Michele Shafer KNOWS otherwise. Sequoia hired two law firms (and worked with the Civil Division of the local Prosecutor's office) to try to defeat the study proving irregularities on Sequoia's DREs that became part of a subsequent lawsuit. http://www.votersunite.o...mediaSnohomishCounty.htm

Despite all the notice in the world (having to spend thousands on lawyers means the company can't deny knowing about the study), neither the lawyers nor Sequoia ever refuted the study in the slightest. Yet the study concludes that there's a 100% chance that a large force acted on the DRE voting that did not act on the paper ballots that were hand-recounted, on a side by side, precinct by precinct basis, in the Gregoire v. Rossi gubernatorial election/recount contest of 2004.

If this is not proof, then given the secrecy with which Sequoia and others attempt to hide their processing of the vote, what WOULD they accept as proof of election fraud?

If one asks the above question of election officials, one doesn't get a satisfactory answer. Since they do not know (or won't say) what the smoking guns of election fraud are in computerized elections, it's pert near impossible for them to find what THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR, and probably wouldn't know what it was if they saw it.

The above link has a summarized press release and a link to the study, but the study itself can be found at www.votersunite.org/info/lehtolawsuit.asp (see links near bottom of page)

Unfortunately my co-plaintiff, Jack WElls, descendant of a Revolutionary War soldier and one of the original senators in the newly minted state of Washington, passed away over a year ago. But he fought in the Aleutians --- the second time in US history that American territory was subject to land invasion (the other being the war of 1812 in which the British burned down the White House, Congress, and other parts of DC including the Library of Cognress). Jack WElls didn't hesitate to defend his country from invasion, and if any foreign power were to propose to make a modest proposal to request only the control of our vote counts --- forsaking our resources, cities and other assets --- we'd all see the usurpation of our democracy by force for precisely what it was.

Jack Wells, however, was able to see that it didn't matter whether or not it was a foreign power (Venezuelan past ownership of Sequoia is irrelevant) --- he understood immediately as Lincoln did that in a large republic, we must liver forever or die (from within) by suicide, and he stepped up immediately, though I'd never met him before, and was eager to defend his country for the second time in his life.

Jack Wells was an honored teacher at a Washington state community college, and, I hope, is still teaching now, even in death, by his example.

Sequoia never refuted the study Jack and I made the first Exhibit in the lawsuit. The lawsuit was later dismissed by the Court of Appeals, after agreeing transparency was necessary and at the very bedrock of democracy, on the grounds of mootness: The Snohomish County Board of supervisors voted to eliminate Sequoia DREs from polling place use. According to the court, it needn't decide our request for a $5 million refund and to void the sales contract because Jack Wells and I were victorious, the touchscreens were gone.

If Michele Shafer, or Sequoia, disagrees, then I challenge them to a public debate, videotapes for the web and in front of a large audience, any time, any place, any where. Hopefully Sequoia will post a large amount of prize money for the winner of the vote after the debate. Since Sequoia's betting our entire democracy on their takeover of our vote counts, they should be happy to back up their claim to private ownership of the heart of democracy in public, in a debate format that presents a form of accountability.

Standing from afar, like Jim Cramer, Sequoia can cast its denials and its claims, but forced into an accountable format like The Daily Show, it was clear that if the Cramer v Stewart bout has lasted a few more minutes, as the wife of one financial analyst put it, Jim Cramer would have been crying.

I predict an analogous fate for Michelle Shafer, but I also predict that she will refuse to accept this challenge to debate. Michelle Shafer?

paul,they're not interested in debate.
thank you for what you do. we are grateful. with so many outlets to spread their version of the truth they don't need or want debate.
someday soon we'll awake from this slumber...

I'm happy to know Michelle, and hope that she will be amused by the attempt here to vilify her. I consider her to be a friend, and to be quite rational in her thoughts. I suspect that many of you who decry the advent of electronic voting systems attempt to focus on her, since she has proven quite effective in her work.

Doug Allen

Despite Doug's support of Michelle Shafer, I'll not be using a Diebold ATM anytime soon. A human banker and a paper reciept for me!

Off topic: Does anybody else know about the death of Mike Gibbons, of Kwaidan Consulting, the geek who was involved in "testing" some voting systems? Floridiot mentioned something about it...

shw

Were I an attorney looking at this blog posting, I might counsel Ms. Shafer to determine to consider a libel suit. Agree or disagree on the positions taken by employees of voting firms with regard to e-voting systems....but the efforts at character assasination seem just to typical of today's recent political environment. Y'all should be ashamed, though I'm certain that you're not.

Arapahoe County Clerk Nancy Doty is part of a vocal minority

Majority of voters concerned about votes counted in secret

Nancy Doty misrepresented that voters concerned with election integrity are a vocal minority.

A nationwide August 2006 Zogby poll of 1,018 likely voters revealed 92 percent of Americans are worried about our votes being counted in secret and agreed Americans have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes. http://www.zogby.com/templates/printnews.cfm?id=1163

The Sequoia Edge touchscreen DRE voting machines which Nancy Doty demands to continue using in Arapahoe County, without a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail , can be hacked, in approximately one minute, by an election official, altering election results countywide. UC Scientists Release Voting Machine Hacking Video. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6369

The Colorado legislature required sixty two of sixty four Colorado counties to use Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails on their touchscreen voting machines. The 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution states "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Do the legislature and Nancy Doty believe the 14th Amendment prohibition against a state denying Equal Protection of the Law does not apply to Arapahoe county citizens? What legal argument does Doty rely upon to continue demoting Arapahoe County voters to second class citizenship? People fought and died at Manassas, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Antietam to give ALL AMERICANS Equal Protection of the Law. Brave patriots refused to sit in the back of the bus and marched, at Selma. They were clubbed, beaten, attacked by dogs, spit on and firehosed. Their churches were burned. Dr. Martin Luther King gave his life to ensure ALL AMERICANS HAVE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Approximately two thirds of Colorado registered voters are registered as Independents or Democrats. Nancy Doty is a Republican who gave a $500 campaign contribution to Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, in 2007, while she was administering an election Bob Schaffer ran in. A vocal minority supported Bob Schaffer, who was soundly defeated in Colorado. An even smaller vocal minority contributed $500 or more to Republican Bob Schaffer. Nancy Doty is part of a very small vocal minority.

Contributing to a political candidate, who is running for election, in an election you are administering should be outlawed.

Nancy Doty is also part of a small vocal minority who apparently believes in denying equal protection of the law, to some citizens. We have heard from this minority before and stood up against them. It is time for the majority to speak out against them again and ensure every American is provided Equal Protection of the Law.

Please see the Coloradans for Voting Integrity website, www.cfvi.us, for more information concerning election integrity issues in Colorado.

"Doug" said @ 3 & 5:

I'm happy to know Michelle, and hope that she will be amused by the attempt here to vilify her. I consider her to be a friend, and to be quite rational in her thoughts. I suspect that many of you who decry the advent of electronic voting systems attempt to focus on her, since she has proven quite effective in her work.

If by "effective in her work", you mean an uncanny ability and willingness to misrepresent the truth about the shortcomings and facts about her company's voting systems --- and those of other companies --- and to smear pollworkers and other volunteers to our democratic process, and to surreptitiously rewrite information on her website, etc., then yes, your friend has been quite "effective in her work".

Were I an attorney looking at this blog posting, I might counsel Ms. Shafer to determine to consider a libel suit...the efforts at character assasination seem just to typical of today's recent political environment.

Wondering if your same sentiments also apply to the way your friend Michelle has treated volunteer pollworkers, doing their job properly, only to be blamed for the failures in Michelle's company's voting systems?

Also, wondering if your decrying of "today's recent political environment" also includes the shame of officials who receive government funding, and then do not tell the truth about the use of those public funds? Does it also include companies who receive government funding and then make statements about their ownership by foreign companies which is not true?

Your friend Michelle has many moral dilemmas to answer to. I recognize that she has a horrible portfolio to represent. There are, however, ways to do so which do not misrepresent the truth, or laugh in the face of the public trust that she's ultimately been granted.

There is, of course, nothing libelous as reported on this blog. Everything I have noted in the article is substantiated by well-documented facts, and firmly held beliefs born out by those facts.

As Michelle knows (or perhaps, even you do, just in case you happen to be Michelle) she is always more than welcome to offer her own point of view in response. She has, for many years now, declined the opportunity to do so.

Shannon Williford @ 4:

Shortly after The BRAD BLOG exposed the story of the longtime Sequoia contractor Mike Gibbons, who was, until we exposed the scam, hired by the company to create an "independent" report on the company's failed DRE voting systems in NJ, Gibbons died.

After many years, doing very well on the Sequoia payroll (actually, on the government's payroll, since Sequoia was enjoying the use of massive federal funding supplied through HAVA) Gibbons was cut loose after our expose revealing him to be, um, less than either stable or independent (See the link above for some details).

Unfortunately, though I learned of his tragic and untimely death a few months later, and attempted to learn from a number of sources what the precise cause of death was, I was never able to do so. So in lieu of the ability to report on the matter accurately, or even to avoid offering unsupported and/or conspiratorial insinuations, I did not cover the death here. If I'm able to learn more, independently verifiable information --- versus the material I've collected from some of the sources close to Gibbons, I will share it.

As Michelle Shafer (and perhaps even her friend "Doug") knows, we do not cover material here, or make accusations which cannot be independently verified as accurate. Even when it has to do with the horrible Sequoia Voting Systems company.

Eh Heh Heh electronic vote tabulation device evil

Interesting Brad, that you enjoy using "ad hominem" arguments, and that you resort to personal attacks. While such attacks are fairly typical of those who, like yourself, seem unable to engage in rational discussion....it does weaken the credibility of your arguments.

I know Michelle Shafer and have never known her to misrepresent the truth. Comparing a specific attack on a private citizen (you do know what that is, don't you?) who is an advocate for her firm to unnamed poll workers - underpaid "volunteers" who are sometimes not sufficiently trained for election duty is...well, not relevant.

While many in your circle appear to have no compunction about calling someone with a differing viewpoint a "liar", you might consider how that impacts the credibility that you have. I doubt that you will....but perhaps those who are so anti-technology might understand that this over emotional drivel tends to put off the very public you would like to persuade. I note that there is no great rush to toss the new systems. I note also that the general public appears to understand (from my readings) that the potential for election fraud exists with any and all voting systems....and, I might add with any and all voter registration systems.

I've long since given up on engaging you, or those who appear rather rabid on this topic in any additional rational debate, since so many of you - particularly you, appear incapable of acknowledging that others have views different than your own....and that, believe it or not...that they have a right to such different views.

I'm quite happy that I do NOT live in your world!

Now, as for the woman who is so dreadly fearful of Diebold ATM devices...perhaps she can take note that Michelle Shafer works for Sequoia, NOT Diebold. Further, I might suggest to her that she scrap her personal computer and get off line entirely so she can avoid all the nasty risks associated with the use of the Internet.

By the way 'Brad', my name is Doug, and I'm not all that hard to find. You might try it, since you evidently question my existence, and appear unable to make use of the tools that your blog site provides to you. As for Ms. Shafer's need to "answer to" anyone on anything, since you've never been elected to any position of responsibility, since you don't represent anyone beyond yourself..... I'm thankful that she need not answer to you. You're just another private citizen.

Best Wishes!

Doug, I must say that is a pretty twisted notion of those to whom an elected official is answerable, and I also must say that you are a fine one to complain about ad hominem attacks because of your own ad hominem attack on "the woman who is so dreadly fearful of Diebold ATM devices" and that is heavily frowned upon here. Plus, if you plan to keep commenting here, I must ask you to modify your screen name somewhat because there is another "Doug" who comments here sometimes, and I'm certain he would not wish to be confused with you.

Dearest "Doug" -

Interesting Brad, that you enjoy using "ad hominem" arguments, and that you resort to personal attacks. While such attacks are fairly typical of those who, like yourself, seem unable to engage in rational discussion....it does weaken the credibility of your arguments.

Hmmm...You've just used an "ad hominem" argument and personal attack to make your case against me. Smartly done, "Doug"!

That said, I fail to see the "ad hominem" argument or personal attack that I've made against Michelle. Please feel free to share.

I know Michelle Shafer and have never known her to misrepresent the truth.

Then you don't know Michelle Shafer. Or what she does for a living. Please feel free to do a search here at The BRAD BLOG for "Michelle Shafer" and click around into what you find (all of it documented, and independently verifiable, of course, or it wouldn't be here.)

Comparing a specific attack on a private citizen (you do know what that is, don't you?) who is an advocate for her firm to unnamed poll workers - underpaid "volunteers" who are sometimes not sufficiently trained for election duty is...well, not relevant.

So, it's okay to attack those patriotic volunteer pollworkers --- whose training was sufficient enough, except for the times when the Sequoia (and other) voting machines behaved in a way that it was not supposed to --- but not okay to point out the documented evidence of a spokesman for an industry (please note, she has served as spokesman for both Sequoia and the e-voting industry's ETC) who has received billions of dollars of tax-payer dollars, for not telling the truth, is out of bounds?!

Golly-gosh, I'm guessing you must have a lot of good friends at AIG, "Doug". Don't you dare "attack" any of those private citizens!

And while you're at it, I'd greatly appreciate if you'd not join in disparaging the patriotic poll workers whose thankless tasks ensure that we're able to keep some semblance of democracy here in America despite the anti-democracy efforts of folks like Sequoia, Michelle, et al.

While many in your circle appear to have no compunction about calling someone with a differing viewpoint a "liar", you might consider how that impacts the credibility that you have.

I do not speak for anybody "in [my] circle", nor do they speak for me. But I do speak for myself. And if someone tells a knowing lie, they are a liar. If that impacts my "credibility", to inform the public of that, then so be it. I'd suggest lying (which I do not do) is a far greater strike against one's credibility, then calling somewhat out as a "liar" when they, um, lie --- as Michelle has done on many occassions --- publicly, and verifiably.

Of course, there are others "in [her] circle" who would likely tell you the same thing about her if you promised them the off record status that I'm happy to offer such sources who speak to me in such a manner, when reasons dictate.

I doubt that you will....but perhaps those who are so anti-technology might understand that this over emotional drivel tends to put off the very public you would like to persuade.

Thanks for that advise, chief. I recall hearing similar advise in the past from folks like yourself (generally Republicans, like Karl Rove and friends) who are always helpful in recommending what behavior will and won't "put off the very public [I'd hope] to persuade".

But beyond that, first time to this argument? Apparently so, if you believe that Michelle Shafer still maintains any credibility on any of these issues, above and beyond the tax-payer funded bought and paid for access she's enjoyed, where private citizens and actual stakeholders in elections have not.

For the record, my "anti-technology" credentials include 10 years as a software programmer. And, if you bother to actually educate yourself on these matters, rather than believe what you're told by your friend Michelle, you'd quickly learn that the leading advocates *against* the use of products made by Michelle and her company happen to be scores of the world's most well-regarded computer scientists, security experts and academics. Those folks are surely "anti-technology" luddites, however, as you see them, no doubt.

Seriously, "Doug". You need to expand your knowledge of this issue beyond "what Michelle tells me".

I note that there is no great rush to toss the new systems.

"No great rush" for whom? Your "notes" seem to need a bit of freshing up. The state of CA who decertified almost all of the DRE systems made by Michelle's companies? The state of FL who similar got rid of them? The states of OH and CO where the Secretaries of State recommended against the use of any of them? How about the state's of MD, VA, TN, IA and many more whose legislatures have now banned those systems? How about the federal bill moving through Congress to do the same?

Has Michelle mentioned any of that to you lately, for your "notes"?

I note also that the general public appears to understand (from my readings) that the potential for election fraud exists with any and all voting systems....and, I might add with any and all voter registration systems.

It sure does. The "general public" is correct. That's why one needs transparent, citizen-observable, verifiable election systems and procedures, so there remains a hope of stopping bad guys from defrauding elections. That is in strict opposition to the proprietary "trade secret" software used by Michelle's company(ies) which count our votes in secret, unverifiably, to offer 100% faith-based elections.

Ask her why she's gone to court to keep the public from being able to verify the validity of their own elections on her company's systems time and again. Ask her, while you're there, why it is that she's claimed ownership of the Intellectual Property for those systems when they actually belong to a Venzuelan company tied to Hugo Chavez.

After you've asked her, you can come back here, do some searching and find out the facts, in opposition to what she'll tell you. K?

I've long since given up on engaging you, or those who appear rather rabid on this topic in any additional rational debate, since so many of you - particularly you, appear incapable of acknowledging that others have views different than your own....and that, believe it or not...that they have a right to such different views

You, and she, have every right to your own points of view. Even when they are paid for by my tax dollars. You don't, however, have the right to your own "facts". I've got the facts to back up every. single. word. I post on this site. If you have a dispute with any of them, I hope you'll let me know and present your independently verifiable evidence for my error. Where I am are wrong, I'm always happy to issue a correction (not secretly, as Michelle does on her site(s), but actually in a transparent way so all can see the error that I've made, and how and when I've corrected it.)

Beyond that, I disagree with MANY in the EI movement. Just as I disagree with many in the e-voting industry. Believe it or not, I'm happy to talk and work with each of them, no matter how much I may disagree. Michelle, on the other hand, has simply chosen not to do so. So if she won't speak up for herself, I guess she needs to find (under and mis-informed) friends and associates, such as yourself to do it for her.

You are doing her, nor yourself, any favors in the bargain. If you are who you say you are, then your misunderstanding of the issues at stake here will not reflect well on your position (as President of the association to whom, it is said, the Doug you claim to be, was recently elected).

I'm quite happy that I do NOT live in your world!

Yeah! I'm happy you're happy! It's often much more enjoyable to live with one's head in the ground, unaware of facts, anyway. So have fun there! And give my best to the Mad Hatter if you see him skitter by!

Now, as for the woman who is so dreadly fearful of Diebold ATM devices...perhaps she can take note that Michelle Shafer works for Sequoia, NOT Diebold.

Actually, Michelle works for Diebold as well. Though she rarely leaves her home in Austin, she works for once-CA, now-CO based Sequoia Voting Systems, as well as the Election Technology Council (ETC) on behalf of Diebold, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic and ES&S. She poorly represents all of them. And all on the tax-payers dime! Neato, huh?

Further, I might suggest to her that she scrap her personal computer and get off line entirely so she can avoid all the nasty risks associated with the use of the Internet.

What that commenter does, of course, is her choice. What folks like you and Michelle, however, do with MY tax-payer dollars, and MY right to a free, fair, verifiable, and transparent election, is another matter entirely. Someday, you'll understand that. At least I hope you'll feel free to stick around this site and educate yourself a bit, long enough to do so.

By the way 'Brad', my name is Doug, and I'm not all that hard to find. You might try it, since you evidently question my existence, and appear unable to make use of the tools that your blog site provides to you.

Michelle, and her friends, know well enough how to fake internet presences. If you'd like to touch base with me either by email or voice (I'm easy to find) in such a way so that I can authenticate you are who you say you are, I'll be happy to remove the quotations from around the word "Doug". I'd be delighted to chat w/ you privately any time. I suspect Michelle, however, would prefer you don't. I'll leave it to you to figure out why that might be.

As for Ms. Shafer's need to "answer to" anyone on anything, since you've never been elected to any position of responsibility, since you don't represent anyone beyond yourself..... I'm thankful that she need not answer to you. You're just another private citizen.

True. Though I don't make money from government welfare, as she does. Nonetheless, she needn't "answer to" me if she doesn't wish. But to insinuate that she's not welcome to offer her points of view here, even when/if I disagree with her, is absurd. I just thought I'd let you know that it's she who has chosen not to discuss such matters, not me. She tends to stick with those media who won't call her on it when she, um, doesn't tell the truth. I am always fair, however, and never looking to sandbag anybody.

Best Wishes!

And backatcha, "Doug"! Hope you'll stick around! May be useful to ya!

You folks really do live in a rather insular little world..... Have fun with your little blog, Brad, and best wishes with the panhandling for contributions! Yes, I do know Michelle. She's a friend. As for your little "group" here, I'm happy that you continue to be unable to arouse all that much furor, or that much interest among those elected officials who have invested in the new technologies.

Again...best wishes, and as I said once before, some years ago.... get help!

RIM Thought? RIM as defined by Urban Dictionary ...

http://www.urbandictiona....com/define.php?term=rim

Having brought a knife to a gunfight, Little "Doug" ran for cover with...

You folks really do live in a rather insular little world....

Ironic point, that.

Have fun with your little blog, Brad, and best wishes with the panhandling for contributions!

Thanks, "Doug"! Granted, I don't get free money from the government, like Michelle Shafer, for writing her "little blog". But then again, I also tell the truth on my little blog. I have to. People actually read it. But the truth, in today's currency, at least among "folks" like yourself apparently, and certainly among Sequoia, Michelle and friends, may not be worth as much lying for government dollars.

Yes, I do know Michelle. She's a friend.

You don't say.

As for your little "group" here, I'm happy that you continue to be unable to arouse all that much furor, or that much interest among those elected officials who have invested in the new technologies.

:-)

Yes. They don't notice "us" at all in "our" little corner of the world here. Nobody pays attention, so not a thing to worry about. Everything's going fine, and the "new technologies" have been rolled out smoothly and without a hitch. Just ask Michelle. Lawsuits, decertification, threats of government sanctions and near-bankruptcy aren't the droids you're looking for, amigo. Don't pay attention to that man behind Michelle's curtain. And congratulations on your remarkable intellectual curiosity. Ignorance, I hear, is bliss.

Again...best wishes, and as I said once before, some years ago.... get help!

Brilliant! You've cut me to the quick with yet another of your witty rejoinders. That'll learn me. Don't be a stranger, "Doug"! Good luck in your "real world"!

"Doug"

What a silly person... Way to set "him" straight, Brad.
I'm thinking that person's working for someone, as he/she obviously does not understand facts.
That's why I come here. Facts. And thanks for the response (or lact thereof) about the death of Mike Gibbons. I'm glad there is no story until you have a FACTUAL story. What are the known facts available about that? Like does anybody know when, where, how, why? I'm sure if there was anything questionable, we'd have seen it here, but I'm wondering about the basics.
Gibbons was an LSU guy, as am I, so I have election interest, and LSU Tigre interest...

"but perhaps those who are so anti-technology might understand that this over emotional drivel tends to put off the very public you would like to persuade."

I'm a Software Engineer. I have a BS in Computer Science. I'm a geek and borderline nerd (just using those two terms as distinctive should support that premise that I'm not "anti-technology").

BECAUSE I know how to program computers, because I know how to show one thing on a screen and do something _completely_ different under the covers, because I _know_ how easy it is to get away with if you are promised that NO ONE can look at the "code", source or machine, I understand the _dangers_ of these machines.

You, Doug, like most right-wing (or just wrong-headed) people I know, simply don't use "facts" to decide if someone is lying or not. Facts and reality don't matter, your own "view" is all that matters, you try to dictate that reality conform to your "view" in spite of facts. I've seen it over and over, broken logic and false premises and false dichotomies and trying to paint a 10 lb bag of shit as "valid" because there's 1 ounce of truth buried in that bag; somewhere.

So, based on your "view" that people against using "unverifiable, non-auditable, insecure electronic voting machines" must be "anti-technology" shows me that you don't apply logic and reason to your "view". I _love_ technology.. I just have a solid grasp of just what technology is (i.e. it's not some magic box to me, so I understand when it's good and bad and when it can be used to beat the public over the head, like with unverifiable election results from machines built by people who have an agenda that doesn't include verifiable elections).

Sorry, Doug. But that one statement shows you're not intersted in discussing the truth, you're interested in trying to convince people that your FLAWED view should be accepted by them, too. Not all of us are that simple, some of us think for ourselves.

Though, you're right.. the "public" we're trying to convince of just how dangerous your ilk are don't want to know about facts, they want to have the world handed to them in 30 second sound bytes. Life isn't that simple, but Americans are. Sadly.

Geez, I hate that when someone steps out of the "reality" our Government/media tries to create for us and actually questions the powers that be.

Edward Bernays would hate to think that there are some that would question his methodology and actually see through the bullshit.

Red or blue pill, your choice.

Amen, Flo, amen.

Looks like Michelle Shafer's imaginary electronic "friend" "Doug" vanished into the ethersphere. Maybe Michelle will invent a new name for another fabricated friend. Money can buy "friends" and she might pay for some more "friends."

Hopefully, Michelle will soon have an opportunity to use her infamous quote, in a courtroom, after her last name is changed to Defendant.

Wow, Michelle's imaginary friend, huh? For a guy who responded to a posting of mine a few years ago by tracking back to my actual name, you really do have a creative version of reality Brad.

Brad, thank you so much for referring to me and to others who have served as election volunteers as patriots! I appreciate it and am happy that you recognize me as the patriot that I am. I've worked and volunteered at local polling stations, central count stations and have worked with a wide variety of technologies. Those have included the old lever machines (yep, those pre-date Michelle), the punch card systems that your "ilk" saw as the great villan of the 2000 election, and optical scan systems. As IS the case with the variety of electronic systems - each one had its strengths and weaknesses. Each one could be subject to some form of cheating at the polls. That cheating never appeared to be confined to one particular political party, either - I know, a big shock for you, huh?

As for reality, well... I'm firmly entrenched in the reality of the private sector. That means that my blog doesn't include any "begging for bucks" to support it. In fact, it doesn't really focus on election technology at all.

Y'all really entertained me during some of my vacation days...The absolute tizzy that you and a few others went into was quite telling. The reckless manner with which you accuse honorable patriots like Michelle of perpetrating fraud, of lying, etc. is even more telling. As any casual reader of this wasted space on the Internet may note, I never had to stoop to such a low level. However, I do understand that those who can't win a rational argument somehow must resort to such tactics.

Best wishes with your "alternate reality".... In the interim, I'll go back to working in the private sector - you know, those folks who get real productive work done, and who create the jobs that give the rest of you the tools you choose to use as a forum for protest.

Perhaps one day, you'll find some productive pursuit in which you can engage. I'd love to see you "on the air", since I have little doubt that such an effort would prove to be a commercial flop. Keep begging for bucks in the interim, though.... and if your efforts don't succeed here, I'm sure that there's a street corner somewhere that will enable you to ply your trade further!

Now, feel free to ban me, or to accuse me of whatever your under-used mental capacity might help you to create!!!

Doug Allen

The sad thing about blogs like this is that there is no way that someone like Ms. Shafer or Mr. Allen can disprove a negative.

Troofers are all over the place. Just look at the folks who believe that the World Trade Center towers collapsed due to a government conspiracy or that JFK was shot by dozens of individuals in Dealey Plaza rather than a lone nut.

Troofers believe what they want to believe. Years ago they would be walking the streets wearing aluminum hats and mumbling to themselves. Now they sit inside. Their mumblings transferred to a blog where they attract others like themselves.

Tin Foil Hat Optional . . .
~

Silly "Doug" said...

Wow, Michelle's imaginary friend, huh? For a guy who responded to a posting of mine a few years ago by tracking back to my actual name, you really do have a creative version of reality Brad.

If you pay attention to the name at the top of the comment, it will inform you who wrote the comment, "Doug". Unlike Sequoia's voting systems, for example, it should be pretty clear.

Brad, thank you so much for referring to me and to others who have served as election volunteers as patriots! I appreciate it and am happy that you recognize me as the patriot that I am.

Indeed. Thank you for that. It's a shame your love for democracy stops after you leave the polling place. In any case, I do appreciate your efforts there, so thanks for serving!

Those have included the old lever machines (yep, those pre-date Michelle), the punch card systems that your "ilk" saw as the great villan of the 2000 election, and optical scan systems.

Is that what my "ilk" thought? I guess my ilk forgot to inform me. There was no problem with the punchcards, just with the people who didn't want to count them. Oh, and the punchcards that 7 Sequoia employees have now testified, on camera, to having beeng gamed (bad paper, rejected over and over again until someone forced them to use it), but only in FL and especially in Palm Beach (where they were instructed to misalign the chads). Here's the video report if you're interested, and if Michelle forgot to point you to it (see Part 3).

The other problem in 2000, of course, was the optical scan system that reported NEGATIVE 16,022 votes for Al Gore in Volusia County. But I'm sure you and Michelle have a good explanation for that as well, even though nobody else does.

As IS the case with the variety of electronic systems - each one had its strengths and weaknesses. Each one could be subject to some form of cheating at the polls.

True. Especially Sequoia's! Have you asked Michelle about that Big Yellow Button on the back of each touch screen that allows any voter to vote as many times as they'd like, until being physically restrained from doing so?

That cheating never appeared to be confined to one particular political party, either - I know, a big shock for you, huh?

Not really. But thanks for reminding us all how little you've actually read at this blog. You underinformation is showing again, "Doug".

As for reality, well... I'm firmly entrenched in the reality of the private sector. That means that my blog doesn't include any "begging for bucks" to support it.

Thanks for the reminder! Please feel free to leave a donation in "dishonor" of "Doug" here. And thanks again, "Doug"!

In fact, it doesn't really focus on election technology at all.

Really?! Knock me over with a feather! You seem so well informed on the topic!

The reckless manner with which you accuse honorable patriots like Michelle of perpetrating fraud, of lying, etc. is even more telling.

Nothing reckless about it at all, champ. If you have evidence to demonstrate that anything I've ever written about her (or anything else for that matter) is untrue or inaccurate, I'm sure you'll share it with us. As I already requested same, and you've been unable to offer anything, I guess that speaks for itself.

As any casual reader of this wasted space on the Internet may note, I never had to stoop to such a low level. However, I do understand that those who can't win a rational argument somehow must resort to such tactics.

:-)

You may wanna go back and read some of your comments sometime here, boss. Methinks they speak for themselves

Best wishes with your "alternate reality".... In the interim, I'll go back to working in the private sector - you know, those folks who get real productive work done, and who create the jobs that give the rest of you the tools you choose to use as a forum for protest.

Not sure when The BRAD BLOG became not a part of the private sector, but whatever. If Michelle decides to get off the government dole and work for an honest living at some point, I hope you'll show pity on her and give her a job. I know I would.

Perhaps one day, you'll find some productive pursuit in which you can engage. I'd love to see you "on the air", since I have little doubt that such an effort would prove to be a commercial flop.

No doubt!

Keep begging for bucks in the interim, though.... and if your efforts don't succeed here, I'm sure that there's a street corner somewhere that will enable you to ply your trade further!

Oh, snap. You sure showed me again! But thanks again for that reminder: "Doug" Dishonor Fund Donations Here.

Now, feel free to ban me, or to accuse me of whatever your under-used mental capacity might help you to create!!!

Who was it that was talking about ad-hominem attacks early? Sigh. Seriously, if Sequoia can ever get off the brink of bankruptcy, you'd be perfect to write for them!

Aside from that, we don't ban folks for either disagreeing or attacking me. So I look forward to seeing you soon. You're "work" here will make it much easier for me to continue real work on behalf of our nation. You're welcome.

Brad, shouldn't you really be focused on all the "new scandals" that you can create? Am I distracting you from your mission? Shocking! How can you allow yourself to be drawn off course by some private citizen? Good luck with that great work you say you're doing on "behalf of the nation"..... I needed a good laugh this morning!

You only get banned here for disagreeing with the moderator...

"Doug"

I speculated about your identity and that you might be one of Michelle's imaginary friends, in a previous post. If you bothered to read my post you might have realized I live in Colorado, while Brad lives in California.

If this blog is as inconsequential and uninfluential as you claim it is, why do you waste your valuable time here?

How many radio and television interviews have you been invited to appear on?

Hey Brad,

I just came across this site by accident. I don't care much one way or the other about electronic voting systems, but I do feel pretty strongly that NO voting system, paper or electronic, will ever be 100 percent fool-proof as long as human beings are involved in the process. Overall, e-voting systems have a very strong track record, whether you like them or not. And as for the big indictments you mention at the beginning of your post. Come on, Clay County, Kentucky? Population under 25k as of the last census? One of the poorest counties in the entire United States? The big surprise here would have to be that these hillbillies had the scratch to pay for the machines. Seriously, one of the yokels actually has "Cletus" for a middle name But you claim this pumpkin-head "cabal" used the electronic voting system to tilt the elections their way. I'm no lawyer, but I have read the actual indictment and I don't think that's what it says at all. Based on my understanding, the accused could just as easily have perpetrated their fraud with any kind of system (including paper, punchcard or optical scan. If people are determined to cheat, they'll find a way to do it (back to my point about human involvement negating any opportunity for perfection). Anyway, I make no claim to be an expert on any of these issues, I just don't think this Appalachian scandal strengthens your case against electronic voting or your personal attacks against Michelle Shafer.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that about a decade ago I knew and worked with both Michelle and "Doug." If nothing else, I can verify that "Doug" is not Michelle. I was in the same room with both of them on many occasions. Also, Doug often sports a mustache; Michelle, as far as I know, does not. But most importantly, I think your malicious attacks on Michelle are slanderous, inaccurate and way out of line. And all they do is make you sound like the bitter, unbalanced nutjob you may actually be. By all means, keep fighting the righteous fight against the horrors of electronic voting, but why not discontinue the personal attacks? They do nothing to further your cause.

Anyway, in closing, let me say that I've not spoken with Michelle or Doug in at least six or seven years, so I'm not part of any conspiracy. Plus, Michelle doesn't need anyone to defend her; if you'd actually ever met her, you'd learn that pretty quickly. Anyway, again, I could care less about voting issues (Bahhh), so please don't bother trying to argue them with me; it would be a waste of time for both of us. I just want to encourage you to lay off of personal smears. And maybe take a fundamentals of writing class. Peace- Robert Elrod