Why is the Media Downplaying Our Voting Scandal?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

by Danny Schechter

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0519-32.htm

<snip>

Compared to corporate machinations, or even military-industrial decisions, politics is over-covered, And yet the actual process of voting—the machines, the counting, the verification, and the questions raised by well informed journalists and analysts about voting fraud seem to bore the punditocracy.

I know because I made a film, Counting on Democracy about what actually happened in Florida in what is still of the most controversial elections in our history, with the popular votes won by Gore and the election won by Bush. 175,000 votes went uncounted. Once it was decided that the GOP won, most of the media lost interest. Very few journalists looked into what the ACLU called “the tyranny of small decisions” that affected the vote.

A media review of the outcome was postponed for months and came to convoluted conclusions although the New York Times reporter who led it told me they found that Gore won. That’s not what his own newspaper reported in a story that was so dense that it was hard to understand what it was saying. It was one of those pieces where the headline said one thing, the text something else.

Every one agreed that the election process was broken but there was little media attention paid to how to fix it. Once fancy new electronic voting machines appeared on the scene, many journalists seemed to promulgate the idea of “crisis over” because, in their worldwiew, technology solves all problems. Perhaps, that’s because so many of them think hey are tech savvy and rely on computers every day. Yet concerns about a paper trail and verification are shunted aside as issues taken seriously only by the grumpy or conspiratorial among us...



Excellent cartoon by DUer Angry Girl

[Boredtodeath]

1. Because Bev Harris insists on being front and center

and she has no credibility.

Here's proof she led Harri Hursti down the path of plagiarism:

Published on the CounttheVote.org website in 2004 in response to Brit Williams:

Williams: Voters need to know that even if the election official is sloppy about some procedures, that it is still improbable (vs. impossible) a "rogue vendor" could act alone to change election results (to use an allegation that has been made).

CTV Response: We allow technicans full access to the machines, the data and the votes yet deny the voters any access. We allow technicans to override policies and procedures, yet we would prosecute an elections official for overriding those same policies and procedures. We have granted the "rogue vendor" access while denying the voters and officials the same access. The terms of this contract appear to break the law in Georgia.

Let's use an all too probable example: It is election day, voters have been casting votes on a machine for 2 hours. Suddenly, the machine appears to fail. A technician is called in and alleges that the PCMCIA card (the ballot box) has malfunctioned. The technician replaces the card with one he/she decrees is functioning correctly. No elections official has inspected this card, no official has any idea what this card contains. It is possible that the card is loaded with fraudulent votes. It is possible that the card is not functioning while appearing to do so. It is possible that the ballot box simply isn't receiving every 3rd vote. It is possible the PCMCIA card contains a program to alter the contents of ALL PCMCIA cards during the accumulation process. It is possible that any number of things on that card are altering the election results. It is possible that an unsworn technician has introduced a "rogue" ballot box. And yet, no one has violated the policies and procedures in place. But those policies and procedures have failed to protect the sanctity of the vote.

In fact, this situation DID occur in March, 2004 in Walker County, Georgia:

Problems became apparent with Walker’s first returns about 9 p.m. when neighboring counties were wrapping up their tallies. A Diebold computer technician began providing incorrect numbers to news organizations. The botched returns were fed to the media for more than two hours after the polls closed before the problem was corrected.

“Their technicians were not loading something right,” Walker County Board of Elections and Registration Chief Clerk Barbara Berry said Wednesday. “That’s the reason we can’t even use the modems to get our results in. We have tried and tried to get our results in by modem, and something is wrong somewhere.”

As reported in the Walker County Messenger

Williams: Here are the steps that a person would have to go through to be able to change the outcome of an election.

snip.....

Williams: H) If the software is programmed onto a ROM (Read Only Memory) chip then you have to have physical access to the units.

CTV Response: Not true. One only needs to write a small utility which is a part of the GEMS system, because every time the machines are initiated (turned off and on) the ROM is re-programmed.

Williams: I) With access to the units, you must be able to remove enough of the ROMs in the units to reprogram them. This entails having enough time to either erase the ROMs installed in the units or having enough supplies of identical ROMs that you can have them preprogrammed and inserted into the units... all undetected.

CTV Response: Not true. One only needs to write a small utility which is a part of the GEMS system, because every time the machines are initiated (turned off and on) the ROM is re-programmed.

Williams: J) You then have to have access a second time to remove the "malignant" ROMs after the election and replace them with the real ones you removed (so that you can get away with the election fraud undetected).

CTV Response: Not true. One only needs to write a small utility which is a part of the GEMS system, because every time the machines are initiated (turned off and on) the ROM is re-programmed.

Williams: K) You have to do this not only on enough machines in one jurisdiction (unless your intent is to manipulate a local election - and why would anyone take these kinds of risks for a County Commissioner’s race, or Sheriff’s race or Mayor’s race?), but in many jurisdictions in order to steal a Congressional race or state race? And for the presidency, this would involve thousands and thousands of people.. .unless of course we go to one system nationally (or Internet voting).

CTV Response: Not true. One only needs to write a small utility which is a part of the GEMS system, because every time the machines are initiated (turned off and on) the ROM is re-programmed.

read the rest at:
http://www.countthevote.org/elec_center_0403.htm

[documaker]

2. People are visual creatures

Diebold voting machine, a visual.

Media needs ways to simplify complex stories.