Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
:
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
...
|
| 9-19-2005: Carter-Baker Panel Report:... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 8 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 9:01 am: | 
|
The formal report of the Carter-Baker Panel purports to be offering election reforms to fix our broken electoral process.
In general, the panel fails to address, or even acknowledge, or see the need for, or even know what the attack trees are for the current voting system -- therefore, it proposes measures that miss the mark, and offers up radical changes without examining appropriate checks and balances. (Links to report at end of this article)
Here is a point by point synopsis of what it says and how it misses the boat:
1: Help America Vote Act
Recommends keeping 2006 deadline and "vigorously enforcing it."
Misses the boat: Pushes systems into the elections process without adequate standards to assure quality, and with very few checks and balances. Costly, both for federal and local governments. Many systems will need to be adjusted, replaced, or jettisoned soon after purchase. HAVA continues to define itself as a collossal example of pork spending and government waste.
2: Voter Registration, top-down systems
The goal is good, the mechanism is flawed. Recommends statewide computerized systems that interact state to state. That is a valid goal.
Misses the boat: The problem is, no one did any analysis of what specific checks and balances are needed to make sure this system (a) is accurate and (b) cannot be used to strategically disenfranchise voters. Like most technology, it must be accompanied by the appropriate safeguards, and they did not address the safeguards, which has the net effect of decreasing election integrity.
3: Voting Technology
Recommends the VVPAT
Misses the boat: Does not recommend how "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail" must be used. All it says is that "unambiguous methods" must be decided on to reconcile paper with computer, and it recommends that "a decision should be made" as to which is the official record.
Also sidesteps government waste issues: By rushing to HAVA implementation, hundreds of counties got stuck with machines that do NOT produce a VVPAT. Even if the VVPAT was a viable solution (we believe that it will prove not to be viable), this is an excellent example of how rushing ahead with HAVA is becoming an exercise in government waste.
Security: Here is where the most glaring example of inadequacy of all lies. This commission does not appear to even understand the need to define the problem before it proposes solutions.
We knew they'd miss this boat: While in Houston, at the excellent counter-Baker-Carter Panel event put together by Kip Humphrey, I asked a member of the Panel why they had not asked a single question about how hacks can be done. He said it is not necessary to understand how the system can be compromised in order to protect it.
Here's what's needed
In fact, the following procedure is the only way to develop meaningful protections for the system:
- Identify categories of attacks. Example of categories: Software attack, hardware attack, materials attack (ballots, pens, etc.), People attack (bribes, cons, manipulations, favors etc)...
- Identify attack points. Example of attack points: District definitions, ballot access for candidates and issues, voter registration, voter authentication, mail-in voting, vote casting, vote recording, vote tallying, canvassing & reporting...
- Identify specific attack vectors for each of the above. Example: Materials attack - place pens with organic ink into polling places that use infra-red optical scanners when you want more lost votes to occur.
- Assign a risk to each attack vector. Calculate how many people would need to be involved, what level of access, how much it would cost, how much sophistication is required, how many votes could be affected at once.
- Starting with the most high-risk attacks, develop procedures to mitigate the risks
TO DATE, NO ATTACK TREE HAS EVER BEEN DONE. According to Dr. Doug Jones (see his interview in our video library; just click the video camera at top right of our home page) -- when attack trees have been proposed, officials in the elections industry not only don't seem interested in finding out what they are, they say that if attack trees research is done, THEY WON'T READ IT. Their excuse is that they don't want public records available on the subject.
The Carter-Baker Panel seemed to follow this flawed line of reasoning. They decided they could propose a solution to security without defining what the security problems are.
4: Access to voting
Makes vague recommendations about making sure qualified people are allowed to vote.
Misses the boat: It does not appear that they delved into this much. Ohio and Florida would have been great starting points. None of the issues documented with voter purging or failure to authenticate qualified voters were addressed.
The study also makes vague recommendations about mail-in voting, overseas and military voting, and the like, basically saying the situation should be studied and pros & cons evaluated.
5: Investigation of election fraud
Misses the boat: The absence of the existence of any formal attack tree, the lack of understanding of even what we know so far about attack vectors, and the absence of meaningful mitigation procedures was obvious here.
This exceedingly lame section couches the problem in terms of property destruction and attempts to decieve or intimidate voters. They seem blissfully unaware of the new politically correct, kinder, gentler ways to disenfranchise voters through selective purging of voter registration databases and voting machine manipulation.
Read section 5. You'll chuckle at its lameness, before the nausea sets in.
6: Election Administration
The report makes general recommendations that seem mostly aimed at cleaning up the (deservedly) tarnished image that elections administration has achieved.
- It recommends throwing a bit of money at it
Misses the boat: but not in a targeted fashion
- it recommends beefing up the EAC
Misses the boat: but does not appear to recommend any more money for the EAC's joke of a budget
- it recommends doing some research on elections management.
Misses the boat: If followed, the recommendations appear to put an increased burden on local officials and local budgets, without providing any real guidance or financial support.
7: Media
The Panel advises media to provide a bit more access to candidates, for example, a five minute discourse per month among candidates. It makes recommendations about not releasing projections before everyone has voted (aren't we already there?).
Misses the boat: What it doesn't do is make any effort to address keeping nonfavored candidates and parties off the debates, nor does it address the validity of the media's exit polling actions, nor safeguarding the media projections from manipulation as happened in 2000 when a Volusia County voting machine manipulation was used to trigger the media to make an incorrect projection of the presidential race.
8: Observers
Recommends that independent and international observers be allowed if they are "accredited" -- which would mean a citizen would need to obtain credentials before observing the counting of the vote, or attending a Logic & Accuracy test.
Misses the boat: This seems ripe for abuse. They giveth with one hand (states that only allow political party observers should let international and independent observers come in too) while taking away with the other (observers for pre-electon testing, absentee processing, election day events and counting should have credentials issued in advance).
9: Presidential primaries and schedules
They recommend changing the way primaries are scheduled, suggesting giving over power to decide to a group of NASS (National Association of Secretaries of State) members to execute the plans.
Misses the boat: In view of the secretary of states' failure to properly monitor certification and their enthusiasm to rush to paperless touch-screen voting, with the momentum shifting only after a veritable taxpayer revolt, one wonders if this is the correct body of authorities to handle this.
Misses the boat: They want states to hurry up and certify their elections, quicker, faster, but what is simply not mentioned is providing anyone the ability to audit much of anything.
# # # # #
Here is the report:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/
Here is a summary of recommendations in the report:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/CFER_summary.pdf |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 493
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Bev, can you tell me where,when such a specific excuse was made and by whom; "Their excuse is that they don't want public records available on the subject."; if that isn't the most blatant outing of the idea that the government's power does NOT reside in the people, I don't know what the hell it is.
 |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 892
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
RE: No. 8 Observers
By requiring observers to obtain credentials ahead of time, it would give any malicious election officials or candidates forewarning and allow them to change attack vector if necessary. Since the name of the proposed observer would have to be given ahead of time, election staff would have the chance to figure out what the expertise of any observer would be, if any (legal, technical, etc.), and allow them to ensure a "clean" show is presented (and move or adjust any planned highjinks to a different location or methodology).
Was any specific time frame of advance notice recommended?
This would be a horrible weakening of citizens' rights to observe elections--it would take away the element of surprise and anonymity, reducing the potential usefulness of observers.
Observers are only useful to the extent that their location or presence is NOT identified in advance. Otherwise, it's like being a restaurant critic and letting the restaurant know in advance who you are and when you are coming--it's not an effective way to evaluate what normally goes on. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 121
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Hey Bruce,
Here's the clip of the BBV interviews with Supervisor of Elections, Ion Sancho, and Dr. Doug Jones, where they inform us that election officials don't want to bring security issues to the table for discussion. In fact, they don't want anything to do with security issues:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/videos/security-obscurity2.mpg
This 3-minute clip will probably make your blood boil too! Later on in that same interview (not in this clip), Dr. Jones told us that no one even bothered to test them for security flaws during the certification process. So, you do the math on the odds that none of these machines should be trusted.
Kathleen |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1943
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
For another editorial on the report, which also delves into its ID card recommendations, I will mention that Brad Friedman was first out of the gate and identified the thing as a sham.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001843.htm#comments
And for the record, he also posted a revision of the Dieb-throat story with links to corroborating evidence.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001842.htm#comments
 (group hug) |
Brant Lamb
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 74
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Is this Carter getting watered-down, or did he just roll over for this crap? |
John Gideon
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Johngideon
Post Number: 146
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Carter-Baker Commission Recommends A Barrier To Voting
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=2480
Written and submitted for publication this morning.
Information Manager, VotersUnite.org
|
Mike Copass
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mikec
Post Number: 36
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
attn John Gideon
If I send a message to contact at votersunite.org, will you see it?
Thanks for writing the heads-up piece
MK Copass |
Brant Lamb
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 77
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
I wasn't being rhetorical, did Carter just get steamrollered? Does anybody know the play by play of this? Were the meetings public? |
Ami Silberman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jol
Post Number: 112
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Personally, I have no problem with requiring a photo ID if, and only if, there is a sincere effort made on the part of the government to make sure that everyone gets a photo ID. There are countries in the world which do have nation-wide identification cards.
Of course, the way we do things over here, the government actually making it easy to get ID cards is pretty unlikely. When I was an undergraduate, the legal drinking age was 18. It was possible to get a photo ID from the local Sherrif's department, but it involved getting fingerprinted. Or you could get a driver's license, but that involved learning to drive and passing the test. Or you could get a passport, which involved traveling to Albany. I've also lived in states where the DMV issued "non-driver's" licenses, essentially photo IDs which had, at least within the state, the same force of "proof of existance" as a driver's license, but without showing that one was allowed to drive. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
"Don't look there, look here."
Note that nearly all the coverage of this has focused on the ID requirement, distracting from the even bigger problems with this report.
The whole report completely caves in on voting system integrity and security, except for a token bit about a VVPAT, which fails to address how to use the VVPAT except in broad meaningless terms.
Note that the official position put forth by the Democratic party line focuses solely on the voter ID issue.
Both major parties again fail to address the voting machine issue, and John, your article follows in lockstep.
Truth can be found by "going where the silence is."
What is NOT being said in the articles about this? So far I'm seeing only:
"Yay, election reforms proposed" (without mentioning the meaninglessness, or even detrimental nature of many of the recommendations in the report)
or "look out, a voter ID requirement" (again, without mentioning that the report skirts over devastating security flaws in the voting machines that now count 90 percent of the vote.)
Security flaws that the panel decided it did not need to understand in order to recommend solutions.
* * * * *
Don't look there. Look here.
-- The Amazing Randi |
Mike Copass
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mikec
Post Number: 37
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Omission is the most perfect form of a lie.
Has the voting-reform part of the Democratic party been infiltrated by some opposition? ... I think it's important, given the dems historical malfeasance by using dead voters, multiple votes, etc, to get to some common ground on the ID issue, but, fer cryin' out loud Ms Clinton, Mr Dean, Mr Reid, etc: they're playing Colmes to the right's Hannity.
Homeland security? We need voting security. Is there a Paper Ballot caucus yet out there....?
(Cynthia McKinney you're needed...) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 899
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
The DLC is part of the problem. It's no longer a question of them being "infiltrated." They do not want anyone to look at these voting machines, or inspect them ahead of time or after elections.
The Dems & Reps are equally "invested" in seeing that no one gets too close to voting machines or removing their backdoors. |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 500
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Mike, yes, John will get the email if you send it to 'contact'; John, 'carterbakerdissent.com' is a nonexistent url(referenced in your article on AmericanChronicle).
Awhile back I posted indicating watchout for the media spin (Dan Balz's atrocious article in the WAPO is a good example)when this report was released.
Please take the time to write a 'letter to the editor' in your town/city pointing out what Bev has pointed out about this failed commission. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 1948
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Spencer Overton's dissenting statement can be found by Googling him. Of interest is that he makes it clear there was no room for dissent. |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 503
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Well, this has been an interesting adventure doing what you said Bev. This issue with the link on American Chronicle was a lack of the 'www' and I hadn't read thru the dissents on the report(focus was on the inadequacies in the report itself) to find the actual link of http://www.carterbakerdissent.com/
And,yes, you're right regarding his dissent; just another step down the path to fascism being fully implemented (or you can be 'SouthPark' like and say we already do fascist actions but they aren't really because we say they're not).
BUT what I found was interesting in itself, such as, why didn't this website provide the link when it was mentioning Spencer Overton setting up a website for dissent?
http://www.fcw.com/article90850-09-19-05-Web
the website of "Federal Computer Week"
Also noticed that the wikipedia page for the Commission only has the mainpage and nothing else is linked to the page and,gee, let's update wiki !! |
Tony Ingenoso
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tonyi
Post Number: 1
Registered: 09-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
[Their excuse is that they don't want public records available on the subject.]
Of course not -- govt election apparatchicks of all flavors are frigging TERRIFIED by the technology. Its not something they understand or have the background to administer properly when given recommendations by qualified technical people who do understand.
I briefly flipped through the source code for one voting system that was posted on the net publicly a while ago. It was kind of scary - not booby trapped/rigged scary - just grotesque sloppy scary. Pretty clear it was slapped together quick and the "demo" became the "production" release.
One thing that should happen is the machine vendors should be forced to use an online/public defect tracking database so election officials can see what they're rolling out and trusting. Election officials need the ability to assign defect priorities too. The machine vendors need to dance to the customers tune rather than the customers having to accept whatever blob of crap is available on rollout day. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 124
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
Considering the latest recommendations by the Carter/Baker Commission, it's becoming more and more apparent that the "powers that be" or the the so-called "decisionmakers", who are being trotted out from time to time to tell us, the people, what's best for us in election reform, honestly aren't the least bit interested in real reform at all. (Remember Dr. DeForest Soaries pretty much said this when he resigned from the EAC).
It's clear they have gone out of their way to keep the citizens away from the table where dialogue and decisions are being made regarding this issue. What are they afraid of?
As I've stated many times before, and will continue to do so, we've been receiving reports from all over the US that the citizens don't trust electronic voting machines and want hand counting of paper ballots at the precinct level. Why are they continually being ignored by these decisionmakers? Of course, this solution has not even been considered as an option by the decisionmakers or the "experts", who are working in conjunction with each other in hopes of putting this puppy to rest. It's too hard!
The formation and funding of commissions, studies and grants to scientists (no citizens need apply) seems to be another way of telling the people to "step away from election reform" WE, not YOU, should handle it! (As Bruce Sims said when the NSF granted the $7.5 million to a crop of scientists for research into improving the voting machines, he questioned why hasn't there been grants of federal money going toward promoting citizen participation and oversight in elections?)
Indeed! After all, it's our money!
I bet they thought we would have given up and gone away by now, and are totally perplexed and annoyed that we keep hanging on. (Which is the reason for the "dog and pony" shows, such as the Carter/Baker Commission). I have no doubt that they are even frightened by our resolve.
Why? IMO, because there is something really ugly that they don't want us to find out about if we continue to dig toward the core of this issue. They would much rather we be satisfied to dance a little two-step around it by accepting a band-aid solution of their choosing, which would keep us in pleasant state of denial about what we are actually dealing with here. After all, the average American citizen couldn't handle the truth and need to be told what to do by those who are "intellectually superior"!! Just call us the "Stepford America" and get it over with. We don't need to think for ourselves anyway. Let somebody else do it. That's what they want us to accept.
I'm certain what we will find is a harsh, devastating betrayal of the American people by those in power who have profited personally, at our expense, and have stolen our government right out from under us to do with as they please. What may be at stake here are exalted careers ended and the total disgrace of many in high places of authority who were supposed to represent the people's and the country's best interests -- not their own. Shall we say treasonous acts may have been committed here, or at least, felonies with long jail sentences?
We can prevail if we recognize that those who continue to defend the status quo --and who continue to run from the mountains of evidence that has been collected by diligent, caring citizens throughout our country regarding the clear and present danger of privitizing our election process and leaving it in the hands of a few -- are never going to give up their power to us. They will go to unbelievable lengths to keep their power and we have to be prepared to face this fact and not let it discourage us.
The question at hand (at least one I continue to ask myself) is do we have the necessary resolve and love of our freedom to stay in this fight to reclaim our sovereignty as American citizens? Do we dare think of the alternative?
(Sorry guys for waxing rapsodic here, but I'm just a little bit "pissed-off" and tired).
Kathleen |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 504
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
"The machine vendors need to dance to the customers tune rather than the customers having to accept whatever blob of crap is available on rollout day."
Same goes for politicians; they are OUR servants, not the other way around. |
Brant Lamb
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 82
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Their our servants if we can get their noses out of the lobbyists' money feedbags, that is. That's the other end of this, money's going to have to go to a common well for elections and if there are 5 candidates, they get 1/5 of the money, and if they don't spend it on the election, they have to give it back. |
Kathleen Wynne
Moderator
Username: Admin_ii
Post Number: 125
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Brant,
Who will be in charge of tracking how much money these candidates spend? I'm all in favor for them giving back what they don't spend, but running for office involves huge sums of money and I would be very surprised if there ever was any left over to give back.
Another reason, campaign finance reform is long overdue. Unfortunately, it's getting the same attention as election reform by our legislature.
Kathleen |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 506
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Brant, let me share this with you; I was copied-apparently inadvertently- on a email by someone wanting my take on the CA SOS 'security directive' for the upcoming Nov. 8 'special election'(and yes, as far as I'm concerned Ahnold is a girlie man and I'd be happy to tell him to his face if I could get his guards to drop their guns) and in that email was another email from someone to someone else asking that it not be forwarded on because the person sending the email was in 'talks' with Brad Clark of the SOS office about paper ballots for the election(that person apparently hadn't bothered to check the election codes regarding paper ballots); my point is that the person who was 'in talks with Brad Clark' had ALREADY given 'authority' to the SOS office over what the law stated.
It is the 'all too willingness' of the populace to treat public servants as some sort of savant that sets the conditions for the arrogance and disrespect public servants have for the 'public'.
The ONLY respect a 'public servant' deserves -all the way down and inclusive of the POTUS- is that one would give to any other human being. Public servants MUST understand that if they want to be respected and trusted by the public, THEY MUST EARN IT ! And they are NOT the 'office' just because they occupy the position.
|
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 20
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Brant, the problem with giving each candidate the same amount of money is that it favors the incumbent and the already famous.
It takes much more money for an unknown to run effectively against the incumbent or the already famous (such as Schwarzenegger) to get themselves known. |
Brant Lamb
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 83
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Bruce, I don't understand what you're saying had to do with what I said, were you sure you meant me?
And Joanne, if they have the same money, they will have (relatively, at least) the same exposure. If an incumbent can run on a good record, then he deserves to. And it doesn't always give an incumbent an advantage; W couldn't run for dog catcher right now. |
Brant Lamb
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 84
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
We've never been able to separate the 'known'from the 'got lots of money' people (it seems like for 40 years or more), so how do you know that, for sure? |
Brant Lamb
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 85
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Jo Anne, the guy from Ohio came within a gnat's fanny of making it, and all the odds were stacked the other way. Imagine if the money had been even! |
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 21
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
First, the unknown candidate has to get himself known, and then he has to get known what he stands for, and then what the other guy stands for. The incumbent only needs to get himself known what he stands for and what the other guy stands for.
The unknown candidate has three things to accomplish with the money as compared to the incumbent having two.
To make it fair the unknown should get 60% of the pot, and the incumbent should get 40% of the pot.
Jo Anne |
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 22
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Brant, many people believe that Hackett did win.
Hackett's advantage in Ohio was that the people already knew what Schmidt stood for. So both Hackett and Schmidt had only two areas to deal with, and hers was the more difficult of overcoming what she stood for. |
Jim March
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 47
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Regarding their not wanting to create an "attack tree" as Bev described it:
There's probably somebody connected with the commission who understands the issue. But one of the big concerns of all the Federal (and most state) election oversight people is that since the release of all the negative info about Diebold and the rest by people like us (esp. Bev), voter confidence is at an all-time low.
That in turn is why terms like "conspiracy terrorists" has been used by people in authority in reference to us.
To create a full "attack tree" is to risk getting it published in a newspaper, online or both. Which in turn would scare the bejeezus out of Mr. and Mrs. Middle American Voter. Never mind that it's NECESSARY.
So, in order to avoid scaring the voters who are otherwise blind to the problems, they're going to put in election processes that can be hacked.
Or that's what they think, anyways. |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 508
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
| | |
