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: 
...
|
| 5-9-06: The Ohio Election Backwash |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 289
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 63.226.229.150
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 6 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 4:44 pm: | 
|
Who Is Legally Responsible?
That's what’s being asked around Ohio in the wake of the state’s May 2nd election. No one seems to be able to agree on where the buck stops in the Buckeye State. However, everyone agrees that problems peppered Ohio.
The greatest number of machine, poll worker and technical problems were reported in Cuyahoga, the state's most populous county. Cleveland area citizens are outraged and won't tolerate any more free passes. Many believe the responsibility lies directly with Diebold Election Systems and Cuyahoga Elections Director Michael Vu. Responsibility is also being attributed to Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.
Senator Teresa Fedor, one of the state legislature's leading advocates for election reform, was critical of Blackwell and his role in failing to ensure that poll workers were properly trained. Senator Fedor hit Blackwell with a public records request requesting documents tracking HAVA money training expenditures. Senator Fedor is also requesting documents from Diebold and ES&S regarding training procedures. Following are quotes a press release to this effect:
quote:"The technical staff for Diebold had varied training levels from county to county. In some counties, workers were given manuals, while in other counties like Lucas County in Northwest Ohio; Diebold staff were given fewer training materials…"
Senator Fedor is holding Blackwell responsible for the obvious lack of poll worker training:
quote:"This failure falls on Blackwell’s watch and it needs to be scrutinized immediately."
More Election Day Reports From Media and Citizens
According to a Cleveland.com report:
quote:"Finally, the board and Executive Director Michael Vu need to review what happened at each of the county's 579 polling locations. At first glance, it appears that most of the reported problems were human, not mechanical. Some were simple oversights, like not having the right extension cords. But many more appear to have been either a failure of the board to properly train poll workers, or of those workers to follow instructions."
Who trained these poll workers?
Who trained the people training the poll workers?
How much HAVA money was spent in the training of these Election Day workers?
Cuyahoga elections chief Vu ended up calling in temps in from Mars Employment of Cleveland. He needed the temps to count 17,000 absentee ballots when the Diebold optical scan machines failed a series of tests and couldn't reliably do the counting.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1146742246308560.xml&coll=2
Vu gave his view to WKYC-TV:
"It could have been much worse yesterday if we hadn't strategized well in advance of the election."
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51716
Bob Fitrakis, Editor of The Free Press, and a candidate for Governor of Ohio said, "Twenty percent of the precincts in Franklin County opened late because of the technology. The key word for Franklin and Delaware Counties was recalibration. The mainstream news is calling these problems 'glitches'."
Fitrakis disagrees.
"It was a catastrophe for Ohio. The technology failed miserably and is totally non-transparent."
The Associated Press reported:
quote:Glitches were reported around the state. Because touch-screen machines did not function properly at first in some polling sites, some voters in Cuyahoga County had to fill out paper ballots, which were being hand-counted. About 17,000 absentee ballots also had to be hand-counted because of problems with optical scanners.
David Bear, spokesman for Diebold Inc., which supplies Cuyahoga's machines, said the absentee counting problem appears to be isolated. The ovals on the ballots printed by the county did not line up properly for optical scan machines to count them, he said.
Also in northeast Ohio, Stark County reported only 97 percent of its unofficial vote totals early Wednesday because about 30 cards that record votes in electronic voting machines were missing. Election officials were trying to determine if poll workers simply forgot to remove the cards.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14484080.htm
Cleveland Heights resident Adele Eisner participated in a citizens’ exit poll effort and observed the following problems:
"Given the massive chaos of this election which I personally observed,
• machines turned off and on many times by overwhelmed poll workers trying desperately to make them work;
• memory cards replaced midstream; paper trails that got thrown away trying to make them work;
• voters who were told they were done when the machine was reading 'error'; or
• after the screen went blank, ballots without all the appropriate issues in some precincts - with just these few of many, many factors, I can't imagine how that election could ever be properly accounted for or reconciled with polls books."
The 74 Missing Memory Cards
WKYC News.com reported:
"The biggest glitch was the disappearance of 70 memory cards that record votes. There is a paper backup so the votes did not disappear.
"And losing memory cards is better than losing paper ballots.
"In the punch card world, if there was a punch card ballots missing we would never be able to recover those votes," officials said."
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51716
Actually, the correct number of missing memory cards was 74 -- the equivalent of 74 missing ballot boxes. Recovery of these votes involves a complicated process. It also calls into question whether those votes retrieved from inside the machine will match the votes stored in the memory card.
Chain of custody was violated when the memory cards went missing. Citizen oversight vanished.
If the missing memory cards are located, questions will persist as to whether anyone had unlawful access to them.
Election Science Institute
According to Bob Fitrakis, Cuyahoga County Commissioners awarded a $225,000 contract to Steven Hertzberg's Election Science Institute (ESI) to reassure voters about the new wave of e-voting machines.
Fitrakis further reported that Franklin County also hired ESI, but took it a step further than Cuyhaoga County and hired a PR firm in order to "sell" the citizens of Franklin County on their hiring of ESI.
Black Box Voting looks forward to the report from ESI.
Blackwell's dual role
Newly nominated Republican gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell is investigating Cuyahoga County election problems. The Ohio Democratic Party has asked Blackwell to recuse himself since he is, in effect, investigating his own successful election. Blackwell has refused to do so.
Blackwell holds ultimate responsibility for Ohio HAVA allocations and vendor agreements, both of which must be investigated to hold the right toes to the fire. The question is, do 10 of those toes belong to Blackwell himself? Does Vu belong at the roast? And is Diebold's goose ever going to get cooked?
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=48751
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW:
(1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase")
(2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy
(3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder
HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 6
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
CORRECTION! CORRECTION!
What you wrote about the Cuyahoga County Commissioners regarding Election Science Institute is untrue, and I for one would like that part of the actual article corrected as it stays up and gets passed around. I love and respect you guys lots. I know you want it right too.
I just wrote Bob Fritakis an email to send with some docs, before seeing this, which in part says:
Whatever hard fact questions/cautions you want to bring up about ESI, I wholeheartedly support, and I think would be ultimately very helpful - pressuring them to do the right thing as much as they are able, and helping everyone, including the commissioners, to put ESI "stuff" into proper perspective.
But at this point, I think that bashing the commissioners, (whom I don't consider complete "angels", I am not that naive) for doing this, for spending the money etc.and possibly even for ending up with ESI could be shooting a friend, and truly possible good ally and ourselves right in the foot, (Doing a Cheney on them.)
I'd hate to see that happen unless things unfold differently than they have been, and different underlying motivations become truly apparent, not just pre-assumed as just "more Ohio".
The Cuyahoga County Commissioners, in many ways and so hard to believe in Ohio government, have behaved as decent elected officials around this matter, and with me, for months now, (again I don't see them as complete angels,) when treated respectfully, efficiently, and intelligently. They've been consistently over many months respectful and welcoming (far more than I can say about CCBOE), have listened very and increasingly seriously, and have responded appropriately, willingly, seriously, openly and cooperatively (far more than I can say about CCBOE), have followed through with promises, and I think in this case, they are very possibly thinking they are doing the right thing about getting facts around the morass of anecdotes and unknowns on all sides - while pretty obviously at least now questioning Diebold, the BOE, of course Blackwell, and entire election security....
Later I went on: I think that at this point, and at least until we see how this unfolds, it's important to recognize them in a positive light for taking this action - until we actually see what ESI comes up with and what they do with the report.
In many ways, it appears they are doing far more than most counties nationwide in at least being open to the fact that just maybe - we "activists!" are on to something very important, and being willing to do something about it.
Even if we don't think they've done enough or done it right, I truly am seeing that just maybe they are doing the best they can - to get some truthful, solid support for considering their next actions - with their jury still out....
...If it seems they did not go to the "right people" in our opinions, for proposals, I also think it's because they really may not have known all the people we know, rather than their trying to cover Diebold or the BOE. They don't spend hours on the internet as many of us do....And in this endeavor, the commissioners could not even give the appearance of just supporting or coming from the activist - or the Blackwell/BOE viewpoint either.
So here's my point. Bob was telling me about ESI's PR /sales/money bent - so that may be how that misperception about the PR firm got started.
The commissioners have hired no PR firm to sell ESI. There would be absolutely NO need or reason for the commissioners to do that. That is ESI's to do.
The Commissioners do everything by resolutions, which are actually published online pretty promptly and accurately. To date, and to my knowledge, there has been no such resolution even thought about.
I have the ESI contract in hand, the outline for the commissioners request for proposals,etc. I know the process they've gone through. It may not have been our process, but having been at their meetings for months about this issue, with their dealing consistently openhandedly with me, let's give someones the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise - that they are at least trying.
These are the same guys who wanted a conference call with Hursti. They've digested alot on this steep learning curve. They seem to actually want hard facts to back up their positions. (They've seen alot of BBV articles, believe me, that include Diebold retaliation.) I think they're trying to do the right thing. Let's give them a break, until they prove themselves unworthy of it.
And the amount is not $225,000. It is "not to exceed $275,000" while making some mention of follow-up in November too.
I personally don't know enough about ESI itself to stand for or against it. I think the contract and proposal has some strong points, and some really questionable ones about that firm.
But for right now, as the one who's been urging an independent gathering of facts to the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, and witnessing their behaviors and actions, I stand behind their at least, trying to do that. I think we all should.
Let ESI's actions and results stand on their own, or not.It doesn't mean that citizens stop our oversighting.
Just some elected officials saying "we are watching" - especially in this last election - changes the landscape to one that is more credible to what we have been talking about for years. And I think this investment of dollars, at least as now proposed, is a far wiser investment than wanton more millions into Diebold, and their concommitant sole-source, necessary "extras". |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4543
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 5:56 am: |
|
Adele,
I don't see any mention of commissioners in the report, nor any bashing of ESI. I don't see any speculation about the motives of ESI, and my reading of the information simply says there is a group working on a report and we look forward to the report.
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4544
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:03 am: |
|
Now, as for the Cuyahoga Commissioners:
They are going to have to pull all the machines off the shelf for an emergency fix by the state, and after that, the state of Ohio and the rest of the United States needs to eliminate the Diebold touch-screens altogether, quickly, before the Nov. election.
The machines are unrecoverably, unfixably improper for use in elections, period. |
Ken Hajjar - Diebold Distributor Rep
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Kenhajjar
Post Number: 9
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hey Bev, I just read your latest post about eliminating all Diebold touch screens and I'm pleased that you have finally gotten right to the point as to the reason for BBV's existence. I only have one simple question, do the checks from ES&S arrive weekly or monthly? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2352
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 6:31 am: |
|
I assume that Adele is asserting that
quote:Election Science Institute
According to Bob Fitrakis, Cuyahoga County Commissioners awarded a $225,000 contract to Steven Hertzberg's Election Science Institute (ESI) to oversee the election and prepare a report analyzing the election. It has also been reported that the county also hired a PR firm to "sell" the citizens of Cuyahoga County on their hiring of ESI.
is not accurate.
But you were quoting other people. The only place Commissioners were mentioned was in Fitrakis's assertion above.
Adele needs to address Bob Fitrakis and the source who reported the PR company involvement (also Fitrakis?) if she believes he does not have his facts straight. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 7
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Catherine and all,
You are right in assuming that I find the statement in this case, undeservedly misleading - and clearly inferring just another closed-door plot against citizens, this time on the part of the commissioners.
From almost a year of direct experience with the commissioners I do not think that just more cover-ups and citizen "victimization" was or is their intention here. I have not yet been given any reason to disbelieve that. And I am not naive.
However, what is one to assume from:
"It has also been reported that the county also hired a PR firm to "sell" the citizens of Cuyahoga County on their hiring of ESI."?
Anyone who understands the structure of Cuyahoga County's government, would understand that the ONLY HIRING by the "county" must come from or be approved directly by the very same commissioners.
So the statement can be easily seen as yet another "ill-intentioned, specious, closed-circle, cover-up plot."
And I absolutely do NOT think that Bob Fritakis was lying,or does not check his facts, as I was extremely and mistakenly accused of on the phone this morning. I hold him in high regard.
I DO think, however, that in another informal phone conversation about this matter, which was the source of the article statement, that what he said was also misunderstood and confused in the listening.
I spoke with him yesterday, after the other, above-mentioned conversation, when he requested docs/facts about Cuyahoga commissioners' decision; and where he was eminently clear about the fact that while he had facts from a previous ESI experience in Franklin County, he was still seeking them about Cuyahoga, before saying or publishing anything publicly.
He did mention in the informal conversation with me, something to the effect also that in his past experience it appeared that at times ESI's PR skills, more than their true expertise, help them to make money on this election integrity issue. That may be the source of confusion about the PR company hiring.
I also can hear all the possible yellings and statements about why the commissioners didn't know Fritakis's ESI facts before hiring,(or plotlike - Did they...?) and ultimately why did they not come to people like BBV or Fritakis, to find out the real poop about ESI before hiring.They are grown men, that is their job.
Some possible very simple and real conjectures additional to "commissioner cover-up" are time, and timing. They take care of and need to seriously consider proper funding from county coffers, for every road, foster child, AIDS program, county construction project, hospital, diversity program, etc. etc in each of 26 suburbs and Cleveland in this county - that is, in addition to funding the BOE. Each of their weekly agendas are about 40-50 complicated items long - having nothing to do with elections.
This study is not in their normal course at all - and further, they have NO oversight capabilities or powers over the BOE's actions. They may only make funding decisions about them - none directly about their actions (except as advised by BOE attorneys, about their purchasing actual electronic voting machines - which ultimately belong to the county, not the BOE.)
Based on the fact that they want to be able to fund elections more wisely, and given the massive amounts of information they've seen that just maybe spending millions on electronic voting systems is NOT wise, they have taken a plunge and proceeded into brand new ground for them.
The prelude to this study is the commissioners doing such listening and consideration, and in December '05 not automatically voting the BOE 5.5 million dollars for 900 more machines, but knowing they had heard to much that sounded too believable to once again just hand out what the BOE was asking for. They decided to wait, watch and investigate more. I have watched them time and again, NOT taking immediate sides with the BOE, in order to respect openness with the public and balanced consideration.
I think that sometimes we all get so caught up in issues, and have been usually beaten down so often too, that too often where there may be a ray of help, we still come out of the box shooting, without waiting to see if it's help to appreciate and nurture, or not. Also, everyone in this issue has been so underpaid for all the time and effort of our lives, I also understand that it hurts to see a company with not as many credentials, and possibly not pure intentions ( I don't know yet) get the accolades, the job and the money.
But also there is the fact that sitting where they do, the commissioners cannot do an "independent" study based on either mostly the activist or the BOE sources. They needed to work "independently" and ESI is who showed up best to them in their process they have made open.
All that said, having been with and communicating with the commissioners for almost a year, I don't know for absolute sure what it going on here. But I do know that when people consistently show listening and trying to understand and help unearth facts, it's best to praise at least that effort,and it's unwise to begin to infer that they too are underhanded. And it is always unwise to even infer bad intention, until all facts are checked.
I close repeating:
1. To my knowledge,the county/meaning the commissioners - have NOT hired a PR firm to "sell" ESI to citizens. There is no such action, no such contract. They have absolutely NO REASON to do that.
2. The commissioners cannot and do not "oversee"/which infers "control" anything the BOE actually does. Only Mr. Blackwell does that, which is a major part of the problem. The commissioners can only watch and analyze, and then speak through the county purse strings.
3. I don't think Fritakis was lying, NOR do I think he does not check his facts. I think what he said on the phone in an informal conversation was misunderstood.
4. To date, I have been given no reason to believe that the commissioners are ill-intentioned and trying to create any cover up, only trying to get some facts the best way they know how, to determine how they can best budget the BOE, and why. Part of the ESI contract states trying to decrease the number of machines to be purchased(the first 5,400- the bulk - came through Blackwell/HAVA - and were not in the commissioners' control) and increase voter satifaction, accuracy, transparency etc.
5. And that we need to see the ESI report to make any statements about it in Cuyahoga. And since the Cuyahoga election was so botched, with so many people watching,- including ESI- it lessens any attempts for BOE trying to cover their behinds, and ESI is going to have create something fairly accurately reflective - or everyone will know. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 8
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Hey Bev -
I look so forward to the full report.
I appreciate your statement:
"Now, as for the Cuyahoga Commissioners:
They are going to have to pull all the machines off the shelf for an emergency fix by the state, and after that, the state of Ohio and the rest of the United States needs to eliminate the Diebold touch-screens altogether, quickly, before the Nov. election.
The machines are unrecoverably, unfixably improper for use in elections, period."
___________________________________________
BUT once again, in the Cuyahoga/Ohio structure, the County Commissioners CANNOT DO that pulling. They can talk about it, even possibly as onlookers suggest it. But they don't have any authority to pull. They only can speak to approving or disapproving of the BOE's requests for money.
Only Blackwell, yes only Blackwell (and the County Commissioners have no authority over him either) can do any pulling - ahem.
Or the BOE can take the really massive risk in Ohio, of doing it themselves, thus, standing up against their boss, Blackwell, who even thinks he, a non-legislator, can unilaterally change State election law also at his pleasure. (Like singlehandedly wiping out results posting at each precinct on election night.) And given the present state of Ohio's legislature, he just gets away with it.
Ultimately,and just conjecturing here, that is a risk that could just end up with Blackwell, at his "pleasure", replacing everyone at the BOE - unless more citizens get far more vocally involved NOW. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 9
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Now it is clear, that a fundamental misunderstanding above about the Cuyahoga commissioners, seems to be the article's absolutely FALSE, and unspoken assumption that the commissioners were appropriating the money for the CCBOE, for a BOE contract with ESI, assumedly to cover the CCBOE.
That again is FALSE. The Commissioners sought out the ESI study for THEMSELVES, the commissioners, and they awarded it, to analyze and base their own future county expenditures for the CCBOE. That is fact.
In my talking to Bob F. yesterday, it seemed very clear that he also understood this.
As we all know, fact-checking one's own assumptions/listening is so important before publishing.
I hope that you can and will change the clear inference of commissioners joining in a BOE cover-up within the article itself. As explained above, at least to date, there is no data to support that. |
Russell Novkov
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rnovkov
Post Number: 52
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 9:25 pm: |
|
We need to get rid of these Diebold touchscreen machines now. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4548
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Adele,
Kathleen did not infer a coverup. She simply reported what she was told - that money had been approved by the commissioners, which according to what you wrote is true. I see nothing in her article mixing the commissioners with the BOE.
Concisely, because the paragraph you cite is concise, can you provide the factual errors. We are not dealing in innuendo.
Now, as to pulling the machines off the shelves, please note that some public officials realize that to serve the people reponsibly, there are times where one must choose between doing the right thing vs. job security. Ion Sancho did. Bruce Funk did. Stephen Heller did.
It's no longer going to be okay to subject taxpayers to wasted money or voters to impossibly defective machinery.
There are ways the commissioners will be able to take appropriate action. One is to address this as a consumer protection issue and go after it on deceptive advertising and false claims grounds. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 10
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Concisely, today's CHANGED paragraphs in the article no longer contain the innaccuracies with innuendos to Cuyahoga commissioner intended cover-up/"sell" job to citizens, to which I mostly objected.
I appreciate the changes.
However 2 corrections still:
1.The still false presumption of Cuyahoga commissioner intention: The ESI study has not evolved from any notion of wanting "to reassure voters about the new wave of e-voting machines". Rather all actions and documents to date, show it is to analyze current elections for facts on which to base wise future county expenditures for future fair elections.
Mandated by law to fund elections, and concerned about the numerous reports of security vulnerabilities in e-voting systems, the commissioners seek facts on which to base the most cost efficient and wisest future appropriation decisions toward valid, accurate elections.
You are absolutely correct Bev, in saying, "It's no longer going to be okay to subject taxpayers to wasted money or voters to impossibly defective machinery. There are ways the commissioners will be able to take appropriate action."
The purpose of this study so far shown, is to have more facts to be able to do that.
2. The actual amount for the study, as stated earlier is not $225,000, but "not to exceed $275,000." This inaccuracy does not make a substantive difference to understanding. Only stated for showing actual facts.
(Compare the previous article inclusion with the new:
Previously wrong:
"According to Bob Fitrakis, Cuyahoga County Commissioners awarded a $225,000 contract to Steven Hertzberg's Election Science Institute (ESI) to oversee the election and prepare a report analyzing the election. It has also been reported that the county also hired a PR firm to "sell" the citizens of Cuyahoga County on their hiring of ESI."
Somewhat Better New:
"According to Bob Fitrakis, Cuyahoga County Commissioners awarded a $225,000 contract to Steven Hertzberg's Election Science Institute (ESI) to reassure voters about the new wave of e-voting machines.
Fitrakis further reported that Franklin County also hired ESI, but took it a step further than Cuyhaoga County and hired a PR firm in order to "sell" the citizens of Franklin County on their hiring of ESI.") |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 11
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
PS
My understanding of the mix-up between BOE and commissioners became clear in a separate correspondence.
That said, I know you guys have your plate full. Just want an effort here in Cuyahoga, that has taken lots of commissioners' actual listening, some courage, may have potential for helping,and has been given some dollars for some local, hopefully objective facts, to be given a chance without others thinking it's just more "sell job." So far, it appears that the commissioners are to be thanked, if anything, for coming this far.
We'll all know more after report and its handling. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2366
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Adele,
I appreciate your care for precision, and for your creation of a good working environment with your commissioners. Both of those things require constant nourishment. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 12
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:16 am: |
|
Thanks, Catherine.
It's really not so much "precision" that I find most important. It's attitude of approach and truth.
When dealing at the high level that BBV has reached and is quoted, in order to "nurture" credibility, and cooperation where it MAY be, I think it very important to not assume motivations of anyone, especially decisionmakers who may be in positions to actually help change things, until they clearly show themselves by pattern of actions or actions themselves. And if it's truth in elections we're ultimately going for, thus ultimately a level of peace by allowing all voices to be heard equally and accurately, I think we need to be impeccable in demonstrating that ourselves, especially when publishing. I think BBV has done that in the vast majority of cases. I wanted to see that continued. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2376
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
You are a wise woman and you are absolutely right about maintaining an "attitude of approach and truth" as you put it so well.
It is not always easy to hit the bulls-eye on these qualities but hopefully all of us aim for that. Like everything else it's a matter of 1) clarity and quality of intent and 2) practice and learning from experience.
Remember that--especially #2--when anyone at BBV or elsewhere doesn't meet your personal standards. Integrity of intent is still no substitute for practice, and mistakes are inevitably part of the learning process. When a child learns to speak we don't punish them when they say a few unintelligible syllables, we cheer them on to keep trying. Same thing when a child learns to walk. It's funny how intolerant we can all be with one another as we venture into new territory beyond our existing expertise and we "practice" and learn to handle new situations.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your own philosphical approach. It makes all the difference to remain consciously focused on one's personal intent in any situation, and that is invaluable in dealing with election officials as we try to learn how to "dance" together with grace, respect and mutual appreciation. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 13
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
DATA on ESI coming in. And it's NOT GOOD!
I still am unsure of how much the Commissioners knew about them in their quick hire process, and am unwilling to judge at this point. But ESI itself has shown it's cards.
Here is a letter to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, STILL IN DRAFT FORM:
_________________________________
Another election whitewash!
Last week on WCPN, Election Science Institute’s Steven Hertzberg, who has no known elections computer credentials, contradicted every nationally-respected, independent elections computer expert by declaring that the latest confirmed, unmitigatable security holes in Diebold elections systems can be mitigated or fixed.
As reported two days ago in the NYT and in other nationwide news sources, these latest-found Diebold protocol breaches are foundational, and include allowing anyone with one or two minutes regular access to a Diebold voting machine to “contaminate” it and other machines, thus change all current and future election results. These contaminations remain devastating, impossible to detect or to mitigate without making problems worse.
Hertzberg also stated to the PD (Voting machines a winner… 5/13/06) that according to his ESI May 2 exit polls, "The voters were overwhelmingly satisfied with the (touchscreen) system"; ninety percent reported no problems; and ninety-four percent were confident that their votes would be counted correctly?
That is simply Whitewash-Hogwash!
I personally objectively queried almost 70 voters at 2 locations throughout the day as part of a transparently-verifiable citizen exit poll on May 2. My results were almost exactly OPPOSITE ESI’s. Voter statements added to specific, simple answers most frequently included, “It’s chaos!” “I hate it.” "Why didn't we get a printed ballot to put in a separate locked box?” "Elections are fixed anyhow." Though official results of the citizen poll have not been completely compiled, other volunteers with whom I’ve spoken report similar results.
It’s highly questionable which 50 of 584 polling sites ESI selected, and how they got their results. As facts also emerge about ESI’s previous activities in Franklin County, it’s even more questionable whether ESI, with Cuyahoga’s $275,000, can produce an unbiased report that’s transparently verifiable to citizens.
Now ESI wants $66,000 more of county taxpayer money to "query" poll workers about May 2 problems. This process needs to be done, but should not be left to ESI, who also is employing previous state election officials, potentially beholdin’ with the election patronage system spoken of in today’s PD (Legacy of party patronage…, 5/14. )
Before spending millions more on future highly questionable elections, it would be far wiser for the county to engage a truly independent, non-vested, transparent, balanced citizens task force to analyze our own elections; to help pinpoint and prioritize other problems that stand in the way of election ease and integrity in Cuyahoga; and possibly to plan how to replace the 5,000+ Cuyahoga dangerous Diebold machines that were “certified” by Kenneth Blackwell, before November midterm elections. We certainly cannot rely on Mr. Blackwell’s proposed election investigation, nor very apparently on ESI’s. Our county, state and nation’s democracy mandates a system that is actually cost-effective and accessible, but at the very least, is safe, accurate and free of personal bias or vestments. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2424
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Great letter. Superb. This is a fantastic initiative. I hope it gets published.
May I be presumptuous enough to offer 3 minor editing suggestions for you to consider?
1) 4th paragraph - where you state your results were almost opposite ESIs, it will be stronger if you can quantify the negative comments, including giving a percentage. This way you'll give a better comparison to the ESI results since you'll be using the same language. (E.g., 55 out of 70 people I queried, or 79%, indicated dissatisfaction with the election system and/or lack of confidence in the results. My original responses are available for anyone who wants to see them.)
2) 2nd-to-last paragraph you may want to change "beholdin' with" to "beholden to"
3) last paragraph, consider omitting "non-vested" (because all citizens should have a vested interest in fair elections, and I think independent already says what you want)
Good luck and let us know what kind of response you get.
Also--are there 2 or more of you who feel this way? Then you can agree to be a group and you can submit your letter as President (or Public Relations Officer or whatever title you choose) of whatever you decide to name your "group". Your letter may stand a better chance of being published if it comes from an organization.
You may also want to consider putting out a press release from your group to the local paper and local radio stations. If you're not familiar with writing press releases there may be some info here or if you need help with this, say so and we can surely find some good links.
It might be good to put this kind of post in the 1-to-1 consultation area if you'd like feedback.
And if you didn't want feedback please forgive me for overstepping the mark! You're doing great work. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 14
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 5:33 pm: |
|
I LOVE the EXCELLENT feedback. It's wonderfully helpful. THANK YOU!
Have not yet used the 1-to-1. Will try later. Thanks for the heads-up! |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4622
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Adele,
Love ya! You are one of the honest citizens who truly tells it like it is. Cuyahoga County is lucky to have you.
People like you are what keep me going when things get overwhelming. Thank you so much for being you.
Bev Harris
Founder
Black Box Voting |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4623
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Need we say more about why ORDINARY CITIZENS need to be overseeing this process?
It is far too easy to spin out incorrect information simply by selecting the right "experts." All we have to do is take a page from the pharmaceutical industry to see how corrupted the process becomes when turned over to experts.
Our vote -- our democratic process -- our republic -- must be managed by the citizenry, not a bunch of so-called experts who go out for bid trying to pass Boardwalk, collect $200k and make sure everyone has a get out of jail free card.
Again, kudos to Adele for getting inside the process and then telling it like she sees it. |
suhkara a yahweh`
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Suhkara_a_yahweh
Post Number: 39
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 4:28 pm: |
|
We need to know what happen in Ohio so we can be on guard in Memphis Tenn. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 36
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 30 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:30 am: |
|
ESI in July - A long post
This is the email I just sent to the Cuyahoga Commissioners. (Obviously I had previously had one of those - whoops!moments in sweltering heat and sticky fingers on the keyboard.)
(The two attachments mentioned below include a brief but fully complete take on Mitofsky from Dan Tokaji, 2004, and the CNN Lou Dobbs piece downloaded at Bradblog)
Here goes, with purpose - to update this thread
ESI - in now July
July 30, 2006
Dear Commissioners and Hugh Shannon:
I apologize for the completely incomplete email that slipped through my fingers yesterday.
If you attempted to read it, you would have seen a message of increasing concern, thus requests regarding ESI and their reports.
The following is to replace the previous, partially begun message with misspellings and a few incomplete garbled sentences.
I. ESI's exit poll report released last month appears greatly invalid, and is at the very least greatly misleading to any reader unfamiliar with the countywide chaos of May 2, 2006 elections, and misleading even to voters who were at the polls, who might easily but wrongly think that any problems they experienced were unique to themselves.
A. For instance no one reading ESI's report would have been able to glean even a hint of anything amiss happening that day, except the usual pre-election depiction of older people and poor people having a difficult time with the machines at first, despite the fact that:
1. many polls across the county opened late - many at 7 or 7:30am, and a few not until 10am or 1 or 2pm - causing discontented, if not irate voters turned away (gleaned from countywide "trouble reports" approximately 1100 hotline call-ins to the Board of Elections reported from the BOE records, and voters' reports outside four randomly picked the polls on election day);
2. some Diebold screens/machines froze at almost every polling location, (which was not usually attributable to poll workers, but to the machines lack of operability) often while a voter was trying to vote, causing them not to know whether or not they had completed casting their ballot; or others to have to wait as machines needed to be rebooted; and/or causing longer lines, since many machines needed to be taken off line completely, greatly reducing the number of machines available (gleaned from over 1500 countywide "trouble reports" completed by poll workers, gathered by the Board of Elections, and voters' reports outside four randomly picked the polls on election day);
3. the Diebold printers were an equal or greater problem - jamming, remaining hidden to most, too difficult to see to others, and remaining a source of consternation that the printed ballot did not yield a receipt (as with an ATM) or at the very least, did not yield a piece of paper able to be checked and put into a separate ballot box to be able to check the machines (gleaned from over 1500 countywide "trouble reports" completed by poll workers, gathered by the Board of Elections, and voters' reports outside four randomly picked the polls on election day).
4. most polls displayed obvious great confusion and overwhelm among at least some poll workers, and/or a shortage of poll workers given the lack of training and the huge number of problems with machines and voter access card encoders (gleaned from over 1500 countywide "trouble reports" completed by poll workers, and 1100 call-in reports to the BOE, gathered by the Board of Elections, and voters' reports outside four randomly picked the polls on election day);
5. there was a comparatively small, but still significant number of improperly working voter access encoders, as well as improperly prepared ones by pollworkers, not showing all votable issues or candidates appropriate to
6. voters consistently remarked about the lack of privacy in voting with the machines;
7. many found the summary screen too long and confusing;
8. a few remarked though they wanted to, they did not know how to cast a write-in ballot on these machines;
9. Also surrounding me at the four polls outside of which I stood volunteering in the citizens' exit poll on May 2, were voter conversations about
- how they don't trust elections anymore,
- how they will not return to the polls, possibly using absentee ballots next time
- how they don't trust the computers, and
- how spouses and friends warned them to allow time to vote because of the day's chaos.
10. and many more instances of horror stories happened that day that were countywide, highly visible to voters, and remarked upon by many as they left the polls.
Those who had an easy time of voting, and reported no problems were also present, but did not nearly represent 95% of the voters, as ESI reported, and interestingly were among those least willing to stop a moment and complete the citizens' exit poll.
All of the above problems were able to be seen and experienced by voters that day, even before the news of this county's unscannable absentees was exposed; or the 14,000 (7%) deviation between numbers of ballots cast and number of poll book signatures was known ( though the PD was present at the BOE vote certification meeting, not reported thus not known by many); and before the scathing (even to Diebold and their machines) Election Eeview Panel report was released.
B. ESI stated (and I do not have the report presently at hand to quote directly) that they queried at polls countywide, and contacted over 2000 respondents, to supposedly demonstrate validity, but:
1. they did not state where they chose to poll, nor at what times they queried, two factors critical to their drawn conclusions;
2. they showed no verifiable indices, nor any verification of data; and
3. this stated quantity and range of respondents would have made it impossible for them to miss witnessing the above-stated factors, which they chose to never mention..
C. My all day experience exit polling on May 2 demonstrated clearly that most voters spontaneously offered explanations of problems and suggestions, comments that needed to be noted to get and demonstrate the fuller picture than ESI's too-reduced Yes/No answers and depictions. Also as stated above, voters who answered that they had no problems were significantly most likely to not want to say any more about that, not even finish a couple more yes/no answers, and the most likely to not choose to give their names and contact numbers for verification. Many possible alternative conclusions can be drawn from that, two of which are that such computer savvy people tend to be busiestand move most quickly; or another is that there may have been an embarrassment factor at play, for some to admit having any trouble with the new computers.
D. ESI subcontracted the known Edison/Mitofsky firm to conduct that exit poll, a firm with a questionable history among scientists and polling experts nationwide - for being eager to please those "most in power" and willing to use later-proved invalid "conclusions" to do that.
After the 2004 election exit polling debacle, it was Edison/Mitofsky that showed up as willing to change their direction and go with the flow of the status quo denouncing exit polls in that election, but most importantly, doing so with unreliable, invalid reasons.
They negated their first, and most presidential first exit polling results that showed Kerry the winner, by stating that Kerry supporters were interviewed far more often than Bush supporters, a rather far-fetched statement, that has been disproved repeatedly by a non-partisan, non-vestedrange of experts. (See the attached, just one minute rebuttal of that firm by Professor Dan Tokaji.)
My point here is NOT to debate the validity of using quality exit polls in elections, which for many reasons I think are important, nor hardly to debate if Kerry really won. It is only to demonstrate one small thread of the questions already surrounding the validity of Edison/Mitofsky's work among scientists, pollsters and lawyers. Yet ESI chose to hire them for this work and their published report.
II. In May I sent you an email before you additionally appropriated funds for the Election Review Panel to be also hired, a message which I repeat in part here, for by doing so, my now heightened concerns are reiterated:
"Dear Commissioners and Hugh Shannon:
A few recent facts have caused me to deeply question the wisdom of the county letting additional contracts or monies to Election Science Institute, due to the firm's apparent bias, lack of adequate credentials regarding electronic election security, their widely spoken of bent toward PR at high costs, instead of credentialed balanced study; and their now spoken of unwillingness to provide real cooperation and transparency with competent others to arrive at this county's true facts and best solutions.
1. Steven Hertzberg was quoted in the Saturday 5/13/06 Plain Dealer ("Voting machines a winner...") that "The voters were overwhelmingly satisfied with the system," and that ninety percent reported no problems with the touchscreen system and ninety-four percent were confident that their votes would be counted correctly.
(....cut....)
2. Last week, on WCPN Mr. Hertzberg declared that the recently discovered and multiply confirmed, unmitigatable Diebold security breach potentials could be mitigated or fixed. This demonstrates either complete lack of knowledge or false bias, or both.
These Diebold security breach potentials that have just been confirmed in scientific lab studies, and independently by all the highly reknowned, independent experts such as Dr. Douglas Jones, Avi Rubin, Harri Hursti and more, allow anyone with 1-2 minute access to a Diebold machine, to easily "contaminate" it, thus change elections results even in future elections. All detection and mitigation protocols are shown to possibly expose machines to even more contamination. All agree that there is no way to adequately protect against this threat or fix present machines. Some states are taking grave precautionary measures, while some groups are now considering injunctive relief from using Diebold at all.
Mr. Hertzberg does not appear to have any credentials nor experience to make his false claims denying such a serious matter.
(...cut....)
3. Since your ESI contract was let, a number of stories and facts have emerged especially from Franklin County, which give ESI a mixed review, but in the end a vote of no confidence for balanced, truly factual, important answers. I can make the names and numbers of a few of those sources available to you.
4. Last, I understand that rather than working with the independent committee study mentioned in the above-stated PD article, for best and most efficient results, ESI is choosing to work alone, to be the sole beneficiary of the funding, and is asking for additional costly county contracts to complete important pieces. I understand that keeping matters internal may have benefits.
In this case, however, such closure also seems an invitation to lack of necessary impeccable verifiability, efficiency, cost-efficiency and transparency.
I also understand that ESI has now requested an additional $66,000 to query poll workers, which you already know I think an absolutely necessary action. However, in light of ESI's already questionable reporting of overwhelming 90th percentile voter confidence and appreciation, and their other possible lack of knowledge factors, I don't think ESI is the one to do this, not for that price, and especially not without an also designated citizen committee to help and thus, verify their findings.
I have thanked all of you privately and publicly for undertaking this important study in a quest for cost-efficient, accessible, and most important, fair, accurate, honest, safe elections for this county. I have even publicly stood in staunch and long defense of your motives for this study, for truthful hard facts to make the best appropriation decisions toward such elections, when some rushed to judgement that this will serve as just another mode of election manipulation cover-up.
I write in hopes that your past highly appreciated behaviors do not now prove me wrong. I do truly do appreciate all of your serious consideration of this most serious matter to democracy. I hope that you keep close check on ESI, and that you limit our expenditures with them, by including more ongoing, objective citizen participation.
Thank you, "
-snip-
III. Also the voting day problems mentioned above were seen and experienced by voters countywide that day, even though the larger critical factor of the machines’ lack of security and their ability to be hacked and to completely and untraceably change election results, especially by vested insiders, to this day, remains completely out of most voters’ awareness, since no local news nor any official has clearly reported this fact.
That knowledge of this most critical factor of security of one’s ballot in deciding whether or not one likes a voting method, was knowingly not provided respondents, was to completely invalidly construe the information, and to use the unknowing voters as the pollsters’ unwilling "fools" – not a great statement for a polling firm on the day that voters are to be empowered with information and make their informed choices known.
IV. Now ESI’s misconstrued “95% of voters LIKED the machines” is being used even by Diebold as part of their own 3-pronged national mantra about why they are “fabulous” and in no way responsible for the May 2 debacle here, though even the Election Review Panel report certainly states otherwise.
That soon to be oft- heard Diebold statement includes:
1. Cuyahoga was the ONLY county to have problems – a statement that is boldly untrue. I am on a few election integrity group email lists around Ohio, such as CASE Ohio and J30. In the days after May 2, people from other counties, Ohio-wide were abuzz with the same Diebold falling down legs, curling off“tamper tape' ”protecting” memory cards, freezing screens, and ridiculously unusable printers. Reports from Diebold touchscreen primaries and previous elections nationwide included the same. It just so happened that Cuyahoga had so many other problems, that we became most visible with the common Diebold problems.
2. Diebold “substantially”fulfilled their contract – a possible legal posturing of SysTest, who also clearly stated along with the Review Panel that Diebold did not provide the needed and promised guidance or support to allow the CCBOE to avoid some of the most major problems. The Review Panel also repeatedly pointed out instances of other Diebold machine insecurities, unfilled promises, misleadings, and even possible breaches of contract.
3. 95% of voters liked the machines.
(See the also attached WindowsMedia segment from last week’s CNN, Lou Dobbs series “Democracy at Risk”, about May 2 in Cuyahoga, where he also passionately points out that voters liking the machines certainly does not protect democracy.)
V. My above concerns remain and now are only heightened about Election Science Institute, for they still have the bulk of their report to soon release and depict. I understand that part of their delay may be the same difficulty I’ve reported to you before in getting necessary public information from the CCBOE.
Thus my requests are:
A. I hope that you, as ESI’s employers, will review and have corrected if necessary, their report, using ultimate scrutiny for validity and integrity before allowing it to be made public, and therefore possibly to be further misused.
B. And following the above action, or simultaneous with it, but before release, also allowing a group of citizen election reform advocates to review it, so that
C. When ESI does release it, informed citizens given time for thoughtful consideration can ask appropriate questions about their findings in a public hearing, and/or if necessary, can have any serious citizen reservations or affirmations of their findings also publicly added.
Thank you for your concern and attention,
Adele Eisner
-snip- |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 463
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 6:41 am: |
|
Adele,
Thanks so much for sharing your analysis and observations of ESI's work in Ohio. You're efforts in overseeing and keeping us informed about their report on the May 2nd election is critical to citizens getting to the truth of what actually did occur on election day.
The question I have is how could ESI give such a totally different viewpoint of election day than that of the Cuyahoga Independent Election Review Panel report, which put the major portion of the responsibility for the numerous and serious problems that plagued the voters on May 2nd squarely on the election officials?
Obviously, the citizens have a different view than ESI, because they are now calling for BOE Director Michael Vu's resignation. How can one reconcile these 2 conflicting reports? Can the citizens of Cuyahoga County demand their $300,000 back from ESI?
Kathleen
(Message edited by admin_ii on July 31, 2006)
* * * * *
"We're counting ALL the votes. Get over it."
(-- Nancy Tobi, Democracy for New Hampshire)
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3117
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 7:38 am: |
|
I agree that Cuyahoga County should demand their $300,000 back from ESI.
It is shocking that Cuyahoga paid this amount for what amounted to a dishonest PR exercise/whitewash.
Does Ohio have Grand Juries at the county level like California? |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 37
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:26 pm: |
|
I think that in my length of the above, that my main point was missed.
ESI is still soon to release a much fuller report to the county/public, that is to be included in their price paid - which I understand was below $300,000.
My point is if ESI's history is an indicator of the future report, and even if not, it's time to take all these multiple "experts" out of business of filtering and forming unquestioned public opinion about elections (because not enough is known by the public to really question otherwise), and bring the real experts on democracy - "regular"citizens, who, to begin citizen oversight are presently well -informed enough,( not well "educated" or titled enough,) to first help scrutinize the next wave of election "facts"- before they too spread like wildfire, and very possibly getting us all farther from the real basic truths that absolutely need to be widely known: that our elections are being stolen from us, with the theft's biggest recent push - from Bob Ney et al's HAVA.
The money right now is not the first issue, and we don't (for many reasons which Kathleen will understand fully,) even want to begin with county grand juries. Reasons need to be well worded and right now I don't have the time.
The issue is citizen oversight, and an authoritative, resourced citizens' voice at the table, able to be equally heard at every step of "election reform"- certainly equal to the presently paid "experts"too often with something more to gain, or "leaders"also too often with something more to gain... certainly that is, other than a reasonably decent and sane democracy.
Even some election advocates now are putting out skewed to their own interests and "fame" -"reports", in their own often "privileged" "race" to become part of THE experts - and they do so by objectifying and almost pitying others, whose power they think they are standing for.
How about some people who sit down and first agree on rules of basic fairness and justice, not their own opinions, - then begin to formulate what elections need to look like in a fair and just society, all the while empowering others to join the discussion, not be the object of their own expertise.
The present cycle is to me sickening. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3122
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
quote:The issue is citizen oversight, and an authoritative, resourced citizens' voice at the table, able to be equally heard at every step of "election reform"
Thanks Adele for keeping such a clear focus, and for articulating it so well. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 464
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Adele,
I agree with your assessment that voting rights advocates should be careful not to become the very thing they are fighting against! After all, an "expert" by any other name is still an "expert" and expert opinions usually undermines and/or trumps any real citizen input in the long run or the experts end up claiming the citizen's input as their own.
In that regard, Black Box Voting will be releasing a "Citizens Tool Kit" tomorrow which will include 20 modules explaining actions citizens can take right now in preparation for the November election. It will serve as a guide to help citizens choose an action and see it to its completion. Action is invigorating and it builds confidence.
We hope that this tool kit guide will also help citizens realize that they no longer have to sit on the sidelines. Democracy is not a spectator sport and citizens must become "actively" part of the elections process if we want to take back our elections. In the end, it's always been up to us to make change possible and keep our republic safe for democracy. This is one job citizens should never allow to be outsourced, because all the other jobs will be sure to follow.
Now, as for the amount of taxpayer monies spent for ESI's 2 reports, it is my understanding that the first payment was $246,000 (not to exceed $275,000) and the subsequent payment is to be $66,000, which adds up to $300,000+ dollars (not to exceed $341,000), as quoted in the contract between the county and ESI. That's a rather large chunk of change for just one county! This report better be good!
In fact, I look forward to their next, more comprehensive report. After the release of the Cuyahoga Independent Election Review Panel, I'm certain they will be very careful not to conclude that "everything went fine"!
Kathleen
* * * * *
"We're counting ALL the votes. Get over it."
(-- Nancy Tobi, Democracy for New Hampshire)
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 38
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:09 am: |
|
Kathleen,
Beautifully articulated. Thanks!
As to your quote:
"I agree with your assessment that voting rights advocates should be careful not to become the very thing they are fighting against!"
Yes, and that "thing" usually remains unspoken, but evident in actions; difficult to distinguish - because in roads to "fame"and "top expertise" the words coming out of mouths are often so "good of the whole" sounding and actually are sincerely meant;and often remain non-self-reflected upon, thus unrecognized by the people doing the basic political dynamic of "self-interest" and competition overiding the common goal - thus, just reseeding the basic dynamic that underlies our present election shreds.
That's one reason I really love the now used signature here , "...Better to have 10 groups of 10 people than one group with 100 people. That way, at least 10 people will get things done."
(-- John Brakey, an Arizona citizen)
I add to that, that way too, a more flattened, even-field for everyone to be seen and recognized for his or her contributions is created.
And a basic human need is to be seen and recognized with great value. We all deserve to be recognized for what we actually contribute. When that is provided for another, that person gets the energy to keep on going... AND with the need more satisfied, is often more ready to give up some self-interest/trying to be appreciated (or to appreciate pockets) - and are more ready to share assesments of value to others.
Unfortunately in the political systems that we're marinated in, not only are we surrounded by the notion that self-interest is THE game, but so many election integrity advocates have been so outed and demeaned - recognized with all that is opposite of value - that "hungry" many of us unwittingly find ourselves being driven by not only getting the word out, but needing to be the one being heard by "the press". It gets worse for everyone when the "new experts" start also pushing down other voices, or especially when they don't really know what they're talking about or get truly attached to their own views that got them there, that they too become blind to new truths, and others.
That's one reason that every day I feel blessed by BBV, Bev and Kathleen, Jim and Catherine, and well... ALL who share with such value, and who recognize and encourage that with one another.
For in actions, not just words (like HAVA!) actually honoring equal value, and each and every equal voice is what elections are basically about. |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 39
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:22 am: |
|
The little ESI report (mentioned above) vs. big boxes of actualities, and the need for citizen oversight"
___________________________________________
So with the my previous soapbox of the day (sensitized by some local happenings that for now seem to pushing truths farther into the shadows) I will proceed to knowingly say "Look at me!"
I share this, (I think...  ) in the interest of every one of us being able to make a difference and because -
1.maybe it's an example of the "chutzpah" it sometimes takes, but that does not kill (BTW this is backed by almost 2 years of consistent effort, but more, a field of great work done by others locally and nationally); and
2.I thought people here might like to meet me when I have the worst haircut I've gotten in a long time ....aided by a too hot and humid day...
I share among citizens helping citizens to help citizens...my last presentation to the County Commissioners on 7-20. Bless them for at least listening!
Also, please cut me some slack for any garble, or wrong details re: lawsuits ( actually in retrospect don't know if each mentioned is against Diebold) Just had returned from out of town, no time to truly prepare- but I think the message is there.
http://adeleeisner.com/ESI&citizenoversight/ |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 5492
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 8:05 am: |
|
Adele, the link you provided didn't work for me.
Do you have another link, was there a typo...?
* * * * *
"Regardless of size, just 1-3 people do all the work in any group. Better to have 10 groups of 10 people than one group with 100 people. That way, at least 10 people will get things done."
(-- John Brakey, an Arizona citizen)
You own your government, not the other way around. This is your task: Pick 1 thing and just DO IT. Then lead, mentor or organize 9 people to do the same thing.
Citizen Tool Kit to Take Back Elections:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf
Begins 8/1/06
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3129
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Great presentation, Adele. (The link worked for me; it loaded in Quicktime but it's a large file so even with broadband it requires patience.)
You covered a lot of territory in a convincing way, and your case for citizen oversight and for citizens' voices to be heard came across very well. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3130
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 2:54 pm: |
|
It was also very convincing to see your boxes of citizen responses and their reports on voting problems. When talking about something as intangible as an election system, it helps to have something physical to show, something that people can relate to with their 5 senses. You can also bet that the "vibes" from those responses will also communicate.
Did anyone from the committee express any curiosity about seeing some of the responses? |
Adele Eisner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Eisnera
Post Number: 40
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Let's try this link
http://adeleeisner.com/ESI&citizenoversight/index.html
Keith, my intelligent friend who offered to help go through the box, and offerred to come and speak, and for that day also to be the box schlepper wanted to read his "all-time favorites" - which he did. They did not ask beyond that.
and
I was not well enough prepared to have tightened down to the normal 5 minute allowance - and they had already allowed additional to their normally allotted time. |
|
|
