I am very happy to already report a good number of responses to my March 31st OpEd piece "A Bit of A Quandary". I expect that more will be coming and I will print them as well. You don't have to love my writing style in order to get posted. I'm interested in your reaction to the contents. Let's get a real conversation going on these very important issues. This is how democracy works.

::::::::

I am happy to report a number of responses to my March 31st OpEd piece "A Bit of A
Quandary".
I expect that more will be coming and I will print them as well. You don't
have to love my writing style in order to get posted. I'm interested in
reactions to the contents. This is all about getting a real conversation going
on these very important issues. Climb aboard! This is how democracy works.

***

Reading your article I am reminded of this: That every cloud has its
silver lining. One thing we have learned from Bush is that we all
know now that probably 200 Million Americans could have done a
better job at being President of the United States than he has done
or is doing. Any honest person would surely have brought more
honor to our country than he and his cabal have done.

By the same token, it seems to me that you have done a very laudable
job at your post. Your oped piece speaks for itself. I'm not sure what
your mandate was, but I think you have taken the time to learn the ropes
and probably now possess more expertise on the topic than 99% of the
population.

I have no expertise in these matters, but as a matter of common sense, if I
were in a position to make the decision on voting procedures, first I would
advocate for IRV(ed: instant runoff voting). Until that came about I would not
consider buying any
machine that couldn't produce a well tested paper trail and even if I were
able to find such an item I probably would seek to hold at least one or two
elections where voters would vote using two systems side by side.
e.g., use a computer; have the computer print out a receipt showing the
votes that were made; and perhaps run the receipt through an optical
scanner. If the scan count and the computer tally were the same, I
might go ahead and approve the computer system. Like you said, voting
is the foundation of our Democracy. Now that it's broken we're obviously
in deep trouble. I can't understand why any honest person would accept
anything but a foolproof, well tested system.

Anyway, thanks for the great job you're doing. As far as I can tell,
you're doing just fine. Keep up the good work.

Mark Goldman, author and activist

***

From: John Gideon of VotersUnite and VoteTrustUSA

Excellent job! Bravo! This should be a must
read for all of us who have made up our minds
about "how it should all work" which is going to
be different with each of us. You bring it all together. Thank you.

***

I will take a line or two explaining my thoughts. And by the way, I did a lot of
work with computers in the past, got my start in about 1968 in graduate school.

These are facts for me.

1. Hand counting ballots has had so many problems over the years that I am very
leery of any HCPB solution that does not include a full description of the whole
process with emphasis on essential security requirements that need to accompany
it. At least a few have thought about this, but by not making it part of the
proposed solution, HCPB takes on the false aura of a fail-safe system.

2.Computer counted ballots can be not only fast, but 100% accurate. All those
computer programs I wrote in the 1960s were written on punch cards, exactly like
the ones we use for voting and there was never an incident of a punchcard being
misread. And in all the years and all the calculations I have done on a
computer, they have never made a mistake. All the mistakes were my programing
errors. Or engineer design problems etc.

What solution fits these facts?

I can't throw out the computer as a bad option and I can't simply adopt HCPB as
a good option. The best option I know of doesn't get much mention, probably
because it is not quite ready.

OVC (Open Voting Consortium) is one of several groups that is developing a
system that I think is ideal. It is a two step process.

* In the first step, a computer is used to help the voter create the ballot.
This computer does no counting so it can be any PC running the right programs.
It uses open source, non-proprietary, non-secret software that should be
available on the web for anyone to check. It can produce (print out) a complete
ballot that the voter can look at to verify; at the same time, the computer
printing ensures uniformity for an optical scan device to read without error.
Another important advantage of the PC at this step is that it can provide
marvelous aid to voters with disabilities.

* The second step is the reading of the ballot, and this could even be done
by hand. Or it can be done by an OS device which would count the votes and so
would need security protection like any other OS voting machine. And, like any
other voting machine, an audit, random manual hand count, would have to be an
essential part of the process. (Not to check the computer, but to check the
computer programmer.)

The OVC approach is a whole concept. It includes a non-secure computer to
produce the ballot. And it generally also includes a computer for the optical
scanning and ballot counting, and it includes every reasonable security step
between the use of open source software and the random manual recount at the
end.

When people think of the problems with using computers and all the errors we
have had, they must remember that the problems have never been shown to be with
the computational part of the computer, and it is not likely they ever will. The
problems are with the people who design the computer support, those who program
the computer, the people who set up the computer, and the people who design the
process that uses the computer. If there is a problem unique to computers, it is
not the computational part of the machines, it is that the technology is not
understood by the people who are using it. In the OVC system, if the OS fails,
the ballots can always be counted by hand. And if one of the machines used to
create the ballots fails, there should always be a couple replacements available
since they are not expensive.

When I started computer studies (way back in 1968), one of the first things they
taught is that computers are very, very fast, but they are also very, very
stupid. They will do exactly what they are told every time. We can rely on the
computers but not on the people around them.

So all this doesn't make the choice obvious for me either. In the end we are
dealing with people, many who are not sophisticated. Either solution must
address this common difficulty. If HCPB has an edge, it is that it will be less
expensive and will involve the community more in election process. But I also
think it will be a much harder sell.

Phil Fry, voting activist, CASE, Ohio

***

Joan,
This is a superbly eloquent and stirring piece of writing. You have summed
up
what would have taken me about the length of a novel to articulate.

I really believe this issue has legs. Recently Court TV recorded "Building
Confidence in US Elections" at the Carter Center here in Atlanta, with Pres.
Carter and other members of the Carter-Baker Commission (and Max Cleland).
The
main issue was supposed to be the voter ID bill recently passed by GA
legislature, but Diebold and e-voting became the centerpiece. I'm waiting
for
Court TV to show this program, which so far evidently hasn't been put on
their
schedule. I'll let you know when it airs. (Assuming it DOES air--who
knows?)
Carter gets it, but isn't targeting this issue the way I wish he would.

Cynthia McKinney had a press conference here in February, where more slime
about
Diebold was released--this time concerning the contractual amendments which
followed the original of May, 2002, all of them letting Diebold off the hook
in
some way. Was it covered by our local paper? Of course not! But, Cynthia
got
front page coverage for hitting that guy last week!

It's very interesting to me to read all the time about Califorinia, or New
Mexico, or Nevada, or Florida, or Ohio, when GEORGIA HAS THE WORST SYSTEM IN
THE
NATION! Practically nothing is written about us. Our legislature recently
passed the most useless legislation in the universe--in '06 there will be
three
precincts with "trial" paper trails. The paper won't be counted unless
there's an audit, and the legislation self-destructs after the election.
Needless to
say, Diebold can program those precincts to be honest, and the rest of the
state
be damned.

Sometimes I think I'm going insane, and I know you do too. But we can't stop
now.

Thank you for all you are doing.

Susan McWethy-Smith, voting activist, Georgia

***

Joan,
You sound like an expert to me. Enthusiasm and dedication is more
important that techno-expertise. I, too, am a hand-marked and
hand-counted believer for a lot of reasons. I assume HR550 is better
than what we have, but I don't really know, either. Who knows. In
BushWorld, it doesn't really matter what the law says. They just ignore
them or interpret them any way they like, and now they have the Supreme
Court to back them up.

Sorry, don't want to sound discouraging. Keep up the good work.

--
“Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very
seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.”--G. W. Bush
(I couldn't have said it better myself)

MY, Illinois

***

Good piece.

My thoughts on election reform: it will have to be revamped from the
county level on up, and it won't be easy but it can be done. What do we
vote on? Paper BALLOTS. Period. Nothing else will ever do.

You will get some fight out of the die hard voting machine supporters
when you say that. Then you will know whom is whom...The states must
return to managing their own voter registration databases like they did
before they bought/leased the VR software from ES&S, Sequoia,
Choicepoint or Accenture.

Only the people can change this. I wait for them to act on this and
change it every day, I have been for over six years. e.g. Two years ago
some people told a computer scientist that they wanted to throw the
voting machines in the harbor. Throwing them out of the election
process is the only answer, sooner or later that will happen.

Re: Rush's bill: If 550 gets out of committee, it won't help us one
whit with these machines. It's not directed at putting these vendors in
prison for negligence or fining them billions for any and all voting
infractions. e.g. the North Caorlina law has some real teeth. I
lobbied for his first bill, 2239, or whatever it was, absolutely
nothing happened with any of the voting bills, they couldn't get them
out of committee. The Republicans, along with some of the Democrats
stalled them down in committee.

My point has been: the robbers are robbing our votes blind because the
doors wide open with no tough laws on our states' books against these
vendors infractions. Diebold pulled out of N. Carolina because they
were afraid of being charged with a felony after NC passed their new
voting bill...that bill was punishing to vendors and not near punishing
enough. But it worked...

voting activist whose identity is known to me but who wishes to remain anonymous
here

****
I can think of nothing more important than
collecting evidence of election manipulation, and
keeping the issues surrounding this alive. It
underlines the need for an entirely new
Democratic Party. You're doing a great job!

David Weiner, Austin, TX

***
Great article. You are an expert on this and your writing is easy to
understand. Your fan and e-pal,

peace activist from NYC

***
Dear Tevye,

Pouring your heart out like that was more than touching. If you can open eyes

to the problem as you are certainly doing every day, without having a clear
unchanging answer yourself, then we can all do the same. It is all that I have
ever said: "Let's hang it out there and talk about it, damn it!"

Turn off the TV and talk about it.

unidentified reader

***
Joni,
This piece is so well done, I'm in awe. You've done a great service by
distilling all the problems across the country, the various pieces of
legislation, and the various factions. One of the reasons that I have such a
hard time taking action is exactly because I can't seem to get my head around
the complexities as well as the competing theories and solutions. To have them
laid out in this way, and then to also hear that you--who indeed are an expert,
not masquerading as one--have similar conflicts, eases my angst somewhat. Not
about the elections, but just about my inertia/confusion about where to go and
what to do, what priority to give this, etc. Always, as I work for various
candidates and make plans for taking back the House, the Senate, the White
House, in the back of my mind is this voice (which often sounds a lot like you),
asking me what difference it makes if the voting process isn't free of fraud,
transparent and fair. And, while we haven't talked since the primary, nowhere
was that voice louder than when I was covering the polls and talking with
election judges who were so disheartened and angered by the faulty machinery.
What good did it do me to register new voters, encourage them to go to the
polls, and then freeze for hours outside if we can't count on the validity of
the results?

What you said below about not knowing what bill to support or what the best
route is to go for election reform is exactly where I was at almost a year ago
when I was reading all the different Ill state and federal bills, listening to
David Orr and then listening to national officials, all who urged and made a
good case for different approachs. It's where I'm still at. And your Tevye
analogy is so apt. So, after writing letters in support of various bills,
getting the ballot integrity people to speak at the meetup, etc., I came to a
kind of halt--around the time that I met you. You were/are so focussed and
informed, I've hoped you would carve out the path. And that's really what you've
been doing, even if you feel confused at this point. You've done an enormous
amount in a short period of time. And you are leading the way. I hope that your
op-ed piece inspires lots of responses and debate that will give us all
direction. I look forward to hearing!

Lincolnwood, IL, Progressive Democratic activist

***
Joan, my two cents since you asked. you put yourself down too much. I hate that
part.
also, it's long and very involved if it's intended for readers like me who
aren't THAT interested in the details, other than knowing it's a very important
topic. sorry not to be more helpful.
you are doing a great job...good luck
N, editor, NYC

***

Joan,
Some feedback as requested. First, hyperlinks to articles and sites really
help the reader. Second, I would group topics either by state, vendor, or some
other classification. I know, more work, but it's democracy we're trying to
save.

Otherwise I found your information very useful and first chance I get I
need to write our county clerk and the commissioners about the problems with the
Diebold TSx they just spent $1.1+ million on based on the information you
provided.

Thanks,

Colorado voting activist

***

A Montana activist took the time to call and leave me a detailed message about
my article. He suggested making links to articles so that readers can get more
in-depth information on the topics. He also suggested various newsworthy
stories (I agree with his choices):

the conservative
Republican Supreme Court justice candidate who is contesting the Texas vote
totals due to widespread anomolies in virtually every county studied.

one of the many noteworthy Texas vote snafus: this one in Tarrant
County, which gave 100,000 extra votes.

the computer specialist
called in to hack Pennsylvania's Sequoia machines and who found so many
flaws that the tests were called off.

Even Conservatives are starting to become hot and bothered by the fact that one company, Sequoia, is
rumored to be owned by Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela and thorn in
Bush's heel.

And last but certainly not least, the Texas county at the mercy of ES&S. Despite all the screw-ups, when
the county wanted to withhold payment until the problems were fixed to their
satisfaction, ES&S
refused to help them in their run-off elections. If the county used paper ballots for the run-off instead, they faced sanctions for not complying with federal election standards and the loss of federal funding for the voting equipment.

(If these links work, many thanks to Brad "BradBlog" Friedman, who took the time
to walk me through the process with detailed instructions.)

***
Dear Joni

Wonderful article.

Now that you state you are for hand counted paper ballots (HCPB)
(does that mean you have changed your position?) I am sending you an
invitation here to join our new list serve for HCPB people only.

The debate that you talk about is going on everywhere and now on oped
news, which is great

On HCPB list serve we are trying to move ahead dealing only with HCPB

It would be wonderful if you wanted to join us

One other point - I think Bev's book Black Box Voting belongs on your
list of recommended reading at the end of your article

- evite below:

We are voting rights/election reform activists and organizers. Please
join us if you are for hand counted paper ballots(HCPB) now and are
working toward that end now or would like to be. We advocate and work
for the implementation of hand counted paper ballots now.

To subscribe please reply to

http://lists.riseup.net/www/subscribe/handcountedpaperballots

If you don't want to subscribe just ignore this message.

Boston voting rights activist
***

Okay, the rest of you. What do YOU think about the electronic voting machines
and the state of our elections?

Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author79.html

Authors Bio:

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which since 2005 existed for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. Our goal: to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Because the problems with electronic (computerized) voting systems include a lack of transparency and the ability to accurately check and authenticate the vote cast, these systems can alter election results and therefore are simply antithetical to democratic principles and functioning.



Since the pivotal 2004 Presidential election, Joan has come to see the connection between a broken election system, a dysfunctional, corporate media and a total lack of campaign finance reform. This has led her to enlarge the parameters of her writing to include interviews with whistle-blowers and articulate others who give a view quite different from that presented by the mainstream media. She also turns the spotlight on activists and ordinary folks who are striving to make a difference, to clean up and improve their corner of the world. By focusing on these intrepid individuals, she gives hope and inspiration to those who might otherwise be turned off and alienated. She also interviews people in the arts in all their variations - authors, journalists, filmmakers, actors, playwrights, and artists. Why? The bottom line: without art and inspiration, we lose one of the best parts of ourselves. And we're all in this together. If Joan can keep even one of her fellow citizens going another day, she considers her job well done.


When Joan hit one million page views, OEN Managing Editor, Meryl Ann Butler interviewed her, turning interviewer briefly into interviewee. Read the interview here.

While the news is often quite depressing, Joan nevertheless strives to maintain her mantra: "Grab life now in an exuberant embrace!"


Joan has been Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews since December, 2005. Her articles also appear at Huffington Post, RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.