Tom Delay and the voting machines

[Cocoa]

I wonder why Delay would even bother taking such a huge risk to gain an advantage in the elections, when he could have simply hacked the votes.

:shrug:

[Boredtodeath]

1. Just proves

Republicans can't resist using every means possible to stay in power.

Why stop at one method when you have a smorgasboard of options?

[Cocoa]

2. because "nothing matters" due to the voting machines

therefore spending energy and money on traditional politics would seem to be a waste of time. A very frequent assertion by BBVers.

Let alone the enormous risks Delay took.

Unless Delay is out of the BBV loop, maybe someone should email him a link to Bev's site.

[Boredtodeath]

4. Yes, Cocoa...we got your sarcasm

It just wasn't funny or pertinent to anything.

[Time for change]

9. Hardly anyone who believes that the 2004 election was stolen

thinks that all other political issues should be put on hold. Certainly you must know that.

[Cocoa]

16. "nothing else matters" is a major BBV theme

for you to deny it is ridiculous.

They very often state it explicitly, and even more often they imply it with their spam tactics on the Internet, for example by abusing DU's "greatest" feature.

When BBVers reflexively "kick and nominate" every shitty BBV thread they see, they are saying that even the shittiest thread about their issue is more important than the well-thought-out thread which people actually voted for.

[Time for change]

17. Well, I've never come across a single post on DU that made a statement

like that.

I'm sure that some people have said it, but if I haven't seen one with all the time that I've spent on DU, I assume that such statements must be rather rare.

[Cocoa]

18. here's one

this was just yesterday, and it's just another in a long, long list of similar repetitions of the same message, "nothing else matters."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4926657

[Time for change]

19. Ok, you got me there -- sometimes some of us engage in hyperbole

Let's suppose that the best the Republicans can reasonably hope to achieve from election fraud is 8-12%? That puts us at a terrible disadvantage, but not insurmountable, given the fact of what the Republicans are offering.

Other issues are still important. But having the vote counting in Republican hands has to be a terrible disadvantage, and IMO makes election reform the most important issue facing us today, though not the only one.

[Cocoa]

21. repeated LIVE RIGHT NOW

on the Guy James show.

whoever James is talking to just said, seconds ago, "it doesn't matter if we have the right issues, or the right candidates, if we don't fix the voting machines."

he just said, as I'm typing, "nothing else matters." direct qoute.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. but... but... hang on...

Look, I've read some over-the-top electronic voting posts myself, but try reading Melodybe's post (and hearing this statement) a bit differently.

Roughly: if Democrats don't save elections, then nothing else they do will matter.

Sorta like Time for change's sig.

Melodybe has a link to the Downing Street Memo in her sig, so it doesn't seem likely that she thinks BBV is the only issue that matters.

Activist debates about priorities are frustrating enough without actually overstating them, which seems to be a danger here.

[Cocoa]

23. the hyperbole is wielded in a very destructive way

someone posts something positive about a promising candidate, take Paul Hackett for a recent example, the BBVers butt in with "it's hopeless! The voting machines!"

someone posts something damaging about a republican, the bbvers come to the republican's rescue by saying the republicans are indestructable, it's no use fighting them, because of the voting machines.

[Time for change]

24. What I say when an occasional DUer criticizes me for spending too much

time "rehashing" the 2004 election:

This is an extremely important issue. We have to do what we can to get to the bottom of it. To figure out as best we can what happened in 2004, so that we are better able to take steps to prevent it from happening again. We don't ALL have to do that. Just some of us.

As far as paying attention to other issues, I'm very greatful that there are lots of people who are doing that. And not-withstanding some occasional hyperbole on this issue, I don't doubt that virtually all Democrats are grateful that many of us are working on other issues.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. OK, I won't defend defeatist hyperbole --

and I've seen it, too. Was Melodybe's post an example? I'm not convinced. But I'm not trying to quarrel with you about that. I'm just saying... sometimes when you've seen enough lousy arguments about, say, exit polls, you might start to assume that every argument about exit polls will be equally lousy, when they actually aren't. I dunno, maybe that's a crazy example. ;)

I figure that people who think that electronic voting isn't getting nearly enough attention are not all monomaniacal BBVers. (Just as people who think the exit polls aren't getting enough attention -- whether they are right or wrong -- aren't all True Believers, and people who think the exit polls are getting way too much attention aren't all freepers.)

As for the actual monomaniacal BBVers -- well, carry on.

[Time for change]

26. Good point OTOH -- I didn't catch that

[petgoat]

62. The reason electoral integrity is Job One, Cocoa, is because

when the election is stolen, you lose two ways: your candidate doesn't
get the office and the one who does gets to say "the American people
have rejected your program. You need to change your agenda." And maybe
you or some other people actually believe that's true.

Thus losing to a rigged game is not just a lack of stepping forward
(like losing an honest game would be); losing to a rigged game is
stepping backward.

[petgoat]

65. For another analogy, losing in a rigged game is like a football game

where the other team fouls and fouls and fouls.

Tolerating this unsportsmanlike conduct is not good sportsmanship
because it simply allows the cheaters to go on an inflict their
cheating on other teams.

[garybeck]

3. answer

Let's not forget, there is money involved in these voting machines. we've seen some of the evidence uncovered but not all of it. Diebold is evidently spending MILLIONS on lobbying to get their machines in. Where is all that money coming from?

And where is the millions paid to Sproul for setting up the fraudulent voter registration drives?

Who paid the Texas strike force folks to fly up to Ohio and make those phone calls?

do you think people put white stickers on the ballots in ohio for free? Someone probably got paid, don't you think?

Who paid all those "challengers" at the polls?

I would BET that some of the money involved in this Delay scandal went towards getting him (s)elected, but it wasn't spent on buying TV ads.

[Febble]

5. Because the votes weren't hacked?

(duck....)

[FogerRox]

6. Febble--- LOL_ LOL

* Roj wads up a sheet of paper and throws it right at Febbles head*
*Febble ducks*

Of course the conventionial wisdom would be that they had to keep the "HACK" secret. Loose Lips and such. Additionally it might "appear" foolish to hack the vote in such a way that appears to point to hacking. And why rely on hacking? Use suppression, voting machine disbursment, etc.

But then--- on the other hand---- (LOL)

Why would all these DREs be designed with a front end and a back end, like an accountant having 2 sets of books.

Why would DREs be designed to facilitate the inside hack, and actually marginally emplace some security to confront the outside hack.

Diebold ATMs use reciepts and open source code software. The Banking Industry demands it. All DREs except the Accupol DRE uses proprietary sotyware, and untill recently the concept of a reciept was foriegn.

The Appearance of Impropriety quite often points to the scene of a crime. Most Americans don't trust computerized voting, Most Americans think the shooting of JFK was an inside job.

But on the other hand it could be the vote wasn't hacked-- or it could be that the hack was very minor, that hacking played just a bit role.

[Febble]

8. Appearance of Impropriety

does indeed point to the scene of a crime, and there's plenty of impropriety around here.

It's just that faced with evidence of a chainsaw massacre, you don't immediately suspect secret untraceable poison as the MO, even if the ingredients were clearly available.

[FogerRox]

10. faced with evidence of a chainsaw massacre

yup-- but it works both ways. The similarites between banking and voting are clear enough-- that the Computerized equipment used in said systems are so divergent from a hardware point, why would an entire industry, owned by repubs use a hardware system that appears to be counter intuitive?.

Maybe we should test the chainsaw for poison--- eh-- what ya think?


*Roj wads up more paper and throws the paper wads at Febble, and then ducks behind his desk*

[Febble]

11. By all means

That chainsaw stinks.

[garybeck]

14. yeah, right

can you prove they weren't hacked? when the votes are counted in secret there is nothing whatsoever to back up any kind of theory that the win was legitimate.

[Febble]

33. No.

I can't. And that's what is outrageous. That no-one can prove they weren't hacked. And even if they weren't hacked this time you won't know that they won't be hacked next time, unless the problem is fixed. I know that people think that hand-counted paper ballots are an unrealistic goal for America, but it works fine here (UK) also Canada and Australia.

But from reading the evidence I think there is more support for electoral injustice in the form of voter suppression, unequal spoilage rates (which I still think cost Kerry NM, so I was really interested in your post - did you follow my link? I think my study may be one of the ones they refer to on their website, but I'd love to know more about the progress of the lawsuit).

However, I do think there are some key bits of evidence against massive vote-switching as an explanation for the exit poll discrepancy. I just don't find that reassuring - if the machines are hackable they will probably be hacked, eventually, if not last time.

[kster]

27. The votes weren't hacked

OK, Just Got to make sure we are on common ground.

1)Does any of your kids have the possibility of being drafted due to the corrupt voting machine companies picking our government?

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. you take "common ground" too literally, perhaps?

kster, if you've read many of Febble's posts, you should know that she is more vigorously committed to fair and transparent U.S. elections than most Americans are. (Or else she is making that up, in which case I guess she could be making anything up. Her sig says she's a UK citizen, but who knows?)

Check out the serious (but also funny), civil back-and-forth between fogerrox and Febble. It's possible.

[Cocoa]

30. that's a tough one

it's hard to pinpoint which category of fallacy your comment falls into.

It's clearly a fallacy of relevance, but which specific type? An appeal to emotion -- associating voting machines with the negative emotions surrounding war? An ad hominem -- associating dissenters to BBV with war supporters? An appeal to fear -- sending a fearful message to parents?

I'm stumped.

[Febble]

31. Yes, possibly

but he's only eleven, and I hope the UK does not introduce the draft. Because I do believe that if Kerry had won, Blair would have pulled out UK troops of Iraq.

I dearly wish that Kerry was your president. It's why I got involved. I hoped to be able to prove that he was your choice. I still hope that my work on Ohio and NM may help bring some prosecutions. Garybeck's news on NM is cheering.

However, my current reading of the evidence is that if Kerry lost because of electoral corruption it was likely to have been primarily do to voter suppression in Ohio (and possibly in New Mexico) rather than vote-switching machine fraud. I can cite my reasons for this reading if you are interested. I don't think the evidence is strong that the exit poll discrepancy was due to fraud. However, that does not rule it out - it just says that it wasn't the primary cause of the exit poll discrepancy.

I also think that the secrecy and insecurity of your voting system outrageous, and that it is vital to fix it, if for no other reason than to ensure that in future elections you actually know who won. With 2004 neither you, nor I, can be sure. It shouldn't have to take statistics to find out.

[kster]

39. Mine is

twelve (BRAG) he had two interceptions that he took in for touchdowns yesterday (END BRAGGING).

But if there are millions in this country that believe the election was rigged by the vote stealing machines are we not entitled to force the companies that make the machine's prove that they weren't, and if they don't, we should get rid of all the vote stealing machines all together.

If the companies refuse to prove that the election was not rigged, the US Like the UK should ban the machines,and go back to Paper ballots hand counted,for all future US elections.



:hide:

[Febble]

41. Yeah! except that being a Brit

I'm not sure what an interception or a touchdown is....

Sounds great.

OK. Yes to your other points too.

But I would make your first point stronger: you don't simply have the right to force the companies to prove that the election was not rigged; IMO you have the right to force the companies to prove that the election COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RIGGED.

And they almost certainly won't be able to. To put it another way, I don't think your case against the vendors actually depends on whether it was rigged or not - your best case is that it could have been, and that as a result, millions of Americans have no way of knowing whether their president was legitimately elected. Actually, none of them can be sure - but some of them are smart enough to know that they can't be sure ;).

And yes, I'd advocate hand-counted paper ballots. I know some people think this is an impractical goal. But it works for us, and we have to have our new government installed the next day, not two months later. And although we may be small in area, there are nearly 60 million of us.

[Ellipsis]

43. BINGO!

Well stated!!

''...you have the right to force the companies to prove that the election COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RIGGED." The key.

[Time for change]

7. Suppose they can only gain about a 6% advantage by hacking the vote

[Land Shark]

12. C'MON GUYS, just because elections are hackable doesn't mean

that they NO LONGER GO TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. Plus Delay is not capable of doing it himself, personally.

Hypothetically, some programmer within Lie-Bold knows how to "do the job" and turn on the "sexy" parts of the Lie-Bold program Grand Theft Democracy. Is this free???? It's an auction process. Programmer may even get a bid from the competing democratic candidate to sweeten the pot.

In fact, the right simply to count the votes electronically and therefore IN SECRET is so valuable we should not be paying for these machines but AUCTIONING THE RIGHT OFF. In some states, maximizing return on the public assets may dictate an auction on the transparent elections previously enjoyed in many jurisdictions.

Plus one must not only change an election but IT MUST BE BELIEVABLE. You still need a lot of money to get into the range where a victory won't get any elections' officials investigating.

The whole premise of this hypothetical (money no longer needed) is mistaken.

[garybeck]

13. YES, the point is that it takes money to steal an election,

just like it takes money to win one 'legitimately'. see my reply titled "answer" above. Diebold, Sproul, Texas Strike Force, ... Do you think they all did it from the goodness of their hearts? It probably is even more expensive to steal an election.

[Land Shark]

15. Agreed. Elections are valuable, controllers will sell them for big $$

[Joanne98]

20. Stealing a little is BETTER!

[Bill Bored]

28. Cocoa, I know you're not a "fan" of the e-voting problem but

First, if there were ANY paper trails verified by voters, and there were ANY random independent auditing of those paper ballots or trails, then turnout and the closeness of the election becomes key. This is because if you can audit even a small percentage of the machines, you are more likely to find a corrupt count large enough to reverse the outcome of an election if that outcome was in actuality, a landslide.

In other words, close elections are easier to reverse fraudulently than landslides, but this is ONLY true if you have SOME form of verification and SOME form of auditing. Texas, as I understand it, has neither.

So sure, traditional voting rights activism and DeLay's gerrymandering are very important. Voting rights is a moral imperative and DeLay added Repuke seats to Congress by redrawing districts 8 years ahead of schedule! Hacking might not do so efficiently. It works better with close races. But if you redraw your districts, then your elections aren't close to begin with.

But the fact is that without the basic ability to audit the count independently and to do recounts, there is no basis for confidence in the system no matter how many Democrats you can get to the polls.

Again, once you can audit the election independently, getting out the vote is the key, so we really should be working on both fronts. But we ignore the lack of independent audits at our peril.

And another thing: If the TX legislature had a Dem majority, DeLay's redistricting could not have taken place. How do we know that THOSE races weren't hacked?

[Cocoa]

32. more of the "rare" hyperbole

another "occasional DUer" repeats the meme

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4949954

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. let's compare notes here

(or not -- whatever)

This post (the one to which you linked) doesn't seem to say that BBV is the only issue that matters, per se. But it does seem to imply that the Democrats are bound to lose unless the country immediately adopts paper ballots, hand counted. And probably the writer further means that 2004 was stolen, and 2006 is bound to be stolen in the same way unless, etc. etc.

My problem with this claim isn't that it ignores other issues -- it's that I don't believe it. I didn't even think of it as hyperbole (I figured it was just wrong). But I guess there could be lots of hyperbole wrapped up in there, about how widely DREs (??) are used, and/or how much evidence there is of fraud.

If your view is that there are problems with electronic voting, but this kind of message blows the problems way out of proportion -- well, (1) yeah, from that vantage the message is hyperbolic, and (2) that's my view. I'm not sold on Paper Ballots Hand-Counted at all; I think op-scan with random recounts would be pretty darn good. I don't like DREs, but I don't think they stole the 2004 election. (And so on.)

[Cocoa]

35. the post I linked to says everything and nothing

I've seen enough of these identical empty fearmongering posts to know that it's a waste to try to put any thought into figuring out what they're "saying." I think it's actually hyperbole to call it a "claim", as you do.

I do have views about electronic voting and voting in general, but I gave up long ago to try to discuss them on the Internet. The BBVers have been incredibly successful at making it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about voting. It seems possible to me that this is intentional.

One thing they seem to be trying to do, but have failed to do, is to make discussion of ANYTHING impossible. They have failed in large part because DU wisely restricted BBV discussion to this forum only, though they make occasional forays into Greater DU.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. grin of recognition

"...incredibly successful at making it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about voting..... One thing they seem to be trying to do, but have failed to do, is to make discussion of ANYTHING impossible."

We are blood brothers, you and I. ;)

(But feel free to disown me.)

Yes, if the discussion forum isn't open to discussion, then, well, we don't have much to discuss.

[yowzayowzayowza]

45. The truth of the matter not withstanding...

"BBV" has unfortunately become synonymous with hyperbole and fostered some luddite attitudes that would be entertaining if they weren't so counterproductive.

[Land Shark]

56. there is a BBV organization but it is a small % of the movement

though they do speak out and lead to be sure.

And yet, the whole idea that you would tolerate electronic voting or not discuss your democracy and its elections (regardless of your view) is absurd. It's claiming that you've given up citizenship on account of a few people difficult to communicate with.

I encourage people to understand that there are people out there defending the integrity of democracy by trying to eliminate the secret vote counting inherent in electronic voting. Right or wrong, they're defending democracy from attack. (dictatorships often feature secret vote counting, or vote counting by the privileged only and not in public view)

One may believe they are out blueberry picking but if you cross into the air force base's excluded zone, don't be surprised if you get shot at. Right or wrong, I'm just explaining why some people might feel "shot at" so to speak.

[yowzayowzayowza]

60. Watz wrong is ...

allowing our feelings over being "shot at" to lead us to fore go blueberries entirely. Doubtless there are many demons lurking in the current crop of voting systems. That does not mean, however, there are ghosts in ALL the machines or that the ghosts that are there cannot be neutralized. Resorting to hand counts as the ONLY solution is a knee-jerk cop-out.

I've always found the negative connotation of "black box voting" misleading as real-time black box testing is ideally suited for verifying the integrity of the narrow range of input parameters in vote counting systems:

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

[eridani]

61. The world's most prominent computer security experts are Luddites?

Since when? They are the ones opposed to black box voting.

[yowzayowzayowza]

63. I have seen no computer expert...

successfully claim that an optiscan counting solution decoupled from tabulation and appropriately audited is in the same category as the DRE & automated tabulation garbage.

I've encountered no "prominent computer security experts" that oppose all mechanization. They do universally oppose data streams that are not well-defined, however.

[eridani]

64. None of them want mechanization of the tabulation process

--at least without very strict audit conditions. There is a definite role for mechanization in the user interface department, which is a vastly different thing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. OK, but you glossed over a big issue for us

When David Dill testified at Carter-Baker, he said, "Precinct-count optical scan voting, in which a voter marks a paper ballot that is counted by a machine in the polling place, is widely used, highly accurate, and much less costly than touch-screen voting."
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5987
And, of course (and crucially!), he also called for random auditing and other best practices. But he certainly wasn't calling for 100% hand counts.

On this board, the terms "e-voting" or "electronic voting" sometimes refer to paperless or unaudited voting, sometimes to anything other than Paper Ballots, Hand Counted. Check out the "prescription for fair elections" poll, where the choices basically range from "If they print (!) a paper trail, we're fine" to "Nothing short of 100% hand counted paper ballots" (71% of votes at this writing), but no distinction is made between DREs and op-scan. Which is appropriate if one only supports PBHC, I guess. But I don't know whether people are always aware that they are disagreeing with folks like Dill when they take that position. (The disagreement is fine, but it should be noticed!) I worry that the semantics of "electronic voting" are confusing us.

[yowzayowzayowza]

68. IMHO...

it would be helpful to repost as an independent discussion. Methinkz alot of well-meaning folkz do not understand the difference.

[Febble]

69. and IMHO

cost is an under-considered aspect - DREs cost Kerry votes (probably thousands)in Franklin County simply BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPENSIVE,and therefore rationed, never mind how many votes they switched, deleted, or invented.

Simple is good, because simple is cheap.

Voting should be as cheap, simple and accessible as fresh air and clean water.

[petgoat]

70. Cost is a factor

And as the DRE machines age, there will be pressure to continue using them even when they get flaky. It's a tough life--being trundled around to the precinct, set up, then trundled back to some warehouse.

[yowzayowzayowza]

72. and still missing the point.

DREs are GARBAGE. Simple optiscan counting devices with appropriate auditing and reporting are safe, fast, reliable and cost effective.

...as cheap, simple and accessible as fresh air and clean water.

Unfortunately in our population densities, the maintenance of fresh air and clean water is neither cheap nor simple. When that population meets the level of democracy we have enacted, some measure of mechanization is required.

[Febble]

73. No, I'm not missing the point!

Just making an additional point that is worth bearing in mind. Of the many, many advantages of PBHC (which we have in the UK) one is cost - we never have queues to vote, because all that needs to be supplied is a plywood both, a piece of paper and a pencil.

I agree that optiscans are probably the way for you guys to go, but not simply because they are paper ballots and are auditible, but because they are cheap, and less prone to spoilage. But that still won't solve all the voter-suppression problems which are still a major blight on US democracy.

[yowzayowzayowza]

74. My bad.

Misunderstood your context. :hi:

[Febble]

75. No problem!

:pals:

[Ellipsis]

76. Aww... and don't forget 120 votes per DRE per 12 hour day

Foger "Rocks" data.

DRE's averaged basically 10 votes per hour. Which does not take into account orientation for the a first time voter. For me THAT'S the kicker.

Even with the downward trending of hardware costs that's a lot of coin. PLUS storage costs and failure rates... I'd guess 10 to 15% with a touchscreen solution.( probably higher considering all the breakdown set up and environmental variables.)

An expensive per vote solution even if you got 16 years out of the unit.

Op-Scans are much more cost effective in comparison.

You may now go back to the lovefest.

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. you're right, this should be hashed out on its own

Maybe I'll launch a thread next week in honor of the new forum name, whatever that turns out to be. Or feel free to go for it yourself (strange things have been known to happen when I start threads).

[Ellipsis]

36. DRE's didn't steal the election...

People who programmed the defaults may have... people with intent... people with greed... people who have been blackmailed.

If we use Opscans... as votes are cast, why note have redundancy by independent groups?





enjoyable, thread by the way


:thumbsup:

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. hey, we _are_ having some fun here, aren't we?

I especially enjoyed the little "fight" between FogerRox and Febble around #6 -- and it even left a paper trail! (Well, a virtual paper trail... hmm....)

Just so you know, presently I think the 2004 election wasn't stolen on DREs -- they just don't seem to stick out enough in any analyses I've seen. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that they were clean, or that they are safe for the future.

As to opscans, I don't know what you mean by "redundancy by independent groups," so I dunno what I would think.

[Ellipsis]

40. Run the paper through more then one Op-scan at the time of voting...

Have the league of women voters ... high school civics classes count the votes ... Off the shelf scanners can easily be adapted ... there are tons of groups and lot of different ways to count votes... and a lot of old voting equipment available now too.

I agree there was no concerted effort on DRE's.

What strikes me as odd is the fact that Miofskys(sp)? site crashed in 2000 AND 2004. You would think that would have adjusted after 2000.

Here's a what if... What if exit poll numbers were diverted... examined... then allowed to continue on. Having the data from exit polls would allow one to focus on the specific precincts to manipulate.

Russert with his little white board (now ensconced in the Smithsonian) knew before the election where points of contention would be. With a few boots on the ground and a few insiders how hard would it be?

I avoid the round robbins as well.

Roger "the fox" is always pleasure to read... I have followed feeble's scribblings (or tried to any way) since day one.

Gotta go for now...

Peace

[Febble]

42. Bank tellers

is who you need.

Ever seen them count paper money? Anyway, they count the votes in the UK.

[Ellipsis]

44. I read that the first time you typed it.

;-)

Need to go do the "chores".

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. OK, lessee here

I dunno whether I'm enthusiastic about putting the ballots in as many hands as possible, but I would like to see more people involved. It seems to me that you want enough people involved that they are all sure everything was done right, not so many people involved that they _can't_ all be sure everything was done right. The status quo seems to be too few people involved, and nobody sure everything was done right.

(When people talk about Paper Ballots Hand Counted... I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, although our ballots are a lot more complicated than the Brits', but I'm not sure specifically how we're gonna pull that off if we can barely get the polling places staffed, which is how it seems to be everywhere I've lived. Maybe we need to get more of those community groups tied in.)

(EDIT: I need to clarify that -- I have grave doubts about PBHC as a universal prescription, but we probably need more community involvement regardless!)

I'm thinking about the exit poll data -- I don't know that the data would be very helpful in determining which precincts to manipulate. Dunno, haven't thought about it much.

Yeah, FogerRox and Febble (not "Feeble," please, she's a friend of mine!) both have great work ethics and senses of humor.

See ya....

[Ellipsis]

47. Sorry Febble! I meant no disrespect just a typo....and

One ballot for Prez.... One printing, for the all the US... Hand count.

One ballot for Senate and Congress... One printing per State... Hand count.

Op-scan the rest.

[Febble]

48. No probs.

It's a stupid handle but I'm kinda stuck with it. It's from my initials, FEBL.

I like your solution.

Cheersa

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. hope I didn't spook you --

Febble has never taken offense at an honest butchering of her screen name (grin). You probably get some of that, too. (If I may ask, does that mean "bottomland farmer"?)

I don't think I'll endorse three ballots per voter (in a presidential year) without a good night's sleep, but it's an interesting idea. Help me out, exactly what problem are we trying to solve here? We're going to need good, rigorous random recounts for the op-scan on the downticket stuff anyway, so why not use the same approach for the top races? Not a rhetorical question. I can think of reasons, but I'm interested in yours.

[Ellipsis]

50. After what I've gone through it would take a lot to scare me.

Yes, a bottom land farmer. Typically, a small independent farmer who works a very fertile piece of land. I used to live on an old farm in the coulee region of the lower Wisconsin river, close to mouth of the Mississippi. My involvement here got me some unwanted attention. I moved. Twice now.

I used to integrate printing solutions, I know OCR and scanning since it's conception.

Just tryin' to introduce complex simplicity.

The dilemma is all ballots must be numbered yes? I remember Andy S. saying They had 1200 different ballot configs In Washington state? alone. That stuck in my brain. IT'S A PRINTING NIGHTMARE.

The reason we want hand counted paper is WE don't trust the current process. "Power distribution" is the concern. A ballot book is the answer ... page one President, Page two Senate and congress the rest while of consequence... is the complex part... unless of course your in Kal-i-For-nya. It doesn't mater how long it takes to count the vote.

As a voter... it is MY responsibility to make sure my vote is counted, which would answer your previous question.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. I went hiking and thought about this --

not very deeply -- mostly I was thinking about trying not to fall off the mountain. I am reminded of the summer, when a friend and I were hiking in Romania, and we got we were getting pretty good "exercise" doing our Hike up a mountain ridge, and then we got to the top and saw dozens of haystacks taller than we were. Uh, duh, for some folks that climb is just the start of work.

I'm under the impression that Andy S. thought op-scan with random recount (and other provisions) was adequate even for presidential races, but (1) I could be wrong and (2) even if I'm right, that isn't a positive argument against paper ballots hand-counted for the top races.

I wonder whether "WE" the people generally, as distinct from various groups of activists, would be inclined to support PPHC for the top races, assuming it entailed that (?) -- they would pay slightly higher taxes? they would be subject to ballot-counting duty? They (a majority) very well might go for it, once they were briefed on all the issues. If they didn't go for it, it probably wouldn't be because they hate taxes, but only because they concluded something else was good.

I also wonder what election officials (not the crooks, but the honest ones) think. I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty of election admin to speculate. At first blush, a multi-part ballot seems like a hassle, but I'm not entitled to an opinion on how big a hassle it would be. (Damn, it hurts to admit that. ;) )

[Ellipsis]

52. Like I'm some expert...hah

I do think there are eyeballs here that may pick up an occasional pearl from conversations here.

I can not imagine with what has happened in the last five years ...that apathy has not "peaked".

...call it a ballot folder.

I am certain there is an abundance of individuals willing to give time and effort for a fair election. I would. The national voting holiday thing is an attractive concept. This would allow for a higher level of volunteerism. (one would think). To allow high school students an involvement in elections would elevate awareness of civic responsibilities at an age which will be remembered for life.

As for taxes The amount of money saved from an honest election compared to the cronyism and profiting would pay for itself in a New York minute. (not to disparage New York.)

One printing, One press one paper( in a unique color and unique substrate (...hell Print it at the same place they print money...theres a concept.) for all of the US. distributed to the appropriate venues through the US Postal system. The infrastructure exists. I can not see how it would cost any more money especially if it was a national holiday where there is no mail and postman would be allowed to handle fulfillment.

On the state level print the senate and congress on another unique substrate and color... bid to one printer distributed through the postal system.

The sheer weight of shipping paper is the brunt of the expense.... So best to do state printing jobs within each sate.

Give me a similar colored ballot box which matches the substrate taking colorblindness, blindness, and other handicaps into consideration.

These things can all be worked out for free with the exception of press time paper and ink.

But hell what do know. I'm just a farmer (who's not really a farmer) from Wisconsin who has a sudden inclination to launch into "Climb every mountain" from the sound of Music.

If allowed... It can be done.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. an election holiday would make a lot of things easier and better

Beyond that... shrug. Awaiting Further Light. It seems to me it can work with or without full manual counts (depending of course on other provisions).

I think that is my least favorite song from Sound of Music -- but there I go, picking a fight again. ;) I share the sentiment, at least.

[Ellipsis]

54. It was a caffeine moment.

I checked your profile.

Kewl!


:thumbsup:

[Land Shark]

57. Problem is, a good hack looks LIKE: A smoothly run election

[Febble]

58. Actually,

it's partly because it didn't look like a smoothly run election that I'm not convinced it was a good hack.

Ohio stinks of old-fashioned (and new-fashioned) voter-suppression, spoilage of democratic votes and the odd bit of ballot stuffing.

[Ellipsis]

59. Three of the counties out of the 42 with punch cards...

had the tabulators Yes? Was it Cayahoga ( been a while) that had the bomb scare and the busses parked around it?

It's like Oceans 12 where they actually put the Faberge egg in a backpack with a courier on the train... why focus all the attention... It just seems like so much misdirection so Rovian.

...makes me want to scrutinize the other two.

And no... I'm not trying to pull focus away from anything. Ohio has a handle on their problems. I'd bet... more then we know.

[mod mom]

55. One of the congressmen who is under investigation, along side Delay with

Abramoff scandal is Bob Ney (R-OH). Golfing with the crooks in Scotland. Just another repuke scumbag? Maybe, but Ney is the Chair of the House Administration Committee, the committee that oversees federal elections and such important agencies as the EAC and is responsible for implementing HAVA.

Mr Ney's district, mainly rural, includes Kenyon College, the liberal arts college that experienced those 11 hour lines on Nov 2 in Ohio while nearby Nazarene College (Repuke) had no similar problems. Hmmh...

Just thought I's throw out those OH election connections with the Delay scandal.

[Cocoa]

67. yet another "occasional DUer" spreading the futility meme

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4998352&mesg_id=4998407

a DUer expresses hope:

I personally believe that Dean and Kerry are planning to get at the voting machines themselves through the Sec of State races and are putting specific people in place to win those seats.

I believe they will have the machines and the people who control them put under a microscope and PUBLICALLY demonstrate how easily elections can be stolen and the evidence erased by these machines.

the "occasional DUer" responds:

7. How can they be put into power on a corrupt election system??? n/t


SEE HOW EASY IT IS?