If anyone has some time, I could use some help.

[Goldeneye]

I'm supposed to give a policy speech for my communications class. I want to do it on electronic voting, but I have no idea where to even start researching this stuff. I have a huge bookmark list just for election 2004 stuff and it's gotten so filled with stuff that it's almost useless. Could anyone just point me in the right direction? I want to keep it pretty non-partisan. I won't be talking about how they stole election 2004. I only have 6 minutes so I just want to present them with as much information as possible.

Here's a quick list of things I know I want to mention:

1. Jimmy Carter won't even monitor our elections
2. How voting machines (diebold?) weren't even tested before the elections.
3. The machines
a. lost votes, vote switching, extra votes, unable to count
votes
b. hackability
c. no paper slip -----> no recounts
d. new GAO report
4. Why it is important to have verifiable elections
... I might throw in the stalin quote somewhere (not who
casts the votes, but who counts them)...

The big part of my speech is going to be telling them about these machines. What I need help with is finding info about the different kinds of machines used in elections, what they do, who makes them, the kinds of problems they have, etc. If anyone has time to help me, I would be incredibly grateful. I'm supposed to present this thing this Friday. Links, articles, graphs, videos, pictures (i need a powerpoint presentation to go with my speech) would all be helpful. Thanks in advance.

[Land Shark]

1. You can start out with the Mythbreakers publication at www.votersunite.org

and the various databases they have there on reported problems for each vendor.

Also the lawsuit linked on that site, with the scientific study as an Exhibit is quite good I think and linked at
www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp

The Tennessee lawsuit is also linked there (a good 'un too)

some of the best New Mexico work is on votersunite.

Did I mention votersunite.org ?

That's the hard but doable way. The easy way is just to read Land Shark's posts. They're awesome.

[Goldeneye]

2. Wow, rapid response.

thanks for the links. I'm being kicked off for now, but I will look into your posts and the links later. Thanks for your help. :hi:

[nofurylike]

3. a wealth of information at The Free Press org:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19
just go through the articles. they are on every aspect.

for instance, this is very interesting:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1217

plenty more!

an extremely worthy endeavor, Goldeneye! thank you!

peace!

[occuserpens]

4. Just 1 question

How can one use an ATM without any receipt and access to the account?
This is all technological magic, right?

[Land Shark]

6. good point on paper providing the audit trail, but keep in mind

that ballot secrecy means that we can't connect voters to ballots without destroying the secrecy, so unlike an atm receipt with account numbers and control numbers printed all over it, we can't do that with elections (not to mention videotaping the transaction at the atm...)

Thus, adding what amounts to paper ballots on top of an electronic system is not only an absurdly expensive foundation for the paper, but also won't work as well as an ATM as an audit trail (and in addition, depending on the specifics of the system, may not be available at all except in expensive recounts initiated by candidates, only)

[occuserpens]

10. I understand all this

However, receipts and account access are two necessary conditions to trust existing e-banking systems! Their software and hardware are closed, but still verifiable.
Witout individual verification, I will never come close to this kind of system and won't advise anybody to do this.
The alternative would be open source systems, but they certainly don't want this.
Another, crude alternative would be to use computers to print paper ballots and then proceed as usual.

[Land Shark]

11. when you reach the point of having printers print ballots on demand

it's again just a paper system built on top of an expensive unstable technological foundation. Ironic that we are re-creating the paper checks and balances on top of the billion dollar payoffs to corporations. Doesn't anybody see the wasteful race to spend govt money here? And all it does really is create long lines, (besides giving the govt SOMETIMES faster results and certainly results that appear cleaner because all counting is invisible and seemingly problem free)

Only paper ballots (voted in a pinch against one's lap or on a wall) can provide a 5 minute service guarantee for voting, and at a much lower cost. So why in the world would anyone argue that paper ballots are "primitve" when it is technology that slows us down so much? (because the machines are expensive bottlenecks)

OPEN SOURCE: would be a slight improvement. But the vote counting in open source is still invisible to the public and even computer experts will have problems interpreting it. Computers can be involved in displaying election results and disseminating them (for sure), it's the COUNTING of the vote and ballot STORAGE and chain of custody that has to be totally transparent and above board.

Just the cost of verifying that the open source code is the same on each machine is huge. the average citizen can't do that. On top of that, United States law is "open source" and available to everyone freely. If you think you understand what the heck the law is doing and how it all works, you are sadly, profoundly mistaken. Therefore open source is no godsend, and can't pass the test of giving us

a voting system

understandable as being clean

by an average voter.

Isn't that what we'd want if we truly respected "we the people" as the source of all legitimate power?

[occuserpens]

12. Paper vs open source

I'd trust open source development by independents with open debate, etc. Since this is not likely to happen, paper and old mechanical systems remain the only trustable ways. Plus computer printing.

[petgoat]

41. If we use V-V-P-B then the voting terminal is nothing but

a $3000 pencil.

And LandShark's point that the machines become a bottleneck is
important. At Gambier, Ohio they had 1300 voters and only two machines,
and processed only 20 voters per hour.

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/110304/gambier.html

With paper ballots and pencils people can vote in parallel; with
machines they can only wait to vote serial.

And what's going to happen in ten years when these machines start
getting tired of being trundled around in trucks and stored in
warehouses. Will they fail honestly, giving notice? Or will they just
get flaky? Will we need to run expensive tests on old machines every year?

[occuserpens]

63. right

[FogerRox]

40. The Diebold ATM uses open code IIRC

The Banking Industry demands it

[oneold1-4u]

5. You might consider the voting in OR

The state spends a lot for voter information pamphlets and mail in ballots for every election, but the machines, their maintenance and poll-precinct security would cost a few million more every time. Check on how the registration and voting increased when this was done.
If one half the eligible voters of this nation actually cast a vote, the politicians would start cleaning up their lives and actions. The state itself has found many discrepancies in the self provided bios of some people who paid to be on the ballots. When the honest protect the rights of voters, even via the local or national media, then many more thousands will consider voting! Money may buy a lot, but not everyone can be bought, although many can become discouraged when everything seems rigged to make them non-existing.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GuvWurld]

8. Six minutes, including machines?

Goldeneye, I have mad respect for Land Shark and encourage you to read everything he recommends. However, for your speech for your school grade, you may be wading into a morass. There is so much information that you will find it very difficult to parse into the most relevant and suitable elements for the context of your presentation.

I think you can adequately address machines in a more powerful way. Say the obvious surface level things that tend to make people go "a-ha," such as "paperless electronic voting means we can't do a recount of the actual ballots because they don't exist...and if we can't do a recount, we can't know for sure what the outcome is...guaranteeing inconclusive results like this also makes certain that we will not have 100% unanimous acceptance of the outcome...and why do corporations have to run everything anyway?...does the government have a right to privatize our elections? ...does the government have a conflict of interest in administering elections, the method by which its power is conferred?...there is no rational basis for confidence in our elections and at least one town passed a resolution saying so."

You can have handouts if you feel like people need to be schooled on machine types and data analysis. But please, consider using that forum to deliver a new paradigm to your audience. This way things will come clear to people whereas the other way people get migraines from studying maddeningly obscene minutia.

Please let us know how you do and consider circulating your PowerPoint.

[Land Shark]

9. agreed. too much info is bad, a good perspective on voting

as the transfer of power from We the People to govt, and why that needs to be totally open and visible to the public, why government officials can not be trusted themselves to administer the elections (they have a conflict, and get all their money and power from the very elections they administer) and why human systems like the human "triple count" we see at the bank teller tend to be very accurate (teller counts herself, then teller recounts a second time while customer counts the third time), and these specially designed human systems are in fact more accurate than machines when MOTIVATED opponents are involved (such as, 4 different political parties represented at a table, and nobody is going to move on to the next pile until all agree that there are 20 votes in the present pile is extremely accurate in the end)

Or, in one phrase why publicly verifiable democracy is the only real democracy.

[mopinko]

13. the clincher for me

is that the machines are not purchased, but leased, and maintained by private companies. a corporate owned ballot box. a corporate owned ballot box. a corporate owned ballot box. a corporate owned ballot box. that is just plain not trustworthy.

[Stevepol]

14. Democracy is the most non-partisan issue in the country.

Focus on democracy, I'd say, and point out that it's not possible to have a democracy if the vote is counted by partisans of one side in secret with no way to validate the count and when the vote itself is on invisible ink (the source code is off limits). With 20% of the vote, there's not even any paper to count in an audit. And in only a few places around the country is an audit required.

So essentially the vote is counted in secret by extreme partisans of one side and there's no way to validate the counting. The machine companies' owners and programmers have the means to cheat (they can mis-program or hack their own machines very easily as has been shown many times), they have the motive to cheat (check out the political affiliations at Diebold, etc.), and they are almost 100% safe from ever being discovered if they do cheat. As Avi Rubin said once when asked if he expected that elections would be stolen, it's almost certain that it will happen if it hasn't already. (I'm paraphrasing)

In other words, the US DOES NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY by any honest definition of the term.

If that's interpreted as being "political," then just ask them how it is possible to talk about a "political" subject without being "political"?

[sunshinekathy]

15. Some help Here ---

2. How voting machines (diebold?) weren't even tested before the elections.

This statement isn't true they were tested (both by the ITAs and by local election officials) - but pre-election testing doesn't stop vote fraud. See this paper for a better understanding:

http://utahcountvotes.org/AdviceReDiebolds.pdf

which I wrote to explain election issues to the layperson.

3. The machines
a. lost votes, vote switching, extra votes, unable to count
votes
b. hackability
c. no paper slip -----> no recounts
d. new GAO report
4. Why it is important to have verifiable elections
... I might throw in the stalin quote somewhere (not who
casts the votes, but who counts them)...

The GAO report, Carter-Baker report, etc. are covered somewhat in this history of the 2004 presidential election which is written to give the lay person an overview - just pick the sections you want - The Washington State Governor's race & New Mexico's presidential race are interesting:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Presidential-Election-2004.pdf

I'm not sure that Stalin really said that - but a picture of Stalin with that quote is in this powerpoint presentation which may help you develop a ppt presentation for your presentation:

http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/dopp/WhyNotDiebold.doc

Best,

Kathy

[applegrove]

16. the machines were tested before. We have no smoking gun that

votes were taken. There is honest & normal distrust of new technology. Please don't assume votes have been stolen that way. Votes were stolen using hearts and minds.

We do need voter reform to rebuild trust in elections. Carter if for a paper trail.

IMHO

[FogerRox]

17. Goldeneye

I have a DRE Power Point for you, it explains how the whole DRE Voting system works, depending how you time it-- about 2.5 minutes---- e-mail me--

[e-mail]

[applegrove]

19. No. I'm not interested. There was all sorts of illegal foolishness during

the election. Kerry conceded. So we have to go out and show up to vote in even greater numbers than before. 35% of Americans do not show up to even vote! Don't you think there is room there to work on things?

I don't think we should be encouraging anyone to think anything before the proof is in.

Plus it just discourages people from voting by creating apathy.

[GuvWurld]

21. what proof are you looking for?

What proof could possibly exist or be created to show that more voters/votes could make a difference?

The answer to this is none since we are guaranteed to continue producing inconclusive outcomes for as long as we allow any votes to be unverifiable.

There is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections. Doctors diagnose before prescribing; we must acknowledge the true state of things lest our reform efforts target the wrong goals. This means non-recognition of the legitimacy of the government. This is where the next generation of civil disobedience begins. Read Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution.

[occuserpens]

18. testing???

<the machines were tested before>

By whom according to what rules???

[Land Shark]

23. For example, Sequoia AVC Edge touch screens are "tested"

by casting a single vote prior to the election in normal mode, and a single vote in manual mode.

If the machine gets this complicated test right, they trumpet that alleged fact to the corporate media, who compliantly reports successful testing.

Sometimes they test a single vote after the election too.

Of course, if anybody were rigging an election, they would insert one line of code that would say:

If Date = November 2, 2004, then RUN.

I usually like to suggest that we just pick an Attorney who does a substantial amount of business with the government to count the votes in secret. Such an attorney has been tested for 3 days by the state in a bar exam, subject to a character and fitness investigation, and otherwise subject to continual disciplinary authority, and tested more than these voting machines will ever be tested. So, we can all Trust this attorney now right, he's GREAT at addition and has passed all the tests.

The whole subject of pre-election testing and even when they try election day testing is close to the ultimate in the emperor's new clothes area.

[applegrove]

25. If, if, if, if, if, - do we not learn anything from fitz? You need facts a

proof. Hard proof. The exit polls tell you nothing cause they were wrong all over the place (places with no diebold). The whole system is a mess. We need voter transparency. Just don't assume APATHY is not another wedge tool of the neocons...

[Land Shark]

27. I've done MY work applegrover, and you don't know what you're saying

you're simply assuming there's no evidence or proof.

I litigate fraud cases professionally.

Tell me what you've ACTUALLY read and reviewed, and what your "hard proof" or "smoking gun" would consist of? You require it, so surely you know what it is???

[applegrove]

28. Actual code - showing how the votes were taken. That is the only

way. There were no people inside the machines who could witness the votes being switched.

So code or a witness from some GOP Chop Shop who steps forward and 1) is credible 2) has backup 3) gives his name

[Land Shark]

29. Oh, the one thing that's absolutely trade secret is the only proof

you'll accept, huh?

I could show you the entire (completely "open source" or at least freely available) United States Code, and let's assume for the sake of an analogy that you and I agree that the United states laws are making unjust transfers of wealth from the lower classes to the upper classes. (kind of like vote switching) --- You would not be able to point to a place in the 'actual code' and show me where that wealth transfer was being done ---- even though it clearly is being done. And, being done by the code, as we agree.

But that's Assuming the code evidence would even exist a couple days after the election (don't assume the vendor compiles it into the source code), and source code is not even the most likely mechanism for fraud (though it's surely possible), even fraud that uses rogue computer code. (using a results diskette for example would be superior to permanently enshrining code in the source code of the program itself)

Chasing a straw man, applegrove. You catch him and then there's nothing there but straw.....

[applegrove]

33. I really worry about you teaching apathy. I do. The GOP gets as much

out of getting people to believe the machines are fooled with as they would if they actually messed with code.

Remember the race for President is won between moderates. Because Americans are overwhelmingly moderates. So it is the moderates who call the election. And the people who believe the ROVE WH could do such horrid things like change the code - well they are on the left.

So how are you going to work together with the new moderate who just turned Democrat? How the hell are you going to go door to door with them? They liked Bush, they are frustrated he seems to be a liar, they no longer think Bush going to war was great, they still believe in red, white & blue - just not wars. They like Republicans. Their fathers, husbands, kids are republicans who believe bush is a good guy.

But they want to vote Dem from here on in they think.. cause they hate war and they think that there should be some help for the less priviledged.

How are you going to work together with that Democrat? You may scare them into going back to the Repukes!!

[FogerRox]

43. Applegrove

respectfully---- fold the Apathy BS 5 times and put it where the moon doesnt shine.

I have 100 people in the Essex County Task Force on Voting Rights. NOt one trusts a DRE.

And every single person will vote on Nov. 8th. about 2 dozen are phone banking for the NJ Governors race and some, local county Freeholders who are supportive-- with their votes of the ---lets not buy DREs with our HAVA money.

NJ has about 10,000 DFA members--- they all vote, and none trust DRES--- 2/3 will vote on a DRE on November 8th

Where is your so called Apathy ? No where to be seen-- I think.

[Land Shark]

45. Every rightwinger I know wants open elections too.....

this is something EVERYONE wants and no one can safely be against once we stay focused on the truth.

I don't share your fear of calling a spade a spade applegrove.

In fact, my dad voted for * but agrees 100% on the secret voting is totally wrong and they've destroyed real democracy angle. This sentiment has caused as many republicans to call me up and tell me they support what I'm doing, because it's based on an old Republican belief in not trusting the government, in their minds.

[Melissa G]

50. You are too Funny ,Applegrove!! We won with one of the most Liberal

Senators...We won... you may not believe it but it was true. We can be ourselves and win.. as long as the people are really registered and the votes are actually counted accurately! The repubs are self destructing.. in case you missed it. It has gotten so bad the MSM is actually having to report it.

[FogerRox]

39. Alfie Charles Testamony to the EAC -

about 1, 1/2 years ago-- he said that the Sequoia recommended PRE LAT fir the Edge was a simulated vote in excess of 100k ballot positions.

And then Land Shark tells you what actually happens in the field.

[mgr]

70. State of California under Kevin Shelley

Addressed not the issue of vote switching, but the failure rate of about 10% being unacceptable (suggests that the pollworkers need to clear paper jams, and restart). There is a problem with these machines regarding their efficiency as well as their precision in recording votes; and there is some debate as to which area was more responsible for tweaking the 2004 election--suppression or vote switching.

Mike

[Land Shark]

22. Applegrove, who is "we" in "we have no smoking gun"

Please tell me what a smoking gun would look like? Have you read all the studies and papers? How many of the books that have come out have you read?

When you make a categorical statement "we" this or that, I think it is incumbent upon you to define, rather explicitly, what you've reviewed so we can see how thorough your study has been that has come to this conclusion. Then we will know whether your broad statement is truly meaningful, or just pretending to be.

I look forward to reading your list of papers and data sources.

If you prefer not to make such a list and instead wish to modify your statement to say that you "personally have not seen a smoking gun, but I've made only a brief review" I will understand.

Completely.

[applegrove]

26. Me & jimmy carter! Not everyone thinks votes were actually programed

into machines to be stolen. Machines were put in fewer numbers in Democratic winning ridings so there were long line-ups... YES, people were called and threatened with have parole or something revoked if they showed up to vote, some hotel employees saw that ... YES, Diebold didn't default properly (going both ways) ... YES, felon vetting by race... YES, intimidation at the polls for some people (Dems) ... YES.

YEs to so much. But no cold, hard facts on votes being stolen by programming inside Diebold machines.

You can think what you want, but you cannot say there is proof because we don't have that. No amount of stats is going to "equal" proof.

Would Fitz take stats to court? Only on DNA samples when the DNA samples are astronomically huge statistically as proof.

[Land Shark]

30. We have every type of evidence reasonably imaginable

1. statistical evidence
2. circumstantial evidence
3. direct evidence from the vote totals showing 50% more votes for R candidates on malfunctioning machines tracked by serial number than for the D candidate in the closest gubernatorial race in US history, in a Democratic county.
4. parallel evidence, in that the voters in the same precincts in the same races and the same county voted substantially more D on paper ballots than they did for electronic ballots.
5. All of the paper ballots were subject to extensive election litigation and election contest to check their reliability while the electronic evidence, by agreement of the parties given its nonrecountability and inscrutability, was ignored. Thus, the paper ballots statewide were investigated to the tune of millions of dollars and found not substantially in error to change the 183 (?) vote margin out of 3 million cast. not a very high error rate for paper.
6. Documentary evidence of service calls on specific machines, and voter complaints about specific machines, and those machines collectively vote more R than their counterparts.
7. EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE: People actually SAW these machines switching votes, so much so that they were taken out of service, Applegrove, with 30 or fewer votes per machine on them, so they can't exactly deny they were "malfunctioning."

So, just for starters there is statistical evidence, circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, parallel evidence, litigated investigation of the paper, documentary evidence, and EYEWITNESS evidence.

Same things happened in the presidential race and the up ticket races, but no vote switching was reported or observed in mid ticket, lower ticket races, judicial races, or referenda.

What DO YOU WANT APPLEGROVE? Source code?
www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (here's a lawsuit, and a copy of the referenced study as an exhibit)

[FogerRox]

46. Trivial to Landsharks post--- but supportive

the NM study on undervotes-- and the Shamos report --last page chart on PA undervotes makes it clear to me that DRE-- pushbutton DREs are the worst of the bunch--- have an undervote rate from 5% to 20%

While punch cards --- 2%

Lever machines-- 1%

Opscans---- 0.5%

which may suggest that the work (fraud) being done is very sloppy-- An awfull lot of votes tend to vanish---

[Land Shark]

47. YET, DRE'S ARE ADVERTISED TO NEARLY ELIMINATE UNDERVOTING!

[FogerRox]

54. yeah funny-- I know--

[GuvWurld]

32. I agree with you, Applegrove: No amount of stats is going to "equal" proof

You have reinforced the point I made up thread: Not only is there no amount of stats that will "equal" proof, the conditions under which our "elections" are held ensure inconclusive outcomes (inherent uncertainty that will never result in unanimous acceptance of the results).

What I think you need to consider is that the stats argument doesn't need to happen; the fraud argument doesn't need to happen; and the who actually won argument doesn't need to happen. We can never know the true outcome of an election held under current conditions. This is the only argument we need to make. There is no basis for confidence.

Engaging in any of the other arguments reinforces the validity of the "election" (which we should choose not to do) and provides grounds for rebuttal of your points. For a year and a half I have been asking if anyone will argue against "no basis for confidence" and nobody has done it because it requires that you argue for the existence of a basis, not allowing a faith-based claim of simply having confidence. What would be anybody's reason for having confidence when the conditions intentionally make it impossible to have a conclusive outcome?

[applegrove]

34. I agree there is improper basis to make statistical analysis. The exit

polls go funny everywhere Karl Rove is!! I agree the elections are a mess and much horried crime took place. I just cannot agree there is proof on the vote switching within diebold. Everything else I agree there is much proof of.

We need transparency laws.

[GuvWurld]

35. It seems you are willfully missing the point

Of course we need transparency, and a whole lot more if we are going to CREATE Democracy in America (which we do not now have).

But the situation goes way beyond an "improper basis to make statistical analysis." There is NO basis for declaring a conclusive outcome. Period. We can't know the true results of any "election" where votes can't be recounted. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

[applegrove]

36. There is no basis for declaring anything! The exit polls were wrong,

& the after polls are messed up because so few Americans vote.

There is no basis to form a basis. Except for the actual annecdotes we have on voter fraud, intimidation, felony vetting by race, etc.

What we have tons of evidence of if GOP & Rove WH Wedges (you know - like abortion & gay).

[GuvWurld]

37. It seems we agree there is a basis for saying inherent uncertainty is...

Inherent uncertainty is intentionally created. This is true not just by virtue of election conditions that ensure inconclusive outcomes (unverifiable votes, secret vote counting, statistical impossibilities, etc.), but also by the many Orwellian paradoxes created by the fascist, imperialistic corporate-military-government-media juggernaut.

Think of all the government studies that have been suppressed or censored to paint a different view of reality than was publicly presented previously. Think of the self-contradictory statements uttered all the time by the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. They have created a rift in the perception of reality and divided us into faith-based and reality-based communities. (Faith-based is not a religious reference but denotes those who accept the lies unquestioningly, on faith). We are basically repeating a formula that can easily be seen with the creep of fascism into each of the societies it has oppressed before. And we are largely, dutifully, playing our part in accepting it, or even embracing it, as this excellent Harper's magazine article shows.

As I see it, creating inherent uncertainty is inherently divisive. Dividing We The People has been an obvious approach for the past few years by a government using this tactic to consolidate its power and control. We are in a Cold Civil War and the only way out is for the divided People of this country to come together against the government that is dividing us. Read Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution. Election reform is an important front in turning the Cold Civil War into a non-violent Revolutionary War. But to even begin down this path, we have to dismiss the legitimacy of the government and refuse to recognize that our so-called "elections" are actually elections since they are really just simulated competition.

There is an assumption that the government has the Consent of the Governed. This government does not seek our Consent. It is time to shatter the assumption. Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET?

[Land Shark]

42. The harper's magazine link provided by GuvWorld has lots to ponder

the problem I have with applegrove is who he blames for the lack of certainty regarding elections. The person that has the burden of proof on elections to do them correctly (the government) and then fails in that burden, would be the losing party and the only one who "failed to prove" their case.

[applegrove]

53. And state by state the Dems are fighting to bring transparency back

to elections. But they don't have the power to do that on a national level.

Again - with 35% of the vote staying home every election, onis is on us to not create apathy and turn out all Dems to vote. All of them. And to not get into fight between moderates & progressives over something neither one can proove since there are no witnesses.

[Land Shark]

55. applegrove, you lack a basis even to conclude 35% stay home

that's how bad it's gotten in terms of having actual, open, transparent data available.

But it may be ballpark correct.

Consider that our "winner take all" elections might be better described as "guaranteed disenfranchisement of political minorities" elections. Since 49.9% of the support of the public gets you NOTHING.

it would be a lot more rational to attribute whatever voting apathy there may be to the above dynamics, since these dynamics have long been here, while e-voting has not been.

[applegrove]

56. My point is there is work to do beyond fears about diebold. And responsi-

bility to be taken.

[applegrove]

57. Thanks for "making me wrong" in the title thread - then right in the body!

I've seen that trick on "mixed boards" before.

[Land Shark]

59. Applegrove, you think "maybe" right = right?

I said you lacked a basis in the title thread, then said you "may be" right on a ballpark basis. I.e. your blindfolded dart may hit the board.

[applegrove]

60. So I was "wrong" in the title and right in the "body".

[Land Shark]

61. read post #59 slowly and thoughtfully applegrove, the apple shouldn't

fall too far from the tree identified in post #59

[applegrove]

62. In general, big picture, I am right. But only in the body of the text.

I was absolutely wrong in the title.

[applegrove]

52. I agree they wedge. I just think diebold (being new technology) is

another wedge. Between Dem moderates and Dem progressives who do not put anything past the Rove WH.

At least we can agree there is a wedge.

[GuvWurld]

58. Diebold is not a wedge. It is a smoke screen.

Diebold and all the other electronic voting machines obscure our ability to know with confidence that reported election results match the will of the People. Diebold is one of many ways that we are ensured inconclusive election outcomes. The certainty of uncertainty is the wedge, not Diebold.

What you are describing, the space between progressives and moderates, is the difference between those who say and act on the knowledge that there is no basis for confidence, and those who merely think they live in the reality-based community.

[petgoat]

64. "Diebold is not a wedge."

Their unauditability is enough to make the touchscreen machines
unacceptable.

Why would anyone install unauditable machines unless they intended to cheat?

Why would anyone accept the taint of suspect elections unless they knew
they could not win honest ones?

Why would Ohio taint an honest election with a dishonest recount?

This notion that anti-blackbox-machine people are Luddites and the
Diebold machines deserve the benefit of the doubt is absurd. The
machines deserve no benefit precisely because they introduce the doubt
from which they are benefiting! Computer experts (Mercuri, Dill, Jones,
Rubin) tell us the machines are inherently untrustworthy.

It's not even a partisan issue between Republican and Democrat, so why
should we think it's divisive between progressive and centrist? It's
a simple technical issue of accountability. Anybody who thinks
computers can't be hacked knows nothing about computers.

[applegrove]

65. You have no proof. You soppose. So we are separate. Diebold is a wedge!

[petgoat]

66. The touchscreen machines are unauditable.

That's a fact. They can't be audited. And my Toyota won't fly.
Unauditable machines are not acceptable because they must be trusted and they can not be trusted.

[applegrove]

69. That is true. So you suppose votes were taken that way. I see it

as a wedge to keep us moderates and progressives from talking to each other. We will all read our various fears (well deserved fears from this WH) into it.

Because it is vague. It is a wedge. It pays off with scuffles between you & me here. Think how hard it will be to go door to door with each other (metaphorically - I'm Canadian, I cannot vote).

We will be fighting before Mrs. Johnson even opens the door.

[Goldeneye]

68. I'm not really sure what you are refering to.

I specifically said I was going to keep this non-partisan, meaning no talk about the election being stolen. I'm going to advocate paper ballots, hand counted. I'm going to talk about the problems with e-voting. I'm not going to talk about votes being stolen.

[Melissa G]

20. Assume that you will be giving folks just an over view

with a lot of backup documentation for after you pique their interest..

6 minutes is 6 topics max..

Here's a suggested topic list
1)What is Electronic voting and how does it work?
(Bill Bored has a thread on election management systems somewhere that could be useful here)

2)How can Election management systems not work (Voters unite info..)

3) Partisan Corporate interests and how they interact with our Election systems (aka how 2 republican brothers count 80% of our votes)

4) Reasons for concern about our Election Process (GAO report and oh so much more)

5) What we can do to secure our Democracy. Things we should look for to have a secure transparent verifiable election process

6) resource list for those who want to learn more

[Land Shark]

24. Partisans running elections is outrageous, but nonpartisan election

officials are still just as captured by and dependent on the vendors. I would support making election officials nonpartisan but by no means does that solve a problem. In fact, it arguably makes it worse, because a partisan elections official inspires the opposite party to be vigilant, which may deter some of the problems, while a nonpartisan official may inspire false confidence and lack of public oversight.

[Melissa G]

31. As Land shark says this is kinda 'no win' which is why i believe the focus

needs to be on the transparency and verifiableness of the process.

People, esp when tempted by power and influence, always needs checks and balances to keep the system functioning. Witness our current political system, a fine example of what happens with the rampant dismantling of checks and balances..

[Land Shark]

38. in fact, people have "gone nuclear" not just on filibuster, but on checks

and balances generally, in many places.

[Land Shark]

44. for proper understanding, read "no basis for confidence" string

above, along with tortured metaphors about the tether breaking free from spaceship democracy, in the thread started by sunshinekathy

The disorienting lack of data allowing the public to evaluate its own elections..... when public control of government is the sine qua non of real democracy.

[FogerRox]

48. Good format from Melissa read her post again -- nice one---

[Land Shark]

51. Most important amplification of Melissa: the people have to be in charge

of the elections. the govt can not play hide the ball, nor can vendors. People not in charge = no real democracy.

[petgoat]

49. Popular Science and Popular Mechanics ran good articles on

the shortcomings of electronic voting systems last November:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/ec959aa138b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1303046.html?page=4&c=y

[Goldeneye]

67. question:

1. wasn't there a hearing held by cynthia mckinney where some guy claimed the machines were not tested by the company before they were sent out?




also...thanks for everyone's input. I'm started to go through your links now.