OpEdNews » Secret Disservice: HR 811

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
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): Cheating; Congress; Democracy; Secret Vote Counting; Software; Voting
Add to My Group

September 3, 2007 at 16:20:25

Secret Disservice: HR 811

by Michael Collins Page 2 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

Washington to Citizens: Drop Dead

Citizens of the United States of America still believe that the government is a servant, hence the designation public servants for politicians and government officials. The idea wasn’t for them to serve themselves or private interests, like voting machine vendors. They’re supposed to serve us!

Here’s the new Holt Bill language:

an accredited laboratory that inspects voting machines shall hold the technology in escrow (read hold in secret). The laboratory (a private company, likely) can disclose technology and information to another person, if and only if that person or entity is a government agency responsible for voting, a party to litigation over an election or an academic studying elections. H.R. 811

What happened to disclosure of software and methods upon request of any person?

The Washington Two Step

Here we go again. We elect people to make our laws more open and transparent in order to know what is being done by those whose job it is to serve us. What do they do? They take the most fundamental right that we have, voting – electing our representatives – and they make it secret. Sure, a government agency can look at the software that counts the votes, the agency run by the politicians elected by the machines that need inspection. That will do a lot of good won’t it? Oh, and if you have the six or seven figures required to bring a law suit, you might be able to look at source code. Finally, as if to show that they‘re not as anti-intellectual as they seem, the bill says academics can look at the source code and other software and methods. That will do a lot of good, years from now …. maybe.

Nancy Tobi of Democracy for New Hampshire asked a congressional aid how this all happened. She was told “take up your concerns with Microsoft and others in the proprietary software industry.”

It’s Official – Voting is Now a Rigged Game Run by the Government

Why not just change the name from elections to voting lotto? Except in this lotto game, the contestants are the very same people who make up the rules, pick the winners, and hand out the cash. It’s all so elegant and logical:

Politicians administer elections that determine whether or not they keep their jobs. They expect us to believe that they’ll catch each other when there’s any cheating going on and that they’ll report it to us right away. But we’re not allowed to see how the game works, how the equipment operates, or who does what behind the scenes.

Can any of you imagine how Mr. Trump would respond to any casino machine vendor who said, “Look buddy, it’s our software, our machine, and our game – mind your own business.” The words are (correct me if I’m wrong), “You’re fired!”

Long term researcher and activist Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite has supported the Holt Bill in its various forms since 2003. This is no longer the case. Theisen outlined her objections to the current Holt Bill clearly on June 11, 2007. I recommend a review of this brief but comprehensive editorial. She pulled her support because the current bill leaves some ballots uncounted; endorses secret vote counting and secret voting software; allows some wireless communication to slip through the cracks; and perpetuates the Election Assistance (sic) Commission, appointed solely by the president.

But I’ve saved the most ironic and outrageous aspect of all of this for last. If you’re still reading, check out these articles by voting issues author Michael Richardson. He did a comprehensive series of articles on the laboratories that will have the honor of holding tight the computer software, source code that determines the outcome of our elections.

Here they are, the laboratories who will store voting source code software; the vote taking and vote counting software that elects our representatives:

Banned Lab Certifies Nearly 70% of US voting machine 15 Jan 2007

State Elections Directors approved test labs rejected by National Institute of Standards and Testing 19 Jan 2007

1 | 2 | 3

http://electionfraudnews.com

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. See this summary of his articles plus Election 2004: The Urban Legend and groundbreaking research and commentary in "" His web site, Election Fraud News & The Money Party, offers a collection of resources and commentary on critical issues facing the country.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

2 comments

Bachelors of Science Degree in Computer Science and Business Administration with 25 years of experience working in the Independent Software Vendor Industry.
RunnerBachelors of Science Degree in Computer Science and Business Administration with 25 years of experience working in the Independent Software Vendor Industry.

State Election Law Allows Public Inspection of Ballots Boxes

Every state still has within their election code a provision that allows public observers the right to inspect physical ballot box containers and paper ballots before the polls open on Election Day. (Example: New Hampshire Election Code Section 658:36 Inspection of Ballot Box – At the opening of the polls, the ballot box shall be publicly opened and shown to be empty; and the election officers shall ascertain that fact by a personal examination of the box. eff. July 1, 1979) Every state still has within their election code a provision that allows public observers to watch election clerks open physical ballot box containers and count the paper ballots at the end of the election day.

Each and every DRE voting machine contains a software program that builds and displays the ballot image on its touch screen. Each and every DRE voting machine contains a software program that reads and stores in memory each voter's touch screen ballot voting selections. The software code together with the data storage drives and PC cards in each and every DRE voting machine is the equivalent of physical ballot box containers and paper ballots. Why can't judges, (i.e. Florida Circuit Court Judge William L. Gary who denied the plaintiffs motion to allow review of the source code for the paperless touch-screen machines used in the contested U.S. House race in Florida's 13th district between Democrat Christine Jennings and Republican Vern Buchanan) and lawmakers (i.e. House committee members who marked up House Resolution 811 to specifically deny the public’s right to inspect DRE ballot creation and counting software) understand the simply fact that the software code together with the data storage drives and PC cards in each and every DRE voting machine IS at once both the BALLOT and THE BALLOT BOX and the voting public has a right to inspect the ballot boxes and ballots both before and after each election?

Ballot box inspection laws are on the book of every state because in the past political partisans are known to have stuffed ballot boxes in a wide variety of ways. Why do judges and lawmakers think that political partisans will not and cannot stuff the DRE software ballot box. Stuffing the DRE software ballot box is so much easier than stuffing the old ballot box containers on election day.

It is so easy for any one of the small army of different computer programmers who writes code destined to run on each and every DRE system to stuff the software ballot box.

There are DRE system manufacture programmers that continually write code to fix software bugs and enhance system function. Then, typically local temporary contractor programmer are hired to install the software updates on the DRE's. Then, maybe, somebody else tests each and every DRE after the software updates are installed.

Typically local temporary contractor programmers are hired in each local election jurisdiction to write software that codifies all the all the ballots for the jurisdiction for a particular election. (This is the ballot image voters see on the DRE touch screen) These same local temporary contractor programmers then load the ballot software on each and every DRE machine. Then, maybe, the same contract programmers or somebody else tests each and every DRE.

Local election officials are not computer scientists and many have trouble even using the PC on their desk. They cannot adequately assess the competence and veracity lof ocal temporary contractor programmers. In actually they cannot verify that a contractor programmer's work is bug free or that they did not nefariously write ten lines of software that activates on election day to flip votes or rigs vote totals on a central tabulator and then self delete at the end of the election day.

So many computer programmers at different levels and so many DRE machine software updates. It is so easy for a political partisan to plant a few willing temporary contractor programmers in several key election jurisdictions to stuff the software ballot box. Or even just a few motivated partisan programmers working on their own could easily throw an election.

by Runner (9 articles, 34 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 33 comments) on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 at 10:08:52 AM