John Edwards: Ban Touch-screen (DRE) voting machines

[NDP]

EXCLUSIVE: JOHN EDWARDS SAYS 'YES' TO BAN ON TOUCH-SCREEN (DRE) VOTING MACHINES!

While it's unlikely to get as much attention as Ann Coulter calling him a "faggot" during her speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last night, The BRAD BLOG has learned that John Edwards is the first Presidential Candidate to announce his support for a growing movement calling for a ban on the use of all Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems in American elections.

The BRAD BLOG was contacted late last night by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) Board Chair Mimi Kennedy with the news that during a campaign event in Los Angeles Edwards agreed to join her organization in calling for an end to electronic ballots in American elections...

...Kennedy, an activist and actress well known for her role as Dharma's mother on ABC's Dharma and Greg, told The BRAD BLOG that during a Q & A period following his address last night, she asked Edwards whether he would join PDA in their campaign calling for "the complete removal of all Touch-Screen Direct Record Electronic voting machines from U.S. elections, with or without a paper trail".

Drawing an "X" in the air as the question was being asked, Edwards --- who was reportedly upset at Sen. John Kerry's decision not to contest the 2004 Presidential Election count, or lack thereof, in Ohio --- answered with a definitive "Yes!"

"Yes!" echoed Kennedy in response as the audience reportedly cheered and applauded.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4217

Let's go back to paper.

[FrenchieCat]

1. This is great!

and I'll be even happier when John Edwards actually makes a statement with quoted words instead of this 3rd hand report on him saying Yes to a question according to someone who is being talked about on this blog, as one of the commenter stated.

We need him to make a public statement pronto.

Wonder why he hasn't talked about voting technology before, considering how it effected the election that he was in 2.5 years ago?

But this is a start.

Good going for nodding yes and making an "X"! :headbang:

[Kurovski]

2. Wow, no kidding?

K&R! Geez...I don't know what to say as I thought the candidates would just forever pretend it wasn't a problem.

Good news, may they ALL follow suit.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Wes Clark had a whole series of Pod-Casts on the issue.....

and campaigned and campaigned for our new Sec. of State, Debra Bowens, here in California.

Podcast called Clarkcasts can be found here: http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/22

August 28, 2006
ClarkCast 023 - Election Integrity Summary
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of the ClarkCast, we summarize the highlights of this months discussion of election integrity in the US. General Clark and our noted experts point out the problems with the current election system, look to potential future problems, and remind us of the importance of free and fair elections to a modern democracy. We hope these interviews and discussions have helped motivate you take action in your state to protect the security of our elections. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.

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

August 20, 2006
ClarkCast 022 - The Security Of Our Elections, Part II
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of the ClarkCast, we finish our two-part series on the importance of election security. In a roundtable format, Clark supporter MSinLA probes deeper into the current state of US elections with Dr. David Dill, Mark Crispin Miller, and California State Senator Debra Bowen -- candidate for California Secretary of State. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.

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

August 15, 2006
ClarkCast 021 - The Security Of Our Elections
(Click to listen or download)
In the first of a two-part series, Clark supporter MSinLA interviews noted experts on the topic of elections and election security. In discussing a broad range of potential voting inaccuracies, these interviews tell us much about our current system and how it might be subverted.

With the 2006 mid-term elections less than three months away, the integrity of our voting process is a crucial matter. We hope these interviews will motivate you to take action in your state to protect the integrity of our election system. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.

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

August 8, 2006
ClarkCast 020 - Election Integrity
(Click to listen or download)
On the heels of the Connecticut Democratic Primary, General Clark brings the issues of the 2006 elections into sharp focus. He talks about the value of voting and, most importantly, how critical it will be to assure that these elections are conducted with integrity. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.

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

July 31, 2006
ClarkCast 019 - Election Summary
(Click to listen or download)
In this edition of The ClarkCast, we summarize our discussion of the importance of the 2006 mid-term elections, putting into perspective the many voices we've heard this month. Listen, then share your thoughts with the Clark Community at http://securingamerica.com/ccn.

[Kurovski]

20. Thank you.

Clark is one of my favorites thus far.

He did officially enter the race in feb, didn't he?

[FrenchieCat]

32. Nope...no announcement yet.....

Thank God! If he were running, considering that he is made invisible in the National Media, that would be sad...considering the breadth of his experience and his wonderful positions on most issues.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. he doesn't have a vote and when a senator he missed many votes

I will vote for him if he wins the primary,
but he was basically only a part time senator in NC,
he didn't show up for alot of votes, and
and he didn't vote on many important pieces of legislation.

He left our state without representation,
and now we have Sens Dole(R) and Burr(R).

Thanks alot John.

[NDP]

8. Actually, he made 85-90% of his votes throughout his 6 years in the Senate

Before he started running it was up in the 99-100 percentile range. When he was running, he still made more of his votes than the other "Senators" who were running, so what you say is ridiculous.

Blame North Carolinians for being too stupid to vote for Erskine Bowles just because of the way that he "looks," regardless of how corrupt Richard Burr is. I still think Bowles actually won because we had a lot of voting machine problems here last time, but no one else is complaining about it here, so apparently they think Burr did win outright, so my statement stands.

As for voting on many "important," issues, so you are going to blame him for what the Senate leadership decided to vote on?

[Cameron27]

9. I'm not disputing you,

but where are you gettting the 85-90% figure?

[NDP]

10. From looking into it istead of just accepting the talking points

Plenty of people posted the attendance records all over the web on different sites back in 2004, including me. I just remember what they were, but I could go and "find" the official figures if you want. I got them from that vote-smart site back then. They have since taken the percentages down. Someone posted these here, back in 2004.

2004 - 124 062 062 50%
2003 - 359 128 231 64%
2002 - 188 000 188 100%
2001 - 301 002 299 99%
2000 - 242 000 242 100%
1999 - 309 003 306 99%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=988659&mesg_id=993897

[Cameron27]

12. Thank you :-)

[spooky3]

16. good work, NDP!

[shance]

4. BAN THE OPTICAL SCANS AS WELL, which are manipulated just as easily.

Why are they conveniently leaving out this part of the equation? They say the electronic voting machines and leave out probably the most manipulated part of the electronic tabulation.

The fraud will NOT be corrected if the DRE's are removed and the scanners continue to be allowed.

They are both essentially one in the same.

Don't buy the electronic machine pitch if it doesn't include the optical scanners.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Yeah.....

What about those pesky hackable tabulator programs?

[venable]

13. Frenchie is right - the problem is in the counting

though I don't know the technology - too old to be savvy in this stuff - it is clear from Miller's book, and other sources, that the principal fail-safe for the election thiefs is the hacked tabulations.

until these are protected, method of voting is just a band-aid.

[NDP]

7. Well, maybe if Kennedy would have asked him about that he'd have given an answer on it

[spooky3]

17. because you still have a physical record that can be

used in an audit, when you have optical scans. With DREs, with no receipt or audit trail, you have nothing.

So OSs are imperfect but not nearly as bad as DREs, taking everything into account.

[w4rma]

24. I strongly support banning DREs, but not optical counting (when paired with good audits). (nt)

[JNelson6563]

11. I have always believed

Edwards had to be horrified at the milquetoast strategy of the Kerry campaign. Glad he's on the right side of this issue and I hope each and every candidate does the same!

:toast:

Julie

[PresidentObama]

14. It was the Kerry-Edwards campaign, not the Kerry campaign.

He had a voice, my friend!! I agree with Edwards about banning the touch screen voting machines. We now know the vast amount of problems that occured in 2004. And they should be banned so we have no more stolen elections.

[JNelson6563]

15. Yes, of course it was

But few will argue that the top of the ticket isn't captain of the ship. Of course the exception to this rule would be Bush/Cheney, we all know it's Cheney who's the dominant one there.

While the positive tone was refreshing (after the Dem convention I was struck by the contrast between it and the years of doom and gloom we've endured during the Bush years) it was proven ineffective, as many had expected, against the meanest, nastiest bunch ever. I believe this strategy was sold to Kerry by a bunch of assholes, for whatever that's worth.

I know Kerry wouldn't adopt the same approach this time as much as I know Edwards will also steer clear of it.

Julie

[blm]

27. Baloney - It was the same election legal team that told Gore he had a case to continue

that told Kerry-Edwards there was NO LEGAL CASE to continue.

It is pure BULLSHIT ginned up by Edwards supporters who have spun what happened that night into some fairy tale where Edwards was fighting against Kerry.

It was the Dem election LEGAL team and number crunchers who threw in the towel saying they had nothing to take to court.

The same people who like to credit Gore for continuing based on what the legal team concluded in 2000 blame Kerry for what the same legal team concluded in 2004.

And has anyone ever seen ONE EXACT STATEMENT from Edwards that he had a case to continue that Kerry-Edwards and the Dem election legal team refused?

Funny - Elizabeth didn't have a statement in her book, and you would think she would have heard it made at some point.

I am glad that Edwards is for paper ballots, though I wish the internet myths about his election night battle against Kerry would just STOP. Building a myth at the expense of real history is obnoxious.

[IndianaGreen]

18. John Edwards is so right about so many things that he deserves our full consideration

even when we have faulted him for silly things, such as his misguided speech to AIPAC.

I am glad that Edwards is joining PDA's campaign to ban electronic voting. The only secure way to ensure that all ballots are properly cast is by using paper ballots. So what if it will take days to know the results, at least we will know that all the ballots were counted, and we have the original ballots to recount if there are any challenges.

[loyalsister]

19. He just lost any opportunity for my support

As well as a significant proportion of the largest minority in the country.

[NDP]

21. So, you just assume that most people have an idea of what your off-the-wall comment refers to?

[loyalsister]

25. 1 in 5

People with disabilities are the largest minority. Many were able to cast their first private ballots with touch screens. People act like it is no big deal to have another person vote for you, but it actually is a tremendous loss of privacy.
People who have finally gained this privacy are tired of no one looking for solutions that include them.

[w4rma]

23. DREs need to be banned and you're *extremely* uninformed

if you think that they help minorities or if you think that leaders among minorities don't want them banned, also.

[loyalsister]

26. I referred to the largest minority

not minorities in general.

And, yes they DO want the touch screens. They are sueing for them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/09/BAGIP5H2K21.DTL

[w4rma]

28. No. They're suing for touch-screens. Not DREs.

The touch-screen is just the front end and can have nothing to do with how the votes are recorded - paper, cardboard, stone, harddrive, CD-R, flash drive, whatever. The DRE refers to how votes are recorded: "digital recording electronic".

[NDP]

30. Well then they are just as uninformed as you are then. Do they know anything about how insecure

they are? If they want them, then I doubt it.

[bearfan454]

22. The memory cards have a lot to do with it.

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting

[Greybnk48]

29. Boy, Edwards is pushing all of my buttons!

I voted for him in the primaries last time and I'm starting to remember why.

[election_2004]

31. A little late for the party, eh, John?

Back in October 2004, his daughter, Cate (I believe she was attending Princeton at the time) came to my college campus as a surrogate speaker on behalf of the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

She held a Q&A session following her speech, and my hand shot up immediately as soon as she announced she was taking questions - - I was the first person she called on to ask a question.

I told Cate that I was concerned about the Diebold touchscreen voting machines and the potential for election fraud in states like Ohio and Florida. She had no idea what I was talking about...she'd never even heard of "Diebold"!

One of the campaign's aides was there with her, and Cate suggested that I fill him in more about what I knew about the issue, once the Q&A was done...at that point, the aide cut in and told us (and the rest of the audience) that the DNC was getting ready to dispatch 50,000 lawyers (pro bono) across the country who would be on-call to monitor polling places.

After Cate's Q&A session was finished, I made a beeline over to the campaign aide to give him a copy of an editorial I'd written for my college political magazine.

It was kind of funny, what I noticed...when Cate had concluded her Q&A session, all the women who stuck around afterward flocked over to Cate to talk with her...whereas all the men who stuck around afterward gravitated over to the area where the campaign aide and the other campaign officials were standing.

[NDP]

33. Late? Someone asked him a question and he answered it. Maybe she should have asked him

about it three years ago. Picky, picky, picky.