7-26-2005: Black Box Voting Director Arrested in San Diego

[kansasblue]

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Jim March, a member of the Black Box Voting board of directors, was arrested Tuesday evening for trying to observe the Diebold central tabulator vote tallying machine as the votes were being counted in San Diego's mayoral election.

[AtLiberty]

1. Regardless of how you feel about BBV...

...this is a must read.

An outrage!

This settles it once and for all -- our elections are NOT open!

[autorank]

25. I agree!!!! Now they're arresting anybody who speaks for democracy!

Just great. Anyone should be able to view this. It should be broadcast on television to as large an audience as wishes to come. We can go to court and even watch some court on television. What's the f'ing problem? I'll tell you, it's a bunch of crooked, arrogant election officials who've done their jobs poorly for decades (e.g., "spoilage") and gotten away with it. You ask them a question and they're outraged. I guess if you try to watch them, they have you arrested.

This is the new civil rights campaign: voting rights open and transparent for all Americans.

A comprehensive explanation of fraud--text and key links

[Stevepol]

29. Exactly: the new civil rights campaign: voting rights open and transparent

for all Americans.

Perfectly stated. If all of us keep saying it, it will come to pass. This is the only way, IMO, that this plague will be lifted from America.

I hope they are able to use this opportunity to publicize what is happening in our corporatized voting system: democracy of the corporations by the corporations and for the corporations.

[meganmonkey]

2. Holy sh*t!

:wow:

[Old Vet]

3. We need to stay on top of this story.............

Ive already e-mailed this story to Mike Moore and Olberman.

[IndyOp]

7. Welcome to DU Old Vet -

:hi:

I'll email Raw Story - we might be able to turn this arrest to our advantage if we get this PUBLICIZED - it could cast Diebold in a very bad light.

[Fly by night]

4. No winner in San Diego mayor's race -- runoff in the fall ...

... according to the GE/NBC "Today" show this morning.

Surprised I heard it among the "blond still missing in Aruba" and "wrong person shot as terrorist in London" and "breaking news -- it's summer and hot" stories that filled their "news (not)" segment this morning.

Of course, the San Diego story wasn't bumped by "soldiers butt-rape minors in Iraq -- (no) film at 11:00". Go figure.

Now back to the garden, where the weeds are much easier to remove than the cotton from the corporate media's ears. And the Diebold-donated blindfolds from their eyes.

[mod mom]

5. forwarded to Conyers staff just in case they weren't contacted.

[mod mom]

6. How about some nominations folks for an arrested election reform advocate?

[AtLiberty]

8. Apparently...

...Jim March didn't receive the memo that our elections are not open.

Would someone please give this guy a clue?

Thanks --

[helderheid]

9. nominated

even though I have hard feelings about BBV

[eridani]

56. Even assholes have the right to work on this issue

I'm into supporting them when they are right, and getting on their cases when they are being assholes, as with the qui tam fuckup.

[Carolab]

10. Thanks for posting. I was going to but the other BBV thread got locked.

The one about "Voter Remote", which I see kster has reposted.

I was criticized by PM for posting it. I explained why I did--which was to alert people on this forum to what might be very critical information to the election reform movement.

Regardless of how anyone feels about BBV here, I feel we must be aware of what news is coming out of the organization since it may be critical to some of us here.

[preciousdove]

19. The Other Bev Harris phoney fund raiser was locked!

[Carolab]

20. If that is the only purpose for BBV sharing this information

they have wasted it on me, as I will NOT be donating to her and I doubt anyone else here will either.

I am ONLY interested in any information they have to share and digging around to find out whether it is legitimate and can help the election reform movement.

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. I'duv been impressed if he'd...

sent the chimp in. Otherwise, a felony 'interfering with an election official' wrap for a lil publicity is hardly "critical" for the "movement."

[merh]

12. With all of the money they have raised, one would think that they

would have hired counsel to be with them when viewing the count who could have immediately filed papers with the local court demanding that the count be stopped until they could actually view it in accordance with the law.

How folks can support a bunch of yocals that refuse to use their brains and the money they have raised to be effective is beyond me.

If March really wanted to do something, he should have had the press with him to document the count and the inability to actually see the goings on and he should have had a lawyer ready on site to file for a TRO until such time as they complied with the letter of the law.

Why can't you folks see that this group does not want to do anything more than take the money and take no official action, but pretend to be the only ones doing things? Of course, this is just my honest opinion and my evaluation of a group that has raised thousands of dollars with no results.

Remember BH was in PR before she began her "crusade" of ineffective election reform.

[AtLiberty]

13. Because the press is chomping at the bit to cover this?

"If March really wanted to do something, he should have had the press with him to document the count and the inability to actually see the goings on and he should have had a lawyer ready on site to file for a TRO until such time as they complied with the letter of the law."

How do you get the press to show up for something as boring as watching a central tabulator? Did March know in advance of the conditions? Is it realistic to have an attorney around at something as mundane as standing near a computer? Sure, it's easy to look back and judge, but if I were about to observe the central tabulator at a mayoral election, I know I wouldn't have come equipped with an attorney and eager reporters...

Look -- I'm not pleading a case for or against BBV... But I do understand the realities...

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. I've seen the realities.

The press is as interested in this as they are watching grass grow.

[flyarm]

28. EXCUSE ME ..BUT I WAS INVOLVED WITH A TEST OF THE MACHINES IN FLA

just a test and the media was notified..and 2 showed up..one with a camera and one just print media..its an excuse to say they won't show up..we had 2 show up for a test of the machines for goodness sake!

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. Good grief. There is no reason to yell at me.

I am in Florida as well. I too know my local/regional media was contacted regarding a variety of exercises with voting machines, before, during and after an election. I was met with shrugging shoulders and newsrooms issuing responses that "this is not news." Based on my experience, the press would just as soon watch grass grow.

I'm delighted you got someone to show up. What did they broadcast/print about the test?

[flyarm]

35. OH I WASN'T YELLING..SORRY YOU THOUGHT SO!! N/T

[merh]

15. Sorry, that is no excuse,

You can always get someone in the media to cover things like this, especially if you clue them in to your concerns about the hidden tactics and the possibility of your being arrested and shut down.

Lack of imagination and planning on BBV's part can not be explained away by the "realities" or "armed chair quarterbacking". This should have been no surprise to them, they SHOULD HAVE been prepared if they really cared. After all, they have been doing this and taking monies to "do their work" for months now, you'd think they could use past experiences to guide their actions.

If this were regarding the election of '04, I could understand the mass confusion and the huge resources required. But this was 1 lone recount.

IMHO, these people have no desire to do any real work on the issues, that is a given considering what they have accomplished since they began. NOTHING.

[AtLiberty]

16. Always?

"You can always get someone in the media to cover things like this, especially if you clue them in to your concerns about the hidden tactics and the possibility of your being arrested and shut down."

If we could always get someone in the media to cover things like this, we wouldn't be in this mess. We wouldn't need this forum. Life would be good.

[merh]

18. Yeah, on the local level. You let them know what you plan to do

you ask them to come down to see and if nothing happens, you buy them supper for their troubles. Yes, on a local level, you can get the press involved, if you really want to.

And wasn't the lady in charge of this group once a PR person? You would think that her "experience" had given her some insight on how to deal with matters such as this. But then again, she did give up that job for this "mission".

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. Never say never or always.

There is bound to be an exception. Local media has limited resources so even if they wanted to they might not be able to cover something even if enticed with a tip and a free meal. It's certainly worth the call and the attempt, but never a guarantee. Even their presence doesn't mean coverage will be a result.

[merh]

32. Coverage is not always why you ask the press to come to the

event. You want an unbiased, uninvolved party or entity to view the happenings.

Again, by this time in their efforts, you would think this group would have hired an attorney to be on scene, ready to file for a TRO to stop the count until they officials complied with the law. But, then again, I have been accused of thinking too much. :shrug:

[Pacifist Patriot]

33. I agree with you...

I just don't agree that inviting the local media or enticing them with meals means they will show up.

[merh]

34. And that is why I said that lawyers should be hired to make the

legal case against the alleged unlawful counting procedures. This has happened far too often for this group not to have discovered ways to properly deal with it short of civil disobedience and causing scenes at retirement parties.

Enough of the grand standing for the masses, do something real for a change.

[merh]

22. Oh, so he did let the "PRESS" know that he was going to

perform an "act of civil disobedience". See below -- guess he just didn't think having a lawyer with him was smart when he wanted to make his point. Guess using the law to protect the process was out of the question.

[Peace Patriot]

173. You know, merh, this is sounding more and more like the S.N.C.C./S.C.L.C.

internal squabbling in the civil rights movement in the early 1960s. Please be warned about the destructiveness of keeping this quarrel alive. Please know that this kind of in-fighting is generally the thing that destroys peoples' movements. It doesn't matter who's right, who's wrong, who's injured, who's an asshole, what they did, or what they said. The fight itself, if it goes on and on like this, with constant carping and name-calling, can poison the atmosphere, create more conflict, drive people away, and worst of all, detract from the important struggle that all are facing, and it can utterly demoralize everybody, so that the bad guys win.

I think it's nitpicking to criticize a man who just went to jail for voting rights for not having media there. Activists often face unpredictable circumstances. Activists sometimes make mistakes. To rake him over the coals for this is ridiculous and every time anybody attacks BBV these days, I think they "doth protest too much." You are damaging your own credibility at this point--not theirs. Forget it! Walk away--inside in your heart, and literally! It's the best thing. It's the ONLY WAY to end such a poisonous fight. And if you don't want to read about Jim March going to jail, DON'T COME TO THIS POST! Please! Don't come to a post like this to spread more negative energy.

-------

"These people have no desire to do any real work on the issues, that is a given considering what they have accomplished since they began. NOTHING." --Merh

This is simply not true, Merh. "These people" gave me my first education in electronic voting. That's something, isn't it? I certainly think so. It's not "nothing." The phrase "these people" is vague, and also rude and provocative. That's a phrase that is often used as a racial insult--and to insult other categories of people. Southern bigot: "What do THESE PEOPLE want?"--I often heard it. It is dehumanizing. Your statement that "these people" have "no desire to do any real work" is not something that you can know. You can't know their desires--especially the desires of a vague entity called "these people." Your saying it makes me very much distrust you.

And who is to say what "real work" is, in an activist movement? Going to jail ain't a picnic, I can tell you that. Tangling with the law in civic disobedience indicates a strong commitment. And it can be very difficult, in many different ways. I thought it was a stroke of genius myself. They stonewall him, and he takes the most direct route to achieving his rights. That's what Rosa Parks did. She was all alone and made her stand. There wasn't any media there, nor any lawyer--but it is now one of the most important and legendary actions of the civil rights movement. Jim's story has gotten exposure here, if nowhere else. It inspired ME. Other people have read it. Civil disobedience is a personal thing, almost a spiritual thing. It may not get noticed. You can never know. But if the spirit "say do," you do, that's all. It's something you MUST do, for your own dignity and that of others who are disenfranchised.

So you don't like his strategy. You say he should have had a lawyer. But you weren't there. You haven't talked to him. I think it's presumptuous to judge him, and to think you would have done it better. He DID something. He put himself at risk--of a beating or worse, of strip search, of the dehumanizing police process, of legal and other costs. And that, to me, is admirable.

---------

S.N.C.C. = Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
S.C.L.S. = Southern Christian Leadership Conference (M. L. King)

[merh]

183. March didn't go to jail - he was arrested after his little stage act

and he was bonded out. He was ready to pay his bail money, but not for an attorney to get the court to order the clerks to abide by the law. That makes sense. Publicity stunts are often helpful to the "cause" if they are the last resort or if they haven't been tried before. This bunch does it's little stage show with no results.

Have you bothered to talk to clerks that have had dealings with these folks. Most are leery of them, think that they are there to cause trouble and get the publicity. They don't see them trying to help at all.

I don't need your warnings to me nor do I need your lectures about the civil rights movements. You are the one that has come into this thread, days after my posts to make your comments, knowing full well that I would not know that you had posted unless I took the time to monitor the thread. That would make it appear as if you had the last word on the subject. There is another thread that I began that you could post these comments on.

Do not address me as if you know me and do not think you are the only one aware of the efforts of the civil rights movement. Also, don't think you are the only one that knows about the issues involved.

[Peace Patriot]

186. merh, sorry if you think I was trying to "get in the last word." I just

stumbled upon this forum, a couple of days after it started, and found some things I felt strongly about and needed to say. People can evaluate the thread for themselves, judge one post against another, and check dates and posting times if that's relevant.

"knowing full well I would not know that you had posted..."

The thought hadn't occurred to me. If it had, I would have presumed that you were checking back. How do you know what I "know full well"?

Look, obviously you're very defensive about this, and haven't heard my plea. When I see blanket badness thrown on a fellow activist--even one who may have messed up--and silly, contradictory charges, i.e., like he didn't contact media; then, oh, he DID contact media and so now it's a "publicity stunt"-- I get suspicious, and I question YOUR motives and agenda, not his. He did something--however awkward or useless it might have been. You weren't there. And you jump all over him, carping at him from every direction--instead of criticizing the election officials who stonewalled him and denied him rights. It doesn't seem fair--no matter who he is.

You're all against him--not them. So it just seems like this old BBV thing, that seems so off-point to me. I don't care WHAT they did. They're just little people like us--the peons, the powerless, the poor, the victims of a fascist coup.

You mention somewhere here that Jim March didn't go to jail. When you put yourself under the control of the police deliberately, in civil disobedience, you don't know WHAT might happen. You really don't. And I hope you know that truly bad things can happen to people in the arrest, holding and booking process, even in the enlightened state of California. And these days, with all the bombing jitters, who knows? They can slap a "terrorist" label on you for nothing, and disappear you for days, weeks, forever. So I don't care if he had no lawyers, or ten lawyers, or bail or no bail, or thought it out or didn't think it out. He committed civil disobedience against a dangerous, fascist government that is denying us access to the tabulation of our votes, and that has given itself the right to disappear American citizens and others.

Maybe his action won't be "productive." Maybe it was a waste of time. Maybe it alienates potentially sympathetic elections officials. And maybe not. So what? These issues matter not at all compared to the fact that we just had yet one more unverifiable election. Those of us who didn't know, NOW know one of the ways that it's done--by turning the GEMS computer screens away from the public, or reducing the fonts so we can't read them. That's useful information.

He got pissed and said, "Damn, you're not gonna do that to me!" --and took direct action.

I am applauding that action! I am acknowledging that courage and quick thinking. I am glad to have the information it gave me. Apart from all else. And I find the criticism of it excessive and stupid.

I came late to DU, after the BBV controversy was already raging. I have no personal connections to anyone involved in it, and avoided it like the plague. So I was not hurt by it. Maybe that makes it too easy for me to be objective. There's that. But I also may have some wisdom to bring to it, that helps keep us focused on the big things. I hope so.

[merh]

187. His action was theatrics. He knew what to expect, he bragged

to the press about what he had planned. Instead of using his bail money to bond himself out, BBV should have had lawyers on site (one of the 6 he knows so well) to file the necessary pleadings with the court asking for a TRO or injunction to stop the counting until they fully complied with the letter of the law. That has an impact, that sets precedent, that is an accomplishment.

Why didn't he do that, was he afraid that a court would say allowing them to observe throw a glass window was in compliance with the law?

Do you know why the conduct the counts behind closed doors, so fanatics cannot corrupt the count or fraudsters cannot alter the results. They have a right to protect their efforts.

AGAIN, if you would take the time to learn about the election process, if you would study the evolution of elections and discover why the need to automate arose, then maybe you will appreciate my concerns relative to alienating the true experts from our efforts.

I would like to know what results BBV has to show for their months of work. Just wondering. I know election officials that do not trust them and view them as the threat to honest elections.

:hi:

[Carolab]

21. Jim March WAS really arrested! Here is the report.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=5132612

[merh]

23. That doesn't mean it wasn't a publicity stunt!

"Thirty minutes earlier, March told a reporter he was going to perform an act of civil disobedience."

[Carolab]

24. That's true. It could have been.

I wonder what we'll learn about this later...

[merh]

26. My point is simple.

If these folks want to make a difference, whether it be this group or any of the others, they need to start using their heads. Being prepared for the "denial" of proper review of the count and having a lawyer there, ready to file for a TRO seeking to have the counting stopped until the law is fully complied with is not an outrageous concept. It actually is the most logically next step, given the number of times that the counting has been suspect. That they folks merely react to situations instead of take a proactive stance is old and tiresome. They have raised money, let them use the resources that they have accumulated to make a difference for a change.

JMHO!

[FogerRox]

69. At Lib is right--in NJ we have Cultivated relationships with few

reporters & papers-- and it is paying off-- we have found sympathetic public officials who then get correctly quoted in those papers.

AND --- when a related story goes down--- as when NJ Governor COdey signed our VVPR law--- I was called for reaction--
& Again was quoted in the paper. Correctly.

SO when we have an event-- the press comes--

We had a voting machines demo wed. and the press showed up-- TV AND print----

Good point atLib

[Boredtodeath]

17. Publicity stunt PROOF - thanks to troubleinwinter

In the GD thread:

There was some commotion at night, however.

About 10:45 at the registrar's office in Kearny Mesa, a member of a group that monitors elections stormed into a computer room where votes were being tabulated. Jim March, who sits on the board of Black Box Voting, complained about having to observe from behind a window eight feet away. When an election worker opened the door, March bolted inside.

Two sheriff's deputies jumped from their seats, pulled him out of the room and led him to a patrol car.

Thirty minutes earlier, March told a reporter he was going to perform an act of civil disobedience.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20050727-0036-7n27vote.html

[Peace Patriot]

175. I'm sorry, but don't you dare accuse an activist who has gone to jail of a

"publicity stunt." I'm just gone through a year of pain and turmoil with a friend who was mistreated in a civil disobedience arrest. This is Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity kind of talk. Smear, smear, smear! This is what the Bushites do! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU MAY THINK OF JIM MARCH OR BBV. This is a man who put himself into the hands of the police for MY right to vote. Your sneering suggestion that it was a"publicity stunt" -- because he may have thought it up a half an hour before and told some media--and even if he'd thought it up a year ago and put out a thousand press releases--is demeaning, marginalizing and low-minded.

What do you think civil disobedience is about, anyway? Would you call the Selma March a "publicity stunt"? It was well-planned. Media were most certainly alerted well in advance. And the activists there most certainly wanted media filming it, and they knew pretty well what was going to happen.

Does that excuse or lessen the brutality that was unleashed upon them? Does that in any way diminish the injustice that they were illustrating, and that they provoked, by marching against the wishes of the bigots in Selma? And just HOW are you going to GET attention to an issue that the news monopolies don't want to cover?

Above, I spoke of the personal decision to put yourself into what could be a perilous situation--at the hands of the police--by committing civil disobedience. It is first and foremost a decision for yourself, taking a risk for a higher good. But it is also intended to affect others, if only your jailers, or the immediate parties to the situation. You are taking a STAND. And it may spread out and become meaningful to more people, depending on what happens. It is a SOCIAL act, and a political one, even if you are acting alone. News media attention is therefore GOOD--so that your action can reach beyond you and the immediate situation to others who need to be educated and activated--or heartened.

One commenter above first criticized March for NOT calling media. Then it turns out that he DID call media--or had contact with media. Now another poster is criticizing his action as a "publicity stunt" BECAUSE he spoke to media.

I mean, WHAT IS THIS? The guy did something positive--whatever YOU think of it, and whatever YOU think of him. And all you can do is carp at him? Is he forever damned in your eyes--an untouchable? a non-person? --because YOU may have a personal disagreement with him, or dislike him, or despise his group?

PLEASE PLEASE try to bring a sense of perspective and calm wisdom into this bitter old fight.

I am beginning to feel that BBV is a scapegoat. Here we've had a second stolen election and a fascist coup, and, reading this relentless disparagement of BBV--at every opportunity, never letting up, posting and posting and posting negative statements and hits, over and over and over again, like a broken record--I get the impression from some here that it really wasn't George Bush's fault, and Dick Cheney's fault, and Karl Rove's fault--no, this horror is really the fault of this small citizen group in Seattle that maybe bit off more than it could chew, or exaggerated the good it was doing and would do, or made some bad decisions, or maybe was using concern about the election as an opportunity to fundraise, or had a leader who maybe went off the deep end in one of these awful internal fights that activist groups get into.

Well, I'll tell you, if the above is true, BBV is not unlike a whole lot of other activist organizations, large and small. I've been involved in a number of such groups, and I don't know a one that didn't have several of those problems, if not all of them. Activist groups DO fundraising around issues of concern. That's what they DO. They couldn't function if they didn't. And money ALWAYS creates tension especially in small activist groups. That's a given. It can tear a group or movement to shreds. (I've seen it!) But even if BBV were judged by some impartial jury to be a total fraud, which some seem to think--a view that I disagree with--it is a tiny, tiny blip on the ocean of troubles that this country is in, and it did not create those troubles; on the contrary, BBV was one of the earliest groups to cry a warning and to educate people (including me) on the perils of electronic voting.

Election activists are enormously frustrated, overwhelmed by how bad things are, utterly appalled at this stolen election, and sometimes gripped with feelings of fear, depression and powerlessness. It's understandable. But we really must be wary of that little snake of the psyche called "projection"--whereby our mind "throws" all blame for something bad onto someone ELSE. Scapegoatism is particularly tempting when the something's that's bad is a powerful person or group of people who are remote and can't be affected, or a force of some kind, like disease (say, plague), that people don't understand. Then the scapegoat--who may be an envied person close to hand, but more often is a poor person, an outcast, whom the community despises for some reason--gets all the blame for that powerful remote agent of evil, and gets burned at the stake.

Maybe the person is totally innocent; maybe not. The key to scapegoatism is not the behavior of the scapegoat--who may be obnoxious, or may be quite sweet and agreeable--the key is the need of the scapegoaters to obsessively blame the scapegoat in place of a remote agent, with the scapegoaters then pecking that scapegoat to death like a pack of hens--destroying them, seeing no good in them, seeing no humanity in them, and accepting no fault or blame yourself, but totally blaming and hating the scapegoat. The scapegoat receives no favorable word of any kind. There can be nothing good about them at all. Nothing! They must be bad, bad, bad.

The scapegoat becomes the way to beat up on the remote agent. It becomes a way to cast out the evil that may be plaguing the community. But instead, a new wrong is done--by the lack of humanity (fairness; a measured response; compassion) with which the scapegoat is treated.

I believe that BBV has become a scapegoat for some folks at DU--a despised entity onto whom anger and rage at the Bush Cartel, and at our own disappointing and corrupt political party, is being projected, and that the excessive emotion around anything to do with BBV here is a symptom of our powerlessness, our helplessness, our fear, our rage at the Bush Cartel's remote power and its infliction of evil in our name, and our bitter, bitter disappointment that no rescuing savior has materialized.

I almost left DU because of this--when I first arrived here. I saw some reasonable criticisms of BBV, and a lot of disappointment. But the bulk of what I saw--90% of the dissing of BBV--was obsessive and irrational, and way, way out of proportion to the offenses listed and to the size and power of that group.

And it is still going on in some peoples' heads. I couldn't believe what I was reading here today--that Jim March was being criticized for not bringing media to his poll watching, and, then, when it turned out that he did have contact with media, the chime went up that he was pulling a "publicity stunt." Can you all see how irrational that is?

And Jim's humanity just vanishes into the scapegoat--he will be blamed no matter what he does. He is bad, bad, bad, and we must find all the ways that he is bad, and even when he is good he is bad, and on and on and on.

The other thing that a scapegoat stands for is our own failings--or, our own shadow selves (our fear of failing and being inadequate). I hope those who are into dissing BBV in this way will think it through, and maybe learn some lessons from it--say, about their naivete in thinking that ANYONE, some small activist group, or John Kerry (or these days, Patrick Fitzgerald)--could RESCUE our country from the failure of our democracy and its hijacking by the Bush Cartel. That rescue is something that we, the people, must accomplish collectively. That's the definition of democracy. And if that's what we want--democracy--then we have to stop expecting a savior, and get on with the work of election reform, each of us doing our part.

[cascadiance]

27. Didn't see this thread until just now... Pardon the dupe in this forum...

... I'll flag it for delete to the mods.

Here's another thread of discussion in the California forum now that talks about this too. You know though, whether or not you believe Jim March or not, I think it's rather lame that the headline showing up in the Tribune for the story where they mention this incident made it sound like there was no problems at all with the election. That's disengenous too, and appears like the media is trying to cover up and not draw attention to this incident as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=141&topic_id=12883&mesg_id=12883

[kster]

36. How dare JIM MARCH, wanting to look at the CENTRAL TABULATOR

he should have know better, Scanning ballots off to be counted to the CENTRAL TABULATOR is done in secret in this country, Jim is just a citizen.

REPEAT AFTER ME !


Scanning Ballots Has Got To Go, We The People Will Count The Votes !

[troubleinwinter]

37. No, I won't repeat what you say.

"Now there are many people that say we should be all hand counted paper all the time. In an ideal world we would do that. But realistically that is not going to happen. Elections offices in most jurisdictions, if not all, are under funded. Elections officials struggle with tight budgets and in most cases do a damned good job with what they have. Not all elections officials are bad and many want to run good clean elections. Keeping the system honest is up to us.

With proper auditing and truly random recounts, optical scans are the safest and most accurate way to count an election. The trouble starts when the votes are sent via electronic means to a central tabulator. I would also add that the tabulator needs to be as secure as Ft. Knox because after all, our votes are more precious than gold." ~Andy Stephenson, 4/29/2005

[kster]

38. Jim March just went to jail for trying to secure the central tabulators

And we both know that people counting the ballots ,in front of observers is the safest way to count ballots, for an honest vote total, it gives you "no doubt vote counts".

[yowzayowzayowza]

39. Indeed, the drumbeat for the ...

Amish solution is getting really old.

[Carolab]

41. THE TROUBLE STARTS SOONER. It starts with precinct tabulators.

Those machines at the precinct that scan the ballots are tabulating too. And they use proprietary software and they are not randomly checked for accuracy against the actual counts. Furthermore, no independent agencies are used to run them through for accuracy prior to an actual election. There are just a few quick tests and that's that. These machines should be run through an exhaustive test and then should be randomly audited throughout an election as well. In addition, the memory cards/cartridges that store the results need to be clean, meaning they do not contain any executable vote-switching programs, etc. Also, the cards must be protected through proper chain of command to make sure that they are the originals and not substituted for others with false vote tallies. In fact, the results from the precinct optiscanners should not be transmitted to the central tabulators at all but physically delivered under custody to the central tabulation site.

Also, there is the opportunity to create false ballots and scan them through when no one is looking.

Furthermore, the problems are with automated voter registration databases, which can randomly kick voters out of the system who won't know about it until they arrive at the polls.

IOW, there are LOTS of places, in other words, where the votes can be hacked before they get to the central tabulators. And the states need to write legislation to ensure that there are adequate security procedures around every step of the casting, counting, recording and reporting of the election.

[Peace Patriot]

174. "Keeping the system honest is up to us." Not true!

It is NOT up to us! But clearly we have to see to it--because our election officials who are sworn to uphold the law and the U.S. and state constitutions, and are PAID BY US to insure honest, transparent, verifiable, open elections, are NOT DOING SO.

"Not all elections officials are bad and many want to run good clean elections." --troubleinwinter

I'm sorry, troubleinwinter, but anyone who sells away MY right to vote to Bushite companies who use "trade secret," proprietary programming code, and who lobby against verification procedures, and who lavishly bribe our election officials with events like this hogfest at the Beverly Hilton this week, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, IS BAD. BAD! BAD!

See just how bad they are! It'll burn your eyeballs!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

Whether it's the lavish lobbying perks, or future job offers, or the heady power of making these big business deals--and our elections are really just a business now, a privatized, corporatized sham--or the power of being a "professional" and an "expert" in electronic voting system gobble-de-gook, and lording and ladying it over the dumb peon voters who haven't a clue any more how their votes are counted--THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. Their "professional" or heavily lobbied attachment to these INHERENTLY non-transparent, non-verifiable, insecure, unreliable, hackable, EXPENSIVE, election theft machines HAS DESTROYED OUR RIGHT TO VOTE and may have destroyed our country.

Honest election officials and transparent election systems have become extremely rare in this country. Those few officials who chose them and run them may clean, but the majority of election officials are as corrupt and/or stupid as they can be, and should be fired!

[merh]

40. Jim March should have had a lawyer with him -

The lawyer should have been ready to file in a court with the proper jurisdiction pleadings seeking a TRO that stopped the counting until the officials complied with the letter of the law.

The dramatics hasn't worked in the past, they did work for March, and they have not helped the "cause".

If you knew a darned thing about elections you would know that NO elected official will accept hand counts because the process is too labor intensive and time consuming. Guess you just like to talk about what will work and you don't have a clue what has not worked in the past and what worked before the crooks infiltrated the industry and the elected offices.

It would be nice if you would try to learn about the process before such a silly position. :hi:

[Carolab]

42. That is true but that argument is full of holes.

You say: "If you knew a darned thing about elections you would know that NO elected official will accept hand counts because the process is too labor intensive and time consuming."

*************
But they DO count the ballots by hand in lots of precincts here in my state and elsewhere and they DO count by hand for the major races in Canada and other countries!

If we can hand count the primary and caucus results we can hand-count the election results--at least for the KEY RACES.

[merh]

43. I should have said most will not accept going back to hand counts.

You want to talk about full of holes, the concept of counting thousands of ballots by hand on election night. Most county clerks would rather be stuck in the eye with a hot poker than resort to that method.

Have you ever been involved in an election count?

[Carolab]

44. Yes, I helped count my precinct at caucus.

Our country's precinct-based election system is set up ideally to hand count.

We did it FOR DECADES.

I GUARANTEE you there would be SCORES of volunteers to step up and help hand count the ballots. It used to be little old retired ladies that did it.

This "it's too time-consuming and expensive" argument is a RUSE to keep us enslaved by the stealing machines.

[merh]

45. Then you are fortunate to be so sure that scores of "volunteers"

would step up to help hand count. Most counties in this nation don't have the luxury of volunteers.

The problem with scores of volunteers is the control of the ballots. Unsavory volunteers can slip in ballots for their candidates.

I have been involved in counting an entire county. The counting is done at the courthouse. Prior to the opti-scanners, the counting lasted in to the morning hours. To think that the county would agree to go backwards and to have the count take all night and into the next day and to not be sure that the ballots are legitimate, is just ridiculous.

One precinct does not an entire county make.

[Carolab]

46. The optical scanners produce much more corrupted results.

You cannot argue with the experts who all conclude the same thing:

HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS are the SAFEST MEANS AND METHOD.

I don't care if it takes all f'ing week to count the ballots as long as the counts are accurate!

[merh]

47. Who are your experts?

Do you know how corrupt elections were when the clerks all over the country relied on hand counts? Hand counts do not afford the necessary control to prevent "ballot stuffing". If you don't believe me, try researching the legal precedent that does exist regarding election disputes. They involve hand counts and BALLOT STUFFING. Ballot stuffing occurred when folks only had hand counts available to them.

If the legislation does not provide for the proper calibration and inspection of the opti scanners or other equipment then fight for the local jurisdictions to pass the necessary legislation to provide for the calibrations and the inspections.

HAND COUNTS are not the only way and your experts apparently have failed to review the history of ballot counting.

And you can say "if it takes all week" but counties can't afford to pay the costs associated with "all week" counting. It is a shame you profess to know so much about the system but you know very little about the history and the actual workings of the election process.

[Carolab]

49. Lynn Landes and Chuck Herrin and Rebecca Mercuri familiar to you?

ALL support hand counted paper ballots.

[merh]

50. Please provide a link to their reports or findings

that includes their curriculum vitaes. I would like to know what standards or factors they took into account.

I would like to know what county election officials they talked with prior to making their findings, whether or not they have actually been involved in all of the operations of conducting elections, which regions of the country they analyzed and a myriad of other details that would legitimize their findings.

If you provide me the links, I will gladly review the materials.

In perfect nation comprised of folks that will volunteer to take part in the process, rich enough to pay all costs associated with elections, free of corruption and greed, hand counts would be ideal. But, we are not perfect nation, corruption drips from so many of our pores that it is frightening, most counties struggle to pay the costs associated with elections and folks don't get out to vote, let alone volunteer to help in the counting process.

Keeping your head in the clouds and dreaming of a hand count nation is not going to prevent the thefts in 2006 or 2008. Lobbying to get the right state and local laws passed to require the proper calibration and inspection of the machines is much more practical and "do able".

Again, I would suggest that you take the time to look at the history of elections and to review cases that deal with election disputes. Hand counts worked so well that they created the other means to prevent election thefts.

:hi:

[Carolab]

51. Here's a piece from Lynn for starters.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/121603Landes/12-16-03_Landes.pdf

She mentions other experts as well as Mercuri in this. (Lynn differs slightly from Mercuri in that while Mercuri supports a voter-verified paper ballot, visible and correctable at time of casting, and she has reached the conclusion that these must also be hand counted.) You can read about Rebecca's method and background at www.notablesoftware.com

Lynn has her own website as well.

http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm

Chuck is a Republican professional hacker who has reached the same conclusion: hand counted paper ballots.

His website is www.chuckherrin.com

And, for good measure, read this (it talks about Canada, among other issues):
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_12_28_voting_rights_tuesday_paper_ballots_must_be_hand_counted.asp

[merh]

53. Thank you for the links. I will read them to determine what

factors they have taken into consideration before reaching their conclusions. I notice you were not able to provide me with answers to my questions regarding the factors involved, so I take it you really don't know what criteria they used and what factors they considered, you just adopted their conclusions as your own.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

138. Chuck Herrin testified to the NC State Legislature on paper ballots

Chuck even pointed out that in some of his courses in college, the professor didn't trust them to take them online.

Pencil and paper only.

I am in NC, and since we were already overrun with electronic voting, we are working for the halfway point, to stop the spread of paperless voting (already in 40 counties) which began 20 years ago.

The more you study this issue, the more you learn that due to ignorance, bad equipment, poorly trained election workers, or malfeasance, anything computerized can be manipulated in many many ways.

Chuck is a IT security expert paid by Fortune 500 companies to test their system's security.

January 7, 2005. Chuck Herrin shows how easy it is to change the votes without leaving any evidence.
Chuck Herrin's presentation: "recent PowerPoint
http://www.chuckherrin.com/GEMSDemo.pps

The first part talks about what we do in business vs. what we do in e-voting, and the second part rips apart Diebold's vote tabulation software. Also see Chuck's website, www.chuckherrin.com .

Gaston County NC uses the Diebold system that Chuck demonstrated on the 7th. Approx 14,000 votes were not reported by Gaston County until about a week after the election when the SBOE noticed the low voter turnout.

Vote Counting Tabulator phones home office!
Chuck Herrin got to show us how easily someone could get into the central tabulator, and that Diebold GEMS systems actually phone the home office on their own

Chuck demonstrated that you can make all kinds of changes to the voting data without leaving any record. There is a log that shows someone has done something at such and such time, but not what the action was. Even the event log can be erased or changed.
So, at least with the Diebold Tabulator, knowing the password is not essential, and by all means, don't worry about leaving a trail behind while you change the vote totals.
Chuck succeeded in getting across the point that central tabulators are a wide open barn door.

Chuck unequivocally stated that the only voting system that he trusted was hand counted paper ballots.

[merh]

73. Okay, quick review of links ...

Lynn is not the author of the reports or studies or findings she
relies on, she has adopted their conclusions.

As for Mecuri - it would appear that she supports VVPB. It is very interesting to note that SHE DOES take in to consideration the many factors that are considered by election officials charged with conducting elections.

Communities are discovering that optically scanned balloting systems, augmented with electronic equipment (that also produce scanable paper ballots) for use by the disabled, can be procured for less than a tenth of the price for a fully-electronic system. Such configurations promise to increase voter confidence by offering the best in terms of reliability, usability and recountability as well as being highly cost-effective.

[merh]

77. Looks like Rebecca supports VVPB!

Check out her hand out! http://www.notablesoftware.com/Papers/VVPBFacts.pdf :hi:

Lynn Landes is not an expert, she may be an advocate, but not an expert. It appears that has adopted the expert findings of others. And I am yet to finish with Mr. Herrin.

[Peace Patriot]

176. "Lynn Landes is not an expert."

My dear Merh, Lynn Landes knows more about electronic voting and U.S. elections than all our election officials put together. She is an investigative reporter who has been studying and writing about this issue for twenty years, and is one of the most knowledgeable people in the country on this issue, and one of the best reporters.

Would you say Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were not "experts" on the powers and crimes of the executive branch in the 1970s? Would kind of qualifications would you require to consider them "experts"?

Would you say that Helen Thomas is not an "expert" on presidential behavior?

How about Mother Teresa being "an expert" on the health of the poor in the city of Calcutta? She had no medical degree, no degree in public health, no college degree at all, nor any kind of nursing degree. She knew nothing about statistics or public administration and had no science education. Would you pooh-pooh her views on the health of the poor in Calcutta with the words "she's not an expert"?

This line of yours is hauntingly familiar. (She's "not an expert.") I read an interview of L.A. County elections chief Connie McCormack who said the same thing of Kim Alexander, who had disagreed with her on the security of electronic voting. "Kim Alexander is not an expert." Kim Alexander runs a foundation on electronics in government. That's her job, to understand government electronic systems and educate the public about them. She regularly attends VSPP meetings in Sacramento and provides expert testimony on electronic voting, on behalf of the voting public, and is very concerned about the insecurity and unreliability of these machines. But she's "not an expert."

And Connie McCormack...what can I say? Her best friend--with whom she vacations and socializes regularly--was the chief salesperson for Diebold in California. McCormack herself is an advocate of Diebold and paperless voting. And she led the group of county election officials who rebelled against CA Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's stringent security provisions on electronic voting, and high ethical standards--including forbidding any "revolving door" employment in his office. She said she wanted to "drive a bulldozer" into the Sec of State's office to force him to pay for electronic systems that were crashing and failing all over California. This was after he sued Diebold for the lies they told about the security of their machines.

Connie McCormack has succumbed to at least one of the forms of corruption that have plagued our election system: the corruption of becoming the "professional'" and the "expert" on all the gobble-de-gook of electronic voting systems, and lording it over the dumb peon voters who haven't a clue any more how their votes are counted.

She doesn't understand the first thing about democracy--the right of the citizens to transparent, verifiable elections, and the sacredness of our right to vote. She is a contemptuous "professional" of the kind who attends hogfests of lobbying, wining, dining and dancing, and a week of high-end shopping, like this one, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, at the Beverly Hilton this week...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

...and has sold away our birthright for the gold pin they will award her at their "graduation ceremonies."

So, who are you, merh? Why do you think it should require an "expert" to understand our voting and vote tabulation systems? Is it right--is it democratic--that voters should need an "expert" to know how officials are counting their votes?

What do you think of the Diebold CEO being the campaign chair for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio and promising Bush in writing that he would "deliver" Ohio to Bush? Do you think it's appropriate for the people who tabulate our votes to be partisan political activists and major partisan donors?

What do you think of ES&S being funded by rightwing billionaires?

What do you think of the former CA Sec of State, Republican Bill Jones, and his chief aide Alfie Charles going to work for Sequoia, after authorizing purchases of Sequoia voting systems in California?

Is it of any concern to you that three of the major electronic voting machines vendors in the U.S. have extensive connections to the Republican Party?

And, most important of all, what do you think of these partisan Republican companies counting all our votes with secret, proprietary programming code? Would you call an election system "transparent" in which not even our Secretary of State has the right to review the code that is used to tabulate our votes?

Give us a some sense of where you're coming from, would you?

I also suggest that, if you have a question about voting systems, and you will only respect the opinion of what you call "an expert," that you exit DU, and take your questions to Connie McCormack. I'm sure she'll be glad to explain it all to you. Or you might want to wait until she "graduates" from Diebold's school at the Beverly Hilton this weekend. She'll be even more of an "expert" then.

[yowzayowzayowza]

48. Yes I will argue.

I trust a count by a single will audited machine WAY more than a herd of partisans with all kinds of nooks and crannies to hide ballots in.

Believe it or not, the industrial revolution was a good thing.

[nicknameless]

52. I absolutely agree with you.

Hand counts can't count back wards.
They don't get to a certain number and then stop, not registering thousands of additional votes.
They can't flip HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of votes to other candidates.
They don't begin the count with a HUGE negative number for the Democratic candidate.

The vote-stealing machines have done ALL of these things.

The three 18,181 totals on the same day in 2002, in one Texas county were brought to us by ES&S optical scans, the Chuck Hagel surprise-upset, vote-stealing machines.

I don't care how long a hand count takes. It's the only method of counting that I trust.
A week to count votes vs. 8 YEARS OF HELL!!!

[merh]

75. Hand counts allow for the corruption of the process by manual

means, most election fraud cases you will find that have ever been reported by any court in this Country deal with ballot stuffing or "dead men" voting (another way to stuff the ballot box). At least on of the experts that was cited by the poster above actually believe that VVPB is the answer. Hand counts, ideal in a perfect world with lots of money to spare in paying for elections and with plenty of volunteers to help with the election, are not practical for most LARGE COUNTIES and to propose returning to hand counts actually takes away from the efforts to reform our elections.

Just like the crazy folks that give the clerks a hard time and tell them that they are doing things the wrong way, that only alienates the clerks and makes the "reformers" the enemy. It is the clerks that we must work with to get election reform implemented.

[nicknameless]

81. But the numbers involved in those kinds of fraud

(ballot box stuffing and dead men voting) are like chump change in the world of election fraud. Relatively small numbers compared to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS involved in machine vote-stealing.

The big-time, machine-based election frauds we’re seeing these days are committed for Repugs, by Repugs. The Dems have been too wimpy to sue? Mostly, that would seem to be the case. (What else is new?)

There was the case of the Democrat incumbent Governor, Don Siegelman, in Alabama. He was ahead election night 2002, and considered to be the winner by 4,000 votes. ... Then mysteriously, after the election workers went home, the vote counts got switched around -- and all of a sudden the Repug became the winner by 3,000. A 7,000 VOTE SWING. The Dem filed a lawsuit, but the Repug Attorney General stopped the recount. Siegelman didn’t have the financial ability to pursue the legal action.

I posted this story on another thread, but it deserves to be seen again. Excerpt from:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4642/1/197

A Nov. 7, 2002, Associated Press story datelined Snyder, Texas, reported, “A defective computer chip in the county’s optical scanner misread ballots Tuesday night and incorrectly tallied a landslide victory for Republicans.” Poll workers became suspicious. As a result of those workers’ inquiry, a new computer chip was flown to Snyder, Texas, from Dallas. Once the new chip was installed, the computer verified that the Democrat had won the election. The question remains: Was this an innocent computer glitch or something far more sinister, an attempt to steal that election for the Republicans?

To go from a landslide for the Repug to a win for the Dem -- we're talking SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS of votes. And again, the famous 18,181 vote totals for those three Repug candidates on the same day in the same county in Texas -- were all counted by ES&S. It’s great that ES&S optical scan ballots are paper, but it’s the way they’re counted that screws Dems over. That’s how Chuck Hagel got his amazing upset Senate win in 1996. (ES&S counted an estimated 80% of his votes.)

Election fraud by machine can throw elections by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTES. Generally, the ballot-box stuffing, etc. vote numbers are comparatively few.

Two famous quotes:

"The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything."
-- Joseph Stalin

"It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting."
-- Peter King (Repug. Congressman from NY) in 2004


THE COUNTING IS WHAT MATTERS!
Yes, I want hand counts. Other COUNTRIES do their voting ENTIRELY on paper ballots with hand counts.
More expensive? Look at what we’ve paid for the vote-stealing machines. Look at us going from surpluses to MASSIVE deficits.
More time-consuming? Americans need to learn patience. The time it would take might feel like a too-long time. But how have the last 5 YEARS felt? And we’ve got 3 and 1/2 more to go.

God help us.

[merh]

94. Then you run for office and make the changes.

You get the job and you conduct the elections and you tell the taxpayers, your voters, and the candidates and the press and the other elected officials in the county, cost and time be damned, we are going to do it this way.

Then you will see how long it is before charges of malfeasence in office are filed, then you will see how long it is before taxpayers will file suits against you for your mishandling of their votes, and then you will see how long you have supporters and how long your "one term" will be.

PROPERLY AUDITED, optical scanning devices and voter verified paper ballots are the best system. Forcing hand counts will turn those that actually have to run the elections against you. Turning them against election reform forces them into the waiting arms of the likes of diebold.

Diebold may fold next week but out of its ashes will come another electronic device company that will try the same thing. The answer is to work with those that have taken an oath to conduct fair and impartial elections, to find out what they need, to get their opinions regarding what works and what doesn't work, to make them a part of the efforts.

[nicknameless]

97. That doesn’t make sense. You don’t have to run for office

In order to reform elections any more than you have to run for office in order to fight to end the war.

Look at what the Bush Administration has cost us on a local level. It FAR SURPASSES whatever it would cost to hand count ballots.

I just don’t buy the notion that everyone would turn litigious because ballots were being hand counted. The only ones who can’t stand fair elections are the Repugs. They sued in Washington because they didn’t like the outcome of the Governor’s race. DeLay’s goons threw a fit in Florida because ballots were actually being counted. People like that should be arrested for obstructing justice.

Repugs have thwarted efforts to have random recounts (Ohio). And the machines just facilitate their massive thefts.

Think of people like Lila Lipscomb, or anyone who has lost a loved one in this heinous war. How much time do you think they wish we had taken to get the vote count correct?

[merh]

98. No, you don't have to run for office, but you do have to appreciate

what those in office have to contend with. You have to understand the practical aspects of the office and you have to know all that is involved in conducting elections. You have to appreciate the clerks and their jobs to be able to effectively bring about change, if you do not, they will resist your efforts. The clerks resisting the efforts would mean the death to reform.

Go work an election with a clerk, not just the day of the election, the weeks before and the days that follow. Yes, lawsuits have been filed alleging that the clerks have violated voting rights because of the delays in counting the votes. Look what bush has cost us on a local level? Guess what, because of what bush has cost us at the local level, the clerks are even more strapped for funds, they cannot afford to run costly elections. Do you know how county budgets are determined, how they are proposed at the end of the fiscal year, approved for the new fiscal year and the clerks are bound to stay within those budgets?

Rethugs thwarted Ohio, so our job is to get our folks in office, all offices, local, county, state. Focusing on the SOS and the legislature is not enough. The repukes have been ahead of us in that they know how important the little jobs really are, they know how important the clerks are, the know how important the board of election commission members are, the board of supervisors, the city councils, etc.

If you look at all that is involved practically, understanding what is required and what the limitations that exist, if you respect those that are trying to fulfill their oaths of office and if you embrace them and offer to help them, then maybe, just maybe reform can happen.

Demanding hand counts cause it feels good ain't going do it. Throwing the likes of Lila Lipscomb in the mix is just being emotional and not a legitimate factor in the debate.

Bottom line is you have to know how things actually work before you can suggest improvements. If you don't know how they work, then go learn how. If you go and actually learn how, you will see that advocating "hand counts only" will defeat legitimate election reform efforts.

[nicknameless]

104. Merh, I’ve read a number of your posts about the election officials

that you’ve dealt with, and I can’t begin to tell you how lucky you are.

In California, there is an organized group of election thieves that have taken over the conducting of our elections. Beginning with Conny The-Bad-Seed McCormack, who heads the elections in Los Angeles. (She’s an import from Texas, where she oversaw other election frauds.) So many of these people have direct connections with the voting machine companies. And a number of them have retired from conducting elections and have gone to work for the voting machine companies.

Look at this event they have coming up, where they’re going to be wined and dined by the voting machine companies in Beverly Hills and Hollywood. There will be "a Graduation Luncheon and Awards Ceremony.” And Theresa LePore, who oversaw Palm Beach, Florida’s 2004 election theft, will be a speaker. Can you imagine the audacity of officials, who are supposed to be working for the people of our state, being romanced by the companies hell-bent on overthrowing our elections? Unbelievable!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=380340&mesg_id=380340

Bringing up Lila Lipscomb does inject emotion into the discussion -- but it IS a very emotional topic, due to all we’ve lost because of uncounted ballots beginning in Florida in 2000.

In California we have election thieves and machines that will do their bidding. As far as money goes, Ahnold just gave away the 9 Billion dollars that the state was suing Enron for. He settled for pennies on the dollar -- AS WAS PLANNED. That settlement was a major reason why the Repugs wanted to install him in our state in the first place.

I know we want the same outcome. I just truly believe that getting back to hand counts is what it’s going to take to make our elections transparent again. Without the machines, they would not be able to pull these massive-number frauds on us.

[merh]

115. You do realize that Andy supported properly audited

optical scanncers and Voter Verified Papers ballots, don't you?

Don't think that your state is the only state that the repukes have infiltrated, we have on going criminal prosecutions of liberals and democratic supporters - their true crimes, that they did not financally support the repukes or are not related the Trent Lott or the other repukes.

You have to regain control at the grass roots, you have to regain the local and county and state offices, you cannot effect election reform by alienating the folks that conduct elections. If you do, you are doomed from the start.

There are fake election reform activists that have recognized that they now need to promote "hand counts only" so that the election reform activists appear to be irrational and impractical extremists. Diebold is suspect and even in your state, Diebold is not accepted as a legitimate company to provide reliable voting devices.

Instead of using what works or improving upon what exists or promoting legislation that provides safe guards to protect our elections, the "hand count only" election reformers are seen as fanatics that are trying to force the election officials to revert to the dark ages of elections. I am telling you, it is easier to steal "hand count" elections than it is to steal the opti-scan election. Go back and read the cases from the good old days of "hand counts" only. You will see that it was because the elections were not secure, were costly and the counts took far too long that other avenues were explored and thus the creation of punch cards, then opti-scans.

Take the time to cultivate a relationship with the folks that conduct elections. Learn all that is involved. Study the history of elections and the evolution of election procedures and maybe you will understand. Election reformers cannot afford to alienate the officials that conduct elections. Demanding hand counts only will alienate election officials.

I'll pmail you the name and number of a clerk that has successfully used opti-scanners for the last 6 years. She can tell you how they conduct audits, how they conduct their elections and what is entailed in conducting an election. She will tell you that if properly audited and regulated, opti-scans are reliable. She can also tell you why hand counts are not practical, especially for the large counties in the nation. Take the time to talk to the folks that conduct the elections, take the time to appreciate all that is involved, then you might understand why your position is not only extreme, it is harmful to the election reform efforts.

[nicknameless]

129. I know that Andy thought hand counts were idealistic,

but I WANT ideal elections. The high-tech vote stealers have got to go. They have screwed us over in every election their machines were used.

I’ve never heard of ballot-box stuffing on the magnitude of what these crooks have pulled off.

[merh]

130. I see hand counts as idealist too - in a perfect world.

In a perfect world, all folks necessary to conduct hand counts would volunteer to perform the hand counts, clerks would be beating volunteers off with sticks.
In a perfect world, all volunteers would be honest and above board, there would be no need to scrutinize their efforts or provide security measures to prevent fraud or theft.
In a perfect world, there would be no question of funding, all costs would be paid, no matter how much, clerks would not have to worry about their budgets or taxpayer costs.
In a perfect world, there would be no attempts to steal the elections, everyone would respect the term "the will of the people".
In a perfect world, everyone over the age of 18 would vote and would be allowed to vote.
In a perfect world, there would be enough ballots or means to cast the vote, there would be enough precincts manned by helpful volunteers and there would be no lines, no waiting and no worries.
In a perfect world, there would be no high-tech vote stealers, no one would ever conceive of stealing an election so high-tech voting procedures would be perfect and useful, not suspect and fraught with distrust.
In a perfect, ideal world, there would be no need for this forum, all Americans would be united in their concerns for the nation and would see that the needs of the nation override the needs of the corporations and the politicians.

High-tech voting procedures are good, if properly regulated, audited, inspected and controlled. Our efforts should include and be respectful of the needs of the folks that conduct elections, we should embrace the clerks, we should be their champions, not their foes. We should recognize that it takes working with them to get the proper legislation to protect the votes, hell, it takes working with them to understand what legislation is needed. To promote an "idealistic" but impractical method is to alienate the folks that we, in theory, are trying to help do their job. That is not a very smart way to do things, imho.

Andy saw hand counts as idealistic, but he was a practical man and he respected the clerks needs, he knew that properly audited optical scanners and voter verified paper ballots do work.

Oh, and if you knew anything about the history of hand counts and ballot stuffing, you would be aware that there are those that believe that John F. Kennedy won the election by the ballot stuffing.

[Carolab]

144. SORRY TO KEEP CORRECTING YOU, BUT....

The Canadian system, in place for a century, uses traditional paper ballots, to be marked with an "X" beside the name of the preferred parliamentary candidate.

In Canada's year 2000 election:
21,243,473 - registered voters
60,728 - number of polling stations
350 - average of registered voters per station (minimum of 250 per precinct)
12,997,185 - total ballots cast
214 - average ballots cast per polling station
139,412 or 1.1% - ballots rejected
61.2% - voter turn-out

Hand-counted paper ballots were found to be the best and most accurate way of voting, according to the Voting Technology Project conducted by political scientists at Caltech and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The Voting Technology Project compared the reliability of voting systems used nationwide from 1988 to 2000 and came to a remarkable conclusion: "The most stunning thing in our work was that hand-counted paper ballots were better than anything else," project director Stephen Ansolabehere said. The Study. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~voting/CalTech_MIT_Report_Version2.pdf

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/links.html#how

[merh]

148. You have yet to correct me.

You are just giving information in support of your misinformed stance, information that you do not fully understand as you do not understand the practical aspects of conducting elections.

Canada's population is no where near our population. Canada does not conduct its elections as we do (Loading up the ballots with everyone running for office in the given district, county, state and federal office all on one day, not to mention propositions for bond issues, taxing initiatives, amendments to state constitutions, etc) and they do not rely solely on hand counts.

For every expert report you find, I can find you a report that supports optical scan ballots.

* Precinct-based optical scan ballots. The CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project found them to be the most accurate at recording the voter's intent and not significantly more expensive per vote than touch-screen machines.
* Touch screen machines that print paper ballots. Such systems would have many of the advantages of DRE machines, including potentially improved accessibility for voters with disabilities. There is at least one such machine that is certified in several states, and we hope that all vendors of existing DRE machines could provide an option to add ballot printers (DRE voting machines in Brazil have been retrofitted with ballot printers, for example). The paper ballots must be submitted by the voters, to be available for counting or recounting and to avoid vote-selling. The votes on the paper ballots must be regarded as the definitive legal votes, taking precedence over electronic records or counts.

http://www.workablepeace.org/voting/dirtline.htm

Again, take the time to talk to the clerks responsible for elections in the large counties in this nation. Take the time to find out all practical aspects of elections. Then, maybe then you will appreciate that our population, the lack of funding, manpower (volunteered or paid), the security concerns and the time necessary to conduct hand counts all make REVERTING to hand counts impractical and undesireable to the officials that have to run elections.

Those officials are the ones you want in your corner. Those officials are the ones that make the recommendations to the Boards that authorize the equipment used, those officials have a tremendous lobbying base that can get legislation defeated or passed.

Oh, stop yelling, it is as rude as calling clerks "minions".
:hi:

[Carolab]

156. That does not invalidate the CalTech/MIT study that hand-counting is best

You are talking about best of ELECTRONIC machines, not the best SYSTEM of voting and counting. THAT is hand-counted paper ballots.
And, I DIDN'T say that Canada uses hand-counted paper ballots for ALL of its races--the national and provincial races are all I mentioned.

(P.S., it's not yelling, it's emphasis)

:hi:

And, actually I agree with Bob Fertik (or are you going to say he's not an expert too?):

http://www.democrats.com/ohio-reform

{snip}

If Ohio wants to switch to optical scan systems, there are other vendors to choose from. But before Ohio selects any vendors, it must adopt a set of standards to ensure honest and transparent elections. It must then evaluate each vendor and product against those standards.

Moreover, Ohio needs to adopt a set of procedures for handling optical scanners before, during, and after each election.

The following is a suggested set of standards. A complete set of standards should be produced by experts in election systems.

Machine standards:

Open source software
No external ports or plug-in cards (so software and results cannot be altered)
No clock (so the machine cannot behave differently on Election Day)
Blind programming of each election (so the machine does not know which candidates are Republicans or Democrats)
No vendor participation required for election or recount
Software access secure and logged
Secure box protects scanner from tampering
Scanned ballots are stored in secure box with scanner

Vendor standards:
Background checks on all staff
Ban on convicted criminals (see the Diebold rap sheet: http://blog.democrats.com/Diebold) - perhaps must pass test for Notary Public
Prohibition on owner, management, or staff engagement in politics
Requirement to maintain and publish reports of all problems (like drug companies and aircraft manufacturers) and to fix them

Election Board procedures:
Secure storage of all machines in locked rooms with motion detector alarms; all violations must be reported to the Secretary of State
Public notice of all technical maintenance, with full public supervision and written description of work to be done (in advance) and work performed (afterwards) with sworn signature of technician
No vendor participation permitted for election or recount; routine maintenance by bi-partisan staff only
At election time, representatives of all parties witness secure retrieval and storage of machines
Pre-election machine accuracy tests in public with layperson's explanation
All problems should be reported to the vendor and the Secretary of State
Staff must be certified in all procedures by the Secretary of State and not reliant on vendors

Election Certification procedures:

Total ballots counted must be compared to total voters
Post-election machine accuracy tests in public with layperson's explanation
Manual recount of the top-line (or perhaps closest) campaign in a few precincts chosen (a) at random plus (b) by all parties
If any discrepancy is found, another group of precincts should be chosen for manual count
If a second discrepancy is found, then a county-wide manual recount would be required
Certification must be signed by county election supervisors certifying compliance with all procedures under penalty of law

Recount procedures:
Scanners and ballots should be stored in secure room with motion detectors
Recount parties should have supervised access to maintenance logs, security logs, ballots, and voter sign-ins
Sample precincts should be chosen through a combination of both truly random and party-selected
Strict rules for going from sample recount to full recount
Strict schedule must comply with Electoral College schedule
Court-appointed Special Master must supervise and certify recount
(1) Optical scan systems with precinct tabulators have the lowest error rates (overvotes and undervotes), compared with touchscreen, punchcard, or lever systems. That's because the tabulators can check the ballots for overvotes (which would invalidate the ballot), and give the voter the opportunity to fix the mistake. Optical scan systems with county tabulators have among the highest error rates.

(2) There is a strong case for non-automated voting systems, i.e. paper ballots. Much of the plan described above is focused on making the scanners tamper-proof; all of those elements are unnecessary with paper ballots. The principal objection to paper ballots is the time and tedium of counting them, especially when there are a large number of races to be counted. However, a typical precinct handles under 1,000 votes, so a team of volunteers can conduct the count fairly quickly. Everyone is too tired on Election Night to conduct a tedious count; but if elections were held on Saturdays, the counting could be done on Sundays. And if we built bi-partisan volunteer counts into our election system, we might change the whole "red-blue" adversarial climate into a "purple" climate of civic cooperation.

[merh]

159. Generally, the USofA puts all of its elections on one ballot when it can.

As I said, in an ideal world, with the proper funding, proper manpower, proper security, proper time allotted for the counting, hand counts would be the best procedure.

You will never have those conditions met in the USofA.

Again, go research the election dispute cases and the evolution of the election process. The reason the hand counts gave way to punch cards and optical scanners and the like is because the hand counts were not effective and practical as the voting population increased.

Again, I point out the theory that Kennedy actually won because of the security flaws that existed with hand counts.

There were problems with hand counts and because of the problems, other methods were sought.

[claudiajean]

131. No, Andy did not support an entirely hand counted system.

Andy went through a very brief period well over a year ago of temporary insanity where he yelled "Paper Ballots Hand Counted!" a few times, and then sought out experts who educated him as to the history of paper ballots and election fraud, and realized that hand counts alone were just as corruptible as machine counts without auditing.

Regrettably, it was difficult for him to make anyone who wants to blame the "machines" and desires only hand counted paper ballots believe that his opinion had changed considerably upon education about the issue. It seemed that some people were more interested in being able to tack on Andy's name in support of their position, than in slowing down and actually listening to the man.

Further, he was aware that one catches more flies with honey that vinegar, so in an effort to educate others in turn and bring them gently around to a workable, effective advocacy position (which "paper ballots hand counted on demand and without apology", is NOT) without alienating them, he would throw them a bone - e.g. "In an ideal world..." etc.

Andy did not actually believe, at the time of his death, that an "ideal" system involved only hand counted paper ballots. He believed that a system that provides a voter verified paper ballot that is human readable (leaves out inka vote) and hand countable for robust auditing and recount purposes, but that provides an initial fast, efficient count by machine (optical scan) was the most ideal to provide security, transparency, and accuracy to a ballot tabulation and canvassing system.

[Carolab]

145. The machines are all susceptible to fraud on a much larger scale.

It is MUCH harder to commit fraud with hand-counting than to leave the counting up to machines, which can falsify tens of thousands of votes in seconds, without a trail.

Andy understood this, surely.

We had a back and forth a few times about this issue. He basically relented on the hand counting, I think because of "realism". He talked about getting VVPB as a "baby step"...

As I said above, I think for us to ask for hand counts at this stage is probably not possible, even THOUGH the CalTech/MIT study I posted above says: Hand-counted paper ballots were found to be the best and most accurate way of voting, according to the Voting Technology Project conducted by political scientists at Caltech and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The Voting Technology Project compared the reliability of voting systems used nationwide from 1988 to 2000 and came to a remarkable conclusion: "The most stunning thing in our work was that hand-counted paper ballots were better than anything else," project director Stephen Ansolabehere said. The Study: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~voting/CalTech_MIT_Report_Version2.pdf

That said, I think our efforts need to be focused at this stage on the SECURITY issues surrounding the tabulators. We need to look at every stage of handling and counting ballots. There are lots of ways to hack/subvert the machines.

[claudiajean]

113. There is no country with our breadth of direct elections.

This is a myth that is often thrown out there - "Other countries count by hand!"

Not for the scope of offices that we have on our ballots, they don't. Most countries do not elect the sheer number of local offices that we do.

The often-cited hand counts are for elections with one - three contests on the ballot. Not for 348, as my home county will have this fall. Further, there are problems with the hand counts as well, as any counting procedure can be corrupted by clever crooks.

The security is in the audit proedures employed.

Canada only conducts their parliamentary elections by hand. Their local elections in populous areas are conducted using machines, mostly optical scan machines made by none other than Diebold.

Why? Diebold's election division was previously Global Election Systems of TORONTO. It was a Canadian company that hired Jeff Dean, the convicted computer embezzler, to program tabualtion systems.

[harmonyguy]

135. Welcome back ClaudiaJean !

Glad to see you're back here and posting. ;-)

You're right about the breadth of election contests. I've seen as many as eight different contests in a municipal election, and of course those were all hand counted - separate color coded ballots per race. No where near the 348 you mentioned.

Canada only conducts their parliamentary elections by hand.
Allow me to clarify this.
Our Federal Elections are hand-counted paper.
Most of our Provincial elections are still hand-counted paper.
Some of the larger cities have started using optical scan, and I've been told that a couple of cities have experimented with Touchscreens, although I have no first hand data on those.

One VERY significant difference is that we don't conduct all the elections on the same day. Elections (for each level of government)are held when they are called, not on pre-determined dates.

I believe that hand counted paper is THE BEST way to go, BUT could be done only if your Federal, State, County and City elections are split from each other, and then ONLY if the same 'paper security' processes are followed as are used in Canada. (None of this laser printed ballot stuff.)

We use special secure ballot paper, specifically manufactured for Canadian ballots, but printed locally, with every sheet numbered, and with every square inch accounted for and signed for along the way. The possibility of ballot stuffing is vastly reduced by the simple fact that no-one can go down to their local office-superstore and buy the paper.

HG

[claudiajean]

179. Thanks Harmony. Gotta keep busy as I wait for the other shoe...

I definitely stand corrected on the terminology. I had been advised (by a Canadian, no less) that small "p" "parliamentary" could refer to either and/or both federal or provincial legislative authorities. Looking it up however, that appears wrong.

So what I meant by using "parliamentary" was to refer to both, but it looks like I was not using the correct word, so it didn't mean what I thought. Anyhoo...

As you know, there has been some advocacy and dabbling in running provincial elections with opti-scans (I was involved in a provincial demo in BC using our county's equipment a few years back).

I know most of the largest cities are counting using opti-scans, and there was a test last year of touch screens (ugh) in a large eastern province city (I was flown in to be a production election expert for a US tv network that filmed part of the test for a story they were doing.)

The basic problem with trying to split out the elections is that most U.S. jurisdictions have six possible election dates per year (each election has a cycle of about 45 days before and 15 after, for a total of 60 days, making six election dates the maximum number that can be successfully scheduled annually.)

We do divide out the various jurisdictions over the various election days and alternate years, and also separate out taxing districts, but we have both primaries and general elections as a part of our cycle. Even with as much spacing as possible, still the ballots are quite long, particularly in the West, where there are more states that allow direct initiatives and referenda.

Our ballots in the western US are as short as they are gonna get without eliminating a lot of directly elected offices.


On another note, thanks much for the kind wishes on the other issue. I saw your posts over at the other site. :)

[Carolab]

82. Oh, really? Tell that to the Canadians.

"Hand counts, ideal in a perfect world with lots of money to spare in paying for elections and with plenty of volunteers to help with the election, are not practical for most LARGE COUNTIES and to propose returning to hand counts actually takes away from the efforts to reform our elections."

This is just not true. We can count the major races by hand at the precinct level, just like they do.

But this whole discussion is moot, anyway, because we are being FORCED into optically scanned ballots or touch screens.

In the case of optical scanners, there must be specific state legislation written around the security procedures to prevent tampering/hacking at EACH stage of the casting, counting, recording and reporting. There must be aggressive random audits, there must be rigorous independent testing of the machines before/during/after the elections, there must be security surrounding the media collection/transport/transmission of the tallies to the central tabulators, there must be carefully circumscribed access to the tabulators and ballots, etc.

[merh]

83. Oh really, tell that to the clerks that you must rely on to

conduct the elections. How many have you really spoken to? How many have you dealt with and asked them their opinions regarding the best way to conduct an election?

Canada does not have the population of the USofA. Do you realize that the prison population in the state of Mississippi is greater than the prison population in Canada? Does that give you some idea about the population differences.

US population 296,749,167
Canada population 31,946,300

Start using common sense and start reaching out to those that are in the best position to help with the efforts. That is the county clerks that have to conduct elections. My clerk advises that they have used opti scanners since 1999 (having used punch cards before that and hand counted paper ballots before that). There have been 4 elections contested, each contest provides that the candidates can select the precincts to be recounted. The hand counts matched the results of the opti-scans 100% and they were conducted with the representatives of both parties on hand and were done legally. The legislation exists and the procedures work. My clerk is angry that Diebold and others spread the lies that opti-scans are not reliable.

Just because Ohio violated the recount laws does not mean every state does.

I showed you how you had misread or purposely misstated the results of one of the experts you listed. Even your expert agrees that voter verified paper ballots with the proper auditing of the equipment and the counting methods (opti-scan) is the best way to conduct elections.

The hand count efforts will alienate the clerks that are responsible for conducting the elections. I suggest you take the time to contact the large counties and ask them if they are willing to revert to hand counts.

You have yet to acknowledge whether or not you bothered to look at the history of election contests. Have you?

So please, other than your silly comparisons about Canada to USofA, explain to me how you will not alienate the clerks by trying to force them to return to the dark ages of vote counting?

My fear is that all you screaming "hand counts" will hurt the election reform efforts just as much as the Diebold machines will. Two extremes that do not take into consideration that the majority of election officials in the nation conduct fair and lawful elections, have worked for years to ensure the integrity of the elections and know more about elections than you could learn by posting on a message board. Respect the people that are doing the job, respect their experience, their integrity and their love for this nation.

Don't alienate the people that are responsible for conducting elections.

[NC Beach Girl]

88. well said

I get tired of the "Canada does it" argument because of its silliness and I'm sure any activist who uses it to try to make a point to US election officials is considered an idiot.

I was planning to look up the Canadian/US pop. #s later, but you totally beat me to it.

Also..as a side note, Canada actually DOES use electronic voting. From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Canada

It is a common misconception that there is no electronic voting in Canada. While the federal elections still use paper ballots, voting technology has been used since at least the 1990s at the municipal level, and there are increasing efforts to introduce it at a provincial level.

[merh]

95. The misinformation that is being used to support "hand counts only"

is what bothers the heck out of me.

The lack of respect for those that have to actually conduct the elections bothers the heck out of me.

We must work with the clerks, we must have them in our corner. They are a powerful group who ultimately make the decisions. What they lobby they usually get. We want to embrace them, we want them to tell us what they need, what works and what doesn't work. We need to provide them with the information we have and we need to respect their experience and their expertise. If we don't, our election reform efforts are doomed. I fear that is what some faux "election reform" activists want. :scared:

[claudiajean]

114. Exactly. Of course Canada uses electronic voting.

Indeed, the company that became Diebold Election Systems when purchased and merged was a canadian company - Global Election Systems based in Toronto.

[Carolab]

143. WRONG!!!! CANADA uses hand counting for major races.

Don't spread false information. You can look it up.

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ (This also is a great source for EXPERT opinions on why computers should not and need not be involved in our elections.)

Here's a quote from the above: "Paper Ballots. Studies show that elections conducted with hand-marked hand-counted paper ballots are the most accurate. National and provincial elections in Canada use hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots, and Canadians expect (and get) precise counts of voters, votes, and ballots with no discrepancies."

They usually get the results on election night.

http://www.global-conspiracies.com/canadians_hand_count_their_13mil_ballots.htm

[claudiajean]

180. To quote you, "WRONG!!" CANADA uses hand counting for legislative races -

-both some provincial and all federal. Large cities, and a number of other local jurisdictions use optical scan equipment, often purchased from Global Elections Systems when they were a Canadian company.

Leadership offices of cities as large as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto are easily as "major" as members of provincial legislatures or Parliament. All "major" races in Canada are clearly NOT counted by hand.

I have tried to be polite, but that effort is not being returned...

To quote you, "Don't spread false information. You can look it up." Better yet, spend some time learning the basics of election administration, so that rather than just relying upon information found on the web, you can compare information on the internet with what you know to be accurate before you make a determination as to the reliability of a web page.

Thanks for the reference to "wheresthepaper.org". Not only is that particular web page designed for residents of New York (of which neither I nor most of us are), but the website advocates robust auditing of optical scanned ballots (my position), NOT all hand counted all the time (your position).

Of course, you do know why New York would have a special web page - you know NY has particular historical policy challenges to overcome with implementing new election equipment? Right?

And lastly, although you clearly meant "this is also a great source for EXPERT opinions..." as an insult, "wheresthepaper.org" notes websites on the bottom of the page for more information. Um, although certainly not the only one, I am one of the main election administration experts used by these websites in formulating their opinions. Some of the content on this site is taken VERBATIM from papers I authored. (good for them...)

So, for an EXPERT opinion on elections, you have directed me to...myself? Um, thanks?

[merh]

84. BTW

In the case of optical scanners, there must be specific state legislation written around the security procedures to prevent tampering/hacking at EACH stage of the casting, counting, recording and reporting. There must be aggressive random audits, there must be rigorous independent testing of the machines before/during/after the elections, there must be security surrounding the media collection/transport/transmission of the tallies to the central tabulators, there must be carefully circumscribed access to the tabulators and ballots, etc.

This is done all the time. Opti-scan devices work. If they didn't why do you think Diebold goes around lying about their "reliability".

Admit it, you really don't know what it is like to conduct a county-wide, national or even state election. I precinct does not a county make.

I think the hand count movement is a movement to derail the election reform efforts. Those who actually know how complicated, time consuming and costly it is to run elections know that the clerks will balk at the idea of being forced to return to hand counts. Thus, if the only options are hand counts or Diebold, the clerks will go with the less costly and the faster result oriented Diebold type devices.

[Carolab]

85. You really should read about how "well" optiscans worked in Ohio.

NOT.

Check out the latest article in the Free Press for more on that, for example.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1387

[merh]

86. As I said, comparing the other states to Ohio is ludicrous.

To alienate the folks who conduct elections is stupid and hurts our efforts. To accuse the other election officials of wrong doing because of Ohio's failings is equal to racial profiling. Stop the crime where it occurred and don't assume it is happening all over. It's not happening in my county and we use opti-scan.

You rely on articles, you don't do the work, you don't even try to poll those who do the work, you don't even try to do independent research.

Even then, the experts you alleged support your position actually aren't experts or they don't support your position.

Your position is flimsy and it is suspect why you chose such an extreme stance when the stance can be so harmful to the efforts.

[Carolab]

87. How do you know "it's not happening in my county"?

What have you done to be sure?

I am soon to be part of an audit in a very suspect district in my state. Optiscan district (which most of my state uses). VERY suspicious. And I am certainly not the only one who sees "something wrong" here and wants to dig into it.

There are a number of legislators, lawyers, professional computer programmers/analysts, election activists (both national and local), and "others" such as Mark Crispin Miller, who are looking into this--in conjunction with "my" network of election reform activists.

I really have to question YOUR loyalties and wonder why you are so vehement in defending optical scanners. What are YOU doing about election reform? Are you involved with any groups? Working with any legislators?

Anyone with half an understanding of computers can see the problems inherent in optiscans.

Even if Rebecca Mercuri doesn't come right out and say she's "for" hand-counting, if you had read further in what Lynn said, she said that since she published what Rebecca said, she has come to believe in hand-counting paper ballots. And you didn't even mention Chuck Herrin, who is definitely a proponent. I'll let you tell these people they aren't "experts".

I think YOU need to do some more research into the problems with optical scanners. A LOT more.

[merh]

89. I know that they work.

They have worked for the last 6 years in my county and in other counties in the state. Those that say that they don't work have been promoting for Diebold.

I recognize the importance of working with the election officials that have to conduct the elections. I know that they are the ones that ultimately recommend the methods to be used and that they don't want to be backed into a corner. To demand that they go back to hand counts will make them turn against the election reform movement and to side with the folks promoting other methods of electronic voting, like Diebold.

Lynn is not an expert, she uses other experts findings as a basis for her position. That Lynn states Rebecca is for hand counts is not substantiated, given Rebecca's website promotes VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTS. Go back and read.

I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK INTO THE PROBLEMS WITH HAND COUNTS, ALOT MORE. INCLUDING THE HISTORY OF HAND COUNTS and the abuse of hand counts. Research why they were rejected in the first place, why other methods were adopted, what it entails to conduct elections in the large counties, what it

I would rather work with the clerks and help them lobby for the legislation necessary to protect elections and allow them to run the fair elections than to assume I know better than they do.

Your pushing for either your way or no way is going to leave you with the likes of products like Diebolds.

You tell me, what is involved in conducting an election? Do you know? Do you know how long it takes to plan to hold one, how much money is expended, what resources are needed?

Try to find out.

[Carolab]

90. I didn't say Lynn said Rebecca was for them, I said Lynn said SHE was.

Go back and read it again.

I am perfectly aware of what Rebecca's site says. I have read it many times. The point I was making is that Lynn, after initially agreeing with Rebecca, now no longer agrees with her re: hand counts.

Lynn has done EXTENSIVE research into hand counting and she appeared before Conyers at the first hearing arguing its merits, citing studies that say it is FAR less susceptible to fraud. Why don't you contact Lynn herself and ask her for her background information on this???

The clerks are minions. You need to work with the legislators and with the Secretaries of State or (in the case of my state) good progressive Democratic candidates who are running against the incumbent Republican or "DINO" SOS.

As far as "pushing for Diebolds", no one has to push for them, we already are STUCK with them--all OVER my state, in addition to ES&S. I made the point in a post above--DID YOU READ IT--that the issue is MOOT in any case because we are not going to be able to get rid of the machines at this point in time SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WORK ON GETTING SOME GOOD LEGISLATION WRITTEN THAT WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE NEEDED SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THE TABULATORS SCAN/COUNT/RECORD/REPORT OUR VOTES CORRECTLY IN THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!

As for "finding out what happens in an election", WHAT DO YOU THINK I AM DOING WITH THE INDIVIDUALS I NAMED ABOVE? PLAYING POKER???????

And, I ASK YOU AGAIN, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT OPTISCANS WORKED FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS? WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[merh]

92. The proof are the 4 contested elections that have occurred in

the county in that 6 year time. That and the fact that the auditing has been conducted by the county clerks as required by our laws. We actually have set standards to follow. IT HAS BEEN DONE and IT HAS WORKED. Again, just because Ohio was tainted does not mean the rest of the states are tainted.

I can't believe that you would even post this rubish:

The clerks are minions. You need to work with the legislators and with the Secretaries of State or (in the case of my state) good progressive Democratic candidates who are running against the incumbent Republican or "DINO" SOS.

No, the clerks are not just "minions" and that you say that shows how little respect you have for their responsibilities and their elected office. It also shows how little you actually know about what it takes to conduct and election and what all is required of the clerks and their staff before, during and after an election.

As for the clerks in this state, they are now mad as hell as the SOS and that is the political kiss of death for the SOS. The clerks are the ones that local folks turn to for advice regarding the state offices. If clerk of county A says the SOS is a dip shit, then the majority of citizens of county A that voted the clerk into office will vote against SOS. That is how politics work. That you don't know that and that you don't appreciate that simply shows your total ignorance of the political system.

And it is just that attitude that will damn election reform efforts. The SOS doesn't have final control, they have some control. The clerks have more political pull than the SOS. They are the ones that are elected countywide and they are the ones that have more clout than the SOS with the individual legislators from their districts.

God, you are totally clueless. CLERKS ARE NOT MINIONS, they are the backbone of the system, they are the folks we need to work with and that we desperately need in our corner. With your attitude we are destined for failure. You can't be working with the people that actually run the elections because if you were, you would never make such disrespectful and degrading statements.

I again suggest you find out how things actually work and not rely on your "activist experts". Work with the folks that make the decisions, that deal with the issues daily and that ultimately recommend action to their boards and that have a huge lobbying presence in the legislature. If you don't have the clerks on your side, then all of your legislation will fail.

[Carolab]

133. Thanks for the clarification on the role of clerks.

You are right in that I did not realize how much influence they have.

I had thought the legislature/SOS made the decisions and the clerks just followed procedures/laws as set by them.

I will take your comments under advisement and pass them on to my group.

[claudiajean]

110. I'm sorry, but Lynn Landes is not an election administration expert.

She is a writer who writes about elections among other issues.

And the attitude that the "clerks are minions" is not going to make any headway in election activism.

The vast majority of election administrators (county clerks, registrars, auditors, supervisors of elections, etc.) are very good people who are more than willing to listen to activists if they are approached with respect. But the patience wears thin when often what they hear is people who have never so much as managed an employee-of-the-week election at the local Denny's present themselves as election experts and as having the solution for all electoral woes.

It's an attitude that is just plain insulting to very hardworking people who really ARE election experts. We are going to get a lot farther as a movement when we enter our advocacy with the assumption that local election officials are competent and honest until they do something that proves them otherwise - which will not be the case for the vast majority.

[Carolab]

134. Thanks for your input.

Points taken.

[nicknameless]

91. And Nebraska, and Texas, and Alabama, and Florida.

IMO, the Dems have been too wimpy to demand recounts.
Why didn't they when it was SO OBVIOUS in Texas with the three 18,181 totals in one county in one day?

Where else have optical scan machines scammed Dem candidates out of their victories?

[yowzayowzayowza]

93. Funny ya don't mention ...

the 2004 New Hampshire opti-scan recount.

:evilgrin:

[nicknameless]

96. But wasn’t that where Nader conducted a recount in 2004

and they weren’t able to identify that fraud had taken place?

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413

No conclusions can be drawn about the reliability of electronic voting machines on the basis of the New Hampshire recount, because the machines used in the 11 selected wards predate those showing irregularities in Ohio and other states, where votes were counted backward on some machines and votes were assigned to the wrong candidate on others. Secretary of State William Gardner reported that the machines used in New Hampshire also predate the Diebold Corporation’s purchase of the company that manufactured them.

<snip>

And are you saying that, because no fraud could be identified in New Hampshire in 2004, it must not have happened anywhere else?
In fact, it's clear that it has happened in other places.

[yowzayowzayowza]

99. Obviously conclusions can be made about...

the reliability of opti-scans:

In the eleven wards recounted, only very minor discrepancies were found between the optical scan machine counts of the ballots and the recount. The discrepancies are similar to those found when hand-counted ballots are recounted.

The issue is the reliability and quality control of the process as a whole. Focusing on the machines and their source code is a wild goose chase.

[nicknameless]

100. What unmitigated BS!

That was ONE election using machines made by a DIFFERENT company -- AS POSTED!

There's evidence of fraud by optical scan machines in the other states named. And I wouldn't doubt for a second that far more fraud by optical scan machines has taken place in other states as well.

Optical scan fraud in Texas, Alabama and Nebraska is noted in post #81.

It's VERY INTERESTING that you're defending these machines' supposed reliability.

[yowzayowzayowza]

103. Simple question:

Did the 2004 New Hampshire recount establish that an election process utilizing Opti-Scan machines CAN BE reliable? Yes or No?

It's VERY INTERESTING that you're defending these machines' supposed reliability.

If yer not careful I'm gunna havta whip out my twenty year old IE minor on ya.

[nicknameless]

105. "Can Be" is the issue.

Most importantly: The optical scan machines, just like Diebolds' DREs, CAN BE USED TO OVERTHROW ELECTIONS. And they HAVE been used for that purpose.

Diebold makes ATM machines. Sure they can make them work fine, but that's not their intention with the voting machines -- any more than it's ES&S's intention.


"If yer not careful I'm gunna havta whip out my twenty year old IE minor on ya."
Huh? :shrug:

[yowzayowzayowza]

106. Obviously.

That a process utilizing Opti-Scan machines CAN BE perverted is not the fault of the machines, but rather that the process as a whole does not have sufficient QUALITY CONTROL to identify defects. Focusing on the machines is like treating the symptom, a faulty device, rather than the disease, a lack of QUALITY CONTROL.

Diebolds ATM machine "intentions" are irrelevant as the banking process AS A WHOLE has sufficient QUALITY CONTROL to render them mute.

Ok, I won't go Six Sigma on ya after all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_engineering

[nicknameless]

109. "QUALITY CONTROL"?!!!

You're kidding, right?

These machines are doing EXACTLY what they've been programmed to do -- STEAL ELECTIONS!!!

Diebold's intention with their ATM design is to have them work. And, not surprisingly, they do.

Yeesh! Your IE minor didn't exactly make you politically savvy, did it? Just because a machine can be designed to work means NOTHING!!!
-- Especially when the designers want them to function otherwise.

[yowzayowzayowza]

112. Would Diebold program...

..their machines to "STEAL ELECTIONS" if the election process had sufficient quality control to bust them?

...suggest you push away from the keyboard and engage yer brain fer awhile. Unless you have something to add, I'm done for the time being. Thx for playing.

[nicknameless]

117. Yowzayowzayowza, I didn’t mean to insult you –- I really didn’t think you

were being sincere.

There simply would be no way to make sure all of the machines were functioning honestly.
And once they’re purchased (for millions of dollars) and in place, the voters are stuck with them.

Diebold was supposed to have certified software in all of their machines for California’s 2003 Recall election. They were in 17 counties. When a sampling of the machines was tested after the election, NOT EVEN ONE was found to have certified software.

I’m not advocating for Luddites. The simple fact is that the manufacturers of these machines want to steal elections.
No amount of quality control could possibly twart their efforts.

[yowzayowzayowza]

118. Herez where I disagree:

No amount of quality control could possibly twart their efforts.

IMHO, the ONLY way to thwart their efforts is with reliable QC; policing the machines will simply result in ever more elaborate counter-measures and therefore NEVER stop them.

On edit: I didn’t mean to insult you ... I find that fantastic.

[nicknameless]

121. I believe that the way around dishonest machines is to eliminate them.

Paper ballots and hand counts only.

And yes, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse and insincere before.

[kster]

122. You are officially

"in the know" keep pushing Paper Ballots Hand Counted and Recorded By the People at the precinct level. The Coporate vote counting machines are done! And rightfully so.

[yowzayowzayowza]

123. The math don't werk:

115,000,000 voters X (at least) 20 races = 2,300,000,000 votes

Proposing a hand count of > 2.3 BILLION votes = Luddite

[nicknameless]

124. Not surprisingly, I disagree.

Counting by precinct is the way to go. No time for democracy, huh?

People who are willing to sacrifice democracy for faster results have cost us lives, our treasury, our reputation in the world, the environment, etc. ... Ad nauseam.

[yowzayowzayowza]

125. Patently false.

People who are willing to sacrifice democracy for faster results have cost us ...

No, the thieves are responsible. Histrionics ad nauseam.

Fin.

[nicknameless]

126. Bull Shit

The thieves wouldn't be in power if it weren't for the impatience of those wanting quick results.

And yes, it HAS cost us our democracy, American and Iraqi (etc) lives, our treasury, our reputation in the world, the environment, etc. ... Ad nauseam.

Oh aren't democracy-fanatics melodramatic, though!

[yowzayowzayowza]

127. As yer reduced to ...

expletives and a causality conundrum, good evening.

[nicknameless]

128. G'night -- for the third time

:hi:

[kster]

108. You are on the money nicknameless

They can keep track of your money down to the penny, but its much to complicated to keep track of a vote.

[nicknameless]

111. Has this side-discussion become pathetic, or what?

:eyes:

[bobbieinok]

116. straight question: how is Canada able to count paper ballots successfully?

not to fight......just a question

[claudiajean]

119. They only count two races per pollsite.

Most American election jurisdictions have substantially more races on the ballot in November than Canada does for their parliamentary elections, which are segregated out from their local elections.

Canada uses optical scanners for most of their local and municipal elections in populous areas. Indeed, they use mostly Diebold products, as the elections division of Diebold was formerly Global Elections of Toronto, Canada, and they bought a home-country product (at the time).

It is an utter and complete myth that Canada hand-counts ALL of their ballots. They do not.

Canada also has a total voting population of 21,243,473, roughly the number of eligible voters in California alone. Canada is much, much smaller than the US, which is another major factor.

[kster]

120. Because they are the most innovative

country on the planet,Oh wait thats us, we should be able to pull it off to . I would hope.

[claudiajean]

107. I happen to be an expert, and I disagree with your premise.

As did Andy. As does Rebecca Mercuri. As does David Jefferson. As does....well, I could go on and on.

ONLY hand counted paper ballots are just as susceptible to manipulation as ONLY opti-scanned ballots. Any system employing just ONE method of counting for both original count and audit opens tremdous security holes just waiting to be exploited.

I would be happy to share nearly 200 years of methods used to corrupt hand counts. EVERY ballot counting method can be corrupted without proper auditing.

In my home county, there will be 348 offices on the ballot in November. It would take easily six weeks to hand count every race and report the results. The idea that "scores of volunteers" will be available to help hand count is just ludicrous. You have obviously never recruited pollworkers for a county wide election in a county with more than a million people...

Optical scanning as the first count, with robust mandatory auditing with both a random component and a selective component to check anomalies is the safest method to count election ballots.

[NC Beach Girl]

132. thank you claudiajean!

I wish more REAL experts like you were able to drown out the army of armchair election experts around here...the misinformation they constantly spread is repeated so much that it is considered fact by many who browse the boards at DU.

Thank you so much for sharing what you know and attempting to educate us all (even the idiot bot squad).


:hi:

[Peace Patriot]

184. "Unsavory volunteers can slip in ballots for their candidates."

How about unsavory billionaire Bushites "slipping in" thousands of electronic votes for THEIR candidate, in a split second, untraceably?

Which should we fear most? The small-scale, potentially visible, human con? Or the huge-scale, utterly invisible, instantaneous, secret computer programming con?

The Germans put their PAPER ballots in a big glass jar for all to see. And there they stay until they are counted IN PUBLIC with ANY AND ALL OBSERVERS welcome.

You want George Bush turned into your president in seconds--so the suspense won't kill you? Or you want John Kerry by the next day, or by the end of the week, when ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED and verified?

The time factor is a requirement of the news monopolies, nothing more. There is NO GOOD REASON for instantaneous results! None! Let's take our time and COUNT ALL THE VOTES and verify the election with transparent procedures!

The Germans also verify their elections and check for fraud with independent exit polls. They get BOTH numbers of their TV screens--separate numbers! And if the two don't match, fraud is suspected and recounts begin. What happened in the US in '04? The TV news monopolies, acting in concert, melded the two numbers together--polluted the exit poll data (Kerry won) with Diebold's and ES&S's "official results" (Bush won), thus HIDING the information that Kerry won the exit polls from the American people!

The Germans have the right idea. Paper ballots, hand counted in public. Independent exit polls.

They have good reason to value their democracy, after what they went through. Are we going to have to go through the same thing before we value ours?

[Einsteinia]

54. JIM speaks (here's his latest that was just posted on the BBV)

Well, what you say is interesting. Here's what Jim said earlier tonight that may offer some helpful illumination:
=============================================
From Jim March - Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 9:30 p.m.:

Arright. There’s been a LOT of discussion of this and it’s time I spoke up for myself.

First point: NO FUNDRAISING IS INVOLVED HERE. I don’t need a “legal defense fund”. I’m not asking for money. Jim Hamilton helped out BIGTIME by loaning me $10k to make bail with (no bail bondsman, that’s the total amount) and then I’m paying him back tomorrow out of the $76k of Diebold money. After that you can bet I’ll make all court appearances and fight this tooth and nail.

Second point: felony charges are an interesting twist. Unexpected but not something I’m sweating. The extreme short form here is that they violated my basic civil right to observe the election (California Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A)) and in response I stopped “begging” to be allowed to observe the election and did so directly, by going through a “security door” to get closer. At which point I was (expectedly) grabbed, stuffed and cuffed.

We’ll get into details there later. For now I’ll be clear that I was unarmed (not even my usual pocketknife) and there was no violence planned or happened.

Third: this has been portrayed by some as a “publicity stunt”. Its damned well is NOT. Granted, media were present so yeah, once it became clear that MLKJr-style civil disobedience was going to be necessary, I made two reporters aware of what was going to happen. But the CORE reason for doing this is to establish our civil right to observe elections. Right now a lot of county election officials in California and across America don’t believe in that right; they are dead set on taking it away from us piece by piece as elections become electronic and increasingly “automated” – and you can take that last term as meaning “in the control of the vendors”.

I would have done the same thing with no reports present and this action can and will be a success even with no media coverage whatsoever (which isn’t what’s happening and PR *is* a nice side benefit).

OK, let’s go over the details.

First, last year I observed elections in San Joaquin County (’04 primaries) in which the right to observe the election was completely violated. There is a whole chapter on what happened there in this report to the California SecState’s office:

http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments6.pdf

As of two weeks ago, this is what I expected to see happen in San Diego. In preparation for a visit and possible protest against that sort of crime, I had the following two documents hand-delivered to the San Diego registrar’s office:

http://www.equalccw.com/openlettertosandiegoregistrar.pdf

http://www.equalccw.com/sscomments8.pdf

Then last week, the registrar (Haas) and his assistant (McNamara) tried to make it clear to local activists like Jim and Sher Hamilton that the process in San Diego would be much more open – that the monitors showing the central tabulator and it’s backup (both Diebold GEMS) would be visible “behind glass” to the viewing public doing observation.

Thus, I was pretty well convinced coming down from Sacramento that no “arrest protest” was going to be necessary. In fact, Tuesday AM I paid for my Amtrak tickets ROUND TRIP, return date Wednesday the 27th…not something I’d do if I planned to go down there to get jailed. (God, I hope I can get the date on those reset, otherwise I’m out $60, sigh.)

On the day of the election at 3:00pm, Jim Hamilton and I met with McNamara to discuss logistics of the night’s activities starting around 7:00pm and running pretty late into the night. First stop was to the “public viewing areas” and the “GEMS behind glass” observation post.

Houston, we have a problem.

The monitor was 8ft behind the glass.

Now we didn’t absolutely know for sure we had a problem – the screens weren’t showing active working displays and to the county’s credit they were 19” monitors. Much would depend first on the resolution they were set to (800x600 makes for a perfectly usable GEMS screen and probably could be read at that distance) and where the console operator’s head was gonna be (and for that matter how tall the guy was, how often he’d be there, where he stuck his head, etc.)

Jim Hamilton, McNamara and I then went to a cubicle.

We discussed the demand to have the GEMS screen viewable, and I explained that I didn’t care how it was made viewable – moving the screen closer to the window would do and at least establish the principle that they were trying. Using a projector to send the signal through the window to the wall behind would be better if they had a projector lying around; I also offered to make a run to Fry’s Electronics a couple miles away and purchase a video signal splitter to allow use of a second monitor up closer to the window.

All of these proposals to improve compliance with Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A) were flatly rejected. McNamara tried to characterize these requests as “coming on the day of the election” when in truth his boss Haas had had them for almost two weeks.

I then made a second request: an official (if hand-written at the scene) California Public Records Act Request for “snapshots” of the GEMS database taken shortly after poll close and another near midnight.

It’s not often I say good things about Diebold products. One of the few features I like is the ability to do “instant backups” of the database to the included CD-ROM burner without interfering with the election processing in any other way. It’s standard procedure for counties to do this throughout election night just for backup purposes in case something dies. Cutting extra backups (each of which fits easily on a CD-ROM would cost a few keystrokes time and about 20 cents a disk (and we brought a few blanks).

More “snapshots” would have been nicer but the two requested would at least have been a good start. And we don’t consider these just “public records” – THEY ALLOW MONITORING OF THE ELECTION ON OUR OWN SEPARATE COMPUTERS SUCH AS MY LAPTOP RIGHT THERE ON ELECTION NIGHT. This request is therefore an integrated component of the right to observe elections.

By 7:00pm, that request too had been flatly refused.

Make NO mistake folks, if any ONE of these requests had been honored in the slightest, I would have accepted that as precedent and dealt with the rest later.

As it was, with even a shifting of the table being refused as “inconvenient”, the stage was set for a confrontation not of my making, but theirs.

Once the election started up, it was clear that our concerns re: table location were valid and then some. The screen resolution was set to a miniscule 1280x1024 pixels, for ridiculously small text unreadable by any normal human at 8 feet.

Much else happened by the time it became clear that “refusing to go to the back of the bus” was going to be necessary. A set of unidentified “mystery terminals” were systematically plugged in one at a time to the GEMS box – optical scan units that were in unusual luggage were used to upload memory cards separate from the four units otherwise dedicated to that – combined with a lot of frantic typing and manipulation of GEMS. These “mystery terminals” were used one at a time as if to test them, and we have no idea what that was about.

We learned one REALLY interesting thing:

The GEMS box was connected to the Internet.

Oh, not directly! They had a set of “one way firewalls” allowing data to come out of GEMS onto the county LAN where it was served up on web pages. But get this. They didn’t set up these firewalls themselves. Rather, they paid SAIC to do it for them. For those not following along in extreme detail, SAIC is a software development and computer consulting house that does almost exclusively government contracts; their ties to military contracting are very well known…I’ll let others discuss that connection.

But in any case, San Diego has in my opinion turned it’s entire election security over to TWO different “black box vendors” – Diebold and SAIC. A security failure (accidental or deliberate) by either could leave their election integrity under threat.

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

Now let’s talk legalities.

California Elections Code 15204 requires county election officials to make “all proceedings” “open to the view of the public”.

---
15204. All proceedings at the central counting place, or counting
places, if applicable, shall be open to the view of the public but no
person, except one employed and designated for the purpose by the
elections official or his or her authorized deputy, shall touch any
ballot container.
---

Nowhere are the terms “view” or “observe” defined in this or any other law connected to the subject. But do note that this law is originally much older than electronic voting in general. It was later updated with:

---
Access to the area where electronic data processing equipment is being operated may be restricted to those persons authorized by the elections official.
---

San Diego and other counties appear to believe that the latter section SUPERCEDES and eliminates the former. Not hardly! It just means that if they go all-electronic, they have to use electronics to maintain viewing accessability! And this won’t cost much – a video signal splitter/booster is about $200, plus the use of an extra monitor for the night. Video projectors are another possibility; they’re expensive but the county probably has them laying around anyways and can press them into service for the night.

Now, this sort of thing where a government body is required to do something and doesn’t is common. You can take them to court of course, and depending on the IQ of the judge you may or may not get anywhere. Since it isn’t civil rights in question, a lawyer who tries to help out on the cheap will have to fight to get his fees back at a minimum and it’s not guaranteed. It’s a long, bitter mess.

BUT EC15204 has a companion piece: California Election Code 2300(a)(9)(A) gives us a basic civil right to observe elections:

---
2300(9)(A) You have the right to ask questions about election procedures and observe the elections process.
---
Now we’re no longer talking about “ho hum government requirements that often get ignored”. Now we’re talking about civil rights. And we’re in a whole ‘nuther realm of law. Violations of civil rights are punishable against bad government actors. Penalties can apply; in many cases lawyers can get triple attorney fees back on a win.

More: when this cross-connects with criminal law, one of the times when arresting you becomes a real problem is when it happens IN CONJUNCTION with a violation of your civil rights. Not only that: when you’re fighting a criminal charge, one of the arguments that a court cannot block is that you did a particular action in support of your civil rights.

And this, folks, is why their “felony charges” don’t scare me! The felony thing was decided upon by Haas and McNamara by the way, the cops initially thought this would be a “no big deal” infraction or misdemeanor bust until McNamara told ‘em to “go long”. I don’t know if they factored this in or not but the WORST thing they’re threatening me with is the lifetime loss of my firearms ownership rights…I’m a “gun nut”, remember?

Their probable plan is to try and plea me down to some nuisance charge to avoid the felony, but once I do that I can’t argue in any court (criminal or civil!) that they violated my civil rights. I go home with my tail between my legs, they get to keep running secret elections.

Well they picked the wrooooong guy to try and scare.

They’ve charged me with Elections Code 18502:

---
18502. Any person who in any manner interferes with the officers holding an election or conducting a canvass, or with the voters lawfully exercising their rights of voting at an election, as to prevent the election or canvass from being fairly held and lawfully conducted, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
---

Let’s get real: anybody here think that charge will stick? Remember that the GEMS server screen was 8 feet in past the doors or a hair over (the door was offset 3ft from the observation window), I made no attempt to touch any piece of gear whatsoever, I stopped on my own 4ft in, and I ended up “pausing the action in there” *maybe* a total of 2 or 3 seconds.

“Oh, but he distracted the officials!” Oooohhh, bad gun nut!”
Except that in other circumstances, I’m specifically ALLOWED to and did for up to five or ten minutes at a time asking questions pursuant to:

---
Elections Code 2300(B) You have the right to ask questions of the precinct board and
election officials regarding election procedures and to receive an
answer or be directed to the appropriate official for an answer.
However, if persistent questioning disrupts the execution of their
duties, the board or election officials may discontinue responding to
questions.
---

So…distract ‘em for 3 seconds tops in one room, it’s a felony…minutes at a time on the other side of the door, it’s a civil right?

Ah. Yeah. Let’s see what a SAN DIEGO jury makes of this, when they’re dealing with a guy who wants to monitor elections as per his civil right in a city where the last mayor was in office ONE DAY before being convicted of crimes, where the 2004 primaries were a total disaster, where the pension fund is basically a toxic superfund sight, where two city councilmen have been convicted and a third wasn’t only because he died first…need I go on?

I’ve said it to Diebold, I’ll say it to these clowns: bring it on. You picked this fight, not me. You don’t trample my civil rights without consequences.

The real trick will be to try and make those consequences happen before November, establishing the principle of open access to this stuff statewide. And that’s one area where criminal law helps: by not “waiving time” I can make “step one” (the criminal jury trial) happen in 45 days or less. An aquittal there will sting ‘em pretty good and at least help; after that comes the civil court fight and I’ll save a discussion of that for later.

But yeah, I got ‘em right where I want ‘em .

Jim March

[Carolab]

55. Excellent. Thank you very much for posting that.

Very illuminating indeed.

[merh]

61. Very illuminating indeed.

His lawyers would call it incriminating, but hey, whatever floats these folks boats.

He knew there would be a problem, he admits that, he admits to violating the law and he gives a motive beyond his "civil disobedience" for the cause, he says he wants the money and the notarity like Dr. King and Rosa Parks.

He should have used his lawyers to file for an injunction or TRO to stop the counting until the officials complied with the laws. Instead, he admits to breaking the law and discusses the riches and fame. :crazy:

Side show antics with no results. PT Barnum had nothing on this group.

[emlev]

57. Yes, thank you. We need to stay on top of this situation. n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

58. Soooo....

third: this has been portrayed by some as a "publicity stunt". Its damned well is NOT. Granted, media were present so yeah, once it became clear that MLKJr-style civil disobedience was going to be necessary,

Isn't the whole point of "civil disobedience" to publicize a situation?

Cutting extra backups (each of which fits easily on a CD-ROM would cost a few keystrokes time and about 20 cents a disk (and we brought a few blanks).

Yea, right. Those responsible for the election should allow the insertion EVERY partisans' CDs into the machine. Ever heard of autorun.inf?

Now let’s talk legalities. ...

Basically, if the Civil Rights claim in the criminal case is not upheld, his gun ownership is toast.

But yeah, I got ‘em right where I want ‘em .

Jus like the Qui Tam suit... Riiiiiiiiight. As if he planned their selection of charge, too. Good luck. Methinkz hez gunna need it.

[NC Beach Girl]

59. He is a typical freeper!

He is probably the biggest asshole I have ever had the displeasure of reading about. Have you ever in your life seen anyone with a bigger sense of self-importance? I truly love his comparison of himself to ROSA PARKS or MLK Jr! Yes, a 6'4" 300lb white freeper gun lobbyist walking through a security door after announcing he was going to cause a scene of civil disobedience for publicity is really brave and sooo much like Mrs. Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a bus during the racial turmoil of the 50s or the fight for civil rights led by Dr. King that followed. The gall there is so amazing that I feel it must have been a suggestion from Bev.

I can not believe anyone would support his asinine behavior here, especially since this idiot is a FREEPER. I am GLAD that when a stupid freeper pushed his way into an off-limits area during an election he was arrested, I'm sure if he hadn't been arrested BBV would be claiming security was lax and suing someone for that. I totally agree with merh that if BBV had really WANTED to do something they would have brought a LAWYER along instead of going for the drama.

Jim March is shilling for Bev, creating the publicity that she has been unable to generate for herself with her string of stories based on other people's work. This latest statement is the same kind of phony tough talk he demonstrated during the qui tam fiasco as well as several other lawsuits he has threatened to start. How many times did we read how Diebold was going to be shut down, or they were "going into discovery" so submit your questions now, or ole' Jim was going to be a millionaire...it all turned out to be crap and he has accomplished NOTHING for voting reform (especially in his own state of CA where he ensured that Diebold could not be tried again and the machines are still used).

I recently discovered that he has also threatened to sue Comedy Central before in a hilarious series of posts after he unwittingly appeared on a show making fun of him. That gun nut site is a gold mine of information about this civil rights "hero" straight from the idiot freeper's own mouth.
gun nut site: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=82620

The whiny "comedy central laughed at me" thing from his own site: http://www.equalccw.com/thedebateshowfiasco.html

his eerily familiar quote from that page

They messed with the wrooong dude on this one. I’ve got six lawyers I can claim as personal friends and more on an acquaintance basis. I cost the Million Mom March between $5mil and $8mil, I cost Diebold Elections Systems $45mil less than two months ago. They’re gonna PAY for this mess.

SIX lawyers as friends and not a one could accompany him to San Diego. Yep, he's just as heroic as Dr. King. :sarcasm:

[merh]

60. Why didn't he bring any of those six lawyers with him when he

was trying to make the county officials follow the law and allow him to watch the counting? If he had, they could have filed suit, got the court to issue a TRO halting the counting until they fully complied with the letter of the law. Instead, he is going for a personal injury, malicious prosecution lawsuit that will enrich him and HAVE NO IMPACT on anyones voting rights and the abuse of those rights.

He better get his lawyer friends to look at the web site and advise him that he has admitted to committing the crime that he is charged with.

.... and in response I stopped “begging” to be allowed to observe the election and did so directly, by going through a “security door” to get closer. At which point I was (expectedly) grabbed, stuffed and cuffed.

To the person that posted this, he may not be thanking you for posting this anywhere. Repeating and memorializing his admissions may not be helpful to him. If he has an attorney, I am sure the attorney will freak out that he made such admissions (with ulterior motives for money) and then shared them with the world on the internet.

This guy is an idiot who wants to make money at the expense of the efforts. If folks can't see that, then the election reform efforts are doomed.

[yowzayowzayowza]

63. FYI: IIRC,

March IS a lawyer.

[Boredtodeath]

64. No, he's not a lawyer

He's a fool.

A fool, BTW, who just made it more difficult for REAL election reform activists to monitor our elections.

A fool who just handed every elections official the ammunition to insist that the public be kept as far away from the process as possible.

A fool who insures every election official fights the public every step of the way because they see US ALL as the enemy.

[yowzayowzayowza]

76. Thx.

My faulty recollection stands corrected. That does not bode well for the number of gun toting days he has before him.

[merh]

65. He is a lawyer?

He violated the law rather than file pleadings asking the court to stop the count until they complied with the law?

Holy moly! Then he makes public admissions about his motives and the crime on a website.

Yeah, these folks are good for election reform. :sarcasm:

:crazy:

[Boredtodeath]

66. Not only is he NOT a lawyer

He can't even be qualified as an expert. He tried to testify in the Shelby County, TN election lawsuit brought by John Willingham as an expert and the judge wouldn't allow him to be qualified - he was asked to step down without giving ANY testimony.

Diebold had him laughed out of the courtroom with his BBV web site printouts.

[merh]

68. Okay, so he is not a lawyer.

But he still knows 6 lawyers, anyone of which he should have had with him to file for a TRO to stop the count until they did it right.

I am tired of the disruptive dramatics and am anxious for pro-active efforts to make a difference and to force officials to comply with existing laws and to create new laws that protect our voting rights.

[Boredtodeath]

70. So he says (6 lawyer friends)

But that's why he's on the BBV board, merh.........he's all hat and no cattle. Big mouth, willing to play to the press and unafraid to do great damage to this issue if and when the cameras are rolling.

IF he had any purpose other than that, he would have done exactly what you propose.

But his purpose is NOT election reform.

[merh]

72. I have to agree with you.

His purpose is NOT election reform.

What amazes me about those who profess to be "election reform advocates" is the little they really know about how elections are conducted. Their lack of practical knowledge and understanding of ALL issues involved in conducting an election is just amazing.

:eyes:

[Boredtodeath]

74. Actually....what's amazing is

Their desire NOT to understand ALL of the issues involved.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - pissing off the very people who hold the keys to the proof of stolen elections is an ass backwards strategy. Making these people our ENEMY instead of our allies is a self defeating strategy.

[Peace Patriot]

181. "the judge wouldn't allow him...."

"the judge wouldn't allow him...."

I've seen judges deny highly knowledgeable expertise in court, if it didn't suit the corrupt corporate or gov't viewpoint. The "expert" game is such a scam. The corporate rulers and gov't can buy all the Ph.D.'s they want, to say whatever they want them to say. But a citizen expert, who may be the only one who knows all the facts and the truth, gets excluded because of no degree (or no golf club connections). It's shit.

"Diebold had him laughed out of the courtroom..."

!@#$$ Diebold! Anybody ridiculed by Diebold gets Brownie points from me!

------

I hope you can understand what I said about Jim March having to be bad, bad, bad, every action bad, every motive bad, everything about him bad, bad, bad. Many of your arguments fall into this category--specious, non-arguments (like him getting ridiculed by Diebold--Diebold!)--that just say: Jim, bad, Jim, bad, Jim bad. Your credibility is falling through the floor. I distrust all your other points, and suspect YOU of bad motives.

[merh]

182. Did you read any of those links provided about Mr. March's

comments and his repuke voting patterns?

I agree with you about experts, they are a dime a dozen and if they have business cards and briefcases, folks accept them as really, really qualified. Jim March is not.

The true experts in all of this, the ones that most everyone neglects to rely on or even ask their opinions are the clerks/election officials that actually conduct elections. They are the ones that know what it takes to prepare for an election, conduct an election and count the results. They are the ones that know about the funding, manpower and time constraints involved. They are the ones that can tell you what is needed to conduct and election and what they need to help them conduct the elections.

March is no expert, he is just a man riding on the election reform band wagon. I have yet to see any results come from BBV, they are just selling their tonics and their cures and hoping that we don't notice that they haven't healed a thing, only exasperated matters.

:hi:

[FogerRox]

71. 85% of americans votes were counted by computer in 2004

[meganmonkey]

62. This thread is just....

Ugh. I don't know...I usually refrain from saying things like this, but I think this is exactly why we don't accomplish as much as we could. It boggles my mind.

:shrug:

[merh]

67. If we can expose the charlatans and make folks realize that

they are HURTING the election reform efforts (which I believe is their ultimate goal) then maybe we can get them out of the picture and prevent their disruptions.

IMHO, the folks at DU, in this forum, do more for election reform than folks like March could ever do.

[meganmonkey]

78. That's not really where I am coming from

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I just think this thread demonstrates the worst of DU, and we can do so much better. Everyone knows I am not a bbv.org apologist, so please don't accuse me of that. I just really think there is a better way to handle this conflict. I usually just ignore it and keep my mouth shut but I guess i am just frustrated.

[merh]

79. I will not apologize for holding BBV to the standards that they

supposedly maintain. I see their tactics as harmful to the election reform efforts and the undying support of some that have come here to post as sad. They have yet to show any results for the months of effort. They do nothing more than dramatize and sensationalize. I know of no proactive steps that they have taken to improve the election process. Heck, I have spoken to county clerks that think some of their people (I won't name the name, but you may know who) are loony.

I'm fighting to keep Diebold out of my state, that these people purport to be helpful in the effort and then come off as loons makes my struggles that much harder.

So right now, yeah, I have a personal interst in this and I will call the snake oil salesman on their claims of the cures and demand proof of the cure or at least some healing. I will not turn a blind eye and hope they just go away.

There is just too much at stake.

[kster]

80. KICK.NT

[rumpel]

101. Whatever it is, I think it is good, for the general public to have a

glimpse that their vote is not as secure as they think it is.

Elections fraud is quickly fading away from everyone's mind. Even here at the main DU forum. People do not realize that nothing anyone does will have a positive result unless we make changes to the corrupt voting system.
All the debate here at DU about who should run or we are going to vote for and where in 2006 or 2008 is neither here nor there.

People in this forum are more informed about this subject, but we have to realize that there are many also new DU'ers. Since I came on board it almost doubled in membership.
I believe this (election oversight) is the center, the heart of change. We may differ in how the change should be, but unless there is a change, * can be impeached, others can go to jail, but someone else from the same criminal group will replace him. They are so arrogant and blatant, because they know this. They already have secured every conceivabe sector and placed their minions in top positions.
We have an obligation to inform them all in order to get rid of this corruption. I believe Conyers may even be capable to connect all dots for all to see, if Fitz is the man they say he is. But again, at center stage is ridding the elction of this corruption.

As for freeps, how about suggesting having Soros or even a foreign investor purchase or do a hostile take over of the voting machine vendors. How about utilizing the * favorite:
Outsource vote counting to India or the Dominican Republic.
That would turn the tides the other way.

on edit adding: let BBV do their thing and others theirs. If it puts doubt about those machines in 10 more people it served the purpose.

[kster]

102. Hate Bev Harris and Jim March,support Paper Ballot Hand Counted

its the fastest way to put them out of business. VVPB keeps them in business. Corporate scanned ballot counts, keeps Bev and Jim working. If you really hate Bev and Jim you should not support VVPB.

Paper Ballots Hand Counted, and recorded by the people. Ban the corporate owned vote counting machines,NOW!

[troubleinwinter]

136. Your comment is absurd.

My support of voter verified paper ballots, with proper auditing, and random recounts, and non-support of 100% hand counts has nothing whatever to do with my (exceedingly low) opinion of Harris and March.

If we want verifiable elections, we need support from the county elections officials, and to stomp our feet like children and adamantly insist on 100% hand counts is shooting ourselves in the foot.

To suggest that because Harris is wrong on "100% hand counts" that I should abandon voter verified paper ballots is ridiculous. Why would you suggest such a thing?

"Now there are many people that say we should be all hand counted paper all the time. In an ideal world we would do that. But realistically that is not going to happen. Elections offices in most jurisdictions, if not all, are under funded. Elections officials struggle with tight budgets and in most cases do a damned good job with what they have. Not all elections officials are bad and many want to run good clean elections. Keeping the system honest is up to us. With proper auditing and truly random recounts, optical scans are the safest and most accurate way to count an election. The trouble starts when the votes are sent via electronic means to a central tabulator. I would also add that the tabulator needs to be as secure as Ft. Knox because after all, our votes are more precious than gold." ~ Andy Stephenson 4/29/2005

[kster]

137. Please, take a look at this

I do not want to fight my fellow DUer. http://www.iwilltryit.com/fixed1.htm

[troubleinwinter]

139. I am well aware of Mr. Clint Curtis' testimony,

sworn affidavit and many interviews. He is a patriot. I have never heard him speak of advocating 100% hand count.

You have not explained your comment "If you really hate Bev and Jim you should not support VVPB."

You appear to be pressing two ruinous options:

1) Support Bev, 100% hand count (which promises non-cooperation from elections officials)

2) If one isn't 100% Bev, then don't support VVPB.

I know a top election official who has worked very hard to keep Diebold out of our area and to retain paper ballots and random hand counts. She has seen Bev in action several times in venues where all of our state's elections officers were present. I am going to bend over backwards to be polite and circumspect and only say that Bev is harming the cause.

A person/persons who alienates election officials for her/his own self-aggrandizement, at cost of losing the support of those officials in ensuring verifiable elections, is a very big problem.

I find the suggestion that we "should not support VVPB" -unless we tow Bev's line- to be disturbing and suspect, considering that she has alienated most people who are serious, devoted activists on the issue.

[kster]

141. If you want to

use corporate vote counting machines which VVPB will do, It will keep Bev in business. Right? Its like if you hated Ray A. Kroc but you keep buying happy meals, Or Lee Iacocca and you keep buying Chryslers.

But thats really not important to me, in the Clint Curtis testimony he points out that all sides have to be able to see the source code in order to secure the voting machines,that to date has not been done.

We know way to much at this point to give in, at minimal we should fight for all sides to be able to see the source code, before during and after an election first, then VVPB could be possible.

Right now we are "locked up" in our own country, on election 2004 we have book after book, whistle blowers, hundreds of web sites ,exit polls so far off its unbelievable and we should deal with these crooks once again, because they might get mad and not give us nothing.

No I say go for the Gusto! But thats just me.

[merh]

142. Do you know how opti-scanners work?

I'm just curious. You speak with such conviction. Please explain to me how they work.

[kster]

146. No can do

I'd be like the Cops,I can only investigate the crime.

Same as the Cops that are investigating a computer drug operation,they watch the operation follow up on tips, start up their computers and watch the operation happen via the internet, track the guys down to the location of the operation confiscate the computers and bring the computers to the Police Station and find out that not one of them knows how to look at the inner workings of the computers. That would be me.

The case would rely on good old fashion police work and experts in the computer field. You wouldn't expect that every cop investigating the case would have to be a computer whiz in order to make the case, would you?

[Boredtodeath]

147. For computer crime

You wouldn't expect that every cop investigating the case would have to be a computer whiz in order to make the case, would you?

Hell, YES! You can't possibly be an "investigator" of computer crime if you don't understand how the crime can be comitted!

Your response just shows you are here for nothing more than agitation! You haven't a clue what you are talking about and simply run into the room (thread) shouting "Hand Counted Paper Ballots Now!" to cause disruption and irritation.

[kster]

151. I think

someone is a disruptor. What should I do?

Click the "Alert" link on one of their posts and politely explain to the moderators why you think a person is a disruptor. Do not post a message publicly accusing that person of being a disruptor.

Oh what the hell its only a DU rule, we don't need no sticking rules.

[merh]

150. It is a shame that you don't know how the optical scanners work

yet you have the "know how" to swear they don't work. Do you realize that there are more than one model of optical scan devices in use and on the market today?

Do you know the difference between optical scan devices and the touch screens?

And yes, if a cop is investigating computer crimes, he has computer "know how". If he didn't he would be laughed out of the prosecutor's office, not to mention a court of law.

:hi:

[kster]

152. That smiley

guy waving Cracks Me Up. Stop it already.

[merh]

153. Seriously,

If you would like the email of a clerk that has used opti-scanners for the last 6 years, I will gladly provide you with the information. Then you can take the time to asked informed, pointed questions of the clerk and ask the clerk why hand counts would be a step backwards that the clerk is not willing to take.

;-)

[kster]

154. The hardest thing

for me to get beyond with VVPB is they will not let the experts look at the voting machines. Not every one knows about the inner workings of the voting machines,the problem is they won't let the experts look at the machines.

You can't possible know everything, thats why when you go to buy a used car you generally bring a mechanic with you, or if you are buying a house you bring a home inspector with you,and when you are buying voting machines you should bring a voting machine expert with you.

If any of the three examples above doesn't allow your expert to look before you buy, that would be a red flag not to buy.

I appreciate the offer of the e-mail and I may take you up on it some day, but right now I read what the DU, Conyers and Fritakus has to say, these two guys don't skip a beat.

[merh]

155. But see, you are wrong about that.

At least in my neck of the world. You have focused on the "troubled" states and have not taken the time to find out what the other states do and/or don't do.

The first step to election reform is to embrace the folks that have been doing this for years, with little recogination or respect. Go to the clerks in the large counties in your state, talk to them, ask them how they do things, ask them how they would improve things, ask them about inspection of the machines. Then go from there. If legislation needs to be written that provides for the inspection of the machines by independent 3rd parties, then write that legislation or sit with the clerk and ask them to help you write it.

You would be amazed at how the clerks want to help, want to improve things, want fair and impartial elections, without fraud, without fuss.

I am talking about existing systems in counties that have worked, that have had fair and honest elections. I'm talking about recognizing the practical aspects of elections and what is required to run one. If you don't know that, if you don't embrace the folks responsible, then you are just creating more crap laws (like HAVA) that do nothing to improve the election process.

Relying on others expertise leaves you ignorant and gives them power over your own thought process. Find out for yourself. Then incorporate what you learn in your efforts.

[kster]

160. Wrong about what

you would buy a car if the guy that was selling it, wouldn't let your mechanic look at it first?

[merh]

161. Are you just being obtuse?

In my area, the clerks are allowed to know the machines, we have IP folks on staff to help with the operations of the equipment. If you think that everytime an election occurs the manufacture sends a representative at their own expense or that the county pays for the rep to be on site, you have a whole lot to learn.

Your statements are not the gospel, just because you make them and/or just because you read them in some report. Experts are a dime a dozen, as any plaintiff's lawyer or defense lawyer.

I can find all sorts of folks all around the country to make findings and to write the reports I want (as Diebold is known to do given they have been putting out the false information that opti-scans are 24% inaccurate). Go to the people that run the elections, ask them the questions, ask them about security, how they audit, how they care for the machines, how they prepare for elections. Then maybe you will realize that the information you have been relying on is not necessary correct or complete.

;-)

[kster]

162. You are being obtuse

if you were to buy a car, a house or a voting machine without your own expert looking at it and giving you advice on it.

[merh]

164. Yes, and that happens in this nation.

That you don't realize that again shows your ignorance.

Damn, don't you understand, you don't know all that goes on. Try to take the time to learn. Just a simple suggestion.

[Carolab]

157. Hand counts appear to be "out of reach" at this stage, so...

I think the CRITICAL issue is to find out how to improve SECURITY. I wonder what the clerks could share that would shed light on the "loopholes" there.

[merh]

158. There you go, that's the ticket.

We need to go to them as the "experts" we don't need to tell them what a bunch of eggheads have to say about how they should do their jobs. We need to ask them what they need. We are stuck with HAVA because no one really bothered to ask the folks that are responsible. Secretaries of States are like figure heads, they take the glory for what the clerks really do when it comes to voting.

We need the clerks on our side. We need to be working for them, to help them get the funds they need and the help they need to make elections more secure.

[Peace Patriot]

177. Ah, there's that word of yours again, merh--"experts."

Let's see. You dismiss investigative reporter Lynn Landes, a representative of the Fourth Estate who has been studying election systems for several decades and has made it her specialty as a journalist, as "not an expert." You would leave her out of the picture--and, instead, you would have us approach election officials more worshipfully--THEY are "the experts"--and you say also that we shouldn't tell them "what a bunch of eggheads have to say about" it. No "eggheads," huh?

Back up a minute, though. You said Lynn Landes is "not an expert." Meaning? You would deign to read her and consider her views if she WAS "an expert"? What would an "expert" be? Say, a Ph.D. in computer systems? But no, that's an "egghead." And we mustn't harass our royal election officials with any "egghead" opinions.

Who does that leave? Or, I guess I should say, where does that leave us? Let's see. That leaves just us dumb peon citizens who are "not experts," who haven't a clue how our votes are counted, with no backup from an investigative reporter who has expertise in election systems, nor any silly old "egghead" Ph.D.'s with expertise in computers, approaching our election officials on bended knee, asking no questions, but rather, asking them how much money we can get the taxpayers to give them, and even "working for them"--working for these salaried, benefited government employees--for no pay, I presume, doing their little shit work for them, and writing letters to our legislators to just get them money, okay? They need more money NOW. And we don't care what they buy with it. Any computer will do--and the shinier and the prettier the better. THEY know. THEY'RE the "experts." We trust them. And we don't bother our ditzy little heads with any of the details. We KNOW they do a good job and count everybody's votes, because they TOLD us so.

So here's the sum of your position:

1. Investigative reporter excluded because "she's not an expert."

2. Experts ("eggheads"; Ph.D.'s) excluded because our election officials shouldn't be bothered with their opinions.

3. Citizens permitted if they don't ask questions, and don't bring any investigative reporters, and don't bring any Ph.D.'s in computing, but just agree to lobby for more and more and more and more money for expensive, shiny, new computer voting machines, and long term servicing contracts, and anything else the election officials' hearts desire--say, a trip to Hollywood for a week-long stay at Beverly Hilton with Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia--and we should help out and volunteer in case they get overworked.

-------

merh, I really wonder if you understand the basic premises of democracy. We have a RIGHT to understand every step, every nuance, every decision in how our votes are handled and counted, every step of the way. No secrets of any kind. No "trade secret," proprietary programming code that no one can see but private Republican partisans. No votes disappearing into the electronic ether never to be seen again. No closed doors. No refusal of document requests. No computers turned away from the public. No surly clerks and registrars who consider the public to be adversaries. Election officials are OUR employees. WE pay THEM. And there is NOTHING more important to us than what they do with our votes.

Election officials are not working for a private corporation. They are working for US. And WE will tell THEM what WE want answered. And they will answer OUR experts and investigators.

That's the way it is. Read the Constitution!

I would never treat a government employee rudely, even one who was harming me. And I certainly hold the value of respectful, humane and friendly treatment of all persons. But I have had it with this attitude that voters are INTRUDING on our own election system! That we have to kneel before OUR election officials, and blindly TRUST officials with our most precious birthright--our right to vote--and not get them upset with investigations and experts. Respectful and friendly, yes. Silent and blindly trustful, never! Never! You might as well tell me that I don't have the right to question my child's surgeon before an operation, and don't have the right to a second opinion, or a third.

That's how precious it is. Your position is absurd--that Lynn Landes is not an expert, and no "eggheads" are allowed.

[claudiajean]

178. Actually, I am the one...

...that has stated that Lynn Landes is a journalist, not an election administration expert, and I stand by that assessment. Lynn Landes has never administered an election, and some of her writings make mistaken assumptions from which she draws mistaken conclusions that demonstrate this missing link in her knowledge.

I don't believe at any point in this conversation has merh said that we, as voters, do not have a right to ask questions, view public documents, observe tabulation processes, testify at public meetings, or any other activity you have identified. I don't see where you draw this conclusion from.

And the fact that you would characterize merh's simple advocacy of approaching each election office with an open mind until and unless they have shown themselves to be problematic, and of EDUCATING themselves about the basics of election administration before assuming hard and fast positions about reform is characteristic of the problem that is currently causing the election reform movement to go nowhere.

The pervasive problems with the current election reform movement are simple and found over and over:

1) Many activists hear about a problem elsewhere, and assume that their home jurisdiction or all jurisdictions have the same problem. Just not so. There are different problems in different jurisdictions and many jurisdictions with no ongoing problems.

2) Many activists assume all election officials are evil or corrupt. Absolutely not so. That VAST majority of election officials take their jobs very seriously and are very responsive to the public and their other stakeholders.

3) For every rare corrupt election official, there is another election official elsewhere in America risking everything - their job, their reputation, their livelihood, to advocate for election reform from the most effective positions possible - that of insiders.

4) Many current reform activists are not taking the time to educate themselves about how an election is actually administered, and make many mistaken assumptions, which leads to ineffective advocacy, as solutions are promoted that range from simply unworkable to defying the laws of physics.

Ill-informed advocacy is as dangerous than complacency, as the election reform movemnet is set back several steps each and every time a poorly informed activist advocates impossible "solutions" in the name of "reform".

[merh]

185. Lynn Landers did not make the findings, she uses the findings of

others support her conclusions. There are just as many "experts" that have made findings contrary to those used by Landes. I pointed out one such expert above that was mistakenly used as an expert that supports "hand counts only".

The true "experts" are the folks that run the elections. I'll ask you a very simple question. Do you know everything that is involved in running elections?

:hi:

[kster]

163. Paper Ballots only take

a few days to print, keep pushing the truth, and the people will stand up and insist on Paper Ballots Hand Counted. My mailing list is ready to ban the machines. NGU...........

[merh]

165. Then you are fighting a losing battle.

If you don't pay attention to the needs of the clerks and the practical considerations regarding what it takes to conduct an election, you are doomed.

Printing of the ballots is not the only thing that must be done before an election. Why don't you take the time to find out what all is involved. And a few days to print ballots but thousands of hours to hand count given the size of the county and the number of races on the ballot, so who the hell cares about the number of days to print a ballot. You haven't a clue about what it takes to conduct an election and you refuse to learn. Your stubbornness harms the election reform efforts, which may be what you intend given your refusal to try to find out the truth and your constant, childish foot stomping "hand counts only".

If you aren't in a position to be helpful, step aside, you are getting in the way.

[kster]

166. Sight unseen

RAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna today has some stunning revelations -- based on a newly obtained memo from a Blackwell investigation -- in what is likely just the first salvo exposing Ms. Noe's personal role in this growing GOP cancer.

In her dual role as chairman of the Lucas County, OH Republican Party and the Lucas County Board of Elections, it now appears that Ms. Noe was one of the key players in the Ohio Republican Party's proven gaming/likely theft of the 2004 Presidential Election in the state via her BoE's "gross failures" to secure ballots, voting machines and the manipulation of the Green/Liberatarian-requested recount which followed the election.

And yes, at least one Diebold employee was present on the scene throughout all of the shenanigans.

Ms. Noe was an advocate of Diebold’s optical scan software as chair of the Lucas County Board of Elections. In April 2004, she and another fellow Republican board member voted to approve a $350,000 contract with Diebold to lease machines for the election. The county was forced the lease the equipment after a deadlock and a rebuke from Blackwell.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x386834

Its fine if you like to buy voting machines sight unseen, but you shouldn't try to talk other people in to doing it. If they wont let your expert look at the voting machine first you shouldn't buy it. Look at the corruption around these machines.

[merh]

167. This article just proves that you have to get to know your clerks.

You have to work with them and make sure they understand all of the problems and you have to appreciate their obligations.

My clerk didn't buy any machines sight unseen. I don't believe that every clerk in the nation buys them sight unseen. I believe Ohio was the bad state and Lucas County the bad county.

I never said that anyone should buy the machines sight unseen. I am not even advocating Diebold opti-scan machines. I am saying that all opti-scans are bad. IT IS YOU that is using generalizations to reach flawed conclusions. You have condemned all clerks because of the failings of a few. And what is worse, you don't even know what the clerks have to deal with.

Your conclusions are harmful to the election reform efforts. Why not try to get legislation written and passed that does not allow machines to be purchased sight unseen? WHY NOT BE PRACTICAL instead of judging all of the apples rotten because of a few bad apples.

Are you too lazy to do what I have suggested? Is it too much work to try to find out the practical aspects of conducting elections and all that goes into running an election? Is it too hard to call upon the clerks in all of the large counties in your state and ask them how they feel about hand counts.

Try to learn about things as they actually work. Stop basing your decision and your efforts on the few articles and reports you have read. Bottom line, if you tried to base your conclusions on the limited information in a court of law, you would lose your court case.

[kster]

168. Finally you agree with me "I am saying that all opti-scans are bad."

"I never said that anyone should buy the machines sight unseen. I am not even advocating Diebold opti-scan machines. I am saying that all opti-scans are bad. IT IS YOU that is using generalizations to reach flawed conclusions. You have condemned all clerks because of the failings of a few. And what is worse, you don't even know what the clerks have to deal with."


After reading that article I would also distance myself from that particular optiscan company,if I were pushing VVPB.

I know, I know get to know the clerks, harmful, lazy, blah, blah, blah.

[merh]

169. Typo because of the late night typing

OPTI-SCANS ARE NOT BAD, not all of them - Do so actual work on the issues, don't be lazy and just push the writings of others. FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF - broaden your horizons, fill your brain with more than someone else's thoughts.

Gosh, have you not an original thought of your own?

[kster]

170. This kind of talk

cannot be good for the DUers that do get all their information from reading articles on the net.

We have to keep those DUers in mind. You want VVPB I want PBHC.

With that I call a truce :thumbsup:

[merh]

171. What you can't accept a simple challenge?

Go learn the truth, get the practical knowledge necessary to make a legitimate determination. I have offered you the clerk's email address, you can go visit the clerk of your largest county. FIND OUT THE TRUTH, if DUers think that the information found on the internet is all they should base their beliefs or their actions on, then they need to be awaken to a thing called "real life" or the "real world".

LEARN SOMETHING FOR GOD'S SAKE - I will not call a truce because you are promoting the wrong thing and in so promoting you are hurting my efforts to get actual reforms in place. That you fail to even consider the practical aspects of elections proves you don't care about election reform.

[Carolab]

140. BradBlog Radio interviewed Jim March today

As well as Coleen Rowley (FBI 9/11 whistleblower running for Congress here in Minnesota).

Anyone catch it?

[garybeck]

149. archives are usually up by tuesday. n/t

[Einsteinia]

172. ALL CHARGES DROPPED TODAY

Just heard the word; however, I do hope that Jim sues in retaliation for this travesty of justice.