Has this election quieted any of our worries about Diebold?

[treestar]

Remembering all the "fix is in" type posts, but now thinking, maybe the repubs don't have a Diebold fix after all.

[Touchdown]

1. Affter 3 hours of trying to vote in Denver...

Not here. Not by a longshot!

[treestar]

5. How did the election turn out?

The inconvenience part, sure, but do we have faith they count the votes right now or still think they may be cheating?

[KittyWampus]

44. personally, I think the Democrats won by higher margins

[Misskittycat]

49. I agree. I think we really won bigger. Also, taking voter suppression

efforts into account (robo-calling; purging names from voter lists; etc.)I think it was a bigger win.

[Touchdown]

51. Nobody knows, as there's no paper ballots in Colorado.

It's all paperless electronic, and has been that way as far as I know since 1998, when I first voted here, before I ever heard of BBV.

Only Dems with overhwelming poll numbers won. Denver's problems were only replicated in working class Adams County. Both majority Dem. Picture ID was required, and part of Colorado law. IMO, a form of disenfranchisement.

Domestic Partners looked to be close to a win. It lost by 10 points.

I wonder if we had paper, would Marilyn, The God Warrior would be sent back to Congress? Pretty close at 46% to 43%. How do we REALLY know that her district is heavy Republican? Because the media says so, or the electronic machines prove it?

Did legal Marajuana posession really lose by that much?

Nobody knows, because there's no paper to double check.

The voter verification bottleneck that struck Denver Yesterday not withstanding, once we got through that, we stillvoted on paperless electronic machines. The only paper we got was an "I Voted" sticker for our T-Shirts.

[treestar]

53. There really should be a way to double check

That is inexcusable.

[meldroc]

95. Depends on what part of Colorado.

I worked as a Democratic poll watcher in Larimer County.

What machines are being used and whether they have paper trails depends on the county.

Where I voted and watched the polls (Fort Collins, CO) we used both optical scan and touchscreen machines, and you were given the choice between voting on paper or electronically ("Paper or vapor.") All of the touchscreen machines (Diebold TSX) had the printers with the Voter-Verified Paper Audit Record. And the lines at my place were kept to a minimum (usually no more than 10-15 minutes) though other places in Fort Collins (CSU's Lory Student Center) had long lines, probably because of lots of students voting. It still went more smoothly than Denver

But yeah, a lot of the places in Denver did not do this. Many of the machines didn't have the V-VPAR paper trail, and the places didn't give you the choice of voting on an optical scan ballot. That and there were some computer crashes that slowed things down quite a bit. People were still in line to vote at 11:00pm in Denver.

One thing I will immediately push for from my newly elected officials is mandatory paper trails on all voting machines in the US, mandatory choice between paper and electronic voting, and rigorous auditing procedures.

[oc2002]

2. No, we need to reform all federal races to include auditable and verifications

Or the Dems are simply a gaggle of fools, who will be out again.

[treestar]

13. IA, they all need a paper trail

I don't think the issue should be dropped.

[Auggie]

3. No. We deserve something hack-proof

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. No. I feel a little better that they were better watched this time, but I won't

feel great until the tabulating process involves paper at some level and the software is no longer closed to the public.

[slackmaster]

31. Yes, open source code would be great

But not absolutely necessary as long as chain of custody and an effective auditing system are used.

[bloom]

6. No

I tend to think that "they" didn't figure that they could get away with stealing it every time. It would look too fishy.

I expect there is a plan to swift boats the Democrats in time for 2008 - and in the meantime create the illusion that we don't have a one party state.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. NO! The machines should now be used as lawn ornament in repuke front yards!

LOSE the machines for good! PAPER AND PEN ONLY!

[seabeyond]

8. no. i think there are a couple races to look at that we need to take

a look at and i want the damn machines to quit flipping dem to repug and making it hard to vote dem. sorry. i know that is asking a lot when i hit dem it stays on dem.... but i want it

[shadowknows69]

9. I think it started getting too much attention

They may be saving the really big fix for 2008. The Dems need to dismantle the Unitarian Executive before then or get rid of the machines.

[treestar]

15. IA, I thought the fix may be possible in Presidential elections

where they can focus on one election, but wouldn't be possible with the 500+ elections involved in Congress.

[Porcupine]

25. Agreed. GOP decided to lose now and hack 2008.

These people have no intention of playing fair in the long run. We are talking people who lied to start a war and initiated policies of torture and abuse.

[slackmaster]

33. Another way to perpetuate the Conspiracy without proving it exists

"They" are lurking in the shadows. They gave us this one election so we'd let our guard down.

Pretty dastardly bunch, eh?

[mhatrw]

69. Does it really matter if such a "conspiracy" exists?

Do you actually think the current absence of such a conspiracy would somehow justify insecure unauditable voting machines?

[slackmaster]

80. Of course not

I challenge the Conspiracy theorists purely for entertainment. I am very serious about the need for auditable, secure voting processes.

[porphyrian]

10. Hell no, they're completely insecure. - n/t

[helderheid]

11. No. Thank goodness we have control and can now get rid of the machines.

[Junkdrawer]

12. No. But the media will be dismissing voting machine worries...

in big way over the next several weeks. I've been predicting that for a while now.

[treestar]

16. You can bet on that

That's why I think it should still be pursued. They may not be able to "fix" Congress but it doesn't mean they aren't still trying on that.

[Patsy Stone]

14. Not for me.

It's still a mess and we need major election reform.

[treestar]

18. That's true, we need to make sure they are unhackable before

they get the chance to try to hack another one.

[Patsy Stone]

24. I'd settle for a paper trail

for starters. :)

The whole system needs an overhaul. Every little bit of it needs to be examined.

[Big Sky Boy]

22. Amen to that

Nothing will ever be fail-safe. But we need a more audi table system. Too many opportunities for fraud.

The 2004 debacle in Ohio as it turned out was not a centrally executed master plan, but rather the summation of a host of questionable tactics from dozens (if not hundreds) of unscrupulous people. An accurate vote count died the death of a thousand tiny cuts.

We have no way of knowing that people who were fed up with Bush, didn't do the same thing -- only for the other side -- yesterday.

We need accountability -- so all of us can be confident that the results are the will of the people.

[cmd]

17. We had many breakdowns in our county.

The things are worthless.

[uppityperson]

19. as I said last night, No no no.

It needs to be fixed. Just because they couldn't get away with it this time doesn't mean all is ok. No way.

[marions ghost]

20. Nah

:argh:

[aquart]

21. No. The machines are a disaster.

[AngryOldDem]

23. I still don't trust it

Some races, like here in Ohio with Strickland and Blackwell, were virtually tamper-proof. The margins were just too great to be manipulated without it being obvious. And there were many "problems" such as improperly loaded software, etc., to still make it a questionable means to count votes.

[Mr_Spock]

26. Their machines still SUCK!

The repukes may not have the control some have assumed, but the machines are still prone to calibration problems and are STILL hackable. They need to be destroyed & replaced with something that prints a little card showing who you voted for - like a receipt - don't tell me you don't get a receipt when you get money from a Diebold ATM!!

[grace0418]

27. Absolutely not. What happened last night is what I *wanted* to happen

in 2004. I wanted enough Dems (and frustrated Repubs, and independents) to go out and simply OVERCOME all the dirty tricks and machine "malfunctions."

Also, BushCo and Diebold KNEW we were watching them this time. And they KNEW they couldn't pass us off as a bunch of wingnut conspiracy theorists. Average folks who don't care much about politics were a lot more aware this time that the voting "irregularities" in 2000 and 2004 were not a fluke and were not the product of liberals' imagination. So they couldn't be quite as blatant as they've been in the past.

Even so, there still were problems with the machines. And most of them still turned out in favor of GOP candidates. I think we were just able to overcome despite their attempts.

[leftofthedial]

28. WRONG! We still need massive election reform.

Polls as recently as Monday showed Democrats up by 20% across the country. The election results showed Democrats winning on average by 3% to 4%. Huge turnout across the country would seem to discount any notion that the differences were due to repuke turnout.

The increased scrutiny on the issue probably also had a good effect. Plus, strategically, the repukes probably prefer losing in Congress right now. They know that the country is in a major mess and want to be able to spread the blame in 2008.

[treestar]

30. A scary thought

How would Bush look if he just vetoed any bill trying to make sure the elections are unhackable though? Maybe now there is a chance for it.

[EFerrari]

39. Agree at every point. Where did that 17% go? nt

[leftofthedial]

65. plus, check the 5% to 7% discrepancy between exit polls

in the repuke's favor in the Virgina and Montana Senate races . . .


the way the Diebold cheat works is to swing close key races

[EFerrari]

86. Yep. althecat caught that early on last night. n/t

[slackmaster]

29. After voting on a touch-screen for the first time I feel a little easier

The ones in use in California have paper audit tapes that allow the voter to verify what is being printed. The tapes go into a sealed canister. As long as A) Proper chain of custody is maintained over the machines and tapes and B) Appropriate auditing is done, there is no way a systematic bias could affect the outcome of an election. It would be caught.

The user interface has some problems - Specifically, the screen where you review your votes before beginning to print the audit tape has a scroll bar control on the LEFT margin, which no doubt would be missed or misunderstood by many voters.

I see no problem using a machine as a DATA ENTRY DEVICE. Keeping the data in a file on a hard drive seems overly sophisticated. Its inherent invisibility (hackability notwithstanding) erodes voter confidence and doesn't add any value to the processs.

My preference would be to have the machine capture your votes, then print them out on a sheet of paper that you can review, which is the actual ballot and gets read by an optical scan system. That way you would get ballots that are printed with precision, and can be read easily by human or machine. Of course the requirement for chain of custody and audits still apply (as they do to ANY system, even pure paper).

[delete_bush]

67. I used the same type machine and the audit tape is

reassuring. Not so sure if it's a good idea to print an actual ballot which is then optically scanned, as this method is also subject to error. The biggest problems are hacking and software issues. Taking a random sample of machines and then matching the electronic count to the paper count would be a good check on these issues. If there are discrepancies then a hand count would be in order.

I think the larger problem is after the data is transferred from the machine to the central tabulator, which is where the real manipulation can occur.

[slackmaster]

82. That is easy to check manually

And it should be.

[Subdivisions]

32. I think we were successful in going around the machines and

we overwhelmed them with turnout. That doesn't mean there wasn't cheating and we should pursue every avenue towards that reform.

[kenny blankenship]

34. The machines are still a danger--it's their nature regardless of how one election went

voters need a paper record that they can easily review and check for accuracy before committing their ballot.

[Imagevision]

35. This is silly! - We can't use equipment that is unverifyable, what part don't you get??

Look back and recall how much election fraud was at the forefront of reporting, shooot! even HBO ran the "Hacking Democracy" movie by Bev Harris that very few in DU ended up seeing.

Diebold's can provide a receipt at your ATM --> it can easily provide one for your vote! ---> (I mean it should!)

[treestar]

47. Interesting thought. They go for security in the requiring of IDs

for voters, maybe they should give the voter a little security and give the voter a certified paper trail - to reproduce the election if a recount is needed.

[NorthernSpy]

36. No! There should ALWAYS be a paper-trail...

We need to make it so that our elections cannot be rigged in any way, by anyone.

[T Town Jake]

37. I was never worried about Diebold in the first place - black helicopter stuff.

(n/t)

[crispini]

38. No. I still want paper ballots and more reforms

to protect the security and integrity of the vote, including more auditing and checking.

[BurtWorm]

40. No.

The electoral system is corrupt and needs to be fixed. The only reason it worked yesterday is enough voters got off their asses to override the electronic veto.

[mtnester]

41. No...verified voting is a MUST

and deliberate voter suppression should be a felony with mandatory prison time and HUGE fines

HUGE

Ohio - 7:30 PM - in precinct 2A and 3A...voting machines turned themselves off...no matter that there were people in line.

Master supervisor password override had to be retrieved from the BOE...of course there were eleventy million calls to that number at the same minute...so how long do you think it took to get through?

That was the LEAST of the issues. Cuyahoga county had the WORST machine issues.

[redqueen]

42. A little... obviously overwhelming voter sentiment can't be stopped...

but we do need to keep the pressure on to get VVPAT's mandated via an amendment to HAVA. That'd be the quickest way.

[nxylas]

55. Totally agree

I hope Pelosi et al don't take their eye off the ball just because THIS TIME the voice of the people was too loud to be drowned out by the Rove Dirty Tricks Machine.

[redqueen]

66. Don't just hope... write and call!

Make sure they know how important it is to us.

:hi:

[negativenihil]

43. Not at all n/t

[Peace Patriot]

45. No! Our country will never be safe with private Bushite corporations

"counting" all the votes with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. They can steal elections at any time, leaving no trace. And I hate to be a wet blanket on such a morning as this, but, EVEN WITH a Dem majority of 35 to 40 seats in the House and a one or two vote edge in the Senate, Congress STILL doesn't even come close to reflecting the SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people who oppose the Iraq war and other Bush policy. Think about those "Bushite Democrats" who voted for torture and suspension of habeas corpus the other week! Where did they COME from? Diebold/ES&S controls our PRIMARY elections as well as the general elections. As we have seen, REAL leftists are virtually barred from the Dem nomination, and the general tenor of the Dem Party leadership is pro-corporate and pro-war. And it could well be that the far rightwing billionaires behind Diebold/ES&S decided that trying to buck that 70% American majority was too risky, and they would lose their election theft capability for future purposes.

What do I mean by a "real" leftist? Oh, someone like Michael Strimling in California (who ran against our two pablum Dem candidates for Gov, Angelides and Westly). Strimling was for fair taxation of the vast corporate property holdings in Calif. Mere FAIR taxation of these huge corporations would instantly solve our budget worries (caused by Enron's theft of $9 billion).

Or, someone who would propose cutting the military budget by, say, 90%, down to a true defensive posture (no more wars of choice!), or who would propose DISMANTLING bad actor corporations like Halliburton and seizing their assets for the common good.

All of the above are REASONABLE self-protective measures for a democratic society to take. Do you expect to hear any of them out of the mouths of Democratic leaders? This is partly a filthy money problem, but it is now being further tweaked by new SECRET CORPORATE CONTROL OF VOTE COUNTING--and not just any corporations, corporations with close ties to the Bush Junta and extremist rightwing causes.

I think American voters overwhelmed the machines yesterday--and those who control those machines held back for their own reasons. But what, really, do the forces of darkness have to fear from this new Congress, as constituted? Think about it. A few fireworks investigations, a big fight about taxes (which are so favorable to corporations and the super-rich now that a few tax bill losses, IF the Dems can do it, wouldn't even graze them), and an endless wrangle about "withdrawal plans" from Iraq, with Bush/Cheney digging in their heels and Joe Lieberman holding the pivotal vote in the Senate. We may see a bit of relief for ordinary Americans, and a build-up of better policies toward the '08 elections, but we are NOT going to see real reform, and if reform were ever to get out of hand, from the point of view of our Corporate Rulers, they have Diebold/ES&S to put it right.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to restore majority rule in this country. And one of the things we MUST do is restore transparent vote counting. And I don't mean just a "paper trail" for SECRETLY PROGRAMMED machines. I was very, VERY heartened by the enormous Absentee Ballot REBELLION against the machines that took place in this election, and I think it bodes well for REAL election reform, at the LOCAL level. Also, honest Secretaries of State won office all over the country--including DEBRA BOWEN in Calif. (something of a miracle). But it is the VOTERS who have most impressed me--they are in revolt, and they KNOW what's been going down!

Look for the Dem Congress to leave a loophole for election systems to RETAIN corporate control by means of the CENTRAL TABULATORS (with secret code). HR 550 has that loophole in it. And bear in mind that how Diebold/ES&S got control of our election system was the vast corruption connected to big e-voting contracts that affected both Dem and Repub election officials and legislators.

[treestar]

50. IA, it is inexcusable that Diebold should have a secret code and that

they should even have the contracts at all when they give $$ to the repubs.

IA it must be reformed still, before it gets as bad as some thought it was.

[blm]

46. Because of the INCREASED PUBLICITY and AWARENESS, they were boxed in.

.

[eliphaslevi]

48. Look at Florida, we are a prime example

I wonder how the exit polls compare to the actual results.

GET RID OF THE MACHINES NOW!!

(PS. I'm a programmer)

[ChiciB1]

52. Not Here In Sarasota County!! But We Used ES&S....

still they're about the same!!

[Imagevision]

54. Why would anyone build a vote machine that is intentionally unverifyable?? where's the logic??

[slackmaster]

81. Are there any unauditable machines in use now?

There aren't in California.

[Hubert Flottz]

56. No...

These races were closer than they should have been.

[kitkat65]

57. No, the whole system is dysfunctional at best, and not just Diebold

[readmoreoften]

58. NO! /nt

[Nikki Stone 1]

59. No, it hasn't.

And I think the conservatives are now going to take up the fight as well, which is all to the good. We need to get strict accountability: paper ballots, paper trails, paper receipts...a system that is verifiable.

[Kerrytravelers]

60. No. Thank God in CA we have Debra Bowen.

I voted on a paper ballot with a ink blotter. Safest way!

[Phillycat]

61. HELL NO

Verifiable votes for ALL!!! Are we all in agreement now, hmm? Dems, Repubs, all on the same page??? FINALLY!

[Renew Deal]

62. The problem isn't just stolen elections

Another problem is the machines are inefficient and impossible to manage.

[understandinglife]

63. NOT ONE LINE OF SOFTWARE BETWEEN A VOTER AND A VALID ELECTION.

Not 1.

The algorithm of democracy:

Paper ballots, counted in public by people who tabulate on paper, and the tabulated results are supervised by the public as they are compiled, on paper, and announced. 100 % paper record of every step, every step supervised by “WE THE PEOPLE…..”


BE AMERICA. ---

[butterfly77]

64. No...

[mhatrw]

68. What is your point? That one Democratic win makes unauditable

fraud-made-easy machines just dandy?

[treestar]

72. No, that they were unable to steal this election

When there were many threads indicating they could

"the fix is in," etc.

[mhatrw]

76. There are many possible explanations for the fact that Dems won

many races yesterday despite the use of many insecure, hackable, unauditable fraud-made-easy voting machines.

None of these explanations improves my long term confidence in these machines. How about you?

[treestar]

88. I think there should be something verifiable, and have no confidence

in machines from a company that gives $$ to the repukes, keeps the code a secret, and any machine with no paper trail.

I think we still need a better way and a Dem. congress may be able to do it. Chimpy can't veto such a thing, what's he going to say - that it's somehow bad to make the voting more secure?

[wholetruth00]

70. Hell NO!!! We were watching and on to them, that made the difference.

[DemExpat]

73. This is how I feel too!

Constant vigilance is needed in future as well.

DemEx

[kdmorris]

71. No... I'm still worried about it

I'm almost 100% sure they TRIED to steal the election, but it only works if the margin is what you thought it was going to be. If they set it all up to take an extra 5% and the voters themselves actually voted by a 10% margin for the Democrats, then we could see some of the results we've seen.

We still need to get rid of the electronic voting machines. We need a paper trail, with types of voting that cannot be tampered with.

Remember, this sort of thing only works if they get the margin correct.

[treestar]

74. IA, the voter should have a receipt

They demand ID from their side, they could give the voter some confirmation too.

[mhatrw]

78. The voter doesn't need a receipt per se, but the voting process

requires a voter verified paper ballot that can be audited and manually recounted. This, along with truly random partial audits of ALL races, is the MINIMUM that is required.

[Radio_Lady]

75. No, of course not!

[stepnw1f]

77. Hell No

Get rid of the machines and the private companies that make them.

[Jack Rabbit]

79. No

This election was beyond stealing and Diebold would not make much difference.

Even without the conspiratorial aspect, I have problems with voting machines. I have seen a lot of software run with bugs; I have seen corporate bureaucracies designed in such a way as to take weeks to fix a simple bug that could be fixed in a matter of minutes.

At a minimum, these machines should not be used to record votes.

[Matariki]

83. No.

[SouthernBelle82]

84. No

I'm still very worried and I think now we have some type of power that we can ban these machine's from ever being used again in our democracy. I heard on some radio show or something (I think Malloy possibly) that it was too hard for them to steal it this time since so many people came out to vote and vote democratic. Remember last time it was too easy and too close in the polls and all that. I've still heard of lots of problems that do not stop my worries. I hope John Conyers has a hearing on this issue.

[kydo]

85. ummm

no. Just because they didn't blantly steal it this time doesn't mean they won't do it in the future. I do hope the issue of fixing (no pun intended) election fraud does not go way.

kydo

[jayctravis]

87. I'm thinking if it was hacked, there was an interface gaffe.

So many people have reported pushing the button for Democrat and having if flip to Republican. More than once. Elderly people not familiar with the technology might totally ignore this. People in a hurry might not even notice. <ding ding> a likely percentage of votes flipped just through voter inattention.

Others have said they voted Democratic, but then saw Republicans on the confirmation screen. Oops, the computer goofed, but someone in a hurry or who doesn't understand what they're seeing might just zip by. <ding ding> and they confirmed it, so they voted for R and no recount will fix that. They may not even *know* they did it.

I think the touchscreens were calibrated to favor Republicans in certain places, and they counted on disaffection to pull it through. People *could* vote for Democrats, but certain machines made it frustrating work that some people might just get fed up and hit OK or not even notice the changes.

Thanks to the coverage voting machines have been getting (Thank you, Lou Dobbs) everyone who went in there yesterday was probably aware that this type of thing could happen and was much more deliberate about verifying what the machine says.

This may not be the only way the machines could be fiddled with, but I wouldn't doubt it's one of the ways.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

89. No. Until the software is no longer private proprietary, secret

and hackable, until it is all verifiable, with a paper record.

Personally as someone with a Masters in Computer Science, I won't feel comfortable with it all until the same kinds of requirements, rigor, risk management is applied to our voting systems that is used with regard to mission critical Space, Defense, and medical equipment software.

Our democracy has been on life support, now upgraded to critical condition, but there is more to be done.

The fact that this election was too overwhelmingly polled, predicted, and watched for much hacking to take place does not mean that in the next close election they won't be out there doing it again.

Karl Rove was called to testify how many times for Fitz? How many of them have already been indicted, some are in prison.

I don't think they were willing to risk flying in the face of an overwhelming wave of Democratic support to come up with a Republican victory that even the MSM wasn't going to accept.

[Gwerlain]

90. Don't you believe it...

this one wasn't close enough to fix without getting caught, and the Macaccawitz story ain't done yet- the fat lady ain't sung. Wait'll '08, and we'll see.

[warrens]

91. Hell no

You can't steal dozens of elections. It has to be used sparingly or you get caught.

[Cleita]

92. No. We still need to change the way that we do elections so

that they are transparent and accurate. Only then will we put the tinfoil hat away and accept whoever was elected as the honestly elected official no matter how much we may dislike the choice.

I personally could have accepted * more as my president if I had been certain that he was elected by the will of the people. But no one could prove that to me.

[moondust]

93. No.

Whether or not the machines worked THIS TIME is irrelevant. There's always the next time when there may be a lot more voters with a false sense of security because they "worked" this time.

[Red Right and BLUE]

94. NO!

I still want paper ballots.