Search
Diebold Voting Machines : Made to steal the vote
This post is for Marjorie Gersten, a local activist who has been sounding the drum here in New York City about the wretched misuse of the new HAVA laws. Laws that are supposed to extend the Voting Rights Act to protect the votes of the hadicapped are being used by Republicans to impose closed-source technology suitable for stealing elections.
Obviate some (not all) of the tin-hat foolery interspersed by the people of Pluri Media Group (no relationship, by the way, with ePubluribus Media), and what you get is a solid Lou Dobbs special report on how to steal elections this coming Tuesday.
The kicker? "Unfortunately for democracy, there is no paper trail with the new electronic voting machines, so a recount is impossible".
http://dailygotham.com/blog/liza_sabater/diebold_voting_machines_made_to_steal_the_vote
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
"This message brought to you"
...by Karl Rove's Democratic Voter Discouraging Project.
My problem with this kind of advocacy right before an election is this: the advocates do not consider their efforts for their impact on voters. If someone is screaming at you that your vote is not going to matter unless you get technology X to cast it on, you are going to be less than incented to actually go out there.
In short, the Diebold people are creating the very outcome they rail against. Afterwwards, they'll be muttering darkly about Rove stealing the election, without realizing that their own intemperate rhetoric is achieving exactly the same result.
And no, I don't want to have another argument about how I'm just stupid and don't get what all the computer experts are talking about.
Well...
Look, and this is why I get so pissed everytime you say this, some of us have been advocating for six fucking years about this with almost no one paying attention and lots of people calling us "tin foil hat" people. By now the evidence is becoming overwhelming from legal people, computer people and even from right wing politicians who believe democracy is more important than defeating Democrats at all costs. Finally after 6 years the tide is turning and then we are told we shouldn't be saying this right before an election? Well, excuse me, we have been saying it from WAY before the election and in my book, important though this election is, the actual validity of the democratic system in America is even more important.
I don't see huge numbers of people not voting because of this. To the contrary I have heard many minority voters wondering what the hell we are doing to make sure their votes are counted and then you write that we shouldn't talk about their votes not getting counted right before an election because it might discourage them? They have been waiting for years for us to come out strongly against voter disenfranchisement and for ensuring every vote counts and our lack of action has been more discouraging to them than anything we say about voting machines right now.
No one wanted to talk about it after 2000. No one wanted to talk about it after Georgia 2002. No one wanted to talk about it after 2004 or after the special elections in San Diego. No one ever wants to talk about it and you can be DAMNED sure that is exactly what Rove and Diebold want: for no one to ever be willing to talk about it.
You know full well I am with you on 90% of things. But in this we differ. And I fully intend to voice that difference no matter how irritating you find it. Of course I expect the exact same treatment in return, but that is what blogs are for.
Problem is
...that all you guys ever seem to talk about is machines. That's all I ever hear about, at least, and there is so much more to be concerned about. Registration barriers, intimidation, purges of the voter rolls, challengers, all that, is never mentioned - but that's how elections are manipulated in this country.
And with that, there is always the implied assumption that some dark forces beyonf anyone's control are out there hacking computers, blah blah blah. The result is that people feel powerless, since these dark forces are usually portrayed as all-but unknowable and unstoppable, so really, why bother?
You guys are so enamored of the technical aspects, the ones that no normal person can understand, that you completely overlook the real problems, in my mind. You can disagree, but that is how I see it.
As far as the effects on turnout are concerned, I'll take bets on the matter. I say somewhere in the neighborhood of 2% to 3%.
But...
You know that is not true about me. I advocate for the elimination of partisan election boards in those states that have them. And I have been pushing VERY hard to support the candidacies of good people for Secretary of State positions ($500 raised to date). I also publicized the NAACP voter fund which does its best to address voter intimidation and voter disenfranchisement.
You are right that I, and many others, too often mention only in passing the more old fashioned methods of voter disenfranchisement, though I do mention it in the context of needing bipartisan/multipartisan/nonpartisan election boards and good Secretaries of State. They are the ones most likely to help with such issues when they arise. I have also advocated the several programs around the nation trying to get people signed up as poll watchers for the very purpose of looking for irregularities of any sort. The one time I was a poll watcher (2004) I approached a woman who has been hastled by poll workers to see if she had a complaint. In the end it seemed like a simple misunderstanding that was easily resolved.
So, speaking for myself, I think your criticism is mostly, though not completely, unfair. As to the general tendency to focus on the machines, I think it is because these machines would essentially remove any chance of CATCHING fraud. THe old fashioned methods would no longer be necessary because there now would be easy ways to manipulate the vote and redress would have been rendered impossible. PB/OS still has room for fraud as well as traditional voter intimidation, but with a good election board or Sec. of State such fraud can be addressed. With DRE the ability to catch and deal with fraud is eliminated. To me this trumps every other form of election fraud. And, of course, the "irregularities" that have already arisen have occurred mainly in minority areas, indicating that the new fraud is a more effective way to disenfranchise the same groups that the old fraud disenfranchised.
We also advocate for more involvement in the process, so I am not so sure we are helping to make people feel powerless, though I understand how that could be true. As to turnout, I bet the 2-3% who would be discouraged by the reports of DRE machine fraud would be discouraged by an ant walking across their path. Or they forgot to register in the first place. Many people look for excuses not to vote. And maybe you are right that we are giving them a new one. But I do think they would have found their excuse anyway.
Your point is well taken that the bulk of effort has been on the new forms of fraud. But there is also effort to address traditional fraud and to constantly denegrate those who advocate against DRE doesn't seem to me to help the situation.
All very well and good, but
...you're making my basic point, that the Dieboldistas don't care if they negatively affect turnout.
This is my central beef with you guys: you're so fixated on what you contend is the major, penultimate problem that you casually ignore some very real implications. I'm just horrified at your statement above.
Whenever I raise this point, liberal orthodoxy demands I be shouted down or buried in reams of paper, stacks of DVDs, and all the other 'rock-solid evidence' usually trotted out on those occasions. So here's my next question: why has there never been a lawsuit brought to see if that evidence stands up in court? Or is that just another rigged system?
Hmmm...
I THINK you are interpreting my statement differently than I meant it...I think what we are advocating is only affecting the vote of those who would find an excuse anyway and thus won't affect elections.
THere are lawsuits. In Ohio there were several pending from 2004, but the Republican Sec. of State blocked any analysis of the vote counts. Which has led to other lawsuits. With rigged election boards and Secs. of State and Republican governors, the chances of actually getting a full recount in Ohio from 2004 is about the same as getting NYC school money from the state while Pataki is in office and the State Senate is Republican.
Bunk.
You're saying two things here: that lawsuits haven't proceeded because of, as I expected, a 'rigged system', and that you can basically read the minds of disincented voters.
So basically, your claims aren't falsifiable. As a scientist, you know what that means.
I beg to differ on both counts. If the evidence presented were as ironclad as I keep on hearing, a suit would have come to trial, because what the Dieboldistas allege is common practice is a federal felony. What, they can't cover up Abramoff, but they can cover up widespread, systematic election fraud?
And why haven't people like Dean and Rahm taken to the barricades, either? Are they part of the conspiracy, too? Trapped in The Matrix?
As to the disincented voters, maybe I'm a bit less cavalier, having been wary of the Diebold crowd for a long time now. I'm telling you flat-out that this ongoing agitation - just look at the comments over at DKos - is giving people the message that their vote isn't going to count, so why even bother?
Huh?
I am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph. All I said was that there are lawsuits from 2004 that were prevented from leading to a recount because the Ohio Sec of State refused to allow the machines examined and that has led to further lawsuits to make him do so. Without an examination of the machines and what they recorded, there is no evidence.
I have heard of other lawsuits being initiated, but honestly don't know if they have led anywhere. San Diego is one place where it has been considered.
But all of the above is separate from the actual DRE issue. The DRE machines do not have a way of conducting an independent recount. All you have is what the software records and tabulates on the machine. That is your only legal record of the election. So there never could be evidence for a lawsuit to be based on. There ARE no recounts with the DRE machines. The software is proprietary, so the public cannot know how the votes are recorded or tabulated by the machine, and because there is no separate record of the vote that is considered a legal record there is no way to verify what the machine records.
This comes down to something I have generally said: we do not KNOW whether the 2000, 2002 Georgia and 2004 elections were fair because the proper analyses have all been blocked...and blocked by Republicans. PB/OS machines continue to have that problem whereby a biased election board could block verification of an election. With DRE machines we CANNOT verify an election. It doesn't need to be blocked by an angry mob of Republican thugs and a compliant Sec. of State who then gets a Congressional seat as a reward. It simply cannot be legally verified. All elections become privatized with DRE machines and the public has no recourse.
Beyond that, much of what I talk about regarding security of these machines are technical analyses that are being done apart from actual elections. There would be no basis for lawsuit there but plenty of room for discussion of problems that arise. What it amounts to is the basic testing by tech people on their own time which should actually be done by the states considering the technology.
As to the effect on an election, all I can say is that I don't see it. You could be right, I don't know. But to me the fact that our elections are about to be privatized seems the biggest threat there could possibly be to our democracy.
We're going to have to agree to disagree
...because I see the biggest threat to our democracy in a continuation of the R regime. But since liberal orthodoxy demands one be convinced that the system is rigged, it appears that that is a solitary concern.
As it is, I stand by my original assessment: that the problems with these machines have never been documented sufficiently to win a court case. Now, it may very well be that, as I noted, everybody's in on the game - strange things do happen - but until then, I am going to assume that the Dieboldistas often enough are a simple variant of your basic leftie, the kind that always likes to mutter, throw up its hands, and go away saying the game is rigged in some way.
As noted, all I see and hear about this are the various productions emanating from the conspiracy underground, leaving the burden of proof - those legal terms again - substantially unmet.
Bouldin, please take the following seriously
I received following email from Rachel van Os whose husband is running for Attorney General in Texas. Both of them were faithful Dean supporters, and David has been running a fantastic grassroots effort. Rachel's brother went to early voting, and the email outlines what has happened to him. This is really freaking serious stuff, and I had chills running down my spine. Please, Bouldin you are a really smart guy, and this must even convince you.
Here it goes:
TO ALL: PLEASE BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN VOTING!!!!
SEE THE EMAIL BELOW FROM MY BROTHER---AND HE'S A SMART MAN.
MY BROTHER PAUL IS A COMPUTER EXPERT FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS NOW---
HE KNOWS WHAT HE SAW!!!!
IN UNITY,
RACHEL
P.S.--- Keep the faith, there is still hope for a true democracy and hope is on the way.
Seriously, I will pass your message below to all the candidates listed below.
This is serious and a most critical problem and a true injustice to the people---
I'll be back in touch with you---
In Unity and with love,
Rachel Barrios-Van Os
----- Original Message -----
From: Paulbar50@aol. com
To: rachel@vanoslaw. com ; david@vanoslaw. com
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: problem with Voting Machine
To whom it may concern,
I early voted today Oct 30, 2006 at approximately 4:30 PM in Precinct No. 190 using the new voting machine. Four times my votes were changed when I got to the screen that showed the summary, each time the votes were changed from the Democratic candidate to Republican candidate.
Here is the list of changed votes:
Governor: Voted for Bell, Chris changed to Perry, Rick.
Lieutenant Governor : Voted for Alvarado, Maria Luisa changed to Dewhurst, David.
Attorney General : Voted for Van Os, David changed to Abbott, Greg.
U. S. Senator : Voted for Radnofsky, Barbara Ann changed to Hutchison, Kay Bailey.
I brought this to the attention of the workers that were there and they did not seemed concerned about it.
I used the end of a pencil eraser that the poll worker had given to make my selections and not my fingers.
Thanks,
Paul Barrios
8306 Priest River Drive
Round Rock, Texas 78681
512-388-3392
This was addressed on DKos
...in this diary, to be precise.
Michael, here's the deal
This is about people having information to fight back.
We don't have this issue here in New York, but fuck, it's real elsewhere --and by 2008 the state will have had to make a decision as to what machines to adopt.
Do you think I take this lightly? DUDE! My stepfather helped draft the Voting Rights Act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously. I waited til now BECAUSE NOW IS THE TIME TO ALERT PEOPLE OF THIS REAL PROBLEM.
BTW
I think it's hysterical how we ... ahem ... dissent among ourselves.
Bouldin,I also agree with
Bouldin,
I also agree with you 90% of the time and your heart is in the right place, but dude, please don't try to hush up the very real fact that Republican owned companies have handed many voters machines that are utterly unreliable and which are easily manipulated. It's a fact and there's no way around it. And you're right -- the idea is not just to subvert the vote but to deter voters. To say we can't talk about a ploy to deter voters because we might deter voters is an incredibly frustrating thing to hear from you.
It's like: don't walk on the rotted footbridge because it will give way, but don't tell anyone it's rotten because then we won't get to the other side. We ain't getting to the other side with Diebold anyway! It's got to be dealt with and fixed and ignoring the reality of it isn't going to help.
Well....
Even though it was mentioned, the message I posted was a message to me from a person who had a first hand experience, and who is the brother-in-law of the candidate for attorney general. I think it is very important to post first hand accounts to put a human face on this very serious issue. This is not the time to be condescending. BTW: Not everyone has the time to spend on DKos every day. This was a new low even for you.
What???
I happened to have seen that diary a few days before, because it was in the top diaries list, and remembered it. How, exactly, is that a 'new low'???
If there's no room for disagreement on factual matters within the Progressive community, then we've become what we claim to be against. And if an issue disagreement turns into a personal matter, indicative of some character flaw or another - that's how I read 'condescending' and 'new low' - then people really need to take a step back and re-evaluate things.
New low?
Nah. You've gotten much lower before : -)
Just kidding! (ducking)
Stop twisting things
Bouldin, this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we disagree on this issue, it has to do with your attitude. I found the tone of the post condescending and not your opinion on this issue even though I totally disagree with you on this one. Now re-evaluate that!
Ridiculous.
What I said was, in toto, this:
If you consider that condescending, you've never been condescended to, and I can't help you with that.
Sure you could!
I am sure you can show him some condescention, thus correcting his lack.
Seriously, though, I disagree with much of what you say but do not feel you have been unreasonable in your arguing style. There is ample room for debate on this issue. But we also can't let our debate get in the way of our unity both in the election AND on protecting the vote.
Hey!
Backstabber
Soooo anyway....
hurt feelings aside. Right now I am watching "Hacking Democracy" on HBO, and it is a very chilling report about our "democratic" election process as well as the brave quest of concerned citizens to fight for our democracy. It not only deals with electronic voting machines but also how voters were discouraged from voting as well as tampering of paper ballots. (Original air date Nov 2 so I am catching the rerun).
Everything whether malfunctioning voting machines, voter intimidation, tampered paper ballots or even untrained poll workers falls under this one big umbrella of fraught subdivided into all the chapters mentioned. And while we are dissenting amongst ourselves (to quote Lisa) certain folks are heavily working on trying to steal the next election (again). I hope we can all come to the agreement that it is high time to show a united front. And to be honest, I am dreading Tuesday. I am dreading to hear of people who had to stand in front of the voting polls in dredged weather for hours just to be turned away again, I am dreading to hear of people being intimidated and harrassed, and I am dreading to hear of votes not counted. Call me crazy but I am really scared and anxious.