TV Producers are getting seriously interested in Black Box Voting

[BevHarris]

What is needed now, more than anything, is to take the 10 percent public awareness we now have achieved -- not a small feat -- and turn it into 100 percent public awareness. For that, we need TV.

I have a taping on Monday, and have been spending literally hours with ABC, CNN, and CBS bringing them up to speed on the details of the issue.

What is holding back the TV coverage at this point is not what you think: The problem is that they are now seeing what a gigantic problem we have. How do you cover that in 2 minutes? They are seeing that this goes to the very fabric of our democracy, and the system is fundamentally broken -- the certification model itself is flawed, we don't have adequate auditing, and the officials running the system haven't corrected the problems.

The TV people I'm talking with are overwhelmed by the dimensions of the problem, and they are certainly verifying it for themselves at this point. One high level producer, whom I will not name, said this, and I quote: "When you really start looking into it, you just say 'Oh fuck this is really out of control."

I have to get over my intense distaste for TV, which is caused by my desire for privacy and my crappy hairstyle and general fatness. I'm doing the TV anyway now. We have no time to lose.

We can crack TV now. What we need to do is break the issue into many small, simple components.

Suggestions?

Would love to see contributions right here from DU members, as to good pithy short segment topics that I can pitch, both to regional and national. They are really overwhelmed and need catchy, easy-to-understand angles.

Love to get the old-fashioned DU response -- this site has great minds. Let's use 'em and take that 10% awareness higher, through TV.

Bev Harris

[Skittles]

1. WHOA

"Oh fuck this is really out of control." - from a high-level producer??? I am IMPRESSED.

Bev, don't be dissing your looks - I've seen pictures of you and you look GOOD. :thumbsup:

[Andy_Stephenson]

63. I agree...

Bev is awesome. Cute as can be and VIVACIOUS! Love ya Bev!


:thumbsup:

[TruthIsAll]

64. Very simple. Diebold gives a receipt for ALL machines, except voting

1) You get a receipt at an ATM and at the cash register. Otherwise, you have no proof of purchase.

2) How do you recount the votes without a paper receipt, unless it is printed, inspected BY THE VOTER, and saved in a lockbox?

That's it. End of story.

No, not quite.

3) It would be faster, cheaper and more accurate to have paper ballots only, like the rest of the world. The machines are a boondoggle, and only serve to thwart our democratic right to choose our representatives. What we have is Cyberfascism.

Ok, it's trite, but I'll say it anyway. They are supposed to serve us. Not the other way around. It's a very simple concept that is easily forgotten.

4) This is the ONLY application I am aware of where computers are a detriment, a step backwards.

That's really it.

Bev, fasten your seatbelt, you are going on a wild ride.

[0007]

76. My letter from a Texas Congressman, Randy Neugebauer

I can understand your wariness over the use of voting machine. I believe that Help America Vote Act of 2002 took some important steps toward ensuring fair elections in the future. While there are other steps that might be taken, such as H.R. 2239, changing the voting machines is an expe3nsive and often impractical procedure. The problem is that federally mandating these changes forces every voting center to adhere to every change, no matter the cost, often creating a pricey proposal.

Again thank you for contacting me. Although we do not see eye to eye on this legislation,........yap yap yap

[necso]

2. I am no expert on marketing, but...

I think that the absence of any printed and therefore checkable ballots has the most appeal. People do not understand that black box voting not only does not solve the "Florida problem", but makes it much worse. More technical issues I think leave a lot of people behind.

The more you can get high powered types of people or groups (Universities, research groups, known names) involved the better. A few celebs never hurts either.

I admire your work and say press on.

You can always get a new hairstyle and there are plenty of people carrying a few extra pounds.

Best.

[ithacan]

10. ATM analogy

we all expect to get printed, verified receipts from ATM machines. Seems like with something so much more important -- voting and the fate of democracy -- we'd want at least the same protection that we get from other computerized machines we use... And if they can give receipts for ATMS, surely it can't be impossible to make receipts (voter verified paper records) for voting machines.

How can anyone be against it?

And since it's so common sense, WHY is there such resistance from certain quarters? Why are the republicans apparently resistant? Hmmm...

Just a few thoughts.

[necso]

19. I like it.

This is the kind of "familar experience" analogy that people can relate to.

[necso]

35. I might also suggest:

The analogy of checking your receipt when you go shopping --- but I am not sure how many people actually do. There was that big thing on checkout prices not matching advertised prices (wrong prices "in the computer") at retail stores a while back, so maybe people would be sensitive still.

[Eric J in MN]

72. Martin Sheen. He wrote a letter for True Majority about BBV. (nt)

nt

[arcane1]

3. sweet! You GO Bev!!

the only short pithy remark I've come up with was when a Repube scoffed at the "irrational" concern about BBV. My reply- what if Diebold's CEO had been committed to giving Ohio's votes to the Democrats? :evilgrin:

[Champion Jack]

4. For what it's worth...

I talked up BBV with a producer (CBS-LA) a couple of Month's ago.
She seemed very interested.

[BevHarris]

20. She is very interested. She has also contacted me recently.

I assume it's the same one. Just e-mailed her today.

Bev

[Champion Jack]

24. Cool! Glad I could help

:bounce:

[judy]

5. Bev, you are awesome and your work is so important...

and as far as TV goes, I do hope your hairstyle is at least slightly better than Ted Koppel's :)

I think the important issues are these:
1 - Fragility of software based machines - What if there is a crash and the data is lost (or a hard drive fails) - I am an engineer and I know these things happen all the time.

2 - Therefore we need 2 things:
-A voter verifiable paper ballot comes out of the machine on a card
-The voter HAS to put the paper ballot in a sealed box for future audits.

Now they'll say, so if you have these 2 things, what is the advantage of electronic voting? We might as well stick to paper, no ?
I think electronic voting, with the 2 things above, can limit the number of voting errors (no more chads, user interface can be simple, etc.). The card ballots contain only the choices of the voters (less bulky) and could have a shape\layout that allows them to be easily tallied.

Go Bev, you are our hero !!!!

[SharonAnn]

104. There are only two things computers actually help with.

1. Data Entry on a touch screen can be easier than punch cards, lever machines, and even optical read forms because: it can be displayed in a variety of languages, prevent over-votes, and point out under-votes.

2. Tallying the vote count for the candidates/issues.

BBV machines should not be the "repository" of the completed ballots. They should not be the "record" of the completed ballot (images printed later). And rerunning a list and total should not be a "recount".

You cannot have one machine do everything in some invisible manner and have any trust in it. It must be auditable .

Remember, two things computer BBV machines can e good at:
1. Data Entry
2. Tallying

That's it! Nothing else. In all other areas, paper ballots are superior.

[RT Atlanta]

6. random thoughts

Hopefully you can pull something from my comment that will be useful (by the way, I have enjoyed reading your posts and appreciate the work you're doing on behalf of all Americans).

As far as the issue, while I understand it generally, I do not have a complete grasp of its intricacies. However, as far as thoughts on an angle to pitch this matter, the angle that comes to mind falls in lines with some our citizens' concerns about the government wanting to take their guns away (not trying to start a new topic here!). That is, when the gun-folks hear that "threat" it is an immediate "call to arms" (pun) for them to mobilize and vote the people wanting to take their guns from office. I think that if the gravity of concerns with electronic voting machines can be presented to the "masses" something along the above-mentioned lines, you might get a foot in the door an further ensure that there will be viewers who will watch the television program on this matter.

Very random thoughts, but I hope there is something of use avialable somewhere in this post.

Keep up the fight!

[arcane1]

7. how often do people have "computer errors" in their bank accounts, etc

without a separate hard copy of their records, they would have no way of getting their accounts fixed. The bank says you have $2,000 less than you thought, well then the bank is "right" because you can't prove otherwise, and you lose $2,000...

[supernova]

21. DING!, DING!, DING!

Exactly. I think this is the entry way to the issue for the everyday public who hasn't been looking at this stuff.

I think this is important. Comparing the issues with electronic voting to the machines we already interacted with every day. How do we use them? How do we know we performed the task we wanted? How do we correct problems?

The consumer reporter would eat this stuff up. But after the entry way, then you could bring in the political reporter to talk about ramifications from the individual to the larger society.

And I think you have to say that it isn't the concept of e-voting itself that is so bad (there's always room for an improved future), but that present implementation of that concept is what's troubling.

[tinrobot]

25. One more thing...

Is that Diebold makes the ATM machines that print out those important bank receipts. They know full well why they're important.

Why did they leave them off the voting machines?

[supernova]

27. Oh Yes! Glad you

reminded us.

Interesting that Diebold gives receipts in its ATMs but doesn't wanna do the same for voting machines. :wtf:

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. A receipt won't mean shit

We still need paper ballots.

Look at what happened in a small local election in So. FL last week. The election was so close that a recount was required. Unfortunately, without paper ballots they could not abide by the law and carry out a proper recount. When they went back into the computers to recount the data, 100+ votes came up with nothing/nada/zip/no vote cast. Now there is no way to ever find out what the voter actually intended. So much for equal protection under the law.

BTW: Bev, I've seen your pic and you look like someone who is just a regular rational human, who can be trusted. I think you'll do just fine on TV. Whatever happens from here, just enjoy yourself, you deserve it.

[tinrobot]

74. By receipt, I mean ballot...

Use the the touch screen to punch in your vote, out pops some paper. Verify the vote on paper, drop paper in a ballot box.

We now have two records of the vote - electronic and paper. Tampering with both will be hard. Recounts will be easy.

[SoCalDem]

73. Paper trail

[shirlden]

8. A kick for Bev

Let's keep this kicked for the night crew. Bev is right.....there is some tremendous brain power here at DU. Would someone please run over to the GD elections forum and tell the posters they are needed here??

:kick:

[Cleita]

9. Big trouble in our neck of the woods.

I ran into a lady from our local Democratic Club this morning. I hadn't been to any meeting in the last three months on account of one crisis or the other about the time of the monthly meetings.

She told me that she was involved with some local women's voter's group (not the League of Women Voters). I mentioned that I wanted to get involved somehow in the March primary. Well, blah, blah, blah, she then brought up that there could be a problem with the electronic voting. She had read it in our local fish wrapper.

My bushy tail of course, stood right up and bristled. I told her that there was a problem even right here in SLO county. She said they knew, BUT, they don't want to go public with it because the electorate may not vote then.

HUH??? Shouldn't the electorate be aware of this. I gave her my home number and the president of the voting club is supposed to get in touch with me. However, how do I tactfully bring up that we should be shouting these problems to the rafters?

[ursacorwin]

14. agitate!

you've got to start going to meetings, making phone calls, etc. it's the only way at this late hour. i personally discussed this with the woman who counts the votes where i live, thank goddess we still use the old paper system, but that's cause it's such a small town.

anyone personally know the move on crew? sounds like it's time for another 60 sec contest.

my entry: show an atm, a fast food drive by, and a voting machine. ask the question in bold: guess which one doesn't give you a paper receit?

[Beetwasher]

11. Coroporations and Special Interests Control Vote Counting

These companies that are counting the votes are big Republican donors. That's a great segment topic. How can this be legal? They give big money to Repubs, so they obviously want to see them win AND they are in charge of counting the votes. Simple, direct and frightening.

[nostamj]

12. pick the top three BBV horror stories

then point out the percentage of the country that HAD BBV at that time...

how many horror stories will there be as the percentage of BBV machines increases?

=====================


or, same horror stories, but this concept: shouldn't we make sure the boat floats before letting the passengers onboard?


=====================


i'll keep it in my head. hard to do much while still at work...

[tomreedtoon]

13. Who cares what TV producers think?

Because they don't do it very often. Take it from a long-time TV engineer.

A few years ago, Jerry Springer was hired to do editorial commentary for a Chicago TV station. (In Chicago there are still a few people who take TV news seriously. Two of the anchors quit when Springer was hired.)

While he was there...which was not long, due to public outcry...Springer dared to reveal the truth about TV news. He told someone, "TV news isn't all that hard to do. News consists of weather, sports, and who got shot last night."

The only way you can get TV people to pay attention to black box voting is if someone is shot while stealing one. Probably shot in a ghetto area, since those are the locations that news crews identify as the source of all crime.

Cynical? No. Years of watching newscasts.

[ursacorwin]

18. so you think tv has no power over people's minds?

yet we argue here all the time that the only reason so many people "love" bush is because of the bs they get fed in the media...it's one or the other, but not both.

in the right hands, in a move on like situation, this could really work. we don't even have to name parties, just show examples from 2002 and 2000 without naming any names. "18,1818 vote total in three separate judicial elections? 55,000 americans removed from voting roles? uncertified software that no gov't official has ever seen "counting" the votes?" and so on...

it's not hard at all to make this catchy, scary, and "sexy" for tv viewers.

[BevHarris]

22. Well, that's not quite right.

Because I already have one taping next week. They flew 3000 miles to do it.

You are right that the producers need to get buy-in from management on anything too controversial. But remember, one of the most controversial segments was Fox News, interviewing David Allen for a five-minute no-holds-barred segment in October.

They are getting there.

Bev

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

15. I would NOT trust what Corporate Media producers are telling you

No matter how nice they might be as individual people, will they put their career on the line? Most people wouldn't. And even if they did and got fired, what good would that do?

That being said, keep up the good work BevHarris!

[donsu]

16. 'get your kids to tell you how easy it is to mess with a computer'

just a thought to bring the subject matter to the non-computing voter.

[Deb]

17. Demonstrate a remote "hack"

using portable touch screen computers.

[BevHarris]

23. That needs a touch screen computer.

However, it is an appealing idea and I've been speaking with various producers on the magazine-style shows since May on that. Several hoops to jump through, though, and it is a more complicated endeavor than people think -- mainly because even the purchases of the systems are not allowed to let anyone else try this.

Bev

[cthrumatrix]

30. Thank you for all the effort --- America is proud of you

[deek]

62. Why not a simulation then?

Using one of the touch screen systems available? Noting "this is only a simulation because the actual machines are secret only to a few" would emphasize the point.

???

[ursacorwin]

26. even better, show kids doing it

like they do with daddy's computer all the time...

older folks i know are so mystified by computers, i'm sure we could milk it by giving them images of punk-rock hacker freaks changing their vote to the anarchist party.

[freespeechhere]

28. Just don't do anything Jon Stewart can dog you for...

If you do TV and you make a gaffe, he'll pick up on it in a minute.
You don't want to be the moment of zen.

Regarding the scope of the issue...from a layman's perspective, I think you've got to boil it down to sound bites. I was thinking of writing an article for my local newspaper, but I don't know where to begin without sounding overly dramatic about the situation from a newcomer's point of view.

I'm sure you'll do fine. You've probably already got enough credibility to blow everyone away considering that the Diebold swine tried to shut you down a few months back and you came up swinging.

Good luck to you.

You're awesome.

[TacticalPeek]

29. The voter verified paper ballot seems to be the essential ingredient.

Whatever the problems and solutions to electronics, certification, officials, etc., it all points up this need to be sure the election results are provable. We need VVPB and we need them legally defined to be available as the arbiter at least.

I don't speak Photoshop, but recall the famous pic of the guy in FL 2000 holding the punch card up to the light. I would want to show him in that pic and substitute for the punch card a shiney CD, or memory card or something equally absurd.

[Algorem]

31. Is BBV being used in primaries?

[BevHarris]

33. Yup. Hey, I have a question

Understand that the problem is with any vote counted by computer that is not properly audited:

Punch cards are counted by computer
Optical scans are counted by computer
Touch-screens are counted by computer.

But I have a REALLY dumb question. I've been told that the caucuses do not use computerized voting machines at all. How, specifically, is intent registered? So many times we are told not to worry our little heads, and then up pops another mammoth security flaw.

Bev

[SharonAnn]

105. They're hand counted (usually vote by raising hands) by the

caucus chair during the caucus with everyone present and watching. It's a little archaic but with the "many eyes" as part of it, it should be OK.

It would be very hard to rig a bunch of different caucus gatherings. You'd have to have alot of people in collusion for relatively small benefit. Lots of witnesses - everyone present at the caucus.

[oneighty]

32. Hey BevHarris

Nate my grandson was playing the touch screen machine down at The Fireman's club. The machine stopped working. The friendly barmaid, Tammy came over and fixed it with a good swift slap on the side!

Good luck to you BevHarris. You will do just fine, you have the passion. People will see that.

180

[cybildisobedience]

36. for what it's worth....

First of all, Bev, let me add my voice to the chorus of those who praise your efforts. You're providing an incredible service to your country.
Secondly, I do like the ATM analogy == just asking people if they would feel comfortable with no paper verification of a banking transaction should make this highly complex topic understandable.
And, as much as I think the Republicans owning and controlling the machines is the crux of the issue, I'm afraid that will only turn off half the country. Better to note that this puts the outcome of any election -- no matter WHO wins -- in the hands of a few people who are accountable to no one.
One last thing: I am concerned that if we don't out there with this, pretty soon, we're going to see Republicans accusing Dems of cheating again. You know how they always accuse others of doing exactly what they're doing? I'm afraid the only way this story is going to gain traction is when the Republicans decide that it's an issue, and then all we'll hear about through the right-wing media echo chamber is that the Dems are cheating again!

[annagull]

37. The recent Florida primary is a good story

Where the winner of the republican primary won by 12 votes, yet 152 votes cast were for no one. Also, someone has filed a lawsuit against the Sec of State and Election supervisor in Broward and Palm Beach saying these voting machines are not in compliance with Florida law since you cannot do a recount.

[Oggy]

42. Good choice

Just thinking of that.

[BevHarris]

45. Absolutely. This is the angle that triggered the story I'm taping for

Next week. There will be many anomalies. We need to watch for them like hawks, and then piggyback the bigger story onto the smaller angle, in bite-size chunks.

[ParanoidPat]

38. We need to pull together all of the background research.....

.....from every source out there detailing the people involved and the meetings they attended along with the public testimony they gave. Boil it all down to a time-line of key players and events.

Formation of the Election Center
Takeover by R. Doug Lewis
Founding of NASED
Founding of NASS
Formation of ITA
Shawn Southworth
HAVA
Jim Dixon
AAPD
Cynthia Waddell
ICDRI
Kay J. Maxwell
National League of Woman Voters

(Meanwhile, across town....)

American Information Systems / Bob and Todd Urosevich
ES&S / Todd Urosevich
Chuck Hagel
Global Election Systems
Diebold / Bob Urosevich
Walden O'Dell
W.R. 'Tim' Timkin
Sequoia Voting Systems
De La Rue plc
VoteHere

Stick everything, names, places, documentation, everything on one long time line and then scan across it.

The story tells itself. :evilgrin:

Anyone have a

BIG

calender that goes back about a dozen years? :shrug:

Seriously, this issue has been stealthily progressing for quite a long time. We now find ourselves caught in a 'prefect storm' if you will, of circumstances set in motion years ago.
The very people charged with protecting our elections have all been fed the same lines of BS at meeting after meeting until they've adopted those lines as their own. Key people from a number of national organizations have all come out against 'paper ballots' for the most trivial of reasons, Claiming to speak for "millions of people" when, upon closer inspection, we find they speak only for themselves or a small group within the main group. The voting machine vendors have formed their own lobby with a PR firm whose main goal is to "change the perception of the problem".

So what one thing ties all of this together?

(Hint) He's the single most important, most influential, and most unknown individual in American electoral history.

Who is R. DOUG LEWIS?

From the very beginning, in meeting after meeting, right through the tele-conference where he more or less announced that he was going to work for them. Doug was there, testifying, 'advising', planting the seeds, taking donations. There's a ton of supporting documentation available in the forms of published meeting agendas, transcripts of public testimony, press releases and articles to tie R. Doug Lewis to just about anyone.

But who the hell is he?

Then again you knew all this already. This was the question you posed in one of the very first BBV threads I responded to. :)
Thanks for the excellent education. ;-)

[BevHarris]

41. Pat - you're right? Who is he?????

And isn't it interesting that they plan to brush him under the rug, after implementing HAVA. From what I understand, his previous major role will be replaced with a new government agency, but he will remain an unelected appointee of some powerful type.

Who the hell is he? How did he get that position? Who hired him? What position will he take next? And, once again, in unison now: Who is this mystery man?

Good suggestions.

At one point, Creativelcro (I think it was him?) had a really good Diebold timeline. The timeline idea is helpful, graphics would be helpful, to tie this whole picture together.

Also, the citizen audits are helpful. One of the last questions to yield answers has been: How did they sucker all the election officials into this?

Bev

[nostamj]

43. graphics would be helpful

yup!

keep me in mind. done this kind of thing in a corporate setting.

could translate to a PowerPoint presentation that could be then used to fine-tune the storyboard for a flash presentation.

or go straight to flash?

"Your Vote in 30 Seconds"

[ParanoidPat]

46. The 64,000 dollar question.....

.....Who is R. Doug Lewis, Executive Director of the Election Center

The Election Center is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization under the regulations of the Internal Revenue Service. The Election Center's purpose is to promote, preserve, and improve democracy. Its members are government employees whose profession is to serve in voter registration and elections administration, i.e., voter registrars, elections supervisors, elections directors, city clerk/city secretary, county clerk, county recorder, state election director and Secretary of State for each of the individual states, territories, and the District of Columbia.

The Center also provides staff services to the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) for the voting systems program. NASED is responsible for the voluntary testing, through an independent nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL), of voting systems hardware and software to meet or exceed the Federal Voting Systems Standards as developed by the Federal Election Commission. The program as administered by the Center for NASED, comprises developing materials for distribution to government officials concerning systems testing, developing and handling the public information about the program, administering the day-to-day needs of the program, and assuring that American jurisdictions get qualified voting systems that will continue the fair, free, honest and accurate elections that are the hallmarks of American democracy. The Center spends considerable time and resources of its own toward this project which improves democracy.

What was this guy doing at that voting machine vendors tele-conference? :shrug:

Can you say "conflict of interests"? Good! I knew you could! :evilgrin:

How did he sucker these guys in? LOL! He's a con-man. He invited them to join his 'exclusive' club and pay dues so he could be the president they could feel important hanging out with him.
Better yet, then he got them to pay him for advice on starting their own 'more exclusive' clubs! (NASED & NASS) Now they pay him for his continuing advice. :)

[Zan_of_Texas]

98. Doug Lewis

Okay, this is heresay, but from someone I talked with who is a committed voting integrity activist.

She told me last week:

Doug Lewis claims to have been the former Texas state chair of democratic party. But, my source told me that she knows people who would know him if that were true, and those Dems say nope. Source says Lewis makes similar claims re Kansas too, claiming to have been past head of Dem party of Kansas.

Is anybody here close to Kansas Dem party heads, present and past -- ask if they have any knowledge of Doug Lewis.

[ParanoidPat]

99. Thanks for the lead.....

I'll look into it every way I know how to! :evilgrin:
Thank you. thank you, thank you!
I doubt it (there is no way he was ever a Democrat) but any lead on who he is (was) helps!

:kick:

[JetJaguar]

103. If the claims are true

They would most likely have applied well before 1980.

"John Connally Citizens Forum"

R. Doug was the executive director of the "Citizens Forum"
which was basically a political action committee (PAC) for John
Connelly's run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Another International Man of Mystery associated with the
"Citizens Forum" was Mike Myers. Most likely this was
Mike A. Myers who may have swayed some powers in Austin
but was not Austin Powers.

Lewis' closeness to Connally lends some credence to the
claim of earlier democratic political connections in Texas.
I have no idea about Kansas.

[RedEagle]

82. Election Officials Were Given a "Culture" to Belong to

Beginning with The Election Center and in Washington State, Munro in the SOS seat for 20 years, (We need term limits on this position) a culture has been created for election officials. An exclusive group that gives the sense of belonging and "us against them" mentality. ("Them," in this case, is the voters, and the perception that we all want to commit vote fraud, while the vendors and corporate-influenced companies are the "heroes.")

The Election Center is behind and/or involved in every organization of Auditors, election officials- IACREOT, for example. Several more.

While this gave election officials a venue to come together, it also supplied a way to influence greatly, at the bottom rung of the ladder, how these people think and perform their duties.

Most of them don't even consider the fact that the "system" is backwards. Vendors control the markets, vendors control the product, vendors control the certification system, and vendors tell them what they can and can't have. Election officials only work within the framework that has been created around them. Very few, like Freddie Oakley of Yolo County, CA, think outside of the box. Vendors control the committees that are to set standards and protocol at the federal level, and they will do it again in the HAVA mandated restructuring. It's built into HAVA.

Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, HartInterCivic, are their "friends." They have been wined and dined by them for years. If an upstart like, say, Accupoll comes along, they will eventually talk to the big guys and these guys will LIE about the others, and the officials, who might not be so gullible in another "shopping" venue, buy it. I was at a meeting where the Sequoia rep LIED about Avante. She was called on it and made a bit uncomfortable, but you can bet since the state heavily favors Sequoia, that any question from the auditor got smoothed over at the state level.

I think we have a huge case of racketeering on our hands, and don't bet that the big four companies don't, in the end, insure the market stays in their hands while they compete among themselves.

Look at the states that have done group buys, and you will see a curious correlation between participation on the NASED voting systems panel, past or present.

For example, if memory serves, Linda Lamone of Maryland was on the panel. But if not, there is the curious presentation given at a national NASED conference by her and Brit Williams on how to do group buys, before Maryland jumped totally on the Diebold bandwagon with Georgia. Brit Williams figures there. New Mexico is another one that comes to mind.

Further, a lot of these same individuals figure in the NASED committess on disabled voting, etc.

These people are the ones the lower echelon goes to ask questions of. They are prominent in their "group."

Look what we have seen with the League of Women Voters- a totally uncharacteristic mandate from the top down that may eventually destroy the LWV, so many in the ranks are furious.

Not only is there much to gain money wise, the control possible is beyond the pale. What are the three attractions that motivate corruption: Money, Power, and Opportunity? Are those it?

The FEC let the ball drop for YEARS. Congress let the ball drop for YEARS. It was left up to the states, and while that is a very noble and quite necessary undertaking, it also left the voting system vulnerable to manipulation and fraud on the state level. States could still maintain a lot of autonomy even if the federal government had mandated voting systems. Eventually, with the help of The Election Center, a voluntary system was set up. Penolope Bonsall needs to be given a ride out of town on a rail. She welcomed a supposed non-profit instituion headed by R. Doug Lewis to ramrod the entire election system in the country. The FEC, of all, should have the records and history on The Election Center.

OK, I got on a tangent. The point is, local election officials are taught by people at the state level who are taught the the organizations who are influenced by The Election Center and vendors.

We literally need to tear down the present "system," take total power out of the hands of state election officials, get some serious oversight on Secretaries of State, and instruct everyone in the one core fact of a representative democracy- the vote is paramount. Not the newest gadget, not modernization, not news services crying for results now, not what makes their job easiest.

What matters is the sanctity of that vote, and whatever you have to do to protect it, is what has to be done. If you cannot and will not put the passion, dedication, and work into protecting that, then you don't belong in any system that has anything to do with our vote.

A lot of these people, somewhat innocent sheep in this whole thing, are going to be branded and labeled along with the perpetrators. They could change direction now, and make huge strides towards protecting democracy and reinvigorating people's connection to the system. They could, if they would stop listening to the official up the ladder from them, if they would engage in some independent thought, if they would realize the "system" has been managed into this mess so that the only apparent options are to keep going along.

Put the work in, get out of the fog, and get a taste of helping real democracy along. Got any officials willing to buck the system? They'd have a LOT of voters behind them.

[SharonAnn]

106. The right-wing has plenty of money and patience (when necessary)

They've got think tanks who've been floating ideas (memes) around for decades. Think "taxes bad", Americans need "Tax Relief".

They created the Federalist Society to seed the entire legal professions, but especially the courts, with right-wing judges to change the United States of the Constitution into the United States of the Corporation.

They've connived with the media powers, deregulated ownership oversight, to allow media monopolies in order to get in bed with them and their messages to all the masses.

All these things have taken decades, why shouldn't the corruption of the voting systems have been taking, place at the same time?

Remember, voting used to be controlled locally. It has taken a long time to build control at the Federal level.

[SharonAnn]

107. The right-wing has plenty of money and patience (when necessary)

They've got think tanks who've been floating ideas (memes) around for decades. Think "taxes bad", Americans need "Tax Relief".

They created the Federalist Society to seed the entire legal professions, but especially the courts, with right-wing judges to change the United States of the Constitution into the United States of the Corporation.

They've connived with the media powers, deregulated ownership oversight, to allow media monopolies in order to get in bed with them and their messages to all the masses.

All these things have taken decades, why shouldn't the corruption of the voting systems have been taking, place at the same time?

Remember, voting used to be controlled locally. It has taken a long time to build control at the Federal level.

[JohnGideon]

39. This Issue MUST Be Presented As A Non-Partisan Issue

The comments about 'giving Ohio to Bush in 2004' has been played over and over again. It turns off any conservative who might otherwise agree with us.

The only way we should mention Georgia 2000 or Volusia County, FL. 2000 or Hagel and ES&S is to also mention Broward County, FL 2004 and Fairfax County, VA Nov. 2003 and Scurry County, TX Nov. 2003.

In my recent trip to Olympia, WA (our state capital) I heard a lot of backing from Republicans. We have people who are writing on Freeper forums and have been welcomed to those forums even though they have stated right from the beginning that they are Democrat. They have been welcomed because the Freepers feel the same way we do.

No matter how we play the press; we cannot play this issue as being a partisan issue. It is and MUST be non-partisan. Republican Reps. and Senators MUST sign-on to HR-2239 and S-1980. We can't get them unless their Republican constituency tells them to sign-on.

[BevHarris]

44. it's been a nonpartisan issue for a while now

Though it is true that HR 2239 has had trouble getting Republican sponsors. Jim March has been a very effective spokesperson -- and what is the legitimate reason he's not allowed on DU? Oh yeah, he's a Republican and vocal about it.

Who was it who filed the second Public Records Request in Georgia? Oh yeah, the Georgia Libertarian Party.

But the idea that we must never mention Georgia or Volusia County without mentioning the other side is something I disagree with. Both Georgia and Volusia are mammoth-sized examples of the worst of the worst -- Georgia, where one man got his hands on the commands that program machines that counted one million votes (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-9.pdf and http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-11.pdf). Unbelievable. Probably the biggest documented security breach in the history of our electoral system. And Volusia, which was almost certainly rigged, even according to Diebold's own internal memos. When people say "Do you have any evidence of an election that was actually tampered with" Volusia (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/bbv_chapter-13.pdf) is it.

I do, though, consistently correct journalists who try to say the Republicans are trying to rig elections, and always tell them it is a nonpartisan issue and, to the extent that anyone has been gaming the system, though Republicans may benefit more, certainly both major parties would be vulnerable to the temptations.

Anomalies occur with both parties, some to the extent that they are very troublesome. Check out Maria Cantwell, 2000 election, Thurston County, Washington. Even Democratic areas were neck and neck between Cantwell and Gorton, Democrat Cantwell won the entire state by something like a thousand votes, but in small, heavily Republican Thurston County, where just one guy programs the computer punch card counter and no one certifies his programming, nor looks at the punch cards, Cantwell won by 8 percent -- 8000 votes. When you put the whole state of Washington, and all its races, on a spreadsheet the Thurston County Cantwell race literally jumps off the page at you.

Thurston County. Where Sam Reed, current secretary of state, was in charge of elections and then became our secretary of state. Maria Cantwell, who jumped at the chance to sign the Patriot Act, and also supported Patriot Act II.

This issue is of concern to all parties.

What should REALLY be a concern to Democrats is the absurd Michigan plan to do Internet voting for the Democratic primary.

Bev

[dusty64]

40. WOW, this is surprising.

Glad to hear it.

[FreakinDJ]

47. You said it in your original post Bev

You only have 2 minutes to get your point across.

Your going to have to phrase it correctly so the Masses will continue to absorb the material.

I do hope the media (newspapers) picks up the story. That will be the continuing education on the matter.

I think "PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY" could be the right way to frame it as will as develop the on going catch phrase for this subject.

1 You have illustrated the general accounting irregularities in the software.

2 That Senator who had the controlling interest in one of the software companies that writes the software for these machines

3 The machines/program eventually must be accountable toward the public it is intended to serve. IE: verifiable paper audit.

I may be blowing smoke out my ass, but I think you are going to have only one change to make an impression on these brain dead TV viewing masses. I think if one thing you need to do is frame the conversation correctly and lead them in the right direction

[SpiralHawk]

50. The voting irregularities mirror the financial irregularities

that have cost American citizens billions of dollars via vast corruption on Wall Street.

It's time to clean both up.

Great suggestions Freakin DJ

You go Bev. Lead with your heart and your brain, and your inner light is what will be transmitted through the airwaves and the cables to the American public.

In beauty may you walk
In power may you walk.
In balance may you walk - SH

[BevHarris]

58. SpiralHawk --

not my business, but... Navajo?

Thanks for the beauty of thought as well as the advice.

Bev

[shance]

69. Bev cant walk alone, we have to walk WITH her...

We need to spread the word as much as we can so neighbors and people can be more informed.

Its easy for us to praise her, we have to stand WITH her as well.

[BevHarris]

57. Thanks for some very good input.

One thing I like about the phrase "public accountability" is that it has carryover to some of the other problems we are experiencing.

Another phrase I really like, developed by a new voting activism group, is "clean voting" -- this allows expansion into voter registration, vote suppression, biased redistricting and more.

Bev

[creativelcro]

78. "clean voting" is good. It implies that it is dirty now.

[Timefortruth]

48. Bev, I have no idea at all about what you look like, and I'm sure you

exaggerate. At any rate there isn't anything you can do about your weight(don't let them fool you). But if your worried about you hair find the best stylist and splurge (again I've not seen your picture so I'm again sure you exaggerate). You are saving democracy and maybe the world, you deserve the very best!

Get a spa treatment while you're at it.

[Timefortruth]

83. OK I found a picture of you, and don't change a thing.

If I could edit the earlier post I would. You look great!

I'm so proud of you!

[BeFree]

49. I'll byte

For the first time in the history of the US, a small group of people have the ability to count, or not count, the votes of the American people. Their ability to do so lies behind a curtain of privacy installed to keep the public's prying eyes from seeing just how the votes are counted.

The whole vote counting by computers is just a way to hurry up and count the votes. And in that hurrying lies a serious problem. The centralized processing of the votes now rests in the hands of a very few individuals who may, or may not, be biased. How the vote is actually counted is hidden from public view behind a curtain of corporate privacy.

Let's say that computer voting is a-ok, and all the votes are counted as close to perfect as is possible and the last elections were tabulated without error. (HA!) There still is an obvious problem, however, with the next elections. Someone, because of the privacy involved with these machines, could be able to hack the future count and alter it. It could be done and you have to seriously consider that someone out there is looking for a way to do just that.

The use of voting machines is at odds with democracy. Instead of involving hundreds of citizens in the counting process, computer counts rely on a small core of individuals. An elite core, if you will, who may or may not know what they are doing. As it stands, no one can tell if this elite core does indeed know what they are doing because there is no way to audit them, or their work.

You go girl.

[SpiralHawk]

51. That's a strong point, BeFree

and it warrants emphasis:

"How the vote is actually counted is hidden from public view behind a curtain of corporate privacy."

Thus, private corporations are controlling the American vote, and we the people have no way of checking up on these companies.

Do you trust a corporation to run your democracy?

If not, you must take action NOW

AMERICANS MUST TAKE ACTION TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHT TO AN HONEST ELECTION BEFORE THE 2004 VOTE.

[BeFree]

54. Thanks, SpiralHawk

Just relating what I've learned from the good lady, Bev. As I take it she was asking for some ideas for sound bytes. Thought we'd see a few more ideas here. C'mon people sum up what you've learned about this fiasco and phrase it in a few sentences. When Bev does get the air time she needs to be as informative as can be in the two minutes she'll have.

Bev has brought us this far.... she's asking for a little help. Don't let the good Lady down, now, ya hear? Get typing!!

[dmr]

61. Excellent post, and one more point

Their ability to do so lies behind a curtain of privacy installed to keep the public's prying eyes from seeing just how the votes are counted.

Excellent point, BeFree, but it's not only the publics prying eye kept in the dark, it's our elected officials, as well. People that were voted into office, who we have entrusted to assure the integrity of our vote, are purposely kept blind and impotent, (or they play a part in it -whether by greed and/or ignorance).

I don't know if I can articulate this well, but if the initial vote via electronic voting isn't secure, how can we be sure those elected officials that we are entrusting to assure voting integrity actually were voted into office in the first place. Once a shams been made, we will spiral downhill, as we are now witnessing with the Bush* misAdministration.

As for your two minutes, Bev, I think banking analogy works best because it affects and is understood by all (most) of us. My bank made an error a couple of months ago by 'forgetting' to add my deposit into my account. I ended up being charged for all kinds of fees. I called the bank, and basically they said prove it, so I went immediately to the bank with my paperwork and corrections were made, the fees removed, and a written apology was mailed. If I had to rely upon only their computer, I would have been shit out of luck.

[SharonAnn]

108. They might be "creating" votes, not just "counting" them. We've

given them control over the entire process and all of its components instead of just the "counting".

And, BTW, giving them control over just the "counting" would be bad enough if it were unauditable.

[SharonAnn]

109. They might be "creating" votes, not just "counting" them. We've

given them control over the entire process and all of its components instead of just the "counting".

And, BTW, giving them control over just the "counting" would be bad enough if it were unauditable.

[RedEagle]

52. Week long series

2 minutes at a time.

They've done it before.

Ask if they'd do one of the prime time shows instead.

[FreakinDJ]

53. That would be BEAUTIFUL Red Eagle

Why doesn't some of our creative artist here in DU apply for government funding to do a documentary !!!!

[FreakinDJ]

55. Kick it for Bev

:Kick:

[ConsAreLiars]

56. "...break the issue into many small, simple components"

1. What we want is simply what we have always wanted - that OUR votes are counted, that the count is HONEST, and that there are SAFEGUARDS to deter and expose errors or tampering.

OUR votes - we want to see the ballot that goes into the count. If we have trouble with reading one format, we want the kind of assistance that will make the ballot accessible, whether an audio version, or another language, or the help of a trusted friend. But we need to be able to verify that the ballot is an accurate reflection of OUR decisions. A machine that asks the voter if omitted ballot items were intentional or draws attention to other invalid entries is helpful, but only because it is one additional opportunity to confirm that the document we submit is actually what we intended.

HONEST counting - this means we, the people, have the right to watch the counting process and make sure that every ballot is accurately tallied. If machines are used, then we need to know that they are accurate. This means making sure their workings can be examined by anyone who wants, and that there be a rigorous testing of the numbers they generate against the actual ballots. We expect gas pumps and supermarket scales to be checked for accuracy. With vote-counting machines we need to be absolutely confident that the numbers they produce are honest ones.

SAFEGUARDS - with traditional methods there has always been a need to be sure that nothing goes awry with the process, since the stakes are so high and the temptations so great. Whether due to defects or deliberate sabotage, things can go wrong, so we need to be able to compare the final tallies against the actual ballots at every stage. Does the number of voters at the precinct level correspond to the number of ballots? Do the precinct numbers shown at the county level correspond to the actual numbers at the precincts? Do they add up? If there are questionable numbers, can we check the actual ballots to be sure that they are accurate?

As anywhere, the use of computers in voting systems can be a great help or a great danger. Nothing that these machines do with the voting process should be secret, and everything they do at every stage of the process should be able to be checked for accuracy, and they should be checked frequently and thoroughly. If some systems are developed that prove to be perfect, great, but so far they have not been shown to be trustworthy.

[peacetalksforall]

59. This is my contribution, but it's not in segment topics.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of what I'm saying because of the breadth of the subject and my interest in also following other subjects that I have to squeeze in, but I want to go on record as saying that I nearly shake with alarm when everyone puts their entire emphasis on a paper receipt. That is such a little part of the problem based on the reading of the papers and the implications and my undertanding of it and the exposure I've had to automation processing that was developed and maintained with integrity and security and audit trails and all the safeguards that were financially possible.

Here goes -

For years, our vote was in the hands of volunteers who counted our ballots and reported the results. Traditionally, we trusted each other and operated under the belief that the best man or woman would win.

Someone thought that automation was superior. Private companies took over the job without any standards or guidelines imposed on them. Private companies were not subject to oversite by any governing body. There were no auditors, no outside code checkers, no outside counting experts, no outside data transfer experts to look over the shoulders of the employees and contractors who designed, developed, and tested the machines and no one looked over the shoulders of the state and county officials who were supposed to operate the machines and no one looked over the shoulders of the onsite or on call technicians who were supposed to fix the machines.

State and county election officials listened to a sales pitch by these corporations and may not have understood the complexities and may have placed unwarranted trust in a promise. Internal documents released to the internet have even shown that some employees were not always sure of what was going on and may have made decisions on the fly.

No written specifications are on file in the Library of Congress for validating and approving the integrity of the process - even though taxpayer money was given to states to purchase these machines. No one stipulated the standards. No one ensured that the standards were met.

Nearly all the code of one of the private corporations was released on the internet and since then many experts have spent hours examining it, with alarm.

In some instances, the data is vulnerable to interception by anyone with a vested interest in destruction or manipulation. In other instances, the data is vulnerable to jiggling by a single election or corporate person or a team. In other instances, the data is vulnerable to the lack of knowledge of an election volunteer or official acting in earnest or to an election volunteer or official with a partisan interest in the results – just as we’ve heard about boxes or bags of uncounted paper ballots lost in a file cabinet or a broom closet after an election.

The introduction of automation introduces multi layers of security checks, not only of the programs, the machines, the transfer protocal, but of election officials and technicians. It is a monster that we didn’t prepare our country for. Private corporations thought they could throw something together. Whoever is responsible for the accountability of our vote has failed us because the private corporations appear to have failed us and our government permitted it.

The End. But, to go back to the ATM anologies - I oppose them - I don't think it has any application here because if there is an instance of contestability in a bank transaction involving an ATM, it only involves one person, the account holder and a weak deadline for resolving the conflict with the possibility that at least one person and possibly more would be involved in investigating the discrepancy against a tried and true system of accounting on an ongoing basis with overriding motivation to satisfy the customer and retain their business and to fix any problems so that they don't have to hire people to continually investigate the same problem for other customers. What good does it do to compare to the ATM and what does it clarify in the mind of citizens who are learning about the machine problems of voting - especially when WE know that a technician can 'fix a fix' or that the count or transfer of data can be intruded upon from the outside by kids or political employees/officials loaded up with an agenda and or monetary payoff. What good does it do to put all the emphasis on a paper receipt when we know that tallying machines can slip accidently or on purpose. I just don't get it, perhaps I misunderstand it.

Lastly, I think it is fair to blast the manufacturers and our government, but not the party or a person (though I personally want to see Senator Hegel exposed to the entire country). And I'm afraid we have to go easy on election officials, but laud the ones who become heros and heroines by their decisions.

It all has be presented an a citizen problem, not just a Democratic problem. Someone besides you has to point out the partisan ownership of these companies and the history of outcomes past.

But, I would definitely and repeatedly drop the names of counties like Volusia even if it's not possible to explain it in the time allowed.

As to physical image and hairstyle. Call Al - Franken and have him run you through the I'm good enough mantra. Don't call that publicist who handled Paula Jones and don't take any money from the right wing Rutherfords to pay the publicist. Just joking.

[RedEagle]

84. Reminds me, Voter-verified ballots only solve part of the problem

Here's how it goes, and is happening in our state.

Officials concede on a paper trail. Unwarry legislators think this is what we want, issue closed.

However, the paper is so retricted it's stangled and ineffective. They narrow down where and how it will be used.

They give only micro concessions and you have to be very, very vigilant about what you are getting.

Start including those audit requirements with the voter verified paper ballot requirements.

[Sperk]

60. Bev, you are absolutely GORGEOUS! You go girl!

from one "babe" to another. :evilgrin:

[Jim Sagle]

65. ALL significant public transactions except voting have a paper trail.

From buying a house to buying a Slim Jim at the 7-11. No exceptions WHATSOEVER except for coin-ops and voting.

Put it THAT way and ram it down the audience's throats. How could anyone even PUT UP an argument???

[CHIMO]

66. As I See It

I would go for the kernel. Not a sound bite.
You have researched the subject and searched it from many angles. Try and put it from the specific to the general, to a universal understanding.
Stand back and take a look at what you have found.
The truth will finally out.
But don't get dragged into one area.
You have the information of your research, so put out the questions. What do people want?
At the same time I would try to bring the point home by going to all the media, including those outside of the US.
Don't try and solve all the problems. You have found a potential black hole. How long it takes to close it depends on everyone. The sound bites are up to others. The truth is all you can claim to be using.
Don't know if this helps but I have really appreciated your tenacity in getting to the facts.

[fabius]

67. "Trust, but verify"

Use some recycled sound bytes that people can identify with.

You go, Bev! This is great!

Wasn't there a Republican race in Virginia that got whacked by the machines, just last year? Use for example of non-partisan issue.

You get a receipt for your cash withdrawal but not for your vote? From Diebold the same company? Isn't this more important than 20 bucks?

etc.

[grasswire]

68. if only I had the dough...

....I'd give you an hour with a Nordstrom personal shopper and carte blanche. If there ever was needed an angel, now is the moment.

Any angels out there? Our gal is going to need every bit of confidence we can give her.

And Bev, check your DU mail.

[cap]

70. bev, I have been wondering ...

does R. Doug Lewis have anything to do with John Connally in TX? I seem to recall he was working for Dems for a while and then became a Republican. Connally was known for fixing the vote.

As for hair and clothes, you need some cash to fix that as well as some advice as to what works on TV from a media consultant. Maybe we need to do a little fundraising for you. Can you set up a vehicle to do this? I don't think we can fund a nose job like Paula's :) but the image thing is very important to the credibility of the operation. Martha Stewart conceals her weight very well -- she is over 200 lbs -- so there are some tricks to doing that on TV. A good hairdresser can fix the hair -- dont go to the local chop shop. Just need some bucks to do it -- Counting the media consultant, I imagine between $400-1000 (hair, makeup and two outfits). There is a reason why all the analysts look good on FOX.

Also, you need a segment on the harassment that you and other people have suffered because of this.

[RedEagle]

85. Connally

I do believe there is a short bio somewhere that mentions Lewis working for Connally.

[Eric J in MN]

71. Enron shows we shouldn't trust corporate numbers without INDEPENDENT audit

Also, if people think the election was stolen two Pres. elections in a row, whether or not it was, the bitterness will reach an all-time low.

[DemNoir]

75. Highlight the most scary aspect

Which in my opinion is the potential for one single person to alter an election. Perhaps contrast that with how many people would have to be involved in a conspiracy to fix an election in even one precinct with the current system.

[JetJaguar]

89. One man one vote.

Becomes one man minus 16,022 votes.

Maybe not that bad more like 412 men minus 16,022 votes
as happened in the Volusia County precinct 216 count.

Fifteen or so minuets up the road is precinct 602 where a poll
worker showed up the day after the election with a bag full
of ballots he took home by mistake. There were only like
800 ballots in the bag. He also had a machine in the car.

Did they ever find the origin of card #03?

[creativelcro]

77. Bev, why 2 minutes ?

Cannot they have at least 20 minutes ? Or a series of 20 minute segments ?... If they truly believe this is so important then they should... Regarding TV, don't worry, you'll do just fine :) Who takes seriously slim chicks with pretty hair, anyway ? ;)...

[psychopomp]

79. kick

Awsome!

Like Prometheus, bring that light to the people!

No angle, just wishing you the best of luck, Ms. Harris!

[cthrumatrix]

80. Bev -- why can't Dem Senators stand up and support you? I would

think the repugs would sincerely be pressured since "truth" and honesty would be desired by "the people".

[creativelcro]

81. UP

[RedEagle]

87. Bev- re: TV

Take a look at who's on and what and how they dress, at the national level.

I see a few now that are not slim jim types.

But how they dress and have their hair done will follow a pattern.

Local TV people often don't get it and don't look too good.

You will be lit unless you are outside in the daylight. Take into account lighting.

Get some help from professional shoppers the shop for others, and the like.

Very, very professional demeaner and manner, coupled with a hint of anger and outrage. Limit the levity.

Tailored, plain, more on the formal side. Don't distract the message from the costume.

[PVnRT]

86. Wow, excellent work

I'm glad to see that they are finally paying attention and taking it seriously - especially good timing, with 10 months until a general election :)

The only easy-to-digest kind of thing I can think of is to focus on the "hackability" of the results from the Diebold machines. That would play into people's fears about cybercrime, which the media has certainly helped to hype beyond what is actually going on.

[grasswire]

88. Bev...

....please check your DU mail. I have a NYC media consultant ready to help you -- one of the best. At your service.

[Lorien]

90. I would like to see a DU letter writing campaign

to major and local media. If they hear from plenty of "average citizens", then the issue may seem ratings worthy enough to address.

[librechik]

97. send letters and emails to the NewsHour on PBS--they have time

for longer segments. Frontline on PBS would be even better.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/contact/

Find small groups of real people, grassroots situtations, like say "What Santa Clara County CA is doing about HAVA" and you can make all your points just by following their story for a few days. Make sure there's a "news peg," like CA's recent decision to freeze buying of new BBV machines for a new study about vote security. That's what producers like. Faces and movement. It's a visual medium.

[Eric J in MN]

91. Emphasize problems which already occured so it's not just theoretical (nt)

nt

[RBHam]

92. To keep the integrity of the Democratic process...

The vote must be sancrosanct. And verifiable, paper ballots are the only way. It's worked up here in Cnada for years.

[FreakinDJ]

93. You know what bugs me Bev

A little tiny impoverished, 3rd world country can like the Philippines see the obvious defects in the software and BAM !!

Its done

They simply say no way were not going to use them.

Here we have big business already caught lying, ample proof that some irregularities have already occurred, argument over the most obvious, the need for a paper verified audit trail, and yet big business is STILL MANIPULATING the system to shove this thing down our throats

WTF

I don't get it

[alfredo]

94. Who owns the vote? Who owns the data created by the machines?

Is it our vote, or is it Diebold's, or Sequoia? Does our vote become the property of the voting company?

[RedEagle]

95. Back up

Kick!

[alfredo]

96. there's the snap, and there's the

:kick:

[Zan_of_Texas]

102. lots of good ideas

I just wrote a letter today to novices, maybe there's something in here of use.


Electronic voting machines are being installed in states around the country, in reaction to the snafus in Florida in 2000. Unfortunately, the solution is worse than the original problem. Using electronic balloting without a paper record is like camping in bear country and putting a big slab of raw meat in your tent -- MAYBE nothing will happen, but it's asking for big trouble!

I don't use words like this lightly, but this is an EMERGENCY! Everybody out of the pool! (See, I stole Bev's phrase!) This equipment makes stealing an entire state's votes possible, and nearly impossible to detect. If we lose the right to have our vote counted honestly and transparently, we've lost our voice and we've lost our democracy. The vote is the bedrock, whether you care about war & peace, health care, schools, jobs, taxes, the environment, whatever.

I've been researching this for a year, and I believe we are in the midst of a high-tech ambush (See, I stole Lynn Landes' phrase!). The companies that make the machines use secret software, but their partisanship is out in the open -- executives for one of the four big companies, Diebold, raised over half a million dollars for the Bush/Cheney ticket.

"Faith-based" voting, with balloting mechanisms concealed, and no way to check it in case of machine meltdown, or out and out fraud? No way! If I go to a ballgame, and somebody scores, they put the score up in big numbers for everyone to see. Right then. They don't say, "We'll get back to you and let you know who won." When I vote, I want to see that vote on paper, unchangeable, and counted in front of my neighbors before it leaves my precinct.

We need a paper ballot side-by-side with the electronic one, and open counting by people in each precinct, to deter vote looting.

Lobby your congresspeople and Senators, your neighbors -- anyone who will listen. Learn more about this, at www.BlackBoxVoting.org, or www.VerifiedVoting.org (where 1600 technology experts back me up, by the way).

Suffragists marched miles in the snow, endured rat-infested jails and countless hunger strikes to win the vote. It would be a shame to lose the vote now, through inattention.

100. Congrats!!!!

I've got another issue to hand off to you...hee hee

[ParanoidPat]

101. I'm not really done with the BBV issue yet but......

......if you need help with research and web searches, count me in! :evilgrin: