Signs are good in Maryland — Diebold’s original “showcase state” — that the legislature there is finally wising up to the democracy undermining problem that is Diebold.
According to AP — yes, again AP — the Democratic chaired House Ways and Means Committee “voted 20-3 on Friday to scrap the Diebold touchscreen machines for at least this year and use paper ballots with an optical-scan system for the primary and general elections.”
The measure still has to move through the Senate, though the Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich has previously called for something very similar. So if the Senate moves, chances are the Guv will sign on.
Yes, there are problems, as you know, with optical-scan machines (just ask democracy’s hero Ion Sancho in Leon County, FL), but at least the move away from Democratic Election Administrator Linda Lamone’s fateful deal with the devil to use (and continue apologizing for) Diebold’s unrecountable paperless touch-screen machines across the state may finally be coming to an end.
Also of note; The media, this time in the form of Associated Press, is finally beginning to understand the importance of the story that they’ve ignored for years. From Tom Stuckey of AP…
With Maryland facing what could be its most hotly contested election season ever, it’s no surprise that election-related issues have grabbed the attention of lawmakers during the 2006 legislative session.
…
But the biggest election issue, which cuts across party lines, involves the electronic voting machines of Ohio-based Diebold that are scheduled to be used by all Maryland voters this year. With doubts growing about the reliability of the machines, a campaign to return to the days of paper ballots, at least for one year, is gaining momentum in the General Assembly.
Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who approved purchase of the Diebold Accuvote-TS voting system in 2003, now questions the reliability of the touchscreen machines.
…
Many members of the General Assembly share his concerns, and voting rights activists are keeping up an attack on the system (ed note: Yea voting rights activists!), arguing that the machines are vulnerable to hackers who could manipulate results and that fraud would be impossible to detect because there are no paper records that could be used for recounts in disputed elections.
The article also points out that Lamone — who, as of this article, still has a job — is certain everything will be fine due to the legendarily watertight security that American election officials are recognized for world-wide:
Fraud and manipulation is “impossible” says Lamone! I know I’ll sleep better at night…
Election fraud,…is (categorically) impossible ????,…
Because,… of tight security measures implemented by state and local (election) officialdumb.
Oh that’s a relief,….
Nothing to worry about,…
Nothing to see,…
Nothing happened here,…
We’ve got it all under control,…
Just move along,…
They just proved that it can be done. Politicians can do risk management. If only they try.
The facts show that the machines can do the greatest damage.
The facts show that voters can do little damage.
One machine can change the vote by tens, thousands, or hundreds of thousands, in a nano second. Without a trace.
A fraudy voter can only effect one vote at a time, and only a few if maxed out. It would take hundreds of thousands (a big conspiracy) for voters to change that many votes.
And hundreds of thousands of voters would be noticable … thats a lot of bodies to hide. And that is easy to trace by comparison.
So, in risk management science, you get rid of the greatest risk. Getting rid of buggy and risky machines that can do great damage is the way to get rid of the great risk instantly.
Good for the state of Maryland … they make sense.
Interesting in light of an article few weeks ago the Washington Post printed. It was about how the Republican party is making plans to take MD, long a democratic stronghold. Also interesting in light of the serious democratic challanges faced by Republican Gov. Ehlich in an upcoming election. In ’04 they continued to lose district races but were carefull to point out how close they came–"we didn’t win but look how much headway we’ve made," said Republicans, more or less. At the time I was suspicious that they were laying the groundwork for future election fraud by making future Republican victories seem feasable. What is the Governer/Republican party up to now? –Still laying groundwork for future fraud?–trying to seem reasonable to middle of the road voters in a close election? –or, (in fairness we have to entertain this possibility) are his concerns sincerely felt?
"Election fraud,…is (categorically) impossible ????,…
Because,… of tight security measures implemented by state and local (election) officialdumb."
When I made inquiries of my county here in Oregon (which is all mail-in ballots but counted with opti-scans) I was given an equally ridiculous response: "there are checks and balanced in place," but she failed to describe them. It boils down to "trust us." And I don’t.
What does Lamone say about the successful hack tests? Did she comment on those tests?
Also, is it still true these machines cannot be recounted?
I still cannot, for the life of me, figure out why whomever it is that’s getting these media quotes from people like Lamone, cannot ask a follow-up question like, "What do you say about the successful hack tests?" Why do they just give them an unchallenged forum to spout lies and propoganda, with no intelligent follow-up questions?
Do they think we’re just going to say, "Well, Lamone said they’re OK"…???????????? And just drop it??? WTF????
Here’s a link to the actual bill:
MD HB244
Ah, a breath of fresh air!!!!
Big Dan, they are not "recountable" in a "serious" sense. That is, you can hit the "recount" button and it will (presumably) rescan the DB and give you the counts of the items stored internally..
The problem is, you don’t know if what was "stored internally" is what was pushed on the screen. That is, you push A, and B goes in the database.. later you push "recount" and your vote is counted as B (again).. And, if there are 20,000 votes for A that "didn’t get put in the database", then hitting "recount" will still NOT show those 20,000 votes. And, when there’s a HUGE discrepency (like with the exit polls in 2004), there is no "clean" wan to "recount" other than hitting that "button"..
With paper ballots, you have the paper in your hand to "recount with".. and if the machines are susptected as to be being funky, you can hand count.. No paper = no accountability or validation..
To be clear, Maryland’s Diebold touch-screen machines (like Georgia’s an elsewhere’s) are even more UN-recountable than most places, since they don’t even include the crappy toilet-paper roll "voter verified paper trail".
At least most Diebold touch-screens now being sold (AccuVote TSx) include the little printer device. For what little it is worth. The machines in use across the entire state of Maryland are the AccuVote TS systems which don’t even include the paper-trail printer!
Sandy #4
I hear ya.
When you actually take action, yourself, you hit a wall that’s difficult to penetrate & very few want to actually help beyond lip service.
I commend you for your efforts.
Like myself, you are actually on the front lines, taking the blows & trying to make change.
HOO—RAH!
The truth on the fired high school teacher
🙁
In DuPage County, Illinois, they have gone to using Diebold machines this year for the first time. This is strong Republican country, but in 2004, it amazingly registered well over 40% Democrats. I can’t help but think that the import of Diebold machines is an effort to ensure that the Democrat total never exceeds 45%.
This year is the first also for "early voting" (because the computers make it so easy), when I saw the machines and asked questions, I was told I was "uninformed, " "don’t believe the media" and when I persisted, I was told I was "electioneering" and that is not allowed. I was told "no one has been indicted." I did not vote today. I am calling the Commission tomorrow.
I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.