Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (CA) 2/08 - Sequoia scanner service c... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
From the Mailbag
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mailbag
Post Number: 216
Registered: 10-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 1:02 pm: | 
|
Subject: Sequoia central count scanner breakdown mid-election
CALIFORNIA - Of the 6 machines purchased by the County less than 6 months ago, one is already out of service, and two others were having frequent problems.
Sequoia 400C scanner on 3rd breakdown in a half hour.
Your ballot after being "carefully handled" by a Sequoia 400C scanner.
Your ballot after being "carefully handled" by a Sequoia 400C scanner.
Your ballot after being "carefully handled" by a Sequoia 400C scanner.
Your ballot after being "carefully handled" by a Sequoia 400C scanner.
Your ballot after being "carefully handled" by a Sequoia 400C scanner.
Pictures taken App. 2:15 AM, 2-6-08, at Riverside County Registrar of Voters office. Photos taken by Art Cassel. Permission to use these photo's is freely granted. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7618
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Art Cassel, as well as the many other Riverside citizens, have been doing great work documenting the real issues with these voting machines. I first met Art back in 2003 - yup, he's been doing this THAT LONG.
The photos above illustrate also that we should not assume that chips can't be replaced (ie, new unauthorized vote-counting programs added) or machines can't be tampered with mid-election. All it takes is the right chip and a service call. And do we know the names of these people who are having up close and intimate contact with the voting machine while it is counting votes? Do we know what company they work for?
Heads up, New York, because new purchasing is imminent in your state and Sequoia is one of the bidders. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7619
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hey! I think I've seen those ballot box "seals" before. They look very much like the sham seals we saw in New Hampshire. |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 18
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 6:56 pm: |
|
The election definition files in a 400C are stored and processed in an on-board PC that is locked in the front cabinet underneath the ballot read area. The technicians in the above photos have access to the read heads and the transport mechanism. There are no chips or other memory devices anywhere near them.
They are more than likely clearing balot jams and checking the ballot path to see why ballots are jamming. While there, they could also use canned air to blow any ballot residue off the read heads.
The system is controlled from a computer keyboard that is usually suspended on a shelf in front of the monitor that can be seen in one of the photos.
The 400C is a workhorse. Its biggest problem is it sometimes eats ballots that have been folded, as illustrated in the photos. It will read up to 400 properly stacked, flat ballots a minute. |
Tom Sweet
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tsweet
Post Number: 91
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 7:03 pm: |
|
I agree with Mark, a ballot jam in the 400c is not that different that a page jam in a photocopier. For those of you who do not know, I used to work for Sequoia and have more than my share of experience with the 400c, but I no longer work in elections (Thank God!!!!!!)
Ideally, every ballot would be perfect but some come in all messed up, like when the voter taped pictures of the desired candidate onto the ballot, stuff like that. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4590
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 7:12 pm: |
|
The 400C is meant to be a workhorse. But if it is unreliable and has a lot of down time, how does that affect its actual speed in real-world election conditions? |
Dale Komai
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Komad
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Take a look at these Republican vote counts in California broken down by county and reported by CNN.com.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#CAREP
The mathematical odds of McCain, Romney, and Huckabee finishing 1-2-3 in nearly every county in California with suspiciously similar voting percentages in many cases has got to be close to infinity.
 |
Rebecca Jones
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rebecca_jones
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 6:37 am: |
|
Dale, this site shows a bar graph for each district (as well as percentages). How dumb do they think we are? |
Jody Holly
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jody126
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 7, 2008 - 8:42 pm: |
|
So, now what happens with this information? Is there any way that we can get it to the right people? This is the frustrating part. |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 8, 2008 - 5:53 am: |
|
I fail to understand why in the US you need a paper vote and then an electronic counting machine? You can simply have a paperless Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). That's what we have in India. And nobody, no political party in India, has accused that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are rigged. Rigging the voting is a different problem.
My guess is that US system of government works for vested interests. The US paper manufacturers probably do not want a paperless voting system like the local gun manufacturers do not want gun control laws in US. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4595
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 8, 2008 - 8:16 am: |
|
quote:That's what we have in India. And nobody, no political party in India, has accused that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are rigged.
In the USA in the early days of electronic voting, similarly no such accusations were made. Despite some very shocking results which were the complete opposite to known public sentinent. Only very gradually, and often in the face of tremendous obstruction, has sufficient investigation been done to begin to reveal the extent of the vulnerabilities of these machines. Even when proof of tampering has been found it has been ignored by law enforcement officials who decline to investigate.
In other countries there has been a similar pattern. For example in Holland, where EVMs had been used for many years without opposition or comment, some citizens group decided to check out the machines. They got a big surprise. There were numerous points of vulnerability, and also ways that someone standing outside the building could get a signal and know how someone had voted. Now those EVMs have been forbidden in Holland.
In Ireland they purchased EVMs and even used them in an actual election in 4 locations. (The pilot tests were done in a real election, with no paper backup.) It took several years to find out that there were problems that the officials did not admit at the time. Eventually an independent commission was set up to study the machines, including for security, accuracy and reliability. Their report revealed numerous serious problems. They said the machines were not fit to be used, unless they made 53 specific changes to the hardware and completely rewrote the software (which, it was discovered, would not count accurately in certain situations).
They also discovered the so-called "security seals" were no good at all, as they could be removed and replaced without anyone knowing. Also, in the pilot project, when EVMs arrived with their "security seal" already broken it was just ignored and the machines were used anyways.
As you can see, it can take many years and a lot of hard work just to discover the problems of an individual voting machine. Then there are many other aspects of an election system that must be considered--even more so when EVMs are involved. For example, security of storage, documenting in a transparent way anytime machines are accessed.
Across the USA it is common for uncertified software to be used in EVMs (even though this is not supposed to happen), and for voting machine company technicians and election officials to do things to a machine in the middle of a live election--even when state law expressly forbids this.
When things are not done according to the law, there are virtually no repercussions for the officials or companies involved.
My experience in both the USA and Ireland has taught me that it is unwise to "trust" that the machines work properly and are trustworthy--because they aren't.
The problems are not only that the EVMs could be rigged. There are also problems with machine distribution, with general reliability, and with insufficient training or understanding on the part of the officials and staff who run the election (especially with regard to security issues and chain of custody).
What information do you have so far about the specific makes and models and software versions of the voting machines used in India? Are they identical throughout the country, or are different machines or software used in different locations? Who controls upgrades? Who chooses the technology that is purchased?
It would be very interesting to hear more about EVMs in India, and about how easy or difficult it is to obtain information about them. |
tali olmi
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Talio101
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 8, 2008 - 9:10 pm: |
|
George,Thomas, James, John, Adam,and Alexander are all turning over in their Graves! This is NOT what they had in mind when they created the united States of America. Voting was a Respected
Honorable Priviledge a long, long, long time ago.
How are we revered by other countries when we have lowered our standards of "Democracy"?? |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 5:25 am: |
|
-----------------------------------------------------
Quote
What information do you have so far about the specific makes and models and software versions of the voting machines used in India? Are they identical throughout the country, or are different machines or software used in different locations? Who controls upgrades? Who chooses the technology that is purchased?
It would be very interesting to hear more about EVMs in India, and about how easy or difficult it is to obtain information about them.
----------------------------------------------------
Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in India are made and supplied by only one Company _ Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bangalore. It's a Public Sector Undertaking with majority shares of Union Government. BEL makes and supplies both the hardware and the software. It is also responsible for any upgrades. The machines are identical through out India. After the elections are over, all the EVMs are returned to either the Chief Election Officers of the States or to the Chief Election Commissioner of India, New-Delhi.
The technology emplyed in all the machines is identical and chosen by the supplier - Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL). There is a distinct possibility that BEL is advised by a panel of advisers comprising of the representatives of political parties and technical experts from public/private electronics/software companies. Frankly, I am not aware of the exact position. A reliable source could be i) Bharat Electronics Ltd. or ii) Chief Election Commissioner of India, New-Delhi.
As an employee of the Government, I had worked during elections at a polling booth using EVMs. No machine malfunctioned. Further, Senior Government Officers were constantly taking rounds of polling booths and keeping extra EVMs in their vehicles in case malfunctioning is reported. Nobody repairs the machines at a polling station.
Further, EVMs work on built-in batteries. So, power breakdown is not a problem.
Unlike in the US, India has national political parties and State level political parties. Their total number may be in excess of 50. I do not think they will express satisfaction over the manner of voting and counting unless they were completely satisfied. Also, I want to add, the results of voting have, so far, not gone astray of public sentiment. Interestingly, when voting results have deviated from exit polls, people have made mockery of pollsters rather than questioning the reliability of EVMs. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 196
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 5:41 am: |
|
Premdayal Gupta: Interestingly, when voting results have deviated from exit polls, people have made mockery of pollsters rather than questioning the reliability of EVMs.
Neither pollster mockery nor questioning the reliability of EVMs is sufficient.
Maybe when there's an exit poll discrepancy, an automatic recount should be done so that facts, and not speculation, can be used to decide whether to mock the pollsters or the machines, or c) neither. |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 182
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Web page for the BEL EVM. Today I asked a friend in Bangalore if he thought their source code would be publicly available. He laughed. Their security features document makes it pretty clear that they consider secrecy to be a feature. For example:
quote:Micro-controller has a One Time Programmable Read Only Memory (OTPROM). Program codes are fused in this OTPROM permanently. Program codes once written and fused in this OTPROM cannot be read back or altered by anyone including the manufacturer. Thus, it is 100% code protected from either altering or decoding the contents.
Interesting; the inability to find out what software is on the machine makes it totally trustworthy. Right. But let's look:
Open source software is probably the best bet if you are using a standard hardware platform. But if all the chips are custom, as this one seems to have, I will admit that secrecy probably can keep it more secure from hacking. This one poses challenges making it difficult even for insiders to hack.
But before you start to worry about hacking you have to know that it worked right in the first place. A total black box such as this depends completely on certification testing for validation. What the EVM has going for it in this regard is extreme simplicity, which makes it more likely that any built-in exploits can be discovered. A downside of simplicity: it becomes easier to make fake machines and substitute them in. The security protocols are pretty extensive, although it appears that polling is done over a period of days, and the results are read later. Insider opportunity there.
It appears that this machine is not programmed electronically for each election. Candidate counts appear to be indicated by their position number on the paper "ballot" placed next to the buttons. If I am right it means no one needs to "do something" to the machines before each election, the obviously security hole. But it would also mean there could be no protection against overvoting.
One thing I wonder is how EVM is used to vote multiple races. These things look fairly cheap, and they have made more than half a million of them. Do they have separate EVMs for each race?
Overall, this DRE machine seems less likely to have flaws that evade testing than any other that I know of. More info here. I would like to know more about the EVM; their security features document doesn't actually say enough to evaluate it's security. |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 8:18 am: |
|
____________________________________________________
Quote
A downside of simplicity: it becomes easier to make fake machines and substitute them in. The security protocols are pretty extensive, although it appears that polling is done over a period of days, and the results are read later. Insider opportunity there.
____________________________________________________
I agree with the above observation. Yet, so far it has not happened in India. One reason may be that substituting a few machines may not affect election results and en mass substitution may fail to evade detection. A second point is that the executive branch of Indian government is independent and unaffected by the political process. Not a single officer of the Executive branch (high or low) including the Police can be removed from service because the government has changed hands. So, the executive branch in India has no vested interest in the outcome of an election result. The judiciary in India is further insulated from political interference by making it independent of the executive branch. The entire judiciary of States is controlled by the Chief Justices of the respective States. I believe these checks protect Indians from massive election frauds.
The technical aspects of security risks of Indian EVMs are beyond my comprehension. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4643
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 10:24 am: |
|
Thank you for providing this additional information on how the Indian government is set up and the political independence of its executive and judicial branches.
How are appointments made to these branches, and how is politics kept out of the process? |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 10:47 am: |
|
Quote
___________________________________________________
How are appointments made to these branches, and how is politics kept out of the process?
______________________________________________________
The crème de la crème of services in India is the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). It is managed and supervised by the Union Public Service Commission, New-Delhi (UPSC). Candidates who clear two written examinations are called for personal interviews. Successful candidates are allotted different "States" to serve. India being a very large country, many of its States have a "State Language" different from the two official languages _ Hindi and English _ of India. A candidate successful in IAS may hail from any part of the country and ignorant of the language of the "State" allotted to him. So, after selection and placement, the new IAS learns the language of its adoptive State. For this reason, IAS officers serve the same State for their life save for brief periods of "deputation" when they are loaned to the Union Government at New-Delhi. Interestingly, the entire bureaucracy of the Union Government is made up of officers on loan from State Governments. Union Government has no IAS officers of its own.
For services under State Governments, there are State Public Service Commissions (SPSCs) in every State. SPSC also conducts written Examinations and personal interviews for selection of candidates. However, the State Officers work mostly under the control of IAS Officers.
The political bosses at the State and the Central level can not terminate the services of any employee arbitrarily. They can transfer them from one place or one department to another. Yet, State Officers and IAS Officers can not be transferred out of State. At the most, IAS Officers can be loaned to the Union Government.
IAS Officers in India are omnipresent. All the chief executives of districts belong to the IAS. All the secretaries of State Governments and Central Government belong to the IAS. All Chief Election Officers in States and the Election Commissioners at New Delhi including the Chief Election Commissioner of India belong to the IAS.
The selection of judges is done by the SPSCs of respective States in a similar manner by conducting written examinations and personal interviews. The judges so appointed can reach up to the Supreme Court of India. There is a provision for appointing outstanding practicing lawyers to the posts of District Judge and High Court Judge. But once appointed, they become a part of the common pool. No practicing lawyer is directly appointed a Supreme Court Judge. A High Court Judge can be transferred to another High Court only with the concurrence of the Supreme Court. A High Court Judge or a Supreme Court Judge can be dismissed from service neither by the Union Government nor by the Supreme Court although High Courts can dismiss judges working under them. The judiciary of any State is under the administrative control of its High Court.
I sincerely hope to have been of some meaningful help. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4650
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, February 18, 2008 - 10:59 am: |
|
Premdayal,
I appreciate the detail you are sharing about administrative and judicial appointments in India.
Would not the interview process be open to influence by some form of behind-the-scenes manipulation?
Has corruption been a problem in the past in India but not in the present? What is your perception? |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 10:08 am: |
|
Corruption is like romance. Contemptuous of all forms of governments, it exists every where, at all places, at all times. Just as a nuclear chain reaction needs a critical mass, corruption probably needs a critical population. Other factors just contribute to the ferocity of corruption. Like disparity in income, absence of social security net, absence of rule of law etc. In India, Police is the most corrupt department. Probably because it's directly responsible for maintaining law and order. My guess is it's over corrupt because it's under the control of state executives who are under the control of their political bosses. If State Police was made independent of the executive, like the judiciary, it will probably become substantially less corrupt.
India was declared a Republic nearly two and a half year later on 26th Jan. 1950 after getting independence from the British on 15th Aug. 1947. Pakistan and Bangladesh got their independence at the same time. In the interim period, Indian Law Makers wrote the lengthiest Constitution for India. The Law Makers emphasised the fundamental Rights of citizens, right to constitutional remedies if those rights were violated or compromised as well as the importance of secure administrative machinery and an independent judiciary. Probably, the Law Makers did not foresee that handing over control of Police to State Governments would ultimately make it corrupt. Even in these circumstances, vote rigging is difficult because of rival political parties and a free Media. More over, at important places where Electronic Voting Machines are stored before and after the voting (prior to vote counting), members of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Central Para Military Force (CPMF) are deployed for security. Representatives of all contestants are invited to monitor polling at each polling station and at each vote counting station. Media persons are also allowed access for reporting purposes.
At the end of polling, the EVM is sealed and representatives of the contestants sign on the sealed label. No buttons of the EVM remain accessible once the machine is sealed. It's like sealing a ballot box.
Despite corruption, the silver lining is that Indian democracy is not only surviving; it's healthy. When I look around India, I see Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Pakistan and wonder why our fate is different. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4658
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 11:10 am: |
|
Premdayal,
Thank you again for your information and perspective.
Is anyone in India pressing that the State Police become independent of the executive?
Does the State Police have specific duties in relation to the supervision of elections (transport of ballots, ballot security)?
Does BEL have to submit its hardware and software to any kind of 3rd-party testing, certification or approval? What security tests have been carried out? |
Dale Komai
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Komad
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Machines get vote of no confidence after errors in primary
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
BY DIANE C. WALSH
Star-Ledger Staff
As Union County Clerk Joanne Rajoppi tried to verify returns in this month's historic presidential primary, she kept coming up with errors for a handful of voting machines.
The numbers from the cartridges that print out vote tallies and the paper-tape backup within the machine didn't match. Rajoppi asked her colleagues in other counties to perform the same test, and similar problems were found in voting machines for Bergen, Gloucester, Middlesex and Ocean counties.
"I'm deeply disturbed by this," Rajoppi said yesterday.
The discrepancies have rekindled concerns over the reliability of the 10,000 Sequoia Voting Systems machines used in New Jersey.
Sequoia technicians are scheduled to examine some of the affected electronic machines in Middlesex County tomorrow. A project manager's memo said the company suspects a computer chip might be corrupted and must be replaced.
The errors involve voter-turnout totals. For example, both the tape and cartridge on one machine in Cranford show 225 votes were cast when Democrat and Republican votes are added.
The problem is, the tape and cartridge don't agree when the numbers are broken down by party, Rajoppi said. The tape counts 168 votes for Democratic candidates, while the cartridge shows 170. On the Republican side, the tape counts 57 votes, but the cartridge shows 55.
"Initially, when I called Sequoia they said it was an anomaly. And I said, 'Excuse me. It's not. It's an error,'" Rajoppi said.
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1203515750141370.xml&coll= 1 |
Tom Sweet
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tsweet
Post Number: 101
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 6:56 pm: |
|
That is a completely different type of technology from the one mentioned in this article. The 400-c is for paper ballots, the one mentioned in the New Jersey article is a full-sized DRE of sorts |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 9:40 am: |
|
A recurring question has been whether Indian Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are reliable. Some people have been enquiring whether the source code of the software used is publicly available. It's not. But does that make Indian EVM less reliable? Is there no other way to test the reliability of the Indian EVM except by knowing the source code?
In my view, most of the reliable software is proprietary. Source code is IP and not sharing it does not make proprietary software less reliable. Possibly there are other methods to validate the product. Actually, Open Source is often considered less reliable in the software industry. Companies prefer to use proprietary software for privacy and security.
The question of availability of the source code brings Coca Cola to mind. It's claimed that the formula of Coca Cola is known to a select few. Still, world drinks millions of tons of Coca Cola without blinking an eye. Worldwide, Coca Cola is presumed a safe soft drink. The inference is that the quality of a product need not be suspect just because it's know how is a secret.
Users are the best proof of the reliability of a product. Pharmaceutical industry spends huge sums on identifying a molecule and then manufacturing it. Yet, the acceptability of a molecule as a drug hinges on clinical trials. The actual testing of molecules on human beings is what matters most. So it ought to be with the Indian EVM. The EVM has many positive features to its credit.
1. EVM is manufactured by a Government Undertaking. So, there is less likelihood of somebody having a vested interest in its sales.
2. There is only one manufacturer and only one type of machine. So, training the users is less complicated
3. Indian EVM is not repaired at site; it's replaced. So, less likelihood of tempering with the internal data.
4. It's language independent. That's why it could be used all over India and is being exported also.
5. It's very cheap. So, adoption of Indian EVM can actually cut government expenses of conducting an election.
6. It's successful and repeated use in India has proved its reliability beyond doubt. People in India have sometimes complained about rigging of polling but nobody has accused that Indian EVMs are or can be rigged.
Personally, I am convinced that Indian EVM is the best machine for paperless voting. But it's reliability does not automatically make it suitable for use in all democratic countries. It's the end user only who can make a proper judgement of its suitability. It's like this. The best plasma TV of US is of no use to me here in India. |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 186
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Almost all commercial application software is released with a known set of bugs, often thousands of them. And then there are the bugs they don't know about yet. This, despite a healthy dose of testing. They try to get all known critical bugs fixed, and it is mostly the would-be-nice and hardly-anyone-will-run-into-that categories that are put off. I know this because I am a software developer. One reason to be cautious about which bugs to fix in each release is that, some percentage of the time, the fix causes another bug.
Whether or not open source development is better than proprietary depends on a number of factors. If there are thousands of bugs but the list of them is secret and the source code is secret, then only the handful of company software engineers working on that project can fix them. It is common for the bug list to actually grow over time, because companies like to minimize their development costs.
If the bugs and source code are open, any person who understands the software can fix it. But this depends on the software being used frequently in non-critical scenarios, by people who will report the problems. And the source repository has to be well managed to avoid allowing in malicious code. The developer community has to be active enough to inspect each new code submission. Some of the most secure software around is open source, because it is tested by far more people than any single company could afford to hire.
Software for embedded systems (as opposed to applications that run on PCs) is often less complex. The AccuVote-OS is an example of an embedded system. Usually even more effort is put into testing embedded system software, partly because we have higher expectations of hardware system reliability than for PCs, and partly because the level of complexity is within reach of the team's capacity to test and fix for superb reliability. This is why I had pointed out that the EVM, which is a fairly simple embedded system, might be a good candidate for proprietary code.
Touchscreen machines, which tend to use off-the-shelf proprietary operating systems such as WinCE are in a more tenuous position. The system is not entirely under the company's control, and it is easier for hackers to find unanticipated exploits. When WinCE is used, the company often gets the WinCE source code under non-disclosure agreement, and modifies it a little. That pretty much insures that they will never legally be able to open their source code.
In general I much prefer open source software. But one more argument against it's use for voting machines is the poor availability of test case data. When reporting a bug you have to provide input data to reproduce the problem. If the data are paper ballots that are sealed up, you are pretty much hosed unless you can determine an equivalent set of fake ballots that reproduces the problem. In the case of DREs (like the EVM) you are depending on the ability to remember exactly what each voter did.
(Message edited by Mike_LaBonte on February 22, 2008) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4668
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 22, 2008 - 1:43 pm: |
|
In addition to Mike LaBonte's excellent observations, note that there are different issues involved in the following:
* Reliability
* Accuracy
* Security
Understanding, developing and testing each of these areas requires a thorough understanding of the hardware, software, and end-to-end system manufacturing and use (including in-field conditions and election procedures).
Security testing should include penetration threat testing and should consider all aspects of the election system, including the potential for hardware and firmware security issues (e.g. bootloader vulnerabilities), social engineering (e.g., what if an outsider convinces someone they are a legitimate technician who requires access to machines while they are in storage), and exploitation by a malicious insider.
Find out exactly what tests have been done and by whom. E.g., what reliability standards are used and what testing is done? What is the Mean Time Before Failure of various components or systems? Who reviews the software and how is this done? What penetration threat testing is done? How are machines stored and how is access controlled?
In other words, you need to develop a clear sense of where the points of vulnerability are in your country's unique system. All systems have vulnerabilities. Pretending they are not there is a big mistake.
In Ireland, as in India, we had a government-specified, purpose-built system whose development and manufacture was outsourced to certain companies. The Irish government assured everyone the system had been fully and adequately tested. The public initially believed what it was told. Documents eventually obtained through freedom of information showed that the testing was inadequate and the performance in past elections was questionable. Further studies revealed serious inadequacies with hardware, software, security seals, etc. The machines were then withdrawn from use.
Our Irish experience--also seen in the USA--was that in-field problems tended to be unreported (or outright denied) to the public and the media. If it were not for private citizens who filed Freedom of Information requests we would never have found out about the problems.
Because of the Irish problems and the eventual decommissioning of the machines that had been purchased, some other countries decided to take a closer look at their EVMs and discovered that the machines they had trusted had serious problems, too.
Don't be satisfied with government assurances. Find out the facts for yourself. Your democracy depends on it.
I do not assume that what you find out will be bad. If all is well, you will do the rest of us a service by posting the information here. It can be used to inform election officials, vendors and citizens in other countries who are trying to improve their existing systems who can learn from what India is doing well. |
Jerry Berkman
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Premdayal,
Your analogy is false. I am free to test Coca Cola as much
as I want. But anyone testing voting machines is in danger
of losing their job, and possibly also running afoul of the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
You say:
"In my view, most of the reliable software is proprietary."
Look at the Internet. Most email is transmitted
across the Internet via open source software, e.g. using
sendmail, qmail, and exim. Most Domain Name Servers use
open source software. |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 11:59 am: |
|
Jerry Berkman,
My understanding of the technical aspects of security of data and software is based on day to day working only. For example, the National Stock Exchange of India has a website (www.nseindia.com) which has a button called "charting" on its home page. On clicking this button, you can access a page where you can enter a company's name and the period for which you want data to be charted and the variables like price of the scrip and the traded quantity. When I use Internet Explorer, the chart is displayed. But when I use Firefox, I get a message "No data available". Probably, the Open Source Browser is not allowed access to NSE data. That's why I had concluded that proprietary software is more secure and trustworthy. But I really can not comprehend the technicalities of data security from a software developer's point of view.
Today has been a historic day in the life of my city of Indore located in the central part of India and is the largest city of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Today, 24th Feb. 2008 at around 1700 hrs IST, Indore hosted the world's largest tea party. Around 30,000 people sat and drank tea together at the Nehru Stadium of Indore. A team of Guinness record keepers had come to Indore to certify the event. Already MP is known for gifting white tigers to the world. Now, it will be also known for hosting the largest tea party. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4673
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Premdayal, congratulations to you and your fellow citizens in Indore on participating in the world's largest tea party! It is good to hear about this special event. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 241
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Premdayal, sorry I couldn't be there! Sounds like a wonderful event! |
Dale Komai
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Komad
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, February 25, 2008 - 9:11 am: |
|
VOTE FRAUD AND THE G.O.P. CONVENTION DELEGATES
By: Devvy
February 25, 2008
© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com
As someone who has been on the vote fraud issue since 1993, I knew what was going to happen on "Super Tuesday." There's no question "Super Tuesday" was a super mess with the voting process in a dozen states, probably more. Without being on the ground with access to the Secretary of State's office other than via the Internet, it can be difficult to catch the fraud. I asked for help in getting documentation from several states and thank you again to everyone who offered to help and came through. If you click on this pdf file [EXCERPTED BELOW], you will see the results for California.
As of February 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm
REPUBLICAN Total votes allegedly cast: 2,742,423
DEMOCRATIC Total votes allegedly cast: 4,699,521
OTHER PARTIES per January 22, 2008 numbers: 97,746
TOTAL VOTES allegedly cast for president statewide: 7,539,690
Measure 91: Total for yes and no votes: 7,600,553
Measure 92: Total for yes and no votes: 7,803,032
Measure 93 Total for yes and no votes: 7,889,797
Measure 94: Total for yes and no votes: 8,004,187
Measure 95: Total for yes and no votes: 7,994,738
Measure 96: Total for yes and no votes: 7,976,315
Measure 97: Total for yes and no votes: 7,972,419
Total votes cast for these ballot measures is more than voted for a presidential candidate. Did all these voters go to the voting booth and skipped voting for a president, but made sure they voted for all these ballot measures?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd345.htm |
Tom Sweet
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tsweet
Post Number: 103
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 8:04 am: |
|
I need to buy a vowel here - how does the title, "Vote fraud and the G.O.P." relate to the content? |
Jerry Berkman
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 93
Registered: 5-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 9:55 am: |
|
Dale,
In California, about 43% of the voters are registered
as Democrats, 33% as Republicans, 20% are not registered
with a party (and are known as DTS or Decline to State),
and 4% register for a minor party or defunct party.
In the primary, the Democratic Party allowed DTS voters
to vote in the Democratic Primary.
The American Indepent Party did so too. The Republicans,
Greens, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarians did not.
Your figures show about 5% more votes for the statewide
measures than in the Presidential primary. With 20% Decline
to State, I see no reason to question that 5% of the Decline
to State did not vote in the Democratic or AIP primary. |
B Lindsey
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: A_voter
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 - 2:15 am: |
|
Dale & Jerry,
I took Dale's figures and combined them with your information, and Dale's "TOTAL VOTES allegedly cast for president statewide" were accurate and accounted for all parties.
Here's how it came out:
Republican @ 2,742,423 = 36.37% of "TOTAL VOTES" (or +3.37% above the 33%)
Democrats @ 4,699,632 = 62.33% of "TOTAL VOTES" (or +19.33% above their 43%)
Others @ 97,746 = 1.30% of "TOTAL VOTES" (or -22.70% below their 24%)
So, the other 24% has already been taken into account in Dale's "TOTAL VOTES allegedly cast for president statewide."
It appears as though those voting machines were working overtime to come up with an averaged 4.67% excess votes, or an averaged 351,887 excess votes for each of Measures 91-97.
Could be the California machine's Memory Cards have caught one of those viruses that seem to be going around various states these days. Harri Hursti would be a great diagnostician. 
Kinda makes you wanna scratch your head, doesn't it? |
Premdayal Gupta
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Premdayal
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, March 9, 2008 - 8:34 am: |
|
Catherine Ansbro
The latest issue of The Economist has published a report on Indian Administrative Service (IAS ). You may find it insightful. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4739
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 1:00 am: |
|
Thanks! |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 4:09 pm: |
|
An observation, of this thread.
I see lots of arguments to the question of open vs. closed source.
I suggest to you all that BOTH are bad.
Look you can code anything you want up, it's going to be applied to hardware.
The moment it's applied to hardware, it is invisible as digital 0's and 1's and no human can see it. And if you can't see it you can't provide validation, verification, oversight (OR whatever your specific language is here) You can lab test it all you want, the fact is the public can not provide oversight.
Now someone might argue that a "Certified Technician" (sic) can hook up a logic analyzer and monitor it that way. But I present to you one flaw in that argument.
What if at the doping level PN, PNP, NPN and other techniques used by the chip manufacture decides to put say, an rf receiver chained to a logic bomb? All the lab testing on earth would never show this "specially crafted chip."
Only be complete destructive reverse engineering could that be found out.
And so again we are faced with timing issues, in that by the time that an exploit of this type was revealed the candidate will already be fast-tracked on a jet to be sworn in.
The reality here is that no electronic vote tabulation device can be used if we want an accurate count of ballots, votes.
It's time to put a stop to all this nonsense. I only pray that we all come to our senses before really really bad things happen to the United States. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4792
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 4:37 pm: |
|
I agree with you, Phillip.
quote:The moment it's applied to hardware, it is invisible as digital 0's and 1's and no human can see it. And if you can't see it you can't provide validation, verification, oversight (OR whatever your specific language is here) You can lab test it all you want, the fact is the public can not provide oversight.
Well said.
There is no way the public can provide true oversight. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Another observation, This is specifically in Riverside California, United States, not India.
In the United States we have something called an oath of office, that means that someone swore an oath to protect the US Constitution. In that Constitution is the right to vote if I am not mistaken, if the vote can not be validated, or verified or (Insert your favorite language here) then it doesn't exist, and if it doesn't exist, then we have lost the right to vote.
Shouldn't a lawyer or senator or cop or US Military serviceman start impeachment/arrest? |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2021
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 8:50 am: |
|
Unfortunately the voting rights are left to the states, they aren't in the constitution. Should be there, but it isn't. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 4:17 pm: |
|
The States Are in the "United States" otherwise the feds wouldn't be raiding medical marijuana distribution centers in individual states.
Look, the United States Constitution is what is important here. It's what the officials SWORE an OATH TO PROTECT. IANAL but I was in the military and I swore an oath to protect the constitution and the president. Just like them. and that's why I am flapping my lips here now. It's accountability time.
And my understanding (that differs from your opinion) is that it IS in fact in the United States Constitution that we have a right to vote.
Because if what your saying is right, and I am wrong, then we might as well pack up all we can carry and get out of the United States. I challenge you to prove that what you say is right. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Also Brant Lamb,
You should be aware of this post.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/71693.html?1205972953 |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2024
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 3:55 am: |
|
Hey, Kurt Bellman, come and read Phillip Caine chapter and verse on that the federal constitutional lacks a right to vote.
I'll just give you the very short version here, Phillip. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is trying to pass an amendment to the federal constitution, so that there will be a right to vote in the federal constitution, would he be doing that if there already was one, Phillip? What constitutes your right to vote is state-insured, not federal, which is why in some states previously convicted felons can vote and in others, they can't.
And while I wouldn't say that I'm aware of all posts on this board, I'm sure aware of most of them.
(Message edited by brantl on March 21, 2008) |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 8:33 am: |
|
This will likely be my last post here. I am tired of arguing. Leadership, integrity, and accountability is what is needed and I can't force feed that to anyone.
Brant Lamb, It appears your right and I am wrong about a United States
Constitutional right to vote.
By bringing light on my blunder above, we have destroyed much of what
I have said (which I don't enjoy, but must accept), as well as <b>expose
a big hole in our United States Constitution that allows for
unsophisticated corruption for what it is</b>.
<i>e.g. Since a US Constitutional right to vote isn't clearly in there,
when it should be, it must be clarified.</i>
Can we please replace Constitutional right to vote with state by state
right to vote. (for brevity sake) I am aware it's important to get
terminology correct around here. However I do not desire focus of this
message to shift to US Constitutional rights. I wasn't aware of Jesse
Jackson's work. And the fact remains that SOS's do take an oath of
office. And in the document there is some requirement that
Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People" not
by electronic tabulation devices.
I am also aware that on each sample ballot there is a "Voter Bill of
Rights" in California.
http://primary2006.sos.ca.gov/voterguide/vote_bill_rights.htm
I quote one simple part from it
<b>
If you believe you have been denied any of these rights, or you are
aware of any election fraud or misconduct, please call the Secretary
of State's confidential toll-free
Voter Protection Hotline at 1-800-345-VOTE (8683).
</b>
I have conveyed the first post I made on this board above (albeit
worded differently at the time, we are all growing up here) to the
Secretary of State of California (Two of them now) and also to hava
and received a canned response's always evades the questions raised in
the first post I made on this board above. No Senator or
representative that I have presented this information to has responded
back with specific language addressing the issue.
I see all this in depth technical studies (by a lot of caring and
giving volunteers) yet the question still is ignored about the actual
parts. Anybody can stamp a part number on a specially crafted chip
(like I theoretically lay out above) and place it into a logic
analyzer to test if it's doing what you think it is and it can pass.
Yet the fact remains, it can still be a specially crafted device
waiting for a command via many avenues of exploit.
<a
href="http://www.eff.org/wp/investigating-machine-identification-code-technology-color -laser-printers">Similar
to the printer snafu</a> but not exactly with the same technique or
goal in mind.
When they make the chip, nobody knows what is going into it. And let's
also not forget that chips themselves are made of imperfect materials
and can also fail, burn out, be intermittent, and a host of other
things none of which the public doing oversight can see.
This is not to say that all electronics are inherently evil. I see no
problem with say, using electronics to help the disabled to print a
ballot. In that case we can physically see the paper ballot in our
hand afterward. This could be a good use in my opinion if proper
procedures were in place.
However bad uses of electronic technology (in specific regard to
elections) would be:
(in theory as I stated above, and don't accuse anyone of actually doing
it. Yet at the same time nobody has looked either.)
Electronically tabulating vote counts
Transferring vote counts across ANY network
Using a phone and audio to "call in vote totals" as opposed to face to
face delivery.
Storing vote data on memory devices.
Each of these could be exploited. And without destructively reverse
engineering under an electron microscope for tampering every component
from point "a" to point "b" along the path.
Want talk about cost? Theres some heavy cost for you, when you must
destroy everything after each use.
Who is to say that the electrical grid is filtered properly? Is it at
the right voltage, and frequency? Is someone monitoring that in each
polling place for the 24/7 time that the election runs? What if there
is a glitch? Speaking of frequency, in the above theoretical scenario
also since I am talking about an rf receiver, is anyone monitoring all
frequencies across the spectrum 24/7 during the time in question? Who
is to say someone nearby just flips a transmitter at a certain time
when nobody is around and change the logic, then flip another switch
and destroy the logic that changed the logic back to the lab tested
logic version.
I say, it's impossible, it's impractical, the SOS can't know, the
President can't know, the NSA can't know, the CIA can't know, none of
the dedicated red teams, blue teams, the FBI, the cops, nobody, not
even a GOD (if god exists) can know all this information.
Even if somehow magically this could be done and nothing was found, it
would cost an unimaginable amount of time, resources and money.
And if it is being used, then we actually have wasted our time with
the whole election. And by vague definition in the constitution[s] and
"chaotic" state by state "hodge podge mix of insane unclear laws"
insured right to vote, when it hits the courts, it's no longer being
decided by "The People."
If this is the case then, the definition of the United States itself
must be changed to reflect this new reality. You can't really call it
a constitutional republic in my opinion.
This is why I argue these machines must go.
Look, I am just a common sense guy. I don't have a bunch of degrees,
but I have done much work in electronics and computers, some of my
knowledge might surprise someone with a degree. Just because you have
a degree doesn't mean you know everything. I don't know everything as
my above blunder with the constitution clearly shows. I am begging
someone to re-word this to the (spirit of my point) without trashing
anything and present it to a true leader out there that has the power
to get things done fast. There was a Colonel or a General that once
suggested that everyone "Just Do it." And he passed out "Just Do it
Cards" to everyone.
I am begging that somebody, and I don't care who "just do it."
Get all abusive uses of electronics out, including theoretical ones.
Get the Constitution fixed to have a "Right To Vote"
Get all the chaotic mess of State, District, Territory, City, polling
place all on one page with policies and procedures and the method of
holding elections out in the sunlight for everyone to see physically.
Stop all this nonsense discussion and wasting of time of testing and
arguing about all these abusive technologies. Just get rid of them all
by presenting this argument.
Make haste.
Peace everyone, that really why I signed up to this forum for was to
get this ONE SINGLE MESSAGE out. Please don't remove the spirit of it
by petty bickering. We The People don't have time for this nonsense
anymore.
(Message edited by Phillip_Caine on March 21, 2008) |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 8:37 am: |
|
Can a moderator Click the Enable HTML box on that last post, and delete this one. Sorry I had a ton of windows open. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4802
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Phillip, we're all learning all the time. It's one of the great things about this site. Hope you stick around.
Re: changes to state constitutions, that's a great suggestion.
Often the best way to get involved is by starting with your own local area. In your case, this could mean finding out about your state's constitution, and speaking with other like-minded people in your area to start exploring what wording would improve the situation.
BTW there have been numerous discussions about changing federal/state constitutions & laws here, legal strategy, etc. Jim March has contributed some wonderful concepts regarding legal strategy. You'll find that the focus of discussion threads here is constantly changing.
BBV doesn't have staff to undertake changing state laws or constitutions--and it may be prohibited from doing so by its 501(c)3 status. I'm sure it may not advocate for specific candidates. I'm not sure how this relates to taking public positions in relation to legislation. (I am sure BBV is allowed to provide information and analysis to anyone who asks for it, but it may not be able to "advocate". Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I am wrong.)
The main thing is, don't wait for someone else to do something. See what needs changing in your backyard and see what you can do--e.g., by finding out information and sharing it with others.
Have you seen the Citizens' Tool Kit yet? (Link on BBV home page, or in the Forums.) If you can't find it let me know. The Toolkit has chapters with advice on changing legislation and how to go about it. It also has information about other organizations that focus on this kind of legal reform.
Your thoughts and energies will help to move this forward, so stay engaged with the issues in whatever way is suitable for you. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Sorry Brant,
I just now saw your invitation to spout here, but Phillip found the truth anyway.
But despair not by missing that point, Phillip. Finer legal minds than mine or yours will swear up and down that there is a federal Constitutional right to vote.
Geez, I hope it never shows up as the $1 million question on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?".
Yes, Brant, not just Jesse is on this issue, but the whole NAACP is on it, too, especially the Legal Defense Fund.
The federal Constiution uses language like "the right to vote shall not be abridged by the States by reason of...". That is not just because the Constitition tends to use quaint turns of phrase, which it does often, but because the basic right itself is not federal. It is a state guaranteed right.
But the federal Constitution bears the ability to restrict for what reasons states can abridge or restrict rights they have granted generally.
Phillip, if you want to do an exercise, I would suggest getting a copy of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, including the concurring decisions and the dissents, and attempt to read it not as a layman, but as a lawyer might, understanding that the Court does not willy-nilly throw around excess language. Almost every word in that decision means something important. Even conjunctions like "and" mean something specific.
Example: when the Court says that states may not treat ballots in a "arbitrary and disparate manner", it means they may treat them arbitrarily as long as it is not disparate, and it may treat them in a disparate manner, as long as it is not arbitrary. If they meant both were illegal, they would have proscribed treating ballots in "an arbitrary or disparate manner".
Learning to read case law, statute law, and even Constitutions, is a lifelong quest that very few people ever master, even great legal minds. It really is a Seinfeldesque "bizzare-o world", or the place Alice went through the "looking glass".
The average man on the street's legal IQ is abysmally low. Brant Lamb and I disagree on much, but his is one of the best legal minds I've yet encountered, outside of the bench and bar.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2027
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 4:53 am: |
|
Kurt, I'm blushing! |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 5:37 am: |
|
Hey Brant,
In the "old days" (Lincoln era) we could have taken our bar exams, never having been to law school, and if we passed, we could open a firm.
Just think of it! The liberals who wanted to litigate an election matter would trundle into your office, and the conservatives into mine.
And we could tagteam the whole world on expansion of ballot access cases.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 9:13 am: |
|
A scary thought there, Kurt. Enough opinionated opposed thought to make the world blow up held apart by one office wall! |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 9:18 am: |
|
Brant,
Your comment summoned up a Bugs Bunny / Marvin the Martian bit for me.
Or was it a "Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a Half Century" bit?
(Message edited by formerelecdir on March 24, 2008)
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 3:20 pm: |
|
(There's a couple folks that this doesn't apply to, but not many at this point)
Thanks for completely loosing the point about electronic tabulation devices.
(I SPECIFICALLY TOLD YOU FORGET THE CONSTITUTION PART) But what did you all do? Go right to that, like moths to a flame, you went ahead and hijacked the conversation to what I said FORGET ABOUT.
This is why I am done with this. I can't take this absolute corruption and nonsense anymore. I don't know if it's cyber warfare, or just plain incompetence.
I now have high blood pressure, I literally am DYING FROM TRYING TO TELL YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I HAVE LEFT BRADBLOG. (at the end being labeled a nutter)
I AM LEAVING YOU NOW.
Someone told me once that if you sleep in the gutter your going to wake up with sewage on you.
Well your all going to learn for yourselves now. I am DONE.
(I did all I could, I pounded on the Senators and Reps and SoS and HAVA)
If you don't want your vote to count, continue on with the nonsense. Ignore what I told you. I can't change YOU or this country's path.
History will add your names to the list of poor leadership, corruption and the destruction of our constitutional republic and the deaths of untold millions complete financial disintegration.
You might look down on me because I don't make no money. But I have something you will never have. Integrity on this subject.
(IF you don't fall into this category you already know who you are, but I ain't playing this BS intellectual nonsense game anymore. I am done with formality, you call yourself a public official or PAST public official? I have ZERO RESPECT FOR YOU NOW. And I am not alone.)
You go ahead and sleep with that.
These corrupt/failed/rigged electronic vote tabulation devices have cost TOO MUCH. If you can't see that you are CORRUPT. There are no more excuses.
I don't care if your the SOS, an election official, or a POTUS candidate!
You think your doing good?
Think again, your too slow. You move too slow because your too damn greedy.
Only questions I got left for you (and I am not asking you, I am asking myself) are you corrupt, or stupid? Are you going to feel good when the United States falls like ROME? All your profits are not going to mean a thing when your going to be worried about your very life because of the chaos your crap leadership allowed to happen.
Wonder if I should still help you then; after you not only didn't listen to me, but blew me off, and labeled me a nut?
Ain't it funny how a nut ends up being a patriot later on.
(Three people I don't want this to apply to: Bev, Brad and I forget the third. The rest of you need schooling.)
PS: you have no idea how ANGRY the direction this thread went makes me. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 3:31 pm: |
|
One FINAL thing.
Is it too difficult for ONE of you to take what I have said here and start a NEW THREAD?
Don't look to me anymore.
Pretend I died. For all practical purposes I did.
And If I didn't, boy, you better look out cause I play games no more. I only SEE ONE OPTION on how to deal with oath breakers now. and you really really don't want to push me much further. Out of RESPECT for BEV's work, I part this website. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2042
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 5:23 am: |
|
One of the problems that we have in this movement is the presence of people with very short fuses and no sense of humor. It leaves the rest of us, wiping the spray off of our faces and apologizing for the explosions. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2158
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:52 am: |
|
One wonders excatly what it must take to be labelled a nutter on Bradblog.
I think a little introspection is called for.
I don't know who Phillip Caine is, but I hope, for his sake, he is under treatment. If you are accused on being unstable on Bradblog, you might just have a little problem, huh?
Look, I know that at some point when the realization that elections are as flawed as they are smacks you upside the head when you thought there was some patriotic perfection acting as an "invisible hand' ensuring their purity, can be damned hard to accept and very angering.
The irony is that it is the very exhibition of that anger that will get you dismissed as a loon. You need to get control of yourself first, if you desire to be taken seriously at all.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Jon Evans
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jevans9
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:21 am: |
|
The irony is that it is the very exhibition of that anger that will get you dismissed as a loon. You need to get control of yourself first, if you desire to be taken seriously at all.
So noted hahahahahhaa. I needed a good laugh today and this post really did it! |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2044
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 3:45 am: |
|
You know Kurt, there is a difference between pointing to a wound, and rubbing salt in it. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 8:09 am: |
|
V. Kurt Bellman, I hope for your sake you come down off your high horse. (I see you entered this madness somewhere in 2006) A short search on your name shows a few hits out there even on Bradblog, however if your not angry about the whole use of electronics for tabulating votes you Sir are the one who needs immediate treatment.
I on the other hand first heard about this madness around 2004, and have continuously said that the electronics + signals ARE THE PROBLEM. I don't have a law background, I don't wear a suit and tie, I have an electronics/programming background. I get my hands burnt and bloody actually working on and with electronic devices.
You want to do a search on me since you don't know me? Search "Phil" on bradblog, or Sacxtra on google. Should be more than enough dirt on me to add me to the psyop "unreliable list" and completely discredit me and therefore ignore my message to the world.
Would it be right to assume that "Formerelecdir" means you were a former elections director?
No wonder these electronic tabulation devices won't go away, you refuse to listen, yet retained the power of oversight. Like Shultz in Hogan's Hero's, "I see nothing. Nothing." Well perhaps you were not qualified to your position. (Although I must admit it seems folks liked you and you "apparently" never lost votes (which I can't verify) )
Go ahead turn a blind eye to the most serious national security problem this country has ever faced. Just because you wear a suit and tie doesn't make you have the integrity or qualifications to speak about electronic devices at the doping level.
The fact is these machines are failing. They don't have glitches, they FAIL. When they fail votes are lost. The facts is when a vote is in the electronic signal state it CAN NOT BE VALIDATED because it can not be SEEN by humans.
This is an abusive use of technology and needs to be stopped at all costs. The abuse of electronic technology has led to the worst leadership in the history of the United States, if not the world, and it is still costing us in American blood, economic disintegration, the complete destruction of the Constitution.
I don't know if you had to raise your right hand and take an oath of office, but I did take an oath in the USAF. And yes, it pisses me off to no end what these electronics being used in an abusive manner have done. You want to label me a loon? Fine, I can take it. I've been called worse, and it's a small price to pay to get these rigged electronic devices destroyed.
To go full circle here, it matters not if these devices are run by linux, or windows, it's that the SIGNAL is invisible and can not by definition have public oversight. You can rebuild databases all you want, the public can not have oversight. You can allow people to watch all they want, but the public can not have oversight of electronic signals.
Unless of course you are now going to claim you can see at the speed of 3e8 with your naked eye.
I am not the one that is "naked." (naked meaning clueless)
Sorry to have knocked over the comfortable pot of stew. Maybe a quart of saltwater is what's needed. Or a pair of wire snips. A few blown fuses. A blackout. (We already have enough blackouts on this topic in the fascist media.)
No my friend, nobody should trust somebody because they were an elections director, nor should they trust someone wearing a suit and tie.(Just look to the banking/monetary system for current examples of the most egregious thieves in history all wearing their suits.
(You and I will pay for it.)
Look man I am just a hacker, I have no degree but have probably wired up networks larger than you are currently using. On the bench, I ratwire up projects in hours or days, testing, adjusting the timing on the scope, but at least I UNDERSTAND what's happening and how it can be exploited. I can visualize the math of electronics, of power and frequency, and of logic.
My conclusion is that electronic tabulation devices should be GLOBALLY OUTLAWED and only OUTLAWS will run their elections on them!
Yes lets introspect the extrospection of my thoughts on electronic voting shall we. Perhaps we should look in the mirror first.
IN this conversation alone some red flags come up for me. If I was secretary of state, I would not hire you.
Let's just ask you outright.
Are you PRO MACHINE? or do you ACCEPT MACHINES to be used in elections?
With the knowledge I have given you in this thread and your answer, YOU my friend should be going completely loony yourself. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2164
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 9:52 am: |
|
Phillip,
Machines are tools. They are neither inherently good or evil. They are neuter, in my mind.
The mere fact that you know how to do electronic mashups down to the chip doping level makes you automtaically assume that's going on all over the place. I don't doubt that makes sense to you.
The problem is: 95% of all election personnel don't know how to properly run a voting machine correctly by the book, and I'm saying that's by far the bigger problem than the kinds of things that are normal in your experience.
I think we should be moving toward eliminating machines ( we agree on that ) but that solution has its own problems with people availability and chain of custody, and all sorts of low-tech problems, but you seemingly just wave your hands like some Jedi mind trick. "Never mind, these aren't the problems you're looking for."
Those problems are far more clear and present in elections than what is undeniably possible but not probable from the world of "I get my hands dirty and burned by soldering irons".
Your repeated use of inflammatory language and extreme assertions says plenty about your state of mind that I don't need to say.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2165
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 10:35 am: |
|
"most serious national security problem this country has ever faced"
"needs to be stopped at all costs"
"electronic technology has led to the worst leadership in the history of the United States, if not the world"
"complete destruction of the Constitution"
"Look man I am just a hacker"
"electronic tabulation devices should be GLOBALLY OUTLAWED"
These are the phrases that raise more concerns than anything I would find by Googling you, or whatever, as if....
Phil, if our republic is in severe danger, it is not because of electronic tabulation of votes, or indeed any other single factor. If it is happening, and it may well be, it is happening by the "death of a thousand pinpricks".
I have a philosophy that has served me well. There is no such thing as the "one big thing".
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4866
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 11:11 am: |
|
quote:I have a philosophy that has served me well. There is no such thing as the "one big thing".
I agree, Kurt.
This is why it can be so effective for people to take action by getting to know their local area. It can also make issues more manageable. And it gives one grounding through practical experience.
Serving as a poll worker or election observer can be a great way to start. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Kurt said
"The mere fact that you know how to do electronic mashups down to the chip doping level makes you automtaically assume that's going on all over the place."
I never said it was. I only said it COULD BE. And it has NEVER been checked. And since you really don't know where the parts come from, except for what part number might be stamped on the outside, you don't know. You you can't prove it isn't happening. The fact remains these devices are failing, and when they fail they usurp democracy itself. You can't have a right to pursue happiness when it's usurped invisibly. You might not be able to put two and two together to realize that all these problems we have now are the direct result of these machines and "other tricks." Of swearing in before votes are counted. So what are you doing to stop this nonsense from happening yet again? Fighting in the courts is after the fact. The courts can not keep up with election failures. Justice is denied every time, unless of course your saying when there's a failure the whole thing should be done again. Which ain't happening. When you find corruption and lies in a company that manufactures electronic vote tabulation devices, why are they still allowed to do so?
"Your repeated use of inflammatory language and extreme assertions says plenty about your state of mind that I don't need to say."
Just because you wear a suit, and worked as an election director does not give you the right to label me one way or another. Your previous experience as an Elections Director does not make your word any more correct on the subject of Electronic Tabulation Devices. As a public figure it's actually the reason you should be challenged. It's actually the reason you or your words shouldn't be trusted. It's exactly the reason a sanity check such as my own voice needs to be heard.
"Machines are tools. They are neither inherently good or evil. They are neuter, in my mind."
This is exactly why your wrong. Electronic tabulation devices are not neutral, they are an evil and abusive use of technology which stops public oversight. That by definition is not neutral. Your belief that they are neutral *is* the problem, your lack of a technical background *is* the problem. Your treatment of those who "point out exploits and flaws" and do have a technical background *is* the problem.
Although electronics by themselves is not inherently evil, the use of them in certain ways IS evil.
For example, you don't radiate people with microwaves, that's evil, you don't steal databases and rob bank accounts, that's evil, you don't snoop on telecommunications and then use the information you gleamed politically, that's evil, you don't rummage through peoples passports looking for dirt, that's evil, You don't censor the media and run propaganda and ignore things that could bring your big corporation down, that's evil, you don't electrocute people, that's evil, you don't electronically harass people to make their life miserable and unhealthy, you don't program devices to be IED's. On the other hand typing on this blog is not evil, nor is watching a video, checking email, or buying something from ebay. It's the way electronics are used that makes it not neutral. The only way that electronics are neutral is if they are unplugged and sitting on a shelf.
"Phil, if our republic is in severe danger, it is not because of electronic tabulation of votes, or indeed any other single factor. If it is happening, and it may well be, it is happening by the "death of a thousand pinpricks". "
Which all started with failed electronic tabulation devices, and went on the the supreme court usurping the people.
"I think we should be moving toward eliminating machines ( we agree on that ) but that solution has its own problems with people availability and chain of custody, and all sorts of low-tech problems, but you seemingly just wave your hands like some Jedi mind trick. "Never mind, these aren't the problems you're looking for." "
Ever served jury duty? There's your pool of bodies. Make it a mandatory service. Without electronics vote tabulation devices, they only need to learn chain of custody and focus on policies and procedures. And no I am NOT looking for these problems, I am focusing on one specific aspect. Leaving problems like vote caging, doctoring of the registration rolls, and the plethora of other disenfranchisment tricks is NOT my focus, it just CLOUDS up my focus. There are plenty of more qualified folks to work on those problems. When you drag all that into a technical discussion you fill the room with smoke so nobody can see, you confuse people into forgetting even the most basic understanding of physics and electronics. You spread fear by saying, "Oh no what shall we do if all the machines are outlawed." Cross that bridge when it arrives, but ARRIVE THERE FIRST. We never asked for these machines to tabulate votes, it was forced on us by corrupt people + HAVA, some of which are in jail. Why must their legislation survive their corruption? Does it make sense to you to allow their corruption to continue on? No it doesn't. The only way to stop the oncoming "march of the electronic vote tabulation devices" is to stop them before they arrive and fail again. Otherwise they will continue to fail, they will continue to be un-validatable, and the public will continue to be disenfranchised and unable to provide oversight.
Catherine_a
"Serving as a poll worker or election observer can be a great way to start."
What's the point, if you can not physically see electronic signals? You can't by definition observe anything but the outside cover of a box. That's not observation, that is a waste of time, a farce. An electronic part could be burned out inside the box and you would never know.
Unless these machines were only tasked to help the disabled to print a paper ballot to be hand counted you couldn't provide oversight. You can say you are, and you could swear it was the truth, but it wouldn't make actually be truth. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4883
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 2:52 am: |
|
quote:"Serving as a poll worker or election observer can be a great way to start."
What's the point, if you can not physically see electronic signals?
There is much value in serving as a poll worker or observer. You are absolutely right that we can't observe the electrons, and I agree with your premise that including electronic voting or counting devices in an election system is incompatible with having truly transparent elections.
That said, there is a tremendous amount of activity unrelated to the machines themselves that goes on as part of running any election system. By serving as a poll worker or election observer you develop more familiarity with the practicalities and people who are charged with this task in your local area.
These practicalities--knowing them and understanding them intimately and thoroughly--will be crucial for bringing in and implementing election systems that do not incorporate electronics. Are you reading the NH recount threads closely There are major issues around chain of custody of ballots, security, access, documentation, etc. It is crucial to master an understanding of these issues if you hope to implement a paper-only, hand-counted election system in your local area.
It is not enough to just "get rid of the machines"--though I agree that this aspect is also important. If you're not just as expert in the other vulnerabilities you won't understand how to do a paper-based election, either.
That also includes understanding the people, political environment and practicalities of your local election area. By working with these folks you will learn a lot and be better positioned to make a positive impact on the election systems in your local area and beyond.
Have you had a chance to look at the Citizens Tool Kit? If being a poll worker does not appeal you might find some other options that will be a good match for your skills and interests.
Your technical background is a big plus. (As a poll worker, you could play a big role in identifying and publicizing any weaknesses you observe in protocols, logs, suspicious cables, etc. Documenting, recording and educating people about the actual on-the-ground problems with the equipment will help make change possible.) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 6:45 am: |
|
Phillip,
No sir, you are just factually in error. Your premises are exactly wrong.
"We never asked for these machines to tabulate votes, it was forced on us by corrupt people + HAVA"
Wrong! My county (Berks County, PA) actually did legally and correctly ask for them, in 1987, in a legally binding referendum after a year-long demonstration tour at malls, shopping centers, nursing homes, fairs, carnivals, and interactive local cable programming. (We were the first cable system in the country with two-way interactive programming.) We also had seen a neighboring county (Dauphin) use them satisfactorially, (and loved by the voters) since 1983. They were first used in our May 1989 primary in my county. HAVA had absolutely nothing to do with the installation of DRE's. It had everything to do with the expansion thereof. The first President elected from my county on electronic machines was Bill Clinton, and he won on the electronic machines after Reagan and Bush-41 were elected on the systems that preceded them.
Phil, you need to read more. DRE's were not brought to us by HAVA. They existed in many states as far back as the late 1970's and early 1980's. HAVA just made them more common, and it was the disability lobby that insisted on them, and continues to do so to this day. Most local jurisdictions were dragged metaphorically "kicking and screaming" into DRE voting. Want proof? Do some research on the advocacy work of places like the Disabilities Law Project in Pittsbugh, PA, headed by a Paul O'Hanlon. If Pennsylvania hadn't gone to DRE's and AutoMarks, that group was preparing to sue the state and all counties that did not co-operate.
Phil, you didn't have the experience of sitting at a table with the Board of the Pennsylvania Independent Living Council being threatened with lawsuits if our state didn't put DRE's all over Pennsylvania. (I was the chairman of a state plan board for HAVA at that time.) I did have that experience.
Corrupt individuals? Yeah, some were involved. But they didn't create this mess - the disabled lobby did. The corrupt bastards found ways to profiteer from them.
Oh, and Phil? Just because I am wearing a suit in the photo, doesn't mean I typically do. I work in a three-person imaging company, and haven't worn a suit, except for a dinner date or an upscale photography event, in about three years. So get off it, okay? You're only exhibiting a whole bunch of class-based hate and venom.
(Message edited by formerelecdir on April 2, 2008)
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Kurt,
I stand corrected on the origins of these electronic vote tabulation devices, and the specific date and time that they entered into the picture. However, I don't care WHEN they came into existence. The fact remains that they are an evil abusive use of technology, and that they don't allow public oversight because of the physics of electricity. Knowing that now, makes it everyone's duty to have them removed from existence.
And I would NOT call the disabled lobby "corrupt bastards" they should have the right to vote just as you or I do, perhaps one day you or I will be disabled. The difference comes as to how this should have been handled in the first place, if you were the chairman of a planning board being sued, you could just have easily counter sued, stating that electricity by nature is unvalidatable by humans and it would be impossible to provide oversight unless say technology was only being used to assist the disabled to print a paper ballot to be hand counted with public oversight + chain of custody + policies and procedures + protecting voter registration roles from being socially engineered.
Oh and finally, I didn't post the photo of you in a suit, you do understand that it gives folks the impression your information comes from some type of higher source with some kind of inside knowledge, and when you represent yourself as an "Former Elections Director" that your word is somehow better sourced than say someone who actually works with electronics who might not have the same legal background.
The only reason this thread continues on my behalf is because you placed me in a light that makes me look like I don't know what I am talking about. Further suggesting there is something wrong with my state of mind. The only thing wrong with my state of mind is what you have suggested is wrong with my state of mind.
Because I was able to put two and two together and quickly search on your name and find out in fact you were a Director of Elections and should have known better about these electronic tabulation devices, doesn't mean I am "exhibiting a whole bunch of class-based hate and venom." You can say it, but it does not make it true.
I have served the country also. I took it extremely serious. Anyone that serves our country should take it extremely serious. It is serious.
You didn't have to bow to fear of a lawsuit by any entity, you could have used common sense. Back in the 1700's we didn't use these electronic tabulation devices. And we should NOT have to use them now. Although I will go so far as to say a device that assists the disabled to print a paper ballot *COULD* be used if all it consisted of was a human interface to print a paper ballot. That would have fit HAVA just fine. Could have, would have, should have are all irrelevant now because now that you know what an evil abusive use of electronics is, (specifically electronic vote tabulation devices) you can't go back to believing they are neutral devices.
What the thing you don't seem to get is, I really don't care who you are when it comes to this problem. Many here have said, volunteer, get involved, find out what's happening locally, write the SOS, write to HAVA. And I am telling you I HAVE and they IGNORE ME. It's not up to me to prove these electronic tabulation devices can be validated, I already know the answer to that (which I have already stated has to do with physics and electronics) It's up to them to prove they can be validated--which so far has not happened. In fact the more we look at what's out there the more we find wrong with these evil abusive electronic vote tabulation devices.
(note that I consistently use a specific descriptive language here.)
I am in my proper thread, I am in Sacramento, where this Sequoia scanner is geographically located. And I am making a blanket statement as to all electronic vote tabulation devices (it matters not what manufacture makes them) can not be validated by humans, they all have failed, they will again, and no recount, no justice will ever be served until they are gone. Otherwise we would see people being YANKED out of office. And we don't see that happening. Instead they do any dirty trick to get into office. Then they wreak havoc within the system, further screwing things up.
You can't recount on a machine that can't be validated in the first place.
You can't recount on a machine that has failed.
A glitch is a failure.
I don't hate you personally, I thank you for your service. I hate these electronic vote tabulation devices. Big difference. When someone is pro machine, or neutral machine, they can't help solve this problem. They can only add to the problem, until they learn or are forced to learn about the evil abusive use of electronics. Then they can never go back to being pro or neutral again without showing that they are corrupt. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 1:08 pm: |
|
As if I needed to further my point about an evil abusive use of technology, specifically electronic vote tabulation devices and national security. Today I present to you an article running on ZDNET.
URL: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39378374,00.htm
Title: "US reveals plans to hit back at cyber threats "
Author: Tom Espiner ZDNet.co.uk
Published: 02 Apr 2008 17:27 BST
I quote three relevant paragraphs.
Other causes for military concern include possible supply-chain vulnerabilities, where vulnerabilities are introduced into chipsets during manufacturing that an adversary can then exploit, and electronics vulnerabilities.
"We need to make sure chips aren't manipulated — we're worried about information assurance just like everyone else," said Elder.
Other problems being faced by the Cyber Command are centred around different Air Force and military units needing to improve their channels of communication before the autumn.
So the USAF get's it about chip doping being a national security problem. This knowledge is way past time to be implemented, and executed in regards to our elections. What I have suggested to you all is that interfacing a disabled voter to a device that assists with printing of a paper ballot *COULD* be rolled out nationally. At the same time electronic vote tabulations devices that can not be verified unless destructively reverse engineered under an electron microscope should be outlawed nationally. And for everyone else that is blessed to be an able bodied voter a paper ballot should be the ONLY ALLOWED way to vote.
And no I am not forgetting about all the other issues with chain of custody and protecting voter rolls, or policies and procedures. They would all need to be modified as well as the manpower.
By the way someone asked me about chain of custody. I have a simple answer that can be built upon. I worked in the USAF on jets. One day I found myself like a half a mile away from where parts are stored to FOM. Once stored they are each checked in and safely placed on a shielf or in a vault. Okay I had say 16 black boxes out and I was by myself along with a toolbox and no transportation. How did I get the hundreds of pounds of parts checked in?
Easy, I walked line of sight about 50 yards, set one box down, went back got another, and another and another, until finally I reached my destination. That is an unbroken chain of custody on something that I swore an oath to protect.
In elections however, even if you swore an oath, you still can not be trusted, therefore this wonderful plan to create a chain of custody was invented. It takes more than one person obviously, and they should be made up of all the different parties, to keep checks and balances on the other parties. Same method could be used. It should be thoroughly explored, for weaknesses and be mandatory to have it rolled out NATIONALLY.
If we want election integrity, we are going to have to think big, and unlike how Kurt believes no big thing can work. I disagree. HAVA was a big thing, it worked just fine to screw everything up security wise when they introduced these electronic vote tabulation devices. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Phil,
I think you misunderstood who exactly I hurled the "corrupt bastards" epithet upon. I did not intend to tar the disability lobby with that. They were advocating for their constituency. That's their job. The "corrupt bastards" are whatever mix of vendors and politicians who profiteered (directly or not so much) from the legitimate advocacy of the disabled lobby.
I strongly believe the vendors do write campaign checks. Yes, Bob Ney (R-Ohio) was all over this. But specifically with HAVA and DRE's, at least equally important was Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). The two other authors were more associated with other aspects of HAVA (Hoyer[D] and McConnell [R]), and not so much the machines part.
The proposed countersuit you suggested was not possible, because the existing electronic machines were already legally deployed. What the disability groups were suing over was "private and independent access" to voting. They will not accept paper, because, rightly or wrongly, they have adopted the position that any use of paper makes it impossible for them to not require some assitance that sighted voters don't need.
They have gone even further than advocating DRE's. They started advocating specific brands and models of DRE's.
Look, Phil, my county adopted electronic machines in 1987, deployed them in 1989, hired a new Elections Director in 1995, hired me as one in 2001, fired me in 2005, and rehired the one from 1995, after she spent the 4 years selling fraudulently certified AVS WinVotes in Virginia and Pennsylvania. (By the way, she's married to a convicted public corruption felon, too.)
I didn't create my county's DRE's, and they're still there. What I'm sure you found by researching me is that, aside from some libellous crap on a few sites that stated that the election they screwed up after I was fired was my fault, my reputation was for a pretty spotless and open office, if a little too "Dr. Greg House"y. By that I mean I was pretty much of a jerk to a few people, including a BBV icon or two.
I realize you are up to your eyeballs in the physics and math of electronics, and no one wants to listen to you. Bites, doesn't it? I know imaging better than most people and I know why properly exposed film kicks digital photography's butt, but no one wants to listen to that either. Why? Same reason. People are into "what's hip or cool or easy (or cheaper) for me", not what's quality and integrity.
People need to be educated and they don't like people yelling, "Hey, man, you gotta do this right now, man!" People don't like sudden radical changes. They will accept incrementalism.
What needs to be done is make each day better than the last. Don't expect people to buy into doomsday talk. They're not going to do it, and they'll probably look to put you away in the meantime.
Cat Stevens put it nicely in "Father and Son":
"I know it's hard to be calm, when you've found something going on."
Well Phil, my advice is the same.
Take your time, think a lot, think of everything you've got. For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.
Keep plugging, Phil. Just try to tone down the stridency a little. It'll bear fruit, but not as fast as you might like.
We need to build what comes next before we unplug what is.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4892
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Phillip,
BBV does investigations and provides people like you and me with information and connections to people, and it carries out investigations. There are other groups that focus on changing legislation.
BBV seeks to empower you and me to do things for ourselves. It can't do it for us.
It's great that you've already written letters to your state/national representatives, even if you haven't seen any response.
What's the next step, in addition to sharing your point of view here? Are there any actions that will shift your considerable resources--information, concern, conviction and passion--into effective generation of change?
Was the Citizens Tool Kit of any help?
Do you have a specific question or request for information that would help you move forward? |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 17
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Kurt,
I repeat. Thanks for your service. I got it, that people liked you. I just did a sanity check on you to see if you were pro machine. That's all. Very simple yes/no without this knowledge it can be impossible to have further dialog. My hope that you might actually learned something from me. I have learned things from you.
Catherine,
I don't know where I go from here. I think this thread, this discussion is the end. Actually I did see response. It's called a "automated canned" message. And if any official ever did answer me they cleverly ignored what I said about electronics and oversight.
I brought my point of view here, because I don't see enough people talking about it. They don't talk about it because they don't understand it.
Back in 2004 when I first learned this was taking place my first thought was a.) they were uneducated about the situation or b.) misled or c.) corrupt to the core. If enough awareness can be raised we can eliminate a. or b. leaving c. for us to weed out. As I said before, once you know you can't go back to being pro machine, unless you are corrupt.
If your wondering what I am doing, you can always watch the end credits of my public access show.
Part of this problem is fascist media allowing it to go as far as it has. They don't deserve a license to broadcast. They are not working for the public interest. That's been part of my focus also, to get people to go down, schedule an appointment, and make an entry in their public file. To hit the FCC and urge them to refuse a license renewal. I know what BBV does. I have talked to Bev on the radio and via email. I have always been on her side. She's in the end credits of my show every time it airs.
You asked me about the Citizens Tool Kit, and all I can say is early on (back when BBV was under DoS attacks and all hell was breaking loose on the stability of this domain) I did download the Citizens Tool Kit, at the time I was doing all *I* could. I still am doing all *I* can. I can't honestly say I've looked at the current incarnation of it. (If it's changed any) I will have a look at it to see if there's anything new I can do. I've offered up AIR TIME to ANYONE that has COMPELLING video they want to get out.
What more can I do? Other than stick with my opinion and try to get the word out, and staying up with the latest news regarding election integrity. It COSTS me to produce my show. I don't ask for underwriters, I don't have unlimited cash to throw at the problem. I can't even donate to Bev. But I can tell others about it. I can suggest people like You or Kurt or anyone reading this to go to their local public access and start a show. (I believe that's made it into the Citizens Tool Kit not via me, but it is there now, I believe. Under "Be The Media")
So yeah a specific question. Let's see, which politician is going to introduce a bill to eliminate electronic vote tabulation devices nationally, without making a bunch of changes to it effectively nullifying the intent by the time it get's a roll call? Which citizen is going to pick up the ball on what I have said and re-word the thing into legalize that can be introduced?
Otherwise, we delude ourselves thinking that anything will change. We can not clean out corruption and restore the constitution until we have non-corrupted tools to do so.
Part of the problem is EVERYONE that is trying to fix this problem, is stretched thin. And the public thinks, "Oh someone else will do the work."
Meanwhile things are moving too slow, while others like removing civil rights, and swearing in candidates before the votes are even counted fly on through.
The people can't keep up.
The courts can't keep up.
The EI community can't keep up.
The consequences of inaction are now unsustainable.
So which Senator[s] should we lobby? Which lawyer will volunteer and can be trusted to word it up? Which corporate media station is going to volunteer airtime and journalists? Which scientists are going to volunteer? Debra Bowen was a start, but we need more people that take their oath seriously and we are out of time to be playing this costly game of destruction.
I am a nobody in the big picture. Or I am the canary in the mine. You can decide that on your own. I don't know if you've noticed, but there's not very many of us out here that actually care. I don't know if it's the economy forcing people to be to busy, or it's the media blackout, or public apathy in that they vote and believe that's all then need to do. The fact remains very few of us are even talking about this after all these years now.
Perhaps we've lost America. I just can't stand to actually say that. I won't.
Look, I got high blood pressure now, and physical ailments and no medical for more than 20 to 30 years. I think I NEED to let go. This thread, this discussion is me, letting go. That doesn't mean I won't pay attention, contact representatives sign petitions or quit telling the message in the show I produce. It means, that I will DIE if I keep being pissed off. Resentments kill, physically, and this is one resentment that I can NOT let go of, to let go of it is to say, "Screw America." I am hoping ten or millions of people pick up what I am saying and take my place. If I see that I can actually let go. Because I know I have done all I can do to fight this domestic threat to national security and our constitution.
Just staying informed makes me angry now. Lots of people should be boiling at the seams. But again we have that wonderful fascist media blackout which is preventing them from knowing the truth.
I don't like the term "move forward" that sounds too much to me like "move on" or "move along" it's degrading and unacceptable.
I counter those who say it with, "Just Do It!" Get out there and do it. I've told you I don't have the resources, time or health. This thing has killed my soul, ask any of my friends, I am not happy anymore and I used to be full of life.
I am watching oath breakers destroy everything I was ever taught this country stands for.
When you allow these evil electronic vote tabulation devices to elect oath of office breakers they destroy everything. It's time to cut the problem off at the ROOTS. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2179
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Phil,
As far as I'm concerned, we're cool. I want the machines responsibly phased out. I don't deny that all the things you say about them are possible. Even the most strident defenders of electronic machines admit they can be doctored.
What they dispute is that such is the appropriate standard. You are adamant that the possibility is enough to ban them. That's an internally consistent defensible position.
Unfortunately, to this point, the decision-makers don't think "can be doctored" is enough. They want likelihood demonstrated. If it isn't probable the machines have been doctored, they don't want to hear it.
Well, Phil, you and I both know that "probable" is an exponential function whose 1st and 2nd derivative never goes negative. It keeps getting more probable all the time, and at an increasing rate. That demands a long term solution.
In the short term, we're stuck with these systems, but that's not as bad as it sounds. We need to use the time wisely to educate and prepare for what's next.
So yes, Phil, we agree on what must ultimately be done. Where we depart is on what is possible or even wise in the near term. 2006 should have given you some peace. Many were convinced the midterms would be rigged for the Republicans. It didn't happen. Yes, some districts were nutty. There always are some. But on the whole, the prophets of doom were wrong in 2006.
That doesn't mean 2008 will be okay. Anyone who has spent any time around elections knows that presidential elections stress people and systems to the breaking point. I got so little sleep in October 2004, I thought I was literally going to go insane. My health took a monstrous hit that fall. Stress, long hours, last minute ballot changes (Nader), a dying family member, a kid with school problems. It sucked, man.
Maybe the only thing that saved me from a physical collapse was the relative ease that the machines afforded me. Maybe that's why I have an emotional reaction to the berating of them.
If I had had to pull off 2004 as a paper election, given the tightfisted nature of my county budgetarily, I'd probably be dead now too.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Just to be clear, I am NOT saying "the possibility is enough to ban them" I am saying the physics of the electronic signals does NOT allow for public oversight. There is a big difference in the two statements.
Everyone here should read the Creekside Declaration I would have signed it, if I was there.
I also suggest everyone here on BBV read
Keep The Republic |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2191
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Not to open a sore subject, Phil, but "does NOT allow for public oversight" is only a compelling argument if that is a right of the "public" in the first place.
Legally, that varies, state by state, from "kinda" to "not at all".
I know that as a matter of principle, it seems ludicrous that there would not be a "public right" to oversight of elections. But we really do live in a world where that is far from a universal right.
When it comes to elections in my state, the only subset of "the public" that has significant rights to oversee anything are the candidates and the poltical parties. As long as the candidates and parties are sanguine about their elections being conducted via electrons, what any member of "the public" thinks is pretty irrelevant.
The universe of what the "public" can oversee in an election in my state is tiny, and the courts will only too enthusiastically tell you so.
Try to observe what goes on inside a polling place all day if you're not authorized to be a watcher by a candidate or political party. It's a recipe to end up in jail.
And that would be true whether the votes were tabulated on paper, in electronics, or by sharp sticks on mud tablets, because it's been that way in law for longer than anyone can remember.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4904
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Kurt, some of us would like to see public oversight become an explicit right.
It's a target worth aiming for imo. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2192
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Agreed. It is worth aiming for.
However, if your best argument for abolishing electronic elections is that they cannot be effectively overseen by the public, then when you find that there is no such right, your argument for abolition gets shaky, in the legalistic sense.
"A" should be eliminated because it doesn't have attribute "B".
"B" is not legally required, or even largely allowed.
It's a long way to "therefore 'A' should be eliminated." First, before you insist on it, you must first get the law to say "'B' is required."
His view is a perfectly fine public policy political argument. It loses some lustre when couched legally.
Sometimes, the difference between politics and law is the difference between future tense and past or present tense.
But at the risk of raising someone's ire, let me tell you what government officials hear when they hear people talk about the "right to public oversight of elections". What they hear is this:
"I want to have the right to be even more of a legal pain-in-the-ass than the losing candidate is willing to be, in challenging the outcome of this election, if I so choose."
That's what they hear, and why they're not likely to change the status quo.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4905
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 1:24 pm: |
|
But you are assuming every place is more or less like PA, and that is not true.
Lots of states do allow for public observation. Phillip is absolutely right to want to maximize that, and to make sure that where it is already legally allowed, that public observation actually occurs and that officials do not obstruct what those citizens are entitled to. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2193
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 1:38 pm: |
|
I admit that PA's zeitgeist over elections and public oversight is largely a regional philosophy of the old industrial "rust belt" states.
There are several regional "cultural philosophies" concerning elections, e.g. the west coast's predeliction for open primaries, the deep south's use of run-offs, and differing philosophies on voter registration (most states with the most liberal voter registration laws are near the Canadian border, for reasons I don't know).
But one of my most frequent frustrations when debating some points is that some people don't seem to differentiate well between advocacy over what the law should be and what it presently is.
I admit that people who let themselves get so caught up in their advocacy that they let that distinction blur frustrate me greatly.
"Man, we have a right to 'X'", when actually, we don't. It frustrates me greatly and adversely affects the location of my hairline. Maybe it's a kind of "activist gene" that makes people think and use language like that. If so, my chromosome that holds that gene must be damaged. I'm just rather disinclined to see every difficulty as a personal assault on my Constitutional rights/ I'm much more inclined to wonder, "Damn! I wonder why they put that in the law."
Oops, maybe that's what makes me "a suit", rather than a tweed jacket and corduroy type.
Go right ahead, advocate your buns off, but "keep it real". Facts can be stubborn things.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 2:26 pm: |
|
What frustrates me is continuing to pretend that everything is just fine. And forgetting that we have the right to change our government, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. If you can't trust us, then who on this earth can you trust?
The facts are that the president raised his hand and took the oath of office, to protect the constitution. I see no evidence of him doing that.
And from a catch 22 military point of view, no service person can stop him because they swore an oath to protect him. By protecting him, they can't do the other HALF of their oath, which is to protect the US Constitution.
Kurt said,
"Try to observe what goes on inside a polling place all day if you're not authorized to be a watcher by a candidate or political party. It's a recipe to end up in jail. "
And I'd tell you right now if I had to serve on Jury Duty for that case I would nullify it and send a message back that the law is bad. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Kurt said,
"However, if your best argument for abolishing electronic elections is that they cannot be effectively overseen by the public, then when you find that there is no such right, your argument for abolition gets shaky, in the legalistic sense."
It may be in the legalistic sense, but there comes a time when national security and the accountability piper come due. We do have a right to change our government, by arms if need be.
Continuing to pretend that it's not true, continuing along with the crappiest leadership in history moves us closer and closer to such a force. You or I can not control that force (if or once) it started.
(This is not a call to arms, so don't go there with me.)
I am however advocating that our elections are cleaned up (swiftly yet correctly) so that we can change government to represent the people before conditions reach such a point that the worst nightmare is unavoidable.
I remind you that the Declaration of Independence was also created by advocates with ideas (not necessarily within the current laws of the time) much the same as the Creekside Declaration was. (It is historic now)
Change starts with ideas as do Destruction and mayhem. One group works for good, one group works for evil.
Kurt said,
""I want to have the right to be even more of a legal pain-in-the-ass than the losing candidate is willing to be, in challenging the outcome of this election, if I so choose."
That's what they hear, and why they're not likely to change the status quo."
Wrong. This type of thought is exactly why we have candidates fast-tracked on jets to be sworn in and assume power. By assuming the power they can no longer be held accountable. So challenging the election in (the now stacked courts) is never going to remove them from power and by proxy they are no longer accountable to the people who didn't elect them. If they're no longer accountable then they are free to spread yet more corruption to firewall themselves off. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 7848
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Kurt's full of it when he tries to claim the citizenry has no right to oversee its own elections. A corrupt government can pass any law it wants to obstruct citizen oversight, but that doesn't take away the fundamental right of citizen sovereignty, only the acknowledgement of that right by those who have assumed positions of power. |
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Kurt,
I also would like you to re-read the FIRST line of this thread.
Subject: Sequoia central count scanner breakdown mid-election
CALIFORNIA - Of the 6 machines purchased by the County less than 6 months ago, one is already out of service, and two others were having frequent problems.
That's called a failure. Although it's true a poll watcher might see this, they can not see the damage done. Being in Sacramento, did channel 3,6,10,13,19,31,40, or 58 cover this? I won't even bother to try to research it, it either was covered for less that 120 seconds, sugarcoated, spun, or not even reported. I guarantee it. They probably reported on Lindsay Lohan or Brittney for more time. This is a giant check and balance that the 4th estate is tasked to provide oversight. In my opinion those channels, although they have billions of dollars, and "credited press pass's" and licensed stations deserve none. Censorship is not journalism, nor is it where "the news comes first."
If the peoples voices do not have a forum to brainstorm and be heard, and the politicians don't listen, the constitution is walked on, and the elections are rigged. Where is America?
I'm tired of arguing with you Kurt. It's like if I tried to say that Wicca is better than Christianity. We can argue forever. Until you actually understand Wicca and I understand Christianity we will never come to an agreement.
You served your country one way.
I served another.
It's just that simple.
Go ahead and get the last word. I am done with this thread. Any Informed American Citizen with common sense (which is sorely lacking in the current administration's leadership) can decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong.
Again, thank you for your service.
We agree to disagree. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2194
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 4:23 pm: |
|
I don't know if you intended to ask me who I'd trust more - the current type of government leaders or the "citizen advocacy project of the month club" types.
If that is the implied question, I doubt you'd care for my answer. I'm of almost the right age, but of the wrong temperament to be of the "Woodstock" generation. I went and looked at the Creekside Declaration photo, While I share some, some issues with them, I'd feel culturally from a different planet if I were in that picture. It's just a cultural comfort level thing.
I never found any virtue in the "activist mindset", wearing protest on one's sleeve, speaking for myself personally.
But if what you're saying is true about your area having 8 commercial TV stations with news departments and NOT ONE covered the Riverside scanner story, then you have to have asked yourself "Why not?"
And I think it goes deeper than being owned by "suits" and being more interested in Brittney and Lindsay, even though all that's true.
I'll just bet it goes to what they thought was a real story - journalistic judgment.
Somebody in a news editor position (acually 8 somebodies) didn't think it was a story. And don't give me that influence from the corporate bigwigs stuff. News editors, especially in a cosmopolitan place like CA, have some independent discretion. If none of 8 news editors bite on the story, it means they don't believe.
It's our collective job to make them believe, not bitch and moan when they don't. Okay, bitch and moan is natural. It doesn't relieve the obligation to educate and convince.
By the way, thank YOU for your service, Phil. When I was 18 in 1973, I didn't have the cajones to serve as you did. There was no draft my year, and I went to college. My family has no military background since the Civil War.
In the intervening 35 years, I have come to understand the virtue of those who wore the uniform. A "Semper Fi" Marine father-in-law completed that education for me. The only problem is - his view and yours of this country are 180 out of phase.
But thanks again.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2195
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Bev,
I hear you and I understand your point on "rights". I just think it is a semantic trick that in the end means nothing substantive, short of a literal revolution.
If a legislature won't pass it, and a court won't recognize it, and people won't take up metaphorical or literal arms for it, then it's not a right - it's a bumper sticker.
Sorry, that's just my pragmatic world view.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Samuel Scharff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Abacus
Post Number: 86
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Phillip post #19
Just a footnote but may be significant –
Phillip: “And from a catch 22 military point of view, no service person can stop him because they swore an oath to protect him.”
This refers to a provision that is part of the oath for enlisted personnel.
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html
But Nuremberg established that no one can be excused for committing war crimes - though lower-ranking individuals may not face the most severe consequences. So enlisted personnel are not bound to protect him - and, in any case, the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires everyone to refuse to obey illegal orders.
The oath for officers [which I took] is different:
"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Army [or other service] of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
00.html,http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step08_swearing_i n,,00.html
[Personal note: G W Bush has engaged in subversion of the Constitution; imo is fit for indictment as a war criminal; and under the Nuremberg conventions his accomplices also qualify. My oath does not bind me to protect him or them; the contrary.
It is off-topic; but in some possible scenarios people will find themselves faced with extremely painful choices between courses of action to defend or attack the Constitution. At the outbreak of the Civil War this was a truly heart-wrenching problem for many. When our country was founded there were similar agonizing choices for loyalists/patriots. Those of us concerned for the country now should, as opportunity offers, ask people to recognize that though the choices may be hard there is really only one course for those who would be free: to defend the Constitution this time against a domestic enemy.
//Admin: feel free to delete the personal note if you think it’s a diversion.\
I'll let it stand, but any discussion and rebuttal needs to take place on a new thread in Talk Politics or General Discussion -- and still needs to bring the conversation back to elections. Thanks for the information on oaths.
Abacus
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 2196
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 4, 2008 - 5:17 am: |
|
Samuel,
Interesting point about the Civil War. In that era, was the oath the same? And since even within each side, units were state specific (e.g. the 20th Maine division led by Chamberlain saving the union flank on Little Round Top at Gettysburg), did soldiers then swear a similar allegiance to the federal military, or their states? I know how Robert E. Lee resolved that conflict, but I'm asking in the general sense.
The Civil War strained many aspects of the Constitution. The founding of West Virginia on its face seems to violate the Constitution's prohibition on creating two states from one by division.
==========================================
http://kurtspeak.blogspot.com
(some relevant to subjects here, most not)
|
Phillip Caine
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phillip_caine
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 4:46 am: |
|
Although I am officially done on this thread. I ask / beg BEV or someone with moderation access to make
Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 8:33 am:
be HTML enabled so it LOOKS correct. There's no funny business, you can see the RAW code I posted. |
Samuel Scharff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Abacus
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 7:44 pm: |
|
In closing, here are two relevant links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office
http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm
Kurt is right; the language of the oath was twisted into a sort of loyalty test.
Abacus
|
|
|
