Election Fraud issue about to come up again.

[TayTay]

That letter that Sen. Kerry is sending out tomorrow should generate some, ahm, opinions on DU. I remind people on this group that we have friends and allies on this isse. We have them because the issue overrides petty politics and the usual juvenile hijinks about who likes whom and whether or not such-and-such already has a date for the big prom, so to speak.

We choose up sides very well on DU. Sometimes we don't do such a good job at recognizing when someone is with you on an issue. Look past the petty comments about being 'late to the party' and such and recognize who is happy about this letter. We have friends out in GD and DU. They have put in so much work on this issue and want allies. See that and let the petty little things pass.

We need more friends and we need to recognize when we have common purpose with other for the greater good. This is one such time when there will be little digs all over the place. I plan on trying to stay focused on the goal, cuz it's about the most worthwhile one I can think of to pursue.

[karynnj]

1. Good points - I wish I read this before posting

[politicasista]

2. I agree good points

Our friends are so mean and nasty.

[blm]

3. Not really - those HONESTLY CONCERNED about election fraud welcome ANY

positive attention from any lawmaker.

Those who concern themselves with uninformed vitriol are just lazyminded basement battlers who have probably never effected this nation in a positive way their entire life.

[ProSense]

4. Many of them don't

give two hoots about election fraud. This is political posturing! How the hell can anyone express anger about stolen elections, then claim to support someone who doesn't believe the election was stolen and hasn't lifted a finger or uttered a word about the issue?

[politicasista]

5. Very interesting

I would post a lot about election reform elsewhere, but it will be just like here "too late," "didn't speak out about it in 04", male references and stuff. :scared:

[Dr Ron]

17. Too bad they don'tt know what Kerry said

I wish this came up a few days earlier. A couple days ago I went thru my download of Light Up the Darkness, which was on line from around December 2003 thru the first half of 2004. I was copying old posts to add to Liberal Values (I'm adding some of my old posts "under the fold" which relate to other articles to serve the same function as an archive if the blog was more than 3 weeks old).

While doing this I came across several posts about Kerry speaking out on election fraud post-election. At the time this seemed almost like old news and I didn't copy those over to files I made of old posts to add. Now I wish I did keep a file of them. If I thought that such evidence would really change anything I'd go back thru the files again, but we know that the facts don't change people's minds on this. As I'm getting ready to go away for a long weekend (between procrastinating by posting here) I doubt I'll take the time to go thru those old posts now.

[Firespirit]

6. One aspect of this issue that deeply disturbs me

Is that many well-meaning people focus solely on voter suppression and pre-election purging tactics--which, while they deserve an airing as well, shouldn't upstage the real concern of the security of our voting systems. I think the idea is to shy away from an aspect of election reform that has attracted the attention of people who are considered "out of the mainstream."

Quite frankly (and I speak as a private citizen in this), I wish Senator Kerry would be more vocal about the computer security flaw aspect of it.

It's not a fringe issue or a conspiracy theory anymore. Software developer organizations and computer security organizations, whose interest in it is professional rather than partisan, have amply documented the risk, with very specific technical details of what the problems are and how they could be exploited, for those (like me) who are geeky enough to read them. They ripped a Diebold product a new one recently for its horrible programming and utter lack of security. These are the experts weighing in, not political hacks. They know their field of expertise. We trust them to find and tell about security holes in our computers, our operating systems, etc. If their word is good enough to get us to install security patches on our own computers, I'd say it's good enough to get us to do something about our election equipment.

The "computer fraud" aspect of election reform is, one might say, as mainstream as your antivirus software. As a software engineer and computer scientist by education myself, I wish it would be treated as such.

[ProSense]

7. Agree!

It's surreal the way everyone avoids the whole issue. After Iraq and the previous election, everyone should realize that silence is dangerous. The biggest problem right now is that conventional wisdom pushers and people with political motives are stomping on any attempt to increase awareness of how serious these issues are. It happened with the war, Bush and the 2004 election. Too much noise. The problem is this: when they are in power, there is no recourse except protest, and unless the protest comes from the majority and impacts the elected majority nothing will change. It's getting close to Election Day, and the noise begins. This article is atrocious, but I'm more concerned with why they are writing it.

ASSOCIATED PRESS IGNORES POLLS, INDULGES IN MINDLESS SPECULATION TO PORTRAY KARL ROVE AS UNTARNISHED AND POWERFUL.

Speaking of news orgs twisting themselves into contortions to portray everything as good news for Republicans, the Associated Press has a piece today about Karl Rove which is truly a masterpiece of the genre. The piece -- titled "Rove's Influence Undiminished by Scandal" -- portrays the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the fact that his portfolio was cut back as both being good for him. Here goes:

The slimmed-down portfolio leaves Rove freer to focus on politics, look at the big picture and provide a gut-check in a White House that has struggled with missteps that may leave Republicans vulnerable in the midterm congressional elections...

The Republican base never flinched at suggestions that Rove tried to smear administration critic Joe Wilson by revealing his wife's role as a CIA operative.

Publicity surrounding the case may have increased Rove's stature among Republicans and contributed to an almost mystical view of the longtime Bush strategist among the party faithful because he came out on top.

Man alive, that's just awful. First, can anyone explain what it means to say that the GOP base "never flinched"? Is that a factually meaningful statement in any way? Also note the word "never." As it happens, the statement, to the extent that it means anything, is unsupported by actual evidence. One July 2005 poll, taken when the scandal was entering public consciousness, found that 19 percent of Republicans thought Rove should resign over the controversy, while 23 percent of GOPers "following the news closely" thought he should resign. Yes, it's true that more GOPers thought Rove's conduct was OK, but still -- don't those numbers count as "flinching"?

What's more, here's another August 2005 poll which found that more than a third surveyed thought Rove's actions were "unethical," while 59 % thought it was "not worth it." Might some of those been Republicans? These two polls aren't enough for ironclad conclusions, obviously, but such numbers deserve at least a cursory glance from someone looking to throw around reckless generalizations about the GOP base "never flinching."

Meanwhile, the assertion that his standing "may" have been improved is unadulterated, virtually meaningless speculation -- and it, too, is unsupported by available evidence. A Gallup poll released yesterday found that Rove's favorable rating is 22 percent -- unchanged since April, which was before the news broke that the investigation into Rove had been dropped. And among Republicans, Rove's favorable rating is 44 percent -- lower than its high point last October. Given that this poll came out yesterday, the AP might have thought it worth including. And needless to say, there's no mention of the many polls which suggest that Rove's "Dems-are-weak" strategy is failing. Stick this piece in a time capsule so future generations can marvel at it.

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/08/post_314.html#006054

I'm glad Senator Kerry is speaking up, but more Democrats should be making noise:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2005985&mesg_id=2005985

[politicasista]

8. That's what no one understands

Why are Democrats continuing to be silent on this issue? Why not target them? Why throw stones and the one who is speaking out about it? What makes them think that the next nominee is going to "fight hard" and not concede and do whatever they demand?

Why aren't we angry at Bush, Rove, the GOP, the Ohio Democratic Party?

When are the court dates for the lawsuits coming? Somebody suggested that Kerry should personally go to Ohio to the AA community and talk about voter disenfranchisment.

I know people may still be bitter about 04, the concession and all, but letting people know that he is on their side and don't take them for granted isn't a bad idea, especially now that the preachers that supported him in 04 are endorsing Blackwell.

I am sorry for ranting, but I am sick of the negativity, while other Dems are given free passes and not even commenting on the election reform issue. :rant:

[karynnj]

9. I am sure that he likely will campaign in Ohio, if it's tthought

that it would help. He has made it clear that he is working hard on 2006. It may be that the accusations in this email will be repeated in person. He said NOTHING that was not true and 100% provable. That may drive people here nuts (in the rest of DU), but in the long run it makes him credible.

[Dr Ron]

15. Accusations confused

"He said NOTHING that was not true and 100% provable."

True, but the problem is in the different manners in which people interpret the email.

In the email he is very vague. When he is specific, he speaks out about voter suppression and the types of abuse possible from having someone like Blackwell in charge of the elections. He stays clear of the more controversial charges.

However, the more controversial charges are what most people think about. These have never been proven, leaving Kerry open to attacks from the right who assume he is making charges which he is not making. The media coverage notes that law suits have not been won, but that is irrelevant as the main thrust of Kerry's activites relate to things which are legal but which should not be.

Kerry also gets it from the unrealistic components of the left who see any mention of election abuses and see this as meaning that the election was "stolen" and Kerry should have done something. Those who believe that it is obvious the election was stolen (such as those who buy weak argumetns such as the exit poll argument) will attack Kerry for mentioning election fraud since he didn't fight a battle they believe he should have fought. Making matters worse, most of these people are totally unaware of the actions Kerry has taken.

That said, while Kerry gets it from both left and right, the blogoshere poorly represents the real world. While Kerry came under considerable criticism on line and in a rare newspaper article covering this, I bet that the vast majority of people who are on his email list will see nothing wrong with what he said.

[karynnj]

23. I don't see the email as unusually vague

The vagueness stems from reading Hammer's article before seeing the email. While it's true Kerry does not list Blackwell's transgression's with the precision of a prosecutor, they are clear enough to ask people to defeat him and to give money to Strickland.

The very far left itself has to deal with the problem that no high level politician is bringing as much attention to the fact that there are problems with the election process than John Kerry. None of their favorites are saying anything. Al Gore, who is much better positioned to speak of election fraud, refused to get into it in at least one article. They need to realize that the more important thing is to use their considerable passion and energies to demand the system be fixed.

From all I've learned in this group, Kerry is very used to getting it both from the left and the right - probably because both know that he will make a strong stand in exactly the position he things is correct. I admire that Kerry is addressing this issue so often. It's essential to our democracy.

I agree with your last paragraph that the majority of people who get the email will have no problem with it. I just hope that the email will be a very successful fund raising devise.

[Dr Ron]

39. Doesn't go into specifics--but no need to in fund raising email

The email doesn't go into the specifics of election fraud. From Kerry's perspective that was wise. It allows anyone who has any thoughts with regards to fraud to agree with the email, even if different people see it differently.

It is ironic that Kerry is unjustly bashed for not fighting the election results when Kerry is doing more virtually all politicians on this issue.

[karynnj]

36. Aren't you saying that he is unclear in the things he is NOT saying?

You say:

"When he is specific, he speaks out about voter suppression and the types of abuse possible from having someone like Blackwell in charge of the elections. He stays clear of the more controversial charges.

However, the more controversial charges are what most people think about."

This is ALice in Wonderland! Kerry is not responsible for the fact that the RW conflated charges made by others with very specific things he said.

[Dr Ron]

40. Not what I'm saying

Kerry is not responsible for this. He has stuck to what is provable.

I'm responding to the right wing criticism of Kerry. This criticism is somewhat understandable. While we know many of them have no qualms about making stuff up about Kerry, in this case it is understandable if conservatives confuse Kerry's charges with charges made by others. Differentiating between what Kerry is really charging and what they think he is charging is the best way to defend Kerry on this.

[karynnj]

41. I agree then

especially on the last point:
"Differentiating between what Kerry is really charging and what they think he is charging is the best way to defend Kerry on this."

[wisteria]

11. When I first saw this puke piece, I thought it was directed at

some of our white knuckled Dem's, just in case they found some courage and decided now might be a good time to take a stand against the administration, Rove was out to remind them that he is his big bad old self and not to cross him.
I hope, this settles once and for all that Rove is old hat. The best thing that could happen is people laugh at the piece.

[MH1]

10. I agree, but

Kerry has backed the bill that would require the source code be available for inspection (as I understand it). That is not "open source" according to some people because it isn't an open source development process, but it is "open source" in the strict sense of the term, that the code is available for experts to analyze and crack. I think that bill is a good start on making the issue addressable by those software experts.

I have worked in information technology for many years (let's not get too specific here, lol) and personally I think that some but not all electronic voting machines are plausibly hackable. For example the machines my county has purchased could be subject to having the cartridge switched out with a "vote-flipping" replica, but to accomplish that between the inspections of the machines and the vote would require substantial effort, therefore a sizeable conspiracy, and pretty high risk to the perpetrators. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - just that I see it as pretty unlikely, and if I'm going to expend limited resources protecting the vote, I think I'll start with the stuff I **know** happens continually. I'm going to focus on staffing the polls with trained workers who know the rules and will stand up to anyone who is trying to break the rules to suppress the vote. I'm going to focus on making sure polls open on time with the right number of working machines. I'm going to make sure that the republicans aren't intimidating dem voters. I'm going to make sure the poll workers aren't asking people to produce identification unless it is warranted, and I'm going to make sure they accept ANY form of identification that the law says they should accept, and not allow the "photo id only" bullshit.

That said, I have seen true electronic machine horror stories in the Election Reform forum here at DU, and I have to say that if I lived in one of those counties, I'd be screaming about those machines, too. I think the machines my county has might (barely) represent a minimum standard - if the source code were made available (which it isn't yet, afaik) - and anything more vulnerable than these should never ever have been purchased by a BoE.

[TayTay]

12. Dieold has acknowledged errors in their systems.

It's in their annual report, accessible through the SEC.gov site.

From the Annual Report filed on 9/12/05

The election systems business continued to be a challenge for the company, as lower revenue and the settlement of the civil action in California with the state of California and Alameda County had a significant negative impact on margin and earnings per share. The company continues to face a variety of challenges and opportunities in responding to customer needs within the election systems market. A number of individuals and groups have raised challenges in the media and elsewhere, including legal challenges, about the reliability and security of the company’s election systems products and services. The parties making these challenges oppose the use of technology in the electoral process generally and, specifically, have filed lawsuits and taken other actions to publicize what they view as significant flaws in the company’s election management software and firmware. These efforts have adversely affected some of the company’s customer relations with its election systems customers. Also, the election systems market continues to evolve. Funding is being provided by the federal government and utilized by the states; however, the guidelines and rules governing the election software and hardware have not yet been fully established. As a result, various states and industry experts are interpreting the election requirements differently. Recent changes in the laws under which election-related products must be certified by a number of states have lengthened the certification process and, in some cases, required changes to the company’s products. For example, some states are requiring paper receipt printers, and the state of Ohio has decided to adopt mostly optical scan rather than touch screen technology.

As a result of these challenges, and because 2004 was a presidential election year, the company believes that prospective purchases of voting equipment and services by certain government entities were delayed in 2004. Those entities did not want to introduce a new voting solution in a presidential election year and also wanted to see how successful electronic voting was in states that had already implemented the technology. The delay in orders resulted in higher inventory levels of approximately $32 million and lower voting sales in the range of approximately $65 million to $75 million in 2004. As a result of the positive performance of the company’s voting equipment, as well as the performance of electronic voting systems in general, in the past presidential election and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requirement that jurisdictions must have HAVA-compliant equipment installed by January 1, 2006, the company expects to recover a significant portion of the delayed sales in 2005, as well as participate in new jurisdiction decisions to purchase voting equipment in 2005. Despite these expectations, future delays or increase in the costs of providing products and services may be encountered as a result of possible future challenges, changes in the laws and changes to product specifications, any of which may adversely affect the company’s election systems sales.

Things are looking up for them though. Check out the sales numbers for this year.

Election systems net sales of $64,441 increased by $43,363 or 205.7 percent compared to the six months ended June 30, 2005. In 2005, voting purchases were delayed by county and state governments within the United States as a result of ongoing political debates over electronic voting.

My contention on the machines is that no one in the government is doing their job and overseeing these contracts. This is another aspect of the Bush Admin and the Republican Congress' penchant for corruption. No one is squeezing Diebold and saying, "Either you get these things to work or you're fired and we sue." There is no accountability in government. I don't see the machines as deliberately fixed for fraud, I see them as symptom of a corrupt system with no oversight whatsoever.

[ProSense]

13. I can't understand why this

didn't receive more attention:

New Fears of Security Risks In Electronic Voting Systems

*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
May 12, 2006, Friday
By MONICA DAVEY; GRETCHEN RUETHLING CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM CHICAGO FOR THIS ARTICLE, AND JOHN SCHWARTZ FROM NEW YORK. (NYT); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 23, Column 5, 788 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - With primary election dates fast approaching in many states, officials in Pennsylvania and California issued urgent directives in recent days about a potential security risk in their Diebold Election Systems touch-screen voting machines, while other states with similar equipment hurried to assess the seriousness of the problem. ''It's the ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/us/12vote.html?ex=114

May 10, 2006. 6 comments. Topic: Elections and Voting
DIEBOLD REVEALS NEW “SECURITY VULNERABILITY” WITH VOTING MACHINES CERTIFIED FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA

By Debra Bowen
Chair of Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee

Is it embarrassing that California’s Secretary of State certified voting machines that the company itself now admits suffer from a serious security flaw that could allow anyone to load software onto them to change people’s votes and potentially change the outcome of an election? I’m sure it is, but we have a statewide election in less than four weeks and we don’t have time for people to be embarrassed, we need to get the problem solved.

Snip...

On February 17, 2006, the Secretary of State’s Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB) released a report identifying 16 security flaws in the Diebold machines, but not the flaw Diebold revealed to Pennsylvania officials on May 1. The Secretary of State certified the Diebold machines that same day and imposed additional security procedures, including one requiring the machine’s memory cards to be programmed under the supervision of the registrar of voters. However, it appears the process won’t cover the security problem disclosed by Diebold because the process deals solely with when the electronic ballot is loaded onto each machine, not when the operating software is loaded onto the machine.

A copy of the letter from Diebold to the Pennsylvania elections officials is here, along with a copy of the directive from the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth to counties that plan to use Diebold machines in the state’s May 16th primary election.

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/05/diebold_reveals.html

(Embedded links are to Word docs)

Thoughts?

[Dr Ron]

16. Received fair attention under the circumstances

Considering that this is the type of thing which is only of interested to real wonks and computer nerds, there is a limit to how much attention it will receive. Under the circumstances, this is a story which is starting to get some traction. Over the last few months I've seen several stories along these lines:

City/county is getting electronic voting machines.
Towards bottom of story there are comments as to why the machines are secure.

Now I certainly cannot judge whether the statements that the machines are secure are accurate, but at very least they now feel obligated to address this. It is not everything we want, but it is a start. There have also been incidents in which some areas decided agaisnt using varioius machines due to such concerns.

Another reason the story gets less traction is the manner in which it has been taken up by the tin foil hat types. For every real story of abuse, the blogoshere puts out multiple weak stories. Unfortunately people like Brad Blog don't realize how much harm they are doing in keeping this issue out of the mainstream.

[ProSense]

18. The article in the NYT and the statement by the CA official

have no link whatsoever to Brad Blog. The traction these stories get is based on the extent of media coverage. If the media pursued this story in the same way they pursue other serious issue that deserve more than a casual mention the story would gain traction. Concern about voting rights and the integrity of the voting process---from access to the polls to the security of the machines---is not just the concern of wonky computer nerds. In other words, a person doesn't have to know anything about computers to be concerned about the machines used in the polling place.

[Dr Ron]

20. Don't need a link to the story

When people hear of charges of election fraud, many do think of the more tin foil hat theories. Most likely even the reporters think less of the story due to picking up all the nonsense floating around, distracting from the real issues.

Right now when it comes up it is a minor point, but it is still significant that it is included at all. This leaves hope that the story will grow in significance over time.

The media pays far too little attention to virtually every serious issue, not just election fraud. It is going to take time for this to get the attention it deserves.

[ProSense]

22. That's not the case:

Released: August 23, 2006

Americans Concerned About Election Transparency and Security

New poll shows more than 60% have heard news reports of flaws in new electronic voting equipment

A majority of Americans—61%—are aware of news reports of flaws in electronic voting machines and want members of the general public to be able to watch votes be counted following an election, a new Zogby International poll shows.

The telephone survey of 1,018 likely voters was conducted Aug. 11-15, 2006. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Asked whether Americans have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes, 92% of respondents concurred.

"The 92% support for the public's right to view vote counting and obtain information about it is a very strong political value of transparency and against secret vote counting outside the observation of the public," said Paul Lehto, a lawyer and sponsor of the survey. "To put this figure in context, support for election transparency exceeds the support for tax cuts, exceeds the approval of Pres. Bush immediately after 9-11, and virtually all other political values being measured." Mr. Lehto is counsel in the 50th Congressional District election contest in California.

Most of those surveyed— 80%—said they want votes to be counted in front of observers representing the public, and that elections officials should not rely solely on the proprietary software that operates electronic voting machines that are presently being installed all over the United States. In some models, the electronic machines tabulate votes cast on that machine and saves them to a computer memory card. Results from those cards are then added together to obtain results of an election.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1163

[Dr Ron]

37. This supports my argument

Election security is a concern as a hypothetical issue. An increasing number of people are reconginizing it, but do not go along with the claims that the 2004 election was stolen. It is necessary to keep these separate to maintain credibility.

[ProSense]

42. Election security is not a hypothetical issue, it does not say that.

Nowhere in the release does it state that concern about election transparency and security is hypothetical or perceived as tin foil. People are concerned, the problems are real, and should not be conflated to mean stolen election. Election fraud isn't a term applied to the machines flaws, but the electronic errors are a real part of the problem.

[kerrygoddess]

29. Months ago

Debra Bowen sent an email out thanking Brad Friedman for pushing this issue.

Brad has been traveling around the country in recent months speaking at various forums and local Dem meetings. Some tin foil hat - he's respected by more people in the party than you chose to give him credit for. He's been on Lou Dobbs, he's been on Catherine Crier, he's been on Ed Schultz.

[Dr Ron]

14. Hypothetical versus problems in 2004

The reason that the voter suppression pre-election purge tactics is getting the bulk of the attention is that these are problems which actually occured in 2004. They are also problems which can be explained and recommendations for fixing can be made fairly easily.

Computer fraud is definately a danger and something needs to be done. The problem is not that computer fraud itself is a fringe or conspiracy issue, but that the those who speak the loudest about it are frequently conspiracy theorists or others with tin foil hat ideas. The unfortunate consequence is that this results in pushing the issue towards the fringe and makes it less likely that serious politicians like Kerry will touch it.

Kerry also has the other problem that speaking about voter fraud of any type opens him to the charges of being a poor loser, etc. Kerry is best off sticking to areas where fraud has been proven to have occured. Should any evidence of wide spread computer fraud come up from 2004 then Kerry can use it. Otherwise it is best if he stays away from that until those who have pushed it to the fringe hopefully go away. In the long run the dangers of computer fraud can be raised again as a very real danger for the future and separate from the 2004 election. It will also be easier to bring this up the further we get from 2004.

Best case scenario--Kerry is elected in 2008. He can then speak about any type of election fraud as at that point few people will see it as sour grapes over 2004 if he is in the White House.

[ProSense]

19. It's an issue,

a real issue that deserves attention. People shouldn't avoid speaking out about serious issues for fear of what others might say about them. It's an issue that people are really concerned about for the 2006 and 2008 elections. What would be the point of saying nothing at all about the issue for the next two years, then bringing it up after 2008? Voting rights have been attacked and are still under attack in this country. The issues related to this are very serious and there is no need for anyone to tiptoe around them. There are, without a doubt, many Ohio voters (across the country) who want to see these issues get the attention they deserve. There is plenty of evidence to level allegations of foul play, none of it proven illegal, yet. That still doesn't preclude speaking out about the unfair tactics and obvious flaws in the machines to ensure that corrective actions are taken to secure the vote. This is serious!

[Dr Ron]

21. The manner in which it is spoken of is important

There are far too many people in tin foil hats mixed in with the serious people. It is essential that the real issues be taken seriously and this is far more difficult when so much nonsense is mixed in with information on the real problems.

[Firespirit]

25. I have come to the conclusion

that what is needed is a big splash that can't be turned into a "dry nerd topic" or thrown aside as a tinfoil hat theory. We need irrefutable evidence that it can be done, done on a large scale, and that it can tip elections.

I say that an independent group completely unaffiliated with a political party should rig a few elections for absurd "candidates," celebrities or fictional characters or something similar. That would call attention to it and call the entire vote into question, because of the vote switching and vote padding that necessarily took place to add to this "candidate's" total. Ideally the races should be in a mix of districts, with the actual winners hailing from both parties. The prank would absolutely need to avoid all possible appearance of partisanship.

That is the sort of story that the media goes for, something sensational and with a hint of humor in it.

[blm]

43. I disagree - pranks never get past being labeled "pranks" - a big presser

or a National Press Club speech by Kerry where he brings in experts to DEMONSTRATE before the very eyes of the media, and armed with all the facts that ARE irrefutable like that the companies KNOW their machines were vulnerable to security problems but never acknowledged it.

If Kerry refuses to deal with FUTURE voting machine fraud squarely and definitively, it will not bode well for the party in 2006 or 2008.

On edit - Actually, the party may do OK, because Hillary Clinton or Feingold WILL take the lead on exposing the voting machines and their problems - - and Kerry will be dead in the primaries because of it.

[Firespirit]

44. I don't think a political figure exposing it would be effective

I don't trust the media as far as I could throw them, or more appropriately, as far as I could buy them off. This would be spun into "Democratic sour grapes" if anyone with ties to the party had any part of it. They'd bring in a panel of company spokespeople to provide "balance," and a bunch of Republican operatives to provide "counterpoints" to the Democratic Party presence. The media leap at any opportunity to discredit conclusions that Democrats come up with, no matter how many facts are on their side. If they can't dispute the facts, they'll swiftboat the messenger, either overtly, or passive-aggressively by claiming a need for "balance." I've just seen it far too many times over the past few years; we'll have facts on our side and the media will give an equal airing to someone with BS lies.

There is one other possibility, and that's that we retake the Congress and get a law passed that requires full examination and certification of every line of code and every hardware design before the machines can be used. This law would have to cover updates, patches, any changes made to the machine. I wouldn't mind seeing a full ban on the use of computer systems in casting and tallying votes, but I seriously doubt that'll happen in the age of instant gratification.

[blm]

46. That's why it would ONLY be about the FUTURE and SECURING future elections

without mentioning word one about 2004. This is how RFK Jr is handling his court case - it will be all about insiders saying what the company knows about what COULD happen given the vulnerability of the machines.

[karynnj]

24. Kerry may have to address POTENTIAL machine fraud

because no prominent advocate seems to have stepped forward on this issue.

[blm]

26. That's EXACTLY the point I've been STRESSING - Kerry doesn't HAVE to

take on 2004 until the day he has proof in hand, but he CAN (and better DAMN WELL DO) make a major speech regarding the POTENTIAL for fraud with machines so VULNERABLE to fraud.

And do it NOW.

[karynnj]

27. He did mention at least part of the problem in his Senate speech

" How can we have a system where you can touch a screen and even after you touch the name of one candidate on the screen, the other candidate's name comes up, and if you are not attentive to what you have done and you just go in, touch the screen, push ``select,'' you voted for someone else and didn't intend to? How can we have a system like that?
How can we have a system where the voting machines are proprietary to a private business so that the public sector has no way of verifying what the computer code is and whether or not it is accountable and fair? Just accounting for it. "

I realize that that is the tip of the iceberg, but it's way more than I hear from the other potential candidates.

[blm]

28. Yes, but we need more and in front of a PRESS CORPS. He should have

some experts on hand to PROVE how it's done for NATIONAL TV cameras.

[karynnj]

30. Didn't Dean do that on some cable show pre 11/04

Showing that he could move votes from one candidate to the other.

[blm]

31. Yes, with Bev, but Dean didn't follow through. Maybe he thought it wasn't

as serious a problem at the time - that's the only thing I can say to explain why he didn't speak out forcefully about it back then. Terry McAuliffe didn't believe it, so the DNC was going to be zero help.

[Firespirit]

32. Bev is a terrible spokesperson

Her onstage antics have turned a lot of the election reform community against her, as did her behavior towards poor Andy. And I won't easily forget the time that she trolled freeperville with the claim that the Kerry/Edwards campaign had committed election fraud in Florida, looking for the freepers' support (and $$$). Bev asks for a lot of money and has a spotty record of producing. It's unfortunate, because I used to have a lot of respect for her (and still have a lot of respect for her past research), but she went 'round the bend at some point.

I support the VerifiedVoting.org group and the CASE people.

[karynnj]

33. I forgot she was involved - and she is a disgrace

I wonder if Dean and experts could really pick this up - it really does seem a DNC issue.

[blm]

34. Yep - maybe Dean was put off by her at the time and dismissed the movement

at that stage. I dunno - at least he gets it more now.

[Blaukraut]

35. Are you serious? She actually did that?

How could she make such a claim about Kerry/Edwards? That completely eradicates any credibility she may have had. And what's worse; she may have hurt the cause altogether, too.

[Firespirit]

45. Check out this link, from the archives

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2311256&mesg_id=2311256

Reading this and all the links therein lost her to me.

[Blaukraut]

47. I knew SOME of what had gone on with her, but not all of it

Going to those links brought back a lot of things, but also some facts I hadn't heard before, such as her freeper connections. Thank goodness there are other factions working on the voting machine issue and we don't have to rely on someone like Bev Harris anymore.

[ProSense]

38. That's exactly the question!

JK hit it on the head!

This is not a great article, but it is the perfect story. One friggin vote isolated:

And on Election Day Cook charged that the voting machines malfunctioned in several precincts, including his own precinct at Skyview Recreation Center. When Cook tried to vote for himself, the machine defaulted to a vote for Taylor. A precinct worker finally moved Cook to a different booth.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/03/08/Neighborhoodtimes/Incumbents_return_in_.shtml

Then there are the combination human/machine errors:

Mr. Small, who was a presiding judge in the Old West End, reported that at the end of election night the paper record was blank on the two busiest voting machines at the Girl Scouts of Maumee Valley.

The rovers who came to close his precinct told him they hoped the votes were stored on the memory cards or in the machines themselves, but did not appear as concerned as Mr. Small. He said he left with no confidence that the votes from those machines were counted.

Mike Badik, Lucas County Board of Elections deputy director, took notes, but did not speak during the NAACP-sponsored hearing in Warren A.M.E. Church on Collingwood Boulevard. Afterward, he said he had not heard of that problem until yesterday.

Snip...

He hypothesized that the paper had been loaded in the machines upside down, which would have allowed the machine to appear to be working, but would not have produced a printed record. That, he said, disturbed him, but he would be far more disturbed if an investigation would reveal that voters' selections had not been stored on the memory cards.

That was one of dozens of investigations that poll workers, voters, elected officials, and NAACP leaders yesterday exhorted the elections board to undertake.

Snip...

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo) questioned whether the $132 million in federal money appropriated for Ohio elections was spent properly, given the problems in Lucas County, which did not report its results until the morning after the election.

"We simply have to have an audit of this money," she said. "These are truly significant questions. We need to follow the money."

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051120/NEWS09/511200359

From 2004:

COLUMBUS, Ohio — An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Snip...

In one North Carolina county, more than 4,500 votes were lost in this election because officials mistakenly believed a computer that stored ballots electronically could hold more data than it did.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/evoting/2004-11-06-ohio-evote-trouble_x.htm

[Firespirit]

48. I've thought a lot about this issue lately

I've thought a lot about this issue lately and have started to think about possibilities for bringing it to the forefront in a way that would benefit him. As some of you know, I'm working for his campaign organization now. I also might have creds for getting in touch with computer security experts, being part of that community as well. I still favor the dramatic--if not a prank, an exposé actually demonstrating the electronic tampering of a mock election.

Bev's organization did get some computer folks to hack a voting machine and alter the result of a mock election without leaving behind any evidence of it. However, it got no coverage because it was associated with her. I am sure that the computer people who are interested in this issue would welcome the opportunity to promote it to a broader audience. The computer community has been pushing this issue since the 1980's, actually, but it leaped ahead after the voting "reforms" of 2002 that imposed these electronic P.O.S.'s all over the country.

[blm]

49. Don't get me wrong, I'm usually all for drama - but this issue is more

serious than a heart attack for this country - in fact, it IS a heart attack for this country's democracy.

ANY forward movement you can get on this issue will be rewarded for generations, Firespirit.

[ginnyinWI]

50. Arnebeck sent Blackwell a letter

Warns him not to destroy any ballots from 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=447644&mesg_id=447644