Guest blogged by Emily Levy of the California Election Protection Network and the CA-50 Action Committee
UNION-TRIBUNE
July 24, 2006
Jess Durfee, the local Democratic Party boss, was right about one thing the other day when he criticized the county’s procedures with its electronic voting system: “We risk everything if we risk the integrity of our electoral system.” But about everything else, he and his supporters were dead wrong. And it is their unfounded insinuations, not the voting machines or procedures, that undermine voter confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.
As I said in my response to the ridiculous article in the North County Times over the weekend, “The most important thing is not that voters have full confidence, but that there be a basis for confidence. Public confidence can be manufactured by government disinformation such as has become Mikel Haas’s hobby of late and media disinformation such as Schultz’s article. But a disinformed yet confident public does not a democracy make. We deserve and demand transparent, verifiable elections.”
And as to “unfounded insinuations,” read any of the BRAD BLOG entries on the CA-50 debacle and you’ll see plenty of documentation.
Brad writes from the road (he just can’t stay away),
“Dozens of elections officials across the nation have been indicted concerning election irregularities. The registrar of voters in Monterey County was indicted just two weeks ago on more than 43 criminal charges.
“Honest Election officials will tell you they should NEVER be trusted! That our system was not built on trust – but rather, Check and Balances. As Reagan said: “Trust but Verify”. Just ask the heroic and legendary Ion Sancho, Election Director of Leon County, FL who said in a speech last May: ‘Trust no one. If it can’t be verified, it can’t be used.'”
Poll workers should not be and have not been blamed or accused by those of us insisting that the election results be verified (proven), not simply certified (rubber-stamped). Brad writes, “It’s not a matter of suggesting they are ‘dishonest’ but that nobody should be trusted since it takes just one person, two minutes time to tamper with these particular machines, it’s common sense to follow the Sec. of State’s own team of computer scientists who recommended, in their security mitigation requirements from last February, that re-programmed voting machines remain with two elections officials at all times and be sealed with memory seals over all access points (and they were not).”
Oh, yeah. You represented our side so well! No need to cite any sources, provide evidence of our well-documented claims or quote our spokespeople. Where are those Pulitzer nomination forms?
Fine. If you need the poll workers to take voting equipment home, then only use voting equipment that can be taken home by poll workers without compromising the integrity of elections! Seems pretty darn simple to me.
According to this article in your own paper, “In the June election, Haas said, there were no reports of tampering. Though in about 100 cases, the paperwork regarding the seals was misplaced or not returned, he said. Those ballots were recounted by hand and showed no discrepancies with what the machine recorded, Haas said.”
Would someone please tell me this: If “it would take only one person, with a sophisticated technical knowledge and timely access to the software that runs the voting machines, to change the outcome,” couldn’t that one person fix it so that the machine that was tampered with would create an accurate count but that other machines would flip or otherwise wreak havoc with votes? So that recounting the ballots from those particular machines would not reveal the problem?
It is my understanding that while a “zero tape” may lead to certification that votes have not been cast, it does not actually provide proof of that, as a machine could “zero out” if its memory contained, say, ten votes for one candidate and negative ten votes for another. Sound ridiculous? Why would these machines even be able to count negative votes? Remember that precinct in Youngstown, Ohio in November 2004 that recorded a total of negative 25 million votes? (Note: that was an ES&S machine, but I have no reason to think a Diebold system lacks the same capability.)
Sounds good. Did it happen? Mikel Haas, why have you failed to disclose the chain of custody documents for the ballots? What are you hiding?
What was done in the past is irrelevant here. In the present, the sleepovers are illegal. Those memory cards are never to be in the possession of fewer than two people at any time.
Ooh, we’re getting more interesting by the minute! Can I play one of us in the movie? And who will play all the coincidence theorists?
I’d personally rather be and be seen as a “conspiracy theorist” than a “conspiracy practitioner.”
And if we’re counting “conspiratorialists,” Brad writes, “I guess we have to include CA SoS McPherson as one of those “Internet Conspiratorialists” since his own team of Computer Scientists confirmed more than a dozen ways in which these specific machines could be tampered with in a few minutes time of unsupervised physical access.
“McPherson’s own lead scientist on that team confirmed to PBS that if one machines was infected, it could affect every other machine in the race.
“We have to include NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice as “Internet Conspiratorialists” as well since they confirmed within the last month more 120 security threats to E-Voting.
“The Washington Post must be added to that list as well since they’re article just two weeks ago headlined “a Single Person Can Reverse an Election.”
I guess pointing out violation of laws isn’t a credible challenge (yawn). I guess calls from organizations including The DNC’s Voting Rights Institute aren’t credible challenges. How does a challenge become credible, exactly? Could it be by being met and proven wrong? Okay, we’re ready. Count the votes. Prove that security was maintained in the custody of the ballots and election equipment. Release all the records that the public is requesting. To date, no credible reason for refusing the challenges has been demonstrated.
Well, Mikel Haas, I’m shocked that you’re shocked that we’re shocked. Nyah-nyah. Why be shocked that we thought you had decent judgment about how to follow the laws and use the “tools” you were so happy to be provided by SOS McPherson?
“When McPherson signed the so-called “conditional certification” for these system, he issued a press release crowing about the security requirements which must be met for use of the Diebold system in the state. (The very security requirements which seem to now have been violated in the CA-50 race.)
The press release [PDF] quoted Haas himself saying:
“I appreciate Secretary McPherson’s leadership in establishing what must be the most comprehensive and rigorous certification process in the nation. To comply with new federal and state laws regarding elections, we need a new and different set of tools and Secretary McPherson made sure we got those tools.”
But Haas didn’t use the tools.
The critics of the critics of electronic voting have conveniently forgotten that the punch card ballots in Florida 2000 were able to be counted and recounted, and when they were it was discovered that Gore won Florida and therefore the presidency. Chad should never have been hanged. The world of elections is not the same place without him.
“¦and we’ll give you endless war, an end to civil rights, privatization of the commons, global warming”¦
Deal?
Would 6 or 7 of you please write to Bill Osborne, Senior Editor, at the U-T?
Phone: (619) 293-1395 or email bill.osborne@uniontrib.com.
There seems to be some character set issues with this post. Neither Explorer nor Firefox is handling the apostrophes correctly, at least on a PC…
Just think how much faster our air traffic could operate if we eliminated all that preflight check list stuff. After all it’s only the lack of confidence that causes all that wasted time!
Great point! And now that you mention it, the metal detectors, too, are really just there to give us confidence. And people counting their change in the grocery line. And checking your credit card statement for charges you didn’t make, actually looking at your bills before you pay them, looking before you cross the street…
This confidence stuff is some powerful medicine. Where can I get me some?
There’s your proof! Newspapers are PROPOGANDA! They are not accountable for ANY LIES THEY PRINT! Zero accountablility.
Why can’t who ever wrote that it was “unfounded”, be forced to debat in public??? Instead of cowardly hiding behind a printed article of lies??? No accountability. We here at Brad Blog are proving over and over again, that lies in print go unpunished and unchallenged. There is no “checking the facts” before printing lies. They just print ’em!!!
This person would be made a fool of, if forced into a public debate.
Don’t bother calling Bill Osborne, Senior Editor, at the U-T. He’s obviously an a-hole who has made up his mind.
Take a quick glance through the U-T and then call three or four of the ADVERTISERS in that rag and tell THEM that you’re not shopping/buying from them until they stop advertising in the U-T, because it’s a piece of crap and anybody who advertises there must have crap products as well.
Six or seven well-placed calls like THAT will have much more impact on the U-T than calls to the editor. Of course, canceling your subscription (I stopped reading OUR local rag — THE OREGONIAN — a long time ago) will also have a financial impact, as fewer readers means fewer dollars in ad revenue.
Hit em where it hurts, in the pocketbook. I doubt the neo-cons or right wing Republicans who want to destroy this country are writing any checks to the U-T. Make sure it is very expensive for the U-T to act as their propaganda arm without pay.
It seems we need the Voice of San Diego should be covering this and counter the false disinformation the UT and NCTimes is giving out. As an alternative online publication for this area who actually has some old members of the UT editorial staff, I would think they’d like to take issue with the UT on their patterns of disinformation. But browsing their site, there’s not a peep on this issue now. Perhaps you should submit a version of your response to this site to help echo a bit more with the progressives down here.
It is as simple as separation of church and state.
In church we practice faith and belief, but in state we practice science.
Both have a role, and here in the electronic voting machine world, they have been confused.
The politicians, who have to do with elections and electronic voting machines, want us to have faith in these machines.
They want us to have faith those who make them.
They want us to have faith in the way they use them.
But we on the contrary, want to have science in these machines.
church = faith
state = science
Under our system of law, developed over many generations, we have learned that if you mix church and state … death, destruction, and inquisition will have a field day.
If you mix electronics and faith you have a tinker toy and can only hope to deceive the users into thinking it is something bona fide when it is not.
If you mandate science upon electronic voting machines, and they pass the test of being verified in every aspect, then you have confidence in that process of the state.
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER bastardize the process by having faith in the state!
What does he mean a lack of confidence?
I’m extremely confident in E-Voting:
I really don’t understand what he means by a lack of confidence. How much confidence must one have in the amount of evidence that points toward a corrupt E-Vote system?
Sort of like the level of confidence one has for an alcoholic that works in a bar, NO???
I quite the UT a couple years ago when they censured/fired James Goldsborough. Here’s my response to their editorial (sent last night – I won’t be betting on if it sees the light of day):
Re: 7/24/06 editorial, Voting Integrity, Challenge to county procedures unfounded
I was not present for Jess Durfee’s testimony at the county Board of Supervisors’ meeting or the subsequent protest, but I was an Assistant Poll Inspector – Equipment (API-E) during the last election in San Diego, specifically, in the 50th Congressional District. Those expressing concern over the integrity of the voting machines and procedures have ample reasons for it; such concerns are not, as you wrote, “unfounded insinuations” made by “a small collection of Internet conspiratorialists (sic)”.
CA Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson’s own computer scientists verified more than a dozen ways these infamous machines could be hacked within minutes but he chose to certify them in spite of these facts. This month, a better known “conspiratorialists”, Robert F. Kennedy, filed a lawsuit alleging Diebold and other electronic voting machine companies fraudulently represented to state election boards and the federal government their machines were “unhackable.” Diebold’s election software is proprietary; that should give anyone pause.
McPherson is required by law to follow established regulations and procedures for approving voting systems in this state; remarkably, those regulations were stealthily removed from the SoS website while McPherson admits he’s abandoned them. This violates CA law and was caught by a couple of astute “conspiratorialists”. Ironically, you’ll have to go to http://www.blackboxvoting.org to find these regulations.
In 2003, Diebold CEO, Walden O’Dell, hobnobbed with George Bush and aggressively raised funds for his campaign. Further, he wrote he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”
As an API-E, I received a scant four hours training, not 16 as you contend. I was quite surprised to learn I was to take two Diebold electronic touch screen machines home a full seven days prior to the election. I was not instructed as to how to secure them so I kept them in my car for a day and then transferred them to the garage floor where they stayed until June 6. This hardly constitutes a chain of custody. Contrary to Registrar of Voters, Mikel Haas’s assertions that it has always been done this way (as though that’s a reasonable defense), it is, in fact, a direct violation of state and federal laws expressly enacted last March by the National Association of Elections Directors (NASED) to plug up this gaping breach of the system. By their very nature these “sleepovers” de-certify the machines, effectively nullifying the election.
Yes, two poll workers check the seal on every machine and certify they are unbroken. However, the seal can be partially removed enough to access the lock for the memory card bay and replaced with little evidence of such (think of peeking under a Band-aid and then replacing it). That relates to physical tampering; these same machines can be altered remotely outside the poll with little more than motivation, a Palm Pilot, and some computer savvy. A single person can alter an entire election and leave not a trace of evidence. Just within the last month NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice confirmed more than 120 security threats to electronic voting machines.
Do you still prefer, as you wrote, “…electronic voting and its safeguards any day?”
It’s the same half-lie that they tell about the economy: everything will be fine as long as consumer confidence remains strong. In other words, if enough people don’t know there’s a problem, there’s no problem.
Brilliant, isn’t it?
WP #10
You make it very clear.
They practically do a book on how to deceive.
Yet, you just exposed them with a couple of short and to the point sentences.
#10 – Brilliant… and deadly, too – to democracy, to human culture and rational thought, to the earth…
And, dare I say, is it unAmerican? Aren’t we supposed to be a nation of problem-solvers? I thought that was one of our strengths. Instead we have “be happy, be confident”…rather than solving the problem, just say there isn’t a problem! And that solves the problem?? 🙁
How far we have fallen.
Of course, I mean “brilliant” – not.