Another report says the vote will be by a show of hands, then the winner announced. In that case, it will be important to come equipped with a video camera to capture the show of hands!
In either case, at the end it all goes into a black hole. Party officials dial a result into a cell phone, which goes we don't know where, following a telecommunications routing that is unspecified, and is totalled up in a central tabulation program made by a vendor no one knows the name of, programmed by we don't know who, and voila! The result is announced.
Understand something simple here: Entering data into a cell phone, from whence it is automatically tabulated and then announced, is just a cell phone-initiated form of central tabulation. It's computerized, someone wrote the program, we have no way of knowing whether that program accurately tabulates or not.
And the county convention delegates don't act as a valid check and balance, because candidates have dropped out by then (the conventions aren't until more than a month after Super Tuesday, which itself is more than a month after the Iowa caucus.) The delegates are changed at the county convention to reflect the new candidate selections.
WHAT TO DO: Get video and photos. Anecdotes don't do diddly. Report to Black Box Voting any efforts to tell citizens they are "conspiracy theorists" or "hurting their candidate" if they take photos and/or video.
IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAUCUSES - ISSUES AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
1) The overcomplexified, overcomputerized:
Again, we see the Amazing Randi in action -- look here, don't look there. Your attention will be drawn to the transparent "count the warm bodies" procedure at the precinct, with no explanation of exactly how the results were arrived at on the other end, after they go into a computerized central tabulation black hole.
Here, in part due to pressure from Black Box Voting, the Iowa Democratic Party says it is at least making an attempt to publicly and promptly release the precinct results. But then comes the overcomputerized, unexplained, overcomplexified process that is front-loaded with reasons it might not happen.
The concept here is simple: THE PUBLIC needs to be able to see the precinct results before they leave the precinct and after they are accumulated into the total. The precinct results BEFORE should match the precinct numbers AFTER, and all of these should match the final total.
WHAT TO DO: Encourage your local county Democratic Party to add the simple step of posting a copy of the signed precinct results at each location.
2) About the results web site: the Democrats are saying there will be a special Web site that precinct totals will be posted on. The catch? They have yet to publicly announce the name of the Web site or even confirm publicly that this will happen. There has been some talk of using a password only for the media and/or caucus attendees to be able to see, which would be inappropriate. The public needs to see.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR IF THE PRECINCT RESULTS ARE POSTED PROMPTLY: Get screen captures of any wandering tallies or changes in figures during the tally process.
IT MIGHT NOT BE PUBLIC: Look for a rationale in the form of "overloading the Web server."
And realize that there is NO REASON to withhold precinct results from the public because you are creating an automated special program that may get overloaded. Let's think about this:
The results can be extracted as a simple spreadsheet and posted as a PDF file that is only about 25 pages long. There is no earthly reason for the simple uploading of precinct results to become a techno-extravaganza, nor to give out special passwords just for the press or for caucus attendees. It needs to be made available to everyone.
I believe Iowa keeps it this way because they make MONEY from all candidates running … the reason Kucinich wasn’t there is because because his Iowa field director operates from a home office rather than a rented storefront.
Following is statements from CBS news and jwharrison Blog ,,,
“In a statement included in the Kucinich release, the Register said it "was our determination that a person working out of his home did not meet our criteria for a campaign office and full-time paid staff in Iowa." The person they are referring to is Kucinich Iowa Field Director and State Coordinator Marcos Rubinstein, "who coordinates campaign activities from his home office in Dubuque, bolstered by a dozen-or-so other senior campaign staff who have traveled the state over the past several months," according to the Kucinich campaign.
The Kucinich campaign calls the exclusion "arbitrary and unreasonable."
"The Iowa caucuses have been portrayed as having national implications, and if the Register has decided to use hair-splitting technicalities to exclude the leading voice of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, then the entire process is suspect," it said in the release."
And here’s something to ponder … although Dennis Kucinich was left out, Alan Keyes was not.
by
chris ferry (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:05:05 PM
Attn all Oped News readers- this is THE most important story of the day-no the year! What is the point of the endless bickering over candidates when they are planning on fixing the elections AGAIN! If they can, they will no doubt.
PLEASE JOIN ME IN SPREADING THIS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
and please consider running for Congress in order to change our election process for the better
www.peacecandidates.com
by
Nadia (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 49 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 12:20:13 PM
Not everybody lives in Iowa. What can I do in Delaware where our black box voting left Bush with a 5% increase between the exit polls and the official vote in 2004? Kerry won. But it contributed to the supposed majority popular vote for Bush that wasn't which made Kerry throw in the towel. Tampering with primaries is just as bad as with the general elections. Both deny the citizens their rightful say in this critical process.
by
Pat Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 3:35:46 PM
I can't understand this. Why should there be any contravercy over an open system. You register, you take a card into the booth, you circle the name of your canditate, you drop it into the box, every hour the box is dumped on the table and sorted out by name, counted and called out. Then they can be sent to a central hub for a final tally and broken down by districts. What the h3ll is so hard about this?
by
Louis Park (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 7:11:17 PM
ELRON - VOXEO: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus
The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation's attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?
The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don't expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American "democratic" election process.
by
Damocles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 4:17:02 AM
A few caveats on the Voxeo info AND MORE ON WHAT TO DO
1) No documentation has been provided on Voxeo, only a report of verbal interviews
2) Note that the Voxeo information is from 2004 and is not current.
3) The Voxeo information may have nothing to do with the Republican Party, which due to the opaqueness of its procedures, deserves much more scrutiny.
The Voxeo connection has not been proven, but might be with the (missing) expenditure reports for the Iowa Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Iowa.
Christopher Bollyn, who wrote that article, has been on the right track with questions about who programs the automated cell phone tabulation program. Other important questions still need to be answered about the routing of the telecommunications and the server holding the data.
Yesterday the Iowa Democratic Party announced the Web site that will host the precinct results. Remember, precinct results are one-half the equation, the other being citizens to take EVIDENCE -- not tell stories -- of the actual precinct results while they are at the caucus. ONLY YOU, THE CITIZENRY, CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN. Photos, video, of the following:
1) Republican - show of hands votes.
2) Democrat - warm body counts
3) Both Parties - any obstructiveness or attempts to impose social consequences, by ridiculing, calling people with cameras names (eg "conspiracy theorist" and any attempts to obstruct. Do not provide justification by doing ANYTHING that can be deemed "interference" with the goings-on.
PHOTOS: Get photos of the final results at the caucus, preferably signed by the precinct officials.
PROPAGATE: Upload photos to multiple web sites. Upload video to YouTube or GoogleVideo. Distribute the links to multiple sources
BE SPECIFIC: Identify who took the video or photo using real name. Privately (via e-mail to the Web sites of your choice) send your contact information. If you uncover evidence of importance, it does no good unless it can be authenticated, meaning someone has to have your contact into. Identify the location the video/photos were taken. You can use the Iowa Forum at blackboxvoting.org to upload -- just register and log in and hit the "upload" button while posting a message.
It's a little odd to me that this site is not owned by the Iowa Democratic Party, only "paid for" by the Iowa Democratic Party, and the notation at the bottom that it was designed by Strategic Media appears to tie it back to The Forbin Project and VGM Group.
Questions remain. Anyone who can send me the complete expenditure reports for the Iowa Democratic Party and The Republican Party of Iowa gets two points.
by
Bev Harris (73 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM
Looks like you are finally getting somewhere with this Bev..
... and I for one admire the heck out of you!
I'll never forget the early days after election 2004 when you, me, Bob Fitrakis, Brad from Brad blog and a few others were seemingly the only folks raising hell about Ohio. To see what you have managed to accomplish since then is amazing.
by
Steven Leser (194 articles, 39 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1302 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 2:58:16 PM
John Howard gets two points times six - he has uncovered three years worth of expenditure reports for the Democrats and three for the Republicans. I have uploaded the documents and here they are:
The 2005 document for the Democrats shows a single $500 payment to VOXEO. This single payment of $500 in June 2004 does not corroborate that VOXEO tabulated the Iowa 2004 caucus votes. The amount is way too small and the date is questionable. It is very interesting, though, and I think more will unravel that will support Bollyn's statements that VOXEO may have tabulated the results.
Next comes his assertions on the Israeli connection and Elron. These do not necessarily check out; will know more tomorrow when I receive more documents.
The core issue with the VOXEO connection has nothing to do with whether it does or does not have an Israeli connection, but rather, does VOXEO answer the question of "who is the vendor for the cell-phone-initiated automated tabulation service for the caucuses?"
Identifying the vendor is important, and it is equally important to identify the routing of the information going out to the public. A middleman in the process could easily wreak havoc in Iowa, where the presidential selection process is not subject to public records, is not subject to public election administration laws, and is missing some checks and balances -- in the case of the Republican caucuses, missing MOST of the key checks and balances.
by
Bev Harris (73 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 10:45:36 PM
