Free Republic

Was this a radio guy? Did he refer to anything on which he bases this statement? That is the first I have heard of such a discussion, and I run www.verifiedvoting.org so I am surprised to hear this. Not unpleasantly surprised, just uhhh, shocked.

As far as I am concerned, Diebold is evil and should have nothing to do with our elections. And that is NOT intended to be a partisan comment, their e-mails and their overall behaviour reveal that they simply appear to be completely and thoroughly corrupt.

We have been screaming for months that these paperless machines should not be used. Again, it's not a partisan arguement - it's just a reality that these machines are not worthy of ANYONE's trust.

To resolve this, other than throwing the silly things away, we need to pass HR2239 and S1980. Those bills require a voter-verified paper ballot for these touchscreen systems, and a paper-based backup for November (if the VVPB cannot be installed by that time.) If you will help us do that, all of us: "left, center and right" will win. Democracy will win.

Please visit www.verifiedvoting.org and become involved. You are more than welcome, we need you badly. We are a non-partisan effort. Hope to see ya there.

Hello - I mentioned when I was here the other day that an important meeting would take place in California. Here is a report on the meeting.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=1032

Also, Jim March (who is a total conservative, gun nut, and passionately committed to this issue) posted his own response in a gun forum he frequents.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59331

I appreciate the opportunity to present this information to you, and hope you will consider helping with this effort. As discussed, it is not about one party trying to steal the election, it is about a poor design that has been (and is being) widely adopted and all of us need to correct the situation before it gets out of hand.

Hi RedBob.

ITA is an Independent Testing Authority. Think about the folks that test anyting that needs to meet some "certified level of standards" - an example would be a UL Certification.

Well, they have these businesses that certify the software that runs our elections. They are sort of like the company that tests toasters and assign UL certification.

Anyhow, these companies are not permitted to look at the source code, due to copyright protection. Anyone that has developed software, or worked in a QA team will find this shocking. How do you make sure all the logic is "good to go", and nothing appears incorrect, if all you get to do is run the program but not look at the source code?

See a problem?

You'll get no arguement here, or from my team. As time has passed, we have become very alert to the wide range of procedures present across the US.

Frankly, this business of upgrading our elections systems may have been something that would have been best left strictly in the hands of the states. But Congress passed HAVA, and now we have to confront the results of that flawed and sweeping legislation.

Another point is that HAVA required an EAC to be formed - a commission that was charged with setting standards and helping states make wise decisions. Regretably, that commission was only formed in December, almost a year past when it was supposed to become active. Their existence, months ago, may have averted some of the challenges we face today.

Realistically speaking, we will need to have some robust bi-partisan pollwatching plans in place for 2004. Your experience could help such a plan to take form.

http://www.pollwatch.org and http://www.votewatch.us both plan to take such a role, and will need "an army of volunteers". I hope that folks interested in such work would consider contacting them to learn of their plans.

Works for me too. There are still software and certification issues to resolve, but you have the hand-marked ballot that can be re-processed if needed.

FYI, in the case of Diebold, the flawed GEMS program which is vulnerable to so many security threats is used to count both touchscreen and scanned-ballot votes.

But despite that, we encourage all persons working on this who communicate with legislators and elections officials to express a preference for an optical scan solution as the primary voting method.

HAVA requires accessible devices, which includes (but is not limited to) touchscreen system to be present in every precint to accomodate disabled persons. But if they have one of those, and a bunch of ballot-marking stations and a scanner - we would be very happy with that combination. (So long as any touchscreens have a paper ballot backup.)

I re-read my reply, and need to clarify something.

When I talk about our having dumped our professions to pursue this effort, it sounds like I am either whining or bragging. That is not the point.

The point is that 6 months ago when I joined this effort, with no experience in operating a campaign such as this, I had NO IDEA of what we would face. We are facing opposition from corners we would totally expect to be on our side. An example is the League of Women Voters whose national board have taken an astonishingly ill-conceived position on this, and has resulted in a nationwide rebellion by their membership (www.leagueissues.org).

We are frustrated (to say the least) at the effort required to overcome the great number of obstacles we have faced in trying to get these bills considered in Congress. So to add ANYTHING beyond simply resolving this single topic would be far beyond our charter, or immediate abilities.

Hope that makes sense.

Does your organization also advocate that each voter present some type of official photo identification in order to vote?

No, we do not. Our focus is very narrow - we are presently working exclusively on this voter-verifiable issue. Which does not say that a proposal for a photo ID is not a bad idea, it is just not within the scope of our efforts.

(My former housemate moved away from this area, and is still registered here in my precinct. Anyone could walk in and vote in his name, without any challenge. That seems wrong to me, and I am unaware of the arguments that oppose a change that would correct this. If you will PM me with links, etc., I will read and reply, but need to not divert this thread please.)

Frankly, before all this, all I did was study the election guide in the weeks preceding an election, consider the issues/candidates, and vote. I had no recognition that so many issues surrounded the need to reform election procedures. It is really a mess, and most people don't know. It is also amazingly complicated - you should see some of the material people send us, describing the procedures that lead up to an election.

A bunch of us found out about this issue, are trying to help, and have literally become swept up in it. Two of us volunteers operate our own businesses, which are now dormant, as we suddenly realized that only a full-time effort would be required. I can't even imagine if we were to become a full-blown election reform lobbying organization. That would take serious funding, and frankly some people who were far more experienced with DC than any of us do.

To each of you who are posting to this thread, and those who are lurking and reading only: I hope I have inspired you to come join us. This is a huge effort and it will take thousands of us to make a difference.

www.verifiedvoting.org

I'm a little leary of House bill that has virtually no Repub cosponsors.

I suspect this is more about the partisan division that exists in DC, and out here on the ground. I need the help of those here, who truly understand this issue and share the concerns of others, to help reverse that... We just gained another Republican (or 2) during the Holiday Recess.

This issue was not widely understood previously. There is also a need to educate state-level, and county-level elections folks. Much mis-information is out there, and people who are making critical decisions are basing those on what they get from the vendors. Not a good idea...

Thanks PetroniDE . No, I live in Califonia, just north of San Francisco in a very beautiful area with a comfortable climate.

I agree that a robust solution will only come from several combined ingredients. Proper development methodologies and controls, robust certification procedures, visibility at all layers, training, post-election audits, and honesty. And double-checks where needed... And whatever else is defined as issues crop up...

Agreed, no flames. If people started to flame me, frankly, I had planned to just drop it and work with folks elsewhere. I appreciate the tone that this thread has maintained.

I'm sorry, there was another post and you abreviated (D.S.) in a manner which made it difficult to determine which post you wished a response.

Let me share a couple thoughts, in sincerity, and hope you can live with this as my response:

I have limited respect for most of the legislators that purport to "represent us" in Washington. Another poster mentioned (privately) to me something to the effect of "these folks go to DC, and suddenly catch this disease where they forget who they are there for, what their job is, and generally fail us." It's all about greed and special interests. And I don't think it is hard to argue that this symptom is present on both sides of the aisle.

I am solely focused on passing legislation to protect all of us against the threats represented by these electronic voting machines. I have become passionately engaged in this effort for the past 6 months, and am committed to helping gain the passage of legislation we are discussing. Those bills, when passed into law (and strengthened subsequentely, if needed, and if possible) should (by their very nature) reduce the potential for vote fraud (on either side) through the use of electronic voting systems.

I came here to gain support for our efforts, to educate people that might not be aware of the issue, and to let folks know how passionately we work on this issue in a non-conspiritorial and non-partisan manner.

That is my priority, and I'm not going to engage in discussing side-topics which could only decline into a flame war. It serves no purpose for the betterment of all.

Now I'm going to share something, that you or others may accept as typical across the US. Prior to this issue, I have never worked on ANY political issue. And prior to the past few years, I honestly have not followed politics very closely. I spent my time commuting, working, raising a family, losing a wife, rebuilding my life, and reading fishing books/magazines. I do not have the historical knowledge of every vote steal that has happened in the past. I am not interested in taking the time to research, defend, and counter (if necessary) the assertions about the "Demodog's election fraud". If you want to pick that fight, go lurk on DU and find someone that is angry and is eager for the fight. Or start a thread here on the subject, and I'll help send some DU'ers over here to fight with you. But I am NOT going to engage that or any other subject other than the specific and narrow topic of "How do we resolve this electronic voting situation."

I hope you can live with that, because it's all I'm doing. I'm not going to fight with you, I'm not going to debate whether D's or R's have the market cornered in beltway corruption, and I'm not buying into any bait that get me zotted. Period.

You may not be a geek, but I think your post is very astute - and you made your points clearly and accurately.

Yes, Hastert and Delay (and Ney for you Ohioans) are critical in this. Ney is the chair of the House Administration Committee, and he has HUGE influence over whether the House bill moves to the floor.

Tell ya what, beer's on me if someone moves one of those big dawgs on this issue.

I agree with most of your points, and think you are dead-on about some of them. The idea that they are driving these systems out at overwhelming costs, filling the corporate coffers, is a pity. There are other, more practical alternatives.

However, we spent the past 6 months to reach the level of progress we have achieved, and are not going to stop trying. If we stop, "they" win. We're not stopping...

Pushing for the deadlines, so we can protect from a meltdown, will clearly be a challenge. Recognizing that challenge motivated me to come here and reach out to you folks.

We actually are gaining some strong alliances, from both sides, and feel confident that persevering is worth the effort.

I wish you would join us, and hope others will not be discouraged. At a minimum, join the mailing list, and let us keep you informed. If you see we are making progress, perhaps that will sway your opinion.

And I feel that the Diebold announcement is just PR crap. They necessarily had to do SOMETHING after the audit in CA. I was at the hearing when they announced the results. The voting systems panel was righteously pissed off, and rightly so. I can barely wait for Thursday.

Yes, there are a number of areas that things are not being done well - and it's time that we started to demand change. If they can't figure out how to do this stuff properly, then the People will have to freaking show them how it's done...

With me?

I hope you will come over, sign up as a volunteer, and help us. Powerful interests, it seems, don't want us to win. I need you, and everyone you know, helping push this over the top.

www.verifiedvoting.org

Thank you. Come register on our site, please, and help us win.

And thank you Chu Gary.

As you have seen, I am really trying to avoid being drawn into any unrelated issues. I'm not going to debate questions of "who stole what" and so on.

Each of us have our own vision of "facts" and the debate over such issues will not serve this discussion.

We want robust,random, madatory recounts. That way, statistically, such issues are eliminated.

Pull a forced recount, without any predictable pattern where it will occur. The moment you find an issue, you look wider, and thoroughly.

If you will, we are carefully tracking in our database who is working with what legislators, and what the legislators are saying. Check in with us at contact@verifiedvoting.org - we will be thrilled to hear from you.

The problem is NOT the voting system (punch cards, e-slate, whatever).

I disagree flatly. For starters, our campaign to demand a voter-verifiable audit trail is not about voter fraud. It is based on the recognition that computers and their programs are subject to failure, and these systems DO NOT have the necessary safeguards established in them.

However, the resolution we propose, by its very nature, helps eliminate fraud by requiring random, mandatory audits.

Dave Dill is professor of computer science. I'm a 30-year career programmer. Here are some talking points that I would ask you to consider, which I present strictly from the perspective of a geek that has written more programs, and introduced more errors into said programs, than I care to acknowledge:

• We have not invented the means by which an error-free program can be written. At least not one of the sophistication needed to configure and run elections.
• Current law does not REQUIRE that the source code for these COMPLEX applications meet any level of quality control standards other than the "ITA Certification" process that appears to be completely flawed.
• The SOURCE CODE is not available for scrutiny during the certification process. As such, it is not possible to detect all the flaws that may lurk (purposely or not) within the programs
• Based on the examples of flawed election code that the Johns Hopkins study looked at, the certification processed missed hundreds of security flaws that should have been caught through (a) proper software development methodologies and (b) systematic source-code walkthroughs as is performed in any other serious mission-critical application development process.
• Certification procedures have been knowingly circumvented by Diebold. I make that assertion based on the wealth of knowledge and insight gained by a review of the Diebold e-mails. (My point here is that even if the certification process were more-robust - then we have to worry about a breakdown in the ethics of the individuals who are required by law to comply with that certification process.)
• Overlooking the entire certification process, then we have to look again at "ethics" and "a commitment to follow established procedures" on the part of the manufactures as well as state/county employees. Witness the situation in California, where an audit of Diebold equipment in 17 counties revealed ZERO instances of properly certified software (and 3 counties including Los Angeles where the software was never even submitted for certification.

  What is not currently evident is whether other manufacturers have done the same. We may know more about that on Thursday after California reveals the next phase of the statewide audit.

To recap, the certification process must be looked at and refined, the ethics of the manufactures have to be scrutinized, controls on all of the above need to be strengthened, and YES - we need a paper trail.

The failures that have been detected in VA, MD and FL provide ample evidence that simply having properly trained election workers simply does not bring us a solution.