We need to rally support for Divestiture for Democracy.

Brad, we're so proud of you for the contribution you're making to restoring democracy in our beloved land. This is the proverbial foot in the door. Keep up the good work - lots of fine people are behind you all the way!

Thanks again Brad for all you do. I have a question for you or anyone else out there who may know. What about fraud in the Senate races? I believe Bowles actually won in NC & Castor won in FL. There is probably a few other senate races that could be mentioned too. Has there been any work done exposing fraud in the senate races?

Hey, this is my home stomping ground! This is where I live! I can't believe we made some progress. Although my voting stationd didn't use the machines, they were talking about investing in them instead of the paper ballots that we use here. I'm so glad it was over ruled and that we are not going to be moving to the touch screen. One step in the right direction.

That is Good news ... a step in the proper direction for a change.

You really need to get some perspective. Adding paper to the machines are not going to solve your problems, look no further than Venezuela. Claims of fraud ran rampant, yet there were paper backups to the ballot. Also look at the problems documented at Electionline.org with regard to VVPAT machines there. Paperless electronic voting machines exhibit no more problems than any other voting system and if you were to do research, you will find this out yourself. The only way to solve problems with any voting system is put it through the ringer before they are deployed and make sure the poll workers are able to use the machine as well as transparent procedures on handling the equipment. Don't let your fear cloud your judgment because your argument for paper receipts for security is based on a serious flaw, but you don't see it.
http://www.papertrailmyth.com

Chris,

You are right. Paper RECEIPTS are not an improvement, paper BALLOTS are though.

Don

Chris - I have put forth the same arguement. I believe that the only way to prevent fraud at the polls is to have accountability. Paper or plastic, computers or not - without accountability and strict adherence by honest people to the votes that are cast then any election can run amuck as we have seen. I don't think that having a paper ballot is the answer to our problems. I think the answer to the problem is to have proceedures intact that keep people honest. A balance of power if you will. I have put that forth in other threads. However, I am unsure of how to exactly make sure that the polls are kept honest. I would love to hear any answers you may have to suggest. But getting rid of a system that we KNOW is faulty is a start.

What's wrong with requiring paper ballots filled in with ink and hand counted? Is it the cost? It seems like that would be transparent thorughout the initial vote count and any recounts.

comment deleted at the request of the poster

comment deleted at the request of the poster

Great comments.
Here is why paper is a step backward.

In Toledo a box of ballots was never counted because it was buried in a storeroom. In Oregon, a box of absentee ballots was just located. In North Carolina a box of ballots was mistakenly tossed after being left in a Fire House-gone. How is this any better than what you are fighting? Plus, it is much harder to lose a machine than a box of paper (receipts or ballots).

Again look at Venezuela; it had your perfect scenario, a paper ballot made from a machine. Did that stop the opposition from complaining fraud and saying things are broken. It was the procedures that caused this.

Why is it that Mega Millions lottery has the primary record as the computer record? If you bring in a receipt that has the right numbers but the serial number does not match the computer, you can't win the prize. This is because everyone knows that anything paper can be faked.

I can't speak for every state and every county, but here in Ohio county boards of elections are balanced politically. With regards to the State level positions, in the State of Ohio SOSs from both sides have been chairs of Presidential Campaigns, recently Blackwell, before Brown (Mondale). I think any SOS should do their best not to partake in partisan politics, so any reform on this aspect may be well received. I don't think that the system is faulty; it could be refined and made better.

If you focus on making fair procedures, test and guarantee the election systems, and making sure the poll workers are trained you will have a good election.

http://www.papertrailmyth.com

Chris Myers - I declare you to be a professional troll. Meaning, you are here to spread disinformation that works AGAINST vote reform.

Look at the site Chris has pasted at the ends of his posts and click around, READ some of what is there. It's his own site.

The message of the site can be succinctly said "paper verification and paper ballots are BAD". The first link I clicked on was the little black circle that says "Black Box Sites" and there you can read about how Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org is a "chicken little" for saying that the 2004 election would be a "train wreck". Apparently Chirs Myers wants you to believe that the 2004 election was smooth, electronic voting is great, and that paper ballots or paper verification will make things worse. Bev Harris and BBV.org recently demonstrated that Diebold central vote tabulators could have been easily hacked in the election without a trace, by a small number of people...if anyone simply tried. Did people try? We don't know, because there is no useful record of the voting process.

Election fraud happens. Sooo Chris, do you really expect us to be worried about paper ballot boxes that disappear, when millions of votes can be remotely switched without traces, by only a few hackers?

Georgia gets an A+? (I believe Georgia has 100% electronic voting).

The site generally ridicules people who want paper.

Chris - I call you on your bullshit.
People, go check out that site and tell me if the needle on your BS meter doesn't go straight past the red and break off.

At Chris's site, www.papertrailmyth.com, you can click on "Why create this site" and read some very well thought out bullshit:

"Hello, my name is Chris Myers and I am frustrated by the lack of common sense in the debate on electronic voting machines. There are only a few people in cyberspace providing a counter point to, in my opinion, the other misleading sites that take circumstantial evidence and spin it into elaborate webs. They do this at the same time ignoring the inherent problems paper brings to the equation."

"I created this site to combat the misconceptions of electronic voting machines, in order to provide you a way to understand the current state of electronic voting machines, as well as provide a counter point the state created by a few zealots to cast unwarranted doubt on elections and our machines."

"I have and will actively campaign against a paper trail requirements, because it will not make everything better. True security needs to focus on the root of the problem, not symptoms of it."

Your BS smells from 1000 miles away. I feel inspired to do more activism. Thanks Chris. We consider it a sign of progress to attract professionals like you. Do you work for Diebold? or the RNLA?

...Bejammin075- Comment #13-

I went to Myers website and COMPLETELY AGREE with you. More disinformation in the guise of Voting Reform. These people are insidious, pervasive and scary in their attempts to derail real reform.

Mr. Myers, please take your BS elsewhere, it's not going to get anywhere here.

Great work, Bejammin075 #14 - The Republicans believe all Americans are all stupid! Can't wait for them to get exactly what they deserve (and I don't think it's going to be very nice).

I mean, of course, what the dishonest Republicans deserve won't be very nice.

More on Myers-

As one source of support for his thesis that electronic voting without papertrails are adequate, he cites an article by a Ted Selker published 11/17/04, "The Real Problem with Voting". Selker describes himself as the "co-director of the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project (VTP)". In that article, published just days after the election and well before any detailed analysis of election and polling site data had been done, Selker states: "Now, people are concerned about the 2004 election; to help, we released a report showing that exit polls did not in fact predict that John Kerry would fare better than he actually did in Ohio polling stations that used electronic voting machines." This apparently on-the-spot "analysis" is COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED by the US Count Votes report "Analysis of 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies" published last week and cited by Brad here on 4/2/05. Data from that report that reflect the final demographically weighted exit poll data available BEFORE THESE DATA WERE "ADJUSTED" TO CONFORM TO THE REPORTED ELECTION RESULTS, show Kerry won in the Ohio Exit Poll 52.1%(K) to 47.9%(B)while "losing" the "actual" vote 49%(K) to 51%(B). When the Exit Poll data was suddenly, and without explanation, "adjusted" to conform to the "actual" vote, late in the evening (as seen on CNN), Bush had 50.9% in the Exit Poll to Kerry's 48.6%, only then matching the "actual" vote. Other data in the US Count Vote Report indicate that the only actual votes that matched the demographically weighted but unadjusted polling data were those tabulated non-electronically.
Perhaps the Caltech/MIT guy tuned into CNN after the "adjustment".

Ben and everyone,

I do not understand why you cannot accept that someone can look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion. I think you are all worked up because someone other than the industry is speaking up, and well America deserves to hear both sides of the issue. This may be a reason you don't like Ted Selker either. He also has no conflict of interest, unlike Mr. Rubin who does.

In addition, unlike other sites, I allow you to make a judgment and put my comments clearly in the article. Other sites put their comments in the story so the average person cannot distinguish what is opinion versus what really went on. In addition, unlike other sites, I fully support and maintain the site myself and I do not solicit funds nor do I want any because there are some other sites out there that do, and I believe it is a conflict of interest. You will also note that I do link to pro vvpat sites as well as sites that advocate against it. I dare the pro vvpat to link to my site, because I believe if they truly believe their position is superior they would not be afraid. BTW no I do not work for any election company or org, I work for UM.

In addition, yes paper is not any better than what you propose, this is why I started the site. I also am becoming more active because there are lots of half-truths and misinformation out there and the other side needs to be heard; it is healthy for democracy.

I refuse to let Ohio and America to take as step back in voting reform.

Ciao,
http://www.papertrailmyth.com

Chris - An auditable paper trail is only common sense (amongst all the other overwhelming evidence supporting it). In my opinion, I find your conclusion and opinion to be quite silly - and highly suspect. You are free to try and sell your "ideas", but you won't have any "buyers" from people who want honest, fair, free and accurate election vote counting.

Chris -

How much are you being paid by whomever for exposing yourself as a witless wanabee? Thanks to your mindless shenanigans, your name will forever be associated with FRAUD>.

Chris, oh how you deceive. Paper trail + open source code/open inspection + votes transparently reviewable from beginning to end - hidden central tabulator = a fair election.

Nobody here said that having a paper trail was the only way votes can be verified. A paper trail is one part of the process, paper ballot or computer.
Nevada has a paper trail, but the state officials there won't count them. So you're right. Even with paper trail, votes can still be "hacked". That's why all of us here also agree on open inspection of the votes by all parties, machine or paper. That plus paper trail, and we will all have confidence in our voting again.

Hi guys! I'm back from a vacation and interested in all that's going on.

Chris Myers is very active in Republican politics - see this website Elect Myers State Representative

I think it's amazing that people continue to argue with FACTS. Please, everyone, if you want to see in black and white what happened (and minute by minute) during the 2000 *s*election, read chapter 13 of Bev Harris' book.

This is all documented material and the only way people can argue with it is to either choose to reject documented facts (as in the days of Gallileo) because they can't understand FACTS or they choose to reject documented FACTS because they want to push their own agenda which is out of line with the FACTS.

Actually, reading Bev Harris' book cover to cover is very important, because she gathered hard information regarding all aspects of voting fraud (sometimes called "voting irregularities) and made sure to document her findings.

Black Box Voting Chapter 13 pdf.

And more has come to light regarding the 2004 *s*election.

I ask Chris Myers to read Bev Harris' book (and try to separate himself from politics while reading) and also to look at the graph posted on the front page of Bradblog which shows the lowest incidence of disparity between exit poll data and recorded votes was for paper ballots. The difference is astounding. These figures don't lie.

Re: Chris Myers, #6, #12, #19---

The paper ballot (not paper trail, there is a huge disadvantage in susceptibility of fraud!) is the most reliable voting method worldwide and with the fewest opportunities for fraud. The overwhelming evidence of years upon years of voting using various methods and intensive scientific studies have left the paper ballot reliability argument uncontestable. And yes, it is much cheaper on paper as well!

To refute the paper ballot yet again is such a foolish act... Do your homework Chris Myers, as we don't have the time to educate you on facts available to anyone and everyone for over 100 years now.

I'm sorry that you have foolishly wasted so much of your time, effort and money on your website. Life's lessons come hard sometimes.

Kira, #23--

Once again your sluething skills in the quest for the truth defines you! You rock!

Dear Kira -

Welcome back, sane sister.

At Chris Myers’ site, there is a section called Separating Myths from Reality, which was pasted in from the Election Technology Council (ETC) website. ETC is a collection of electronic voting machine companies, such as Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and Unilect. Let’s check out these myths, shall we?

“Myth 1 Internet hackers could break into DRE systems and tamper with results. Fact Untrue. DRE systems do not operate on the Internet and so cannot be accessed by hackers or anyone else on the Internet.”

Wrong.
In mid-February, Black Box Voting, together with computer experts and videographers, under the supervision of appropriate officials, proved that a real Diebold system can be hacked. This was not theoretical or a "potential" vulnerability. Votes were hacked on a real system in a real location using the actual setup used on Election Day, Nov. 2, 2004.

”Myth 2 An employee at a DRE manufacturer could place a bug in voting machines to change votes and steal elections. Fact Untrue. DRE software passes through extensive quality and security checks before it leaves the manufacturer’s premises. Voting machines then go through rigorous testing by independent test labs. Then, the state and local election officials conduct their own tests prior to use to ensure the accuracy of the systems.”

Wrong.
When people in the public actually get to see the secret Diebold software, it is riddled with numerous severe security flaws. I guess somebody is asleep at Quality Control at Diebold. Independent testing labs like Ciber? It turns out that those testing reports are also secret, but when the public gets those, the testing wasn’t done and elections officials sign off on it anyway. Look at the documents yourself. Ciber gets paid by Diebold rather than the boards of elections, and Ciber contributes almost exclisively to the Republican party, just like most of these “independent” testing labs and the companies that pay them. State and local elections officials don’t have a clue how these things work, so obviously they can’t do any meaningful tests for themselves.

”Myth 3 Voting machines could be reprogrammed after all inspections are complete. Fact Accomplishing such a task would require significant motive, technical ability, and opportunity. An infiltrator would have to gain access to a local election official’s secure storage location, open and then reprogram hundreds of individual machines – all without anyone noticing. Despite being an ineffective way of rigging an election, this is a highly unlikely scenario. A criminal who could carry out such an extensive manipulation of these machines could also similarly manipulate any other voting system.”

Wrong again.
It’s already been done. Diebold did it in Georgia. After the certification process, Diebold put patches on the software and people voted on machines.

”Myth 4 DRE machines do not allow for recounts in close elections. Fact In the event a recount is necessary, electronic voting machines provide the most accurate and verifiable measure of voter intent of any system currently employed in U.S. elections. DRE systems have multiple redundant features to capture and store votes accurately. For example, in a recount, electronic voting machines allow election officials to print a paper image of each voter-verified screen for manual tabulation. Conversely, traditional lever machines only offer an unverifiable total number of votes cast for each candidate. The paper ballot method is open to varied interpretations of voter intent and other problems such as ballot box stuffing and under and over counts. And we are all too familiar with the problems of punch card systems that clouded the 2000 Presidential election results.”

Wrong.
If the vote was hacked and leaves no trail (see debunked myth#1 above), then a recount counts it exactly the same way again, giving you the same flawed result.

”Myth 5 Paper receipts from DREs are the only way to assure voters that votes have been accurately recorded. Fact Current proposals for voter verified paper receipts do not provide voters with an actual receipt at all. Voter verified paper receipts refer to a paper trail that would remain in voting machines or at the election site and would be used by election officials for recount purposes. Ballots with numerous candidates and ballot initiatives can generate paper receipts several feet in length, delaying, confusing and frustrating the typical voter. Local election officials would have to set up substantial additional security elements to safeguard both the electronic voting machines and the paper receipts to ensure there were no discrepancies. The historical record of election tampering clearly documents the fallibility of paper systems.”

Wrong.
There are intelligent ways to have a paper ballot or receipt. Obviously the “myth” above is portraying one of the most cumbersome paper receipt methods and then criticizing it. The receipt doesn’t need to be several feet long, for instance. That’s ridiculous!

”Myth 6 Only open source software can be trusted in developing voting systems; proprietary solutions suggest that vendors have something to hide. Fact Forcing voting system vendors to use open source software would dilute not enhance security by permitting close scrutiny of code by bad actors. Both proprietary software and open source software have security flaws. What is critical is that the software , no matter how it is developed, and the system in which the software is used is examined and tested by independent third party experts and by state and local election officials.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Answer this: Why does Diebold insist on using secret software for voting, with no verifiable ballot/receipt, yet when they make ATMs, they promote open source software ??? Hmmmmm?? If open source is tried and true for ATMs, why not voting?

”Myth 7 Election officials do not like DREs. Fact Local election officials—the ones whose necks are on the line for the accuracy of voting results—are the strongest supporters of DREs. They know the flaws of the older voting systems compared to the strengths of DREs better than anyone. While a few state officials are vocal opponents, they are a small minority.”

Wrong! That’s because they believe the lies by Diebold. When everyone knows the truth, they will be a vocal majority!

God! The fraud is so transparent it's almost an a priori. Who could possibly be "honestly" fooled?

Bejammin075 #26 - Wow! Great. Thanks for taking time to list FACTS in answer to the MYTHS. You nailed them!

Torqued #28 - It will be interesting to see if Ritter's prediction comes true. I don't doubt it. bu$h screamed denial. And he will probably move in a different month so he doesn't have to share publicity with Ritter.

Re: Peg C, #27---

Anyone with an IQ under 80 and/or...
The uninformed public AND the Fascist Republican Party Occupiers so prevalent in the Executive and Legislative branches of our government.

All of their precariously perched dominos are simultaneously being exposed of late, so when can we expect the next "Pearl Harbor-like" event? t-minus 52 days and counting...?

Hey Y’all! I love all of you and missed you while I was away.

Thank you Torqued! I like to "rock!" Bradblog folks ROCK!

And thank you Peg C.! I am usually thoughtful and considerate, but sometimes I just can’t stand it and I scream & yell. I still believe in free speech and will use it. Maybe it’s because I believe in these words “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground.” - Frederick Douglass

Didn’t most of us, at one time or another, get called in front of the “family council” where we had to own up to our mistakes and possibly, our lies? What has happened to this “checks & balances” system here in our great country? As individual families, we try to keep each other on the path of integrity and truth. Why is this falling apart when we become a group under the broad name of “Americans” and why is it most apparent under the most disingenuous “president” we’ve ever had? What will bring us back to being a functional “family” a group of people who really (for the most part) have the same goals in life?

Without an unbiased MEDIA, we are lost. There will be no one to keep us honest. The Media is our country’s “Family Council.”

The most important issue right now is how to keep our Mainstream Media journalists safe from threats. Every day more is coming out about the very real danger in reporting things that aren’t favorable to this bu$h regime. Our Media must be free to report the honest to God truth – like it or not. Most families gather as council to one another in order to help each other – and the honest to God truth is expected, demanded and rewarded with respect.

Our journalists and media must be protected and allowed to speak & report freely. People must be allowed to hear both sides of current issues at hand. To hear only one side of an issue is wrong. We must hear the whole story so we can make our own decisions based on the unbiased truth.

One of my favorite quotes for the times:

No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, none ever will.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Washington, September 9, 1792
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Is it just heavy traffic today or something else that is causing the "Chris Myers for Representative" site (as linked in my post #23) to not load in? ?????

To my #31 - Must be heavy traffic - I was able to finally link through to Myers' site.

Yes, I did post the myths on the site, as well as linking to Bev Harris' site. I believe people can determine the truth if they are provided both sides, too bad this is not done on the sites that act like they present both sides. Most of these so called "Voter Reform" sites are nothing more than a few individuals dressing themselves in non-partisan mantra, but in reality are very partisan and fail to provide what is really going on.

Yep, you have found my race for State Rep, where I have been saying what was on my papertrailmyth.com Web site for about a year now. I have nothing to hide. You will not find PO boxes at my address, but you will find my house.

You know, I always hear there is overwhelming evidence, but you do not produce it. There is the same stuff posted on many different sites, but that does not make it correct. There are allegations but nothing proven. All that I see is this could happen, and that could happen, yet how can this be good discussion? This could happen and that could happen with paper ballots too, but you fail to realize this. Security is in the process, not the system.

What I have seen is certain groups taking circumstantial evidence and spinning it into elaborate webs of conspiracy. But, if you take the time (I did) and search newspaper archives you will find problems with every voting system. Anyone can allege something, and anything could happen. A jet could crash down upon my house, but does this mean it will happen?

I believe that before you say I need to educate myself, you ought to say the same thing to yourself. BTW - I did read Bev Harris book and I was unimpressed with it. You always cite Hitler/Fascists in your posts, but if you look what Hitler did, he took circumstantial evidence and did very bad things. This is the exact thing you are doing and Bev Harris does-talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

http://www.papertrailmyth.com

While Pennsylvania did the right thing and decertified Unilect, North Carolina is still using the machines.

I sent an email to the General Counself for the NC BOE Friday asking if our Unilect machines would be "re-examined" and or decertified.

No answer at this time.

North Carolina's State Board of Elections and it's Governor are shamelessly trying to ignore this issue and continue on with paperless voting.

The Chief Election official of our state, Gary Bartlett, would like to put video cameras in the polling booths.

Ted Selker testified to our state legislature's committee about a device that could record the votes on audio or some other gizmo, he is working on this with Hart Intercivic.

They will do anything they can to keep us from being able to audit our elections.

Election officials misrepresent the facts, stating that using DREs saves money, that paper ballots waste money.

Guess what? DREs cost way more to operate than paper ballot optical scan.

Votes are lost on these machines all of the time.

We also had a 10% undervote rate in Burke County in NC on the Unilect machines. Blamed on the voters, etc.

The people who run our state seem to benefit from this system. We have Republican US Senators and Congressmen, and we have a Democrat Governor, and majority democrats in the state house/senate.

So, everyone is happy.

We should be asking our government officials in locations with Unilect:

How are our Unilect machines different than the ones that were decertified in PA?

My wife's Ford Taurus has a history of cracked cylinder heads and other cooling and transmission problems. Wow, I need to start using a horse because I cannot trust a car anymore. I will not buy this particular model again, nor would I recommend it.

I am quite aware of the Unilect machines, but they will probably be the best system to use in NC and Penn in the next election because everyone would have done what they should have done before, that is understand the limits of the system and communicate.

Oh, and of course the NC paper ballots thrown away and never counted do not matter to you, I understand.

Oh yeah, and paper ballots are lost/damaged all the time too, but this does not matter to you either because it does not support your point, I understand.

Your paper, no matter if damaged, missing, or fraudulent will make you feel everything is better, I understand.

Where is your proof DREs are more expensive? I could say the same about optical scan. Lucas County Ohio spent a record amount using optical scan, but of course this does not matter either to you either, I understand.

Chris The Troll -LOL
http://www.papertrailmyth.com

Chris, first of all, comparing horses with paper ballots is apples and oranges. Secondly, you still fail to mention if you support open inspection of these machines. I'm not against voting machines, I'm against the way they're done in secret. Explain to me how fraud can occur if the source code and the voting process were openly reviewable. Mind you, the votes can only be tampered with electronically if it is connected to a central tabulator wired to a network system. No network connections, no hacking, less chances of fraud. If the votes were openly reviewable during the time of the votes by all parties, even less chances of fraud. Add on a paper trail for backup, and audit them randomly, and chances of fraud go even lower.

I think citizens have a right to have confidence in their votes.

Horkus -

I don't think you can reason for accountability with someone who wants to deny that accountablility is necessary. Someone who, in fact, insists that accountability is beside the point because everyone knows that computers are honest.

OF COURSE those poor little helpless, programmable machines are honest! But are their programmers? The answer to THAT question is majorly doubtful. Let alone the honesty of their hackers.

PLEASE, Chris. You're trying to disprove a bank heist by asserting that the tellers were above reproach. Maybe they were. But the back-door thieves were not. The guys who fiddled with the accounting.

Chris Myers, lacking basic intellect and any desire whatsoever to embrace the facts, perhaps you should consider another line of work. You are quite simply unfit to serve the public in any capacity. Start with an IQ test perhaps. A battery of aptitude tests may help you as well.

Chris, posters here have pointed to evidence, but instead of responding in kind with a substantive rebuttal, you have given half baked ill formed analogies. We can only surmise that it is because you are unable to provide something more solid.

Perhaps you are unaware that in the larger world of software, open source is winning, largely due to the Linux operating system, causing even companies like Sun and Microsoft to begin opening their source.
The reason is straightforward: open source allows the peer review process, so essential to science, to be applied to software. The more eyes review the code, the more bugs and other problems will be found. (all software, save the most trivial, has bugs) That's just common sense.

It's also important to note that while for the vast majority of applications, vendors have nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by creating insecure software, with voting systems that is not the case. There is an obvious motivation to create insecure systems - partisan gain, and that's why it is quite unacceptable for voting system vendors to say "just trust us". We shouldn't. We don't. We can't. We won't.

"There are allegations but nothing proven." That's just a flat out lie, Chris. Computer scientists most certainly have proven Diebold machines to be easily hackable.

To continue Peg C's banking analogy: unverifiable, closed voting systems are like a bank which keeps accounts secret, refusing to show records of deposit and withdrawal, and instead simply announcing to account holders what their balances are. Something tells me such a bank would not stay in business for very long.

Yes, Chris, Hitler did some very bad things, like torturing innocent people and committing the "supreme international crime", war of aggression, two things the United States has now also done.

The posters here don't seem "all worked up" to me, but if so, perhaps it is because we don't believe that you are being sincere. But far more importantly, it is because we believe that our democracy has been stolen through fraudulent elections.

Chris Myers,
Nobody here thinks paper ballots or paper backup are a magical solution that will prevent all voting fraud. Of course paper ballot boxes get stuffed or disappear. I think it is safe to say that ALL voting methods/technologies are vulnerable. The problem we have is that the SCALE of potential fraud is much greater with electronic voting. The effort it would take to stuff 1 ballot box can now be multiplied many many times. Instead of stuffing 1 box, how about "stuffing" the central vote tabulator for a county with hundreds of thousands of voters?

Would you contend that the scale of fraud could actually be greater with old fashioned paper than electronic voting/tabulation?

Your point of view comes straight from the Diebold talking points. Because of Diebold's lack of security and ineptitude, the public got ahold of Diebold software, examined it, and found it had astounding flaws, yet the top people at Diebold will tout it as extremely secure and free of all bugs. Do you acknowledge that that is a credibility gap? How can the Diebold talking points that you repeat have any credibility when Diebold is caught in a lie about the security of their system? Do you think, perhaps, that Diebold, knowing that their system sucks, yet wanting to sell more systems, might perhaps just say whatever they need to say to sell their machines? It's just like the CEOs of the tobacco industry testifying that nicotine isn't addictive. They say what they have to say to sell their product.

Horkus #37 - The comparison is the same, in Ohio the systems were analyzed by independent companies, and the software is in escrow, so if anything did go wrong it can be evidence. What else is needed? There is no reason to make the software open to the public. The irony of the whole situation is that if you open everything up, that will not stop people from alleging fraud. You are no better. You are assuming that there is no confidence, well a University of Georgia poll found that 90% of respondents said they believe their vote was accurately counted. These are on paperless voting systems, so sorry it seems like the 6% must be congregating on this Web site. Anything could happen, but that does not mean everything will happen.

I believe you need to get a dose of reality. You are all worked up on what could happen, and guess what with all of possibilities that could happen no system could ever match it.

Mr. Baker, you say a computer scientist proved they could be "hackable". Mr. Rubin admitted that the company that paid him was trying to sell software to Diebold. You probably never heard this, because this would severely undermine a large part of your argument. Talk about a conflict of interest, that "hackable" study can be tossed out the window because it cannot be trusted. Just one company trying to benefit off another company by alleging problems and you bought it. Read it here. Also, you say voting systems don't have an interest in developing a secure system, I wonder if Unilect would say this. They are going to be severely hurt because their systems did not do what they told the BOEs do. It is in their best interest to develop machines that are reliable, because if they do not, no one will buy them.

The banking analogy is a good one because the electronic voting machines work like the ATMs, there are records of the transactions all sent to the main branch and anyone can look at them. This is a poor comparison if you ask me.

Ben, I am glad you agree ballot stuffing does occur, so why walk down a route to make this more possible? I do not contend that computer voting fraud would be more widespread. The systems are too decentralized to prevent this from happening. I think the machines are not the problem; it is the lack of training and education of these machines that are causing the problems right now. There are many third world countries that have allegations of 180000 stuffed ballots.

I don't have any talking points, just conclusions based upon what really is happening.

Chris, stop with the mistruths. Exit polls in precincts that used computer scanning and touch screen did not match the final count. That's a FACT. Not an opinion, FACT. And please, enlighten me on the FACTS with the "independent companies" that reviewed the machines in Ohio and what the process was. It's one thing to allege fraud where there were no discrepancies, it's another thing when the exit polling doesn't match the final count. I'm sorry, but your arguement doesn't impress me.

Opening up the source code is not the same as opening up the machines to the public. Your arguements are lies. No one is saying any idiot should be able to access the machines anytime they want. What we are saying is there should processes that should be transparent to the public, considering that voting is something done publicly. Your arguements are nothing more than mistruths that shift the debate.

Polls that indicate ill informed people who are confident about the current voting process doesn't sway the arguement in your favor either.
Here's a good site that summarizes the voting machine industry for those who don't know.

We're not the ones getting worked up. You are. If this is a tin foil site that doesn't bear any truth, then I suggest you stop wasting your time and energy here. Denial is the first impulse when you learn that someone in your family's a crook. Sorry, but there are republican family members of yours that are stealing from us all.

Horkus here is the fact Report Acknowledges Inaccuracies in 2004 Exit Polls. Apparently, the organization that ran them thinks there were problems. Of course, the company that ran it cannot be right in determining their problems.

You would like Ohio's electronic voting machine process because it is what you say you want.

I also understand your point that when an independent organization has a scientific poll that proves voters can be confident with a system that you say they cannot, the respondents are ill informed. This makes complete sense and explains a lot.

I also appreciate the link to the inbred site propagating nothing more than the same allegations and nonsense facts that prove the author is looking for issues, not that they actually exist, as well as the stale info documented on other so called "voter reform" sites. Thanks, that really proves your point.

Horkus here is the fact Report Acknowledges Inaccuracies in 2004 Exit Polls. Apparently, the organization that ran them thinks there were problems. Of course, the company that ran it cannot be right in determining their problems.

You would like Ohio's electronic voting machine process because it is what you say you want.

I also understand your point that when an independent organization has a scientific poll that proves voters can be confident with a system that you say they cannot, the respondents are ill informed. This makes complete sense and explains a lot.

I also appreciate the link to the inbred site propagating nothing more than the same allegations and nonsense facts that prove the author is looking for issues, not that they actually exist, as well as the stale info documented on other so called "voter reform" sites. Thanks, that really proves your point.

Also, if these republican family members are stealing elections, why did the forget to steal my election? There is no denial, just what I have found is reality.

I did not finish #44, so it can be deleted. 45 is the correct post.

Chris - I can't understand your #45 comment - would you like a "do over?"

You aren't thinking outside of the box. Your candidate is in power now, so you think your vote counted, but in reality your vote didn't count either. If you want to give up your ability to know whether your vote counted or not, then, by all means, go ahead and rally for non-verifiable voting machines. One day it will come back and bite your butt.

We need to be able to AUDIT the election data.

AUDIT - Definition: An audit settles certain categories of questions.

It must determine whether all assets and liabilities shown are actual, and that they are properly incurred, valued, and recorded.

You can’t perform an audit on the paperless DREs. The software will only show what the programmer wants to be shown. If someone wanted to generate false election data with the electronic machines we used between 2000 and 2004, they could have done so, easily. Can we audit the data? Absolutely not. There is no record of intended data to compare to the actual recorded data.

Would you trust your bank account to me? I have a machine that will generate data the same way these DREs do, but I won't show you how it does the counting. Trust me, Chris. Give me your money and I guarantee I will take care of it! Don’t you trust my machine? Oh by the way, I've publicly made anti-Republican statements and flippant remarks about making sure that my accounting package on my unauditable machine will deliver the proceeds to another anti-Republican (that wouldn't be you, Chris.) So, when do you want to make a deposit?

Chris, again, stop with the mistruths.

Here is a quote from the link you provided:

"But they acknowledged in the report that they remain at a loss to explain precisely why Bush supporters, or Republicans generally, were more likely to refuse to be interviewed than Kerry voters."

That's the only explanation given as to why there were discrepancies with the exit polls.
Not exactly sound science in my opinion. And since the raw data is still kept hidden, it will have to be left at that.

Exitpollz.org has the data with all fifty states(Under data extract). Votes tended to shift for Bush where electronic voting was involved.

So, let me get this straight. People were ashamed to admit they voted for Bush in states that used electronic voting. But in states that used paper ballots, Bush voters more than happy to participate with the exit polling.

Chris, if you believe that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

You also said:

"You would like Ohio's electronic voting machine process because it is what you say you want."

I didn't quite understand that.

I have provided you with nothing but FACTS and LOGIC, yet you throw them back with baseless insults and belittle the people and organizations that do the research. Those are your only rebuttals. If insult is your only reply, then I'm done debating with you in a fair and factual manner.

You can continue to troll for all I care.

Chris,

Let's cut straight to the bottom line... in your opinion, what are the reasons for buying electronic voting machines?

I live in Canada and we do elections very efficiently with no fraud (real or perceived) with paper and pencils!

Running democratic elections should not be a "for profit" enterprise.

Don

I keep saying this - if our neighbor to the North (Canada) can use paper ballots and count them all in 45 minutes the night of the election in plain sight under strict conditions which prevent cheating - so can we.

If you can count all the ballots in 45 minutes - what's all the complaining about? Why the enormous cost for a recount? Is the real issue Disorganization, Laziness, and/or possibly Ulterior Motive?

Now the real stupidity is to pay outrageous prices for machines costing at least 3 times as much as paper ballots and offer no ability to audit results or have a true recount (only a reprint of data which might be corrupt with no way of telling).

I'm not sure what falls on the positive side with the machines, but I know my list has a negative column that keeps growing - some listed here:

Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machine Negatives:

1. Obscene Cost (rough calc. shows $56 PER VOTE)

2. Unauditable - can't PROVE who won or lost

3. Proved to be "hackable"

4. Unreliable due to:
--a. battery failure,
--b. power surge,
--c. weather conditions e.g. heat and humidity
--d. static electricity which interferes with proper execution of program
--e. cosmic rays (yes this has caused extra votes in an actual election)
--f. unpredictable breakdown
--g. can be networked even when they're not supposed to be

5. Not time efficient - takes 6 mins. per person to vote. Machine company asserts each machine will handle 200 voters. This works out to 20 hours per machine - polls are open 13 hrs. at most. THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE

6. More problematic with distribution (having enough for everywhere, fairly distributed) because of the cost per machine.

7. Secure storage (how to prove there was no unauthorized access in between elections or during an election?) (and cost of this storage)

8. Longer training time for poll workers (more $$$)

9. Major increase in legal bills

10. Certification costs/upgrades - and how do you ever know for sure the software is ok? Of course you don't.

11. Negative publicity for local officials when the truth comes out.

12. Heads rolling means extra carpet-cleaning costs.

13.Maintenance & programming costs for EVERY election.

14.Are already using out of date technology -spare parts WILL be a problem down the road.

A quick, rough calc. on just the cost of the initial upfront cost of the PAPERLESS DRE machines and the cost per EACH person's vote is $56.00. Also, Diebold stated in a published email, that they would charge "out the ying yang" to add paper trail capabilities.

Other costs:
*secure storage for electronic voting machines?
*the price to purchase or lease the hardware,
*maintain/upgrade software, and
*extra time needed to train poll workers.
*the cost of vanishing votes - how much is that? #votes X $56 = Way Too Much!!

(Thanks for helping with this list, Catherine A. from Ireland and Harmony Guy from Canada)
============================

I just looked up Canadian Elections Information and a quick calc. shows the cost per each vote comes to about $20 Cdn - that's about $16.23 in US.

Compare that to the base figure per vote for DREs - $56. That doesn't count the extra charges which any computer owner knows all too well add up quickly. And the $56/per vote doesn't take into account the cost of the printer/paper trail thing add-on. (Cost out the yin-yang.)

Here's a horror story already as of January 12, 2005 as reported in the Charlotte, NC Observer:

" target="_blank">Water damages 100 voting machines in Gaston County

Faulty toilet suspected in weekend incident; $500,000 damage seen

KAREN CIMINO
Staff Writer

GASTONIA - Water from a malfunctioning toilet may have destroyed 100 of Gaston County's 339 voting machines, causing about $500,000 damage over the weekend.

Gaston County commissioners discussed the damaged machines during their meeting Tuesday night. It's the latest in a series of problems that have plagued the Gaston County Board of Elections since the Nov. 2 election.

Gaston election workers failed to count more than 13,000 votes in the presidential election. About 12,000 were early votes and 1,200 were from a precinct in Dallas.

The state investigated the oversights, which led to the resignation of Elections Director Sandra Page and Elections Board Chairman Tony Branch in December. Democrats plan to appoint a new board member on Thursday.

Acting Gaston County Board of Elections Chairman Richard Jordan blamed the county's poor facilities for the damage to the voting machines.

"We had $1 million worth of computers stored in a damp, dark basement," he said.

-more-

================
And you know there will be hundreds of incidents like this all over the country, especially in the poorer precincts, or those on flood plains.