Time for clarity

To be clear-  The election reform community is aligned-  It would be great to throw out all the secret software systems and hand count the ballots-  but that is highly unlikely to occur.

The fact is, due to high volume counts etc.., the states are not going to get rid of electronic systems-  We can not blunder on strategy by pretending they will disappear. we must attack the current voting system cartel by advocating the abolishment of all secret, proprietary software code.  We must advocate the use of open source code so that oversight and deterrents are in place. We must also insist that every system have complete paper ballots and that we audit early and often.

Bev Harris, Alan Dechert and most of the better experts understand this. We must get our entire agenda strengthened if we want to succeed.

There will always be a few that insist we should only focus on HCPB and ignore the reality of electronics... Also, Microsoft would prefer the words " open source" not be mentioned-  I think it's bad for their market share and spyware. Word on the street is Microsoft has a few " experts' in their back pocket-  Brent Turner 

by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 3:23:39 PM
 

I agree in many ways, Brett. HEre a few solutions/concerns:

Hello Brett

Thank you for your commonsense approach, and you are right. It is of course unlikely that people will ditch the machines. Alas.

I also agree that open source coding would help, except in a few regards:

A) The fact that the machines are programmed to "talk" to each other means that even open source can be corrupted, as historically it has been

B) Diebold is programmable by remote control satellite: Pouf! Gone.

C) Open source coding is not legible to the average citizen. For elections to be fair and transparent, everybody needs to see the works in action, not just a privileged few specifically educated in computer programming.

Yet I agree that realistically, the machines will always be advocated.

About your concern that there are too many  ballots to count:

That's a realistic concern but there is a very simple solution. That is, that for as many voters as we have, we also have just as many citizens to do the civic duty of vote counting. Thus, the ratios of chosen citizen vote counters would balance the scales nicely with the numbers of votes cast.

How can we ditch the machines? By getting the very real concerns on the public radar. People need to know how corruptible and dangerous the machines really are to our democracy.

Were it not for computerized elections, we wouldn't have two men in office who don't belong there and who have lit fire to the COnstitution, gone to war based on lies, committed all kinds of violent crimes of which torture is only one, etc...

Trust me, we are much better off with hand-counted paper ballots.

And as before, if Canada can count theirs in four hours with very few mistakes, why can't we?

Because, repeat: We have just as many people to do vote counting as we have voters. So the numbers need not be any concern.

THank you for weighing in, Brett. Again I agree with you, but am deeply concerned about the inherent problems too. I think we must work as a team of citizen journalists to expose the issues of mechanized voting and wake the public up. Then the public sentiment is bound to shift in the direction of paper ballots.

 And the good news is: It's already headed that way. All we need to do is to add strength to the wave and soon enough, it is going to become a tsunami.

Please write letters to the editor ! If there was no hope of going back to hand-counted paper ballots, why would so many newspapers have printed my proposal, and why would people on Moveon's forum  be saying that they had read about it in newspapers in their area of the country? These were newspapers I had not submitted to: OBviously someone else, thank god, submitted the idea themselves. There IS hope, friends, and we CAN go back to the "stone ages" and....have a much better success when we do!

Thank you all.

by Kathryn Smith (96 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 406 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 3:53:30 PM
 

Still not there with me

Kathryn :  Though I inderstand your fears regarding machines having a chat with each other -  You can not allow your analysis to lead to paralysis-  We must always advance our agenda full throttle to choke off the bad guys ground game-

Open source is not a panacea or a cure- all -  merely a step in the right direction and a  necessary foothold in the battle-  Certainly it is true that without open source there is no oversight-  no deterrent-  Bupkus-   I know you would never advocate secret systems, but in your zealousness to tender solution, you have left out the reality of the existing electronic systems-  No amount of clicking red heels will wish them away.

We must unite and direct our multi-pronged attack points at local state and fed officials, as well as the vendors. Counties must be badgered to never again buy secret software systems-

You may think the open source code insecure, or worry that there aren't enough open spurce experts to provide oversight- but both are incorrect- 

Open source code is used by the highest grade- Air Force and others are now on board-  They state it's faster, more secure and cheaper-   And if someone puts a bug in it-  You have a much higher likliihood of finding it...

Naturally there are still all the chain of custody issues -  But it is a start-  If someone tries to tell you different -  They might be " in on it " Best-  BT 

by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 8:29:21 PM
 

I'm with Kathryn on this one

I suppose that Open Source paper vote counting (not e-voting) with every third precinct - genuinely randomly chosen - being physically checked by hand counting, as per Venezuela, would be a big improvement.

But I think that too few people understand OS software and the potential for cemntralised manipulations would remain too high. That is why I support LOCAL counts by citizen-supervised public officials or joint teams of (genuinely) randomly chosen citizens and public officials with other citizens free to watch very closely (using roped off observer corridors near the clearly marked tables and transparent sealed (publicly unsealed) ballot boxes and wire counting trays). And filmed for good measure.

These counts of comparatively few votes (being quite local - though not at very tiny level, for fear of local level corruptions) could be achieved quite quickly and reliably and would then be publicly phoned and texted and faxed and e-mailed through to the next level up in the count chain - where other citizens would be filling in the n umbers into the appropriate 'boxes' on large pre-prepared filmed whiteboards and everyone could use their pocket calculators to check the cumulative totals, and once all the local results had come in then amalgamating the TRUE district results to send up to the next level or top level (again filmed, again traceable messages), etc.

The jury service analogy/precedent is very fine, would help to make it harder to portray the issue of election integrity as simply a partisan Democrat/sore-loser concern.

Even complicated multi-preference single transferrable vote STV counts could be accomplished quite swiftly using this system, with the higher level(s) phoning/e-mailing etc instructions down to lowest levels to e.g. distribute the votes of loser candidates to the second choices marked on those ballot papers - and then phone through the results up the way again, back and forth for half a day or a day at mos. Starting fresh the next morning at 10.00 a.m to ensure accuracy and adequate attendance, including by school pupils - a kind of real time civics initiation.

Thus STV wouldn't become a Trojan Horse for computerised counting, as in Scotland, alas see http://www.talkdemocracy.org.uk/talk/viewtopic.php?t=125

or  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/370366.html?c=on#c173505 - let alone computerised voting as advocated by US observer Rob Ritchie of Fairvote in the Scottish press, ahem.

by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 6:14:46 PM
 

It's not just a fear that machines are corruptible

Alas, I don't know at this point how to get a hold of Victoria. So I can't say how to get a hold of hte book "Votescam: the Stealing of America".

 But anyone who is lucky enough to get a copy, I can say that you will be converted forever and your head will be turned around. You won't believe the millions of scenarios under electronic voting, which have been going on since the 50s.

Please let's not talk about conjectures. Let's talk facts. The fact is that electronic voting is not only riggable, but HAS been rigged all along. I'ts nothing to play with.

Once again, Brent, I agree with and understand your point that on a practical level, the machines will overwhelmingly win the public support and hcpb won't.

But that''s where our citizen journalism comes in. Letters to the editor and articles on-line can be very powerful in swaying public sentiment, when well done.

And the trend IS heading back toward hcpb and away from machines.

The open source coding is one small solution to a much greater problem. The problem is not just the illegibility of the computer code: It is the HISTORICAL hacking of hte vote, by satellite and other means having nothing to do with viruses et al.

Maybe the book is available in some libraries? Amazon and Barnes and Noble have blacked it out, so you won't find it used on their websites (or, try and let me know if I should be very pleasantly surprised!)

It WAS Previously available from www.votescam.com

Try a google search for Victoria Collier, Sharona Merrill (her right hand) or Greg Palast (who knows Victoria). Maybe they could help  any interested person to get the book.

by Kathryn Smith (96 articles, 2 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 406 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 9:07:21 PM
 

Does any other country count with computers?

America has bought a crock.

Hand counted ballots are a world norm.

They present no logistical difficulty and many fewer chances for cheating.

by John Haigh (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 107 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 10:09:30 PM
 

But

That doesn't change the fact we use computers-  and there is no sign we will stop-  Even if they ( as they should ) throw out DRE's -  There are still central tabulators and now electronic poll books and back room systems etc..  All of which should obviously run on open source software code-  Keep in mind the alternative is secret " black box" code that is not subject to public inspection.

The only opposition to open source transparency is Microsoft and the vendors-  This cartel must be broken. It's ok to wish for a return to the days of hand counts-  but if you are an activist- you should work within reality-  I hope for you to get up to speed on this-  Best-  Brent

BTW-  Computer election systems are worldwide-  another reason for open source- 

by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 11:30:43 PM