Must Be Fed: Recent Comments

Comment on Guest Post: Don't Lose Turkey

Sola — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:44:43 GMT

Hum. Thom Harttman and Best of the Left just plugged the heck out of this blog, and yet no posts since last year? That's pretty odd.

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Elsa — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:53:21 GMT

I heard Amy Goodman's show today, October 22nd, where she focused on yet another program for voter suppression. Mark Crispin Miller was her guest this time, talking about his book Loser Takes All. He said that Mike Connell, Rove's computer guru, told Mr. Spoonamore the reason they've been fixing the elections since 2000 is to "save the babies". This is horrific and the religious fanaticism is bad enough, but that people are being intimidated and their votes are being changed right before their very eyes to the antithesis of the man they're voting for (as some voters reported in W. Virginia today; pressing the screen for Obama, and seeing it change to McCain) seems like we are in Zimbabwe, not America.

Is there anyone who is monitoring this serious problem for this election? Why isn't any part of the media besides Amy Goodman airing this now?

I know you tried earlier, and I applaud your diligence and your perseverance. I only hope it isn't all for naught and something will come out now about this seemingly hopeless state of affairs.

Comment on Guest Post: Don't Lose Turkey

jzwwwnry — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:29:29 GMT

[URL=http://aibfouyy.com]efadlnlp[/URL] zwaukzvn">http://eojlxoxx.com">zwaukzvn ejvnlmjk http://lloyhpee.com xhngyiak plhsouml

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Mary Gross — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:59:45 GMT

Thanks for this article! I've also been mired in this garbage for the last three years and have watched in disbelief while local news reporters ignore relevant moments that reveal deep problems with the GEMS tabulators and the system architecture in general. Issue interested people I talk to always ask me why these stories don't appear in the papers and on the news and I'm really grateful to have a personal story from someone in the press that describes how and why this matter doesn't get covered, how the information remains suppressed.

I'm writing from Seattle, in King County, where, in the 2004 primaries, we unwittingly experimented with the ability to edit and erase portions of the GEMS tabulator audit log. Over three hours of entries were erased and would have been lost permanently if not for staff finding paper print-outs in the trash. This gaff was revealed in front of local tv reporters and cameras at a press conference given by then elections director,Dean Logan, who was giving the conference to praise the operation of the new gear we spent a whole bunch of money on. This matter didn't appear in mainstream media at all. Not one single mention. After reading your posting it's a lot easier to understand the dynamic behind why reporters and writers are sometimes hamstrung.

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Toby Anderson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:42:41 GMT

Gordon Peterson's comments about how to institute greater integrity and transparency in the voting process are excellently put. When I first heard of the use of electronic voting machines, I also thought the lack of a duplicative paper ballot, for verification purposes, was a common sense safeguard that was overlooked. Both political parties contribute to the gross negligence that has left our electoral system so vulnerable. Both parties seem to have some interest in preventing actual solutions to these issues.

One issue which has not been discussed in this thread is the weakness of voter ID requirements. I was astonished with the ease with which I just registered to vote in VA. I typed out the registration and signed the bottom. I handed it in and was not asked for any identification or proof of address.

A side note - I was not asked for my party affiliation, which is new for me.

I have read about the various requirements, or lack thereof, regarding voter identification during the last decade. Virginia requires ID at the polls unless you have forgotten it. In place of ID, I can sign an Affirmation of Identity stating that I am who I say I am. Therefore, it is extremely simple for people to vote multiple times under different names, and enables those who aren't legally allowed to vote to vote. The mail-in/absentee ballots are a great hole in the system, and Gordon's point about coercion is a very strong point that the mail-in/absentee system needs greater safeguards, as well.

Potential solutions to our critical electoral flaws need to resolve the procedural voting issues and the identity of voters together and comprehensively.

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Gordon Peterson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:08:52 GMT

> And while we're talking about voting integrity, one thing that bothers
me a GREAT deal is (for example) the voting in Oregon, where everybody
(as I understand it) votes using mailin paper ballots.

> The problem with that is that there is no way to ensure that people are
voting independently, and that they are not selling their vote (for
drugs, sex, money, alcohol) or otherwise voting under duress (with
someone watching over their shoulder to make sure they are voting the
"right" way). That "someone" could be a parent, child, welfare case
worker, health care giver, boss, union shop steward, professor,
landlord, probation officer, or anyone else in a position of power or
influence over the voter.

Note that this inherently applies to Internet voting, too... it's not a security/technical issue, it's simply that there is NO way to make sure that someone isn't looking over the shoulder of the voter, to make sure they are voting the "right" way.

This is why, ANY technical issues completely aside, why we MUST not allow Internet voting (at least not where the voters are voting without the oversight by election officers, as they get at the polling places). (Good!) election officials can make sure that the voters are voting independently, and without coercion.

-- Gordon Peterson II
http://personal.terabites.com
1977-2007: Thirty year anniversary of local area networking

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Chris D in TX — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:17:25 GMT

Why nothing, of course, lest we forget that BushCo and his gang of republikon thugs control the Justice Dept.

It is not in their best interest to do anything with it, to the contrary, they need to let it ride, so that McP.O.dubya can be elected, and Sarah can use her new vice presidential powers to help w/the far right christian agenda, regarding Israel.

Anybody else notice that just this weekend, the Woman of Mass Destruction already began trumpeting the wingnut meme that '0bama pals around w/t3rrorists'...? And now Ayers is all over the talking heads of the B00bTube theater.

'Nuff. said.
Chris

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Gordon Peterson — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:02:59 GMT

[continued...]

NOW, NOTICE THAT THIS STILL DOESN'T PREVENT A FRAUD SUCH AS WE SAW IN
OHIO IN 2004.

But there are ways to fix that, and THIS WOULD WORK WITH MOST EXISTING
VOTING MACHINES TOO.

When the polls close, the election judge should print the results tapes
the way we do now.... and those tapes signed by the judge and clerks.
THEY SHOULD PRINT AND SIGN TWO EXTRA SETS OF RESULTS TAPES.

When the election judge takes his results tapes and memory cards to the
election results dropoff point to be turned in, there should be a
representative of (at least) both major parties as well as the county
election department. The election judge should hand one of the
additional two results tapes to the representative of each major party.

THIS WAY, THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES CAN INDEPENDENTLY ENTER AND TALLY THE
VOTES FROM EACH POLLING LOCATION. (This is trivially easy if they set
up a party-specific spreadsheet for the purpose).

The totals tallied by each party should match the totals reported by the
county. If they don't match, clearly there is a problem which needs to
be investigated.

(A similar procedure should be developed and implemented for early and
absentee/mailin ballots, so that the parties can independently confirm
those totals too.)

There should (obviously) be a similar procedure at each state-level
party to tally the results of each county. Those totals should match
the totals reported by the state.

Note that this independent party-based tallying of the vote would HUGELY
improve the integrity of the vote reporting, does not require ANY new
equipment, and is CRITICAL (even if we all used paper ballots).

And while we're talking about voting integrity, one thing that bothers
me a GREAT deal is (for example) the voting in Oregon, where everybody
(as I understand it) votes using mailin paper ballots.

The problem with that is that there is no way to ensure that people are
voting independently, and that they are not selling their vote (for
drugs, sex, money, alcohol) or otherwise voting under duress (with
someone watching over their shoulder to make sure they are voting the
"right" way). That "someone" could be a parent, child, welfare case
worker, health care giver, boss, union shop steward, professor,
landlord, probation officer, or anyone else in a position of power or
influence over the voter.

While this is true here in Texas as well with our absentee/mailin
ballots, at least in our state these ballots generally represent a
smallish fraction of the total vote. In Oregon, such "influence-prone"
voters represent 100% of the voters, and therefore becomes a matter of
much greater concern.

[end quote]

-- Gordon Peterson II
http://personal.terabites.com
1977-2007: Thirty year anniversary of local area networking

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Gordon Peterson — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:59:32 GMT

Thom Hartmann's program this morning included a segment about ways to
ensure voting integrity, including the (familiar, if misguided) urging
to change the US election process to using paper ballots.

The following is my comment that I posted to his Forum:

[quote]

Several key points here (and note that I am very active here in Dallas
County, as a precinct chair, election judge, have worked early voting,
have worked signature verification for absentee/mailin ballots, etc
etc). I am also a computer programmer and consultant.

First of all, there is NOTHING magic about paper ballots (alone, at
least). It is trivial for additional marks to be added after-the-fact
onto paper ballots (especially if those ballots are counted at each
individual polling place). Additional marks could be added to unvoted
races, could be added to VOTED races (thus converting that race to an
"overvote" which will not be counted), and so forth. Additional ballots
could also be trivially voted and with no recourse. Paper ballots (by
themselves) are actually one of the LEAST secure types of ballots.

Second, the problem in Ohio in 2004 would not have been ANY different if
EVERYONE in the entire state had voted on paper ballots. There, the
problem was caused by simply changing the vote total (about
midnight-thirty) such that, as more precincts reported in, Kerry's vote
total suddenly WENT DOWN simultaneously as Bush went to 50+% of the
vote. It would not have mattered whether the ballots were paper, or
even cast in bronze. They simply changed the total count.

There ARE viable ways to make the vote a great deal more robust.

One approach is to use the touch-screen machines (this eliminates
overvotes and inadvertent undervotes) to capture the original votes, and
then when the voter is done voting to print a HUMAN-READABLE, SCANNABLE
PAPER BALLOT. The voter would then verify that the votes marked on that
paper ballot were EXACTLY THE WAY THEY WANTED TO VOTE, and then the
voter would deposit that voter-verified paper ballot into an optical
scanner which would count THOSE paper ballots.

The marks printed on the scannable paper ballot by the touchscreen
system should incorporate features such as "micro-printing" on the
ballot marks, such that NO ADDITIONAL MARKS CAN BE MODIFIED ON THE
BALLOT WITHOUT BEING OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT. This would prevent ANY
changes to the ballot after the fact.

This means that there would be:

1) the vote tallies produced by the first-level touchscreen system;

2) the vote tallies produced by the second-level optical scanning
system;

3) the tamper-proof paper ballots produced by the first-level
touchscreen system.

All three counts should (obviously) match.

[continued in the next message....]

Comment on Diebold: The Untold Story

Mary Killewald — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:46:45 GMT

I always knew that the elections were stolen but this is the proof. Every time I go and vote I always ask the election people will my vote be counted the way I voted. They always stare at me as if I was crazy. I know that I am not crazy but people will not believe that the elections were stolen.