Tags for This Article:

USA United States Of America (7178)  Election Reform (1106)  Election Theft (763) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ;
Add to My Group
March 22, 2007 at 14:37:10

Halting Holt Thoughts

by andi novick     Page 2 of 4 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

So Doug’s willingness to publicly say he’s torn after 14 years of fighting for a paper trail really moved me. I can understand that feeling. I don’t understand Ralph Neas. Neas, by the way was responding to Brad Freeman’s interview with Kennedy the week before. Brad’s powerful story about these interviews and his struggle to deal with his allies is at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4299.

Brad focuses on the irrationality of Holt II and the groups who seem to be blindly supporting the Legislation, holding onto these DREs notwithstanding everything we now know. But not to let the dreaded DREs distract from other aspects of Holt’s Bill which are particularly frightening, see Bev Harris’s, What's Wrong with Holt II (HR 811) and Nancy Tobi’s New Version of Holt Bill: A Giant Step Backwards in which she discusses the unfunded mandates contained in the Holt Bill as well as the expansion of executive power. Lost amidst the discussion about DREs is the power this piece of Legislation hands over to the executive, of all branches!. Holt’s Bill would make the shamefully scandal ridden Election Assistance Commission (EAC) a permanent fixture.

Speaking of the EAC…………….

Who is Doug Lewis?

This is where I went when I got Doug’s email commenting on Doug Lewis’ testimony. Take a look at Lewis’s testimony and then those of you who don’t know will fairly quickly ask yourselves - who is Doug Lewis? A question that many have asked before.

Doug Lewis, as you will see in his testimony, wants to maintain the status quo: hackable machines/nobody paying any attention. He is critical of Holt’s Bill because it might apply some scrutiny to Doug Lewis and his friends, see below. Congressman Holt, like Doug Lewis also wants to hang onto these hackable machines. He just thinks if we throw enough money at them (unfunded in his Bill) they can be improved. If improved gets you to still can’t observe the counting of your vote, what good is it?

In 2002 HAVA forced us to vote on these nightmarish machines which breakdown with remarkable frequency. The number of "glitches" (putting aside that “glitches” has an innocence that “glitches which predominantly favor one party” lacks) have been documented (at least the tip of the iceberg) see E-Voting Failures –Election Problem Log at http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp. Given how many breakdowns, malfunctions, lost votes, miscounts, etc. there have been it makes you wonder how such shoddy, dysfunctional machines could get passed those who are responsible for testing and certifying these machines entrusted with our votes.

Turns out, no one is really testing or certifying these machines! The certification process which has certified all of the voting systems Americans vote on today is effectively non-existent. One giant fraud on democracy (that would be us). Here’s where Doug Lewis comes in.

The National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) was responsible for managing the qualification, testing and approval of voting equipment in America through "independent testing authorities" (ITAs). These so called independent testing centers are not really independent at allBthey are funded by voting machine vendors to whom they issue their testing reports. The three labs which had been testing all the electronic voting machines in America are selected and paid for by the voting machines companies themselves!

R. Doug Lewis served as the director of the Voting Systems Program for NASED until 2004. Mr. Lewis is also the Executive Director of the Election Center, a private, Anon-profit organization that serves the elections and voter registration profession@ by sponsoring training and certification programs for election administrators and vendors. The Election Center selected the companies to certify the voting machines. All requests regarding testing and certification were channeled from the ITAs to one R. Doug Lewis. Who is R. Doug Lewis? Just like the certification requirements, or the way votes are now counted in America, it's a big secret.

New Yorkers for Verified Voting reports that prior to taking over the Election Center in 1994, Lewis was president and director of Micro Trade Mart, a company that traded in used computer parts. What else do we know about Doug Lewis? Well in 2003 he set up a lobbying meeting for voting machine vendors. The lobbying firm, Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) wanted to help Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S and a few lesser voting machine vendors get the public to accept their "product". As Bev Harris, wondering who is R. Doug Lewis, wrote in her book, Black Box Voting: "Perhaps colluding with for-profit companies and helping them hire a lobbying firm is in the spirit of this organization's charter Band since we aren't quite sure who set up [The Election Center], how it gets all its funding or who exactly appointed R. Doug Lewis, his murky relationship with vendors and lobbyist might be exactly what they had in mind."

Black Box Voting publisher David Allen managed to slip into a teleconference with the lobbyist and the vendors. He reports that Lewis was indeed helpful at that particular meeting suggesting that ITAA draft a legal brief to address possible antitrust ramifications as a result of this collusion among industry sources.

Lewis has been a strong advocate of paperless DREs. He is also opposed to anyone's actually monitoring or auditing or being able to observe the regular failure of these machines. Giving Doug Lewis the benefit of the doubt, he has great faith in DREs (look at his testimony). Having such faith, he wouldn’t really need to do testing and certifying. But judging these machines from a more critical perspective, they and Doug Lewis, who has been responsible for their testing and certification, have done an abysmal job. So it’s understandable that Doug Lewis would be opposed to any scrutiny in the Holt Bill.

Since R. Doug Lewis's bio is a big secret, perhaps we could gain some insight from looking at some of Doug's buddies. There's Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) and Donetta Davidson, the current Chair of the EAC. These friends go way back. Davidson and Wilkey both served together on the board of The Election Center, headed by Doug. The Bradblog notes, "Lewis, a key player in test lab secrecy, mentored Davidson and Wilkey as they gained control of the ITA testing infrastructure". http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4144

Wilkey, at the time of his appointment to the EAC in 2005, was the chair of the NASED Voting Standards Board. He was also a co-founder and a past-president of the NASED and chaired its ITA Committee from 1998 until he left for the EAC in 2005. In other words, Lewis and Wilkey were at the NASED and the Election Center together, while they were both responsible for the performance of the machines we vote on.

Donetta Davidson, who is now Wilkey's boss at the EAC (prior to that she was Colorado's Secretary of State during the time that state was failing certification of its electronic voting systems), also served on NASED's Voting Standards Board while Wilkey was the Chair (maybe that's what the game musical chairs was supposed to be about).

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

www.re-media.org

Andi Novick Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media www.re-media.org

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments

Graduate of MIT and Stevens; 50 years as systems engineer on cutting edge projects, civilian and military; Fifth Air Force, WWII; sworn defender of the Constitution
abacusGraduate of MIT and Stevens; 50 years as systems engineer on cutting edge projects, civilian and military; Fifth Air Force, WWII; sworn defender of the Constitution

Hand Count Works!


Hand count works!

The contrary is simply indefensible. The data and the record are absolutely clear. Those who think not must be classified as either [a] vastly uninformed or [b] working as hired guns for interested parties - whose interests are NOT honest elections.

Let’s first just look at what working on the recount of a major, high-profile real-life hotly-contested governor’s election was like.

Then we should note: a CalTech-MIT study; and a little common sense.

Washington State election for Governor, 2004

In 2004 here in Washington State we had an election for Governor which made headlines everywhere for the extraordinarily close result. The election was conducted with hand-marked paper ballots and opscan machines. [primarily; [1]] State-wide, Gregoire won by about 130 votes after a hand recount of more than 2.8 million ballots. It was finally settled in Court. [2]

Here is how it looked in King County, in which Seattle is located.

We had 594,000 absentees’ ballots and 305,000 polling place ballots, about 900,000 total here.

—Begin clips [3]

My team of three sorted and counted 5,544 votes during a nine-hourshift. We agreed unanimously - the Republican, the Democrat and I, the county worker - about who should get every one of those votes.

Each ballot was counted by the Republican appointee: McClellan, 21, a recent University of Washington grad who applied to be the Rossi family nanny and got this job because her brother-in-law works for the campaign.

Then the same stacks were counted by the Democratic appointee: John Reese, 53, a Seattle pro-Palestinian activist who said he was "way left of liberal; I guess I'd call myself a radical."

They kept their counts secret and gave them to me. If the numbers matched, we reported the results and resealed the box. If they differed, we started over. If the second counts still didn't agree, we were instructed to return the box to be given to a new team.

The system of checks and double-checks didn't stop there. If our tallies for a precinct varied by even one vote from the machine recount, another team would later reopen the box and count the entire precinct by hand again.

...With all the recent news about uncounted votes and ballots being found in the side pockets of precinct machines, I expected a slipshod operation. I was completely wrong.

I am now convinced that in the counting of votes, humans are unquestionably superior to machines.

..."I'm so impressed with this system," McClellan said. "It's near impossible to corrupt, and it seems much more sensitive than a machine count. All the criticisms I hear about what we're doing are wrong."

Reese agreed. "I don't have much faith in the American political system, but I have faith in what we're doing here," he said. "I would put people counting over machine counting any time."

...those critics who are blasting the manual recount on the face of it don't know what they're talking about. Such as former Gov. Dan Evans: "Can you imagine 300 newly hired, ill-trained, overworked people counting by hand with people looking over their shoulders and getting accurate counts? It's ludicrous."

I can do more than imagine it, governor. I saw it with my own eyes.

===End of clips

CalTech-MIT

Clip
“The central finding of this investigation is that manually counted paper ballots have the lowest average incidence of spoiled, uncounted, and unmarked ballots, followed closely by lever machines and optically scanned ballots. Punchcard methods and systems using direct recording electronic devices (DREs) had significantly higher average rates of spoiled, uncounted, and unmarked ballots than any of the other systems.” [4]

Common Sense

People count paper currency world-wide to the satisfaction of all concerned [aside from occasional disputes over poker ...].

Canada, Sweden and other nations, all around the globe, hand count paper ballots routinely.

Canada’s Paper Ballot System [5]

Summary numbers:
Registered voters - 21,243,473
Number of polling stations - 60,728
Average of registered voters per station (minimum of 250 per precinct)-350
Total ballots cast - 12,997,185
Average ballots cast per polling station - 214
Ballots rejected - 139,412 or 1.1% -
Voter turn-out - 61.2%

Within four hours after the last polls closed in Canada's parliamentary election, officials had hand-counted virtually every one of nearly 13 million paper ballots.

Sources; Notes

[1] Three counties had DREs as well as opscan systems used for both polling place and absentee voting. Some aspects of the results were interesting; and there was a court case. But none of this is really relevant to our present concerns.

[2] “Tedious hand recount begins,”
Seattle Post-intelligencer 12/9/04
click here

“Counter for a day finds few bugs in recount process”
Seattle Times 12/18/04 Danny Westneat
click here />click here />
[D. Westneat is a very well-regarded long-time staffer for the Seattle Times.]

[3] “Judge upholds Gregoire's election; Rossi won't appeal”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 6/6/05
click here />

[4] “Residual Votes Attributable to Technology - An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment”
The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project 3/30/01
click here />
[5] “Voting Inside-Outside the Box”
League of Women Voters of Washington State Committee - telecon with Pierre Blain, a spokesman for Elections Canada.
click here />http://www.elections.ca/loi/ref/CEA-LEC_e.pdf />

by abacus (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 12:12:53 AM
 


Andi Novick
Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media
www.re-media.org

andi novickAndi Novick
Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media
www.re-media.org

cal tech study

I was very interested in following up on some of your links- the cal tech study link doesn't seem to work

 I thought one of the most powerful things you said was describing people's reactions to the experience of hand counting- I remember reading a Thom Hartmann article about how Germans experience the week they take to count votes- in a very positive, pro- participatory democracy way

I think that's a good way to have this conversation that people can perhaps hear rather than just thinking and talking about HCPBs in the abstract

thanks

andi

by andi novick (54 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 1:08:11 PM
 


Graduate of MIT and Stevens; 50 years as systems engineer on cutting edge projects, civilian and military; Fifth Air Force, WWII; sworn defender of the Constitution
abacusGraduate of MIT and Stevens; 50 years as systems engineer on cutting edge projects, civilian and military; Fifth Air Force, WWII; sworn defender of the Constitution

CalTech-MIT Link

Sorry; of course I should have checked it.

Here's another link, but to a secondary document not the original. If I can find one to the original I'll send it.

BTW: thanks for a great piece.

by abacus (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 4:36:31 PM
 


digital programmer turned thought specialist, sorta: rocket surgeon.
meremarkdigital programmer turned thought specialist, sorta: rocket surgeon.

Less talk, more walk.

In New York, and beyond, think outside the box, and in your thinking shift the paradigm.

Have paper ballots on which each voter writes the name of the candidate being voted for. Period. Simplicity everyone understands. Write the name -- Pencil. Paper. Write who you vote for.

But some voters can't spell, or some have handwriting that is difficult to read. So what? And your point is? In a new paradigm, give voters your credence in abilities and voters can, and mostly will, extend ourselves to perform to our expectations of each other. Ask yourself, could you write the name of who you are voting for? Surely, you can. Well, so can everyone else.

But handwritten names would take so long to count. So what? Employ more counters.

But handwritten names is not the way we have always voted. So what? It is the easiest to understand and explain. It is the way voting began. It it universal and uniform. It is fair. It is just.

But it would upset the existing power structure to change over to the new system. So what? And your point is? The new handwritten voting system works better, simplicity is more reliable.

But there are so many names to write. So what? Write your candidates in advance and take those notes with you. Better yet, using Oregon's Vote-by-Mail method, registered voters receive their ballots and have two weeks to consider, decide, and mark their votes.

I claim that young voters would be attracted to handwritten voting, for trusting it more, and so more young voters would vote. Let's ask several of them and see what they say. After all, they are the ones who have to live the most with whatever system is instituted.

Technology's 'automatic'-ness was supposed to make our lives easy. Instead, it has made our lives hasty. As good drivers know: Slow down and live. I claim that haste has made waste of our lives today, and wasting has made our lives hard.

Just saying, outside the (ballot) box, perhaps we can think of what we can do, instead of thinking of what can be done for us and getting what is done to us.

 

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 507 comments) on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 12:52:12 PM
 


In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Initially focused on elections, she investigated the 2004 Ohio election, organizing, training and leading several forays into counties to photograph the 2004 ballots. She officially served at three recounts, including the 2004 recount. She also organized and led the team that audited Franklin County Ohio's 2006 election, proving the number of signatures did not match official results. Her work appears in three books. ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Rady AnandaIn 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Initially focused on elections, she investigated the 2004 Ohio election, organizing, training and leading several forays into counties to photograph the 2004 ballots. She officially served at three recounts, including the 2004 recount. She also organized and led the team that audited Franklin County Ohio's 2006 election, proving the number of signatures did not match official results. Her work appears in three books. ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Better Link for Annotated Bib of 15 Expert Reports

Annotated Bibliography: Electronic Voting and Fair Vote Counts. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rady_ana_070117_annotated_bibliograp.htm
Annotated bibliography of 15 Expert Reports on electronic voting and fair vote counts -- summarized and sourced for your reference.

Andi - this article is very comprehensive and well-researched. I appreciate the new sources you provided - especially the GAO's March 07 report. 

Above I provide the link to the updated annotated bibliography which you mentioned at the end of your article.

by Rady Ananda (127 articles, 290 quicklinks, 37 diaries, 1130 comments) on Saturday, March 24, 2007 at 10:51:04 AM
 

 

5 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

NEW IDEAS ON RESTORING U. S. ECONOMY, for the Next Secretary of Commerce, William Blaine Richardson III by Stephen Fox

End of the Road to Moronity by Rand Clifford

Saving the Big 3 for You and Me ...a message from Michael Moore by Michael Moore

THE LEGACY; Dubya's Musings in the Halls of Never-Never Land by Braun McAsh

Credit Card Crisis Is Here / Derivatives Next by Allen L Roland

Vampires in America by Rob Kall

A Tale of Two Terror Attacks by Dave Lindorff

Obama: Join the Conversation by Richmond Shreve

Paulson shoots another arrow into the heart of the Economy by Andrew Hughes

Leading lives of quiet desperation this holiday season by Sheryl Letzgus McGinnis

Go To Top 50 Most Popular