their machines--in the highly corrupt practice of "revolving door" employment.

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

It seems to me that this is all you need to know, to know that we MUST bust these machines--and that we must do it NOW. There don't seem to be any other good plans for doing it. People are just sort of throwing up their hands, and talking "train wreck." Well, if nobody will vote on these crapass machines, no "train wreck," right? We procure our own paper Absentee Ballot and send it in, or hand deliver it. And they have to count it, by hand, if necessary (ha, ha!). Count MOUNTAINS of them! FLOODS of them. The machines cannot "break down," because the machines will not be in use--nobody will vote on them. Problem solved.**

**(Well, not fully solved--because of their mishandling of AB votes--but it's on its way.)

[bleever]

4. I vote absentee because

while it might not be any more likely to be counted (and how the hell can I even know?), it opts out of one step in the electronic voting scheme.

I don't want to fund these machines, so I agree that using the absentee ballot might not be the ultimate solution to securing elections but it is an immediately powerful act that directs election resources away from paperless voting, and into paper-based alternatives which in the form of absentee ballots can be found almost everywhere.


In short, transfer the resource demand to the paper they're already required to provide.

[diva77]

6. while I agree with the reasoning, there is another problem with absentee-

elections officials will be more inclined to close down precincts and centralize voting to voting centers as the number of election day voters decreases -- bad news for checks and balances of counting at precinct level and of pollworkers monitoring the polls

how 'bout provisional ballots in counties with DREs -- are the provisionals paper? that way you could show up at the polls and have paper -- does anyone know?

[bleever]

2. An incredibly sensible article from two senior member of each party.

Recommended.

And it brings up the question: why don't we have backup systems for ALL elections?

[Land Shark]

3. Get ready for TOTAL FAILURE of elections, in other words.

yeah, we should have a backup plan because if the machines don't work, we can't have elections. If we can't have elections, how do we get rid of the incumbents? Hmmmmmmm......... Maybe some won't exactly be working 24/7 on backup plans, eh?

[bleever]

5. I took it as a call for double-bookkeeping, which seemed

surprising, considering it included Reagan's AG, who wasn't shy of rabidly partisan acts when called for.


On another topic: do you have an opinion about the advisability of people voting absentee, given the opportunity?

Of course it has its own vulnerabilities, but does it help to de-fund the electronic machines if enough people do it?

I vote absentee, figuring it's easier for someone to lose my electronic input than it is a big-ass envelope that's signed and hand-delivered.

[Land Shark]

7. yes, from Reagan's AG, perhaps you should take it differently...!

In answer to your question, in many cases absentee may be somewhat less problematic (though still problematic). I don't think voting absentee PER SE sends a message. I'd send the message along with the ballot or in a separate envelope indicating to the elections officials the meaning of the absentee vote in no uncertain terms. Otherwise, they'll pat themselves on the back for having once again found an ingenious way to 'serve' the voters.

[bleever]

8. Thanks. And I was wrong, he was AG for Bush 1. nt

[AtLiberty]

9. Someone's finally picking up the clue phone...

It's only been ringing for six years...