Howard Dean DOES NOT GET IT. This is a problem!

[garybeck]

We all know about the problems with the electronic voting machines. Most people here at DU, I think realize that every other problem is secondary.

We all know the Democratic Party is in denial about the problem and only a few people are even willing to recognize the issue.

In my opinion, there was hope when Howard Dean was put in charge. For those who don't know, he went on TV in 2004 and demonstrated how easy it is to hack into the machines and change the election results. (the demo was on a Diebold central tabulator. I have a copy of the video if anyone wants to see it).

Unfortunately, the hope was unfounded. Not only has the Democratic Party done little more about this problem under his leadership, today there was a development that shows we're in trouble.
Deep trouble.

I was listening to the Tom Hartmann show and a caller called in and explained that Dean was at an event where they live, and was asked about the voting machine problem. he replied that the Touchscreen machines are a very real problem - you can't trust them, they are hackable, etc... But here's the rub.... he also commented that (paraphrasing) "the only machines we can trust are the optical scan machines."

now, are people here savvy enough for me to just stop here? Is it obvious why this remark reveals a huge problem?

OK, allow me to elaborate briefly.

For anyone watching this situation at all, WE CAN'T TRUST THE OPTICAL SCAN MACHINES ANY MORE THAN THE TOUCHSCREEN MACHINES. They are just as hackable. They are just as untrustworthy. Recent tests in california proved beyond all doubt that they have interpreted code on the memory cards, which is ILLEGAL and leaves the system wide open to fraud. A computer security expert pre-programmed a memory card to change the eleciton results without any passwords and he did it in 5 minutes. If you haven't heard about this, read here:

The Harri Hursti Hack and its Importance to our Nation
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=798&Itemid=51


In other words, Diebold could use opscan machines to change the election results very easily and we have no way to know that they did it (short of conducting a recount using the paper ballots, which we know will not happen).

So,,,,

With all due respect to Howard Dean (and I am from Vermont) he has gone from being a hope in resolving a problem, to being part of the problem itself.

I am trying to consider how and why Howard Dean could today think the Opscan machines are trustworthy. Is he just burying his head in the sand? He would have to bury it pretty deep because it's actually making the headlines in some places. With the CA Secretary of State being sued for approving the machines illegally, and the Ion Sancho story in Florida, Pennsylvania decertifying the opscans, I would think he would have at least HEARD OF THIS situation somewhat. But evidently he's still living in 2004, when it was plausible for even the real election reformers to think that the opscans were safe(r).

But what bothers me even more is that when he went on TV and demostrated the hack, it was on a central tabulator, which affects all systems - touchscreens, opscans, you name it. He should know that the security problems are literally everywhere you look in the systems - from the voting machines to the tabulators, and the answer is CERTAINLY NOT to use more opscans.

The recent headlines about the illegal code are a direct result of the investigation into the opscan machines that Dean is saying are OK.

The caller on the Hartmann show continued, that Dean outlined the "6-point" agenda for the Democratic Party - jobs, education, health care, Iraq, blah blah blah.... that's all find and dandy but you can have the best agenda, the best candidates, the best campaign, and everything lined up perfectly; but if your opponent owns the voting machines and (as we know is the case) they are set up to make fraud easy and undetectable, none of that stuff really matters, does it?

As leader of the Democratic Party, he owes it to the people to be more aware of this problem and to try to do something about it. I am very disappointed that he is completely ignorant on this issue and seemingly not interested in doing anything about it.

[jaysunb]

1. If only Howard was God

then, he could fix everything at once. :evilfrown:

[garybeck]

2. not really, evidently he wouldn't fix the voting machines because

he doesn't think they're a problem.

[jaysunb]

5. Not true, friend

just not true.

Before you assign this oversight to Dr Dean, please consider the number of problems we have with these criminals. Dean has taken on a hugh job that has many fronts, please give it time.

[garybeck]

10. with all due respect,

i've heard the "there are so many problems" excuse before and quite frankly I am sick and tired of it. this is problem #1. elections are the way we fix problems. we get rid of people who do bad things and we try to replace them with peope who will do good things. when that process is taken away, we have nothing. I invite you to try to explain to me how any other problem is more important. Please try.

[nashville_brook]

22. it was thread on greatest page, a week ago maybe...

the title was something like "i'm so pissed."

the writer had gone to a DFA Meet-up (the email dates were wrong) and spoke to high level DFA person who literally hostile to talking about election fraud.

maybe the doctor isn't getting all this 'patient history.'

[madfloridian]

39. DFA just had a drive to get paper ballots. I posted on it.

Good grief, do you guys just make stuff up?

[nashville_brook]

50. FYI -- apology accepted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=421192


garybeck (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-06-06 01:10 AM
Original message
I. Am. Pissed. Off.

I'm not usually a ranter. Not usually.

Checked my email this morning and noticed that the "meetup" for Northern Vermont DFA (Democracy for America) was meeting this evening. After the usual yawn I saw that the meeting was at the National DFA headquarters. Hmmm, maybe I'll go... There will probably be some of the national folks there. I'll have a chat with them and try to get them to pay more attention to the biggest problem our country faces - the electronic voting machines. I've always wondered why DFA has been ignorning this issue and maybe this is my chance.

So I brought 25 copies of the "Election Truth CDROM" to hand out, printed some flyers, thought about what I will say (there's usually an opportunity to stand up and say something at these meetups). Even brought a newsletter signup list for our new group - Vermonters for Voting Integrity. Even if I just get a few people to sign up on our list, the evening won't be lost, right?

went to the "meetup" which was supposed to be for the Burlington chapter of DFA. Turns out there was a problem with their website and it posted the wrong day. I was the only one who responded to the incorrect email (and even checked it on their website).

But guess what, the two guys from "national" DFA were still there working late in their office. Hard workers, those DFA folks.

The first guy I met was apologetic about the "meetup mixup." I gave him a short rap about the voting machines. He was genuinely interested. He took the flyer, CDROM, gave me his email address, and said he thought DFA should look into it more. Wow, this is too easy, I thought. This huge national organization with millions of people on their mailing list, and I just walked in the front door and got them to think about raising the issue of electronic voting with their huge member list.

Then one other guy shows up. He got the email too. Of course I wouldn't let him leave without a flyer and a CD ROM. He's a lawyer, actually running for DA of burlington. Nice guy. He had never heard of Diebold, knew absolutely nothing about the issue. But I told him about the Hursti Hack, what's going on in California, and he was also genuinely interested. He signed up to get our newsletter. I was practically walking on air.

Then, the first guy I talked to came back, and told us that "Chris" the head honcho of all of DFA happened to still be around, and he wanted to come over and chat.

Wow, I thought, this is great!

Not.

I recognized Chris from another DFA meeting I had been to several months ago, when I gave a 5 minute rap on electronic voting. I reached out my hand to shake, and said, "Oh we've met before, how ya doing?"

Now while the first guy seemed like a genuine person, Chris seemed like a politician. He is young, I'd say late 20s. But he talks with a smile that never leaves his face, and he talks "at" you. You know what I mean. He acknowledged that we had met before but that was the extent of anything positive that I got from him.

He went on to say that DFA is addressing many issues that they feel are important and the electronic voting machines is not currently a priority. He started telling me about how many issues there are and candidates that need their support and so forth.

But wait! I tried to get a word in. I stated the OBVIOUS, that if we spend all kinds of time and money supporting the candidates we think are the best choices, and the elections are rigged, isn't it sort of a waste of time? Isn't it putting the cart before the horse?

His response? We have many issues we're working on and it just isn't one of our main priorities right now.

Is that a real answer? Is it just me or is he just ignoring my question?

I go the distinct impression that he wasn't really interested in hearing what I had to say.

On further pressing the issue, he said that on the subject at hand, DFA does share my concern, but their way of addressing the issue is to focus on trying to get paper ballots everywhere nationwide. He said they are endorsing Debra Bowen because she supports paper ballots. I got the feeling that it was his belief that if there were just paper ballots everywhere, everything would be fine. It's just the DREs that are the problem (he didn't say that directly but that is what I implied by his focusing on just getting paper ballots).

So I mentioned how the opscans are just as bad, and the memory cards are a real problem. I tried to hand him my flyer and he wouldn't take it. He again repeated that it is not an issue of priority for DFA right now.

At this point I felt he was being rude, not really answering my questions, not taking my flyer, the incessant smile on his face while he talked "at" me. But I remained calm and respectful.

I said, "so what happens this November when the prepolling and exit polls show Bernie Sanders far ahead, but he loses the election?" (in vermont we have all paper ballots)

"It's just not a priority for DFA at this time"

I didn't feel like there was much more than I could say and I felt like he was just waiting for me to finish my schpeel so he could go back to his office. So I left. On the way home I went shopping at the grocery store and I was steaming mad.

Is this guy, the head of DFA, just another ostrich with his head in the sand, who thinks we can just "vote these jerks out of office" and is afraid to face the fact that our democracy is in a complete shambles? Does he think I'm a crazy conspiracy nut wasting his time?

So, do I just give up on DFA? The very organization that was started by Howard Dean, who went on TV to demonstrate the problems with electronic voting, has come full circle and now just thinks that paper ballots is all that matters (never mind that Dean was demonstrating the problem with central tabulators, which affects ALL kinds of voting systmes).

Tell me, is it obvious to others that you have to have confidence in the election system if you want the candidates you support to have a chance of winning? Is it obvious to others that he's putting the cart before the horse?

I don't know. But it's depressing and angering to me that an organization that calls itself "Democracy for America" is not concerned with democracy. I do acknowledge that the other fellow there seemed much more geniune and also very interested in the problem. But Chris isn't, and unfortunately he seems to be pulling a lot of the strings there.

I know many people have been wondering why DFA has been pretty silent on this issue and I might have just found the answer. So there you go.

....

I thought about deleting this before posting. I thought about suggesting that everyone print this post out and send it to Chris in the mail. Maybe he would take his head out of the sand. But I don't want to harrass Chris, and he didn't really strike me as the type of person eager to listen to people's views. He seemed to have it all figured out and he doesn't need anyone's input. I don't want to burn any bridges with an organization that I had a lot of respect for, and I thought had potential to move mountains. But tonight's experience saddened me and I don't see any reason to waste any time with them anymore.

GB, (the solar bus guy)

PS - a true rant should not be edited. I apologize for spelling and grammatical errors.

[OregonBlue]

56. I keep reading these articles about Dems ignoring voting problems

and it's started me thinking. With the defection of some of the Diebold, etc. people, is it possible we've got our own hacks ready? Maybe the Dems know that we can rig them just as easily as they can. Don't want to be a nay-sayer here but you'd think Dems would be all over this in Congress and almost no one is.

[nashville_brook]

64. AH! were you around after the elections, 2004?

lots of talk about that when Kerry wouldn't go into recount mode. lots of whispers. innuendo.

a useful model in order to think about this is organized crime... if there's money to be made and power to be accumulated, there will always be people on both sides trying to swipe it. it behooves them to keep the system loosey-goosey. now, the question is, who are the criminals in any given local area? who has opportunity and motive and hegemony -- all the usual crime-fighting problem-solving devices. and you can't expect the crimes to have any fingerprints of the guys at the top.

it's a mad, mad world.

[OregonBlue]

197. I'm not saying the Dems are doing it, I just keep wondering why they

aren't screaming about this in the House or Senate. I know some are trying to make an issue of it but in general, they are not. I've written to the members of the Senate Committee dealing with HAVA asking them why they have not been vocal on this and have never received a reply.

I do hope that if Puffy Moon Face is using wireless modems to manipulate voting machines that the Dems have figured out how to re-manipulate them.

I for one want the actual votes counted, regardless of the outcome!!

[madfloridian]

44. Read this about DFA and paper ballots.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/26

And let's all deal in some truth.

[nashville_brook]

51. another FYI

just a spoonful of sugar, baby.

that's what you might consider in your continued political work.

[madfloridian]

54. I don't tell lies about people or groups.

Sugar is to coat lies.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

70. Very rude remark.

.

[nashville_brook]

79. obviously DFA is experiencing heat for lacking leadership on election

issues. your disproportionate response -- calling me a liar, even after i backed-up my claim with links -- just shows that you're not seeing something clearly.

sure, DFA has a statement on paper ballots... but DFA and Dean have need to take it like a grown-up when folks pass on constructive criticism. don't turn around and bite people who are pulling for you. don't call us liars when we have concern with the way an issue it being managed. you have an opportunity when people raise concerns, to BROADEN YOUR BASE. you turn an opportunity into a NET LOSS when you name call. it reflects on your issue/organization.

peace.

[madfloridian]

84. It is a free country, you can have your say.

But you need to be honest if you want to get your agenda out.

This thread is not presenting the full picture, and that is not fair.

[nashville_brook]

93. oh! you're angry at the whole thread... not just me.

i'm sorry. i didn't get that.

you know, i don't have a stand on dean one way or the other. i hope his people are 'getting it,' but i posted that I. Am. So. Pissed. post because it's so familiar in terms of the disconnect that is common between people WITHIN a single chapter of an organization. one person might totally be on-board and the next might be hostile. that you have experience to the contrary, doesn't make the problem go away. we've won the election reform debate here on DU -- but the polity at large still doesn't 'get it.' there's work still to do.

[madfloridian]

102. What do you mean by "his people?" That's strange to say.

I have showed you proof, and could show you some from 2004 that DFA supported paper ballots, yet you deny.

It is congress who must change election laws, yet indiscriminate attacks are being leveled here at Dean and DFA.

It is not fair, and it is not common sense.

[nashville_brook]

108. i'm saying there's a disconnect here. i don't care about paper ballots

[mirrera]

198. I disagree, this thread is presenting a VERY honest picture.

Your posts on this thread have been very disturbing to me. I have hesitated to respond, but at the risk of you influencing even a single person to plant their head firmly back in the sand, I must reply. Forget specifics, i.e. Dean, Kerry, the DFA, the Republicans, the Democrats, how accurate it feels when you and your hubby vote.

This discussion is important because there have been extremely important developments, relevant to the Optical Scans. Discoveries that should interest everyone, and that go way beyond having a paper ballot in case you don't trust the first count. The evolution of our voting from hand counted paper ballots, to levers and punch cards, to scanners and touch screens, is accelerating and only became noticeable to MOST of us within the last decade. Many activists have grabbed onto the "salvation" of Optical Scanning because they appear so much better then touch screen with no record. Of course they are BETTER, but if you do not feel the inclination to fight for the best, or you feel secure and happy with what you have, why do you keep trying to insinuate that this thread is in some way a bad thing? You can clearly see there are many good people here that have some very good information that SHOULD concern you. I admire anyone replacing NO paper with paper, but having paper should not make people complacent about COMPUTER fraud. Once again it is not how we vote it is how we COUNT. The scanner has an interpretor which looks to the code on the Memory Card...learn about it, understand why that is not O.K. It is a better use of this thread then to say it is dishonest.

You use the word "fair" frequently in your posts, but I detected an animosity toward the original post that struck me as being "unfair". Maybe it would be best to discuss the info being presented, i.e. the Hursti Hack since things like fairness and honesty can be so subjective.

As to specifics, GaryBeck's experience with the DFA is indicative of many experiences on this issue. I was told at our DEM caucus that it really wasn't the place to discuss it. I had to bring it up in the next town over to get any interest going. My town wants to feel good about their new scanner. EVERYONE wants to feel good about the scanners, but you can not un-know what has happened.

Of course you can choose not to know in the first place which seems to be a popular stance. It will not be a lonely position. Conventional Wisdom is not wise, it is just conventional.



http://NoBullshiRt.com

[madfloridian]

99. You are not criticizing the right people.

You are putting the burden on Dean for what our congress has failed to do. Kerry did not contest the vote, though he said he would. So there is a lot of stuff to spread around.

I just showed you DFA's stance on paper ballots, and you are denying it. I have stuff from late 2004, pictures, rallies about paper ballots. But you would still deny it.

If you are being fair about things, it shows in your posts, and you don't have to attack. I did not, btw, call you a liar. Someone told me to eat sugar if I stayed in politics, and I said sugar coated lies.

[nashville_brook]

111. why won't you tell us why his hands are tied?

[madfloridian]

116. He has no vote in congress. Did you really think that?

.

[Capn Sunshine]

170. So what do you want?

You come here, attacking democrats who are actively working to make things better, and the leader of the national committee, because.. well, he thinks a practical solution might lie in optical scanners, and you .....don't.

That about it?

[Amaryllis]

168. Gary's point is the opscans are no more secure than DRE's and Dean

doesn't get it. Paper ballots are still counted on opscans and talllied on central tabulators, which are just as vulnerable and unreliable as DRE's AND none of the above currently have ANY method to verify the accuracy of the results. We are asked to trust the results; to have faith that they are right, with no verification method. Paper ballots are just the FIRST step.Yes, DFA called for paper ballots, which is a great first step, but it is ONLY a first step. Until we do away with secret vote counting on trade secret software that not even our election officials can access, with no method to verify accuracy, we are runnning faith-based elections. We need checks and balances, not faith and trust.

[galloglas]

144. Oh! Right...

Duh, I forgot.

Then perhaps the esteemed doctor should sue the patient for "mal-information"???

[IntravenousDemilo]

38. [Snigger snigger] You said "hugh"...

But did you mean that seriesly?

[jaysunb]

no....I meant for it

to read huge, but I'm old , dumb, and try to go too fast sometimes. :rofl:

[galloglas]

143. More time??

How about Armageddon + 20 (minutes; years; who gives a shit?)

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

98. 'his hands are tied' --- ??!! really??? do tell, more more!

[madfloridian]

105. You tell me what you want done. What can he do?

I thought congress had to change election law, not the DNC chair.

You are having a fun day here.

[nashville_brook]

109. who has tied DEAN's hands with regard to audits and open elections?

[blm]

125. I'm afraid it's the Clinton/MacAuliffe powerbrokers still in the DNC -

I supported Dean for DNC chair to get those people out - none of them believed in machine fraud then and didn't lift a finger to secure the machines before the 2004 election. They still don't believe it. Or something else may be up - Hard to know anymore.

[Stevepol]

155. What can he do? TALK ABOUT IT!!! MAKE IT ISSUE # 1!!!!!!

I know he can't do anything about it literally, but he can do a heckuva lot about it by speaking about it on every occasion, every time he picks up a mike, every time somebody talks to him.

Then, once he's made that clear, that we have to have fair vote counting, he can go onto all the other things he has such a good handle on.

I can already see what's coming in 06 and it sickens me.

Beginning in 02, after I saw the GA, MN, and CO results, I said what many thousands were already saying (so I was not any more a prophet than thousands of others), that if people didn't start talking about it and making election reform JOB 1, the results of the next elections would be exactly the same, i.e., pre-election polls and exit polls saying one thing, the machine results saying another.

That's exactly what will happen, I'm afraid in 06 and in 08 and every two years thereafter for as far as the eye can see.

THE MACHINES ARE RIGGED for God's sake and they are stealing elections right and left. A junior high school kid could see it. Why can't these paid reps of what's supposed to be the opposition political party see it?????

[madfloridian]

172. He has. I have often posted about it.

It is never enough. Nothing anyone does is ever enough for some.

[galloglas]

127. Why not Moses ??

Look,

GWB has already staked his claim to that title ('scuse me, update! I was just told GWB has already chosen God, Sr.,... at least, or until, he moves up to God, Emeritus).

So why the Hell can't Howard Dean just settle for the title of "Moses", and lead our tired and beleaguered asses out of the Land of FISA Pharoahs and Corporate Pyramid Ponzi Schemes?

Don't tell ME Howard Dean doesn't know what is going on!

He was saavy enough to get in the driver's seat in Iowa in 2004, he knows this (and all) elections have been gamed. He was just faced with having the MSM, and all other complicit parties, show him that if he didn't immediately sell his immortal soul, then and there, he would be rechristened Howard "Eeeaarrrrrgghhhhhh!!!" Dean.
So he sold. Cheap and fast!

Sorry to piss anyone off, but we need John Dean not Howard Dean!

The Democratic Party should nominate the first high profile, honest SOB who will proclaim,

"First and foremost, Hand Counted Paper Ballots! NOW and FOREVER!",

followed by,

"I will not profit by holding office, I will not appoint anyone who does, and I will support prosecution of anyone who attempts to. No exceptions!
"To the Ballot Boxes, or to the Streets!!"

Phil

PS. Has anyone seen Diogenes? Has he found any prospects?

[Teaser]

3. so many fraudsters

so little time.

[EFerrari]

4. Let's call him up and give him the info he needs.

Because we need to all get on the same page now.

[helderheid]

27. I couldn't agree more

[EFerrari]

42. I called and was put through to his office. The receptionist told

me to search the site. I said, I did and there is no answer there to my question (i.e., did he say that). She advised me to use the feedback form.

I don't think that was the conversation I wanted to have. lol

[Trevelyan]

6. K&R This is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!!

If Dean is honestly trying to help Americans, this should be FIRST on his agenda!!!

I don't think there is much time left and the petitions are to encourage those in the military to refuse bush's illegal orders to press the nukular button and maybe to arrest the whole cabal. We cannot survive another year much less three years of this criminal syndicate and I do not believe that bush will step down in 2009. Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced a bill almost a year ago to get rid of term limits for the presidency and TPM link to the congressional site of this bill.

Join Sen. Harkin and support Feingold's Censure petition:

[tatertop]

14. No fix machines, no win elections

If we don't get those fuckers fixed they are
going to win just enough to retain the grip of iron.
This is the number one issue.
All the good intentions in the world mean nothing
if we cannot get every last one of our votes to count.

[Hubert Flottz]

30. You are only about 100% right about that.

Everything else is worthless without a secure system of making sure EVERY vote counts. No paper trail = No Democracy. Our government is as bogus as the one in Iraq. If Howard Dean don't know that, by now, then he's got to be brain dead.

[robinlynne]

7. I think you're right, and we need to let him know that.

I agree. I tried to get a group of progressive democrats to help us with a "citizen's audit" in san diego this week. They were all busy working on political campaigns, and didn't want to deal with election protection. I don't understand it. It is the "mother" issue.

[robinlynne]

8. But I also don't understand why this country did not go to the streets in

2000 after the "election".

[garybeck]

13. my view on that

the people were right on the edge of taking to the street in 2000. because it went to the supreme court, it seemed like there was little left to do.

however, in 2004, people were ready. they had their pitchforks in their hands and they were ready to run into the streets when bush stole another election.

but the media told them it was a clean election.

that's the real problem. the media is covering up the biggest story of our time. the people believed the lies and they sat back in their easy chair, and said, "oh well, another 4 years of this shit."

if the media had reported what really happened, people WOULD have taken to the streets. And if the media was reporting today what is going on, Howard Dean wouldn't have his head in the sand. make that quicksand.

[tatertop]

17. I blame Kerry for not contesting 2004. He fell asleep on us

It is probably too late to do anything about this now.
So many don't even think realize is a problem.

[Vektor]

21. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2347869

[tatertop]

157. I think ... means you are sleeping

Kerry did not fight for me.
Kerry is a
Sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepy loser

[Vektor]

165. It actually means look here - I'm trying to share something with you...

And I'm really disappointed that after I attempted to draw your attention to a thoughtful, civil post, and share some information with you that you only saw fit to come back with a nasty, childish, rude remark. That does nothing to advance your point of view, or encourage anyone to take it seriously.

Did you even read the post? Can you explain in a civil adult manner what Kerry did that you felt was a personal affront to you, and provide some facts to back it up? Just name calling doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion.

[WildEyedLiberal]

169. Did you even click on the thread she linked to?

And actually read the content?

Are you actually interested in facts, or are you just here to spread simplistic, inane trollish anti-Kerry bullshit?

[tatertop]

203. Please stop making excuses for Kerry. He fell asleep at the wheel

or worse. I was there.
He could not give in fast enough.
He failed to lead the charge to save our vote -
very possibly our last chance to save the vote:
he had the national air time and he should have fought like hell.

He fought like hell all right - he fought to
be first in line to concede. The water boy
had more fight in 'em than Kerry.

(Yes, I know, he is still working on it. Riiight.)

"Fooled Again" by Mark Crispin Miller
is worth a quick read. Anytime I feel like weeping I
browse the pages and think of Kerry... who slept
through it all.

[Vektor]

204. You were there?

"When he fell asleep at the wheel"? Speaking in metaphors and cliches' does not a case make.

I'm guessing you didn't read the post, and likely know everything there is to know about John Kerry. Like what he has and hasn't done to combat election fraud. Because you two are -> II <- this close. Nobody's making excuses. Just sharing information - this is a discussion board after all. I'd just hate to see you clinging tenaciously to this anger when it may be based on a knowledge deficit on the matter. Intractable anger opens you up to a whole host of other health problems down the road, gastric ulcers, cardiovascular disease, etc...can't have that. Maybe some factual information will ease your troubled mind.

Just for starters:

Public knowledge of ACTUAL ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION Kerry has co-sponsored (not just the grandstanding, bloviating "fighting without a grain of evidence to stand on on Nov. 3rd" fantasy some individuals advocate without realizing how stupid and pointless that would have been):

Election Integrity Legislation John Kerry co-sponsored in 109th Congress


S.195 : A bill to provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (13) Committees: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Latest Major Action: 3/9/2005 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.

S.391 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit certain State election administration officials from actively participating in electoral campaigns. Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. (introduced 2/16/2005) Cosponsors (5) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 2/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.450 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (6) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

S.1975 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4) Committees: Senate Rules and Administration Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

That's just a smattering. A scratching of the proverbial surface, if you will. So yeah, still working on it.

[karynnj]

171. There is still not enough information NOW to contest it

and the constitution requires it be contested by Jan 6 2005. What basis would Kerry use. (Clue: there is no precedent for claiming that the exit polls are a check on the validity of the result. If that were the key purpose, they would actually be designed in a slightly different way. The main purpose was to assess reasons and get demographic material - and to make predictions. )

[wisteria]

178. He would have been seen as crazy trying to contest an election

that clearly showed a winner. Bush won with a safe margin. Fraud and disenfranchisement are not things you can count as votes. Rove may have done questionable things in order to get Bush back in office,but those things are hard to prove without an extensive investigation and many court battles. Senator Kerry did participate in lawsuits after the election to have votes recounted. I don't understand what else you think he could have done. I never thought contesting the results was wise at the time and still don't.

[robinlynne]

202. not true. The 2004 election is still being contested in courts all over

the US right now. Ohio, Alaska, New Mexico. Recounts ahve been stopped by republicans. Bush did not win that election by a safe margin. He did not win at all. Kerry could have spoken, put money in to help the Ohio reocunt right from the ebginning. it is still lagging on in the courts right now. But since Kerry conceded, the American public is unaware.

[michaelwb]

18. On the streets

Some of us were actively on the streets protesting and organizing protests.

Pity there weren't more. I'd like to believe President Gore would have led us to a much better 2006.

[AlabamaYankee]

9. At least you have a physical ballot

With the optical scan machines there is a physical ballot, actually marked by the voter, that can be manually recounted if the results are close or the machine is suspect. That is a margin of safety that the touch screen machines don't offer

[derby378]

12. DING! DING! DING!

And AlabamaYankee wins a bubblegum cigar.

Say it with me, folks: Voter-Verified Paper Ballot. Without that, nothing else matters.

[shance]

15. However, what good is it when recounts are manipulated as well?

Remember Florida and Ohio? Remember how the recounts were dealt with?

Recounts are a cheater's dream. It just stalls and smoke screens the truth and the cheaters just wait it out.

We need to think preventative and not after the fraud has already occured.

What recount has proven to be successful? None. Again, consider Florida and Ohio.

[marions ghost]

23. right

the recounts are a huge problem even when you DO have paper ballots.

Good point.

[derby378]

58. Uh, hello? Pardon me, but...

...there was no recount in Florida. The SCOTUS saw to that in Bush v. Gore.

[shance]

153. THATS. MY. POINT.

To be fully accurate, there was in fact a hint of the slightest recount which was never even remotely finished. Of course we know why.

[Guaranteed]

124. If that's the case, there's nothing anybody can do

that wouldn't be seen as partisan.

[shance]

154. What do you mean?

Of course there are numerous things we can do.

The most important thing is to begin recruiting precinct by precinct citizens to volunteer for nationwide precinct manuel vote counting.

That is really the only way to ban the electronic voting and the private companies who are right now the ones electing our officials because they own the data.

[cascadiance]

200. Don't forget that we did succeed in recounts of Washington Gubernatorial

... race last election. We followed their laws and were able to overcome voting irregulaties there...

On the general topic, I'm also DEFINITELY concerned about the central tabulator machines too. The scanned ballots themselves aren't the problem, but the mechanism for scanning and aggregating the results are the problem. Haven't had a chance to see Dean's comments to see if he might be saying the same thing.

On a relative scale, for what many communities have available as options this coming year, scanned ballots is certainly better than the TSX touchscreen machines. In a perfect world, we'd have a public source based e-voting system that would still work with hard copy voter verifiable ballots too. But that doesn't exist yet, and won't before this coming election.

I think the battle now is to make sure that TSX machines are limited as MUCH as possible, as that is where the voter trail gets muddy. At least with scanned ballots (coupled with good laws about retention of these ballots until all issues with a particular vote are resolved), we have a means to recount elections. Have good means of protecting these ballots and don't have precincts where workers are encouraging "non needy" voters to use "voter assisted" TSX machines instead of the scanned ballot machines when both are present.

Ultimately I think in the long term, we might have touchscreen voting that spits out voter verifiable cards that can be scanned on a seperately controlled computer to aggregate the results, so that there are checks and balances built into the system to ensure no fraud occurs. I still think that ultimately a system that takes "hanging chads" and other manual voting machine introduced errors might be a good thing. But now, these voting systems are flawed and are even more prone to error through fraud and should be minimized as much as possible.

[garybeck]

19. NO NO NO NO NO!

you have to look deeper my friends. just having a verifed paper ballot does not do anything.

the assurance that there "could be a recount" means nothing at all.

there was a SLEW of irregularities with the opscan machines last few elections, and because no one asked for a recount, there weren't any. the only recount we had was Ohio and that was a complete fraud.

we can't rely on recounts to have a democracy. they are very rare and only take place when the results are close.

what you have to realize is that with the memory cards, they can make it close or not, they can do anything they want. they can make it far enough apart so there won't be a recount.

recounts are meaningless. voter verified paper ballots, by themselves are meaninless, if no one ever looks at them. they just sit in a pile collecting dust while the election gets stolen again.

it is a completely false sense of securty.

we have to get rid of this love affiar with Opscan machines. Just think of them as the same thing as DREs. they have the exact same code on them. They are made by the same company. they are the same thing. We could move the country all to opscans and that would accomplish NOTHING. NOTHING, Nothing, NOTHING.

The only real steps towards accomplishing something hand counting those paper ballots. You can do random audits on a percentage of the ballots, or better yet, count them all by hand. but if no one is actaully looking at any of the ballots, they accomplish NOTHING except a false sense of security.

[KoKo]

35. So....States have already had to order their new machines and you want

Dean to say: "Don't vote at all because even paper ballots will not be counted." You've gotta be kidding? The horse was out of the gate when the HAVA ACT was passed. Blame other Dems who voted for it and not Dean who didn't

HAVA ACT caused the mess....and it wasn't up to Dean to fix it but the "Elections Officials" in the states.

He said the right things. The best we could do in our state and that was with lawyers helping us and a Bill we managed to get through for "random recounts" and "open examinable code" was the Optiscan machines. The alternative (which many states will have to used in many counties) was the DRE paperless or a small "toilet paper trail"

I wish you hadn't posted this because at this late time in the cycle it only causes people to put anger where it doesn't belong.....

But, whatever...the best we have is the Optiscan because it does have a ballot. It's up to us to make sure in our counties that the counting is done correctly.

[KoKo]

40. BTW....I asked Andy Stephenson in a post here on DU what he would

recommend our state try to work for...and he said if we couldn't get Paper Ballot/Hand Counted...to try to fight for the Optiscan machine because at least there would be a countable ballot.

No one worked harder than Andy on this. I asked him for advice because we were fighting to get a bill through here in NC! I believe Andy on this. And, Dean has never veered from his original statements for a Paper/Countable ballot.

[garybeck]

77. Andy...

andy was correct to tell you to go for opscans as a first step, because it gives you a paper ballot. but if he were alive today, I GUARNATEE YOU, he would not say that is anyhwere good enough. the opscans have been PROVEN to be just as vulnerable. what you need is mandatory audits. otherwise the paper ballots just sit there and no one ever looks at them.

Andy supported HR550 which calls for mandatory audits. that's why.

[KoKo]

83. How was Dean supposed to get a bill through that calls for mandatory

audits...when this is up to the individual STATE legislatures? We got a bill through that calls for that...but it was hell to do.

It was up to activists in the states to do that....and if you had a Repug Governor and Legislature...there was NO WAY...:shrug:

[EFerrari]

140. Andy was preaching this even to his medical people to the very end.

One of his nurses recounted to me one of his lessons on voter verified paper ballots. He never quit.

[garybeck]

48. don't put words in my mouth

did I ever say anying even remotely close to suggesting that people should not vote?

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post because your first sentence is completely off the wall.

I am only saying that the Democratic Party has to recognize there is a problem and take steps to fix it. I never said anything about telling people not to vote. that is absurd. as a matter of fact I am a notary public, just so I can register people in my state to vote.

the people who think that folks who are concerned about the voting machines really want people to not vote are completely wrong. all the election reform people I know, we all want MORE people to vote, not less.

really... I don't see how you can make the connection with any use of logic whatsoever.

[KoKo]

87. It's a shame you took offense and didn't read my post....because

you might have had a chance to think about what I sais. Which is that: what good would it do for Dean to say the voting machines are crap, including the optiscans. How does that change anything?

HAVA Act is already in place and states were forced to rush through their decision and have the machines in place for the primary. :shrug:

Why is this Howard Dean's fault. :eyes:

[BeFree]

159. Koko

The point is that dean is the head of the party, and people listen to what he says. If he says everything is ok with the machine counters, then its not an issue for dem leadership.

But if Dean says we have a problem it gets the attention needed.

It absolutely strangles me that our party is neglecting this issue. It is of the highest priority. The Number one issue. Without confidence in the election process, no confidence can be had in our elected government.

Howard Dean needs to take off the blinders and screem bloody murder, 'cause that's what bad elections are doing to our democracy - it murders it!

[nashville_brook]

106. this is reminding me 2004 all over again. novemeber's gonna SUCK!

please tell me i'm wrong. i thought we come farther than this, garybeck. i didn't realize you were on this thread when i posted about your I.AmSo.Pissed post and got jumped on. haven't felt that sort of heat in a very long time. i wasn't expecting it. :)

[Orangepeel]

43. that there could be a recount means a hell of a lot

some states have laws that anybody can have a recount as long as they pay for it. Local races are always going to be close and need recounts and those are done in public where people can see the top of the ticket votes while they are being counted.

we aren't going back to a system where every ballot is counted by hand every time. we just aren't. Americans are impatient people. But, if every race has a physical ballot then it is at least possible to institute checks and audits by law.

The perfect is often the enemy of the good, and optical scan machines with physical ballots are a hell of a lot better than vaporwear touchscreen machines.

[garybeck]

75. no they're not

"some states have laws that anybody can have a recount as long as they pay for it."

where were you in 2004? do you know which states have these laws? do you know how much it costs? or are you basing this statement on heresay?

people tried to conduct recounts but were turned away in many cases.

we simply can not rely on recounts for democracy.

we need mandatory random audits. HR550 calls for mandatory random audits and there's a reason for it - because the opscan machines are completely untrustworthy and recounts are never done.

[Orangepeel]

147. yes, they are

I understand your passion. The integrity of the voting system is a very important issue and it is good that you are passionate. But, you are confusing technical issues and legislative issues.

If you want to be able to have recounts of paper ballots, you need a voting system that counts paper ballots. Optical scan machines are a way to count paper ballots, and, they work, if they are not tampered with*. Touch screen voting machines are a way to record votes and if they are tampered with, there is no recourse.

Whether or not recounts are done and the extent to which recounts are done is a legislative issue. Supporting the use of optical scan machines in no way precludes audits of actual ballots (supporting the use of touchscreen machines does because even if there is a "receipt" it isn't a real ballot -- there is no real ballot).

I'm not saying that optical scan machines can't be tampered with or that it is easy to catch tampering. But it is absolutely possible to do so**. Therefore it is, IMO, foolish to refuse to support the use of optical scanning machines because we'd also have to fight for legislation that allows for/calls for auditing.

*In 2002, I spent a week in my county's supervisor of elections office watching optical scan ballots be recounted by hand to determine votes in the gubernatorial primary. My county has a Democratic supervisor, so everything was likely on the up-an-up anyway, but I am completely confident in that system. It worked.

**25 states allow a candidate to request a recount regardless of the outcome. http://www.electionline.org/Portals/1/Publications/ERIPBrief12_FINAL.pdf

[garybeck]

162. what I'm saying is

Howard Dean said that we can trust the optical scan machines.

that is wrong. that is false. that is not true. that is a problem.

we can not trust them.

Do you know about the interpreted code? Do you know about Harri Hursti? Do you know about Debra Bowen?

If you did know about these things you could never say that the optical scan machines can be trusted, in any way at all.

there has to be audits on the system. period.

it was wrong for Dean to say that we can simply trust the opscan machines. We can't. That's my only point of this whole post.

there are many people who still think we can trust the optical scan machines. but these people haven't been turned on to the facts because, as usual, the media is not doing its job.

[marions ghost]

46. I agree that the optiscans

are only as good as the central tabulating. But they are still NOT the same things as DRES.

An optiscan system could be made to work effectively (with a lot of other changes of course, such as transparent oversight of the system, random hand counts during the election, and impartial election administration). However optiscans are five times cheaper than DREs, relatively simple from the administrators point of view, and can move large numbers of voters through in a short time (which is better for us since we depend more on voters who don't have the luxury of long waits). And of course, the optiscans use paper ballots.

AT THE SAME TIME that I say this, I also favor handcounts in conjunction. ALL precincts should verify the optiscans with hand counts. Ideally I would like to see ALL precincts have to hand count as WELL as count by optiscan machine, to check the machines, after every election. This is not too much to ask. I want BOTH.

I agree with you Garybeck that no matter if you use DREs, Optiscan, or hand counts -- it ALL comes down to the central tabulators. People DO need to understand that "voter-verified paper ballots' does NOT solve the problem.

Transparency is the bottom line.

[MadisonProgressive]

33. Right - and the central tabulator is where all the cheating is going on.

[DLnyc]

34. Yes, that is along the lines I was thinking.

Hard to imagine a voting system that can't be monkeyed with; I thought the point was to have a physical record that can be audited afterwords to prove cheating when it takes place.

OP says:
"In other words, Diebold could use opscan machines to change the election results very easily and we have no way to know that they did it (short of conducting a recount using the paper ballots, which we know will not happen)."

If recount's can't happen, then any voting method can be hacked, no? SOS just says * got 99.99% of the vote, the rest were 'no choice recorded'. Since there can't be a recount, that's the final result (REGARDLESS of the voting method used).

So, other than voter verified paper record with required recounts if questionable or close, what options do we have?

Perhaps I'm missing something here?

[EFerrari]

36. There is an appearance of accountability only.

What if the results weren't close and the machine isn't suspect? How would you know if there was fraud?

Or say, the results were close. In the OH (non)recount, the vendors went around and helped the elections folks prechose their "random" sample.

Part of the problem is the system itself. Part of the problem are the Thug vendors we buy them from.

[faithnotgreed]

47. strongly disagree (respectfully) - ballots mean nothing if there is no

rule of law, no oversight, entire swaths of voters deleted from the registers (and then told oh no problem you can use provisional ballots which arent even likely counted), lockdowns (or any excuse the counties want to give apparently) allowed because of undisclosed fbi information (that the fbi later denies)
and on and on and on

unbelievable.

recounts are suspect at the very least if they even perform one
the entire voting process let alone any "recounts" done in ohio were tragedy unfolded
and thats just one example

i absolutely kick and nominate this thread
please howard dean - you are among the few voices of sane politicians in this insane world

[BlooInBloo]

11. Circular fire squad: Deploy to Howard Dean - stat!

:rofl:

You guys kill me.

[MasonJar]

16. Please let him know immediately since you understand the pro-

blem better than the rest of us. I totally agree that it will make no difference what our policies are if the machines do not have a paper trail.

[garybeck]

20. he has become untouchable.

I've written many letters to the DNC. Usually I get nothing back, sometimes I get a form letter that is full of BS. We need something more organized than a handful of people writing a letter.

[ananda]

24. What!

Opti-scan machines are bad, too.

Didn't you notice the problems with opti-scans
in Florida 2004?

The only thing I'd really trust is hand counted
paper ballots, with lots of oversight.

Sue

[garybeck]

26. did you read the whole post?

If you got out of it that I think Opscans are good, please re-read it. It's Howard Dean that thinks they're good, not me. That's my point - it's a big problem that Dean thinks they are good. we are screwed.

[napi21]

25. So, what exactly is it that you want?

Obviously, punch cards are unacceptable.

Trouch Screens are easily hacked.

You don't like opti-scan because you don't trust the recounts.

If you don't trust the counting, then obviously you wouldn't trust a total paper ballot.

How the h*ll do you want to record votes????

[BlooInBloo]

28. I say physical ballots with video recorded counting....

... video is recorded by a judge and representatives of both candidates...

After decision is reached, videos are made public.

Something of that sort... there's details of course, but that's the general idea I think would be good.

[EFerrari]

31. It's not the recounts, it's the TABULATORS and

the methodology of the recounts.

I think you might have misread the OP. :)

[garybeck]

32. it's very simple

first let me say your statement is not correct:

"You don't like opti-scan because you don't trust the recounts."

I don't like optiscan because of the memory cards which are ILLEGAL. And it's not just ME that doesn't like them, it's everyone who has been watching this. The recount issue is secondary to the first count. You have to understand, the opscan machine can read the ballot and change the vote just as easily as the DREs. the memory cards make them even more vulnerable because all the memory cards are programmed by Diebold before each election. the recent study found illegal code on there.

In regards to the recounts, It's great that they could be done but the bottom line is they don't get done. There are at least 6 states that should have had recounts in 2004 and none of them had one. the only state that had a recount, it was done illegally. 3 people have been indicted for illegal activity in the recount. regardless, with the memory cards, they can just make the gap 6 or 7% so no one will ask for a recount anyway. the point is, we can't trust the first count and that is the real problem.

now to answer your question:

"how the hell do you want to count the ballots anyway?"

the answer is simple.

you need a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast.

you need audits, a minimum of 5%, randomly chosen, to check the results against the machine count.

and you need open software code.


that's it. is it really that complicated?

once we get that, i'd push for more than 5% random audits, but we need those three things at a minimum before I can rest. it is not that complicated.

[marions ghost]

138. so it's not the technology

of opti-scan but the fact that Diebold controls the memory cards. SO if Diebold DIDNT control the memory cards, then would opti-scan be acceptable?

Also what about requiring each precinct to hand-count the votes AS WELL, as a way of preventing "recounts." They could turn in the ballots after hand-counting. That doesn't seem to be such a big task. So you would have 2 official counts--machine and hand--with a procedure to immediately implement if they are substantially off.

Still doesn't deal with the central tabulator problem, I realize.

[EFerrari]

29. Link to feedback form at Democrats.com

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

[dpbrown]

41. Paper is required to conduct Optical Scanning

And you can't hack the paper as easily.

[EFerrari]

Well, they did in Ohio. There are four election workers under

indictment for doing just that. And meanwhile, Junior is still in the White House.

[dpbrown]

Election theft doesn't mean Optical Scan is as bad as Diebold

Paper ballots can be counted. Bits and bytes cannot. There is a difference, and optical scan balloting is not as bad as black box voting. The original poster is wrong.

[EFerrari]

91. OpScan is better by a hair. Both systems provide no

transparency in practice. I agree with garybeck.

[dpbrown]

97. All paper balloting will never come back. Live with it

An electronic system of counting paper ballots is the only method that offers both speed and verification.


Optical Scan balloting is the best demonstrated method of electronically counting paper ballots.


We've got one of the highest voting rates, and one of the most accurate voting counts in the nation, and we use optical scan ballots in many counties in Minnesota.

[EFerrari]

103. How do you know they are accurate?

:)

We use them here in San Francisco as well. For now.

[dpbrown]

112. They're verifiable.

They can be regulated. They can be certified. They can be sampled. All because the paper forms a test set.


All solutions not available with black box voting.


Optical scan balloting is not nearly as bad as black box voting. The original poster is wrong.

[EFerrari]

115. Are they regulated? Were they certified despite interpretor code?

That's illegal.

Who does the sampling?

"Sampling" in OH was rigged -- carefully rigged by the vendor who coached Blackwell's people. Unfortunately, some of them were caught.

I think we're just going to disagree on this one.

[dpbrown]

139. If there's something to be illegal, then it's regulated

The tabulation of the optical scan machines can be regulated just like the gas pumps can, because the volume moving through each can be independently verified. That's why they're always going to be better than black box voting.

Whether someone breaks the law doesn't directly impugn the regulation or the reliability of the optical scan counting mechanism itself.

We are talking about different aspects of the process.

[Amaryllis]

179. REad this if you think opscans arent a problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=421988&mesg_id=421988

[autorank]

186. Wrong on all points.

Canada has an all paper system because THEY DO NOT TRUST COMPUTERIZED VOTING. They looked at it and said no way. They count their votes within 4 hours of poll closing. That's what we could do and there's no reason to think that we won't after 2006 turns into a disaster. Paper offers adequate speed (this isn't a race, it's democracy) and total verification.

Optical scan machines have been hacked in office settings, where they operate...at least twice. Other software problems are abundant. In Ohio, it looked like we got a better shake on optical scans. If Deans crack staff had looked at any of the literature, in Florida, we got screwed in the optical scan areas; and while we did better in the touch screen areas, South Florida, the state screwed us in a variety of ways (those totals made little sense).

Each citizen has a right to see that their vote is cast correctly. With optical scans or touch screens, the process disappears into a machine that can, and sometimes, does manipulate the intention of the voter. Why do you think Richardson went all paper in NM? Because a law suit with the first ever examination of these machines showed how pathetic they were.

If the government can't let the voter know that his vote has been cast and counted directly, then it's not legitimate.

Touch screens and optical scans remove the right of citizens to observe the vote count and tabulation and IT TURNS THE WHOLE PROCESS OVER TO PRIVATE VENDORS.

PRIVATIZED ELECTIONS, OUTSOURCED TO MAJOR CORPORATIONS IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

[mirrera]

192. Optical Scan is Diebold/is black box voting!

(Edited to say this is not a reply to GaryBeck who I agree with)



Please, read more about this. If you haven't read about the Hursti Hack, all this will be confusing. Gary is 110% right all the way. I am working in maine right now because it is about half hand counted paper ballots, and the other half Diebold Optical scans. The same kind Hursti hacked the memory card on. One of our representatives lost by 12 votes, did a re-count and won by two votes. The ONLY discrepancies after the re-count were from the machines. Mandatory counting of the ballots by hand is the only way to know what is real. All the scanner tells you for sure is how many people voted. Everything else at this point is faith based. I know Gary Beck isn't "bashing Dean"! For pete's sake it is so obvious that the frustration is over the fact that he is the only one we know who really "got it" because of the demo he took part in, so it is unbelievable that he has not been following the Ion Sancho/Hursti/Mcpherson saga. If we loose him as a knowledgeable ally we have almost no one who gets it.

The state of California conducted it's own security tests on the Diebold AccuVote(scanner) and TSX systems. They declared a security threat even greater than Hurst intimated:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/security_analysis_of_the_diebold_accubasic_interpreter.pdf

Here are some key quotes:

"Harri Hursti's attack does work: Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server."

"Memory card attacks are a real threat: We determined that anyone who has access to a memory card of the AV-OS, and can tamper it (i.e. modify its contents), and can have the modified cards used in a voting machine during election, can indeed modify the election results from that machine in a number of ways. The fact that the results are incorrect cannot be detected except by a recount of the original paper ballots."

"Successful attacks can only be detected by examining the paper ballots: There would be no way to know that any of these attacks occurred; the canvass procedure would not detect any anomalies, and would just produce incorrect results. The only way to detect and correct the problem would be by recount of the original paper ballots, e.g. during the 1 percent manual recount."

Unfortunately McPherson certified Diebold anyway, but some voting activists are suing the state over it. PEOPLE Blackwell wanted to force the state of Ohio to go to ALL scanners. At the time i was thinking...hmmm something is fishy. If Blackwell wants them it can't be good. No one knew there was interpreted code on the memory cards at that time.

The Voting guidelines set by the EAC mandated by HAVA expressly prohibits Interpreted code. As activists we finally have something that even a computer ignorant election official should understand.
HAVA says you must have an available way for the disabled to vote, and you have to replace the old punch card machines. HAVA also said you must form a commission (EAC) to set standards (The Voluntary Voting System Guidelines), which they did. SO by de-certifying Diebold one would actually be following HAVA, but the vendors are putting the squeeze on. We must squeeze back...

HARD.

Some reading:

Hursti Report July 2005:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/BBVreport.pdf

Miami Herald Article:
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=509&Itemid=113

Witness to the Hursti Hack:
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=820&Itemid=113

Explanation of Interpreted code:
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=645&Itemid=26





http://NoBullshiRt.com

[madfloridian]

45. Goody...10 votes for greatest page already. Untruths.

You start by attacking Dean, and then others jump in to attack Kerry. Congrats.

And even DFA was misrepresented. This is a shame.

Optical scans ARE paper ballots. They are there for recount. You are not being very honest in this post.

[faithnotgreed]

55. mad - can you please tell me in what way you disagree with the

op assessment of dr deans stance

i want very much to understand his position
and i was one of those who nominated this thread ONLY because its a crucial discussion. and in my post i say that dean is one of the few voices of sanity. i set aside attacks on any politican etc (even those i like) as long as the poster seems to genuinely want to discuss and understand

i think this is a vital discussion (and if people are going to use this only to attack then i think they miss the point)
if we dont all start talking about how we can come together on this issue (as sfexpat states) and try to understand what is truth and what isnt then we have let ourselves and everyone else down
du is one place where intelligent and passionate and reasoned debate can happen and i really want to see this happen about this issue

thanks mad
i appreciate your thoughts

[madfloridian]

61. I vote by optical scan. There is a paper ballot.

Hubby and I have both taken turns monitoring the scanner count at elections. We have learned they can be skewed if someone wants to...but the paper ballots are there.

I just don't like mispresentations of groups and people. Why are you just going after Dean and not the congressional Democrats? They are the ones to make changes in elections. Not Dean. They don't like him anymore than you do, so go after the right people.

[faithnotgreed]

76. thank you. i surely hope you have me confused with someone else.

i dont tend to and dont like to "go after" anyone
not my style which i like to think of as very supportive (at least i hope it is though i encourage you to read any of my posts to make your own judgment)

there are many politicians i dont agree with but i dont recall that i have ever said anything untoward about dr dean so i will assume you thought i was the op (or someone else)

ok
now on to the topic
thank you for your response and please know that im not an expert. i say this from my understanding of how things work so please correct wherever i am wrong

what is quite disconcerting is just as you say: there are paper ballots which people tend to think of as a buffer - as an assurance if something goes wrong

as we know there are only certain cases that a recount can occur:

since from the beginning of the process the original machine is hackable (as you mention) then a recount is only likely if you can prove something illegal or something that has changed the voting somehow (which is quite difficult)
or a recount is also - to my understanding - only triggered if the margin of defeat warrants such a recount. so if the original machine is hackable and the county in question cannot find the proof needed (and sufficient proof is either hidden or destroyed) to halt the process to get a recount of some kind then there goes the recount option for lack of evidence. the same people who are so good at pushing for these machines and determining what the media knows or what they release are in the same web as those controlling the machines.
and knowing that, those same people hacking the machines can also ensure the margin of victory to be high enough that again cancels out any basis for recount
which in my mind renders any paper ballots moot if they are connected to a hackable machine

that is my grave concern and what i gathered from the op when i first read it (again i set aside attacks as clutter when i feel the person is sincerely trying to express and generate discussion)

i appreciate your time and any guidance or correction you can share

eta: spelling

[madfloridian]

82. We are winning elections lately.

If all the machines are controlled by the GOP, how are we doing it? We had some good wins throughout the country in November, and have been doing well in special elections also. Not perfect, but doing better. The DNC blog posts about these wins.

I do think there is corruption, but I think attacking Howard Dean in a post that makes the greatest page and has all kinds of misrepresentations in it is not a good thing for the party.

[faithnotgreed]

96. its not straightforward to be sure and there are different machines

in different jurisdictions

but there is little doubt in my mind that ONE of the ways that this issue is kept in the "tinfoil hat" category is because they dont hack all races or all machines
of course they would get caught - just like any robber would - if they are completely obvious

its exactly how they keep getting away with just this type of subject
they pick and choose where its at all feasible or where they deem its absolutely necessary

when there are only like 3 voting machine companies and each one is owned by those who have given heavily to the gop and those machines have been proven to be hackable then i have no doubt that they are doing just that
ohio as just one example was just WAY too much of a mess

i have lots to learn to be sure
hopefully the comprehensive article thats supposed to come out later this month (as referenced by mark crispin miller) will shed light on this for all of us

as many others i appreciate your support of dr dean and thank you for your passion to discuss what is truth and what is not

[madfloridian]

104. Stop. This has nothing to do with supporting anyone. About fairness.

We are getting important wins, yet no one admits it. All voting machines are not rigged, some probably are. Congress can fix it, Dean can't.

I believe in fairness.

[faithnotgreed]

again i dont know what just happened so i will bow out of this

wishing a nice evening to you and your husband

[autorank]

187. Florida optical scans produced disproportionate Republican margins.

And not in just the Dixiecrat areas. Know your facts before making statements like this.

[garybeck]

72. No.

I guess this is what open debate is about my friend.

but you are incorrect. he said we can trust the opscan machines. that is not true. we can't trust the opscan machines AT ALL. they are the same as DREs.

recounts are only an issue if you actually have a recount. if you don't have a recount, the paper ballots are meaninless.

the first count is what matters and opscans are NO better than DRES on the first count. we know from recent tests that they have ILLEGAL CODE on them. Yes ILLEGAL. and why is it illegal? Because the Federal Election Commission knows that putting interpreted code on the memory cards makes them extremely vulnerable to rigging.

I am being completely honest and objective. Read up on the subject and you will agree. having faith in the opscan machines is a bad formula based on misconceptions.

[madfloridian]

89. Then call out the congressional Democrats.

Dean has at least spoken on it. You attribute too much power to him, and I disagree with you about optical scans.

[garybeck]

176. "I disagree with you about optical scans"

I'm betting you don't know about the Hursti Hack yet.

[mattclearing]

49. Op-scan SHOULD be better than touchscreen, because there's a paper record.

But getting a manual recount to get to that paper record is the hard part. That proved impossible in Ohio, no?

[magellan]

57. Yes, even with all that went down in OH

Optiscan is just as bad when those in charge can't be trusted. Paper ballots, hand count is my preference, with count watchers. It takes longer than one evening to figure out who won? Tough. This is the leader of our country we're electing. It's worth doing it right and knowing we can rely on the result, as the experience of suffering Bush** has proven.

[EFerrari]

68. Don't they hand count vote in Canada faster than

you can cook a turkey? :)

[magellan]

71. I don't know, let's find out

Get Canada to hold elections and throw Bush** on the grill.

;)

[DoYouEverWonder]

52. There is nothing wrong with optical scanners

they are just a tool to make counting something easier.

However, when the tool is misused by people who want to subvert the results of an election then they are a problem. The good thing about optical scanners is they require a paper ballot to begin with.

We just need better safe guards in place and the ability to recount votes without a court order even if we don't use machines.

[EFerrari]

You might want to reread this bit of the OP:

"WE CAN'T TRUST THE OPTICAL SCAN MACHINES ANY MORE THAN THE TOUCHSCREEN MACHINES. They are just as hackable. They are just as untrustworthy. Recent tests in california proved beyond all doubt that they have interpreted code on the memory cards, which is ILLEGAL and leaves the system wide open to fraud. A computer security expert pre-programmed a memory card to change the eleciton results without any passwords and he did it in 5 minutes."

[garybeck]

78. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

the optical scan machines are just as bad as the DREs. they are not just vote counting machines. they have software on them that changes the vote count.

PLEASE, PLEASE, Please, read this article:

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=798&Itemid=51

[EC]

53. The scanners are a problem

but, at least there is a paper ballot that can be hand counted if allowed....It is a worry, but we have to get back in control to do something about it...or get someone to buy the companies making the machines, like Chavez did with Sequoia...now the Republicans don't trust the Sequoia machines....

[3ringcircus]

59. not allowed

I was just told this monday at demonstration of scanners at local election comm. recounts are simply fed back thru the machines! I asked what would it take to hand count a recount and they said it is against the law for anyone to touch the ballots!

[madfloridian]

62. That is a local decision that can be changed.

This post was attacking Dean and presenting a wrong stance.

[3ringcircus]

63. sorry

guess i didn't realise this shouldn't be in this thread

[BeFree]

163. You are within rights, 3ring

Don't be blasted away by the blowhard comments.

Your point about the ballots not being able to be seen by any but the elite counters is spot on. Usually it is a state decision, and in Fla, as far as I know, it has been made illegal to see the ballots. Why? The crooks learned a lesson in 2000 when a group of news orgs. were able to hand count the punch cards. They found Gore won. Can't have that again so they passed a law, outlawing the news from doing such a thing again.

[madfloridian]

173. I just said it was a local decision, not national.

That is all I said. What is blowhard about that.

[MGKrebs]

60. Those who say things like " every other problem is secondary"

marginalize themselves. How are the people who are working on child abuse supposed to feel? How about veterans benefits? Or racism? The ballot issue is very important, no doubt, but it is insulting to others to have their work disparaged like that.

Also, you are paraphrasing someone you heard calling in to a radio station who is paraphrasing something they heard, and it's not clear if they were actually present or they got this second hand. I feel your passion, but getting people excited about this may require a little more substance.

[EFerrari]

66. Well, there is no way we can support the advocates

of child safety or veterans benefits or civil rights workers if we don't have our vote.

The reverse isn't true. And, I don't think the idea is to demean other advocates working on other issues at all.

I've yet to see or hear any Democrat besides Debra Bowen in California demonstrate a working knowledge of electronic voting or vote counting. Given that their ability to take office depends on these systems, I find that astonishing.

[faithnotgreed]

88. sf - im so glad youre here on this thread - do henry waxman or zoe

lofgren have this working knowledge
for some reason i was thinking there were a couple house people who knew what the heck was going on but maybe even that is too idealistic

ha

glad to see you here because its threads like these that so often degenerate when some can only see the clutter or are too busy pointing fingers that they cant just try to understand or ask questions or come together

though it is a controversial topic im unclear why its controversial HERE
if the original machine is hackable then anything and everthing attached to it (paper ballots or the like) is also immediately suspect
though thats just my opinion of course but when youre not dealing with people who respect the basic rule of law how can you trust them to run clean and fair elections? and just as you say: if you dont have that then you cant have or support all the crucial issues that the dems are supposed to represent

[EFerrari]

92. The vendors we get our voting systems from are

mercenaries for the Republican party just as Blackwater provided mercenaries in Iraq (and in New Orleans).

They're mercs. And we have no reason to trust them with the most precious thing we have as citizens, our vote.

/typo

[faithnotgreed]

101. RIGHT ON

[Amaryllis]

180. YOu are right; Bowen is the ONLY one who has actually demonstrated

a working knowledge of electronic voting.

[MGKrebs]

193. I'm going to challenge that too.

It's hard to let statements like that go.

Why can you not help other advocates without the vote? Go to their meetings. Go to their marches. Volunteer to mentor, whatever. In fact, one could make the case that if we no longer were able to vote, those are exactly the kinds of things we would be devoting more of our enegy to.

I'm not sure what "the reverse isn't true" means. The reverse would be that other advocates CAN help the paper ballot cause without the vote?

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just think that these kinds of statements are not helpful to the paper ballot issue or other advocacy issues. It is important to me that those who work in areas where the government has failed or is inadequate recognize that "their" issue is not necessarily the most important issue to everyone else. We are stronger when we help each other, but "issue egotism" isn't going to get us there.

[garybeck]

73. do you realize

that for all your issues that you mentioned, like child abuse and racism, you have to be able to ELECT A PERSON YOU THINK WILL TREAT THESE ISSUES PROPERLY. If you can't elect people you want, then do the other issues really mean anything?

I'm not saying the other issues aren't important. I'm saying that the other issues RELY ON having proper elections. If we can't vote for and elect the people we want, based on the issues that are important, the issues will never be addressed.

[MGKrebs]

100. That is just bullshit.

I'm sorry, but while I consider myself a ballot activist too, there are people who will work on child abuse, children being sentenced to prison, racism, and many other important issues regardless of who is in office or whether we are even a democracy or not. Get your help by some other means than trying to make everybody feel bad that they aren't working on YOUR issue.

I was at a meeting last night where a woman described helping a 13 year old girl who on her second pregnancy. While you might say that her situation would be helped if her vote were counted accurately, I think she could be forgiven for thinking that getting some resources into this girls life TOMORROW might take precedence.

I don't want to minimize what you do. I've just heard this line of reasoning before and it really bothers me. I think some of the more extreme advocates for ballot reform here in Georgia actually have made the work harder by "poisoning the water" with talk like this that makes many people back off.

[garybeck]

119. I agree with you

look, some issues are outside politics and just addressed on a local level by non profit organzations and they will continue regardless of who gets elected. i do not mean to minimize these efforts at all. they are all very important and I'm very glad that people can work on these issues regardless of who is in office.

when I rant about the e-voting issue being the most important issue, it is *within the context of politics* only.

when I say it is the most important issue we face, I'm saying it is the most important *political* issue we face. all other POLITICAL issues stem from this one issue.

Some issues are addressed in the context of politics and some are not. Many issues are addressed both - inside and outside of politics.

What I'm saying is, that as far as political issues go, nothing comes close to this, because everything else stems from the right to elect our representatives.

For the non-political issues, you are correct, this is not the most important issue in the world.

However, I would argue that the federal government is infringing more and more on the rights of citizens to take action at the local issue and work on "non-political" issues, so again, it bolsters my argument that this issue is extremely important.

peace

[Amaryllis]

182. YOu are right, Gary, that as far as anything that is voted on in congress

or any action by the executive branch is concerned, honest elections take precedence over all else. If Bush hadnt been appointed by the SCOTUS in 2000, we would not be in Iraq. Roberts and Alito wouldn't be on the SC.
We wouldnt have had Abu Graib, illegal wiretapping, torture, we wouldn't be talking about invading Iran, we wouldn't have trillions of dollars in debt, we wouldn't have a decimated environmental policy and on and on and on.

[EFerrari]

135. Election reform is my third area of advocacy. I try to advocate

for families dealing with mental health issues. Then, homelessness as the two are related. Then, election reform.

I don't see anyone trying to demean or guilt trip here.

This is simply an issue that we must deal with and we need to do it effectively. If we want funding for our social or civic programs, if we want to rebuild an independent media to report our stories, if we want to participate in advocacy at all -- we need our vote.

And sure, effective communication is a top priority.

[Guaranteed]

126. What if we fixed all the machines, and still lost? nt

[EFerrari]

136. We can't and we wouldn't.

:)

[rman]

67. "the only election we can trust is a transparent election"

very simple

[EFerrari]

69. That's right. nt

[Orsino]

74. Optical scan machines read actual ballots...

...which could at least be recounted by hand. In that sense, yeah, optical scans would be the most "trustworthy."

But that has nothing to do, directly, with the machines. We should never trust machines, especially the ones which only pretend that there is ever a real ballot.

[garybeck]

80. they read the ballot

but putting a ballot in the opscan is the same thing functionally as touching a touchscreen machine. you have no idea what happened to your vote after the ballot is scanned. no more than a person who touched a DRE did. the same vote counting software is on there. the same illegal code.

[Orsino]

85. Yeah, the only difference...

...is the possibility of a meaningful recount.

[garybeck]

113. you hit it on the head

the problem is that we just don't have recounts, hardly ever.

most recount laws specify the first count has to be very close to consider a recount. with what we know about the opscans, they can program them to change the vote total DRAMATICALLY, and make it off by 10 or 20% so there would be no recount. done deal.

we need to get the first count right.

[Orsino]

120. Uh-huh. And the worst thing is...

...that the Rs have so completely fucked up that the upcoming elections aren't as likely to be close enough to trigger recounts, thus instilling a false sense of security in the Left. Just in time for '08.

[EFerrari]

130. HAVA implementation will blow up all over them just as this

immigration noncrisis has.

Watch.

[3ringcircus]

128. gary i cant pm you

will you pm me please

[ronnykmarshall]

81. GASP!!!

How DARE YOU??????

[madfloridian]

86. What about congressional Democrats? How about them?

Dean can not do anything about this unless they do. Why him?

[garybeck]

94. he's the leader. they will at least listen to him.

some of the congressional democrats DO GET IT. Rush Holt has introduced legislation that is a step in the right direction. HR550.

according to Dean's statements we don't even need HR550. we just need optical scan machines and we're set. we don't need audits, we don't need open software code. we just need optical scans, because I guess, "at least there could be a recount."

is that what we are all supposed to hang our democracy on?

"at least there could be a recount."

if you really understand the problem, you have to realize that the recount is moot. the opscan could rig the election to be 6 or 7% off and no one would ever even consider asking for a recount.

[LSK]

123. Dean has repeatedly said he does not interfere with Congressional affairs

[madfloridian]

175. Not really. Where did you get that idea that they listened to him?

They are always cautioning him to hush.

[AndyA]

90. I have to say I agree with garybeck...

The Optical Scan Machines are better than the Touch Screens only because they have a paper ballot. And that's it. They win by default. But they are still second best.

What concerns me most is it seems there's a perception that once Opti-Scans are in place, the issues go away. And that's simply not true. We have a private company making them, with technology that's secret and cannot be examined for accuracy. We have to take their word for it.

America, that's simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Honest, accurate, verifiable, auditable elections are the ONLY thing that protect Democracy. Without accurate elections, we have nothing.

I don't want to fault Howard Dean or anyone else on this, but with all the voting issues we've had since 2000, I would think this should be the #1 issue on every Democratic Party members list.

[autorank]

95. Simple Solution -- Will Make Everybody Happy, Help Democrats Win

Take these truths to be unassailable:

1) Dean is part of the solution to the disaster that our elections have become, a big part.

2) There are huge problems with electronic voting. It's even worse than before. Republican vendors providing optical scan and touch screen machines are incompetent. Centralized registration databases are failing from 25% to 43% in California and can't get off the ground in Indiana, just as examples. Read this for the truth: E-Voting 2006, The Approaching Train Wreck by a DUer John Gideon.

3) If it's not fixed, we will get screwed in 2006. To many examples just since 2004 to go over (but try Hackett's loss to Jean Schmidt, the loss of Ohio's special measures, etc.].

Solution:

(a) Dean needs a quiet sit down with people outside of DNC who will tell him the truth about the entire scene.

(b) Dean needs to be motivated by this, which I'm sure he would.

(c) LET DEAN BE DEAN He's obviously not well briefed by DNC on the current high points of the issue otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion and he would not be saying what he said. Let's get him properly and let him do his Dean thing.

The very best thing Dean of another prominent Democrat could do is make a high profile speech with these words in it:

We've had enough of incompetent elections officials and incompetent Republican owned voting machine companies. If there are any problems in 2006, and WE WILL BE WATCHING CLOSELY, there will be Hell to pay. Howard Dean (I hope)

This is baseline. Scare the crap out of the companies and officials who think they own our votes. This won't solve all the problems but it will make one hell of a difference AND DEAN CAN DO IT.

Everybody happy now. Hope so. We have elections to win and we need votes taken, tabulated, and reported properly in an election where there is no discrimination and no minority voter suppression.

Excellent Post. RECOMMENDED.

[goodhue]

107. But opitcal scans are better than touchscreen machines!

We use them here in Minnesota with little problem. Importantly, there is a paper ballot that serves as a backup, if needed.

[garybeck]

110. how do you know there isn't a problem?

have you ever checked the paper ballots against the machine count, in a federal election?

read this article:

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=798&Itemid=51

there is a HUGE problem with opscans.

[KoKo]

117. Gary...what have your elections officials in your own State said when

you've confronted them. What have the Dem Activists in your state done to work to get ahead of the HAVA ACT funding which the States must comply with to buy the new voting machines.

Has anyone tried to get legislation through in your state....and what machines will you be voting on in your county?

I'm sorry...don't have time to check out your DU profile for your state...but it would be helpful if you could share your own experience.

[KoKo]

156. Gary....AGAIN...what's YOUR State Doing about this? What are YOU

going to be voting on in your own Precinct? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

174. I can't speak for gary of course, but in my precinct we vote

on OpScan. I am in San Francisco. The last time we had a close mayoral race, we found ballots dumped in the bay.

And, because we do, I'm in the process of putting Mark Crispin Miller's book in the hands of my board of supervisors as well as planning to get GuvWorld's Voter Confidence project adopted in this county. It's slow work, even in this very blue county because no one wants to pet the elephant in the livingroom.

But, when you go local, you find you're dealing with people, with human beings that have intelligence and care at their disposal. We will get voter verifed paper ballots here -- and in part because garybeck and GuvWorld and autorank and others were patient with my ignorance. Are patient. lol

[Fleshdancer]

114. optical scanners have to scan a paper ballot, right?

Isn't that what we want? The paper trail? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

118. The ballots are scanned into hackable tabulators.

And the voter has no way to verify his/her choices.

[Fleshdancer]

121. So what should Dean be for?

hand count of all ballots everywhere? International oversight? I honestly have no idea what the best solution is and would welcome any ideas. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

129. I won't pretend to know better than Dr. Dean but it might be a good

thing if he was briefed on this topic, very well briefed because the Help America Vote Act is being implemented all over the country.

That means, electronic voting machines and voter reg databases are being installed all over the country.

It will be a terrible mess and lots of eligible voters will be disenfranchised.

I believe he would never intentionally aid this effort to steal votes from Democrats and that is exactly what HAVA was intended to do.

He needs the facts. And although I'm sure he has been inundated in his current job, this is a pivotal issue.

[garybeck]

131. it's worse than that

the scanner takes the ballot and converts it into an electronic vote.

we have no idea what happens when the conversion is done.

this is way before it gets to the central tabulator. the central tabulator could be fine, 100% hack proof, but the opscan could be doing the dirty work.

Let's say you fill out your ballot and you vote for Kerry. You stick it in the opscan machine. how do you know your vote was counted as a Kerry vote? you don't.

What I'm saying is that the code on the opscan is just like the code on the DRE. you could vote for Kerry and the opscan could switch it to a Bush vote and you'd never know. It's all inside the machine. Forget the central tabulator.

it's very simple.

there is software code on the opscan. it is supposed to say, in computer jargon, "if a ballot is marked for Kerry, register one more Kerry vote." "if a ballot is marked for Bush, register one more bush vote"

BUT (and this is a big BUT)

they could put code on there that says, "for every 3rd Kerry vote, switch it to Bush"

or

"at the end of the day, if Kerry is ahead, switch the vote totals"

or

"every 5 minutes, subtract 2 votes from kerry"

the possibilities are literally endless. they can do ANYTHING. and now we know they can do it even easier than we previously thought, because the MEMORY CARDS on the opscan machines can be programmed to do all this. and just before each election, the memory cards are sent to diebold from programming. It would be easy as pie to do anything like this.

the paper ballot going into the opscan machine is no different than a person touching a touchscreen. as far as the computer is concerned, it IS the exact same thing.

the only thing about opscans is that you have a paper record, and if a candidate asks for a recount, they would catch the problem.

but they only ask for a recount if it was very close in the first count. and since we know the first count is completely in the hands of Diebold, why would they make it close? Of course, they would make it far enough so that there won't be a recount. They're not stupid.

So hear me out - it's not the central tabulators that make the opscans bad. its the opscans themselves. they take your vote and you have no idea what happens to your vote after that. You could think you're voting for Kerry but you actually voted for Bush. It's as simple as that. They don't need the central tabulator to do it. Just the opscan.

[EFerrari]

133. Geeze! And I was trying HARD!

LOL

:)

[mirrera]

196. Ballot scanned to Memory card, card info uploaded to PC/tabulating program

The point of your post is absolutely right, we can't verify that our choice was accurately counted, but the votes aren't scanned into tabulators. You were probably trying to keep it simple but for anyone new to this issue it is good to keep the process accurate or it confuses people. Heck it IS confusing :)

Basically the process is:

1) Election official opens up the election software on the PC, and makes ballot and election choices, etc.

2) The the scanner gets plugged into the PC.

3) The Memory Card gets plugged into the scanner. (The scanner now acts like a big card reader, like some older digital cameras use)

4) The PC program (GEMS-General Elections Management System, or the equivalent) has the ability to write the ballot info, etc. to the memory card.
At the click of a mouse all those choices that the Official made in GEMS is now written on the card.

5) The Memory Card is removed and ready for the election.
(Multiple cards can be written by inserting them into the same scanner and telling the PC program to write the info to the card.)

6) When all the cards are ready, the Scanner is brought to the voting station and placed on a big Black Box which holds the scanned paper ballots.

What people were not aware of was that there was this executable program on the card. The scanner has an interpreter that LOOKs for the program on the card to tell it how to interact with all the info coming in. It can not work without the card. It is not like a calculator that holds the info itself and just needs the card as removable storage. It NEEDS the program on the card. The code. That interaction is illegal. It is illegal because it is impossible to regulate and is different for every election. A big no no.

There are many steps of the way where the memory card itself can be programmed and that code altered.

I myself wonder if it can happen at the company level in the form of an "upgrade".

Anyway it sounds like you are well informed, but I wanted to clear up the whole "tabulator" thing, because that particular hack is on the PC and you don't need the scanner or the cards, just the finished total. I am using your post as an excuse to inform others who may not be able to picture the process at all, and thus can't picture the problem.

The whole issue can be so confusing and sometimes funny. For the longest time, in the Hursti Hack I heard that he used a "crop scanner" to write new code to the memory card. Then I read an activist at a town meeting call it a "corn scanner"...I was like "what?" I googled and googled and finally in Hursti's reporting I found what was originally mentioned. It was a scanner made by a company called "crop scan". We all have to be careful because we are all learning.

If I have gotten something wrong, PLEASE anyone let me know, because in this "kill the message with the messenger age" we have to be overly careful.



http://NoBullshiRt.com

[IndyOp]

137. A paper trail doesn't do anything for us if we don't hand count ballots

I can program an optical scan reader to 'read' 100 ballots and report any results I want: 40/60; 50/50; 70/30. Because the optical scan reader uses software to 'count' I can program the scanner to print out any number I want it to.

Even if the scanner is programmed to count honestly - I could program the memory card that I insert into the scanner to transfer the vote count to the main computer (the central tabulator) or I could open a Microsoft Acess file on the central tabulator and alter the votes at that level.

I could steal the election at the level of the opscan reader, the memory cards, or the central tabulator.

Actually some of the opscan machines are known to have modems installed in them -- I could via remote alter an honest count to any other value I want it to be while the election is in progress.

The ONLY way a paper trail is 100% useful is if we count 100% of the ballots by hand -- we can't trust the opscan readers, the memory cards, or the central tabulators. And the central tabulators are the 'final destination' for *all* voting machines.

If we have excellent automatic audits -- regardless of outcome -- then those audits could relieve us of the need to count 100% of the ballots by hand, but 'excellent audits' are hard to come by -- to get a high enough percentage and a truly random sample.

Better to have people put a checkmark in a box next to a name and hand count the ballots.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

141. Exactly. Thank you! n/t

[wtmusic]

122. There is NO perfect voting system

the beast does not exist.

Optical scanner pluses:

1) Accuracy vs. handcounts
2) Relatively simple operation
3) Easy to verify

For someone to hack optical scanners and have it affect the outcome of an election, they would have to insert malicious code into many, many relatively simple machines. Why not? Risk vs. reward -- it would be much easier to detect tampered code and to send someone to prison.

We're better with them than without.

[EFerrari]

132. Sure. That's how they stole Ohio.

:)

[wtmusic]

146. I hate it when you make a good point and then smile at me

:P

read post below

[EFerrari]

148. Sorry! I'm just trying not to be obnoxious. lol.

I will read below.

[garybeck]

134. that is not true.

"they would have to insert malicious code into many, many relatively simple machines. Why not? Risk vs. reward -- it would be much easier to detect tampered code and to send someone to prison."

all the memory cards are shipped to Diebold prior to the election. they have them all there, in a central location and it would be very easy to put malicious code on them there, at a central location, all at once. It's been demonstrated in 5 minutes on a memory card.

and as far as it being easier to detect, that is completely false.

the Berkeley study confirmed such rigging is "IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT."

read the report:

http://www.solarbus.org/election/docs/security_analysis_of_diebold.pdf


the sad thing about all this, is if someone at Diebold wanted to steal an election, it would be extremely easy to do it, and it would be virtually impossible to detect.

[wtmusic]

145. Only discusses Diebold's machine

Just because Diebold's machine is not secure doesn't mean you can throw out the baby (optical scanning technology) with the bathwater.

Optical scan machines were used for years in the 50's and 60's with ZERO digital software. Everything hardwired. It works, and it works better than handcounts.

[EFerrari]

150. Imho, there's something we aren't taking into consideration

a factor that was addressed up thread.

It has been telelgraphed to us that the three major vendors are Repulican party mercenaries.

I mean, it's not as though we have nonpartisan people developing or programming or selling us these systems. We know to a certainty that the sellers of these systems are supporters of BushCo.

That fact alone should instruct us on how far we can "trust" these machines.

I'd prefer not to trust anyone with my vote. I'd prefer to have a transparent process where I could just kick myself if my party lost.

I don't have that now.

[wtmusic]

152. Public-Verified Voting

I floated an idea on DU several months ago about a scheme where everyone's vote would be published publicly (associated with a private ID). You could not only check your own vote but actually verify totals yourself.

The main objection was that it would make it possible to buy votes. This is true, but with a $10,000 fine for vote tampering it's very unlikely that someone would risk propositioning strangers.

Not perfect, but it seems like a possible alternative. I'm not against all machines, just the digital ones. Computer experts much smarter than me have come out solidly against using ANY kind of computers in voting, so it amazes me that touchscreens ever saw the light of day.

[eomer]

142. It is most definitely not easy to detect tampered code.

In the current environment there is no way we would find out if code was tampered with.

• The code is proprietary and secret.
  
• There is no audit to ensure that software running on the machine is the same as software that was certified.
  
• Even when it is known that code running on the machine is a different version, with unknown changes, than the certified version, there is no consequence (well, perhaps a :shrug:).
  
• Certification testing must of necessity treat the software as a black box since the source code is secret. But it is not possible to test a black box and then safely guarantee anything since there is no way to know whether you have stumbled across the exact test case that would expose a fraudulent algorithm. (Software could be designed with a secret activation pattern that your test cases would never accidentally duplicate).
  
  
  

[garybeck]

160. it is impossible to detect tampered code.

this is clearly stated in the Berkeley report.

http://www.solarbus.org/election/docs/security_analysis_of_diebold.pdf

[mirrera]

194. Not quite!

The only thing that is for sure is that scanning is quicker, and that is debatable if there is a problem. There is no evidence that they are more accurate then a hand count. Stray marks can cause problems, wrong utensils, damp paper, and on and on.

They are only easy to verify if you count the ballots by hand and compare the results. When that is done and there is a discrepancy which has more clout? The hand count. The missing comparison in your list is integrity. We are giving up integrity for speed.

We always forgive the machines when they are wrong, we call them glitches, or human error. We only notice when the glitches are big or the race is close. In most cases if the number of votes matches the number of voters we consider it good.

The memory card can have a trojan program on it that keeps one column at 47% at all times, It can have pre loaded +5 in one column and -5 in the other, still print out a "zero" report, and nothing will show up in the logs because it keeps a running total like an odometer.

It is better then a touchscreen, because it brings us one step closer to where we should be...

hand counting paper ballots.

For now random mandatory recounts by hand is the only way to catch fraud. It will not prevent it because we don't take "glitches" seriously, and the cheaters have literally nothing to loose by trying.

Even setting the code to shut down the machine, to freeze it, in a heavily Democratic precinct would achieve the desired results.





http://NoBullshiRt.com

[KyuzoGator]

149. I knew this post was about electronic voting before I read it.

And I agree completely. NO OTHER ISSUE MATTERS if our elections are rigged.

[MGKrebs]

151. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing" does it?

Even a strictly hand-counted paper ballot can be tampered with. We've heard stories of whole bags of paper ballots getting "lost" or "destroyed".

Perhaps a viable solution is to do both: I happen to like the optical scan for the convenience and maturity of the technology and the fact that it produces a paper ballot that is filled out by the machine- something that machines can do very well. BUT, mandate a random hand recount of a certain number of precincts and compare to the electronic tally. If there is a discepancy- count the whole county or district. Hand counted paper ballots take precedence. No certification until all discrepancies are resolved by hand count. Automatically hand recount any race that is within 1% (or some similar number). There are many ways to determine which random precincts get chosen at the last minute. Key it to the daily lottery number if you want.

The random recount would be a significant deterrent (if the penalty were severe). Optical scan ballots can be made to be read by the human eye, so a recount of the paper would be no problem.

It doesn't matter what system is the primary- I think the key is that there has to be a secondary system that is a different system in order to provide a legitimate double-check.

Heck, optical scan technology is so widespread, you could probably arrange to have all the ballots sent to three different universities in each state and have them each scan them again. A great project for them, fantastic transparency, practically zero chance for shenanigans at that point.

[garybeck]

161. "I happen to like the optical scan"

I used to like optical scans too, until I learned more about them.

Do you know about the Hursti Hack?

if you like optical scans there is a good chance you don't know about the Hursti Hack. read this

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=798&Itemid=51

I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. But I disagree with your assessment that the important thing is the backup system. the first system has to have SOME amount of reliability. I'm not asking for everything. Just 3 reasonable things:

1) paper records (or ballots) for every vote cast
2) random audits, at least 5%
3) open software code

it is not that difficult.

[bloom]

158. Optiscans - (my idea)

I suppose it would be expensive - but what if every precinct had a Democratic scanner and a Republican scanner (and any other party that wanted a scanner) and if the two machines did not get the same results - there would be a handcount that would be conducted by members of all parties.


It seems like this would have been figured out by now. It sounds like everything is still up in the air - behind closed doors - or some other place.

[garybeck]

177. how about this.

have the scanner scan the image of the ballots into a GIF file.
zip up all the GIFS into a file.
post the file on the internet

let everyone hand count the ballots at home.

[Notoverit]

164. Yup. Let's not forget Berluscioni's "miraculous" come back. Our media

wouldn't even say "miraculous". They will trot "mandate" and values" like they did in 2004...

[EFerrari]

167. The mythology of 2004: Values voters, young people didn't vote

Latinos went for Junior, Kerry ran a bad campaign -- it goes on and on and on. Just the *number* of these fabrications should be a huge red flag.

Kerry won. And he won big -- so they had to try to manufacture voters for Bush in the press as there were none in life.

[autorank]

188. Right, how about "soccer moms" .. another suburban myth.

LIES LIES LIES ... DECEPTION is our constant companion.

MSM doesn't care, our party leaders need to get hip to the "nest new thing."

Electronic corptocracy!

[Amaryllis]

166. kick

[madfloridian]

181. garybeck, what congressmen "get it" and are on board?

I have asked that several times today and I get no response at all.

One person told me that an Ohio suit with Kerry is pending in August.

Other than that, have any of you talked to congressmen?

[frustrated_lefty]

183. Grow up and *rude* you.

The shit you insist Dean SHOULD be doing, he WAS doing in the '04 primaries.

He has a different job now, and that is largely about presenting what dems stand for. But the dems in office flounder about, wondering if it's safe to rebuke the president. And misguided fools here debate whether or not it's a good idea to send flowers to a black senator because she refused to identify herself to officers of the law?

Fuck, it doesn't matter. In 20 minutes, you'll have a new cause and source of outrage.

[EFerrari]

184. Democrats don't, to my knowledge, stand for

Republican machines disenfranchising Democratic voters.

You anger is misplaced. And, you seem to have no awareness of how long and how hard garybeck has been working this issue.

[eridani]

185. Difference between DREs and opscan

With DREs, you can fuck with both voting and tabulation, and with opscans you can only fuck with tabulation. The latter is, of course, not acceptable either. Also DREs, by conflating the voting process and the tabulation process, slow everything down to the speed of the much slower voting process, adding voter disenfranchisement to the witches' brew.

[autorank]

189. Extremely well said. n/t

[the other one]

190. The Cynic says: Because Dems control optiscan machines

Oh no! That would mean the dems are as corrupt as the pukes, just different.

That can't be! They voted against the patriot act, against the war, against the bankruptcy bill. They would never fix an election.

[DFW]

191. Recounts?

Check the last gubernatorial election in Washington State.
The recount threw the election from the Republican to the
Democrat. Of course, then the Republican loser started in
with all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo, but if you look, the
Governor of the State of Washington is now a Democrat.

As for Howard, of course, you won't get put through to him
on the phone. His schedule these days would cause an insomniac
to go on strike. He could use some more support staff for phone
calls at the DNC, maybe. If it's any consolation, I forwarded
the original post on to a friend in the DNC who does talk to
Howard several times a week. It will get read, if nothing else.

[SpiralHawk]

195. K and r

Good points. Thank you

[Triana]

199. Have you sent this, in email and snail mail format, to the Dr. Dean

c/o the DNC - requesting a response - both a personal and a public response - to this issue? This needs to go to the source of the misunderstanding (which is Dr. Dean).

If they expect to EVER win any elections again, they HAVE to deal with this. Else, they may as well just shut down the DNC and the Democratic Party and go home and let the Republicans have the country.

Period.

[4_TN_TITANS]

201. What if.....

Dean is very aware of the voting problems, we know that. Can you imagine the backlash on the Republican party if they were caught in obvious vote rigging? With all their setbacks in upcoming elections, it would be so sweet to catch a desparate Repug changing an obviously Democratic win.

I think there's a method to the madness of Dean hiding quietly in the bushes, watching the trap that the Repugs have created - sooner or later one of them will get caught in it. Then they become the Party of Dishonesty....

[galloglas]

205. Aren't the Repugs already

You Stated:

"I think there's a method to the madness of Dean hiding quietly in the bushes, watching the trap that the Repugs have created - sooner or later one of them will get caught in it. Then they become the Party of Dishonesty...."


Don't you think they already are ?

What more must the Repugs do, in your opinion, to forever retire the trophy? To permanently capture the title, "Party of Dishonesty"? What more must they do ?

Do you really think sly old Howard Dean and his posse are waiting to jump out on Election day and say, "AHA! We caught you!" ?

Who failed to learn in 2000 and 2004 (forget 2002, 1998, 1996, etc.) who will finally be convinced next time??

You can't really believe that the good doctor from Vermont has both ball and chain and striped GOP prison suits at hand, just waiting for the next "Terrible Tuesday", can you? All that in order to craftily leap forth and shame them as the "Party of Dishonesty"? (I can just see the GOP shaking in their boots)

If you do believe it, I suggest you check your own party ID card. It should say, then if not now, "Party of Disbelief".

The card should have a picture of Mark Crispin Miller on it, wagging his finger at you and screaming,

"I told you so!! I told you so!! Why didn't you read the damned book?"