OK. Who was supposed to be watching McPherson's web-site?

[Wilms]

:grr:

Sequoia got the nod.

.pdf
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/sequoia_cert.pdf


Actually, no big surprise. The SoS's office previously stated they pretty much would once it got NASED/ITA/EAC approval, which apparently happened on 3/17 according to the doc.

[roody]

1. This stinks and McPherson stinks.

[Wilms]

2. I know he's personae non-grata.

But apart from CA's former SoS, Kevin Shelley, and the future SoS, Debra Bowen, I can't think of any other SoS that has given Diebold and the balance of the vendors nearly as hard a time.

He could have certified all this junk a long time ago but kept pushing it off, forced vendors to clean-up a bit before dinner, and helped counties use paper in a number of instances and generally cite questions about e-voting.

And my guess is that nationally, a lot of BoE's were watching, and therefore hesitated or outright refused Diebold purchases.

If someone can think of an SoS to compare with, do tell me. It not like he's getting my support. But I like to be fair.

To us, he's been a snake, but he's been one relative to the vendors, and the county BoE's. A real equal opportunnity pisser-offer.

[nicknameless]

6. Let’s see…

After Diebold’s TSx machines suffered a near 33% failure in the Summer of 2005, he let Diebold do a private test with their souped-up TSx machine and then declared that he was considering recertifying them. When challenged (after Ion Sancho’s exposure of Diebold failures), he offered that Harri Hursti could attempt a hack test of Diebold machines. (The terms of the test apparently originated at Diebold.) He then reneged and punted the certification decision to the Feds. The interpreted code violation had come to light.

He then hired the Berkeley team, which identified even more flaws.
So naturally, he certified the garbage – in violation of State and Federal laws.

He knew of problems with ES&S too, but has refused to turn over documents formally requested by Senator Bowen.

He signed a deal with Bu$hCo to create a voter-purging database. He *could* change a regulation which would at least make it easier to correct some of the rejected registrations, but has instead passed the buck to the Legislature with less than 50 days to the primary. Hundreds of thousands of eligible Californians could lose their right to vote.


Yeah. What a nice fella.

[Wilms]

7. Care to answer the question in my post, Nick? n/t

[nicknameless]

8. No. I’m not going to take the bait for some ridiculous game

of comparing McBastard to other Secretaries of State. He has conspired with the cabal and e-vendors to disenfranchise California voters. That’s all that matters.

He has hardly given Diebold or any of the other vote-trashing companies a difficult time. He has been an enabler on their behalf.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=415129&mesg_id=415129

[Wilms]

9. Squaring with reality is not a ridiculous game.

But I'll admit, it requires some sophistication.

Fact is, the system is a little more secure, and Diebold's prospects nationally, a bit less so as a result of the activity here.

True Vote MD cited the guy in looking at the awful tenure of LaMone, a Dem. Then there's Cathy Cox in GA.

I'm not involved with election reform as a means to campaign for Bowen, or any other candidate.

- and on edit -

I'm not going to call Ion Sancho a snake even though he rid his county of OpScan and now will install DRE's. Or that the same thing is happening in PA because of the Hursti Hack. It's COMPLICATED, Nick.

When Bowen takes office in January, sans any significant development, do you think she'll be able to immediately decertify Diebold (using criteria that would necessarily beg the same treatment of all the other vendors in the state)?

It's COMPLICATED, Nick.

[nicknameless]

10. Sophistication? Try white-wash of McBastard. And not the first time.

:eyes:

[Wilms]

11. Just stating facts and issues.

Not the first time, not the last.

Want to respond to those items? Or not?

[nicknameless]

12. Blatant, B.S. white wash of McBastard. This is what I'm addressing.

But apart from CA's former SoS, Kevin Shelley, and the future SoS, Debra Bowen, I can't think of any other SoS that has given Diebold and the balance of the vendors nearly as hard a time.

He could have certified all this junk a long time ago but kept pushing it off, forced vendors to clean-up a bit before dinner, and helped counties use paper in a number of instances and generally cite questions about e-voting.

And my guess is that nationally, a lot of BoE's were watching, and therefore hesitated or outright refused Diebold purchases.

Just part of his *real* track record:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=415129&mesg_id=415129

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. umm, a greywash, maybe n/t

[nicknameless]

15. WHITE WASH of an utter bastard,

who is clearly intent on disenfranchising voters.

He has refused to turn over formally requested documents to the Senate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412223

He has sided with e-voting vendors and refused to appear at Senate hearings.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412921

He made a deal with * to eliminate eligible Californians from the voter rolls.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2543923

[Wilms]

17. Did I question the points you've raised? No.

Did you address the points I made? No. Again.

I'm sorry my posts so often seem to leave you most unquieted. That is not my aim. I merely pointed out some aspects of McPherson's tenure that I believe have played into our hand.

Of course we'd prefer all e-vendors sent packing and he failed to do that. I didn't expect him to. If you did, I'm sorry to hear of that particular disappointment.

Now, I did ask if there was another SoS that has given Diebold as hard a time as McP. There may well be one, but they're not coming to mind. If you can name some, I'm all ears. If you want to continue stalking and ranting at my posts, I'm used to it.

[nicknameless]

19. The "points" you made? What points? You're white-washing a criminal.

But apart from CA's former SoS, Kevin Shelley, and the future SoS, Debra Bowen, I can't think of any other SoS that has given Diebold and the balance of the vendors nearly as hard a time.

He could have certified all this junk a long time ago but kept pushing it off, forced vendors to clean-up a bit before dinner, and helped counties use paper in a number of instances and generally cite questions about e-voting.

And my guess is that nationally, a lot of BoE's were watching, and therefore hesitated or outright refused Diebold purchases.

Bullshit.

How did he "play into our hand"? We have a primary election less than 50 days away, and he has been busy dumping perhaps hundreds of thousands of eligible voters off of the rolls. He violated State and Federal law to certify vote-trashing garbage.

If elections were clean, he could be voted out of office. It appears that he is out to prevent that from happening.

Sorry, I refuse to play your game of "name a better SoS". Ours is a criminal. Why doesn't that matter to you?

This is a message board. When I see you post BS, I generally reply.
I don't see anyone else RELENTLESSLY attacking Kevin Shelley and praising McPherson.

Which side are you on again?

[Wilms]

20. I'm McPherson's DU mole.

I've been sent here specifically, in anticipation of your arrival, as an agent provocatuer whose mission is to get you, NickNameless, to make the foulest references you possibly can so that the election reformers can more readily be dismissed. If I peel away DU ER posters and get them to vote for McP, I get a bonus.

On an even more serious note, the whole issue with the VSTAAB report and the ITA tests do nothing for you? The lawsuit here that, in part, is supported by all that, the volume tests and the support that lent to the election 'Reliability' movement, CO (I think) balking on Diebold? Anything good about any of it? Does my mentioning this automatically place me in a category where I support everything the guy says and does? In your Manichean view, apparently. Like I say, I'm used to it.

I only sound like I'm defending McP to you, because there is nothing but pure evil spilling from his every orifice, and perhaps mine, according to you.

Please, don't twist my words. My relentless attacks are not about Shelley, but of the inaccuracy of statements made regarding him. He was NOT "completely exonerated", and he did NOT "decertify Diebold". He decertified the TSx. And to ignore that simple distinction seems a pretty dishonest way of having a discussion.

Bouncy frogs don't scare me, Nick. Inaccurate information leading election reformers to spew inaccurate and assailable assertions do. They are threats to the credibility of the movement. As is some of the language.

Believe me when I say I'm sorry that you're so often so pissed off with me.

[nicknameless]

21. Skipping over your incoherent and ridiculous (deflecting) piffle ...

Again, you wrote:

But apart from CA's former SoS, Kevin Shelley, and the future SoS, Debra Bowen, I can't think of any other SoS that has given Diebold and the balance of the vendors nearly as hard a time.

He could have certified all this junk a long time ago but kept pushing it off, forced vendors to clean-up a bit before dinner, and helped counties use paper in a number of instances and generally cite questions about e-voting.

And my guess is that nationally, a lot of BoE's were watching, and therefore hesitated or outright refused Diebold purchases.

That is nothing but white-washing bullshit.

Now you want change the subject and discuss the tests? I took issue with what you posted in reply #2. I’m not interested in any deflections from that.


In whose eyes wasn’t Shelley exonerated? All they could dig up on him appeared to be paperwork improperly filed by his office. They portrayed his distribution of a pamphlet about voters’ right as being a misuse of funds. The pamphlet informed voters that they had the right to use paper ballots if they were uneasy about the machines. The pamphlet had Shelley’s photo on it. In light of that, why would anyone want to pretend that he was guilty of a crime?

I never said that Shelley decertified all Diebold machines. I said he decertified some of them. (You earlier claimed that he decertified software only.)

You fear inaccurate information? Then stop posting inaccurate information.

You don’t want to piss me off? Then stop slamming Kevin Shelley and praising McPherson.

[Wilms]

22. As you see it, Nick. eom

[Votergater]

14. Ion Sancho wants an Optical Scan system he can recount

but Florida's Division Of Elections (under Jeb) is forcing him to use touchscreens because they refuse to state certify any other system that can be used legally by the disabled under HAVA (such as Automark or VotePad).

Ion's situation has been very complex and highly poliitical, but he first decided to dump Diebold because of their unethical behaviour as a company. Following Dr. Herbert Thompson's hack in Ion's Leon County, Diebold tried to blackmail Ion by refusing to deliver new software he'd paid for unless he agreed to sign a contract binding him not to further test Diebold's system.

Famously Ion defied Diebold's attorneys and authorised the Hursti Hack, with Black Box Voting, proving Diebold's Optical Scan system and the GEMS tabulator fatally vulnerable to attack from a single memory card.

Ion was about to buy an ES&S Optical scan system and run it and secure it himself, but ES&S's chief executive (Aldo Tesi)(a name to remember) reneged on the deal at the 11th hour. Clearly ES&S fears what future possible testing might reveal about their secret system. Directly following the Hursti Hack Sequoia also decided not to do business with Mr. Sancho.

Ion has risked his job to pursue the truth and will only use touchscreens because he has no alternative in the state of Florida.

[Wilms]

18. I understood that, and I thank you for reminding/informing others.

As you rightly point out, the "situation has been very complex and highly poliitical".

[EFerrari]

16. Do you think so? I see him as going through the motions

very much as the Senate went through questioning Torquemada on the NSA felony.

It's still a felony, whether he was under oath or not, whether they asked the right questions or not.

But, I have a bad 'tude. :mad:

[nicknameless]

3. I think you might have scooped yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x418050

Was there a new development?

[Wilms]

4. Oh, boy.

:crazy:

No new developments. :blush:

[nicknameless]

5. You were more vigilant than you thought

;)