John said:

The election was to select a person to sit on the city council. The machine broke down once during the day and 15 voters had to use paper ballots. The 149 votes could not be retrieved from the machine until the next day due to a problem with passwords.

It would have been much faster to let a teen hacker do it ...

or ... wow ... what an idea just use 149 paper ballots and hand count them. Take an hour?

But first they must acquire election officials who can count to 150 and not be bribed by EVM companies. Oh, it was a small carolina city ... perhaps sometime next century???

John,

Election officials in many places are getting it, but alas some do not (surprise):

“Just because you are elected to office doesn’t mean you check your constitutional right to free speech at the door,” said Todd Rokita, the Indiana secretary of state and the new president of the secretaries of state association. In April, Mr. Rokita became the co-chairman of the state finance committee for Mitt Romney, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

(Your Link, emphasis added). What a straw man, canard, and avoidance of the real issue, conflict of interest.

What a perfect manager for Romney, a republican who can't remember how to talk about an issue directly.

The issue is not whether or not Ken Blackwell should give up his free speech when he becomes Secretary of State, the issue is whether of not he should sell his Diebold stock and resign from Bush's campaign.

Yep, it is conflict of interest stupid, not free speech, that we are concerned about when we pass conflict of interest statutes.

Now we know who the republican heir apparent is.

You are all a bunch of morons

{Ed Note: Removed link to huge cable sales catalog pdf. Joe, if you were trying to make a point, you picked the wrong method. --99}

So you're saying I am a moron because I care about the future of our Constitutional Republic of which I swore an oath to defend?

So you're telling us that a voter rights critic (that's you by the way) that sells wiring products know what happens in a foreign country at the doping level of a silicon chip?

So you're telling us that by posting a link to a 15 MB PDF file that doesn't have a damn thing to do with telco's/vaults/networking and the FACT that the nsa is hooked into this is somehow not a problem with your products?

I got to admit, I am not sure to label you as a troll, a commercial spammer, or just someone who decided to attack others with "ANNOYING BEHAVIOR" on brad's blog.

But I am sure someone else here will analyze all the NULL's in your crappy PDF file and comment.

One wonders if your actually a representative of this company. But since this isn't my BLOG, I can't look up your IP number and trace you.

Being interested in telecommunications myself, I think I will stick to the tried and tested and well known Belkin products. I hope I am not pre-mature in suggesting an all out boycott on you.

(If it really is you. And if you really represent the company you link to.)

Speaking of election fraud. How is it possible that for the last 28 years YALE alumni have been represented in the WH? 28 years....way too long. What is the statistical probability of that occuring?

If the oddity continues...that would give US HILL and Joe Biden as a VP

Read my article on Yale

Don't call people morons.

{Ed Note: Thanks, Phil. Sorry I didn't arrive to check this out sooner. --99}

I'm still catching up to the info overload of the past few days... times like these make me regret my missing optical bandwith channels most of all

(Stross reference! Stross reference!)

One admittedly minor thing that struck me was David Jefferson pushing the audit report (which was itself long overdue) as the cure-all for e-voting.

Not surprising as he's a member of the pro-evoting group ACCURATE. As is David Wagner... principle investigator for thr CA SoS report.

So... since ACCURATE was involved in basicly demolishing the lies that were propping up e-voting until now... does ACCURATE now need to throw some support to e-voting to keep the concept afloat (i.e. awash in tax dollars) while they try to pursue their fool's gold of "secure e-voting"?

('Fool's Gold' because by the time you bring an e-voting system to a state of anything resembling "secure" you have perforce rendered voter verification and citizen oversight both irrelevant and impossible.)

And yes, that's one reason why Wagner's report seemed to regard the idea of CA keeping the systems as inevitable. E-voting is what ACCURATE is concerned with. E-voting is what ACCURATE does. Period.

Snarky but relevant as once upon a time... all of a year ago... ACCURATE's attitude was one of "E-voting or No Voting!"... so what, if anything, has changed since then?

And if that attitude is still basicly the same then of course we'll need to spend all that effort auditing and re-auditing the machines... because the machines can't be relied upon to count the votes right in the first place.

For the inevitable "...paper ballots too!" trolls: with a hand count you count once, switch counters, count twice. Discrepancy? Pass to election officials to resolve. Counting and auditing are over... and the additional effort for this does not even compare to the time and money that auditing and re-auditing the machines would take.

Of course so much more info to process and both SoS Bowen's decision and Holt's Fiasco are due by tomorrow...

The_zapkitty #7

Stop spouting the gadfly party plank here. If you want to do character assasination, do it to their face.

We who have been blogging here at bradblog for years and years look to the issues and the argument related to those issues.

We even talk to trolls, trools, and lost souls. Even Stalin would be verrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyy, verwwwwyyyy, interesting to play with.

And we talk decently to David Jefferson when he posts here. Imagine that ... we are also accurate.
.

Joe #3

Fictel off or come up with a better plan moran .

Dredd

Lay off the "we" stuff....

Never mind Dredd, 99, the real problem here is that I misspelled "basically" twice...

... the unheralded dangers of stream-of-consciousness posting...

(As for you, Dredd: outed. You can live with it... or not...)

But back to election matters: my stream of thought was relevant, if mispelled... how will the various scientists who knew better but signed on to questionable thing like e-voting and Holt's Fiasco nonetheless... usually citing the public good as the reason... how will they react as the scale of this massive screwup finally publicly unfolds?