Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

PRESS RELEASE: 92% of Americans Oppose Secret Vote Counting; Favor Public'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:06 PM
Original message
PRESS RELEASE: 92% of Americans Oppose Secret Vote Counting; Favor Public'
PRESS RELEASE: 92% of Americans Oppose Secret Vote Counting; Favor Public's Right to Know In Elections

PRESS RELEASE: 92% of Americans Oppose Secret Vote Counting; Favor
Public's Right to Know In Elections
PRESS RELEASE August 21, 2006, Park City, UT

92% of Americans Oppose Secret Vote Counting; Favor Public's Right to
Know In Elections
By Kathy Dopp

A new Zogby poll will be released on Tuesday reveals that fully 92%
of every single demographic group in American favors the public's
right to observe vote counting and to obtain any information regarding
vote counting, according an August 12-15 Zogby telephone poll of
approximately 1200 likely voters nationwide.
One actual survey question and answers is:

"In some states, members of the public have the right to view the
counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other
states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even
if they would like to view the process. Which of the following two
statements are you more likely to agree with A or B?"

Statement A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain information
about how election officials count votes.
92%

Statement B: Citizens do not have the right to view and obtain
information about how elections officials count votes.
6%

Neither/Not sure
2%

The survey was commissioned by election protection attorney Paul Lehto
of Washington State. According to Lehto, "The public overwhelmingly
opposes secret vote counting and favors election transparency and the
public right to know."

Here in Utah, our Utah election officials are out of touch with the
public, as shown by this new Zogby poll. Utah Lt. Governor's office
implemented state-wide voting systems with secret ("proprietary")
programming code and decertified Utah's former paper voting systems to
force counties to adopt new electronic ballots that are not humanly
viewable.

Bruce Funk of Emery County, Utah invited computer security experts to
examine Utah's new voting machines in March, 2006. The findings were
reported in the New York Times on May 12, 2006. The security flaws
that Funk found caused PA and CA to issue urgent security directives
and Avi Rubin, professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins
University said "I almost had a heart attack. The implications of
this are pretty astounding" and Michael Shamos of Carnegie Mellon
University said "It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in
a voting system". Yet Utah's Lt. Governor's office reacted by holding
a closed executive session meeting with Diebold officials and Emery
County officials, after which the doors on Bruce Funk's office were
locked to prevent this 23 year elected official from doing the job he
was elected for. The minutes of their secret meeting have yet to be
publicly released.

In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Salt Lake County's former election
official Michael Vu now officiates, it was found that 15% of the paper
ballot records did not match Diebold touch-screen electronic counts in
the recent primary. According to Kitty Pilgrim, CNN correspondent,
"The May primary election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, using Diebold
electronic voting machines was a debacle."

The only way to be sure that electronic counts are correct is to count
the voter verifiable paper records. Yet, the Salt Lake Tribune on
July 7, 2006 quoted Utah Election Director Michael Cragun saying that
a recount would consist of reconciling the electronic polling place
records by "re-accumulating the memory cards" and "The permanent paper
record comes into play only in an extreme situation."

Counting the paper roll ballot records by hand to verify the accuracy
of electronic counts requires equipment called "paper roll advancers".
Yet Utah election officials have not purchased any paper roll
advancers; have not purchased the equipment required to install a
known clean software system on Diebolds; and have kept Utah's security
procedures a secret. "Security by obscurity" is a formula for insider
tampering.

Utah election officials have actively worked against the transparency
in elections that the public overwhelmingly wants. The US
Constitution created a government with checks and balances, not a
system of blind trust in the infallibility and good intentions of
others. Yet Utah election officials implemented a new "faith-based"
voting system which lets private companies secretly count unseen
electronic ballots and determine outcomes of elections without any
checks.

These nearly unanimous Zogby poll results bolster efforts to convince
the Utah Lt. Governor's Office that the public recognizes this as a
crisis on which they must act to change our election conditions. The
staff of the Lt. Governor's office should be willing to admit the
problems inherent with the secret vote counting machines and consult
with expert computer scientists and mathematicians to develop methods
to ensure our election outcome integrity.

In concert with Tuesday's full announcement of the Zogby poll, the
National Election Data Archive has developed a new method for ensuring
election outcome integrity. In this new paper to be released soon by
the National Election Data Archive "The Election Integrity Audit"
NEDA's releases a new method for calculating audit amounts -- hand
counting of ballots done to check the accuracy of vote tallying
machinesthat would reveal any corrupted vote counts that could
wrongfully alter any election outcome.

According to NEDA, a fixed rate audit of 1 or 2% or even 5% is not
capable of detecting outcome-altering vote miscount in close races.
This is extremely relevant given the enormous financial and legal
barriers to bringing a challenge to a close election. Attached to
NEDA's paper is a computer algorithm and spreadsheet that offers
readers the ability to calculate, for particular races and elections
the audit size to detect vote total corruption. NEDA recommends that
their new calculation be adopted as the standard for calculating
election audit percentages.

It is from the "Consent of the Governed", according to the Declaration
of Independence, that government derives "Just Power." It is time for
state and county election officials to listen to the public and make
Utah's election process publicly transparent and verifiable.

Kathy Dopp, kathy@ElectionArchive.org
National Election Data Archive, President
P.O. Box 682556, Park City, UT 84068
435-658-4657 http://ElectionArchive.org

This press release can be found online at:

http://utahcountvotes.org/docs/ZogbyTransparencyPoll.pd...
http://ElectionArchive.org/ucvInfo/release/ZogbyTranspa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I Love Ya!!!!!
Awesome and bookmarking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. love ya too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. K and R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. thanks!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kick & 5th Recommendation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwasthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. Shouldn't that be 100 % don't support secrecy
What 8% want secret vote counting and would they admit it?????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. That view is widely held among total, fucking morons. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. that is so what I wanted to know too...
who are the 8% who can rationalize this away?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. Audio interviews with Debra Bowen (running for CA Secretary of State)
and with computer technology/electronic security experts Dr. David Dill and Mark Crispin Miller, regarding the massive security flaws present in current Electronic Voting are available for downloading (and sharing!). In total the interviews last almost an hour and are available through a two part podcast. This is a very thorough well informed and extremely solid discussion that can be shared with anyone you know who is currently skeptical about the threat to our democracy that current e-voting poses.

General Wesley Clark endorsed his staff and supporters producing a series of podcasts on the issue of Election Integrity, and these interviews are the most recent in the series of official "Clarkcasts" that Wes Clark issues each week.

Here is the link to Part One:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7992

Here is the link to Part Two:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8075
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. EXCELLENT!! Thank you for the links!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. The utter arrogance. Incredible. I didn't know it could get.
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 01:02 PM by higher class
this bad. Bold statements against transparency. Secret meetings. Collusion.

What is the make-up of these 'decision makers'? Gender, age, political leanings and contributions, geographical residencies, histories of other decisions regarding voting or other rights related decisions or fights?

I'm stunned. Did Lott say it was OK? Or did he give them the idea? Or set up the first meeting between Diebold and these 'decision makers'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thefuzz811 Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here is another good link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. excellent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC