Diebold insider breaks silence on politics role in electronic voting

[kpete]

Diebold insider breaks silence on politics' role in electronic voting: 'Does that mean fixing elections? Not necessarily, but if your people are biased towards Republicans you will have an influence. I think this is what they were buying, the positioning...' Developing hard...

http://www.rawstory.com/

[wakeme2008]

1. Pre-selecting Bush

Changing Dem selections to Bush and hope you are not caught.... And that does not count Op Scan tricks.

[FreedomAngel82]

2. Yep

Hopefully more people will come out and talk.

[seabeyond]

4. texas.... vote straight dem, goes to bush

two weeks early voting and voting day. caught and it was still let go with a shrug of the shoulders

[texpatriot2004]

5. Yep. That's the truth of it. n.t

[leftchick]

6. The same thing happened her in NC

MFers. :grr:

[seabeyond]

11. yup. and still no one does anything. new mexico too

what pisses me off with new mexico, we have a dem governor who rush thru and cleaned machines so they couldnt be investigated

[tinrobot]

3. Doesn't add up...

Voting and vote counting machines are supposed to be completely neutral.

Any "influence" or "positioning" means favoring one candidate over another. That's illegal.

You can't have it both ways.

[QuettaKid]

7. I hear stories like this and then I wonder

where was that promised "army of lawyers" working for the Kerry campaign? Why didn't they make a HUGE stink about it? Was it just because Kerry gave up and said, "eh, let him have it."

[Peter Frank]

15. Kerry chose poor advisors... n/t

[burythehatchet]

20. Yeah, the 3 letters just a little better than W in the english language

D L C

[blm]

30. It was the DNC's job to secure voting machines for ALL Dem candidates.

What no one wants to mention about Terry Mac is that he didn't believe in machine fraud and he was running the DNC with Bill Clinton as the top advisor.

[burythehatchet]

54. That is new information for me. Yes, indeed. nt

[Boredtodeath]

55. I'm no fan of these folks, but you're just wrong

There is no point at which the DNC could/would/should have responsibility to secure voting machines for DEM candidates.

It is the responsibility of the state to provide free, fair and honest elections.

Period. End. Of. Discussion.

Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton are 2 of my least favorite DLCers, but by golly they had no legal authority to do any such thing. And your allegation to the contrary is just an attempt to cover for John Kerry. As the presidential candidate he was the ONLY ONE with legal standing to make such a demand. And he failed to do so.

[blm]

62. The DNC is obliged to oversee the elections and get involved.

Terry Mac showed no concern, whatsoever, for machine fraud.

And Kerry could not oversee the security of the machines before the election, the infrastructure is not set up that way. Had Mac wanted Dem BOE reps to look into securing the machines they would have.

And why is it that HOWARD DEAN just emphasized the securing of the voting machines in his letter the other day if he doesn't see it as his duty for ALL Dem candidates?

And when I bring up Clinton, it's because HE was the biggest influence on MacAuliffe throughout his term as head of the DNC. Terry did what Clinton wanted him to do and emphasized the agenda that Clinton wanted.


Voting fraud was not part of that agenda was it?

[Boredtodeath]

63. No, it wasn't on Kerry's agenda

obviously.

As witnessed by his concession speech.

He was the only party who had legal standing to dispute the results.

He. Quit.

And. Went. Home.

And now you want to blame Clinton and McAuliffe?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[blm]

64. The "results" - that's TOO LATE - The machines are set up for onetime use

and there is no evidence to be had AFTER an election.

The machines need to be secured BEFORE.

[Boredtodeath]

69. Oh please!

You can't CONTEST election results until AFTER THE ELECTION.

And the ONLY party with legal standing is a candidate - not a party.

Duh.

[blm]

72. The machine PROGRAMS need to be certified/secured BEFORE

the election.

Onetime use setups assure there is no EVIDENCE to be found afterwards.

[Boredtodeath]

83. You have no idea what you are talking about

I suggest you stop digging the hole you're in.

"Onetime use setup" is a strawman and completely untrue.

The only person with legal standing to contest an election result is the candidate. That would be John Kerry. And he didn't contest anything.

[blm]

89. So YOU know more about information security than Jonathan Winer?

How interesting. You must be quite the investigator. Why don't you share that record with the whole class?

Until you crack the case wide open, I'll keep my trust with Winer, who has a REAL track record better than most.

[Boredtodeath]

98. You're too funny

Evidently, I do know more than Winer if you're quoting whoever the hell that may be.

Stop digging.

[blm]

99. Winer said machines are set up for onetime use. There is no way to get

evidence that isn't there.

Jonathan Winer specializes in information security. He happens to be the expert who helped uncover IranContra and BCCI.

If you don't even know who he is....ah well....

[Boredtodeath]

103. Well, he would be wrong

The evidence IS there. And if you had any clue what you were talking about, you might sound reasonable.

This onetime use garbage is just garbage. There are multiple copies of what happened on these "onetime use" machines but you need someone with the courage to go after it. John Kerry was told that several times BEFORE the election and he just didn't care. He chose not to fight for the election. He quit.

[blm]

105. Let's see...who to believe? Winer or someone who never stuck his neck out

to ANY degree that John Kerry has, but insults him and judges him anyway.

[Boredtodeath]

107. Right......as usual you're clueless

My family has been threatened several times over the last several years for the political work I do.

You haven't a clue who you are speaking to, nor do you have any idea what I do. But, unlike John Kerry, I refuse to quit and go to my safe, warm cubby hole because someone might call me names.

So, once again, I'd suggest you stop digging that hole.

[PATRICK]

92. The lawyers

were primarily defending individual voters from GOP harassment and suppression. In other words besides looking to fight the last campaign cycle battles, their position was defensive. Many of those lawyers did not understand the political reality of election law and were not necessarily experts even in the tasks they were to perform, losing themselves in one on one cases among millions of successfully beleaguered voters. They needed attack dog types, LOUD publicists who could shout back against the counter strokes of the GOP that made senior citizen volunteers feel guilty and threatened about irregularities. That was a win-win since that bullying not only distracted it hurt.

The whole approach simply left pre-emptive action, fraud investigation and all the activists who have been holding the bag on machine rigging- off their radar screen.

IF the margin was overwhelmingly large it still would leave the truth, the mandate and many other candidates submerged by GOP fraud- against which their is scant protection since pols protect their own in their own field as much if not more than any other professional group. Yet in some crucial ways the campaign did not swing for the bleachers but believed the myths that the media would have the people believe- but which in fact they always partially resist.

Some of the army of lawyers talked like any other veterans of a losing army swallowed up in the larger picture. Prosecutorial law to match the scope of the crime organization arraigned against one needed to be a large part of the campaign if perhaps it had to be kept away from the public face. Instead, it was the simple facts of the fraudulence of electronic balloting as HAVA authorized that were treated like a radioactive material. And still are. Diebold continues to sell its snake oil under this cover. Fewer lawyers and fewer connected to the larger DNC leadership are trying to have a larger effect on saving democracy than a million poll watchers or a thousand recount litigators. The whole thing is absurdly prioritized upside down.

And Diebold sells its snake oil everywhere while the party is reticent to say the least on all but a few issues- as if HAVA meant they could never question anything they signed onto even if few of the principles have been observed. This is not the Iraq War Vote but the pattern is the same. Once compromised, strangled voices forever. That is not bipartisanship, that is omeone being conned who won't admit it.

[Marie26]

32. Maybe it means how they positioned the machines?

[Talismom]

8. I've been waiting and hoping that an insider would start talking.

Just wish it would make a difference...how do we register our fury? Where is it and when will it change things? Very frightening!

[stop the bleeding]

9. so are we going to start a new thread for this when the article is updated

or will we continue on this thread, because I feel that people are going to have a few things to say about this and that might make the thread a bit unwieldy???

Any thoughts?

K&R

[kpete]

10. UPDATE

In expansive interview, Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes; Raises questions about 2002 Georgia Senate election and Ohio November results... Developing...
http://www.rawstory.com/

[stop the bleeding]

12. Wow that was quick, Please update when the whole article is in

I can not wait.

this is what I think about Dweebbold voting

:argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[kpete]

14. Happy to cut & paste updates

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. The 2002 mid-terms were STOLEN in Georgia.

There's no way in hell Max Cleland lost when the polls the night before the election had him way ahead. I so hope someone with some SPECIFIC FRAUD comes forward. WE MUST PROVE FRAUD OR NOTHING WILL EVER BE DONE.

[stop the bleeding]

25. what about here un Florida more DEMS turned out for the Sen. Race than

for the Presidential Race - Huh????


Presidential Race Senate Race
Bush 3,964,522 Martinez 3,672,864 = 291,658 more people for Bush
- which this is expected

Kerry 3,583,544 Castor 3,590,201 = (Negative)6657 - WTF more people voted for Castor than Kerry in Florida after 2000? WTF?

Nader 32,971 Bradley 166,642

Badnarik
11,996

Peroutka
6,626

Cobb
3,917

Brown
3,502

Harris
2,732
*******
total votes for all other 3rd party presidential runners = 61,744 almost 100,000 less than the 3rd party senator aqquired a person that no one even knew about - does this seem strange why didn't all of the other presidential runners votes = to the 3rd party senate runner?


http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/FL/


now look at the 2000 numbers

Bush
2,909,176
Gore
2,907,451
Nader
96,837
Browne
18,856
Buchanan
17,356
Phillips
4,280
Hagelin
2,287


**** senate race for 2000 in Florida

Nelson 2,987,644
McCollum 2,703,608
Logan 17,270

this has been a big gripe of mine let me know if this makes sense or not.

I still can't explain these numbers.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Those magic numbers have to be the results

of election fraud. That's just too bizarre. Hopefully a real hero from Diebold will come forward and blow this crap all to hell.

[stop the bleeding]

35. see reply #33

[Peace Patriot]

28. The same in California. Sen. Boxer got 10% more votes than Kerry, and

ONLY in Republican counties. I've yet to hear a good explanation for this very odd discrepancy. Kerry won the state, but not by as much as he should have. Seems to be correlated more with Republican political control of the country (rather than voting systems--although with the GEMS central tabulators, also run on secret, proprietary programming code, who knows? Maybe they could count on Repub election officials not to notice discrepancies.).

Were those votes shaved off from Kerry to pad Bush's popular majority?

[stop the bleeding]

33. at first I thought the DEM votes were getting funneled into the 3rd party

totals, but that theory can not even explain the oddities in all of the races. It is like all of these people showed up and voted for anyone but the president.

I also heard of this happening in NM and in OH in regards to a judge receiving more votes than Kerry - WTF???

[klook]

29. And 2006 GA gubernatorial candidate Cathy Cox gave Diebold the green light

Disgusting. There's no way Max Cleland and Roy Barnes and Cynthia McKinney legitimately lost in 2002, despite intense right-wing smear campaigns against each of them.

http://www.countthevote.org/debacle.htm
http://www.countthevote.org/cathy_diebold.htm
http://www.blackcommentator.com/84/84_dixon_georgia.html

[Boredtodeath]

37. Let's remember that Cynthia lost BEFORE Diebold

Cynthia lost her primary race before the Diebold machines were implemented in 2002 (July) through malicious crossover voting.

It shouldn't diminish your point, but let's keep the issue honest. Diebold had nothing to do with Cynthia's 2002 loss. It was a republican and APAIC campaign to encourage republicans to vote for her opponent - Denise Majette.

[klook]

65. Oops, you are correct about McKinney-Majette

I forgot that was in the primary, and the touchscreen machines didn't get used until the Georgia general election in 2002. Thanks for the reminder.

[Melinda]

81. Diebold Touchscreens WERE used in McKinney/Majette Primary

Dekalb was the first GA County to use them, and it was during the primary, not after. I filed to late for an absentee ballot and voted using one... horrible rain storm that day too.

[Boredtodeath]

82. No, you're wrong....that was the GENERAL election

Not the primary.

3 counties used the machines in a pilot program during the primary, but Dekalb was not one of them.

And, yes, it poured like hell on election night - during the GENERAL. Not the primary.

[Stevepol]

38. And the 02 exit polls in GA were immediately pulled off the web.

Evidently, they showed just what the pre-election polls showed: that Cleland and Roy Barnes were winning their elections by wide margins.

[eridani]

75. If all the evidence is destroyed right after the election--

--proving fraud is impossible. And not even necessary, IMO. The people who run our elections must be forced to prove to US that election results are NOT fraudulent.

[Boredtodeath]

84. That's not completely true in Georgia

Georgia law requires that a copy of all the election files (including the programs and ballot definition files) be placed on file with the clerk of the Superior Court of each county. So, in Georgia, the evidence is THERE. But citizens must go to court to have the files unsealed. That requires an attorney and one has not stepped up to the plate in Georgia.

Of course, we know now that the 2002 CDs which WERE delivered to the court were BLANK. You can thank Cynthia McKinney for that little tidbit becoming public knowledge:

At least 5 county servers failed prior to Election Day. While server repairs were made, there is evidence to suggest that additional servers were not working properly (Example: blank cd's received from counties were supposed to contain final election results)

Georgia Document Bug List (see item #23)

[seabeyond]

34. you mean robgeorgia..... file found by the company

then later stating took name of an employee. but then even later found out there was no rob in the company until well after the folder was made. yup. i remember this. just another to come back and visit

[Justice Is Comin]

13. I hope my rant helped in shaming him into it.

And for the rest of you pricks over there at election purchase central, I'm not done either.

[deminks]

16. oh my god. nt

:tinfoilhat: Can I take this off now? I am tired of being forced to wear this by my family.

[Walt Starr]

17. My only question is, will this story change my mind?

Depends upon how it develops.

[lonestarnot]

88. hmmmm Walt Starr.

[kpete]

19. New Update

This is all trickling in slowly:

In expansive interview, Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes; Raises questions about Georgia gubernatorial election and Ohio November results... Firm rebuts charges, says reputation 'sterling...' Developing...

http://www.rawstory.com/

[bettyellen]

21. i'm not getting more at the link....

is there more?

[mod mom]

22. I'm having the same problem.

[kpete]

24. No more yet

I will post asap

[bettyellen]

26. tks pete, i'll check in later.

[Flubadubya]

23. Says reputation 'sterling'...

...like sterling cowshit! Moooo!!! :puke:

[KansDem]

40. I first read that as "stealing"

That would have been a bit too honest and unabashed. Oh, well, I suppose many times we read what we want to see...

[Marie26]

36. If they had an extensive interview,

why not just post it when the story is complete? These constant "updates" seem like nothing more than a way to increase the number of hits at their site.

[bettyellen]

39. well, they actually generate interest while they are finishing up the

story. i'm glad for the heads up. won't be around later and mighta missed it.
and they are not as govt subsidized as some outlets have proven to be these days being handfed news and all, they need help surviving. and we do want them to survive don't we?

[Marie26]

44. Sure do

I like Raw Story - they're doing good reporting & it's nice to see a liberal point of view gaining ground. I think I'm just whining because the teases are a little too effective - I must've clicked update a thousand times when the big CIA leak story was developing. So, I complain about it cause I fall for it. :)

[bettyellen]

46. i know the feeling! LOL.

but they get enough grief from the other side, so i try to be patient. :)
it ain't easy, is it?

[Peace Patriot]

31. Recently, a 60/40 flip on the Ohio election reform initiatives--the most

audacious flipover yet. All four election reform initiatives had pre-election predictions of a 60/40 win. On election day, completely flipped over to a 60/40 LOSS! They're getting very bold--they've gotten away with so much. Now the election machines are preventing reform of the election system!

Here's Bob Koelher's column on the Ohio initiatives. Read it and weep--then get mad (or rather, get busy!)
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

SIGN THE Rep. Holt HR 550 Petition.

http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

It won't fix everything, by any means. But it does the following:

Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 550) will:

1. Mandates a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in every federal election, nationwide; because the voter verified paper record is the only one verified by the voters themselves, rather than by the machines, it will serve as the vote of record in any case of inconsistency with electronic records;
2. Protects the accessibility requirements of the Help America Vote Act for voters with disabilities;
3. Requires random, unannounced, hand-count audits of actual election results in every state, and in each county, for every Federal election;
4. Prohibits the use of undisclosed software and wireless and concealed communications devices and internet connections in voting machines;
5. Provides Federal funding to pay for implementation of voter-verified paper balloting; and
6. Requires full implementation by 2006.

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

No. 4 will drive these Bushite corporations out of the election theft business. And all of them are excellent and vital reforms.

[freedomfries]

73. kick

[nicknameless]

78. Hi Peace. Your link may need updating.

I clicked to reread Bob Koelher's column about Ohio, but the story at the link had changed. (Link for his current column only?)

Here's a link to his 11/10/05 article about Ohio:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051110ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk

[malaise]

41. Great news indeed n/t

sp.

[kpete]

42. NEWEST UPDATE

Diebold insider alleges company plagued by technical woes, Diebold defends 'sterling' record
Miriam Raftery

In an exclusive interview with RAW STORY, a whistleblower from electronic voting heavyweight Diebold Election Systems Inc., raised grave concerns about the company’s electronic voting technology and of electronic voting in general, bemoaning an electoral system he feels has been compromised by corporate privatization.

The Diebold insider, who took on the appellation “Dieb-Throat” in an interview with voting rights advocate Brad Friedman (BradBlog.com), was once a staunch supporter of electronic voting’s potential to produce more accurate results than punch cards.

But the company insider became disillusioned after witnessing repeated efforts by Diebold to evade meeting legal requirements or implementing appropriate security measures, criticizing Diebold for putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of voters.

“I’ve absolutely had it with the dishonesty,” the insider told RAW STORY. Blasting Wally O’Dell, the current president of Diebold, the whistleblower went on to explain behind-the-scenes tactics of the company and its officers.

“There’s a lot of pressure in the corporation to make the numbers: `We don’t tell you how to do it, but do it.’ probably the number one culprit putting pressure on people,” the source said.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html

[kpete]

43. More Updates

Concerns about Georgia, Ohio elections

The insider harbors suspicions that Diebold may be involved in tampering with elections through its army of employees and independent contractors. The 2002 gubernatorial election in Georgia raised serious red flags, the source said.

“Shortly before the election, ten days to two weeks, we were told that the date in the machine was malfunctioning,” the source recalled. “So we were told `Apply this patch in a big rush.’” Later, the Diebold insider learned that the patches were never certified by the state of Georgia, as required by law.

The Diebold whistleblower is also skeptical of results from the November 2005 Ohio election, in which 88 percent of voters used touch screens and the outcome on some propositions changed as much as 40 percent from pre-election exit polls.

“Amazing,” the Diebold insider said.

Diebold is headquartered in Ohio. Its chairman Wally O’Dell, a key fundraiser for President Bush, once promised in an invitation to a Republican fundraising dinner to deliver Ohio’s electoral votes for Bush. The staffer said the company has a deep conservative culture.

“My feeling having been really deep inside the company is that initially Diebold, being a very conservative and Republican company, felt that if they controlled an election company, they could have great influence over the outcome,” the source, a registered independent, said.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Diebold_insider__alleges_company_plagued_1206.html

[stop the bleeding]

45. so its a "He" ????? n/t

[AuntPatsy]

47. Thank you

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. I hope he has CONCRETE PROOF of FRAUD! We can't do anything

without solid PROOF. His "feelings" of what was going on aren't proof that they committed fraud. PROOF. PROOF. PROOF. We need PROOF.

[AuntPatsy]

52. Agreed and I pray it is soon.

[blm]

49. RAWSTORY - Why don't you march DiebThroat over to Jonathan Winer's office?

He believes in machine fraud and is an information security expert. He helped uncover IranContra and BCCI, and he BELIEVES IN VOTING MACHNE FRAUD.

[stop the bleeding]

50. just read the whole updated article and all I can say is WOW - I wish

I could nominate this thread again, but I'll do the next best thing.

:kick:

this is HUGH!!11

[stop the bleeding]

51. this should be on the front page of DU! n/t

[Boredtodeath]

53. What is this doing on Page 2 already?

kick

[Boredtodeath]

56. Anyone have a working email for RawStory?

The "contact us" script isn't working and I have a very important message to pass on to them.

Notice: Undefined index: random in /homepages/0/d117057683/htdocs/rawstory2/sendcomment.php on line 29

Notice: Undefined index: new_string in /homepages/0/d117057683/htdocs/rawstory2/sendcomment.php on line 31

Notice: Undefined index: new_string in /homepages/0/d117057683/htdocs/rawstory2/sendcomment.php on line 36

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /homepages/0/d117057683/htdocs/rawstory2/sendcomment.php:29) in /homepages/0/d117057683/htdocs/rawstory2/sendcomment.php on line 70

[kpete]

57. Try linkin in at:

http://rawstory.com/contact.html

Raw Story: e-mail contact site

[Boredtodeath]

58. I did. Error ridden.

It doesn't work.

[kpete]

60. sorry

hope someone else can help

[Stephanie]

67. check your PMs

[Boredtodeath]

70. Thanks! n/t

.

[kpete]

59. Brad Blog's Analysis of Raw Story DIEB THROAT Story

RAW STORY Splashes New DIEB-THROAT Exclusive!
Diebold Insider -- First Reported by BRAD BLOG -- Offers Additional Revelations in New Interview...
RAW STORY's Miriam Raftery unleashes a terrific new piece today based on an interview with the Diebold Insider, dubbed as "DIEB-THROAT", who we originally introduced in our BRAD BLOG EXCLUSIVE...

Raftery previously delivered the terrific San Diego CityBeat story in October on all manners of electile dysfunction since the November 2004 election mess, right on up to the recent Mayoral boondoggle on Diebold machinery in San Diego. She's covered the Election Reform and Diebold beat in various outlets for somet time.

Amongst the revelations reported by Raftery for RAW from her exclusive interview with the anonymous whistleblower who has chosen to keep their identity undisclosed for the time being due to "a continuing sensitive relationship with the company":

DIEB-THROAT blasts "the dishonesty" of the Diebold company and their CEO Walden O'Dell who has come under much fire since announcing his intention to "deliver the state of Ohio" to George W. Bush in a Republican fundraiser."

Lots more at:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002121.htm

[reprehensor]

61. Another delivery from the Clue Train.

Every day, more and more digital machines cropping up everywhere, New Mexico today, perhaps New York tomorrow.

You really ought to fight it if comes to your town.

Here is testimony to the Commission on Federal Election Reform (Carter-Baker Commission) by by David L. Dill, April 18th, 2005, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University and Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation and VerifiedVoting.org

This logically argued call for paper ballots, from a PROFESSOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, was summarily ignored by Carter and Baker.

(Mods, this is Public Domain AFAIK.)

The real job of an election is not to convince the winners that they won, but to convince the losers that they lost. So, it is not sufficient that election results be accurate; the public must know that the results are accurate. That can only be achieved by making election processes as transparent as possible.

Unfortunately, paperless e-voting technology is almost totally opaque. No one can scrutinize critical processes of the election, such as the collection of ballots and counting of votes, because those processes occur invisibly in electronic circuits. Voters have no means to confirm that the machines have recorded their votes correctly, nor will they have any assurance that their votes won't be changed later.

The basic problem of e-voting can be understood without an in-depth knowledge of computer technology. Here is a helpful analogy: Suppose voters dictated their votes, privately and anonymously, to human scribes, and that the voters were prevented from inspecting the work of the scribes. Few would accept such a system, on simple common-sense grounds. Obviously, the scribes could accidentally or intentionally mis-record the votes with no consequences. Without accountability, a system is simply not trustworthy, whether or not computers are involved.

The technological problem with computerized voting is simple. You don't need a Ph.D. in computer science to understand it. Computer systems are so complex that no one really knows what goes on inside them. We don't know how to find all the errors in a computer system; we don't know how to make sure that a system is secure or that it hasn't been corrupted (possibly even by its designers); and we don't know how to ensure that the systems in use are running the software they are supposed to be running. Technologists have not been able to solve these problems even with measures that are far more sophisticated (and costly) than those in the design and certification of voting equipment.

There is strong agreement among computer technologists that what I just said is true. For example, the Association for Computing Machinery, the largest professional organization of computer technologists, adopted a position against paperless electronic voting after an internal poll showed that 95 percent of their membership agreed with the position.

What can we do about this problem? Returning to the analogy with the scribe, that system can be made trustworthy by having the voter fill out his own ballot, or by allowing each voter to check the ballot filled out by the scribe. We can have a trustworthy voting system if, instead of a futile effort to ensure that the voting equipment is error-free by design, we empower each voter to verify that his vote has been accurately recorded. In other words, we need voter-verified paper ballots.

The call for paper ballots is not based on nostalgia. Paper has specific properties as a technology that are difficult to replicate in electronic media. For example, most voters can verify the contents of a paper ballot without computer mediation; paper can be written indelibly; and the procedures for handling critical paper documents are easily understood by ordinary poll workers and voters.

Paper is not a magical solution to our election problems, but, at least, understandable procedures exist for ensuring the accuracy of an election conducted with paper ballots. In particular, the ballots must be protected, and the processes for storing, transporting, handling, and counting them must transparent. Ideally, members of the public and non-governmental organizations as well as political party representatives should be able to observe all of the steps of an election, including machine testing, polling place operations, counting of votes, auditing and recounting.

One of the most important practices that could be adopted is the routine auditing of elections by choosing a small random sample of the ballots and manually counting them. This practice would make a valuable distinction between "audits," which are routine checks on the quality of elections, and "recounts," which have become increasingly politicized. Routine random audits would often catch procedural, equipment, and personnel problems in uncontroversial elections, so that those problems can be fixed before they potentially affect an election outcome.

Abandoning paperless e-voting would not be a major sacrifice. 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. Furthermore, computerized ballot-marking devices are becoming available that can make these systems fully accessible to voters with disabilities, or non-speakers of English.

In summary, paperless electronic voting is a technology that is fundamentally hostile to election transparency. No one can tell what is going on inside the machines, and there are no procedural changes that can remedy that flaw. Instead of seeking a technological quick fix to our election problems, we should return to paper ballot systems, and focus our energy on making our elections more trustworthy by improving election practices. This can be done at reasonable (perhaps reduced) cost, and without reducing accessibility to voters with disabilities.

The November 2004 election went more smoothly than the 2000 election only because the margin of victory was greater than the "margin of litigation." Electronic voting could have been at the core of a dispute. In addition to local disasters because of flaky electronic voting machines, we collected hundreds of reports from all over the country of odd voting machine behavior, including machines that selected the wrong candidate and machines that sporadically left candidates off of the ballots. The vast majority of these problems have been left uninvestigated and unresolved.

Our democracy is too precious to entrust to an ill-conceived and flawed technology. I hope you will recommend that we avoid doing so. Thank you.

Shakey-Shakey, Wakey-Wakey...

[AuntiBush]

74. Thank you for this information.

The evidence is so over-whelming of vote count fraud from ES&S & Diebold I don't know how anyone can question this.

It's happenning in my neck of the woods, too. People are fighting it, the major newspaper reports it, the Gov is in *'s pocket, and all one can hope for is a 2006 ousting of them all.

[reprehensor]

80. Yup.

And in Ohio, the company was Triad, and it wasn't just their machines, Triad had technicians going out to 'fix' machines.

Here are a bunch of other links I have collected in a blog entry,
Election Fraud and What to do About It.

[Gregorian]

66. Bev Harris makes comments on that Rawstory page.

Interesting to see what she says. I also didn't see anything new in this latest article.

[Stephanie]

68. Does she ask for money?

[Einsteinia]

76. Nothing new?

Hey, I haven't seen any of this before:

Miriam's article appears to strongly suggest that Diebold is likely using illegal software patches that its technicians install to rig elections.  These patches are being used everywhere -- Diebold has only been caught at it in Georgia and CA.   This technician was asked to install the patches in Georgia, but only in heavily Dem precincts. They elected a Rep governor for the first time in recent memory.  The patches were supposed to fix a clock problem -- but didn't!   So what were they really for?   You heard this all before?
 
Plus, Diebold’s paper trail add-ons to the TSX have major software problems; Dieb-Throat witnessed a demonstration in Chicago where it produced blanks, same thing that happened in Ohio.  Were any election officials or secty of states told of these tests? And you heard this before?
 
There is pressure from the very top to produce results no matter how.   Security is a joke and Diebold lies repeatedly.  The Dieb-throat--the whistleblower--considers them a very dishonest company and implies that they should never be allowed within a mile of election equipment during elections; yet many election officials are turning over the running of elections to Diebold.  Yeah, we hard that before?

Also this whisleblower warns of electronic pollbooks and a new system to allow the state to takeover electronic voter registration rolls -- raising the prospect of Florida-style purging nationwide.  But you didn't hear this before!

[Boredtodeath]

85. Misquote

"This technician was asked to install the patches in Georgia, but only in heavily Dem precincts"

Patches were installed statewide. He stated he worked in a heavily Democratic precinct/county. But he didn't say patches were only installed in those counties.

[Kelvin Mace]

96. Say, Bev...

When will the financial statements come out explaining what you did with the million in cash you got last year promising you had evidence of vote fraud in Florida?

[Pig Farmer]

71. I don't get it

So what in this "story" is really new?

OK, Wally is pushing for sales, profit, numbers, stock price
boost, all that.  That's what public companies do.

All's I read is the same stuff that's been known, rehashed by
a supposed insider.  Why is Mr. Dieb-Throat still working
there?  If Diebold are as immoral as he claims, isn't he by
now a defacto co-conspirator?

PF

[Einsteinia]

77. Dieb-Throat is doing more for us by

providing spy services for us than by doing what we're all doing.

I think he's risking a lot--possibly even his life for what he's doing.

We should be grateful to him--not indicting him.

[nicknameless]

79. Props to DU's Liberty Belle

:patriot: :applause:

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[In Truth We Trust]

91. Oh... like Fox or CNN? hahahahaha "a real news outlet" hahaha

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Einsteinia]

101. This is 2005! Wake up! Even when the GAO

comes out with a 117 page indictment it isn't news worthy.

FBI, etc., likely are contacted, but nothing happens. I call our attorney general of my state frequently and tell of gross violations of the law--only to be told to get an attorney.

I challenge you to call the FBI and see what action you get.

[ScooterKen]

104. You are naive.

A real, live person, in a real situation like this thinks about themselves first, and being altruistic second. They would have gotten a lawyer first thing, and the lawyer would never let this guy talk to some insignificant pseudo-news website.

There is a high likelyhood that "Dieb-throat" is actually a NeoCon just fucking with us.
You are a naive fool if you think this story is real without any proof and without any validation by at least a second source.

[Einsteinia]

94. The Mainstream media is now owned by Corporations

It's not paranoia,

It's not anything personal

But the republicans are keeping the corporations in power and allowing them to further consolidate their power.

So, it's up to the blogs.

Why didn't the mainstream press -- the television -- ever once publish the fact that the GAO came out with a 117 page indictment of voting systems in our country and has a numbe of specific lines items (about 20) against Diebold specifically?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Einsteinia]

106. kick

[lonestarnot]

87. Read this yesterday. Waiting and watching.

[Einsteinia]

95. You're gong to wait a long time if you

think the television is going to say boo about this.

The only hope is if Keith Olbermann throws us a bone.

[lonestarnot]

100. I didn't say shit about the TV. Hardly ever have time for that crap.

[Einsteinia]

102. Okay, it's not going to be in your LA Times either, or

wherever you live. Or if it is it is recast as a bogus story and it is dismissed like cat litter.

[In Truth We Trust]

90. Paper Ballots NOW! Hand Counts NOW!! IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!