"Although the 'attack' is delaying communication of results on the board of election's website, McGary said it is not having an impact on actual ballot counting because here in Ohio, as in most of the country, we don't actually count votes anyway." OK, I admit it. I added that last part.

same old same old ...

the war on terror is focused in the wrong place .

Thank you Brad for getting this important story out there. Glad you're back from vacation. You are back, I hope?

While you were gone there was another report of voter registration slamming going on in Ca.

as in, "we have to get as many voters as we can registered as Republicans so when we do the man in the middle hacks it just looks like it was regular patriotic Americans voting"

Why do we pretend this isn't happening? How many times do we need reports of a normally registered non-voter going to the polls and finding out they have already voted? Whatever...

I have a lot of problems with this paragraph:

"All told, 89 of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections' 1,200 machines powered down and then froze during a specific test done to ensure the optical scanners were reading paper ballots correctly."

We are not being told how many machines were tested. We want to know how many machines were tested, and what percentage of THAT number failed the test. I would seriously doubt that they tested all 1200 machines, but that is the supposition we are being led to, so this is sloppy at best, but more likely, intentionally misleading. If they tested all 1200, why didn't they say so explicitly? I would bet that they tested 120 machines at most, and just didn't want to report the huge percentage of machines that failed.

Then there is the "powered down and then froze" thing. This is very odd indeed. A simple software failure might cause the machine to "freeze", or to "power down", but it can't do both in that sequence. Once it powers down, it can't power back up on its own. If it froze up during operation, then it would have to be powered down, so the sequence seems wrong. But! This WOULD be consistent with a clever hack that sees it is about to be detected, so deletes itself, and then initiates a shut-off, which would leave the machine looking clean and ready to go. The freezing-after-power-down part looks like the hack wasn't done quite right to put everything back in place so that it could start-up correctly. Can we know this? Well of course not, but I would be worried, and would want to do a simulated election, making it believe it was election day, and then go through the motions of counting votes, and then get final tally, then MANUALLY COUNT THE BALLOTS to see if the manual count agrees with the official tally.

These machines should be treated as infected until proven otherwise. Always. But the problem is that there are so many ways of hacking them and they are inherently opaque, with no way to prove the are not infected.

Why can't elections be counted using optical scanner machines that don't have any internal software? They could. We just choose not to do it that way. Grrrrr. One could make a scanner that would work with available ballots, using only parts from Radio Shack. ! In the "Humboldt Election Transparency Project", they counted ballots using the images of each ballot from a pure optical scanner that didn't know it was scanning ballots as opposed to pictures of flowers. That's how it should be done, so that each stage of the process is transparent.

Every precinct, in every election should have a procedure, after the polls are closed, of (1)picking one machine at random by flipping a coin repeatedly-->head = North half of room, tails = South half--etc. (i.e. using some completely transparent method) then (2)that machine should generate its tally-tape, and then (3)the paper ballots should be counted manually to see if they agree with the tape, and finally and most importantly, (4) the memory card should be read by the "central tabulator" machine to see if the card has the accurate vote matching the other steps.

But there are holes everywhere when software is involved--Stephen Spoonamore has the best take on all of that. He says that secret ballots and software are incompatible

Our elections are important enough that they should be manually counted, with the public being able to view the ENTIRE counting process. Votes from each precinct should be counted AT THAT PRECINCT, directly from the ballots.

"In the love of truth",

jd

There are also some changes happening on the internet:

http://www.itnews.com.au...might-fail-on-may-5.aspx

- Tom

Election Webservers are only a point to post results. In the big picture they don't matter. Official Results can be had FACE TO FACE

OATH BREAKERS CONTROL OUR ELECTIONS

1. OUTLAW ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES
2. CRACKDOWN ON FCC'S ORIGINAL MISSION STATEMENT
3. MAKE LIFE IN PRISON FOR TAMPERING IN ANY FORM

I want people working for my Government SCARED OF THE RAMIFICATIONS for BREAKING THEIR OATH! I don't want this arrogance crap, I want them to POOP THEIR PANTS and KNOW WE THE PEOPLE put them away for their crime for LIFE. This extends into all agencies and branches of government! I want them SCARED the law will wreck their fscking day. If you don't break your oath, you got nothing to be scared about. PROBLEM IS, the INITIAL oath breakers have embedded and are protecting themselves. SECURITY AUDIT FOR EVERYONE!
(Including me, as if I was any importance anymore)
This audit however will take a SNAPSHOT of the TIME AND DATE of HISTORY and compare it to YOUR PERSONAL ACTIONS. Did you introduce some unconstitutional SHTZILLS? Your TOAST!

ALL OUR PROBLEMS ARE BECAUSE THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED:

AN UNBROKEN EMPOWERED PUBLIC HUMAN CHAIN OF CUSTODY WITH PUBLIC HUMAN OVERSIGHT, TO COUNT/TABULATE VOTES. ALL ELECTRONICS VIOLATE THIS CAUSE HUMANS CAN'T SEE ELECTRICITY!

ONLY THEN WILL IT BE HONEST!

HUMANS CAN SEE A PAPER BALLOT TOSSED INTO A BARREL, THEY CAN'T SEE THE DOPING LOGIC OF SOME DIEBOLD/PREMIERE/SIERRA or whatever their god damn fscking name is now ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICE / OR ELECTRONIC REGISTERED VOTERS DATABASE.

THE COMPUTERS HAVE TO GO!

we will go

You apathetic fucks who read this GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Legally Of Course.

God DAMN it already! A DECADE OF HELL NOW.

TomR said on 5/5/2010 @ 5:05 pm PT...

Internet Changes?

IP numbers CIDR NETBLOCKS numbers aren't effected by DNS, DNS is affected by such numbers.

Learn TCPIP

effect? affect? crap.
PING: I need to LEARN ENGLISH.

out of morbid curiosity i went to butlercountyelections.org to look at the numbers reported after the "glitch"

in the gov race,all 4 parties total votes cast were 40,404

state issue 1 (basically a borrowing question that won) total votes cast 51,226

then down to issues 6 & 7,which are both library issues(tax increases)6 is the lane library that includes 150 precincts voting and 7 is the middletown library that includes 144 precincts voting(there are only 298 precincts in butler county)

now i tried to find maps that showed if the 2 library areas over lapped in any way but i couldnt find that info so i am ASSUMING that they are 2 seperate areas.....lanes total votes were 19724,middletons total votes were 33,229,if they are 2 separte districts with no ovrlap,that is 52,953 votes......both library tax increases won ,MIDDLETON BY ONLY 95 YES VOTES

i find it odd that almost 13,000 more peops voted to raise their taxes than voted in the gov race,,,and considering reps turned out 3 to 1 dem in butler,i find it even odder that republicans voted to raise their taxes not once but twice in middleton(a school tax,bond issue passed too)

i am also curious which 4 precincts are not included in either library district and how large those precincts are because 52,953 votes plus 4 more precincts is the real number of voters*****

no precinct by precinct numbers were available yesterday

anyone know anything more about butler county?

"...Sullivan said the county knows that the hundreds of clicks that brought down their servers came from the same Internet IP address, but little else is known. They’re not sure if that computer had a glitch, or if their computer had a problem interacting with it..."
http://www.oxfordpress.c...ot-malicious-689786.html

Love-of-truth @ #5:

"... then MANUALLY COUNT THE BALLOTs..."

If you really wanna know who won, it always comes down to that, doesn't it?

"...the votes are safe..."

Oh, well, I can just sleep soundly now.

That damn ACORN.....I know they're responsible somehow.