... has a column by someone apparently taking a long break from reality... a Frank Salvato. As the paper, or the author's web site ("New Media Journal"), doesn't appear to have a comments field to enable correction of his total ignorance of the facts re: e-voting I once again borrow Brad's blog
After the usual "That Un-American Jennings should just curl up and die" rant he then trots out the following hit parade of ignorance concerning the subject he writes about...:
"If, for just a moment, we take Ms. Jennings’ complaint at face value, that programming code for the touch-screen voting machines in Sarasota County’s 13th Congressional District were somehow manipulated, that would mean that more than a few people would have been complicit in the chicanery."
No. Jennings does not claim conspiracy, only a malfunction. Genuine malfunctions that favored one party or candidate over another have been verified as having occured in a variety of e-voting machines in the past.
But otherwise your article is entirely incorrect, which must have taken some doing. Congratulations... not.
"For this conspiracy to have been orchestrated it would have had to incorporate:"
Re: the constraints and parameters of the conspiracy that would be required:
"" Someone to write the code;""
" Someone to facilitate the machines for the code’s installation;"
60 seconds or less, wasn't it? And then it can spread to other machines without human knowledge.
" Someone to test the machines to make sure the “rigged code” generated the desired false results;"
No. This is makework. As all e-voting machines use a Windows operating system the results can easily be tested at home.
" Someone to coordinate the dissemination of the machines in strategically selected and pre-determined locations throughout Sarasota County’s 13th Congressional District where there was sure to be a predominantly Democratic turnout;"
No. Malignant code can sort itself out as to where and when to take effect just fine, thank you.
" Complete sets of complicit election judges for each polling place who would certify the polling place results;"
No. What part of "malignant code" do you not comprehend?
" Someone to collect the “rigged” machines after the polls closed;"
No. See following.
" Someone to uninstall the “rigged code” before any post-election testing was done on the “rigged” machines;"
No. The code can quietly erase itself after the election.
" And someone to reinstall the correct code, test the machines to make sure they worked properly and secure the machine seals prior to anyone finding out that anything malicious had taken place.
No. The correct code will have been there all along. Afterwards there will only be the correct code... and a stolen election.
The above items have all been proven in action repeatedly. Thus such a conspiracy needs no "Conspiracy Theorist" to be perfectly feasible... and THAT is the currently insurmountable problem with e-voting.
Salvato's email address is: email@example.com. I'm sure he would love hearing from you. I know that Brad and I have both written to him to point out the error of his way. My email to him follows:
Thank you for writing this article. Unfortunately you skewed the facts to meet your point of view instead of stating the facts as they exist.
I speak, quite often, with the VoterAction/PFAW legal team who represent the voters. No one has ever claimed there was a conspiracy. Making that statement gave you a vehicle so you could add in your bullet points. None of which mean anything unless someone claims conspiracy and you are the only one so far.
All it really takes to cause the problem that we saw in many counties in Florida is poor ballot definition software and a poor ballot design. That will be shown when/if the judge determines that the voters and Jennings experts get to see the source code. They don't want to see it to prove any conspiracy but to show the software is deficient.