Transcript from Lou Dobbs re voting machines

[blm]

Tonight, the federal government is failing to protect our democracy from
an imminent threat. Electronic voting machines are open to fraud and can
be compromised by hackers. But the federal government cannot enforce
security standards for electronic voting machines. It hasn't set
specific standards yet. Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than half of all
American voters will vote on electronic voting machines in upcoming
elections. And watchdog groups want the federal government to be more
Sorry, no link. Got this in an email.

MICHAEL WALDMAN, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE: The federal government,
through the election assistance commission, should be training local
officials in how to do the right kind of audits of these voting systems.
That can happen right away. That doesn't need new legislation. It should
be the job of the federal government to do the kind of threat analysis
that private groups and computer scientists have done.

PILGRIM: Federal guidelines for designing and testing electronic voting
machines were drafted by a federal advisory board in 2005. But those
standards are voluntary and won't be officially into effect until
December 2007.

DeForest Soaries was the first chair of the Federal Election Assistance
Commission set up after the hanging chad controversy of 2000 to oversee
election reform. Soaries resigned April of last year.

DEFOREST SOARIES, FORMER CHMN, ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMM.: Well what's
wrong with the standards is they are not standards, they are
recommendations at best. I'm worried about electronic voting because
we've done such inadequate research that we don't know what we don't know.

PILGRIM: Computer engineers say the guidelines are not enough to
actually check the machine that is in place at the polling station.

JOSH WASHBURN, VOTETRUSTUSA: We don't know enough about the system in
front of you to know if it is or is not the same as the one that was
tested. So any statement about the tested system may or may not apply to
your system.

PILGRIM: Also watchdog groups say guidelines allow for an acceptable
failure rate for electronic voting machines that is too high.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: The Federal Election Assistance Commission says voting
guidelines have always been voluntary and left up to the states. Now the
Help America Vote Act sets minimum guidelines, but doesn't say what kind
of technology should be used or require how it should be verified. That
decision, Lou, is local.

DOBBS: It may be local, but this is a national issue for certain. The
idea that we can be a matter of months away from the upcoming midterm
elections and not have any assurance whatsoever that these machines
work, can't be tampered with or that fraud will occur is just mind boggling.

PILGRIM: No, the people that we talk to who watch this are absolutely in
shock over this. And they're very upset that local officials aren't
taking the energy to check and connect with people.

DOBBS: Well what in the world is the federal government doing?

PILGRIM: The federal government has basically dropped the ball on this, Lou.

DOBBS: Dropped the ball. Minor thing with our Democratic republic at
stake. Not that we don't have enough issues to deal with, the fact that
we can't even rely upon a vote. We'll continue with your excellent
reporting on this issue, very important issue. Thank you, Kitty Pilgrim.

[ProSense]

1. Are you kidding me?

DeForest Soaries is the biggest traitor to voting rights ever!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=64473&mesg_id=64537


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=89096&mesg_id=89194

[blm]

2. Which is why Dems have to stay out in front before GOPs become the

focal point as the 'leaders' on the issue just to control their image and distract from their actual criminal links to it.

[sandnsea]

3. Audits aren't ballots

Audits don't do anything about matching the screen to the print-out or guaranteeing that recounts aren't machine recounts. Doesn't mention the testing organization AT ALL and how hokey it has been. Doesn't mention any of the "glitches" so that people will understand all the problems we've already had. It's typical Dobbs, it's almost like lip service, designed to intentionally ignore the pertinent facts that would really get people up in arms or head them off on the wrong solutions to the problems. I'm glad he's at least talking about it, because it does lay some groundwork. But the important details still aren't coming through and I'm afraid this shoddy approach will result in rolled-eyes and another MSM "well nobody was interested" cover up. His intention all along.

[ProSense]

4. This is why

the approach has to be reasoned: not over hyping the stolen election, but addressing the severity of the machine flaws. I still believe that an investigation into the problems is the only way to make the process credible, but it would mean looking at what really happened. Without a compelling case, people will ignore the issue or offer a solution that does nothing to correct the problem. I just don't see anyone acknowledging the severity of the glitches and their potential to impact an election (except as the Baker-Carter report did in a sentence) without an investigation -- a thorough look at the machines: from programming to performance to security.

[sandnsea]

5. That's right where I'm at

I've been preaching it since Nov 2004. Glitchgate. Over and over. We show people how flawed these machines are, which leads to a demand that every glitch be explained and then a thorough look at the machines.

That and the other issues of registration, machine placement, chain of custody, code in escrow accounts, etc.

[TayTay]

6. In other words, this particular machine should live up to standards

and if the delivered machinery doesn't function as advertised there should be vendor penalities, including a refund of purchase price and the right for states or municipalities to sue for damages. The machine companies should have to stand behind their products and verify that they work in the manner in which they were described at the point of sale.

All glitches during an actual election should result in fines, so much for every ten minutes the machines are down, up to and exceeding the cost of the contract.

OMFG! That would be awesome. These machines work or else you get no money. (And nothing says loving like a check.) This is where the fall-down is. There is no push in a lot of localities for standards and no appetite to fine the ve ndors for malfunctioning machines. Sigh!

[sandnsea]

7. That would be a start

I think voters need to be brought into the process because we're the ones who are really harmed in elections. But yeah, some fines and breach of contract clauses might be a good inclusion. And an insistence that we tighten up on some of this sloppy election processing, like taking machines home the night before. While I highly doubt anything happened, it's just plain ridiculous to have that kind of stuff going on.