Is there consensus on Curtis yet?

[garybeck]

Maybe someone with the ability could post a poll.

The reason I ask is, I'd like to post info about him on the solarbus website but I'm not confident enough to do so yet. I'm wondering if the DU, with all its objective debate, has come to any conclusions.

thanks
gary

------------------------------------
The most important issue we face as a nation is election reform. In the 2004 election, nearly 80% of the votes nationwide were counted on machines made by three companies that support the Republican Party, many of which produced no paper trail that could be checked in a recount. A bill as introduced in Congress to outlaw these machines but the Republican Party prevented the bill from coming to a vote. While Democrats today are trying to figure out what they did wrong, and how to change the party for the next election, the real issue is the voting machines and election reform. It is more important that the economy, the war, the environment, health care, taxes, and women's rights. If we do not take back our right to vote and have it counted properly, none of these other issues matter at all and nothing will change. For more information on this important subject see:

http://election.solarbus.org

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. I haven't heard anything that turned me off.

Even his debunkers were changing their facts after they posted. So, I would call this an evolving story and I haven't heard anything yet that completely shuts me off.

[SueZhope]

2. It seems he was in two interviews today

Thom Hartmann & Air America.
Has any one shared about what was said?

[crispini]

3. Still a little weird, IMO.

And you can post a poll when-ever you like, if you can start a thread. Go for it! :)

[dlaliberte]

4. slashdot.org on Curtis

I've referenced slashdot.org in two other posts, but here is a link to an actual relevant discussion, if you need more input on the Curtis story: Programmer Built Vote-Rigging Demo for Florida Politician
Slashdot readers tend to be technically adept and liberal, so you should find this useful.

[dlaliberte]

7. A second slashdot.org

Parallel discussions on a parallel universe... Note the typically misleading title: Programmer Claims he was Paid to Rig Votes. He was expecting to be paid (was he actually paid in the end? hush money?) to make just a prototype showing how the votes *could* be rigged, not that his prototype would actually be used in an election. Even slashdotters get this distinction mixed up.

[BlueDog2u]

5. Here's a link to Curtis on Air America Today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=129950


I find him credible.

Also check out bradblog, because Brad has been updating madly on the story. The bradblog has links to the entire 17 minute interview, which I haven't listened to yet. I advise caution, but so far the debunkers haven't done much damage to him. I would say that on the credibility scale he is currently up there at about an 8, while some of the other stuff which has been posted -- Fisher, Madsen's other stories, etc. -- has dropped down quite a few points. I hope that helps a bit. The arguments about the affidavit being fake where just totally wrong. Listen and let us know what you think.

[Must_B_Free]

6. The deal on Curtis is

people assume he was saying things he wasn't saying.

For example Bev Harris assumed he was saying that his code was used in the election. He never said this. What he said, taken only at face value is reasonably credible, moreover it is backed up by a voting issue filing from 2002.

But what he does have to say is only suggestive of some circumstantial intent. For example, he assumed that when he was asked to write this prototype, the intent was to demonstrate the insecurity of electronic voting.

But he did state that it was communicated to him that the code was intended to be used to rig an election.

[jamboi]

11. Exactly. He doesn't claim to have put his software on any voting machine

Just that he was paid to make a proof of concept prototype; was told that the company needed to create software that could tip a close election and be undetectable; that they wanted to use it in So. FL. and finally that he created such a prototype and delivered it. He didn't claim that he knows for a fact that this election was tipped or that his software went onto any voting machine. It was just an example program to show what could be done. I've listened to the interviews and he seemed extremely credible to me.

[americanwoman]

8. I can only speak for myself...

But I've read all the Wayne Marsden articles, Clint Curtis's affidavit, the Brad Blog and RawStory articles, and much of the comments on DU. I've also listened to the Air America interview with Curtis and tracked down articles about the FTOD/Yang/Feeney whistle-blowing incident. There's nothing there to discredit Clint Curtis.

At some point you have to just ask yourself, what piece of evidence is it that will convince you one way or the other? And is it possible or even reasonable that you could get it. If so, track it down. Otherwise, go with it.

I've seen enough. I think he's credible.

[MarkusQ]

9. I vote disinformation trap

I think the real issue is much simpler and more obvious. We on the internet think of everything in terms of high tech tricks. But there are age old, time tested tactics for voter suppression and miscounting votes, and that looks like it was done wholesale in this election.

They didn't send enough resources to Democratic precincts. They tricked people into using provisional ballots which they didn't count, they counted some other ballots twice, things like this. And they're hidden in plain sight.

--MarkusQ

[fearnobush]

10. Supression is real and true but in order to get to the end of the maze

we must explore all dead ends and traps.

[jamboi]

12. Yes, I think the parts you talked about are the ones we should emphasize

since they are well documented as having happened. I do think its likely that the machines were messed with, but I don't think that it will be persuasive to the majority until we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So why spin our wheels on the tough sell when we've got the easy sell already in hand. (But btw, I definitely think Curtis is telling the truth).