Send Holt a copy of the HBO flick, Hacking Democracy and send him the NIST report, that oughta do it if he can see, hear and read

Holt, what a Moran (or he's one of those afraid that if the country moves too far left where it should be, that it will cut into his easy profiteering gig and he'll go down the road)

Moron

Holt's response certainly is disappointing.

Personally I stopped supporting this bill long ago. As per my comment on recent discussion thread here:

I think the Holt bill is like putting a paper muzzle on a hungry wild animal: it makes things worse for the public by giving the appearance of safety in the presence of danger.

As for the Shafer/Sequoia lies. . . They seem to be continuing a long tradition of unethical vendor behavior featuring classic disinformation tactics. (I.e., repeat something often enough and eventually people will believe it.)

How they can continue to claim that there have been no attempts to manipulate elections using electronic voting machines is beyond me. Didn't they see the "Hacking Democracy" documentary on HBO or in the 9 YouTube sections? (Hopefully the DVD will be out soon.) How much more evidence do they need?

Michelle Shafer, a Sequoia spokeswoman, said that the company was not the manufacturer of the technology that transmitted the results to the county clerk's office and therefore could not vouch for its performance.

Did not sequoia choose this technology for transferring the data? Ethernet has been tried and true and well accepted technologoy since the '70s, Ethernet isn't the problem. But if Sequoia is going to blame the transfer method, then they open their propietary technology up towards examination of how THEY implement the transfer technology.

Someone with a technological clue needs to jump on that and file an injunction to preserve the contents of that machine and then get a court order allowing the transfer method to be scrutinized.

Packetloss is a given in data transfer. It happens. However, data transfer protocols at the TCP layer have built in functinality that allows for recovery when packet loss occurs.

While Michelle Schaffer's comments are, at first, disheartening, we should really take joy in her gaffe, as given that the comments were made under formal inquiry, this now provides the legal basis to closely scrutinize the "proprietary" technology that Sequoia has chosen to utilize.

Someone in NJ needs to jump on this.

We have a for profit democracy, in the sense that we rely on for profit corporations to count the vote via machines sold for profit.

Profit is first, not democracy.

Time to call on Debra Bowen and Nancy Pelosi to start the not-for-sale phase of election management.

If the democrats don't remedy election fraud... we must have a third party. A seprate progressive party would hurt the democrats more by dividing the liberal vote.But our country was started because of No taxation without representation. Rush Holt's lame response to this huge problem is inexcusable. Then we always have Conyers. I'm glad Holt didn't get Intelligence chair now. I'm sick of weak responses to huge problems by our reps.

Poor Russ Holt - you'd think he couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. Yes, billions of dollars have been spent on this electronic crap, but when I buy something and it doesn't work properly I return the item and get a refund. The vendors sold this junk under false pretenses, and it only makes sense that they are the ones who must eat the loss, not we, the people (and payers)! Duh! I would have to ask Mr. Holt what his personal stake is in sticking with democracy-stealing technology.

Czaragorn #6,

What's most disturbing about Holt's comments, is his apparant willingness to let Sequoia off the hook with some lame fingerpointing on Sequoia's part for technology that Sequoia is claiming isn't theirs.

Holt is demonstrating his ignorance of the technology here, and his acceptance of a for profit vendor's claimed lack of accountability, and who's product failed to meet expectations is something that would never ever fly in the private sector.

Mr Holt, if the public's investment in a technology vendor cannot be met responibly, then that vendor MUST be held accountable.

For instance, Cisco did not write the standards for the TCP/IP protocols, but when Cisco products utilize a poorly constructed implementation of the TCP/IP suite of protocols, then CISCO is the one that is held accountable.

Sequoia's contention that THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for the data transfer technology may very well be accurate, but this alone does not release them from ACCOUNTABILITY.

DO NOT CONFUSE ACCOUNTABILITY for RESPONSIBILITY.

Point out to the Sequoia rep that the reason that there is "no evidence" of fraud is because all of the DRE companies are working very hard to make sure that the evidence is never seen (proprietary software).

We want our money back! And we want our democracy back!

Russ Holt logic,..

We made a capital outlay in the War on Terrorism in Iraq. We invested hundreds of billions from the US treasury. Some nine billion dollars were lost or stolen when duffel bags of money were incompetently handed around by the Coalition Provisional Authority.
We must derive a return from those investments that were made for the US taxpayer, including the expectation of returns from the missing nine billion dollars. Consequently we must now stay in Iraq for a minimum of an additional 15 yrs. to recoup our investments, even if doing so means an additional 15,000 American soldiers come home in body-bags.

Bullshit,.. the missing nine billion dollars - you find the culprit who allowed this money to go missing and you make all efforts to recover these funds. With heavy periods of incarceration for those who can not recoup the loss down to the last penny. Then you immediately bring the soldiers home. You don't flush good money and then bad money and then more bad money foolishly down into the sewerage system in the hopes you may recover your investments. A bad investment does not become a good investment because you flush more down the toilet,.. it just becomes a really - really bad investment. Invest and spend your hard earned money on SOMETHING ELSE.

Much like electronic voting machines - funds invested in Iraq are a dead horse. You don't saddle up and mount a dead horse in the hopes it will stand up and gallop off into the sunset. It is a dead horse - it ain't goin no where. Get YOURSELF ANOTHER HORSE TO RIDE, bury your dead horse.

....Just got off the phone with a very nice young man named “John” at Russ Holt’s DC office. I spoke with him last week and was quite surprised at his lack of information regarding electronic voting problems but pleased that he enthusiastically received my referrals to the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy, the book Hacked, and Brad Blog.

Today I asked John if his child bought a car and he discovered there was a one in ten chance it would explode when he stepped on the brakes would he allow the kid to keep driving the car because it was an expensive purchase?

John remembered the documentary and our previous conversation and unlike most of the aids who answer the phones seemed very grateful for the info. I told him I go to Brad Blog everyday for updates on election anomalies and reform efforts and that citizens like Brad and scientists who are non-partisan should be involved in writing election law.

I also told him I am tired of being let down by the Democrats.

Please call 1800 828-0498 and leave a message for Russ Holt. You all have your facts in order and are much more eloquent in describing the seriousness of electronic voting fraud than I. If you get John.. ask him if he watched Hacking Democracy and suggest he read the comments on this blog and pass them on the Rep. Holt.

My next two calls today are to John Conyers and Diane Feinstein. I don’t know…the way the Dems blew off the 2000 and 2004 (and ’06?) stolen elections…sometimes I wonder if many of them are in on the scam.

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. User posting under different user names again, in repeated violation of BRAD BLOG comment rules.}

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. User posting under different user names again, in repeated violation of BRAD BLOG comment rules.}

I don't understand why we don't see a public interest
"Defective Product" lawsuit against all the voting
machine manufacturers. The product is clearly not
suitable for the purpose it was designed, and I bet
in the discovery process litigators would find that
the companies KNOW they're not suitable.

I guess if I were a lawyer I would know why this isn't practical.

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. User posting under different user names again, in repeated violation of BRAD BLOG comment rules.}

Rep. Rush Holt
1019 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-5801
202-225-6025 (fax)

District Office
50 Washington Rd.
West Windsor, NJ 08550
609-750-9365
609-750-0618 (fax)
1-87-RUSH-HOLT (toll-free)

I am sending a copy of HACKING DEMOCRACY to each office. I suggest all y'all "6 or 7 squad" write the good congressman, whom I believe DOES have his heart in the right place but may simply not "get" that the REAL purpose of e-voting was to enable easy election theft in the first place.

So many good Dems still buy into fundamentally spurious arguments advanced by the right. I got a questionnaire today from Sen. Feingold asking how the Dems can best tackle the war on terror. WHAT??? How about, END the "war on terror" and investigate 9-11 properly? Follow the money and put the real people fomenting the terrorism, the architects of the "war on terror" and the war profiteers in Leavenworth?! But even folks like Feingold, it appears, STILL don't get it. Sigh.

I'll have to check my recording, but I believe the congressman had other arguments besides "they spent a lot of money on the machines that we have". Don't rely on the newspapers to give you an accurate or complete accounting of things. You have to go to people like me, humble people, little people, concerned citizens whose only dream is to some day see this country fulfill its promise to be a beacon and a model to all the world of democracy and...um...sorry. Got carried away for a minute. If you (by "you" I mean "Brad") want a copy of my personal recording of the panel discussion, the quality of which I cannot vouch for, I'll see if I can get that to you. Send me an email and let me know. I haven't listened to it yet. I recorded it on the built-in mic from about halfway down the room, but it's a pretty good device and ought to be audible and clear enough.

For those who are criticizing Russ Holt so heavily, you don't have complete information. First, his name isn't "Russ", it's "Rush" (five points to the first person who knows his middle name). Also, this staff person of his named "John" isn't, I believe, part of the team on the HR 550 legislation, though I couldn't say that for certain. This much I know for certain: I have met the person who was largely responsible for writing the bill and she isn't named "John". She's a very nice woman. Finally, as I said, Holt pointed to other problems with a pure paper ballot system, not just that there was a lot of money spent already. I'll have to look at the recording. The question of paper ballots was posed from the floor and was not a major part of discussion. Odd that it became a major part of the comments thread, but paper ballots seem to be the new black for Internet voting hipsters.

Paper Ballots hand counted is good.
Electronically Generated Paper Trails is bad.

HR 550 is bad.

The do nothing congress dumping the budget on the next congress is going to be bad also.

Got a gear of democracy you want to turn? First the do nothing congress has a monkey wrench for it. We will all suffer for this.

DBK -

You'll note that I included "as quoted by the Herald News" in ref to Holt's statement, since I didn't have independent corroboration other than via that particular story.

I would, of course, be delighted to hear the whole sequence (which, for now, would be easier than listening to the entire panel, if you're able to pull just that section of the audio and/or a transcript for that part.)

Also, of course, would be more than happy to correct the record where appropriate after reviewing the actual dialogue.

You can email me here. And thanks for your input!

I want to say his middle name is "Limpyballs", but I'm sure that isn't it

I never said "John" was the person responsible for writing the bill. He was a nice guy who answered the phones. It is just surprising to me that people working in DC don't know more about what's going on.

Sorry about the mistake on the name. Rush came to mind as I was typing ....but I typed Russ... Maybe it's my aversion to the name Rush.

I'm with Neoconvict on this one..

... DBK said...

Holt pointed to other problems with a pure paper ballot system...

Let me guess... "e-voting helps the disabled think they're voting independently!"

Anyone want to bet that's the next line of defense?

Taking bets starting at 7-2 odds...

Say it ain't so, Debra..."she doesn't intend to push to return California to a more paper-oriented system...she will likely focus on making the new voting technology more user-friendly..." here (Probably will require registration)

I sure hope DBK's recording will vindicate Rush, because right now I'm feeling pretty let down.

Seems like a really stupid thing for a rocket scientist to say.

I don't mean to get into a long, drawn out argument about either the congressman or the merits of paper versus electronic voting here, but just a few points.

First, um no, "e-voting helps the disabled think they're voting independently!" was not one of the reasons. I believe one of them is that paper ballots have a different set of drawbacks and can also result in mistaken results.

Second, I don't know why the cost of replacing a couple of billion dollars' worth of electronic machines is not a reasonable concern. The counties that paid for these machines do not have extra funding to replace their systems with new ones. Yes, secure voting is very important, but it still has to be paid for. Cost is a legitimate concern.

Third, there seems to be an assumption that electronic machines cannot ever work properly. Such machines do have advantages over paper ballots if the problems are solved.

Finally, the_zapkitty, I didn't say you said that. I said I didn't think John was on the HR 550 team and that I had met the person who wrote most of HR 550, which I meant to indicate that I know at least one person closely associated with the bill. Let me be clearer: it is not unusual for a member of congressional staff not to know about some bill or other on which he or she did not work. If it is not a function of their job and nobody asks them to participate, they don't get involved. They all have their own jobs to do and they work pretty hard from what I have seen. Knowing them, I have nothing but respect for them.

Anyway, Brad, I'll see what I can do for you.

So DBK, according to you all those billions are just down the drain and into the (presumably offshore) accounts of the EVM vendors? Cut it out! The machines don't work as advertised, and WE WANT OUR MONEY BACK!!! A paper and pencil, hand-counted system costs well under a buck a vote, with no "maintenance" or "updating" charges, and it can be checked and rechecked until everyone is satisfied that the vote count was fair. You can never say that about an opaque black box that goes "Beep!"

http://www.democracyfora.../paperballots/ga_2924552

DFA petition for paper ballots to go to Pelosi. Sign, folks!

Here's my letter to Holt, if anyone wants to crib off it:

Dear Rep. Holt and the HR 550 Team,

Thank you for your tremendous work on this important piece of legislation—perhaps THE most important piece of legislation.

It is important to remember the real reason these e-voting machines were rammed through congress (by disgraced, convicted former congressman Bob Ney) was to enable easy election theft.

It is also important to realize that “paper trails” will never solve the problem, since those are quite easy to manipulate. Only hand-counted paper ballots, public source code of the e-voting machines, full transparency and public auditing of the count will ever secure our election systems.

We may have spent untold millions on e-voting so far, but this is definitely a “good money after bad” situation here. I urge you to consider three things as you tweak the HR 550 legislation:

1) Watch the HBO documentary HACKING DEMOCRACY.

2) Consult with experts such as Black Box Voting.orgs's Bev Harris, and investigative reporter Brad Friedman from Brad Blog. Friedman is an expert on e-voting vulnerabilities and has spent years tirelessly uncovering e-voting scams. TheBradBlog@cville.com

3) The entire electronic voting industry needs to be investigated. Sequoia, Diebold, ES&S, etc., have taken millions from us and have delivered faulty product with deliberate security holes to allow easy hackability--and then have consistently lied to cover this up. Just look at Maryland: https://bradblog.com/?p=3731#more-3731

Thank you, good sir, for your time and effort in restoring the power to the people.

I don't mean to get into a long, drawn out argument about either the congressman or the merits of paper versus electronic voting here, but just a few points.

If not you, and the congressman is apparently not hearing clearly... then who?

First, um no, "e-voting helps the disabled think they're voting independently!" was not one of the reasons. I believe one of them is that paper ballots have a different set of drawbacks and can also result in mistaken results.

Errr... the "force-multiplier" effect of e-voting works just as well for errors as it does for malicious intent. In other words you cannot name an error that paper ballots are susceptible to that e-voting's equivalent structures can't multiply... and multiply wildly.

In other words: Yes, the election districts are going to have to eat the costs.... and do this under a Democratric congress since there will no doubt be a severe lack of money available to remedy the mistakes of the previous congress.

...

ok... they really haven't been listening up at the Hill. Probably think their election is all about "Traditional Democratic Values" rather than a public expression of pure outrage at the current administration.

...

Taking bets again... the new Congress will get so lost in trying to pursue old ghosts and outdated goals that they won't get a damn thing done where the current, important, issues are concerned. Odds starting at 3 to 2.

...

Finally, the_zapkitty, I didn't say you said that.

Good... because that wasn't me, that was Diane.

OMFG! Tell me I didn't hear this!

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
... DBK said on 12/6/2006 @ 6:29 am PT...
I don't mean to get into a long, drawn out argument about either the congressman or the merits of paper versus electronic voting here, but just a few points.

The congress(people) that want electronics are corrupt. There can be no other explanation. Folks who understand physics (in this case electronics) have clearly explained that ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES CAN NOT BE VALIDATED!

First, um no, "e-voting helps the disabled think they're voting independently!" was not one of the reasons. I believe one of them is that paper ballots have a different set of drawbacks and can also result in mistaken results.

I don't see any reason why a piece of crap 286 with word perfect can not be used to print a PAPER BALLOT to be HAND COUNTED BY THE PUBLIC! Fuck the Sacramento Bee, the only god damn thing they are good for is reporting about FRY's ELECTRONICS Sales, and even then they misprint shit! I know I LIVE IN SACRAMENTO!

Second, I don't know why the cost of replacing a couple of billion dollars' worth of electronic machines is not a reasonable concern. The counties that paid for these machines do not have extra funding to replace their systems with new ones. Yes, secure voting is very important, but it still has to be paid for. Cost is a legitimate concern.

Look at how many BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, FAKE WARS WERE STARTED, CIVIL RIGHTS WERE LOST, 4,5,6,7,8th Amendments LOST, HABIUS CORPUS LOST, GENEVIA CONVENTION LOST,, THE CORUPTION, The missing $20 billion dollars from IRAQ, the continous death toll that isn't even allowed to be reported on correctly! Fuck that shit, these electronics machines have cost WAY MORE than a few fucking billion dollars. These electronic machines MUST GO to the STEAM ROLLER now! This is more than just a countie's local precint problem, this is a NATIONAL SECURITY FUCKING PROBLEM, the parts inside these machines were not even made in the United States of America! Who knows what low level doping was done to these chips!
Third, there seems to be an assumption that electronic machines cannot ever work properly. Such machines do have advantages over paper ballots if the problems are solved.

Finally, the_zapkitty, I didn't say you said that. I said I didn't think John was on the HR 550 team and that I had met the person who wrote most of HR 550, which I meant to indicate that I know at least one person closely associated with the bill.

A flawed bill, that doesn't answer to physics, and still allows unvalidatable, electronics, digitized data, and networks in place to FUCK THE PEOPLE.

Let me be clearer: it is not unusual for a member of congressional staff not to know about some bill or other on which he or she did not work. If it is not a function of their job and nobody asks them to participate, they don't get involved. They all have their own jobs to do and they work pretty hard from what I have seen. Knowing them, I have nothing but respect for them.

This is the shitiest leadership in history. You can't even fucking call it leadership, it's an all out war on the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. There is NO EXCUSE for creating bills you don't understand. If you don't understand it you shouldn't be in office. This crap has got to be stopped now. This abusive, unvalidatable technology has DENIED MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FUCKING VOTE! (because my vote can not be counted, which is because it can not be VALIDATED.)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

not mad at you personally, but I sure hope you understand NOW, and get on the cluetrain.

I missed a blockquote.

I did not say this

Third, there seems to be an assumption that electronic machines cannot ever work properly. Such machines do have advantages over paper ballots if the problems are solved.

I did not say this. I wanted it blockquoted.

See even I Can not use a god damned computer correctly!

By the way if anyone want's to try to help me make my angry points without using the word "FUCK" I am open to suggestions.

I am literally at my wit's end. The ANGER is REAL.

Okay... after we clean up after Phil's exploded gall bladder, what do we have left?

An implicit faith that e-voting can somehow be made to work...?

No... it's worse actually:

An implicit faith that e-voting must somehow be better.

And remember... the e-voting corporations are even now at the doors of the new congress ready to drop millions right and left in order to gain billions in contracts later.

That's not "paranoia"... that's politics.

No, that's bribery.

... Arry said...

"No, that's bribery."

"It ain't bribery if it's legal, son"

Drop a few hundred thousand in individual congressional campaign chests, drop a million or so in their respective districts in the name of "public works", and add yet even more multi-milllion additions to the campus of the National Federation Of The Blind and other disabled support groups... and congresscritters will just eat it up.

All from your money from the sale of e-voting machines that didn't quite work out in the first place... and all perfectly legal.

#34 - The_Zapkitty --- Bribery nonetheless. (Bribery is not confined to a strictly legal definition.) I may be idealistic, but I always put politics on another level --- like working with various interest groups and balances of power to develop policies and legislation for the public interest or sometimes for the interest of a class.

I think it is darkly humorous that legalized bribery is now considered "politics". But, really, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out the depths to which our "political" system has sunk when bribery and politics are conjoined.

When money is freedom of speech...corporations are given the dignity of being called a person..We are living in unusual times. The only thing that would make me think this current crop is no better is John Conyers..and Harry Waxman. If Conyers doesn't become the chairman of the judiciary committee...WE will know the fix is in. From what I understand, Waxman and Conyers have the evidence and WE have to wait for a new house and senate.

... Arry said...
(paraphrased)
"Bribery nonetheless... I may be idealistic, but I always put politics on another level..."

But the rule is: "If you don't take the money then your competitors will, and then will have the money to defeat you... and then if you can't get re-elected you can't do real politics... and if you can't do real politics then you can't do (insert noble deed here)..."

So, between the flawed implicit faith in e-voting somehow spawned by our culture (a faith not held by non-technical types alone: tech people who aren't computer specialists are also vulnerable to this "faith"), and the politico's eternal need for money and the e-voting corporations willingness to give that money... paper ballots will have a hell of an uphill struggle.

And if you can't tell from Holt's response: the "paper is bad" propaganda is already being spread as quickly as possible... the battle for e-voting's survival was underway from the moment both Houses were captured by the Democratic Party and I assure you there is no time being wasted by the corporations.

And as I stated in an earlier post you'll have to allow electronics in for disabled types like me... but that won't be such a big problem if you keep the enabling electronics separate from the ballot tabulation.

So blaming "all Bush evils" on e-voting will get you... not very far.

E-voting will have to be defeated on its own merits, and we'll be operating against American's ingrained faith in technology. A faith that's logically misplaced when it comes to e-voting... but we'll have to explain that patiently and calmly... again and again and again....

Don't forget the Zogby poll. 92% "insist on the right to observe vote counting"...and more. Yet, we are seeing Holt and others taking the opposite, corporate line. (If Debra Bowen told Weintraub what he said she told him - see my #23 this thread - we're in trouble and have been duped.) I think it is more than bribery. It's an identification of America with corportism and consequent commercial technology, an easy attitude that is nevertheless profoundly anti-democracy.

But the people are with us if they can only see it. (In my own community, there are deep concerns over e-voting, mainly from those who are not particularly knowledgable, but as is heard regularly, "I'll never trust my vote to a computer." As simple as that to them.)

When they start making machines that work perfectly and transparently instead of machines that don't work on purpose, (and they better hurry), going to straight paper is the only viable option and will save us untold millions more then we could ever save by trying to make these democracy destroying pieces of crap work!

I repeat:

I sure hope DBK's recording will vindicate Rush, because right now I'm feeling pretty let down.

Seems like a really stupid thing for a rocket scientist to say.

Got that recording DBK?

neoconvict #27

Nice letter!

The other day, Brad commented that money already spent is not an adequate reason to keep unverifiable electronic voting machines in use. Of course, unverifiable systems should not be kept in place simply because they are already bought and paid for. The point of my legislation is not to certify or decertify specific designs of voting systems, but to require that voters use systems that are verifiable, or as I prefer to say, auditable. (In New Jersey, all voting machines will be rendered independently auditable by 2008 in accordance with state law modeled on H.R. 550.) Auditability should be mandated, period. Cost is not the issue.

I am proud of the fact that I have been trying for years to require voter-verified paper ballots, and I will continue to work to make them a federal requirement. The fact that my legislation does not outlaw the use of electronic machines does not mean that I am against paper-ballot-based voting or that I am in favor of touch-screen machines. In fact, my legislation intentionally avoids dictating technology except for requiring a voter-verified paper ballot. If states and localities choose paper-ballot-based voting, and they do so while still protecting accessibility and privacy for disabled voters, then they have my support.

Rep. Rush Holt:

I can't thank you enough for trying to put some brakes on Bob Ney's failed HAVA bill. If they had listened to you years ago, we would be much better off. The American people would have been exposed to some discussion and we would be in a much better situation.

Thank you for not ignoring us, because after years of working on this issue, and presenting unimpeachable facts to our local election officials, It's my strong impression that the state of Utah was going to be a model for Diebold election success and all of the impassioned people and computer scientists who gave their time and money were a minor annoyance to be quieted by putting a worthless paper trail on the machine. There is still no transparency whatsoever in Utah elections.

At this point, giving states the right to choose their own system doesn't really give me reason for hope. After all, both the Florida Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court ruled that we need a uniform system. In my opinion, hand counted, paper ballots would be the only way to accomplish that in time for the 2008 election.

After all, it was a federal decision that denied Al Gore the presidency.

We're delighted for Rep. Holt's comments above. As they are quite notable, we've reposted them in full, with context and our response in this new article.