Oh, the irony

Surely the irony is not lost on the American people that the United States continues to exhibit all the characteristics of the classic tin-pot dictatorship. Despite all the attention given to the ridiculous Diebold machines, despite all the obvious recent problems and protest by respectable people, what has improved? Absolutely nothing. The case in New Hampshire is a case in point. One individual dork still controls access to the all-important "memory cards" of the hopeless Diebold machines (that shouldn't even have memory cards if logic were any guide), and it has been repeated  and clearly demonstrated that any run-of-the-mill hacker wannabe can manipulate these cards to determine vote reporting with absolute power.

Basically, it is all so insane that it boggles the mind. How can a country such as the USA allow this pattern to keep going on? And then, there is the audacity of sending  Americans abroad to observe and critique elections in foreign countries. I reckon American elections are the most corrupt among all nations above a modest level of development. I bet elections in China are even more fair. It is as plain as day. It is flat out ridiculous.

Will anything improve between now and the next electoral insult to the public's intelligence in four year's time? 

by Peter Dearman (6 articles, 8 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 94 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 2:36:23 AM
 

Recount in NH

You are 100& spot on. This is no longer a viable democracy. The machines have won and their masters are our masters. Look at the revealing testimony of whistleblower Sybil Edmonds. It is carried in the London Times but in no major US media. It shows the sickness that pervades this country. That weasel Henry Waxman ran from his commitment to have hearings into her testimony - a promise he made but now cannot recall (Gonzalez disease is the name I give it, a cognitive disorder wherein the patient only fails to remember the truth!). This country is rather damningly ----ed up and I hold out little hope that it will change...at least until Britney Spears' life is back in order and the lemmings can turn their attention to something of value...which won't matter with our servile media anyway, will it?

by Hank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 12:53:01 PM
 

I think this is overwrought

Let's look at this rationally.

 IF there has been election fraud with the Diebold machines, who did it? It is almost certainly not the Clinton campaign, becuase they hardly own the New Hampshire Democratic Party, much less the Secretary of State's office, much much less the Diebold company.

 So it would have to be Diebold and the Republicans.

Now they could have a motive for messing with the vote, if, as Rove wrote in the WSJ today, they think Hillary is the more desireable candidate to be running against in the fall (I think they're right about that).

But when it comes to a recount, does the Secretary of State's office have a motive for covering up a problem? Only if you believe they'd be willing to risk getting caught helping Diebold just to avoid having to get rid of those machines.

There are two things that need to be done here, it seems to me. Dennis Kucinich should insist on a total hand recount of the optical scan ballots, which have been sequestered. That should give an honest count of the vote, especially since the voters often used pen to fill in the bubbles.

 Alternatively, there should be an insistence on an absolutely random selection of towns for the hand count. That's easy too. 

 I think to simply say, "Calling for a recount is a trap" is to fall into the trap of making the questioning of the machine votes appear to be the work of paranoid people, which it isn't.

We deserve to have voting systems that we can trust, and the way to do that is to demand either handcounts of all the ballots, or a credible random selection of towns to hand count.

 Dave Lindorff

www.thiscantbehappening.net

www.counterpunch.org

And by the way--it IS possible that there is a demographic explanation for this result. Most of the towns with no voting machines are very rural and in Northern Vermont, and the truth is, those conservative voters might have an easier time voting for a black guy than for a woman. What we have here is the suggestion of the possibility of fraud, not solid proof of fraud, and people should avoid hyperventilating.

 We just don't know. The only way to find out is a fair recount, and we should all insist that that be what we get from the NH Secretary of State.

by Dave Lindorff (272 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 132 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 4:41:50 PM
 

which ballots got sequestered, Dave?

"Dennis Kucinich should insist on a total hand recount of the optical scan ballots, which have been sequestered."

Nancy Tobi and Bev Harris are saying there's no chain of custody after the election.  

by Better World Order (3 articles, 101 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 407 comments) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 12:00:34 AM
 

Without Documented Chain of Custody, Recount is Pointless.

Bev Harris and Brad Friedman are right, without being able to document the chain of custody, any recount of NH is pointless. Ms. Harris is correct on all these points of concern, and if it can't be verified there's no possibility of tampering, recount results can't be trusted. This is unacceptable concerning elections, the foundation of our Republic and the source of government's legitimacy. Everything needs to be above suspicion, instead with evoting machines there is the consistent appearance of reasons for concern, even to suspect fraud. 

The corporate media are covering the Kucinich recount press release- Ms. Harris and Brad Friedman are correct, he needs to investigate the chain of custody before pursuing the recount.  

by Better World Order (3 articles, 101 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 407 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 3:06:13 AM
 

I just did an optimistic link...

about the Kucinch recount. Then read this!

The only suggestion I have would be to make DK aware of these valid concerns and make them part of the recount.

Does anyone have an inside track?

(One of my very few complaints about DK is that I don't know how to reach him. Links to email him are bogus, near as I can tell, and I have much reason to believe that people in his campaign don't pass things along.) 

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 55 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 651 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 5:07:19 AM
 

Done

I put up a message on his Action Center and through the Yahoo! Group for Kucinich Leadership I am a part of.

I suggested he keep in contact with Brad who knows this stuff well.

I cited the article about this being a "trap."

I have yet to get responses from people in the higher ups but I have faith.

by Kevin Gosztola (147 articles, 34 quicklinks, 59 diaries, 622 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 7:57:58 AM
 

Kevin - Do You Know if DK Ever See's

anything in the Action Center? I have to be honest that I have never been able to get answers to anything by posting in it other than random comments from other members. I don't really have any warm and fuzzy feeling that DK ever see's anything from the forum on that site.

Eric 

by Eric (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 8:42:10 AM
 

Try, try again

Have you tried his congressional office? He has to be checking in with them periodically. It would have a better chance of success if you are a constituent, however.

by John Sanchez Jr. (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 646 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 8:52:37 AM
 

You are correct, I tried that route once

and was informed that his congressional office is limited to contact by constituents only....which is understandable. Being a NC resident I didn't quite qualify.

by Eric (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 9:16:13 AM
 

Dennis & the Action Center

No---I don't know if Dennis ever sees any suggestions made by his supporters.

His staff do. And I am counting on them to step up.

Somebody has to.  

by Kevin Gosztola (147 articles, 34 quicklinks, 59 diaries, 622 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 9:17:32 AM
 

ReCount

Bev Harris makes some great points, Dennis Kucinich is not idiot, I watched him during GAO investigations, he is very smart and is very aware of Bev Harris's  arguments.  This recount will polarize  the  fatal flaws in this election process, and force the mainstreat media to report this to the sheep. At this point, IOWA should be also be recounted

by gerard styles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 7:26:00 AM
 

Kucinich has no fear

of the media "sour grapes" campaign that will surely be on the MSM. I must thank Dennis for stepping up when Ron Paul wilted from the fight. If you are not seething about all this crap you have no brain or no social conscience. I have given up on the Paul campaign to take a stand against this subversion of our election process.  Unless I see RP announce today that he is condemning the fraud in NH I will be voting Kucinich. This is a war to save our nation and anything but a fierce declaration of war against this establishment chicanery is to be a part of it. I am so POed right now I cant see straight. RP has shrunken away from the controversy and that is why I am POed. No impeachment, no recount, no plan to send bushco to the hague for war crimes, no plan to prosecute the traitors responsible for 911 equals one lame-ass candidate.  This was the last straw for me, can I get my contributions refunded ?

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 10:02:26 AM
 

PERHAPS

Kucinich and Paul have an agreement since they are friends and Paul is polling much higher than Kucinich.  Better that the candidate with the smallest numbers do the challenging, keeping the other candidate from looking as if he is smeared with sour grapes.  No one can accuse Kucinich of challenging the results because his actual vote might have been significant.  But had Paul twice beaten America's Mayor, and maybe come close to third, then he would not be a marginal candidate.

by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 223 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM
 

Here's a skeptical question on the alleged NH 'vote fraud' -

Can someone who's been following this story please tell me who supposedly would have rigged the NH primary in Hillary's favor?

If it was someone in the Hillary camp, this would mean that people at the highest levels of the Democratic Party are perfectly well aware of the potential for stealing elections. Yet the Dem Party has scarcely made a peep about this issue, despite the obvious hanky-panky in the last 2 presidential elections. If some Dem-connected group really stole this primary, the very first political consequence should be a mass defection from the party as a whole.

The theory that "only" the Hillary camp would know how to rig elections, while the rest of the Dem leadership would be totally innocent of such knowledge, is very implausible, to put it mildly.

On the other hand, if the election was supposedly stolen by some Republican-connected group (Diebold, etc), why would they have rigged it for Hillary? Obama is probably the easier candidate for them to beat next year, simply because it is very unlikely that any red states will really vote for a black guy, when the Republicans run someone like McCain.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 935 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM
 

Who would rig the elections?

Well, clearly, control of any electoral fraud aparatus is in the hands of the Rethuglicans, and has been so for the last 8 years.

Clinton is DEFINITELY the opponent that the Rethuglicans would like to run against, as it will mobilize their base much more than running against Obama who might bring in new and young and active blood into the Democratic Party.

Also, the Rethuglicans would have wanted Clinton to win to keep "the race going" as long as possible.  The longer the Democrats go without a decided candidate, the more money they have to spend and the less they can begin to build their cohesive message for November.  The Rethuglicans would absolutely have wanted a Clinton upset in New Hampshire.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 591 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM
 

IMO, the Repubs will have an easy time with either HRC or O

Obama. The candidate that could most likely beat McCain is Edwards. (And I say this as someone who despises the Democratic Party, would like to see it destroyed forever, & who doesn't really support Edwards -- though I might consider voting for him, to defeat a Republican. Whereas I would not even consider voting for Obama or HRC.)

But Re: the possibility of election fraud -- it seems unlikely to me that Republicans would care enough to take the risk of rigging an election between two candidates they'll have little trouble with. // Just my 2 cents, of course.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 935 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 10:45:32 AM
 

I'm just really not convinced about any of this either...

... "they 'think' that HRC would be 'easier to beat', or 'more palatable'" are both not convincing arguments for the 'Why' of going through the trouble let alone risk of rigging an election.

If the GOP are going to rig an election it will be the general, once they have annointed their candidate. Why would you bother rigging the Democratic primary if you can rig it so that your candidate will win the general? It doesnt make sense. It is a lot of wasted time and effort. This fails the logic test for a number of reasons.

I'm certainly going to continue reading the theories because this is an area of interest to me and I have a lot of respect for Bev and Brad and I think they know that, but unless I see a convincing reason 'WHY' I am not going to spend any serious time on this.

by Steven Leser (179 articles, 29 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1204 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 11:57:50 PM
 

That makes sense.

Try it straight from the horse's mouth with the WSJ op-ed that Rob linked to: Barack or Hillary? The key point is that Clinton's support nationally has a known ceiling. Playing with Obama is playing with fire from the point of view of those who control the voting machines.

 Plus, they probably want to warm the public up to the idea of voting machine irregularities being a normal feature of American elections. It'll almost surely work in my opinion. Americans have a deep need to believe in their own system. This is even true of the Ron Paul camp, only their version of the system dates back much further.

I think it is bizarre that people accept the idea that voting machines run on proprietary software, and even more bizarre that in some cases (New Hampshire anyway) the company that provides the machines (Why a company anyway and not the government itself - weird.) also takes the ballot forms after they have been put through the machine. Where is the logic in that? It invites vote fraud for God's sake. Powerful people could put forth any number of threats or bribes to the personnel of that company. 

Given the system, I would almost be shocked if there was no fraud whatsoever.  This is all really a shame too, because I see nothing inherently wrong with voting machines in principle, and they could be used to implement far more democratic forms of voting such as instant runoff and range voting.

Here is a video from Black Box Voting regarding the immense potential for vote fraud in N.H. It features a David Copperfieldesque uncut demonstration of a "secured" Diebold machine flipping a vote from 6N,2Y to 1N,7Y. 

And some more interesting tidbits:

 Exec at NH's Diebold Vote Counting Firm Convicted of Narcotics Trafficking

 Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine (academic study)

Abstract   This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.

by Peter Dearman (6 articles, 8 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 94 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM
 

WHO WOULD RIG THE ELECTIONS

WHO HAS THE MOST TO GAIN, AND WHO IS IN COTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT, ITS THE NEOCON GLOBALIST, AND THIS ELECTION, I MEAN" CONTEST" IS JUST A WAY FOR THESE GLOBALIST TO SEE WHO IS MOST APEALING TO THE SHEEP. THEIR ALL IN THE SAME CLUB, BOTH PARTY'S, SO WHICH EVER THE GLOBALIST PICK FOR OUR NEXT PRESIDENT, IS GOING TO FOLLOW THEIR AGENDA. EITHER WAY WE THE PEOPLE ARE LEFT OUT OF THE PICK. WHAT SAY YOU.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 3:50:00 AM
 

Why GOP would rig it for Hillary

My opinion is that they intend to let a Dem win this time and take the heat for the mess the economy is going to be in for the next four years (with the added bonus of saying "see, the machines aren't rigged!"), but with Hillary, they have a candidate who is not going to push for any major changes in the current state of affairs- corporate domination, endless war, trade agreements, etc.

by sjm30741 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 4:10:38 PM
 

A more sinister possibility

Consider that whoever rigged the election might WANT the people to distrust the election process.  It's a way of destroying faith in democracy.  Who might want that?  Well, lots of corporate capitalists might want that ... including Diebold.   It might also be a group which wants Americans to stay DIS-engaged from politics so that their mind control propaganda can be more effective.  Gee, that sounds like Republicans to me.   I think the Republicans WANT Hillary to be the candidate.  Afterall, she's a "closet Republican."

by Steve Moyer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 12:37:15 PM
 

It is a pleasure

not often vouchsafed us readers, to read an article by someone who really knows whereof she or he speaks. Thanks are due Bev Harris for writing - and Rob for publishing - this article !...

Henri

by mhenriday (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 137 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM
 

The "elections" are for entertainment only.

More interesting than the Stupid Bowl, maybe... but of equal importance.  Hmmm.  "Elections" are out.  Insurrection is out of the question.  Now what? 

by waldopaper (9 articles, 2 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 167 comments) on Friday, January 11, 2008 at 10:56:53 AM
 

Who Can Do This?

Ron Corvus -- I am trying, without much success, to see a ray of hope here.  Your post at least lays out a (only a possible) course of action; a progression of theoretically effective steps to take. 

 So -- who, or what group or organization -- is qualified to proceed in this way?  And if a qualified party would be identified, who might that be, realistically speaking? 

For example, can a group of incensed, loosely-affiliated, united by a common outrage, voters act thus?  Does one have to be a lawyer?  A high official in a political party (presumably, that would be a Democrat)?

I really am in despair about all this.  I had had naive expectations that this monstrous beast would not raise its poisonous head again, this tim