It's hard out there for a Kerry fan sometimes.

[saltpoint]

I am admittedly very partisan on behalf of John Kerry. My respect for him is abiding and goes back decades now.

All the same, even WITH the partisan admiration, I am absolutely appalled at the character slams he receives on these boards.

The people doing the slamming are welcome to their opinion, but I don't see Kerry people posting anti-Clark or anti-Edwards or anti-Feingold threads.

"One minor problem with Wes Clark" went up a couple days ago by a Dean fan.

"A relevant nugget about John Kerry" went up today.

And so on. You all know the score. It's very difficult to keep a civil tone, too. I'm from an old-school, crustier version of politics, and I don't like the character slams. If somebody disagrees with my candidate, I handle that just fine. A character slam is another story.

[ProSense]

1. Thanks OC!

This is the smear. It's important to bat down the lies. Threads like these get started, fill up with disingenuous people who kick it to the Greatest page filled with nothing but distortions and lies. As long as they start them and I see them, I'm responding. They always appear when positive posts about Kerry go up. The poster stated this specifically. Hey, that's not going to stop me from posting positive things Kerry does.

[saltpoint]

3. ProSense, you're a champ.

If I could, I'd give you a raise in pay!

[ProSense]

5. Your responses and others

are genuine and great! Thanks!

Interesting note: DU is being seen by a lot more eyes these days, crossed posted on Kos, Daou other blog, now mentioned in Manjoos article. Beachmom had a great post the other day about why responding is important:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=88870&mesg_id=88913

[beachmom]

8. Thanks Prosense!!

Yeah, sometimes I need to re-remember that. I just saw your election fraud thread, and it just was unbelievable the wrath these people have against Kerry. As a bit of a dissenter in the group on this issue (I actually think * won), the whole thing strikes me as echo-chamberish. These people should be HAPPY that Kerry is talking about it. And, to be honest, he's talking about it the way I like to hear. In terms of improving our electoral system. As an accountant, I am flabbergasted by a touch screen computer without a secondary paper trail (like an ATM machine). That is plain and simply nonpartisan thinking. You have GOT to have a back up system in case the computer fried. Did I mention that my city is now all Diebold machines? Since it is a Republican district, I'm not worried about voter suppression or cheating on the machines; I am simply worried about shoddy vote counting systems that could break down. The best thing that could happen is a close Republican primary and those machines break down. THEN, the Republicans will see how flawed the system is.

Harris Miller (Dem primary candidate in VA) has consulted with Diebold -- you know if he wins the primary, the Webb supporters are immediately going to say it was stolen. We NEED a paper trail to avoid this constant suspicion.

[ProSense]

9. They arrive in my area this month! Yikes!

Dropping or switching votes is the crux of the machine issue, as the Baker-Carter Report points out (not concluding the election was stolen):

The accessibility and accuracy of DREs, however, are offset by a lack of transparency, which has raised concerns about security and verifiability. In most of the DREs used in 2004, voters could not check that their ballot was recorded correctly. Some DREs had no capacity for an independent recount. And, of course, DREs are computers, and computers malfunction. A malfunction of DREs in Carteret County, North Carolina, in the November 2004 elections caused the loss of more than 4,400 votes. There was no backup record of the votes that were cast. As a result, Carteret County had no choice but to rerun the election, after which it abandoned its DREs. Other jurisdictions have lost votes because election officials did not properly set up voting machines.29

http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/report.html

IMO, this was a big problem and there was a recent MSM report that the flaw was deliberate. Having said that, one of the most deliberate acts by the Republicans in 2004 was vote suppression, the votes not cast!

[karynnj]

10. This is the crux of the problem

The system has to be transparent, reliable and verifiable. As you said:

"Harris Miller (Dem primary candidate in VA) has consulted with Diebold -- you know if he wins the primary, the Webb supporters are immediately going to say it was stolen. We NEED a paper trail to avoid this constant suspicion."

[beachmom]

14. Oh, Karynnj -- my primary just took another twist (sigh)

http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;558873322;fp;4;fpid;21

Link not working -- here is direct to the commenter; his link works:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/6/4/91527/93057/168#c168

When votes are cast and recorded electronically, the way to conduct a recount (and to tally in the first place) is to run a tape off each individual machine and then compare those totals against the number of people who checked in to vote. While that method will reveal discrepancies in the event of some types of voter fraud — multiple voting, for example — there’s no way to ensure that the votes were recorded the way that voters actually cast them. “In a fully electronic system, I can’t confirm my vote, and that’s not a proper democratic election,” says Rebecca Mercuri, a research fellow at Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School of Government who wrote her doctoral dissertation on electronic voting systems. Mercuri is one of the most outspoken critics of e-voting and the vendors that sell the equipment. She and many other computer scientists believe the best way to mitigate the audit problem is to combine electronic machines with good, old-fashioned paper by including a voter-verified paper ballot.

How it would work: With touch-screen systems, voters activate ballots using a PIN or smart card given to them by election workers at the polling place; they activate the screen, select their candidates, verify their choices via a paper printout and then electronically cast their votes. To preserve anonymity and protect against fraud, voters leave the paper behind, either at the machine itself or in something that could resemble an old-fashioned ballot box. The machines capture, tally and transmit the data, but the paper provides a backup.

Pros and cons: Proponents of paper duplicates say they are an essential addition to e-voting for two reasons: They provide voters with a physical confirmation of their vote, and election officials can use them in the event of a recount.

The vendor community doesn’t like it. “We oppose the idea of a voter-verified paper trail,” says Harris Miller, president of the trade group Information Technology Association of America. Introducing paper into the mix, he says, defeats the improved efficiency and reliability e-voting promises. “There was never a golden age when paper ballots were accurately counted,” Miller says. Adding paper to e-voting will only make the process of administering elections more costly and time-consuming without improving accuracy, opponents assert.

Okay, I disagree vehemently with Harris on this. The above link is an IT link, so it's legit.

[beachmom]

16. Just to follow up -- Miller changed his position on this

Per my newest Webb thread. Phew.

[MH1]

17. Well, he was working for the industry association.

Essentially a lobbying organization.

Much of what he says is true, btw. Particularly: "There was never a golden age when paper ballots were accurately counted." In fact, most (if not all) of the ballot issues in Florida 2000 recount fiasco were paper. Using paper does not substitute for process controls!

This is also true: Adding paper to e-voting will only make the process of administering elections more costly and time-consuming. (I cut that off before "without improving accuracy" because I think that part is wrong).

I lean toward VVPAT myself - in shorthand I'll say I support it, but my position is more complicated than that.

The quote by Rebecca Mercuri ignores that for decades we've been voting on mechanical lever machines that work analogously to some of the new electronic machines.

In our precinct, we just got Danaher machines - which work almost exactly like our old mechanical machines, in terms of the tally process. We MUST tally the numbers at the precinct and make sure the machine totals match the total number of voters. Here's a summary that I wrote earlier for why I think this reduces the chance for foul play considerably:

Our precincts are small (1000 - 1500 voters per) and all the tallies are completed at each precinct and physically carried to the county board for county tabulation. Assuming that the max a conspirator could shift the vote safely in a precinct is 5%, even if 1000 voters show up, that's only 50 votes. To make up 100,000 state-wide, that's a lot of precinct boards that would have to be in on the collusion. Considering most boards have a bi-partisan makeup, there probably aren't that many that are vulnerable to subversion. Of course there is the possibility that the software on the cartridges in each machine is compromised at the warehouse between the pre-election testing and the election....but the security could be put in place to make that practically impossible (I'll admit that it probably isn't in place now in my county; but still, massive fraud would take A LOT of work with the machines we are using.)

To rephrase it: someone would have to change the actual cartridge in EACH machine. BETWEEN the pre-election testing and the actual election. In a warehouse that has some form of security (haven't got as far as the details on that yet). There are somewhere between 800-1000 machines distributed between over 400 precincts, in just our county. Imagine the physical effort to break into the back of each machine, change or monkey with the cartridge to affect the software, replace the seal with a duplicate (where'd you get those made, anyway?) and get out of there without being detected. Then, after the election, you have to somehow recover the hacked cartridges so that you aren't leaving evidence of the crime. (Okay, possibly you could program it in such a way that you wouldn't have to do that...but I don't find that likely.)

So...I wouldn't hold Harris Miller doing his job well for his prior employer against him too much. Now that he doesn't represent the ITA but does have constituents, one would hope he would serve his new employers just as well, and listen to all the reasons that despite all of the above, VVPAT is a good thing to have.

[beachmom]

19. Thanks, MH1. See previous comment -- Harris has indeed changed

his position based on the opinion of the voters. I think he actually would be helpful in the Senate because he is an expert on these touch screen computers. I'm still leaning Miller, but am willing to listen to evidence in favor of Webb now, since he and Kerry have reconciled (that is a big deal, actually). Still, Miller is a REALLY smart guy who knows about a great deal of things. His business credentials may actually allow him to peal off Volvo Republicans who are uncomfortable with Allen's extreme RW views. Not sure if Webb's populism would attract those kinds of voters.

But . . . there are a ton of veterans who live in the state.

[karynnj]

18. His comment on paper ballots is totally wrong

It's likely true that in landslides, the numbers were likely insignificantly inaccurate. Each precinct would count their votes, check to see that the total jibes and would call them in. It's likely some ballots were tallied wrong or someone miscounted.

But if the election was close, you went to a recount and the individual precincts carefully chacked their counts. So, in the case where great accuracy is required, it existed.

I agree with your view that you have two less than perfect candidates to chose from.

[beachmom]

20. Did you see where he changed his position on this issue?

I have to say, though, he almost sounds reluctant in changing his position. There are elements of conservatism in both of these candidates one must admit. Webb's biggest liability for me right now is how poorly his campaign has run, and how he's not very smooth (sorry, but you've got to be able to talk well about the issues, and he's struggling in this area). But his persona may be more attractive to Virginia voters. This election just stinks, it's so hard.

[beachmom]

22. No, wait, there's more, and it's bad (per TAP)

While a certain amount of government-industrial overlap is to be expected, what is startling about the voting-machine industry is the degree to which this symbiosis has been institutionalized. This is due, in large part, to a curious nonprofit entity called the Election Center and its versatile executive director, Doug Lewis. The Election Center’s members include approximately 1,000 dues-paying state and local election-administration officials, as well some voting-machine vendors. The center provides a host of services for its members, informing them of new developments in election law, sponsoring professional development conferences, and offering training workshops for new election officials. In advance of the last election, the center also performed a quasi-oversight role over the machine-testing process. Specifically, the Election Center, in conjunction with the National Association of State Election Directors, selected which private labs would test new voting-machine technologies.

But in the eyes of many voting-rights activists, the Election Center (and Lewis in particular) acts as a tireless advocate for the industry’s interests. In March, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the center has received tens of thousands of dollars from the major voting-machine vendors in the United States. Lewis also had a hand in forming the e-voting industry’s trade association. In August of 2003, Lewis and Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), the country’s largest IT trade association, hosted a conference call with the presidents of the major e-voting-machine vendors. Academics, such as the indefatigable paper-trail advocate David Dill, a computer scientist at Stanford University, had been publicly questioning the security and viability of DRE systems, and the press was beginning to catch on. In the conference call, Lewis, Miller, and the executives banded together to form a coherent public-relations counteroffensive under the auspices of a new trade association, later called the Electronic Technology Council, to be created as a subsidiary of the ITAA; membership was to be around $100,000 per company. On the council’s Web site, an official statement of neutrality on the issue of voter-verified paper ballots is quickly followed by a long list of reasons why such a requirement would, in fact, be onerous.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=8969

So this guy is siding with corporate interests. Is that the kind of Senator he would be? Corporations over the people? Oh, help.

[saltpoint]

12. I'm a believer. We've been holding our own in these Kerry-bashing

threads.

[blm]

2. We may REPLY with facts and analysis about others' actions, but we

don't start attack threads just for the sake of attacking another Democrat.

[saltpoint]

4. Yes. And there is a HUGE difference.

I recall the threads that begin with things like "Oh please, not John Kerry!"

That is smarmy bullshit and I just don't need it.

On the record, I just don't think the party can improve much on Kerry-Edwards. I consider it the very best ticket of my life.

I liked McGovern-Eagleton pretty well, but fate conspired against it at every level.

And I've voted for the other tickets, but not as enthusiastically or from the heart as Kerry-Edwards.

Who ARE these people who just come on those boards to slam candidates?

And why do the Mods permit it?

[MH1]

6. Thanks OC,

Great post. You are right, we aren't out there slamming others.

As to your last two questions, I ask them to the Mods themselves quite frequently via the "alert" button. Sometimes I am even rewarded with a pretty little grave marker in the name of the offender.

[saltpoint]

11. You mean you are given the grave marker?

Or what? I don't know why other candidates' registered fans can slam our guy when we don't slam theirs.

There is a pronounced meanness to the Kerry-bashing threads -- much different in tone than my saying something like, "But did Dean have the issues exactly right for rural Iowa?" -- that's not the same thing as "Kerry's a coward and I hope he doesn't run!"

[MH1]

15. Heh heh, no, I mean

when I look back at the offender's user profile I am delighted to see a handsome grave marker has been placed there.

;-)

[saltpoint]

27. Oh. Got it. Bear with me, MH1. I'm a little slow on the draw sometimes.

[Island Blue]

7. That's a very good question.

Why DO the Mods permit it? Like you said, I have no problem with folks who disagree with "my guy" on policy issues (although sometimes I fail to understand the logic behind their disagreements), but I do have a problem with with people who enjoy slamming Democratic candidates simply for sport. Our slams should be reserved for Republicans - God only knows they deserve it. If anyone believes that DU has an impact on the greater world of political debate, then they should realize that unwarranted personal attacks against our own are damaging to the Democratic Party.

[saltpoint]

13. Yes. Even more disturbing is, what conclusion would the mods have

us reach if time after time they let the Kerry-bashing threads stand?

It's not just one or two or three threads, but dozens and dozens and dozens at LEAST since the 04 primaries.

[_dynamicdems]

21. I truly believe that some of these people slam candidates for attention.

Others are probably right-wingers and this is what they do: divide and conquer.

And the rest are those people who fall into the "part of the problem" component of that old adage.

Anyone with a keyboard can come online and make up for the powerlessness they feel in their own life by creating havoc and by starting flame wars on an online board. This happens on all boards, not just political boards. I've moderated on equestrian boards and believe me, the people there can get nasty. All it takes to start a flame war there is for someone to post, "Well, I don't think there is anything wrong with horse slaughter. They are animals and were made for human consumption." Fireworks like the fourth of July ensue, as expected.

As for the DU mods, maybe we should hit the alert button more often. It could be that if they don't get complaints they think people are fine with the "discussion." I've found that the alert function does come in handy. Someone posted a doctored photo of the senator in one thread and I complained. The next time I checked the thread, the photo was gone. The mods are probably doing the best they can under the circumstances. There are a lot of unruly children out there. ;)

The Kerry supporters far outnumber the detractors and we contribute a great deal to Democratic Underground. I think we are better informed and contribute more to the issues than do the insurgents. We should speak up when they go overboard.

[saltpoint]

26. I question only generic Mods and not any specific ones. In recent

days I am in contact with one of the moderators on DU, one I respect very much, and this Mod appears to play fair.

But the generic Mod allows the Kerry-bash posts to remain on the boards for hours, or even days.

[_dynamicdems]

28. Generic Mod? n/t

[saltpoint]

29. Right. In other words, I don't know which Mod is monitoring which

board at a given time.

If ever -- I don't know who's on duty.

My complaint is about the tone of the anti-Kerry threads, and the obvious reluctance by the admins to leave them up and excuse their transgressions of the rules.

If it was a matter of one or two times, that would be one thing.

But it happens over and over and over again.

[_dynamicdems]

30. We need to alert them then.

If nothing is done, then we go up the chain of command with the complaint: e-mail Skinner with the time and text of the alert. We may not know who is on duty, but he will. And the more it happens, the more we have to file alerts.

I'm not out in DU all that often because I can't stand some of the idiotic notions bandied about, so I miss a lot of what is being said. There are quite a few idiots, snotty kids and RW trolls in the mix from what I see. They seem to follow the Kerry threads like sharks follow a trail of fresh blood. It shouldn't be allowed and there should be ways to CENSURE certain posters who join a discussion with the sole purpose of disrupting. But if we have to rely on the mods, then we have to keep alerting each time of of the little darlings crosses the line.

[emulatorloo]

31. nor does anyone here quote out of context, or MAKE STUFF UP. EOM

[babylonsister]

23. Everyone here has my abiding respect and admiration for being

so vocal in counteracting the smears. And I mean that everyday, with every thread where I see you all fighting the good fight on Senator Kerry's behalf.

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[politicasista]

24. Mine too!

I wish I was good at doing that. You guys rock! :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[saltpoint]

25. You don't do too bad yourself, babylonsister.

In fact, you kick cosmic butt.