Wait... it can't end yet... where else can I browbeat prominent scientists while wearing a Shirow print t-shirt?...

(The zapkitty stands looking lost and forlorn against the midnight moon... then breaks into a short rendition of the Snoopy Dance in celebration before returning to blog-prowling...)

'Gratz, Brad!

I am a little too jaded to say "hoooooooorrraaayy" just yet. Lots of things happen to reports on their way to Washington and even more when they get there. But I certainly hope and pray this one makes it there intact and gets read by every-damn-body, and acted upon.

It's important to note that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the organization that oversaw the "Technical Guidelines Development Committee" that wrote the voluntary voting systems guidelines. Their coming out and making an announcement of this type is a huge step.

{ED NOTE: Thanks, John. I've folded your comments into the actual article above to clarify that important point. --- BF}

Brad, you're awesome. Thankyou for all you have done. Your persistence has kept our democracy duct-taped together, through all the difficulties.

Mozart says:

[I posted this in an earlier thread, but this is more appropos for this topic as an alternative to DRE devices.]

Regarding paper ballots, what kind of design might be the best? Ballots to be hand-counted only, ballots to be scanned through a scanner, or other kinds of paper ballots?

Any kind of paper ballot that is designed to be run through any kind of computerized device, like a scanner, can be subverted by the scanner, yes? Virtually ANY computerized device can be subverted to mis-count, unless the computer would have gone through rigorous source-code examinations, testing prior to each election and factual certification of transparency before every single election–multiply this by thousands of scanners scattered across the country and there’d be enormous room for “error” in the vital act of counting the votes. I’m really not sure if ANY sort of computerized device has any role of any kind in any election.

Paper and pencils/pens–ONLY. Stone-age tech, yes, but, surely, this method is far more transparent, isn’t it?

So, if one were to create a workable paper ballot, the scanning kind of paper ballot may not work very well, as it may be difficult to count the multiple votes in multiple races/intitiatives in some sort of transparent way from a single sheet of paper, so the whole-piece-scanning kind of paper ballot may not work best.

What about a paper ballot that has a duplicate piece of paper beneath each page with both the duplicate and the original having the exact same ballot serial number? This design can have each race/initiative printed on separate sheets of paper, each with a duplicate. The paper ballots could be small, like a 1/4 sheet of an 8×11 paper, or a half-sheet of the same paper. All the ballots could be bound together, like a paperpad or post-it notes. Every original page and duplicate page could have a serial number that clearly marks it as unique to one particular ballot-bunch, with each serial number having an additional number–or lettering–that makes it unique to each page (each “page” would be an original and a duplicate).

So when a voter votes, the mark is on the original, which would be duplicated on the duplicate; the voter keeps the duplicate copy and turns in the original by tearing it off the bound ballot-pad. When the voter is done voting, the voter could pile up all the torn-out originals and put them in a locked ballot box and go home with all the duplicates that would still be bound together, like a used duplicate receipt book.

So when it comes time to vote, the ballot box would be opened with election officials/citizens present and the original ballots can then be tossed into piles/boxes in accord to the vote done with each race/intitiative. The segregated ballots can then be checked and recounted, then bunched into some sort of easy number, like bunches of 100 or so, then those numbers can be counted from the bunches to arrive at a total for that race/intitiative.

With this kind of duplicate, serialized paper ballot system, transparency can be achieved, as well as accurate counting, as well as re-counting, if needed, not to mention verification of votes and vote counts.

This kind of system would not have instantaneous results, but why in the f–k do we “need” instantaneous results? Transparency is far more important than instantaneous results, yes? Elections ought to happen over two and a half days on weekends (starting noon Friday, ending on Sunday at night) with the counting of votes commencing right away after the election and continuing until all votes are counted.

This would work, don’t you think?

MOZART - Only time, for the moment, for one quick comment. Allowing voters to take home copies of their vote could lead to "vote buying" which is not good. The ballot should be left at the polling place.

I'll let others jump in re: your other points.

X-C-Lent !! B-U-TEE-FULL!! FINALLY!
Yep, so true, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win…"

P & P ONLY!

... gtash said...

I am a little too jaded to say "hoooooooorrraaayy" just yet. Lots of things happen to reports on their way to Washington and even more when they get there.

Well, my "can't end yet" remark was facetious

And I celebrate a major victory, not the end of the war. But as others have noted it is a truly major victory.

And I'm a latecomer, a peripatetic blogging opportunist who only realized the deadly serious extents of the problem last November... to those who've fought in this struggle for years this news must seem like daybreak itself.

Politically, this signals that in a very real sense the "e-voting" ball is finally being yanked out of partisan hands...where it never should have been in the first place.

And if not for Brad and a few (thousands) of his friends I don't think we'd be here yet.

Congratulations are definitely in order!

Now please excuse me... I've spotted a potential victim- er- "discussion of interest" downthread

(the zapkitty stalks Mozart... and runs head on into that blasted optical captcha... he'd thought the damn things were gone for good...)

Hey! Brad! Can't you get a better spam captcha than a "numbers gif"?

Some of us don't do so well with those

OT, When I try to save in the the "print version" I get a notice saying "web page can't be saved" ??

Brad, I saw Lenny Charles interview 2 women who wrote the book "Hacked"...today...they said they would only want a paper trail, if the person's votes were printed on regulation stock paper and citizens COUNTED those paper hardcopy votes and matched them to the final machine counts, mandatory, not just for a demanded recount. The paper trail votes on stock paper be counted (not sometimes, all the time) and ALWAYS matched to the final machine count. Otherwise, it sounded like they were against e-vote machines even WITH paper trails.

They said that the so-called "paper trails" that are really being proposed are no good...I guess just more of the same false security, and not actual security. They quoted Bev Harris a lot, and Harri Hursti, and pointed out that Hursti's hack actually hacked the so-called "paper trail"...which is true...I saw it...the count on the "paper trail" was incorrect, because it didn't record what was actually voted on the machine. The "paper trail" was WRONG! Now, if someone counted the actual paper trail votes, individually, from every voter, and matched that count to the (lol) "machine count", that would actually be 2 counts. But, I even have a question with THAT...I would want to SEE my paper trail vote and HAND IT to the fellow citizen who is doing the counting of that paper trail. How would I even know if someone was counting my paper trail vote, and not making it up? I guess this is really complicated.

One very, very important point, is that they said (and I agree) that hackability was designed into e-vote machines...it was not a random accident. Which I always thought, and I believe you have said, too.

An e-vote machine is a physical object, a "machine"...so if there are "backdoors" in it, someone designed those backdoors! They didn't randomly appear, they were designed/built by someone on purpose! This whole e-vote thing was on purpose! No one seems to be hammering THAT point, in all the points we have been hammering home...

Here: hit the INN Report launcher, and watch until the end of the 30 minute INN Report, only on DISH channel 9415 Free Speech TV, viewer-sponsored news. The INN Report ALWAYS ends up with a 10 minute Lenny Charles interview of blockbuster people we don't see on corporate TV news, like once Lenny interviewed this guy named Brad Friedman...

http://innworldreport.ne...launcher.php?2006-11-29n

THANK GOD...there's such thing as LINK-TV & Free Speech TV, or me and my family would not be getting the real news the networks don't want us to know about! Only on DISH, only on channels 9410 & 9415...Christmas present time! Dump crappy cable and directv and get DISH for $19.99 for 10 months: cheaper and better! No, I do not work for DISH TV!!! I feel this is so important to tell people, I say it every chance I get...and I don't want a cent for turning people on to the real news on TV that's available.

Is Lenny Charles one cool dude interviewer, or what?

OK, what does the toilet paper with the red slash thru it mean? I give up! "No shit"? "I'm out of toilet paper"? If you're out of toilet paper, Brad, stop by @ Sam's Club and stock up! Tree bark is good, too, if you're trying to be nice to the environment...

YESS
More to say after a little celebration!

YES! ONE DOWN!!!!

HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS NOW!!! Dennis Kucinich's bill, HR 6200, is the ONLY way!!!!

What was once "realistic" (VVPAT) is now DEAD. Watch your backs, bradbloggers, when realism tries to get you to drop your sacred ideals in exchange for ... exactly NOTHING, usually. Priceless. Fraud.

I want the names of the Congresspeople who were deluding people into thinking, good activists in many cases mind you, that VVPAT was actually a solution and "realistic" and that this was all Congress was a-gonna allow ON THEIR OWN RE-ELECTIONS: no public supervision of vote counts for the 109th Congress and useless VVPAT's passed off as "realism" and exchanged for priceless ideals of democracy checked in at the cloakroom of the House of REpresentatives.

Democracy. Now. Publicly supervised elections too. Any Congresscritter caught attempting to dictate the circumstances of their own re-election in violation of the wishes of the Zogby 92% desire for publicly witnessed vote counting will be exposed on sight as _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
(you fill in the blanks as applicable.)

This is the best news since Debra Bowen got elected Secretary of State of CA.

Is it actually possible that that the supertanker known as e-voting can ACTUALLY be turned around and parked in the Smithsonian Museum as a relic of the bad times when elections were rigged in a nanosecond?

There will be a tremendous PR effort on the part of Diebold, ES&S (remember Chuck Hagel?) and Sequoia to convince the public that this is much ado about nothing. We must keep this fire burning, and keep pouring more and more fuel on it. This is our hour, our day, our week, our month, our year! We SHALL prevail!

Electrons and elections should NEVER mix.

Thank you Brad, for all you are doing. It was because of the Bradblog I found out this morning that my county (Riverside) is going to appoint a "blue ribbon" committee to investigate itself. What a joke!

"RECOMMEND" ?

OK so how do we make this stick?

This is good, but recommendations don't mean horsehockey.

Dems have both houses - how do we turn this into legislation pronto?

This is very gratifying, however there is a gapping hole in the word's "NIST is RECOMMENDING".

Doesn't this leave us with the often used, states rights argument?

Paul Lehto #18

You're right. It's way past time for any congressperson to feign ignorance or not respond to the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of activists who gave many thousands of unpaid hours fighting payed election officials and voting machine corporations to get us to this point. I think there needs to be some sort of campaign to find out where every single one of them stands on the issue.

Hey wait, How are Chuck Hagel & Saxby Chambliss going to get elected anymore ?
And I agree with Mick, RECOMMEND ? fuek that

I know some of us are a bit jaded when it comes to good news, especially the "six or seven" of us who are battle weary from the years of fighting for this. I don't know why, maybe it's just pure blind HOPE, but for some reason I have a feeling that, THIS time, the report will not slide down the memory hole into oblivion.

We've got a new batch of Congress critters just ACHING to show up the infamous "do-nothing" 109th, if for no other reason than to assure they keep their jobs in the coming years. The new majority will, especially for the next two years, be doing whatever they can to prove they're everything the old crew was NOT. The new Dems in Congress say they're going to focus on "the things that mainstream America wants". Above all, they want to be perceived as being PRODUCTIVE. Even though the majority of them have been silent on the e-voting disaster, let's take advantage of the situation. To start with, let's send copies of the report to EVERY SINGLE CONGRESS MEMBER - have it waiting for them when the 110th convenes - then follow up with periodic reminders to let them know we're watching, and thank you notes when they do the right thing.

BTW, didn't we talk about a nationwide party once we got these machines from hell banned? I think it's time to start ordering the decorations.

And those of us from Tennessee have REAL cause to celebrate - BILL FRIST IS DUST!!!

The electronic voting machine (EVM) watchdogs twenty years ago were saying what was said before the committee recently (1988 Article).

You can shock the hell out of the EVM audience with these quotes from a 1988 official report:

4.13 Summary Of Problem Types

4.13.1 Insufficient Pre-election Testing
4.13.2 Failure to Implement an Adequate Audit Trail
4.13.3 Failure to Provide for a Partial Manual Recount
4.13.4 Inadequate Ballots or Ballot-Reader Operation
4.13.5 Inadequate Security and Management Control
4.13.6 Inadequate Contingency Planning
4.13.7 Inadequate System Acceptance Procedures

...

Concern had been heightened by a series of articles published in the summer of 1985 in the New York Times. The articles cited statements by two computer experts reporting that a computer program widely used for vote-tallying was vulnerable to tampering. Several elections were identified in which losing candidates claimed that it would be possible to fraudulently alter the computer programs that were used in their contests.

(NIST Report 1988, bold added).

No one mentioned that twenty years is enough to have more than "suggested rules" which are admittedly inadequate ... which election war lords are ignoring anyway.

And who asked why one person certifies the machines no matter how many ITA companies claim to do the certification? Or who sets the standards of the lone ranger doing the testing (The Lone Tester)?

Doesn't it appear that either the voting rights movement, related to the EVM world, has failed ... or congress has failed ... or perhaps both?

At least the rubber stamp congress is going to be gone soon, and there is more hope now than in the past decades of WORDS WORDS WORDS.

Word up ...

Thankfully, there are some people at NIST that have a heartbeat, conscience, morality, and serious concern for our democracy! Hoorah for them! However, we all know how things become degenerated, compromised, and twisted by this administration (the number of presidential signing statements is enough to gag anyone who realizes what he is actually doing....circumventing the veto power which would show the americans what he really belives (and would be impeaced for immediately if people knew) but instead, whimping out and defrauding the public via signing statements - did Gonzales pimp for the Mafia at one time??...just wondering??!)He certainly paid his way through law school....his presentation and knowledge of law is pathetically poor.

Let's all stay on this story and keep NIST's feet to the fire of their convictions. We cannot permit the continued use of DRE's in this country.

I say send them all back to their makers who sold us "damaged goods" for a total return of the taxpayer's money!! The taxpayers demand a refund as they were sold with guarantees which were bogus. I'd like to see a pro rate share of the money spent on these dispicably corrupt machines returned to each taxpayer immediately by either the state government or the federal government....or a tax credit on next year's income taxes. It's Boston Tea Party time, folks!

This is a skirmish "victory".....the real "war" is still ahead. Onward and upward!

One giant step for mankind !! But let us not forget that the Opscan machines and bubble ballots can (and have been) tampered with.

(The zapkitty wakes from his nap, finds his target de jour, stealthily climbs a tree to a branch over Mozart's head.... sights carefully on Mozart's bald spot... the zapkitty yodels and leaps!)

... Mozart said...

"Regarding paper ballots, what kind of design might be the best? Ballots to be hand-counted only, ballots to be scanned through a scanner, or other kinds of paper ballots?"

(...the zapkitty surveys the surrounding territory from the top of Mozart's head...)

While counting is vital, efforts to have people turn in a fairly standardized ballot is important, too.

Technology can aid this without compromising security if the instrument of voting (the ballot) that the formatting machine (call it "the printer") produces is required to be verified by the voter that initiated the process and then in turn is not handed directly to another machine but is placed in escrow. This is especially important with regards to helping disabled people vote independently... and having their votes actually mean something... unlike the current situation with DRE's.

Any kind of paper ballot that is designed to be run through any kind of computerized device, like a scanner, can be subverted by the scanner, yes?>

Yep, but if the ballot is in a stable, non-alterable format (as opposed to a transient cloud of electrons in a DRE) there are ways of using that fact to double-check the results of the tabulator. But yes... if you have an e-component in an election you're going to have to have external redundant checks on those components. It'll come out to a compromise between speed... reliability... and safety... with the vioting machine companies demanding electronic counting as a form of corporate welfare for "the security of the vote".

(... otherwise the zapkitty will suffer from low voting security, dontcha know...)

Virtually ANY computerized device can be subverted to mis-count, unless the computer would have gone through rigorous source-code examinations, testing prior to each election and factual certification of transparency before every single election–multiply this by thousands of scanners scattered across the country and there’d be enormous room for “error” in the vital act of counting the votes. I’m really not sure if ANY sort of computerized device has any role of any kind in any election.

As a visually disabled person I would disagree. While the abuse of blind people by the e-voting machine corporations as an excuse to ram their BS machines down people's throats has been truly reprehensible, this does not change the fact that without assistance many disabled people can not vote... and it's even harder to vote secretly.

To enable the disabled to have the same voting freedom and security as others, without human intervention in their vote, requires technology of some variety and while abuse of the disabled with regards to voting is uncommon... except by the voting machine corporations... now that they have raised the specter it must be dealt with.

Or else we'll have Mr. "I'm Blind, Blunt, Bought, and Oblivious To That Fact" being trotted out again and again by the e-voting corporations to trumpet their virtues as "the onlysolution to the disabled problem!"

(... why did the zapkitty have a brief vision of a nasty little man with a toothbrush moustache?...)

But if the assistance to the disabled can be limited to the "printer" portion of the voting cycle then that can be externally secured from corrupting the rest of the cycle... but the disabled person will still be at the mercy of the technology, and the vote of the disabled would have been quite enough to turn certain recent races.

So, if one were to create a workable paper ballot, the scanning kind of paper ballot may not work very well, as it may be difficult to count the multiple votes in multiple races/intitiatives in some sort of transparent way from a single sheet of paper, so the whole-piece-scanning kind of paper ballot may not work best.

This does not follow. If the ballot is designed well then it will be readable as produced by the "printer". If it's not... you'll have other problems

Time to edit your post, becuase as
...Brad said...

"MOZART - Only time, for the moment, for one quick comment. Allowing voters to take home copies of their vote could lead to "vote buying" which is not good. The ballot should be left at the polling place."

Yes, and such "selling" need not be voluntary at all, which some people seem to forget.

So let us redact your proposal Diebold-style...

This design can have each race/initiative printed on separate sheets of paper. The paper ballots could be small, like a 1/4 sheet of an 8×11 paper, or a half-sheet of the same paper. All the ballots could be bound together, like a paperpad or post-it notes. Every page could have a serial number that clearly marks it as unique to one particular ballot-bunch, with each serial number having an additional number–or lettering–that makes it unique to each page. So when a voter votes the voter turns it in by tearing it off the bound ballot-pad. When the voter is done voting, the voter could pile up all the ballots and put them in a locked ballot box.

What you want to do, minus the receipt concept, is have the ability to print multi-sheet ballots with sufficient "glue" in the way of serial numbers etc to enable tracking of total votes vs. undervotes etc.

This seems more like a recognition of the way things are headed than a new proposal

(snip what is "democracy SOP" in civilized countries)

This kind of system would not have instantaneous results, but why in the f–k do we “need” instantaneous results?

The media demanded it. You remember the media, right? And it was useful fot those in power to have the public think of voting as a quick chore to be done and over with the next day.

Transparency is far more important than instantaneous results, yes? Elections ought to happen over two and a half days on weekends (starting noon Friday, ending on Sunday at night) with the counting of votes commencing right away after the election and continuing until all votes are counted.

This would work, don’t you think?

As redacted, and not counting the diabled, yes.

But I will be counted, one way or another

(the zapkitty sets up a recliner on Mozart's head with a side table w/drinks and settles in... this is fun!)

... big dan said...

An e-vote machine is a physical object, a "machine"…so if there are "backdoors" in it, someone designed those backdoors! They didn't randomly appear, they were designed/built by someone on purpose! This whole e-vote thing was on purpose! No one seems to be hammering THAT point, in all the points we have been hammering home…

"They said" you say... but do they know?

Because the only actual backdoor found so far was a standard type put in by a Diebold programmer for maintenance. Have there been any other actual backdoors found?

All other vulnerabilities discussed so far have been the result of the poor design, and abysmal implementation of a concept that was inherently insecure to begin with.

Which, given the official and corporate coverups of the discovered flaws, is reason enough for lawsuits, criminal proceedings and jail time.

NIST is the agency that "forgot" that the World Trade Towers had a series of steel cores which would not have allowed the buildings to "pancake" and is also the agency which, just this past April, let a contract for an "independent" consultation/explanation of how WRC #7 collapsed ... because NIST couldn't even come up with a bad theory of collapse apart from a controlled demolition.

This announcement on DRE's is terrific ... but we need to continue to be active to drive it to reality... and to make sure it includes the end of optical scan counting. PAPER BALLOTS/HAND COUNTING/PUBLIC OBSERVATION ... THE ONLY SOLUTIONS TO RECAPTURE DEMOCRACY.

ZAP: Bev Harris, Princeton, Hursti, and others, have hacked into e-vote systems at several points throughout the system, and in several different ways. There's not "one" backdoor...which tells me, this was on purpose.

What else tells me it was on purpose? Dredd's comment #26, which states these problems were known as far back as 1988.

The question is: WHO is responsible for ramming these purposely insecure EVM's down our nations' throats, KNOWING they were not secure??? Was it the Republican-sponsored HAVA Act? Isn't the guy who sponsored it, in jail? (Ney) Am I correct about that? I don't feel like looking that up right now (lol)!

You have to be a FOOL...not to think this was on purpose. Republican donor corporations make them, and close to 100% of the anomolies favor Republicans - that's not "random", when it tilts like that.

I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt on LOTS of things..."I think, therefore I don't trust the media (and politicians)."

Remember "innocent until proven guilty"? Those days are GONE, after what I've seen over the last 6 years...at least for me. When it concerns politicians and voting, I start with "guilty, until proven innocent"...I don't give the benefit of the doubt from the get-go, anymore, concerning these issues. It was on purpose. How many times are we going to give the benefit of the doubt, after being burned so many times??? Only a fool would doubt this wasn't designed with hacking in mind. I'm no fool...these machines did not pass security tests since 1988, for Christ's sake!!! My God!!!

... big "lynch mob" dan said...

(Never mind what he said...)

Dan, if you're going to talk computers then use the terminology properly. A backdoor is a deliberately installed access point... a method of accessing a system by means other than the normal or "official" routes.

The hacks used by others are just that, "hacking" the software to make their own access points.

Traditionally a backdoor may be installed in software by one or more of the software designers for benign or malicious purposes. A backdoor may also be added later by a third party to operational software for benign or malignant purposes, And of course a hack may be used to install a backdoor.

You are saying that the e-voting vulnerabilities are deliberate, and indeed the systems are so insecure that one can only wonder at the persistence of those who insist on using them... but so far only one backdoor has been found in systems shipped from the manufacturer...

... of course only one system shipped from one manufacturer has been able to be examined in full by independent researchers..

... so far...

Big Dan

You are correct about neoCon and now neoConvict Ney. He was a mover and shaker in HAVA.

Your argument notes that these issues have been yada yada yada by NIST since at least 1988. You go on to set forth the notion that anything other than a concept of a deliberate subversion of the election system is foolhardy.

I must agree.

If there's anyone at this party who has read the NIST paper, please tell me what I'm missing. By my reading, they only recommended against paperless DREs and do not come out against DREs w/ VVPAT. They seem to class DREs w/ VVPAT along with optical scan as "software independent" (and therefore acceptable) technologies.

I don't know where Michael Hickins got his quote that "paper rolls should not be used in new voting systems." That doesn't appear in the paper, only that there are certain problems with paper rolls that should be ironed out.

Finally, they do not say that existing DREs (even paperless ones) should be de-certified, only that new ones should not be certified under the 2007 standard, which will go into effect around 2009-2010.

So, again, what am I missing?

so what's up with rush holt? he's a freakin rocket scientist - shouldn't he know better?

... David said on 11/30/2006 @ 9:30 am PT...

If there's anyone at this party who has read the NIST paper, please tell me what I'm missing. By my reading, they only recommended against paperless DREs and do not come out against DREs w/ VVPAT. They seem to class DREs w/ VVPAT along with optical scan as "software independent" (and therefore acceptable) technologies.

Damn. You're not missing anything. What internetnews said the paper says is not what the paper actually says.

DRE-VVPAT is considered "softwareindependent" assuming the VVPAT is done right. The paper points out that the systems currently deployed often do not do VVPAT correctly... but do not disallow DRE-VVPAT in the future.

This despite the fact that current VVPAT systems are a hysterical joke in actual operation...

David Jefferson will be gleefully pointing out that we should have read the paper itself before celebrating... and he'll be right.

The same companies that lied non-stop will still have a license to print money.

To all who have initiated and participated in the adventures of Bradblog:

Congratulations! If it hadn't been for the tenacity of this team, our country wouldn't be this far along in assessing the status of electronic "voting."
As I scurry around the internets, whenever electronic voting issues come up, I always remind folks of the stellar work you're doing here --- and, yes, with a link to this site. Keep up the great work. We all know it's not over yet.

Thanks!

I think this just goes to show that the latest tech is not necessarily the best solution to every problem.

A lot of problems, yes. Maybe even most problems. But not every problem.

Don't be afraid to stick with the old.

Man, am I having a good day! This news should be given a lobby team. But, does anyone know anything about the software program that eviscerates gerrymandering?

To KESTRELBRIGHTEYES #25
Thanks to all who have WORKED for the longhaul, smile. I hope you all will get a new upsurge in loving protective energy!

To BIG DAN

TOTAL AGREEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chellie Pingree with Common Cause is pushing the HR550 election reform legislation in a mass emailing venture. I'm with John Gideon. Why sign on to a scratch 'n' dent repair when the vehicle is a hopeless lemon? Anybody know what's happening with this bill?

Republicans who claim fiscal conservancy must either be blind or else just as angry as we are. The amount of money US states have spent on DRE/EVM hardware, software, upgrades, upkeep, training [the list goes on] is OUTRAGEOUS. This has been one of the most egregious scams put on the American Taxpayer.

Not only is it fiscally irresponsible, it's morally reprehensible to continue using - and purchasing - these machines while there is absolutely no way to audit the votes.

What kind of ignoramuses do we have in government?

These machines have never been put through a single complete test to see just how accurate [inaccurate] they are. It's all been a charade.

Paper Ballots - Canada does it with supreme transparency. Cost - $1.81 per vote.

But - we understand this is the Ruling Elite Age of the American Empire. If we continue on this path, unchecked, we will surely fall --- just like Rome.

ZAPPKITTY

Did you ever lsten to the music I suggested, jus wondering? I do apologize for being wound so tight that nite.

On top of all that [my comment #44], think about how the US is dropping like a rock in its rank compared to other countries - especially in TECHNOLOGY. We outsource most of ours to other countries already. Here are some good articles:

OFF TRACK at the Washington Monthly --- America's economy is losing its competitive edge and Washington hasn't noticed. By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

... During the last six months, we have begun, quietly, to enter a newly tense moment, with university presidents, business leaders, and columnists delivering ominous-sounding reports and editorials about the threat to American innovation posed by a freshly competitive world—the renewed vitality of western Europe, Japan and Korea, and the ravenous growth of China and India. “We no longer have a lock on technology,” David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate and the current president of the California Institute of Technology, wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times. “Europe is increasingly competitive, and Asia has the potential to blow us out of the water.” [more at link]

US now ranks 53rd in World Press Freedom Index

The news media advocacy organization Reporters Without Borders released their fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index this week, and it shows that the United States has dropped 9 places since last year, and is now ranked 53rd, alongside Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. The authors of the report say that the steady erosion of press freedom in countries like the US, France and Japan (two other countries that slipped significantly on the index) is "very alarming." [more at link]

World-wide Quality of Living Survey covering more than 350 cities, to help governments and multinational companies place employees on international assignments. Each city is based on an evaluation of 39 criteria, including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport, and other public services. Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, which has an index score of 100.

For other alarming articles, just Google "US falling behind" & see how bad it is in all areas. All this flag-waving "best country in the world" propaganda is simply nonsense.

I don't apologize to GWalker Bush though, jus a little to Barbie for the personal attack but not the message. Sorry. I could only get away with that with myself on a day like today. YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine how easy it would be to cover-up lies with out the net.Most people would think 911 was the work of a guy in a cave (for instance).

"Threats To Internet Freedom All Too Real"

" Thursday, November 30, 2006

The Internet is the last true unregulated outpost of freedom of speech but moves are afoot to stifle, suffocate and control the world wide web. These threats are not hidden nor are they hard to deduce and yet a significant minority of truth seekers and activists remain naive as to their scope."

http://prisonplanet.com/...01106internetfreedom.htm

"Impeachment Day"

"Remember: December 10 is Impeachment Day, and I urge every one of you to do what you can. Events and speaking engagements will occur in many cities. Check here for ongoing updates from After Downing Street."

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the links & WARNING, MMIIXX.

ITMFA!!! TODAY!!!

And PROSECUTE to the MAX!!!

Great letter to editor at the Capitol Times:
Dems must impeach Bush, Cheney

Dear Editor: One of several reasons for electing Democrats to the upcoming Congress was to make sure that President Bush and Vice President Cheney would have to account for all the crimes they have committed against this government and against the people of the United States - as well as the world.

If nothing is done to impeach them for their fraudulent, horrendous behavior, we essentially are saying that we will let any vice president and president get by with any impeachable offense as we do not want to ripple the waters - we don't want to cause any problems, because it may be difficult - or it may cause people not to vote for Dems again.

That would not be the case. In order to retain the majority, the Dems need to show they can be tough when needed.

What these two top men have done is commit treasonous actions toward our country! This Congress is constitutionally required to investigate this administration if there is any reason to believe they have committed fraudulent acts in their tenure of governing. This is not at anyone's option - this is your constitutional responsibility. [more]

IMPEACH & PROSECUTE TODAY!

hahaha...NIST!!! yeah we can really believe what they say after they released the sham of a report regarding 9/11 and the collapse of the WTC bldgs 1 & 2.

Having worked with the Sequoia Edge DRE system and now the Sequoia Edge DRE
with VVPAT, I can most emphatically state that the NIST report is definitely
flawed. They point out that the DRE's alone are flawed. The VVPAT is
simply an add-on to a flawed system. The VVPAT is not only electronically
flawed but is also mechanically flawed. In my county here in California we
have 47 Precincts and approximately 29,000 voters. We run 45% to 55%
turnout. In those small numbers we have and continue to experience a
minimum of 10% discrepancy in Roster tallies to Machine Tallies. Further,
in the November Election we ran a 38% failure rate of the VVPAT.
It is beyond comprehension how any investigative report, no matter how
cursory, can recommend the use of DRE's with VVPAT.
The Secretary of States office of Voting System Technology for California
"reluctantly" admitted that the Sequoia DRE's with VVPAT have a serious
security system flaw and are completely open to manual manipulation. This
simple fact alone would negate any finding that any use of the DRE with or
without VVPAT can be used to conduct an open and legitimate election.
I have been involved as an elections worker for more than ten years. I have
been trained by De La Rue, (parent co. of Sequoia) so I am very familiar
with the system.
The WINEDS which is the tabulation system for the Sequoia's used here is so
flawed that the Elections department actually uploaded the entire election for
November and sent it via Internet to Denver for interpretation because
Tehama County was unable to obtain the results with their equipment. This
is the same equipment that lost 7 Precincts earlier in the evening.
I am deeply concerned that the NIST report is motivated to selectively rule
out the use of some systems and promote the use of others. Independent
testing of the Sequoia DRE's with and without VVPAT's consistently showed
them to be a flawed system. The issue of both electronic and mechanical
failures was found in each and every test.
I urge all that read the "White Paper" to bear in mind the preceding
information and question what could possibly be the motivation to recommend
the decertification of an admittedly flawed system and them praise the use
of that same system after you have hung a flawed paper roller on it's side.
With respect and concern:
Ron Watt

Thanks for your excellent comment Ron Watt.

I found something I missed in '05 --- wow. Read this from Down With Tyranny blogspot:

HAGEL'S ELECTRONIC THEFT OF A U.S. SENATE SEAT WAS A DRESS REHEARSAL FOR BUSH'S THEFT OF THE PRESIDENCY

Hold up...

PAPER ROLLS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM NEW MACHINES AFTER ALL

internetnewscom is fracked as a reference...

At the NIST voting tech sire there is a list of 7 documents that together comprise the draft recommendations... all that I could originally find web references for was the first one. The one in question is the second document.

Following are the relevant quotes. First the setup then the recommendation...

The setup:

VVPR Issues and STS
Recommendations for the TGDC

... But, paper rolls are not in general a good approach. Future voting systems should not use a
technology approach that requires an inherent violation of voter privacy. The VVSG 2007 should include a statement to the effect that continuous rolls of paper should not be used.

The “should” requirement doesn’t mandate this, but it telegraphs a signal that future voting systems should move away from this technology and implement an approach that does not violate voter privacy.

The recommendation. (recommendation number 1, actually)

1. Use of paper rolls: STS recommends retaining requirements from VVSG 2005 that permit the use of paper rolls. Modifications are recommended to increase security of housings for paper spools. STS recommends including a statement to the effect that paper rolls should not be used in new voting systems.

All together the reports indeed substantiate the initial impression that I had that the NIST was tired of of its voting section being a political football and was going to finally do its job... of course they must needs be watched carefully and notified if and when they screw up.

Preliminary Security Reports
http://www.vote.nist.gov/meeting20061204.htm

Draft Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC
http://vote.nist.gov/Dra...IinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf

Draft Voter Verified Paper Records: Issues and Recommendations
http://vote.nist.gov/Dra...RinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf

Draft Wireless Issues
http://vote.nist.gov/Dra...sInVVSG2007-20061120.pdf

Draft Open Ended Vulnerability Testing of Voting Machines
http://vote.nist.gov/OEVT.v0.02.pdf

Draft Access Control Requirements
http://vote.nist.gov/Dra...l-FORMATTED-10232006.pdf

Draft Set Up Validation Requirements
http://vote.nist.gov/Dra...n-FORMATTED-11082006.pdf

Draft Cryptography Requirements
http://vote.nist.gov/Dra...n-FORMATTED-09072006.pdf

I found the NIST pdf that talks about no paper rolls for new machines. Seems that the new recommendations total seven (7) pdf's on various subjects, but all the web references I found only pointed to the first document... and paper rolls and other bad VVPAT get dissed in the second pdf.

I posted relevant links but something abouit that post triggered a spam filter so it's in moderation-land.

Just thought you should know

Zapkitty #55
Gack. Isn't that ridiculous? Government is so complicated I can't imagine how anyone can possibly know what the fu*k is going on.

I'm a fan of paper ballots & community counting - secret, yet transparent. Simple & completely auditable.

We only have few voting days out of each 4 year period. How stupid it is to pay BILLIONS of dollars for a system nobody can trust [and nobody should trust] for just a few uses per decade?

Canadian Paper Ballot System - count all the votes per precinct within 4 hours with citizens participating and watching. $1.81 per vote.

Compare that with the $35-plus we pay for our votes & the inability for us to participate in the process [unless you believe the EVM smoke & mirrors act.]

We're being ruthlessly crushed, supressed & oppressed by this hardware/software fiscal nightmare.

Believe me, the complications are there for one purpose --- to cover up fraud.

It's time to rebel against this mess. Please sign this petition:
Democracy for America - Paper Ballots

But... you don't understand... this is like the mouse that roared... or at least the mouse that said "No."

Celebrate the victory... then don't just "petition" them, tell them we need only enough tech to aid the disabled and the voting machine companies can otherwise fuck off and die on the vine.

The NIST can say "If tech is used it should be of at least this standard." But no law requires tech in voting except bad laws such as HAVA.

NIST is required to put forth recommendations that don't immediately yank the carpet out from under existant business where feasible... even if said business entities have behaved very badly indeed.

The American people have no such restriction.

Zap - how do we TELL THEM if we don't send the petitions? Have you tried to connect with your "representatives" in congress lately?

... Kira said...

"Zap - how do we TELL THEM if we don't send the petitions?"

Oh, send petitions... but don't stop there. Send people too... would a a million voter march be technically feasible in the spring?

"Have you tried to connect with your "representatives" in congress lately?"

Well yes... very recently... something about paper ballots, I think...

The one that responded is still in office, the one that didn't... isn't. Take that as you will.

Hey - GREAT IDEA!!! A MILLION Voter march in the Spring! Sounds delightful. Let's go!

You're lucky you have at least one "representative" who responded. In my so-called Red State [painted by 100% Diebold vAccu-vote machines in every precinct ... can you guess my state yet?] my [possibly] illegitimately elected rethuglican "representives" slither under their rocks & hiss whenever I try to talk to them.

As to the paper trail, one idea I got from my cousin, a high-level programmer, is a follows: when a person votes, the voting machine spits out a unique non-consecutive number associated with their vote. The voter goes home and logs onto an official website, plugs in their number, and it tells them how they voted. The voter info was entered uniformly on the centralized website from the data on all voting machines. Security of the information would have to be worked out. This is decentralized verification system, whereby each person could assure that their vote was entered correctly. It could operate as a backup system. The final votes are tallied somehow from the centralized data, and could be verified against a prelminary local tally, however that is compiled. Any comments?

Regina #62
You would still have a problem with "vote buying." Anything that's take-home is a problem.

Great idea Regina!

I came up with the same one myself!

There is no need to even count the votes with that system. Anybody with a little computer skill can put that data on a spreadsheet and sort in by election contest. You simply subtract the line number of last vote for the previous candidate from the last for the current candidate and you can verify the total votes for any candidate in any precinct in any election. It really could be just that simple!

Yes votes could be bought but there should be laws against such things. Do we all stop driving because there could possibly be an accident? Should we all support faith based voting over verified voting because somebody might try to buy votes? It all depends on how much you treasure the right to have your vote counted as cast!

*sigh* This baka again...

... BOB YOUNG said...

"There is no need to even count the votes with that system."

Right!

"Anybody with a little computer skill can put that data on a spreadsheet and sort in by election contest."

Right!

"Yes votes could be bought but there should be laws against such things."

And our government officials never ever break the law!

*sigh* ... baka...

Thank you, Zapkitty

Bob Young,

I like the link you provided in your signature, but disagree with the use of computers for our voting process – there is simply too much room for hacking on all levels which will result in manipulation of FAR MORE votes than could ever be possible with paper ballots. Note: My comment below is not aimed at you, personally - I just want everyone to take note of what is at stake with e-voting.

Paper Vote Canada points out:

“To compromise a paper election, I must either compromise the ballots, the local counting, or the total tally. People understand security in the physical world extremely well. Any citizen (for that matter, any child) can understand the current paper-based voting system, and could explain to you clearly the small number of ways in which it could be compromised, and how to mitigate against those risks.

To compromise an Internet election, the easiest thing is for me to compromise the voter. This may be in charming ways, like a bottle of hard liquor in exchange for your voting code. Or in less charming ways, like holding a gun to your head and watching you vote the way I want.”

Think about this:
Hagel's Electronic Theft

“Meanwhile, back in Nebraska, Charlie Matulka had requested a hand count of the vote in the election he lost to Hagel. He just learned his request was denied because, he said, Nebraska has a just-passed law that prohibits government-employee election workers from looking at the ballots, even in a recount. The only machines permitted to count votes in Nebraska, he said, are those made and programmed by the corporation formerly run by Hagel.

Matulka shared his news with me, then sighed loud and long …'If you want to win the election,' he finally said, 'just control the machines.’”

I have worked professionally in the auditing department of an international bank. In the financial world of this and every other country, there is a complete and multi-faceted collection of transaction data which is regularly subjected to an independent audit & relies on the several forms of data collection – i.e. your bank statement, etc.

What that means in the world of voting is simply that we must have a COMPLETE & INDEPENDENT audit of EACH and EVERY precinct’s data for each vote. That means we MUST have paper ballots for each vote so they can be counted/audited.

Why then should we taxpayers be burdened with the enormous cost of electronic voting machines since we must use the paper to audit? Defenders of Democracy notes that "the price tag for Georgia's current voting system has already escalated to $108 million dollars, and is only 3 years old.” See link: http://www.defendersofde...cracy.com/drupal/node/43

And recent information regarding high tech theft is chilling:

Chuck Herrin, a professional White Hat Hacker, says in his 2004 article calling for Paper Ballots Now: “It used to be that con-men had to show up and lie to you in person to steal your money, but everyone should know that computers make it much easier to commit fraud on a grand scale. One statistic I saw recently showed that last year, $80 million was stolen in paper money, but over $800 million was stolen using computers. There's one thing that everyone can agree on - computers are great for efficiency! You simply can't have high tech crimes without high technology.”

Internet Theft and Fraud

“My friends in the web hosting business have recently informed me that the big problem this year (2004) is security and fraud. I have read that currently the F.B.I. receives over 9,000 complaints per month pertaining to bogus email and websites. Why is this happening? Are just a few ‘bad apples’ doing it, or is it the result of a lopsided world economy where the underprivileged are finally striking back like the infamous Robin Hood? Whatever your moral view, I’ve got the strange feeling it stems from a growing unconscious greed in the social consciousness of modern society. People worship money, not spirituality or love. Am I wrong?

Technically, the main problems at the moment are ‘phishing’ or ‘spoofing’ scams. This is where the use of Spam or junk-email is used to lure computer users to look-alike websites where they are deceived into giving out personal information and financial data. Often these emails are coming from trusted sources where hackers have altered links to send you straight into their ‘pockets’. The Internet user is duped into thinking that they are visiting a trusted website page, when actually it is an excellent copy of the original. There might be only one tiny change in the web address that is often not easily recognizable.”

We vote only a few times per 4 years. More than a thousand days of that time, the machines are sitting idle and unguarded leaving them open to malfeasance and all sorts of other problems due to lack of maintenance & issues relating to damage during storage.

Lynn Landes, an activist for honest voting in America, says:

“What constitutes a legal voting process under the U.S. Constitution and federal law? I believe it is this. On election day, in the polling booth only paper ballots filled out by hand, using nothing more sophisticated than a pen or pencil, then hand counted the same day at the local polling precinct in full view of poll watchers, constitutes a legal voting process.

This process is called the Australian Secret Ballot and was introduced into this country in 1888, around the same time the first lever voting machine was used in American elections. There are two legal arguments against the use of voting machines:

1) By using a machine to vote, we are not really literally voting. Inputs into a machine, that may or may not mark the ballot as the voter intended, do not constitute the voter actually voting. A voting machine is an obstruction to a citizen's right to vote for themselves, and

2) Voting machines (including the Internet and optical scanners) introduces concealment and secrecy to those parts of the voting process (casting and counting the ballots) that depends on public oversight to ensure a fair and honest election.” (See more discussion and specifics at the above link to her site.)

Who's Counting?

“Some suggest we abandon electronics altogether and return to paper ballots and hand counting. Ironically, on the forefront of this paper bandwagon we find a considerable number of computer professionals: Information security experts, programmers, auditors, and computer science academics, who- although immersed in electronics- don’t trust these systems for elections. An MIT/Cal Tech study from 2001 found ‘manually counted paper ballots’ to be the most accurate system out of the five systems used in the last four presidential elections. That same study pronounced electronic DRE Touch Screens as the system having the highest incidents of lost votes.”

… Canada, with its over 32 million people and 25 million voters seems to function very efficiently and citizens feel protected that their vote remains in the hands of the people. An example was in the November 2000 Parlimentary Elections, employing the same hand-count system they’ve used for over one century, Canadians managed to smoothly wrap up a 13 million vote count of paper ballots within 4 hours from polls’ closings - with only 6 ‘counters’ per precinct. They have “Scrutineers” at their polls, one from each party, who observe and assist in the process. One such Scrutineer, who had been scrutineering for 30 some odd years, when posed with the question;
“What happens if the number of ballots in the box doesn’t match up with the number of voters who’ve voted?” simply replied—“It’s never happened in my 30 years... ” [more at link]

Probably the most compelling argument against electronic voting is this --- there have been FAR TOO MANY very typical PROBLEMS with EVMs reported throughout the many years of elections in which they have been used. And with that in mind, I strongly disagree with the idea that we should be using voting machines dependent on electricity - or computers in general - to elect our representatives in government.

People are given only 1 hour [usually ... if they're given ANY time off from work to vote at all] to go to their precinct to vote. Power outages have occurred. That means those affected lose their opportunity to vote – just because of a power outage. Anybody who has a computer knows about the scores of problems due to software bugs, hardware failures & temperature/humidity fluctuations. Too few machines and any breakdown translates into long lines, frustration & voter disenfranchisement.

Most are familiar with Avi Rubin [Professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University] . Please read his account of what happened in his precinct in Maryland during the past mid-term election cycle [where he was working as an election judge.] Believe me, this is more typical than not.

"We we running out of paper, and when one of the printers could not print anymore, we shut down that poll book temporarily, and one of our judges rushed off to another precinct to get some paper for the e-poll book printer. Then, we were able to reopen that e-poll book...

The judge who went to the other precinct to get the paper reported that the other precinct had only two voting machines there, and that one of them had died after around 75 votes had been cast on it. That machine was taken out of service and sent to the nearby town of Towson, where presumably the internal flash of the machine would be used to recover those votes. Meanwhile, another voting machine was supposed to be delivered to replace it. I never found out if that happened." [Please read the entire account.]

And this article written by Theresa Hommel - Don't hand democracy over to computers.

I have worked with computers since 1967. I have worked for Fortune 500 companies, the Department of Defense, and state and local governments. In all these years, I have never heard of anyone trusting a computer.

...People say, “We don't have the resources to count ballots by hand or by optical scanner,” or, “We bought these machines so we can turn over these tasks to them.” When I hear this kind of talk, I hear people saying that democracy is too much work.

These objections show that we have given elections a low cultural, fiscal, and personal priority for too long. They reveal that the number of people involved in conducting our elections is very small, that they don't know us and we don't know them, and that we are not in community with the people who are running our elections or the people who are running our government.

...I have sensed a contempt for democracy, for citizens who vote and those who don't, and for election-day workers. Perhaps it arises because not enough people are devoting their time and energy to sustaining the infrastructure of democracy. When people participate, there's no problem.

For example, I spoke with a town clerk in Vermont, a state that uses paper ballots and easily counts them by hand. She said, “When the election is over everyone shows up with coffee and donuts, and we count the votes. It doesn't take long, because we have a lot of workers.”

Check John Gideon's posts for the past several years - he's keeping up with all the problems and many of them are hardware/software related.

Please remember how the neocons stole into power --- you can trace it back to the advent of computerized elections.

The RULING ELITES don't want us to have a vote --- WE MUST TAKE CONTROL AND EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO VOTE ON PAPER BALLOTS or give up our rights & remain slaves to them.

Kira #66:

Wow, thats the first time I've heard that quote from the candidate that ran against Hagel in that famous, (to us anyway), election theft.

I'm not so sure that was the first theft by computer though. We've been using the punch card system that was made famous in the Florida 2000 race since the 1960's. That report that Dredd posted above was found on "Democratic Underground" and was posted to me by someone named "Autorank", an extremely astute blogger there.

I found this absolutely astounding description of the punch card system by often quoted, but mysteriously paper unfriendly scientist Dr. Michael Ian Shamos: (bold added for emphasis)

"....the computer hardware and software used to tabulate the ballots is subject to tampering. Furthermore, such tampering is relatively easy and invisible....Computers can be manipulated remotely, by wire or radio, or by direct physical input. The memories on which these computers operate can easily fit into a shirt pocket and can be substituted in seconds. The software can be set to await the receipt of a special card, whose presence will cause all the election counters to be altered. This card could be dropped into the ballot box by any confederate. The possibilities for this type of tampering are endless, and virtually no detection is possible once tabulation has been completed....

Someday, if a perfectly transparent and VERY SIMPLE voting machine can be devised, maybe we can attempt to use them, but as far as I'm concerned, there's no way we should even consider using them now.

If we don't fight for a simple paper BALLOT in the 2008 election, the whole process will be purposefully portrayed to be too complex to change in time for 2008 and we'll probably end up with fascist Rudy Giuliano.