|
From Steve Rosenfeld:
This article conveys the new mainstream consensus: that these machines are not ready for prime time. But it does not broach the crucial idea that it is not the public, but insider politicos, who have the access, and therefore the potential knowledge, to tweak election results.
I read it quick, but do you see any reference to the central tabulation process-other than how it failed in Cleveland last fall? That is the eye of the storm, which the Pima AZ case pointed to-and where the judge pulled a slick one and wouldn't release the sought-after election records.
The piece criticizes the technology, which is safe to do, and skirts the question of politicos manipulating races from the inside. I mean, again, look at Pima. They looked at who was winning in early balloting, which is better than any pre-election poll. That's as much of a tactic as possibly flipping the results.
From Jonathan Simon:
Sorry Folks-- They always do this. Lou Dobbs did it in 2006. "There are these vulnerabilities, oh my!"--See, we are covering the story. They'll be all over this before the election. The day after the election? Nada. "Well those exit polls were off again, and of course there are some loony sore losers who won't accept the results; very destabilizing isn't it, Bob?" "Reminds me of Kenya, Jack." "Oooh, all those heads chopped off with machetes; we can't let partisan zeal interfere with the orderly transfer of power here in America, Bob." Etc. etc. Get me a bucket. Somebody please read this Times thing (I'm under strict medical instructions not to take so much as a peek) and tell me if they actually manage to get beyond, you know, "glitches" and "bugs," to "fraud" and (help me Ronda) "theft;" and then if they manage to actually propose a remedy that makes vote counting visible again (i.e., something better than central opscans with spot audits), and while we're at it, whether they even bother dealing with the millions of voters being scrubbed from voting rolls by those database programs--in short, whether they remotely get it. I'm willing to be surprised but I won't hold my breath.
From Nancy Tobi:
Also: The article carries the standard MSM baggage. Conclusion: we need a better technological fix, and oh my, we are so screwed there is no way out. The frigging "computer experts" are quoted as saying we have no reason to believe any hacking has ever occurred, breathing new life into their questionable careers, where they can continue to be poised to jump the line as soon as we are all ready for the "good" computer guys to run our elections for us instead of big bad Diebold. And of course, optical scanners are the holy grail - no mention of secret vote counting or Al Gore's negative 16,022 votes from Diebold opscams, and NO MENTION OF HAND COUNTS.
I say F**K the MSM. They are either completely corrupt, stupid, complicit, or disgustingly ignorant. And the problem with pieces like this one is they appear oh so well researched and credible, they appear to actually have some reasonable perspective on the situation.
This one did raise one interesting point - the comparison of our "good" guy technoelection activists saying "no reason to believe in fraud" and the vendors pointing to hackability as their biggest challenge. Holy crap. Now we have to turn to the vendors for some sort of acknowledgement that hacking is a possibility? Through the looking glass again.
From William Benzon:
Mark,
This is nonsense: " Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Diebold, said that machine flaws were not necessarily to blame for the problems. The paper rolls were probably installed incorrectly by the poll workers."
I have no trouble believing that the paper was incorrectly installed. But how robust is the design and construction? A tool that is routinely misused by the people intended to use the tool is a badly designed tool. And if the people who use the tool happen to be semi-decrepit old geezers -- no offense meant to geezers -- then you design to their capabilities. Make labels BIG, knobs and buttons and screws, BIG, etc. Period. And that goes triple for such a critical tool as a voting machine.
And what's this nonsense of having the paper-check print in 8 point type? Who the hell can read 8 point type? Young people with fine vision have trouble reading 8-point type. Older folks with glaucoma and cataracts and coke-bottle lenses don't have a chance. Noticing this is not rocket science. It's elementary industrial design.
Yeah, the small type means you can use a small printer and small paper. But this is the integrity of the political process that's at stake. This is no place to be making a profit by pinching pennies. But then this is the crew that sends soldiers into battle without body armor and stuffs socks into their pants so they can do a dramatic crotch grab while declaring victory.
|