Know Our Audience: Who Tends to Reject Election Fraud Outright?

[IndyOp]

Watching Mark Crispin Miller on C-SPAN today I was struck by the defensiveness of callers who stated that they had not read his book or his website, and then immediately dismissed him as 'pathetic', as a 'fraud', as a 'phony'. If someone read his Harpers article or his book, "Fooled Again" and then decided not to believe that any election fraud occurred (or) that there was not enough election fraud to warrant a major investigation -- then that would be reasonable.

The reactions we get when discussing election fraud, however, are often not rational - they are often emotional - people react from their gut instead of considering the evidence.

It helps me to try and understand why different groups of people are resistant to even thinking about this issue - so I can better frame my 'points' when talking and writing about election fraud. (Note: If you have read tons of information and simply don't believe there was evidence of election fraud serious enough to warrant investigation - then you aren't a person who is 'resisting' you simply have different information than I or a different opinion than I. Peace be unto you.)

Below is my list of reasons why some people tend to reject election fraud outright, please respond with reasons why you think people are resistant to discussing this issue:

1. Some resist discussing election fraud simply because the election is long over and stories about all forms of fraud were *not* repeatedly in the media - and if it hasn't shown up in the corporate/mainstream media then it isn't real. That is what my Mom and Dad said about Watergate right up until the day Nixon confessed.

2. Some resist discussing election fraud because they don't understand the technology and therefore don't understand how few people it would take to rig/steal an election on virtually any/all types of voting machines. It took me weeks of reading last November/December to learn all of the terminology and start to understand this very important information.

3. Some people don't understand that an election could have been stolen even if the margin between winner & loser was large. High-tech fraud means that people can steal elections big - moving 10% or 15% or more of the votes. And remember that 'rigged' has the same effect as 'stolen during or after vote casting'.

4. Loss is shameful and we don't want to go over that ground again: If we had had a great candidate who ran a great race and we had just worked hard enough on their behalf then we would have won BIG. Don't want to be called a sore loser do you? How can you tell the difference between 'lost' and 'stolen' unless you investigate 'stolen'?

5. One of my favs: If there is *any other* explanation for the result of an election - anything other than fraud - then fraud did not happen. Occam's Razor is sometimes just simplistic thinking in a world in which most events are impacted by more than one causal factor. The issues on the ballot might have been poorly written and there might have been election fraud; the campaign could have been better and there might have been election fraud; the Dem might have won and there might have been election fraud. We need a system that anticipates, minimizes, and investigates fraud in every election.

6. Some resist discussing election fraud via high-tech means because they find evidence of low-tech fraud compelling and disturbing (like voter intimidation, destruction of registration forms, providing too few machines for precincts that are unlikely to vote right and so forth). It is compelling and disturbing, and so is high-tech fraud and they can be used in combination.

7. Many Dems don't want to believe that they could've been fooled - that it was stolen out from beneath them and they did not know. It is painful to admit. It hit me like an f'ing ton of bricks last November 3rd & 4th. I felt tremendous guilt about not having educated myself and done something about the potential for fraud before the 2004 election.

8. I want to believe that I live in a Democracy and that my vote counts, that I have some control over my fate, that my leaders care what I think. If the votes aren't being counted then we have to face a sinister alternative: Our perception of our country, our government, and our lives is wrong.Scary stuff, but not as dangerous as living in an illusion, though.

9. From DU'er Glitch: People with a vested interest in politics, people who have been working very hard in or even around politics, whether they are progressive or conservative or moderate, democrat or republican or green or libertarian, would have to face a reality that everything political that they have invested in, their time or money or even professional lives, is being made, indeed may already be, irrelevant. No matter how brilliant they are, no matter hard they work, someone like Bush will win the office, because his backers own the count. Nothing that they do or say or pay politically will ever matter if the votes aren't counted. Everybody who has made a career trying to get Democrats to be more Progressive can kiss off all their life's work. This is a painful thing to do, so they would rather embrace an illusion that their work still has meaning. And all the people who work so hard to get out the vote have to face the probability that their efforts, the time they didn't have but volunteered anyway, and I am among them so I can tell you this does hurt, is for nothing. These people fight very hard against the idea that the elections are stolen, because they see their job of getting out the vote even harder if no one trusts the system. To which I answer: the only solution is to fix the system and prove that it is fixed, denying it is broken will not bring back the trust.

10. Many, otherwise fair-minded Repubs are resistant because their personal definition of being Republican is that they are the party of 'morality' - so they could not possibly being doing anything immoral.

11. Many Repubs have 'business psyche' -- e.g. the rules of business and politics are 'different' from other realms of life. Business ethics: Do anything you can get away with. Political ethics: Do anything you can get away with and reassure yourself that it is really for the masses' own good (they just don't understand that you are doing it for their own good).

12. Of course, some folks (maybe less than a dozen) don't want to discuss it because they DID it.

=================================================

On Edit: The most useful thing you can do for a friend who 'won't consider the issue', IMHO: Show them the Solarbus video compilation! It includes: Votergate; Invisible Ballots; Electile Dysfunction trailer; Video the Vote - Ohio, 2004; The Daily Show and more! <http://www.solarbus.org/election/cd>. You can also burn CD's with the videos for FREE and give them away - great stocking stuffers!

[blm]

1. I agree and especially with #9 - people working to move the party left or

right and make their careers and house payments on it, will not fight to expose the machines or the media as the real culprits.

They blame the party positioning itself too far left or too far right - I completely disagree with both, even as a far lefty myself. I think the Dem platform is the most wide-reaching any party can be to support the goals of a real bigtent party.

[EFerrari]

2. I can illustrate that! Doug and I were invited to a Matt Gonzalez

private debriefing on the election last December, here in San Francisco.

For those of you who don't know, Matt was the other guy in Gavin Newsom's run off for the Mayor's spot. Gavin squeeked through.

As we went around the room, I asked a roomful of kindred souls, "Who here actually believes Bush won?" -- and this roomful included Lawrence Ferlinghetti which intimidated me to death, but I was so MAD, I just had to ask.

Well, there were about 4 hands in a room of about 50 people. But, despite the show of hands, Matt sort of cut me off, saying, "I already said, I agreed with you."

And he seemed to want me NOT to raise this question again. So, I tried to be a good guest and did not.

My point is, this room held some of the most progressively bent people in San Francisco. And, they barely tolerated the question.

Mark is right. People are in denial, slowly coming out of it but nonetheless, in denial.

[blm]

Misinformation comes from all sides. Funny how we can spot it swiftly when

it comes from the GOP right, but don't see past those doing it to our own side from the left and the center right.

It's IMPERATIVE that we stop this shit BEFORE the next election.

[EFerrari]

6. Exactly. I've gotten over my Gonzalez disappointment and now

just try to work with anyone who can hear.

[Gyre]

7. I think that people intuitively know that should trigger civil war

and they are too comfortable personally to put anything like their own comfort on the line to preserve democracy. Hence, it's easier to vehimently deny the possibility w/o looking objectively at the evidence (which would definitely force them out of their comfort zone). As long as there is "plausible deniability" re: election theft they'll not move. Plus, they've been getting lied to for so long by people at the top they don't know what to believe any more.

Gyre

[EFerrari]

10. Agree. Truth can sometimes require a pretty big commitment.

I don't mean to dis Matt or anyone for that matter. Just trying to gauge what the Truth market will bear.

[IndyOp]

12. The reactions I have gotten are either "Thank God!" or "Please, shhhh..."

Either they suspected and are relieved to know details or they believed that it isn't 'polite' to talk about such things.

I did a presentation at the Unitarian Church last summer and when I read Christopher Hitchens' short piece about what he observed at Kenyon College (the liberal school that got 2 voting machines for the whole school) and what he discussed with a friend (if all of the 'glitches' are in favor of one candidate, then the likelihood that they are 'glitches' is low) -- afterwards a friend walked up to me and commented that he thought I was just paranoid last December, but that maybe I had something there.

The denial is wearing down - the hard way!

[EFerrari]

13. It's like we're bringing up incest in the family, isn't it?!

Good for you, IndyOp -- and I still owe you research on the American Red Cross. Lol, it's on my Permanent Record. :)

[IndyOp]

17. Incest, alcoholism, and the fact that Grandpa was *not* eaten by a bear --

he is 'living in sin' with *that* woman across town! :rofl:

That last one is a story from my own family... Honest.

Don't expend any effort searching for the ARC stuff. If you happen to run across and article, send it my way.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

18. Musta been one hairy woman.

:rofl:

Will do!

[blm]

57. Great analogy - How I wish it weren't true.

/

[Amaryllis]

42. Thom Hartmann says don't start with "the election was stolen." Start

with "Did you know private corporations are programming the trade secret software that counts nearly 100 percent of our country's votes, and not even our election officials have access to this software? And that these companies have highly partisan political and financial conflicts of interest?" Emphasizing the whole secret vote counting thing and asking them if they think secret vote counting should be allowed in a democracy really gets them thinking. THey will take this in when they may not take in "the election was stolen." I've found I need to lead them from the above into "stolen election." It is not a one step process. This approach will open the conversation; then you can get into some of the stuff with the voting system companies.

[nicknameless]

44. He also suggests telling right-wingers that the only person known to have

hacked the results of a voting machine on television was the head of the DNC, Howard Dean.

[blm]

54. This is the biggest reason I supported Dean for DNC chair - The security

of the voting machines need to be dealt with BEFORE elections because there is no evidence in machines rigged for one use and then erased.

The blaming of Kerry is absurd - there was no evidence to be had after the vote - blame MacAuliffe for not securing the machines for every Dem candidate on the ballot BEFORE the election. That was his job for the entire party.

I am still hoping Howard Dean BELIEVES that the machines are rigged, because NOTHING changes if the key people in our party don't believe in machine fraud. Hopefully, when Kerry talks about machine fraud with Dean, Dean doesn't shrug him off like other Senators do.

[IndyOp]

67. I *really* want to hear more from Dean - *now* --

We have less than 12-months to the next election and I want to hear his plan, I want him engaging with state and local party officials so that they are educated and ready.

The silence is maddening...

I want a PLAN.

I don't believe that Dean would shrug Kerry off - but I also don't know if Kerry would contact Dean. I hope that the Dems recognition of the 'Rethug culture of corruption' is rapidly generalized to this issue.

:mad: (I'm not really mad, I'm tense!)

[blm]

71. Actually, Kerry and Dean are quite close now and have been since June2004.

I am hoping that Dean takes machine fraud seriously as a PARTY issue and especially if Kerry has Winer get the goods they need to expose the machines.

[EFerrari]

60. That's a very smart route. It sure isn't a one step process. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

3. My husband doesn't believe it was stolen...

...and he's very far left. He voted for Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 04.

I can't get him to see the light.

Tonight, I mentioned the "stolen election" and he made me a tin-foil hat.

In my opinion--he probably has a hard time accepting that our democracy has evolved into a democrazy. It's difficult for most to actually fathom that our country is no longer our own.

Also--I think the Reps did a solid job of positioning "election fraud" theories as sour grapes and the opinions of wack jobs.

Furthermore--I don't think it helped our cause when Kerry did not fight back. He conceded and seems to have accepted the election results as legitimate. When the leader of the party accepts the results, the people claiming "fraud" don't have much credibility. In my opinion, we look like sore losers and excuse inventors. Kerry's acceptance juxtaposed against our assertions (which I know are true), make us look "out there."

[EFerrari]

5. My mom is sort of like that, and she's a registered Dem but

a socialist at heart!

She says things like, "Okay, they stole it. But next time, we need someone who can unbend a little."

So, obviously, she agrees in her mind it could be or was stolen, but it just hasn't connected to her gut yet.

[GuvWurld]

25. No offense, but that is cognitive dissonance

Your mom seems to be holding two contradictory thoughts simultaneously when they can't both be true. This is human nature; we all experience it at different times. But it is also common to the point of epidemic now. I think consistent with the theme of this thread, there should be discussion of how to help people break free of this mental trap. I wrote about it some in Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution. It connects to what I want to say in direct response to the OP...

Another item for the list is choosing the wrong approach for the audience. Everything in the OP's list is about the fraud-denier. We need to think about what we do that contributes to not bringing them around. I recommend not discussing the result/outcome of Nov. 2004 since it is invariably going to be a source of argument. Instead, find the points on which you can agree and lead to a specific conclusion: the election conditions guaranteed an inconclusive outcome...it was set up so We The People would be divided in a hopeless argument about who won. Let's not have that argument. Instead, let's realize that the conditions will again ensure an inconclusive outcome in the next election. IMO, this is where all roads must lead for a united resistance (from "both sides") to future sham elections.

[EFerrari]

27. No offense taken, I'm sure you're right! And since I know her,

it seems a measure of how the Cabal in General has taught us to tolerate our cognitive dissonance. Because my mom is a smart person.

[IndyOp]

32. Great thoughts - choosing the wrong approach for the audience is,

in part, why I wrote the OP. If I take the time to think about the different reasons why people won't discuss the issue, then I am more likely to recognize differences in future and choose a better track down which to guide a particular dicussion.

I, respectfully, disagree with your thought that we should not discuss Nov. 2004 -- my problem with not discussing it is this: It does not matter what new laws we put on the books if we are not willing to put the ones already on the books into action. If we aren't willing to prosecute people who broke the law last time, then we are appeasing bullies and appeasing bullies causes them to grow to a monstrous size.

I can resist discussing 'who won' only with tremendous difficulty (because I think it is a waste of time to attack the candidate or campaign when he did not lose) - but I can try to resist discussing 'who won' IF we *can* still have discussions about all the ways in which fraud occurred and who did it and how we can punish them.

Then again, maybe you are right in terms of strategy and we should just find a way to get everyone to sign onto election reforms that will make the difference. I just am not sure we will get enough people to put their energy into election reform if they aren't 'worked up' based on what they know about the results of past elections.

:shrug:

[GuvWurld]

35. Your thoughts are great too (aw shucks)

Really, this is an excellent thread. Perhaps I shouldn't shun talking about fraud and/or 2004 results so completely. There are times when I do it myself, even though I have a preferred approach that is different. I guess that is the real takeaway here: we need to be flexible and adaptable and capable of wielding different messages for different audiences. Remember when I did a keynote presentation for the Humboldt County Republicans? Lately I've done some guest lectures at College of the Redwoods and Humboldt State University (I never got to write up good blurbs about those). Clearly I bring a different message each time. The OP is very useful in preparing for future public speaking I'll do.

Now, all that said, even though my suggestion is to focus on election conditions, not outcomes, I also believe that election reform itself is a tactic, not an end goal. Just as no single reform can possibly repair our elections to the point of producing conclusive outcomes and creating a basis for confidence, so too must we realize that even a collection of reforms significant enough to produce conclusive outcomes and a basis for confidence will still not address larger issues we face such as fascism, globalization, global warming, etc. I do believe in working for election reform but I think it has to be in context with the broader scope of change we must seek. See: Peaceful Revolution Is the Elephant In The Room.

[Amaryllis]

46. See posts 42 and 42. I don't think it's a question of whether or not

to discusss the theft of the election; it's more a question of how to start the discussion- how to lead into it; timing and audience. I've got a lot farther with people by beginning with the approach I mention in post 42. Land Shark always talks about how votes being counted on proprietary software is like him going in a back room and counting the votes and then coming out and announcing the winner and telling the voters they should trust him.
My friends who couldn't handle the whole election theft idea could hear that and the "secret vote counting has no place in a democracy" theme, and once they saw that, it didn't take that long before they could go to stolen election. But it wasn't working to try to start with that.

[Amaryllis]

43. choose the right approach: yes! see post #42

[IndyOp]

15. Have you gotten him to watch the election fraud videos?

Evidence for the eyes - college profs talking about vulnerable systems - discussions of hacking and rigging - people standing in the rain because too few voting machines were sent to AfAm precincts...

Solarbus video compilation includes: Votergate; Invisible Ballots; Electile Dysfunction trailer; Video the Vote - Ohio, 2004; The Daily Show and more! <http://www.solarbus.org/election/cd>. See also my signature line.

:hi:

[Amaryllis]

4. Great piece! You covered most all of it...the only one I can think of that

you didn't is "If the election was stolen, why isn't the media talking about it?" People who don't understand that MSM is owned by the same folks essentiallly who own the voting system companies (multinational coroporations) and still think they get "news" from MSM use this line of reasoning.

[IndyOp]

8. Thanks! And the one you mention was

in number one - though it is very useful to emphasize the point in the present tense and discuss why it is not in the MSM. :hi:

1. Some resist discussing election fraud simply because the election is long over and stories about all forms of fraud were *not* repeatedly in the media - and if it hasn't shown up in the corporate/mainstream media then it isn't real.

[Amaryllis]

41. Oops! By the time I got to the last point, I'd forgotten your first one...

very comprehensive list. Great job.

[kster]

22. I think they have been rigging some

elections electronically at the central tabulators since beginning of the 90's. That is how they got to where they are today, back then they where not as concerned with the presidential election as they where about putting a government in place that would loosen the controls of the media, now they have both a perfect government that works in lockstep with the media.

Now the government is divided into three Republicans, Democrats and Republicans in Democrats cloths . In 2000 they sharpened their election theft skills with rigged scanners, dre's and the central tabulators, and went for the gold, the presidency. Thank goodness we have the internet for now. This is probably (if we are not to late) the only tool we have to make our last stand for democracy.

Lets give em hell!!

[EFerrari]

24. It's better -- we get to augment the hell they made for themselves!

Hey, I'm willing to help out a GOP in need.

:)

[NMDemDist2]

9. happy to add the 5th K&R n/t

[EFerrari]

11. Thanks for the reminder to R. n/t

[mod mom]

14. I think some people just don't want to face the ugly reality-our country

is not what it aspires to be.

[EFerrari]

20. The cognitive dissonance is deafening. To be honest,

I have no idea why I'm not in denial too. But it must be something like, I'd rather know what I'm up against than regret not knowing later. :(

[mod mom]

34. Have you read Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States?

Woo, that lays a dose of reality on you. I was in denial until I witnessed for myself what occurred in Columbus, Ohio on election day and read how the machines were allocated in the local paper. The blatant lies caused me to ask questions and seek answers. The cover-ups and responses to obvious injustice caused me and others to dig deeper.

I never thought of questioning how 9/11 occurred until I was exposed to the lies that surrounded the election. Once I realized we were lied to about this, the rest became easier to swallow. I hope the awakening American people will draw the same conclusions and start questioning authority.

[EFerrari]

39. I haven't read it but it looks like, I better read it!

This is our challenge, isn't it? To keep sticking with fact when the machinary keeps trying to detach us from fact.

[Amaryllis]

47. Can you say a bit more about the book? A dose of reality in what respect?

You mean that he tells it the way it really was instead of textbook revisionist history?

[mod mom]

55. Yes, Mr Zinn has given us a non-revisionist history. It is usually noted

that the victors write history-which means their roles are glorified, which the "losers" are villified. this is the history of the US we all learned in school. Of course as adults many of us saw through this rosey glass portrayal, but Zinn digs deeper into the historical accounts.

[robbedvoter]

16. It would change reality as they know it - disturbing - I have friends

that whenever I bring it up - even the 2000 one they immediately respond with: they are all crocked! How do you know democrats didn't do it too?
Of course, they also think NYC is paradise on earth since Bloomberg - and are NOT Republicans.

[Tuesday_Morning]

19. A couple thing I've noticed

People who see themselves as smart and sensible sometimes have a hard time with the idea of a stolen election as in: I'm much too smart to believe those crazy conspiracies.

People who have never had to confront how dastardly authority can be sometimes have a hard time with the idea of a stolen election as in: I don't believe that many people could be so bad, could keep a secret and besides, the media would report it.

I think I'm most effective on the issue when I express the firmness of my belief in a matter of fact way. Yes, it was stolen. I don't doubt it. Look at what we know.

[EFerrari]

21. Matter of fact has worked for me, too.

If people want a ranting and raving partisan, they don't find one here.

"Just the facts, ma'am."

[Amaryllis]

74. What is really weird is I have a number of friends who at first didn't

belivee the 2004 was stolen. I'd ask them if they believe 2000 was stolen and they'd say yes. I say, why wouldn't they steal this one if they stole the last one? And it was like they just couldn't deal with the reality of it. I finally started getting somewhere with them using the approach I described in post # 42.

[understandinglife]

23. " ... because they don't understand the technology and therefore don't ...

... understand how few people it would take to rig/steal an election on ... any/all types of voting machines.

That fact, combined with 8 and 9, are the reason American democracy took a lethal hit in 2000 and was severed from life-support on November 2nd, 2004.

And, as long as folk ranging from Rove to various Dem bloggers are on the same side of this issue you can be certain we will never have a valid election in this Nation.


Peace.

[EFerrari]

26. We have to be willing to sound like smiling aliens.

That's hard to sustain.

Far as I can tell, you all have been doing a great job. And I say this from my distance of having domestic issues that require my first/best attention, my mourning which also requires attention, and my primary work with the homeless and the mentally ill. I'm not here in this forum often but I treasure each moment I am.

And, I try not to miss an opportunity to raise the question here on DU or anywhere, for that matter.

I believe that if we continue to put our two cents and our best thinking together, we can secure our elections.

[DemReadingDU]

28. If it's not on TV, it's not relevant

Many people don't read newspapers, and only get a sprinkling of news from watching TV. If news is noteworthy, it will be shown somewhere on TV.

Other than Keith Olbermann last year, hardly anyone on TV discussed the stolen election. My husband today made it a point to be sure to turn on C-Span to watch Mark Crispin Miller. So I think what we need to do is get more people like Miller to get on C-Span to keep the stolen election in the spotlight.

Edit to add: The more something is on TV, the more it is discussed by the general public and the more the reality sinks in to people's heads.

[Cocoa]

29. the hard sell is a real turnoff

consider the possibility that the people that are resisting your argument aren't "rejecting it outright", but rather they are recognizing the arguments as ones they've heard before and simply aren't convinced by.

[IndyOp]

30. Absolutely - hard sell is a real turnoff, share information and let

the consequences be what they may.

I did include in my OP the following disclaimer: "Note: If you have read tons of information and simply don't believe there was evidence of election fraud serious enough to warrant investigation - then you aren't a person who is 'resisting' you simply have different information than I or a different opinion than I. Peace be unto you."

I teach - and teachers (of all sorts) discover that you have to figure out where your audience is in order to communicate with them where they are and to share new information/experiences with them. Thinking about differing student experiences and perspectives before a discussion helps me do a bit better thinking on my feet when students ask questions & make comments in class.

The attitude of wanting to understand where others are on the election fraud issue - and wanting to think aloud about what information may be meaningful to different audiences - that is the motivation for my post.

Peace be unto you.

:hi:

[Cocoa]

31. I missed the disclaimer

It is appreciated, and imo very unusual in the election fraud discussion. :hi:

[EFerrari]

33. Wow. Really? You find it unusual? Because I've been

reading these people for a solid year and they are among the most skilled communicators on DU.

Go figure.

[IndyOp]

36. Actually, I would side with Cocoa on this one --

IMO a lot of posts about election fraud (not most, but too many) end up with name-calling and/or accusations - "conspiracy theorist" vs. "naive"; "tin-foil hatter" vs. "uninformed".

And, I think the discord is due, in part, to the frustration of people who are open-minded and who have read about the issue, but who haven't seen 'the evidence' that would convince them. This is how I feel about 9/11 conspiracy theories -- was Building 7 blown up? I am open-minded, but I haven't read/heard enough to convince me and, truthfully, I am not going to take a lot of time to go research.

I think the name-calling and accusations are also due, in part, to the frustration of election fraud activists who get (reasonably) tired of being called 'conspiracy theorists' etcetera by people who haven't read or thought about the issue at all. I could not believe the callers this morning who called Mark Crispin Miller - an NYU professor - 'pathetic', a 'fraud', a 'phony' without having read anything he has written. He is advocating a massive investigation, not overturning an election - just an investigation. Do he offer enough information to warrant an investigation in his book -- way, way, way 'YES'!

We could use a little more respect on all sides of 'hot' issues like election fraud - just a little more willingness to give the other person the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent, informed, and open-minded.

[Cocoa]

37. it's likely a matter of perspective

I probably notice things like the term "naysayer" more than you do because it's more often directed at me than at you.

[EFerrari]

38. I notice something a little different.

As Mark said (paraphrasing) today on "Washington Journal", we're dealing with a lot of reactivity.

The activists from this forum have excellent communication skills, as far as I have read. That their statements draw reactive and irrational responses at times is just part of this wacked-out process we're involved in.

I think we have to prepare for people to have a hard time processing this information, have to predict their reactivity and, plan to talk to it. But, that's just what I try to do.

[Broken_Hero]

40. very good post, and nominated.

[Amaryllis]

45. Check out these Thom Hartmann and Lehto audios for excellent framing

of the issue. I have listened to these a number of times and it's helped me so much in learning how to frame it so people can hear it:

Hartmann and Lehto on "The Corporate takeover of America’s elections" at the Unitarian Church in Portland on July 16, 2005.

Thom Hartmann...about 33 minutes

www.PhilosopherSeed.org/realaudio/thartman.ram

www.PhilosopherSeed.org/mp3/thartman.mp3

Paul Lehto....about 32 minutes

www.PhilosopherSeed.org/realaudio/plehto.ram

www.PhilosopherSeed.org/mp3/plehto.mp3

[truckin]

58. I tell people that I am fighting against electronic voting machines.

If this leads to them asking why, I go into all of the problems with them, cost, reliability and transparancy and how voting machine companies program the machines that count the votes taking this function away from local poll workers. If you start out with the 2004 election was stolen, you will lose most people.

[Land Shark]

48. Bottom Line: If reasonable people can disagree about the validity

of an election, then regardless of whether or not a particular RACE has been stolen from a certain candidate, our DEMOCRACY most definitely HAS BEEN STOLEN FROM US.

This is true because they system is not seeking to transparently prove that it has obtained the consent of We the People. And this consent of the governed and the origin of all power being solely in the people is the essence of democracy. (Elections aren't, in fact Artistotle was one famous critic of democracy who wrote that elections are aristocratic devices....)

So with inconclusive elections seemingly or actually desiged as GuvWorld says to produce inconclusive outcomes to get us all debating a political rohrschack test or else cowed by the "lack of evidence" created by the very lack of transparency complained of, it is very much as if the government is looking at the People through a telescope that is happily broken, muddied, smeared and obfuscated, as it attempts to determine through our "elections" whether or not it has the consent of the governed or who has the consent of the governed.

Our power to rule is robbed from us under inconclusive conditions, which is why i say that whether or not the presidential race was stolen from us, democracy surely has been.

[mod mom]

56. Excellent point if I am understanding you. I have not yet listened to

your above mentioned audio files, but plan to do so soon. I believe you are saying that the doubt concerning the system has robbed our nation regardless of the final outcome.

I believe even though we have not proven the theft in a court of law (nor will we be able to without full subpoena power) our ability to raise the doubt and enter the election fraud discussion into the American lexicon has made our efforts a success. The growing pressure will eventually force the creation of a system that is verifiable and transparent. Of course, we are far from a complete success, but are headed in the right direction. The November 19th DNC Resolution on Elections, which will be voted on later this week, has given me hope that we have forced action to implement the correction.

[Amaryllis]

75. The fact that there is even a DEBATE about whether or not the

election was stolen indicates a serious problem. It shouldn't even be a question in a healthy system.

[Land Shark]

49. Same split in reactions if someone comes up & tells your spouse cheated on

you. Some will investigate or at least get curious, others will dismiss or attack the messenger.

People don't want to be given a message they can't be sure of what to do with or what to make of. And there's some who sincerely believe ignorance is bliss. They'd rather have a better "quality of life".

Note that these reactions are quite independent of the FACTS, and how strong or weak they are. They are attitudinal, belief-based reactions.

You can get interesting google hits by searching on "belief is more important than" and looking at all the different things.

Belief is more important than (according to the respective authors):
....FACTS.
....the being.
....its truth state.
....conduct.
....peace.
....what is believed.
....hard evidence.

For some, more important than even belief is being in a debating position perceived as superior in its firepower, and scoffing at "conspiracy theorists" seems to them to allow almost unlimited snark attacks at little or no cost. Some just wanna win or be on the winning side, and think that's a good way to do it.

[Festivito]

50. Posts are too voluminous, style too wordy.

What can the press do with a bunch of 600 word essays? Nothing.

There is NEVER anything for water-cooler talk. NEVER. Unless you think I'm going to grab someones shoulder and spew at 15 minute essay into their face. What will I do if they ask a question, I don't know.

This issue needs to be broken up into something reasonably sized for memorizing and relating within a minute or two. I have a thousand such stories inspired from DU in my mind. I have not had the time to reduce this one, yet.

I have another 50 posts to read, 10 are important. If I spend my time on this one, I won't even know what I missed, and I'd rather know. So, the wordy post loses.

[nashville_brook]

63. too wordy for the press.

best damn excuse ever :) they'd never comprehend.

[Festivito]

64. I haven't found the key turning point in this issue, have you?

The press comprehends. It just has nothing to say that people will read -- yet.

[Amaryllis]

76. See post 42. I have my speech now. Got it down to a couple sentences

that will hook most people and then if they want more, I tell 'em more. I heard someone ask Thom Hartmann how to talk to people about it because it's so complex, and he said no, it's very simple: what the hell is a private corporation doing inserting themself between me and my vote and my government? Private corporations counting votes on trade secret software have no business being involved in elections in a democracy.

[Festivito]

78. Our vote is counted by secret computer programs.

The secrecy is called proprietary.
This is still new, a couple years old now.
A Republican Congress and President passed it. One party.
It is almost all of the voting inside the United States now.
Venezuela has computers, but they get to see the programs that we don't.
Even our election officials are not allowed to see the counting programs.
And there is no paper ballot to check the count.
I fear some of the officials who approved these purchases.

... let the listener do some of the thinking work ...

#42 was too long as well. Mine is long, but choppy. You can stop anywhere. I'm just trying.

[OneBlueSky]

51. #8 (and, by extension, #9) are the most salient reasons, imo . . .

Americans MUST believe that their votes count in order to maintain their myth of American democracy . . . if their votes DON'T count, the cognitive dissonance is just too much for people to handle . . . so they refuse to handle it . . .

[Festivito]

77. Self-delete. Hit [reply] on wrong post. /nt

[autorank]

52. Damn good thread IndyOp...I think most people think it was fixed.

They have not had a chance to deal with the issue because there is a MEDIA BLACKOUT. That is to the eternal shame of CM. IndyOp, I'll bet you a trunk full of Monopoly money that right now you'd hit 40-45^ Yes to the question: "Do you think that George Bush and the Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election.?"

Having said that, those in denial are all motivated by one common factor (despite a variety of separate motivations from your excellent list): they can't bear the horror of thinking that it's all a rigged game.

It's just too much for them. Their secure manicured version of the world would collapse completely if our entire system of governance were based on fraud.

These are the people who truly need a CM media blast of the truth. Then the world would make sense to them...CM always tells the truth in their world;).

[Stevepol]

53. As Mark himself suggested many of these callers are "fraudulent."

Whenever the issue is put fairly to people and their votes are openly monitored, very few people go along with secret, non-transparent vote counting. These C-Span callers that seem indignant that anybody would suggest that electronic voting could be dangerous or that the vote might have been hacked or otherwise tampered with are very likely in my opinion "plants." When you get several of these callers you tend to think there are a lot of them out there. The voting machien companies are presently not much different from Cosa Nostra. They ahve that mentality and they carry it over to their marketing and business mentality. They use intimidation, lies, and distortions to sell their machines and to make sure others don't question or make the truth available to people.

I don't think there are very many of these guys out there. Transparent vote counting is a NON-PARTISAN ISSUE, THE MOST NON-PARTISAN ISSUE YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE. There is a strong majority here of Repubs as well as Dems.

[EFerrari]

59. Mark busted the one who pretended to be a Democrat.

And he did is without blinking.

That's an old ruse. Remember, one of those creeps who hounded Andy pretended to be a "progressive". He even went so far as to put up an elaborate site that could be mistaken for a progressive site -- except there was no life there. It was clearly a front, put there as cover for God knows what.

[blm]

61. IndyOp, this post is SO GOOD, I wish you'd put it in GD so more eyeballs

get to see it.

I would help keep it bumped there, because the collected insight in your post is valuable for all Dems.

[IndyOp]

65. Thanks blm! The post has 29 recommendations for 'greatest' -

so I think a lot of eyeballs have seen it. If I can reduce/rewrite it in maybe a week or so, I will try to remember post it in GD -- :hi:

[EFerrari]

66. Good idea. If you do, please give a heads up!

:hi:

[pat_k]

62. Ignore the brick wall people -- too many on "our side" demand attention

Ignore the brick wall people -- they are not our audience.

Too many on "our side" demand our attention.

Tragically, a vast majority of the organizations like the Center for American Progress or the National Priorities Project fail to include trustworthy elections as a priority. I’ve never seen trustworthy elections on any of those "What is most important to you" polls. Elected officials and party leaders rarely even mention broken elections among the issues that demand attention.

This is insanity. Until Trustworthy Elections are right up there with "health care" or "the environment" we will NOT make progress. When "everybody knows" our election systems are so broken it's impossible to disprove fraud, the brick wall people will follow suit.

It is imperative that every public leader and organization fighting for us on other fronts join the fight for Trustworthy Elections.

The organizations, elected officials, and leaders on "our side" must be our audience.

The ACLU now includes "voting rights" on it's list (it was not there a few months ago), but this is about our right to have Confidence in the results of our elections; our right to Trustworthy Elections. Our right to vote is meaningless if we do not enforce our right to have confidence.

The time has come for an Election Revolt (reform is far too weak a term). If you care about preserving the consent of the governed – our founding principle – please call, write, and fax the organizations and office holders that still don’t get it. Take a look and see if the people and organizations you support have joined the fight. If they haven’t, make some noise.

Related Post: Post #2576 on TableTalk’s Grand Theft Presidency Discussion.

Key Message

The voting systems and practices used in the conduct of our elections are so flawed that the results in every state (yes, even yours) are wide open to corruption by systematic vote suppression, data manipulation, human and machine error, and consequently, willful fraud. Demonstrable errors and anomalous patterns of result in this past election rendered all "official" tallies suspect. More tragically, the systems and processes implemented by "experts" have made it impossible for us to rule out corruption without comprehensive investigation and audit.

We have the right to have confidence that we are being afforded free and fair elections for our government officials. This is a right that no other consideration can supersede. A free and fair election is one in which all citizens have been afforded equal access and opportunity to cast their vote and have that vote accurately counted. A free and fair election is conducted in a manner that instills confidence in the results.

It is not just the RIGHT thing to do, it is the smart thing

Whenever you communicate with organization leaders, office holders, office seekers, or their staff on this, ALWAYS make the point that our broken elections activate people like no other issue. It's a problem of circularity. Because it is not on the list of "standard issues," the level of concern goes unmeasured. This leads to the mistaken belief that people are not concerned. When the topic is raised, it becomes clear how mistaken this belief is. In nearly any group, any reference to our broken elections elicits a powerful response.

Although it continues to be a taboo subject, the Stolen Election of 2000 has been by far the primary source of renewed energy on the left for the past 5 years. Election 2004 added salt to the wound, and activated more people.

Any organization or politician that stands and fights for a revolution in how we conduct our elections will tap into this "mother lode" of energy and support. There is NO down side to taking the lead in the fight to preserve the consent of the governed -- our founding principle. Incremental reform be damned. Any leader who fights for our right to have confidence in our elections, no if's ands or buts, will have activists coming out of the woodwork to support them. Standing on principle always inures to the benefit of the leader who does so. As President Clinton says, people will always choose "strong and wrong" over "weak and right."


See also Burden of Proof in an Election

[jen4clark]

68. I was amazed at the number

of people who absolutely refuse to even think that our elections could possibly be rigged. Mark was brilliant. I can't imagine fielding live calls from such ignoramuses.

A good friend of mine put together a "report" aimed mostly at those who can't imagine such a thing is possible. She's a working gal with 2 professions and spent close to a year of evenings and late nights researching and writing. I did the proofreading/editing and I can assure you it's quite remarkable in that it's extremely informing, disturbing and at the same time - in a weird way - entertaining.

Please have a look at it. It's called WHO'S COUNTING.

After reading the intro jump over to THE COMPANIES chapter. If that doesn't turn heads, I don't know what will.

Please read it and pass it on far and wide. We ARE the media.

[IndyOp]

72. '50 Ways To Steal Elections' is catchy !

The Ralph Reed quote is seriously disturbing: "I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night..." - Ralph Reed, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot

Is this available as a pdf? I am much more likely to read something long if I can print it and sit on the couch -

:hi:

[jen4clark]

73. There's a Print This Page

link at the bottom of each page.

Oh dude! as I was proofing and editing I was nearly having heart attacks!! Wait 'til you read The Companies chapter!! Absolutely mind blowing that almost every vendor is comprised of not only big money Repub donors but convicted felons!! I swear it's like reading a crime novel or something!! I couldn't believe how calm and even funny my friend was as she was composing this!!


We're thinking of putting it into book form eventually. Thanks for reading!

:hi:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

69. Vote fraud is a macro-conspiracy theory

Voting machines that aren't networked simply require too much effort - doing it under the noses of too many people - to be able to get away with anything that would have any appreciable effect on most elections.

And, of course, it's plainly obvious that the real issue driving this concern over "vote fraud in Ohio" is just disappointment over the result of the Presidential election. If I want to read about "vote fraud in Washington State", I have to go over to the Free Republic, since they lost that election by a hair. (And believe me, Republicans have vote fraud macro-conspiracy theories just as heartfelt - and unlikely - as anything posted to the D.U.)

Centrists, on the other hand, see this as nothing more than partisan whining. Annoying partisan whining. Which is why Mark Miller gets such a hostile reception, as did Dino Rossi.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[jen4clark]

70. ConservativeDem:

Perhaps if you would take about 1/2 hour and read just THE COMPANIES Chapter of WHO'S COUNTING you would understand what so many of us are concerned about.

Actually, for you, because you seem to be informed about how the technology of electronic voting systems works, you should start with THE TECHNOLOGY Chapter. I guarantee you'll be surprised to learn how easy the vote tabulators are to hack into and how they were designed with a "back door" just for the purpose of altering the counting. (Very easy to understand even for non-computer geeks.)

It's easy to just call a whole bunch of people whining partisans but a little harder to actually inform yourself. It may be more than many are willing to accept which is totally understandable - and is what "The Threshold Concept" is all about...

If you read the chapter I linked above (and in the post right above your post), you may find yourself interested enough to read on. Here's an excerpt from "The Threshold Concept" section of the Three Stages of Truth chapter:

Lifelong Republican and front-line voting reform activist, Chuck Herrin, again, sums it up nicely;

“Every day I struggle with myself, because I don’t want to believe it, even though it’s staring me in the face. It took me HOURS of research before I accepted it, and I still don’t want to believe that it’s true.”

Chuck Herrin is not some uniformed bandwagon alarmist out to kick up some dust— He’s a respected, highly educated Information Technology Auditor (“professional white hat hacker”) with a dozen or so letters after his name as testimony. He analyzes and troubleshoots computer systems, breaks into them for a living with a 96% success rate, and he found nothing but trouble when he starting poking around in our current election systems.

The roster of computer science professionals and academics that have publicly come out against the current voting technology in America is impressive both in quantity and in credentials. Here are a few you can read for yourself to get the gist: Cont...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

81. It's hard to argue with true believers.

Because, as we all know, you can make yourself believe anything if you try hard enough.

Believe me when I say that I am well acquainted with this issue. I am a software engineer with over 20 years of experience. I know quite a lot about computer security, including the most common attacks. In my younger years, I invented some on an experimental basis.

In addition, I am quite up to speed about the accusations being made. I am nearly certain I've been aware of the potential problems long before you were; they were well discussed on slashdot long before they ever were on the D.U. I've also attended numerous sessions from organizations pursuing this, review the procedures at my local county elections office, and spoken directly to my Secretary of State on the matter.

Now (because I really should be working instead of writing this), a very brief discussion on the main arguments:

1] Accusations of ownership fraud (e.g. Diebold, with Republican ownership, altering the election) is a macro-conspiracy theory. We are living in an age in which the President can't get a blowjob (or a presidential aide having an off the record conversation with a reporter) without the whole country knowing it, yet you expect a 200+ person company to maintain an airtight scheme to defraud the American people? We are supposed to believe that every Diebold employee asked to go out and monitor the Florida election, was told to throw the vote, then did so, with flawless precision, and none of them told their girlfriends after?

2] While GEMS is a piece of crap, the GEMS machines run in 2004 were largely run non-networked. (If you notice carefully, you'll see that BBV and others use the marketing literature of Diebold to show that the machines can be networked; not that they actually were.) And frankly, non-networked machines are secure. If you've ever seen an elections office during vote counting, with hoards of partisans staring at everything being done, you'll know how unlikely it is for anyone to be able to just sit down and casually hack the vote.

3] GEMS isn't the only tabulator system out there. There are plenty of others, using varying degrees of automation. Some with remarkably hard to break security. Many tabulators are impossible to hack because they simply count bubbles - of the 217,544 cards sent through, 130,114 have bubble #3 marked. The software isn't updated.

4] Even the GEMS "hack" demonstrated can be detected pretty simply. If you surreptitiously swap IDs of the winner and loser, the person who originally put in the IDs is probably going to know. Especially if they have a print out. Typically, elections offices print out everything.

5] While it's possible to have an entire county elections office on the take steal an election (this has happened in U.S. history), this can be hard to get away with. All it takes is one person not on-board and the whole scheme gets exposed. The idea that a significant number of counties are corrupt is again, a macro-conspiracy theory.

6] Far from being absolutely accurate, exit-polls have always significant variances with the polls - largely due to sampling error. When you get down to that last few percent, people willing to talk to exit-pollers about who they voted for are different than the population who actually voted.

7] Nothing that I've said here means that we shouldn't remain vigilant in stopping election fraud in the country. But remember, vote fraud predates computers. In Florida, for example, military ballots aren't even double-checked anymore. They just take the counters word on their say-so. That's the reason why our overall system is set up the way it is. Even the election of "presidential electors" is designed to limit the usefulness of ballot box stuffing and other election fraud schemes.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[jen4clark]

82. Appreciate your tone and patience

ConservativeDem and after this post I will give up trying to get you to read our website - although I may send the author over who is a much better communicator than I. :)

I DO NOT like believing that our votes are not counted correctly or transparently, trust me. I am a strongly grounded, reality loving individual.

I wish you would just go over and read the chapter of who owns the companies. Not just Diebold, but ES&S, Sequoia, Triad... There are eight companies profiled. If nothing else, I believe you might find it quite interesting.

You can go to the bottom of each chapter and click the "Print This Page" link, print it out and read it at your leisure. You seem like someone who will appreciate the details the author goes into getting to the bottom of who owns and runs these companies. I'm not exaggerating when I say it reads like an episode of The Sopranos. Just sayin'.

[pat_k]

86. You don't need to get lost in details

The arguments are simple. Something people really "get" is that secret vote counting is wrong.

What they don't get is that the DREs are secret vote counters.

I just posted on this topic in response to ConservativeDemocrat.

As I assert in that post, secret vote counting is intolerable in any nation that claims to hold free and fair elections. This is a key part of the case against DREs.

But there is more to a trustworthy election than an open, accurate, and verifiable count. DREs get so much focus that we sometimes lose track of a critical point:

Discriminatory treatment of voters ALONE is sufficient to invalidate an election.

"Keep it simple." When we get caught up in details of a specific election -- details intended to prove the election invalid -- we buy into the illogical assumption that the burden of proof is on us. It is not. The burden is on the state. See Burden of Proof in an Election.

We have the right to have confidence in the results of our elections. We are the sovereigns here, but if we are to exercise that sovereignty, we must reject the wrong-headed assumptions that are keeping us suck in a quagmire. We must change the way we think about elections. We must draw a few simple lines and hammer them. The lines we must draw are rooted in simple truths and moral principles, not details and evidence.

One of those lines is this question:

Are hours-long poll-tax-lines for poor, minority voters AND none for affluent, white voters a tolerable condition for you?

If anyone tries to weasel out of answering directly by citing "margin of victory" or making the assertion that we are somehow trapped and limited by the "letter of the law", you can challenge their rationalizations:

Rationalization

If the results declare a winner by a large margin, discrimination and other problems are "outside the zone of litigation."

Simple Truth; Moral Position

If you accept the notion that a large margin of victory puts the election "outside the zone of litigation," then you accept the notion that such a state is completely free to discriminate with no risk of consequence. This is an absurd position. No matter what the margin of victory, the results of a discriminatory election are unacceptable. We cannot continue to tolerate the intolerable. We cannot continue to tolerate the toleration of the intolerable.

Rationalization

We are trapped and limited by the "letter of the law" (e.g., the margin of victory puts the election "outside the zone of litigation" or "they have all the judges").

Simple Truth; Moral Position

We the People, through our representatives, have defined our election laws to ensure that election results reflect OUR will. If, in any state, there is a reasonable doubt that the election results reflect the will of the voters, and application of the law fails to provide a remedy that eliminates the doubt, then We the People must demand a political remedy; one that trumps all legalisms and cynical misuse of our courts.

The law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. We can never again allow a "technical" or "legal" argument trump reality as we did in 2000 and 2004.

[jen4clark]

83. The author of Who's Counting

isn't registered here but I sent her the link to this thread and here's her reply:


1) It only takes a couple people in a few counties to throw a national election.... You should know that!

"Tell their girlfriends about it"? Yes in fact that is exactly what did happen in Florida with Clint Curtis who told a few people including the Inspector General, who was on the verge of revealing his long term investigation results on the case, that he'd told people went "all the way to the top", when he curiously decided to kill himself instead. But he was good enough to kill himself just over the Georgia border to eliminate that legal need for any autopsy... Then there are countless brave whistlebloweres from all the major companies who have come forward and told of everything from being told to commit fraud to incredible insecurities being permitted to continue to lying about certification to officials and more. Lawsuits have been mounted, state shave been paid millions of dollars from errant companies caught -- California, Indiana....Where have you been? I know the media barely mentions it, but it is public record...


2) " Hoards of partisans staring at everything being done" -- Huh?? Exactly which 'hoards' is it that are staring at the second data column that is hidden and unlinked to the sum candidate counter in the GEMS software? Good eyes. And, why then is that column kept a secret form the County operators who pull from it for the Final Vote count? (I'm beginning to think you work for Diebold!)

3) I think everyone realizes by now that GEMS isn't the only tabulator even though it counted over 1000 Counties in 37 states in 2004.


4) Which GEMS "hack" are you referring to? Sorry, there have been so many it's hard to tell which one you are talking about here. Given your stated expertise, your description here is troubling and imprecise. "Surreptitiously swap IDs"?? The most recent hacks into GEMS earlier this year (soon to be replaced by a new one this week) were using several different methods. Two Virtual Basic Script attacks that altered 100,000 votes on each try. Audit trails erased. No record of tampering. Done by one person in a few minutes left no traces behind. The memory cards for the DREs were also hacked into during these same attacks.


5) If you read the report the exact opposite is what is going on. <b>Diebold does not inform</b> the County level operators of GEMS of even the existence of the second data column, Diebold and other companies offer their own technicians to "assist" in systems operations of tabulation on Election Day.....But surely, you know this? The vast conspiracy angle you are trying to perpetrate has no bearing to the type of fraud election reformers are even suggesting today. None at all. This is rather a small and simple "conspiracy" which need not involve more than a handful.


As for the "all it takes is one person on board-- everything gets exposed" You are basing that on a HUGE false premise that the Media would cover it (and it has not) and that It would then travel like wildfire thru an unbiased and balanced press corps. To which I can only respond-- where have you been for the past five years? Overseas perhaps...


There have been many more than one person who have come forward. 60 Minutes had an entire show with videographic proof that it dropped at the last minute when the contesting candidate received death threats from the Mob-related opposing candidate who'd won (see report) Footage is still available. But perhaps someone form the Reality Based Community like yourself wouldn't believe filmed evidence of machine fraud either... It's the old, who ya gonna believe...me or your lyin' eyes? Election officials have been indicted and served time.... Public record.

There are leaked documents that show Diebold employees and execs communicating amongst themselves casually about the knowledge of the hackability of the tabulators...

Now, I too should be working! So I can only hope you will read the reports out there with an open mind. We all seek the same thing in the end. Election integrity wherein all can be reasonably assured their votes will be counted fairly. Election fraud has always existed since elections have, there is no indication that we are suddenly living in times so very pure and free from corruption that we no longer need to face any more threat from election fraud. No signs I've seen.

The only difference when we introduced electronics (Thank You HAVA) into the equation at this level is the relative ease and ability to remove any traces of the tampering. Were one seeking to maliciously attack an election-- the systems we currently use would be any fraudster's sweetest dream come true. Even a chimpanzee has been able to hack these systems, and the beauty of leaving no trace is irresistable.

That is if someone were so inclined to take that extra five minutes to gain control of the seats of power. No massive conspiracy needed and you actually should know that given your area of expertise. That is the Republican argument floated to try to convince people not to look into the possiblilty of tampering.

Good luck and please join us in the fight for increased transparency and security in our election systems.

And one more thing...

If these systems are as secure as you so confidently maintain they now are....why is it that the computer science professionals and IT auditors across the nation vehemently disagree? Why is the government ITSELF, the GAO, as recently as this past month -- also found stunning security flaws and unacceptable levels of inaccuracy that they recommend correcting? What special insider information is it that you have that they don't yet know about?

You can liken the current systems to a bank wherein all the moneys on deposit just sit out in the middle of the bank on a table...a pile of cash, with no Security guards or bank personell watching it over, maybe a glance from a teller from time to time. Would you feel comfortable having your accounts exposed like this? Only if you live in Mayberry, and there is the key.

We don't live in Kansas anymore ......

[ConservativeDemocrat]

84. So I'm a Diebold employee now?

That (utterly false) accusation isn't exactly convincing me that your friend has enough emotional distance to make cool headed evaluations about this.

Nor am I going to get sucked into defending any part of the GEMS system. My only point was that there is a difference between hacking, and hacking smoothly - looking like you're doing something else while having a hostile audience staring at you from 20 feet away or a co-worker of the opposite political bent who can come in and look over your shoulder at at any time. (Don't look nervous committing that 1st degree felony.) Like using slight of hand to substitute a cubic-zirconia for a diamond right under the eyes of a jeweler showing you his wares, this can be done - but only if you have nerves of steel and balls of brass. It's not a widespread skill set.

I also don't want to give the wrong impression. We agree far more than we disagree. The very fact that GEMS is even this exploitable, given that there are secure alternatives, is unconscionable. Electronic election transparency is of paramount importance - too important to be viewed by the general electorate as a partisan issue - which is why I'm not happy with the "Kerry wuz robbed in 2004" tenor of the campaign for electoral transparency.

I'm unhappy with it not only because it's highly unlikely and counterproductive politically, but it also ignores the fact that correctly applied technology can be used to defeat many more common, effective, and too-often legal, forms of disenfranchisement we see in the U.S. Things like double-voting (46,000 people in NYC alone), making people vote on a workday (a transparent strategy to depress poor and middle class turnout), and voting booth allocations done on a partisan basis.

For example, through a clever application of signature checked vote-by-mail and (non-Diebold) tabulators to count the verified paper-trail, my home state of Oregon has managed to reduce State costs, increase voter turnout, and insure greater accuracy in elections. (It's also made last minute hit pieces nearly impossible to pull off because people vote up to a month before the election.) Ours is a system I'm convinced should be adopted nationwide - but it won't be if people go running around saying all vote tabulators are inherently flawed - which they're not.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s.: Yes the media tends to be biased against Democrats, but "they wouldn't cover credible evidence of election fraud" is another macro-conspiracy theory backed by absolutely no evidence.

[pat_k]

85. Secret vote counting has no place in our elections

I'm a technical writer. I know there are reliable ways secure network transactions. I'm all for computer technology in critical financial and other enterprise applications.

But, given the unique role elections play in our democracy, DREs have no place in them.

Many people, particularly those who are comfortable with technology like you are, miss the key problem with using DREs to record and tabulate votes.

Inability to secure the systems against data loss or corruption isn't the key problem, so arguments about the security or insecurity of a given DRE system are irrelevant. The key problem is secret vote counting.

The health of our democracy demands that people have confidence in the results of their elections. To have confidence, the processes for qualifying to vote, registering, casting votes, tabulating votes, reporting results and verifying results must be open, understandable, and accessible to all. The guy down the street who dropped out of high school must be able to make sense of the how every aspect of our elections are conducted. (He may or may not bother to find out, but if he does, he needs to be able to make sense of it all.)

Not many people on this planet have the expertise required to make sense of computer security, therefore, the role of computers in our elections must be limited.

The following question clarifies the issue for many people:

Here's an election system for you: Each participant whispers their choice to a designated "voter counter." The vote counter reports the winner.

Would you elect a group leader this way?

For most, the answer is "Absolutely not!", but this is precisely what we are doing with the DREs. The counting is hidden from view. It is secret. Assurance that the "vote counter" is trustworthy -- no matter how many experts testify on the matter -- doesn't change the fact that the votes are counted in secret.

Secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and must be rejected. Secret vote counting must be rejected. DREs must be rejected.

Sure, computers could be designed to record votes in a way that minimizes over or undervote errors, but the output of the process must be a paper ballot that is counted in a way that is open to scrutiny and easy verification. Handcounting witnessed by members of the public works well in other democracies, but optiscan-type systems might be fine if the tabulation processes include ways for political parties and public interest groups to put the ballots through their own tabulators to verify the count. Of course, if a computer is used to record votes and produce the paper ballot, it would make sense to use the system to determine a preliminary count, but this count would be akin to a poll. It would be unofficial. To be worthy of trust, official results must be obtained by counting ballots in a way that is open to scrutiny and verifiable.

People across the political spectrum believe secret vote counting is Un-American. Unfortunately, they do not understand – yet -- that the tabulation of votes on DREs constitutes secret vote counting. "Paper trail" or "auditable" are not the memes we need. Secret Vote Counting is the phrase that should be on everyone's lips.

If the phrase "Secret Vote Counting" catches on and gets associated with the DREs, I think we'll finally be on the road to making our elections worthy of trust.

Secret vote counting is not just Un-American, a strong case can be made that it is Unlawful.

From the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act:

The Legislature finds and declares that the right of the public to be present at all meetings of public bodies, and to witness in full detail all phases of the deliberation, policy formulation, and decision making of public bodies, is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process; that secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public's effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society...

From Guide to the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act:

"Public body" means a commission, authority, board, council, committee or any other group of two or more persons organized under the laws of this state, and collectively empowered as a voting body to perform a public governmental function affecting the rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits, or other legal relations of any person, or collective authorized to spend public funds including the legislature. . .

The electorate is the ultimate public body. Our elections are the most fundamental public decision making processes. Although the question has not yet been litigated (e.g., Lehto v. Snohomish), it can certainly be argued that under the open meetings acts in most states, the process by which the official count of our ballots is obtained must be an open process that the average citizen can witness, understand, and have confidence in.

DREs clearly do not meet these requirements.

[jen4clark]

87. Excellent points pat k!

Thank you for spelling it out so simply - absolutely right about stressing the need to STOP SECRET VOTE COUNTING!! Worthy of a bumper sticker that!

[pat_k]

89. I replied, but accidently created a new post (oops). Here it is.

I replied, but accidently created a new post. Here it is

[Febble]

88. Far be it from me

to defend the exit poll evidence, but I don't think "sampling error" strictly is what you are talking about here (which is variability due to random sampling) - "selection bias" or "non-response bias" is the fella you are after I think - the problem that "the people willing to talk to exit-pollers about who they voted for are different than the population who voted". And I agree.

Also very interested in your information. I did wonder, after the election, in light of the exit poll discrepancy, whether a single nationwide hack would be possible. I am increasingly convinced (on the basis of the exit poll evidence) that it is very unlikely. My current view is that the election was "stolen" by, in roughly this order of magnitude and probability: telling lies; voter suppression; differential spoilage/provisional ballot issuing; opportunistic fraud that might have included vote-flipping by some machines set to default to Bush.

And of those, I think that telling lies was by far the biggest.

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. everything is more complicated than one expects (or simpler)

I agree with jen4clark that one can't rule out massive vote-switching fraud on technical grounds alone. Of course, there is such a mish-mash of voting arrangements in the U.S. right now that it is hard to say much about them in a single sentence. (I don't think there was massive vote-switching fraud in 2004, or 2005.)

There's no doubt that Democrats are more willing to listen to theories about how Bush stole Ohio and/or the popular vote, and Republicans are more willing to listen to theories about how Gregoire stole Washington. That said, I don't agree that the real issue is "just disappointment over the result." Actually, there is more than one issue.

In a way, it doesn't matter whether people agree with you or not. You are in a similar boat as I am when I try to explain why political scientists are generally writing their books and articles about why Bush won the election -- not how he stole it. People can complain until doomsday that political scientists (or polling bloggers, or progressive journalists, or whatever) are biased against fraud theories, or that centrists are too quick to reject fraud arguments as "partisan whining," and they may be at least partly right. The trick is to figure out what to do about it.

My general observation is that it is easier to reach agreement about what the voting system should look like than about what happened in 2004.

[Time for change]

79. I think it was 8, 9, and 10 -- Denial

People just don't want to believe it, so they don't.

Richard Nixon knew this in 1960. There was some pretty good evidence that Illinois may have been stolen (though IL alone wouldn't have given him the election), and a reporter friend of his wanted to dig into it. Nixon told him no - the American people do not want to and never will believe that a Presidential election was stolen.