 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 7, 2008 at 14:45:04
by Rady Ananda Page 2 of 3 page(s) |
|
 
|
Common myth: "Auditing" the unreliable computerized results by counting a small percentage (or any percentage) of ballots after the election is over, after the press has announced the winner, after the ballots have been exposed to heightened opportunities for post-election tampering is good enough for a secure, democratic election. This is not true. In fact, using post-election ballots to verify secure election-night results is considered so insecure that New York has never in 231 years permitted post-election ballots to be used to verify secure election-night results, until now. Since no court has even been asked to rule on the issue of whether lever voting machines are HAVA compliant, and since the computerized voting system New York has enacted is the antithesis of a secure open electoral system, violating in its enactment existing laws, two centuries of accumulated experience and wisdom, and a myriad of safeguards that have protected New Yorkers' "consent" from corruption by fraud, we would hope that the "People's attorney," the Attorney General, would have fought for the People's right to not be disenfranchised. But because Mr. Cuomo's office has decided to side with the State Legislature against the People, the People have no choice but to pursue their own litigation against the State of New York and the State Board of Elections to stop them from forcing us to vote in this highly unsecure and unconstitutional manner. Why in the world would we abandon our lever voting system? We believe a democratic electoral system requires that ordinary people be able to observe that the system accurately counts our votes. We believe it requires that many eyes be able to check each other as we witness the process that results in the count. We believe it requires the production of reliable, publicly accessible evidence of both how the votes were counted as well as evidence of tampering, should it occur. We believe a democratic electoral system must be designed to detect, deter and reveal fraud, without which there is no deterrent to committing fraud. We believe a democratic electoral system must contain safeguards that prevent every known opportunity for tampering. According to the law as written by successive legislatures and repeatedly interpreted by the highest court of the State, New York's lever voting system satisfies all of the above criteria and has served us well for a century. New York's new law, ERMA, permits software-driven optical scanners or DREs to count our votes. Computer security scholars and professionals corroborate that software can be undetectably altered before, during and after Election Day, despite the most rigorous certification testing anyone might provide. ERMA, therefore, fails to ensure that the election night count is reliable. All we can do to attempt to verify the uncertain computerized count is to manually count the paper ballots, but ERMA requires that the "audit" be done after the election is over, after the results from all other precincts are known, after the press has announced the winner, and after ongoing public scrutiny of the ballots has ended. 
Common myth: New York State's more stringent certification testing requirements, if complied with, will make optical scanners or DREs accurate and safe to vote on. This is not true. No matter how much testing is done, because software is by its nature mutable, the pre-election testing cannot tell you how the optical scanner or DRE will count the votes.
Our federal constitution is in tatters, our once independent Department of Justice has become a tool of a corrupt federal government hoping to disenfranchise as many people as it can. But New York's state constitution is alive and well and the State of New York's electoral system is vibrant and constitutionally-compliant. New York Voters need to take action to stop the State from abandoning our lever voting system for the theft-enabling computerized system, while we still have a functioning electoral system.
We are the only state not to have exposed our electoral system to increased and unprotected opportunities to unseen fraud. We are the only state with an existing strong, secure voting system. We must stand up to the Department of Justice and its disregard for our laws and our democratic, transparent, reliable voting system. We must stand up to our State Legislature that have caved to a corrupt Department of Justice and violated the rights of the Voters of New York. We must fight to retain what is constitutionally ours before it is taken away.
With your help we will commence this lawsuit against the State of New York. Please tell your neighbors. Please give them the facts. The facts speak for themselves and loudly beg the question–
Footnote: All of the above lays out why we believe it is critical to keep the facts accurate in the public's mind. Accordingly, we have withdrawn the original footnote to this article in order to end the distraction over he said/she said. This diverts us from the facts and harms the efforts of all of us who are trying to secure what each of us believes to be the best voting system for New York. We are all entitled to our beliefs. So, in the spirit of respecting each other's beliefs, here are ours:
Based on 231 years of history in New York State, we know what a secure, transparent electoral system requires because we can look at the case law and statutes and see what has worked for New York. Relying on the law as written over the past two centuries:
more...The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Great stuff
That's quite a list. Bookmarked! There was no need/is no need for New York to surrender. They'll clean the clocks of the DOJ in any court contest and they've got the law on their side. You make the key point - BOTH touch screens and optical scan counters have private code that can't be accessed and, even if it could, the complexity of detecting rotten software would require extensive computer software expertise, i.e., the number of machines potentially infected = the number of forensic specialists. What a fraud this election will be with devices that can't be examined taking and counting the votes. The winner will look like a loser as a result and shame on Congress for doing nothing. by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 484 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: we're gonna nail the bastards
to the hanging post. with tar and feathers. and we're gonna take back our democracy! lol... thanks for your kind words, Michael by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:05:09 AM (0+)
|
|
How Can We Help?
Has an organization been formed to pursue this lawsuit? Are you getting excellent legal representation [person(s) with experience in NYS constitutional law]? Will Kellner testify? by ClearEye (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:46:04 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here's how to help
"Send money, guns and lawyers. Dad, get me out alive." okay, we don't need guns. We need money, bloggers and lawyers. Re-Media Election Transparency Coalition: We need both money to pursue the litigation (legal expenses including transcripts, filing fees, depositions, etc.) additional lawyers and volunteers who are willing to support our efforts through letter writing and by their physical presence in a courtroom. Donations may be made to the Coalition at Velvet Revolution. To add your name to our list of supporters contact joanne@re-mediaetc.org We've got a PLEDGE where folks can sign up, but I see it hasn't yet been posted to our Documents Server. That should happen later today, and I'll post the link (or the entire pledge, probably) to OEN. Thanks for asking, ClearEye by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:21:24 AM (0+)
|
|
So we are clear...
New York does not have any problems with its voting machines, nor does it have any problems with the vote count... HOWEVER, we have a Federal Government demanding that NY fix its system that is not broken to a system that has been proven to BE broken... Is that the whole of it? Welcome to Stalin's America where he who counts the vote......... If there is something that can be done from PA, I am at your disposal... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:55:04 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: yep, that's the whole of it
we have a Federal Government demanding that NY fix its system that is not broken to a system that has been proven to BE broken... yep, you got it. I sent you a private message, Steve by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:33:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Question
Dear Rady and Andi, Thanks for this article. Very informative. I have a question about this paragraph in the article: Fact: Unlike New York's lever voting machine or a hand-count voting system -- which require a completed, verified count on election night (because exposing the count to the watchfulness of ongoing public surveillance has been considered the most secure way to count our votes for the history of the State of New York), the new computerized systems will abandon the security provided by ongoing public scrutiny and no longer provide a completed, reliable, secure count on election night. NY Election Laws, McKinney's Chapter 17 at New York State Board of Elections. The part in parenthesis. Are you talking about levers or HCPB as "being the most secure way to count our votes for the State of New York"? Thanks, Sheila Parks, Ed.D. by Sheila Parks (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:08:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: both
because both operate under constant scrutiny by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 8:36:55 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
