I was almost afraid to read this post, but I'll be darned, maybe we can get some coverage now!

Mrs. Hench, Mr. Bear:

I love computers and the internet, and I'm proud to be an anti-electronic voting activist! Now go pick up your paychecks and and reflect on what you've done to my country. But most of all,

SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

"There are always activists who...etc." I guess the patriots who dumped tea in Boston Harbor would be "activists" to this silly woman.

I'm about to read today's Times. I'm glad they're speaking out against e-voting security oroblems, but let's curb our enthusiasm a bit. The Times, like the good corporate media animal it is, still refuses to connect the dots from Diebold to the 2004 election, in spite of the Harri Hursti tests, in spite of O'Dell's resignation in disgrace, in spite of three class-aciton suits filed in one week.

Not only won't they cover election fraud allegations in their news section, but their liberal columnists (Dowd, Krugman, and Herbert) have been censored on the topic...not a single mention of election fraud in any column since November, 2004.
But they sure as hell gave us all we needed to know about the phony Ukraine election. Banner headlines.

Yes, it's great that NY Times is finally covering some of the issues investigated by BBV, BB and others.

Those are great quotes. Maybe now people will wake up to what election reform folks have been saying for ages--we can't have confidence in election results using these machines.

Catherine A #3

Your statement "we can't have confidence in election results using these machines" is part of a double whammy, because we can't have faith in this republican dictatorship either.

I mean, they do not want to fix this problem or even address it meaningfully.

I have a hypothesis of the day to ponder. What if we treat it as a social sickness rather than as a moral problem?

What if we look at the premise "Americans are emotionally unable, at this time, to consider that their election system has been destabilized" and they therefore need emotional healing?

It may be that the tact of declaring it a moral problem, then preaching at them, may not be the best route to go.

If indeed it is an emotional issue, 9/11, Iraq, and BIG BROTHER engendered, then what can we suggest for a remedy?

There are strong internal dynamics of community at work in all of us.

The republican dictatorship may well be a distortion of this dynamic into its dark components, where belonging has been perverted into desperate obsession for power. They are deluded into thinking power is the answer, and military power is the cure. If so, they would not really want any more elections.

The medicine is anathema to the dictatorial minded, but the people still want decent community but are not yet able to see, emotionally, the threat to their healthy sense of community. They fear the pain. Naturally. But are forgetting that a little pain now is better than torture later.

For the record, Brad, there was nothing in today's Times about this. Maybe tomorrow?

Could we be getting closer to exposing the election fraud of 2004?

I know it's too much to hope for, but if the Abramoff-Ney-Noe-Blackwell-Diebold-GOP Vote Rigging Program actually sees the light of day, is it even remotely possible Chimpy's Impeachment could be rendered moot thru exposing his illegal ascention to the presidency?

Notice, the DIEBOLD official doesn't DENY the security issue, he just says that there's no one evil enough to exploit it!!!!!!!

Did you catch that???

...and the other guys says "the state tested them, and couldn't find anything wrong".......

He's not mentioning blackboxvoting.org finding flaws!!! Or the Hursti Hack, or any of the other proven hacks...

CAREFULLY....read between the lines, of what they're saying!!!!!!!!!

Our S.O.S. has tests run exposing 16 additional serious flaws and still certifies the machines, then our registrars proclaim not problems found! What a bunch of crap!
Watch for the California train wreck 06/06/06!

BAH! If ever there was a time for a Sienfeld analogy this was it. That comment about the door being open whil people argue about the lock reminded me of an early ep. The episode where Sienfeld gets broken into because Kramer left the door open.

He says something like, "The lock is the strongest, safest, most advanced lock ever made. It only has one design flaw. THE DOOR HAS TO BE CLOSED!"

I have some sympathy (not a lot) for state election officials. On the one hand, they're under pressure to meet HAVA deadlines. On the other, they're under pressure to make sure election machinery works for voters.

The two priorities are in direct conflict, obviously. HAVA is the villain. How many legislators who gave us this atrocity have been willing to say, "We made a mistake. Let's start over."????

Answer: Five plus two minus seven. Including my home state senator, the incomparable Chris Dodd.

RLM,

Dodd was one of the prime movers and shakers of HAVA. He's one of the big 4 that carried the ball.

Kurt

RLM,

The four primary sponsors and defenders of HAVA are and were:

Representative Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio)
Representative Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.)

V. Kurt Bellman #13

What committee had original jurisdiction of the first draft bill? Who is the chair? And what were the votes in committee?

One thing I have noticed in the evolution of a bill is how it is pulled to and fro, and even distorted sometimes, by amendments, conference with the other house, and the eventual power plays to finalize it before it reaches the floor of either house of congress (link here).

Did you watch HAVA that closely? I didn't ...

"This is the barn door being wide open, ..."

Maybe it's an IR port that appeared to be on the portable units in Arizona.

DREDD,

Remember that soon after the 2000 election, Jeffords changed from R to I and voted with the D's for reorganization so the Democrats were in cotrol of Senate committees.

I was watching carefully this process. There were two competing bills, a Senate and a House version. The Senate was mostly Dodd's baby, and the House was mostly Ney's. I don't have records of committee votes, but I'll sniff around in my archives and see what I can come up with.

Going strictly from recollection, for now, each of the four sponsors had a pet project they wanted in the final bill out of the Conference Committee. Dodd wanted the accessibiilty of the DRE's, McConnell wanted some form of ID requirement, I think Hoyer was insisting on the provisional ballots requirements, and Ney wanted Abramoff's money.

KIDDING!, (maybe not). The bill was being all but given up for dead until the Conf. Committee passed it unexpectedly after an all weekend self-sequester.

I'll do more research. It'll do my widdle bwain some good.

DREDD,

To answer your specific question, it was Dodd's committee in the Senate, and Ney's in the House.

I noticed on the BlackBoxVoting site that the authors of the report on the "security flaws" were very careful to avoid making public the precise technical details. Obviously they would not like to bear responsibility for disseminating informaiton that might be used by hackers. And they would, no doubt, be made the public scapegoats for any and all fraud related to Diebold machines that may be discovered in the future.

However, this is one of those asymmetic information problems. We presume the "bad guys" already know how to fix the voting via these (and maybe other) security holes. So it would be in the best possible interests of the country for all of this information to somehow anonymously be disseminated as widely as possible. And I do mean the UNREDACTED version. Ideally coupled to a "how-to" guide for every wannabe hacker to take a shot.

Once the public finds out that hundreds of spotty nerd kids and evil hackers are likely to manipulate the machines just for their own entertainment, then I can't see how Diebold machines cold possibly be used anywhere!

(To start off this idea - I would be really tempted to push that hidden button a few times if I get the chance!)

V. Kurt said:

Going strictly from recollection, for now, each of the four sponsors had a pet project they wanted in the final bill out of the Conference Committee. Dodd wanted the accessibiilty of the DRE's, McConnell wanted some form of ID requirement, I think Hoyer was insisting on the provisional ballots requirements, and Ney wanted Abramoff's money.

Smartly turned, sir.

And now, in case you missed it. Please see our earlier expose on some of those details, in as much as it concerns Ney and friends. Lots of dots connected for you.

(you can search for "Ney Dodd HAVA" for more on their Indian showdown with Abramoff from an earlier story if you'd like to freshen up on that as well).

Since I have been involved heavily in this voting machine debacle for a number of years now, it was an amazing coincidence to me where the last showing of the machines took place here in Utah before the purchase. I showed up at work that day and my boss was holding a hammer in his hand. I said “you should take that to where they’re showing the voting machines and see if you can fix them”! He said “It’s right next door”. I said “you’re kidding”. He led me around the corner and we were literally 3 yards away from Lt. Governor Herbert who was lit up by a local television news crew taking an interview! Without thinking, I cuped my hands over my mouth and yelled, “they don’t work”!

Not believing what had just happened, he exclaimed “LARRY!” and hurried me back into our store, but I could sense slight amusement. Everybody I work with knows how crazy this issue makes me.

Mr. Herbert was there for quite a while, talking to reporters and others who had questions. After I decided what I wanted to ask, I got in line behind about 3 other people. Just before I got to him, he left and walked towards the back of the room with someone. A man I assumed to be his body guard asked me if I really wanted to ask Mr. Herbert a question. I said “sure”! “What do you want to ask him” he enquired. I replied “Why was the accuracy of the voting machines only weighted at 20%”? (up from 10% in Utahs original RFP document). “let me go ask him” he said, left and came back saying he didn’t have the information available, but was going to have somebody “look into it”. I stood there for a while but decided I better get back to work.

There wasn’t much going on that day for some reason and I got anxious about having my question answered. I went over and got in another line that had formed. I was next in line when the reporter questioning Mr. Herbert asked him “what exactly does DRE stand for”? He hurriedly motioned for the question to be answered by his assistant who ran from several yards away. I thought I could help and started out “direct recording...” He quickly repeated the query to his assitant who answered as the questioner looked at me and smiled wryly. She finished up and two other men came walking briskley towards Mr. Herbert who turned and started to leave with them. I said tersely, “Mr. Herbert”. The Lt. Governor turned back towards me and motioned for the other men to go ahead without him.

He graciously talked with me for some 5 minutes or so. We had a very cordial discussion for the most part, but my anger came out when I pointed at the Diebold display and told him I didn’t think those machines should even be considered because the company had been sued twice and lost both times. He pointed at my workplace and asked if I would want my company closed down after a lawsuit? I didn’t think to respond by saying this matter was a little more important then a suit over a pair of eyeglasses. I probably crossed a line when I arrogantly surmised that he had “already made up his mind about which machine to buy”! He strongly refuted the suggestion.

He become very animated at two questions I asked. “Doesn’t it make you nervous to be buying voting machines that are secretly programmed in another state which might want to send their nuclear waste here someday”? He replied that they were going to take every precaution to make sure every vote was accurately counted. I also told him I was pretty sure that supreme court justice Scalia had said that Americans didn’t necessarily have the right under the constitution to vote for president. He scoffed at the idea. (I later discoverd I was right).

I wrapped up the conversation by telling him thanks for talking with me, but adding that I thought we should be voting with pencil and paper this time because of all the doubts about the machines. An older lady that heard the conversation came over and joined in laughing with Mr. Herbert at the ridiculous suggestion. “My goodness, do you realize all of the fraud that occurs in elections”. The Lt. Governor exclaimed he had seen unbelievable things happen before!

An assistant to Mr. Herbert came into my store hours later with an answer to my question about the 20% weighting. We were polite to each other but I don’t think I understood the answer.

Addressing the comments by Mr. Bear’s line of reasoning in THIS post, discrediting any talk about “some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software” is not at all new. It has come up many times here in Utah as the officials here scoff at the idea that “some janitor is going to break into the computer room” or the Lt. Governors chief of staff Joseph Demma saying, “the notion that county clerks are going to allow someone to access a voting machine with drills, computer chips or voodoo is just plain nonsense”.

You’re all way ahead of me here folks.

How in the wide world is voting on a computer going to eliminate the possibility of voting fraud?

Larry,

"I was pretty sure that supreme court justice Scalia had said that Americans didn’t necessarily have the right under the constitution to vote for president. He scoffed at the idea. (I later discoverd I was right)."

Yep, you sure are right, Larry. If you have the right to vote for President of the United States, that right comes directly from your state legislature, no one else.

The U.S. Constitution does NOT guarantee your right to vote at all, but even less so for President.

What keeps coming to my mind, and I keep repeating, probably ad nauseum, is that there are three key people or three key positions that tell me the big story.

Three IT professionals at Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia are the bosses of what happens to electronic voting machines that process the votes of the vast majority of Americans.

Three people. How hard is it to get three people to work for a cause?

Such as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld?

Not that hard.

And so, with billions of dollars, yeah trillions of dollars, and all the power of the United States at stake, are these three people or positions important?

Does a bear s**t in the woods? Is the pope catholic? Is a rabbi jewish? Is Billy Graham a protestant?

So, if three men from republican companies have all their phone calls monitored, are offered 72 virgins in heaven, more money than Howard Hughes, or some nasty, nasty alternatives, what would they do?

Or are these guys just so incompetent that they can make wonderful ATM machines and other wonderful electronics, but only goof up on election machines?

All "vast conspiracy theory" three of them?

V. Kurt Bellman #21

"Smartly turned, Sir".

Whether the constitution "guarantees it" or not is not the question, rather, whether or not the constitution provides for it is the question. And whether or not bushniks or someone else is doing the interpretation of the constitution.

And as the Brown v Board of Education case, and others, show, constitutional rights depend upon what the US Supreme Court says she constitution says. And therefore, "what it says", changes from time to time.

That being said, the constitution does provide for a vote by the people for congress members (Seventeenth Amendment, link here).

Before the 17th Amendment, the vote for congress members was the same as it is for presidents now. That is, there is no right for the people to vote directly for president.

Instead that plenary right is given in the constitution to state legislators (Article II, Section I).

But once the legislators pass that right on to their state citizens, then the vote must be done in accord with the equal application of law (see Bush v Gore) and each must be given a fair and equal opportunity to vote.

In other words due process flows from the 14th Amendment once state legislators give up their exclusive constitutional right to vote for president (via a state law or laws), and pass it on to the people of their state.

Before Bush v Gore there were some Supreme Court cases that some argue indicated the people had a direct right to vote for president, but Bush v Gore put an end to that line of argument.

Before the people will have a right to a popular vote for president, an amendment to the constitution like the 17th Amendment will have to be passed and ratified by 2/3 of the state legislative branches of government.

V. Kurt Bellman #21

You said:

"If you have the right to vote for President of the United States, that right comes directly from your state legislature, no one else".

You're right, and I was astonished to learn that Scalia was right when I found his quote in "The Nation".

Was the Florida supreme court errant in ruling the vote counting to continue under Florida law?

Whatever right Scalia had to choose the president, I think you'll agree that the American people have to right to know if they're pretending to vote or not!

DREDD,

Well put and 100% accurate. Well done. Well, one quibble. I am unaware of those pre-Bush V. Gore cases that might have indicated a right to vote for President. Nothing in Bush v. Gore surprised me.

Larry,

The Florida Supreme Court's ruling had nothing to do with whether your right to vote comes from the U.S. Constitution. It was on the much narrower issue of how to recount, what to recount, and where to recount. The Florida Supreme Court held that once that right to vote was given the citizens of Florida, that that right required all due diligence to decide exactly how that vote came out, and ALL they could consider was what was requested by the parties involved. (They were reticent to craft their own remedy sua sponte.)

The United States Supreme Court found that the remedies before the Florida Supreme Court were all violative of the Equal Protection clause and ordered the Florida Supreme Court to craft a remedy "not inconsistent with this decision". However, the time to do that had expired according to Florida statute and federal law, so the state of Florida was left with no option than to certify as final the results before them at that time.

Now the news consortium has determined that if all putative undervotes and overvotes statewide were re-examined, and interpreted under the state law that the U.S. Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional, that Gore would have won Florida. Two problems with that. 1) No one had proposed that remedy, not even Gore, and 2) the "voter intent" standard without objective measurable standards to define and restrict its application, was itself unconstitutional.

Mr. Bellman and Dredd:

What about my last statement?

"Whatever right Scalia had to choose the president, I think you'll agree that the American people have to right to know if they're pretending to vote or not"!

Put more simply. Do YOU think the American people should have the right to choose their president? (please don't answer that it doesn't matter what you think because of the law), I want to know what YOU think.

Also, I haven't seen it anywhere since, but contrary to your belief that he didn't request it, I am absolutely positive I saw Al Gore on television saying he would agree to a recount of the ENTIRE STATE!

To whoever said this:

“the notion that county clerks are going to allow someone to access a voting machine with drills, computer chips or voodoo is just plain nonsense”.

Boy, this is fast becoming another button of mine, and I really don't know how many more episodes of my head exploding I can reasonably be expected to survive, not that I'm alone in this, I realize.

Usually these statements are framed thusly:
"The American people would never allow this!"
"The American people would never stand for that!"
You hear this CONSTANTLY.

This FANTASY--- that somehow "county clerks" or any other group of righteously indignant Americans somehow has this extraordinary power to NOT ALLOW things to happen!--- is at this point right up there at the top with

"We are a country of LAWS! Not of MEN!"

on the top ten list of Idiotic and Untrue Things People Nevertheless Apparently Still Believe.

Larry,

Other than the fact I support the Electoral College concept, I do believe the AMerican people should have the right to choose their President. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

You are absolutely correct that Gore said he would agree to a statewide recount on television. He never requested it in any court filing, though.

Was it sleight of hand? Did he not communicate it to his attormeys? Did the party talk him out of that option? I don't know, and I'd prefer not to speculate.

Mr. Bellman:

Thank you very much for your reply! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who saw Gore say that (Boy, did that video clip ever disappear). Like you, I have no idea why he didn't carry it further, but I'll bet you he didn't get any encouragment from Joe Lieberman or his advisors!

You and Dredd really know your stuff. You're both light years ahead of me on the legal aspects of this debate.

I still distrust republicans though because even if the US Supreme Court had voted in favor of continuing the counting in Florida, they were going to take it to the House of Representatives despite the fact that Gore had the popular vote. If my party had done that, I would have been outraged but Republicans don't seem to mind a bit. None of them! I haven't heard ONE Republican express regret.

Joan #27 - Love your writings on this blog. You reiterated a belief we've been brainwashed with.

"The American people would never stand for that!"

The "brave" American people are indeed standing for this, year after demoralizing year!

The person who talked of drills and voodo was our Lt. Governors chief of staff here in Utah. One of the folks who have been harrasing Bruce Funk. This is a series of E-mails we sent back and forth. My additional comments are written in caps.

[MAYBE IT WASN’T THE BEST WAY TO INITIATE A CONVERSATION BUT I HAD SENT THREE PREVIOUS E-MAILS ASKING IF HIS OFFICE HAD BUYERS REMORSE].

Larry Bergan said:

Got buyers remorse yet? The GAO (Government Accounting Office) says the Diebold machines can be hacked, and probably were. I'm sure you've heard about this. PLEASE REPLY!

Joseph M. Demma said:

Sir:

Exactly what kind of "REPLY" are you expecting to this sort of email? I suppose the short answer to your first question is "no." In fact, we are more excited than ever to play a role in the transition of the Diebold voting solution, ensuring that every ballot cast is counted accurately.

Thank you for contacting our office - if you have any more questions or would like to sit down with any one of us in the LG's office to discuss this issue in a civilized, professional manner - we would certainly make that happen.

http://deseretnews.com/d...0,1249,635159796,00.html [ONLY GO HERE IF YOU WANT TO LOSE YOUR LUNCH]

Thanks again.
jmd.

Larry Bergan said:

Actually, I would appreciate an answer to the second part of the question. PLEASE REPLY!

[A LITTLE OVER A WEEK PASSED BEFORE I SENT THIS NEXT E-MAIL AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE REITERATED MY QUESTION, BUT I DIDN’T REALLY EXPECT A REPLY]

Larry Bergan said:

Well?

Joseph Demma said:

About what? Because at this very minute, I'm thinking that an egg
mcmuffin sounds pretty good.

Larry Bergan said:

Sorry, I should have included the question I never recieved an answer to:

The GAO (Government Accounting Office) says the Diebold machines can be
hacked, and probably were. Also, we now know that the Diebold stockholders have filed a class
action lawsuit against Diebold. What are your thoughts?

Joseph Demma said:

First of all, I'd like to read that GAO report. Secondly, I think you
should pick up a copy of this week's City Weekly. In the "Counting on
Diebold" article, I make clear the opinion of this office regarding
"hacking." In short, the notion that county clerks are going to allow
someone to access a voting machine with drills, computer chips or voodoo
is just plain nonsense. Throwing a box of punch-card ballots into the
river is a similarly unlikely scenario.

Regarding the lawsuit, I can't say that I know much about it. As it
sits, that lawsuit has nothing to do with the implementation of Utah's
new statewide voting solution. All 7500 machines that we've purchased
just went through an extensive acceptance testing and, based on their
positive results, have been shipped to each of Utah's 29 counties.

I guess an informal answer to the premise of your line of questioning
is that Utah's Lieutenant Governor does not seem to be cowed by the "sky
is falling" rhetoric coming out of a minority group that has not only an
ideologic agenda, but lacks a willingness to behave in a civil and
dignified manner.

Bottom line: The process of selecting the solution is over. It works.
It works well. Voters overwhelmingly support it. Because of all the
success that Utah has had and is currently having....we have no reason
not to be anything but ecstatic. The Lieutenant Governor has been firm
and demanding of Diebold and they have responded at every turn.

I'm confident that everything will move along swimmingly - and, if not
- I'm sure the voters of Utah will let us know that during the next
election.

Thanks for your concern and please feel free to contact us with at any
time.
jmd.
As a point of clarification........what I mean by "the voters willl let
us know in the next election" - I meant to say..... "if the Lieutenant
Governor fails in implementening HAVA, the voters will fail to re-elect
the Lieutenant Governor when he seeks Re-Election in 2008. "

However, I doubt that will be the case and look forward to any
challenges to his role.

Anyone interested in taking on this role, given the federal mandates, is
welcome to apply.

Ready, Set, GO!

[SHOULD HAVE PROOFREAD THIS BEFORE SENDING, BUT I WAS ANGRY. COINCIDENTALY BOB BARR WAS SCHEDULED TO INTRODUCE AL GORE IN A VERY TOUGH SPEACH CONCERNING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS A WEEK AFTER I SENT THIS. WOW, TALK ABOUT UNLIKLEY COALITIONS]!

Larry Bergan said:

It's very easy to get the entire GAO reort by typing (GAO "voting machines") into Goggle.
I honestly appreciate your reply to my inqiries, but it's pretty clear we will never agree with
each other. First off, I think HAVA is a terrible and overly complex solution to a simple problem.

My only request from the beginning of this saga, was for both republicans and democrats to
know their votes were being counted. Machines will never do that without the code being
open to public scrutiny and producing a paper printout which can be placed in a box for
recounting, giving whoever may want to tamper with the results a reason to be fearful.

With all of the truly strange things that have been going on in elections lately were happening to
republicans, they would be flailing around and screaming like Al Gore has just confiscated their
guns (by the way Bob Barr, the famous gun rights activist and Clinton impeachment head recenly
said it was much harder to work with the present administration about gun rights then Clinton) OH OH!

So please don't talk to me about being civil when I get angry about the republicans doing everything they
can to prevent trust in the voting system. Tom Delay prevented the issue of verifiable voting from coming to the floor of the house. Supreme court justice Scalia said that the constitution doesn't really garantee us the right to vote for president (and he may be right)! If he is, I think we should leave that part out of our
elections but also in Irak!

[HOPE MR. DEMMA DIDN’T CLOSE HIS EYES FOR THE REST OF THE E-MAIL WHICH DETAILED THE GAO REPORT. MY LETTER WAS PURPOSEFULLY BLUNT TO PREVENT ANY MORE OF MY TIME BEING WASTED WITH HIS SILLY REPLYS ].

Larry Bergan # 26

Yes I support an amendment exactly like the 17th so that the people elect the president directly, by popular vote.

And yes I would remove the electoral system that now exists, accordingly, and let it fade into history as did those things the 17th amendment changed.

I totally agree with you Dredd! The people who defend the electorial system say it's to insure states with less population to have a say. I am sceptical of that simple explanation.

Besides that, from what the Blue/Red maps show us, people who live in large cities seem to have a better collective intellegence concerning human rights and needs then the rural areas.

I'm not an expert.