....is that they cannot change the results of an election or remove an unelected candidate from office. Recounts proved that Bush was never elected, but he's still in office isn't he?

I'm not sure if this is on opednews, but here's the link to the original article:

click here

Paper trails and recounts are worthless. In order to have honest elections, we need hand-marked, hand-counted ballots at the precincts in full public view to prevent cheating. Dennis Kucinich knows this. That's why he introduced a bill to mandate hand-counted ballots at the precincts in all presidential elections. But now that he's running for president, he has not reintroduced his bill or spoken a word about it. You figure it out.

C'mon, Rob. I know how smart you are. Suppose you decided to let the readers vote on who would control opednews. If I came along and said that I had a computer program to handle the votes and it would print out a paper trail, would you accept it? Or would you know darned well that if I wrote the program, I'd win the election?

This isn't rocket science, as they say. This is very simple. Look in the writers archives for Mark Adams and read about it. Once Congress installs an unelected candidate, it doesn't matter how much proof there is that they didn't win the election, only Congress can remove them, and they won't. We need to get it right the first time, and the only way to do that is to remove ALL machines from elections, not rely on recounts or paper trails, and have everything done right in the open where everyone can watch and verify that it is being done correctly. Anything less is a joke.

--Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 1:34:18 PM

  (0+)

The voter selects his candidate choices on a computer.

The computer prints out the ballot.

THe voter verifies it and submits it.

That uses the computer to avoid butterfly ballot type problems, then removes the computer from the recount equation.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 6:47:44 PM

  (0+)

thanks to Rob Kall for the compelling piece. Mr Kall is spot on-  I encourage the community to insist on complete ( not " paper trails) paper ballots that can be counted and audited with precision.  When using computers ( which we are likely to continue to do ) the public must insist  the systems utilize open source code, and reject intellectual property in election systems. The currently corrupted certification process, which suffers as illegitimate due to the secret software code, must be rethought.  The people should insist counties never purchase, and cease using, secret code systems. Our democracy depends on it.   Brent Turner

by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 2:04:07 PM

  (0+)

For what it’s worth (and that could be zip) I once wrote an article about how to verify and control the accuracy of ballot counting when using electronic machines.

It went something like this:

The voting machine is programmed to record my vote and display my choices.  Every machine is serialized and programmed with the Precinct etc.  There is an accept icon.  Touching that icon initiates a routine to print out a completed ballot of mine that is machine-readable.  I read my printout and if I agree with the printout I take it to candidate poll watchers.  Any candidate can have a watcher at the polling place with their own reader.   Each reader collects its own data from my approved receipt.  After they record my vote I sign it make a copy and I stuff it into a collection Box, keeping a copy.

After poll closing, when the votes are tallied, they are compared with the candidate watchers totals.  Any discrepancy is settled by comparing it to the collection box printouts.  Remember all printouts are numbered with the serial # of the machine and the sequence of the voter.

What is saved from the voting is a comparable electronic record in the charge of each candidates representative, a manual record verifiable by the voter and the collection box, by each candidate, by sequence of voting, and by machine and precinct. 

There would need to be severe criminal penalties for anyone caught tampering with voting machines or readers.

Cliff Carson  

by Cliff Carson (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 4:07:07 PM

  (0+)

Posted by Bev Harris:

click here The problem is protecting elections from fraud by insiders. We cannot keep copies of our votes because if we did, we could sell our votes and provide proof to the buyers that we had voted the way they'd paid us to do. Open source code is not "open" to the average voter who cannot read machine code and does not have access to the code once the ballots have been programmed for an election. It is only open to insiders, the very ones we have to protect against. And Rob, Chavez is not at all like Musharraf. Chavez is a leftist. He cares about people. Musharraf is not a leftist. Bush is not a leftist. Hillary Clinton is not a leftist. I don't know about Putin, but unlike Bush, I don't judge people by looking into their eyes, I prefer to look at their actions. The fact that the U.S. has spent $8 million in the last month trying to disrupt the upcoming Venezuelan election, fomenting violence and funding the opposition, should tell you something. There are some Americans who are terrified of dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez who would cruelly impose things like national health care, guaranteed jobs, housing, and education, and other subversive Communist plots on people who want to be free to be hungry, homeless, and to die for lack of health insurance if they want to. Some people really believe that the oil under Iraq and Venezuela belongs to Rockefeller and they will send their kids to die for Rockefeller's right to overcharge them for that oil. Leftists like me tend to disagree. ;)

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 5:07:02 PM

  (0+)

The problem facing the US regarding fair elections is more than just paper ballots. The problem is multi levelled. True voter marked ballots would help but not enough

.·          The first problem is the politicised nature of the overseers… the state Attorney’ General. The effect was clearly shown in 2000 in Florida.

·          The inconsistent voter eligibility between states. This is open to selectivity. i.e. Dem areas in GOP states get shorter hours or different number of staff…longer queues.·          Control of state voting areas in govt appointees.

·          No accountability outside the state authority

·          Politicised Supreme Court.

·          Remedies too little too late.

·          Software proprietary interests.

·          Then traceable voting.In the late 70/80 I worked as a sales manager (for a series of US subsidiaries) selling mainframes and proprietary software to Governments. While there were reservation about handing over prop source code we were able to give selected staff sufficient details to satisfy the legal requirements. At that time it was a condition of sale that the software ‘security was demonstrable to meet contractual tests in some cases the source code was released in controlled circumstances after disclosure documents were signed.

I find it incredible that a company that has invested millions in product development would let a multimillion dollar deal fall at this hurdle. (As an aside the Govt Depts. had difficulty keeping programmers after they had been in a ‘lock down’ we used to pirate them after all they understood our systems and they had internal department connections). Clearly what is happening here is the divide and conquer strategy.

The Difference here is that in Aus the Electoral Commission is a semi autonomous entity that controls   all government elections from Council to Federal elections. As a High order QANGO (Quasi Autonomous Near Government Authority) They have their own act and almost beyond governmental interference. They are required to be audited and are under direct supervision a Senate multi party standing committee.

Departmental heads are appointed by the Public service board from within the Public service independent of the Government.

AEC (Aust Electoral Commission) is the sole keeper and updater of eligible voters and the setting of electoral boundaries on Parliamentary criteria. There is no state or part corruption in terms of Florida.

Limited franchise and varying eligibility criteria from state to state can hide a multitude of sins…particularly disenfranchisement of the poor and black, Hispanic. Your system as I understand it apart from the risk of biased gatekeepers it can become very expensive. Under the Aus system remedies except the most extraordinary situation is a visit to the local AEC office.

As for the argument that we have mandatory voting and a big bureaucracy .These arguments are nearly always put by right wingers who see them as a threat to their perceived power... I however, would counter with

·          What about patriotic duty, don’t you love your country enough to be occasionally inconvenienced to vote? and

·          How much is democracy worth?

·          Would you like your views to have a chance in all states?

·          Et alI

 Iam not saying that our system is the ultimate but I would respectfully suggest that our participation rates are orders of magnitude greater and has far less party political holes. Which may lead to greater Democracy? I am intending that this comment be seen more as a starting point  for discussion and to modify for your country’s needs.

 Be Alert, America needs more Lerts. 

Andris

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 5:30:00 PM

  (0+)

Good thinking, to give this a worldwide perspective. Something is clearly afoot, in terms of massive change. You're right: our democracy has been trashed. It's a grand travesty for us to be hawking democracy (an apt verb?) around the world at the very time we're losing/violating our own.

It certainly isn't the worst of our problems, as we sink ever deeper into the muck of a vanishing set of ideals. But voting fits hand in hand with the very meaning of democracy: of, by and for the people, through the agency of their choice.

I don't know how far this remnant farce of a democracy will have to go before it becomes clear to the populace . . . nor just what it will take to make it clear. But each day it becomes clear to more and more of us that it's gone. It's just gone!

Many of us can still remember the USA when it was a true democracy. Yes, we faltered here and there, maybe going all the way back; but if things came to push & shove, the real values surfaced and folks cared. I'd say that ended sometime in the last several decades. The balance tilted, to where there was not enough residual concern for the ideals. It's hard to put a sharper dateline on it, but I think it revolved around the excess affluence and the free-wheeling urge to constantly go for more (the 'urge', of course, being mediated by what was rightly called voodoo economics — the idea that debt was good economic policy).

So now the bill comes due, which is the BIG news of our time, not the distractions of war and terror, much less a meaningless parade of presidential hopefuls and the ghosts of elective democracy that rise up on their account. The very fact that we cannot cure our voting system after two fully recognized national failures of it should be all it takes to demonstrate the impotence of this onetime democracy. Why continue to kid ourselves?

by Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 30, 2007 at 6:07:47 PM

  (0+)

In my view Kall's article is fundamentally flawed because it indiscriminately lumps together election struggles from around the world (U.S., Russia, Pakistan and Venezuela in this case) thereby disregarding the distinctive nature of the particular class struggle in each. Kall's overall approach seems to be to analyze and measure social events in terms of the actions of individual leaders rather than as social struggles in motion.  I find it particularly irritating that Kall can infer that like Musharef, Bush and Putin, Hugo Chavez has fixed elections in his country. As far as I know every election he has won has been certified as clean by international observers. Besides of all those named in the article Chavez is the only one who has delivered reforms that elevate the needs of the exploited majority, he is the only one whose actions can be seen as responsive to the emerging anti-imperialist sentiment of the masses in the South. That doesn't necessarily make him perfect but it does show on which side of the class struggle he stands (and objectively this is opposite from where the other named three stand). If Kall would analyze events based on the movement of class struggle in each country instead of idealizing and reducing these events into the actions of good guys/bad guys he might gain some genuine insights into the issues he writes about. If Kall's overall perspective on why election's worldwide are failing is basically inadequate can his views on U.S. elections be any more enlightening? 

by Cameron James (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 19 comments) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 1:51:14 AM

  (0+)

Hello folks

There is one very important flaw in the assumption that we must protect voting integrity by means of recounts.

RECOUNTS ARE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE!
In one county alone, depending on the size of each precinct, the cost can START at $5,000 PER PRECINCT. And that's for the smaller ones. Multiply that SMALLEST figure by the number of precincts in each county and...there's your result.

No recount is going to take place.

We are making a faulty assumption that we should rely on recounts. In fact, what is necessary to preserving voting integrity is fault-free VOTE COUNTING in the first place.

Here a problem with your suggestion, Rob, though I know it's very well intended:

a) Machines can and do break down. And in fact, the memory card in the DRE (electronic voting computer) is accessible TO THE ORDINARY VOTER on the FRONT COVER OF THE MACHINE. ONE SIMPLE TURN OF THE SCREW and....pouf! All is gone.

B) The votes recorded inside the black box of the computer are what are counted by the computer programmers, who are paid ("interesting") to count our votes. It is not the paper records which are counted, except in the event of an audit.  More about audits below.

Meanwhile, the grave deception lies in the so-called paper "Trail" which "proves" the "accuracy" of the vote cast. Nothing could be further from the truth. Two computer programmers on the election reform think tank I served on unanimously agreed, and so did every computer programmer posting to Moveon.org's website:

It is "easy" to misalign the computer's touchscreen with the mechanism inside the computer. Thus, if you push the button for Kucinich you get a Kucnich receipt, but secretly the machine itself actuall records a Giuliani vote. The computers can be programmed to do this at regular intervals, criss-crossing the votes at perhaps a 10% figure. Or any figure desired, which is credible to the public, depending on who has been leading in the polls.  

C) Wowee: Audits occur at 2% of the PRECINCTS, not of 2% of the VOTES. That's a very important distinction: Greg Palast who broke the Florida voter roll purge story disclosed also that it is, statistically, and in this order:

Black precincts (9x as likely to be frauded as any other area) Hispanic (4x as likely) Poor Democratic areas (3x as  likely) and it is NOT racial profiling which is the aim here. Instead, it is the fact that Hispanics and Blacks have a history of voting Democratic. "Get it" now why Republicans always seem to "Win" ?

D) The person who posted in brown above me (my apologies for blanking out on your name after taking time to post this message, sorry!) is very well-informed. Correct and thank you:

It is not at the PRECINCTS per se where the greatest amount of mischief occurs. Instead, it is at the CENTRALIZED level, where there is less scrutiny. The computers used to tally votes all "talk" to one another, county-wide. Thus, the computer used at the central level (County, State, Federal) can be programmed to throw off hte vote, EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE OTHER COMPUTERS IS DEAD ON ACCURATE!! All it takes is ONE machine to throw off all the rest. Pouf! Gone.

Further, election reform authority Victoria Collier states on Truthout's website that the media collaborates in publicizing distorted vote figures. In fact, the patterns of their claims are astonishing, so "Coincidental" as to fully prove their purpose. For the full story (and you won't believe it), google the article by Victoria Collier titled "A Brief History of Election Fraud in America" and read the whole thing. Wow!

E) What's the solution? I will be posting at a future date about an election reform plan I drafted up which got the "nod" of approval from Victoria COllier, and which was personally marched in to Kucinich at a house party where he was present, and which he said he wanted to try to get drafted into law. It's too long to post here; Please stay tuned. I will post it.

Meanwhile, here an even simpler solution offered by an activist friend:

Voters simply drop color-coded chips into jars (ie blue for Democrat, red for Republican, etc)> Each jar is concealed beneath a cover, to avoid discouraging voters from voting. When the voting is done, the jars are uncovered and...tada! A visible exit poll. It will be clear which jar contains the most chips. And chips cannot be frauded or falsified. 

Especially not when the results are filmed and posted to the Internet (with the Media deliberately being notified last of all about the plainly visible results). 

Of course that only shows the results of one single precinct. But if organized nation-wide, We the People can actually take control of our own elections (because the government is too self-serving to want an honest outcome, so they will never help us). Having so done, in every precinct nation-wide (please help us to publicize this, Rob!!!) WE CITIZENS (not paid-off computer programmers) can tally the total figure too. We the People can and should (must!) set up shop, so to speak, within legally-allowable distance from each precinct. Or, if we are lucky, obtain permission in advance from the local Registrar' s office to be right inside the precint itself.

After all, it is OUR votes and it is OUR Democracy. And we PAY for it with our taxes! How can they say no? Especially if the inquiry is printed in letters to the editor, for transparency's sake, then the response also in print, no way can the registrar get away with anything too "Cheeky".

When ant colonies are flooded, the ants cling together and float in a pyramid to safety. Then they continue right on with their work. WE the People will do just the same. The ants come marching two by two....haroo, haroo! We outnumber politicians by millions to one, so we DO have power! Let's not forget it! Keep on creating for hope, and let's implement this simple solution, putting the power back into the hands of the People, right where it belongs! Haroo, haroo!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 2:46:58 AM

  (0+)

The commonality in the global theft of democracy is the control over the many by a few. There are no problems with elections in America according our mainstream media. A misinformed public is a greater danger than one that is uninformed. Americans have become accustomed to listening to the talking heads on TV and radio that do our thinking for us. We aren't used to thinking and we aren't used to doing while we expect some superhero to save the day. We need to awaken the superhero within to act independently and together. It is our democracy to win back or lose, possibly forever. Let's just not wait to see how it comes out.  Thanks, Rob.

by Paul Jacobs (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 4:15:07 AM

  (0+)

I usually agree with Rob, but I think that he is off the mark concerning Chavez. If you look at the people who support Chavez vs. the people who oppose him, then it’s easy to see what is going on. Venezuela appears any many respects to mirror the US and every other capitalist country. Obviously, the students who were recently protesting were from the upper economic classes of European descent while Chavez’s support comes from the indigenous working people (the majority).

In the US, we have a supposed “merit” system of secondary education that’s supposed to be blind to class, but that in reality only fosters capitalism and the inequities that are a result of capitalism.

Universities in the US are basically giant personnel departments for corporations. In America, you’re supposed to get a four-year degree in order to gain the privilege to “compete” at a higher level within capitalism to make more money. Over time, the educational system itself becomes an aristocracy (supposed “meritocracy”).

I often hear the claim that it’s just a matter of equal opportunity-that if we just get more minorities with college degrees then everything will be O.K.- but it is not true. Regardless of the racial make up of people who go to college, the enormous disparities of wealth will still exist, and only the faces of power will change. The problem is the existence of aristocracy itself, and capitalism creates aristocracy (capitalism has been around for a long time even though historians have called it aristocracy).

Capitalism creates aristocracy because capitalism by its nature (statistically) shoves 80 percent of the wealth into the hands of 20 percent of the population (i.e., the parents of the students protesting students in Venezuela). Incidentally, average wealth begins at the top 20 percent of the population and starts with those who have four-year degrees. It’s the dilemma that all Americans face today-you can either go to college and become part of the aristocracy and a system that you strongly disagree with, or you can go to work and become a second class citizen.

 Personally, I despise the idea of seeking privilege in any form whatsoever, yet my family and I have paid a severe price. Multitudes of other people are perfectly willing to go to college and get that slot within the corporation-to lead the “good” life with the big house and the SUVs at our expense. I watch the wealth that we generate being squandered “credentialed” fools who could care less about anyone but themselves.

by Mark Whittington (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 4:21:44 AM

  (0+)

Two of my previous sentences should read as follows:

Venezuela appears in many respects to mirror the US and every other capitalist country.

Capitalism creates aristocracy because capitalism by its nature (statistically) shoves 80 percent of the wealth into the hands of 20 percent of the population (i.e., the parents of the students protesting in Venezuela).

 I am sorry for my poor job of editing.

by Mark Whittington (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 4:43:07 AM

  (0+)

Any discussion of capitalism needs to take into account government responsibility in aiding corporations, the super rich, and shielding them from competition and prosecution.  We do not have a capitalist system in the U.S.  It is socialist.  As our government has grown out of control in size and intrusiveness in the economy, the influence of corporations and the super rich to influence government, the courts, and the people has grown with it.  As a result, there have only been two large successful anti-trust suits in the U.S.: Standard Oil, and AT&T.  Government failed utterly to break up IBM and Microsoft.

Uncompetitive government systems add fuel to the credentialism you describe.  If a job cannot be justified economically, then credentialism can justify it.  A credential did not get me engineering work for 18 years; employers would replace me in a heartbeat, if they could find an uncredentialed engineer to do the work at half the salary.  But, a teaching credential ensured me a job in public education.  In fact, it was required. 

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 2, 2007 at 12:54:55 PM

  (0+)

Tammany Hall existed in the era of exclusively hand marked, hand counted paper ballots, and the machine (an early example of a machine skewing an election) pols understood that the counters determined the election. The Florida recounts were done by hand to the extent that they were done, and the Republicanistas influenced the outcome with mob action and specious law suits.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 6:06:34 AM

  (0+)

While we're at it we need to tighten up on the paper absentee ballot requirements. These open up a number of new avenues to election fraud.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 at 6:23:33 AM

  (0+)