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
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (US) 1/06 - Various questions and ans... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3109
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 1:53 pm: | 
|
These posts have been moved from a story about ES&S vulnerabilities to General Discussion. |
Craig Lister
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Voiceofreason
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:10 pm: |
|
It looks like, from previous postings, that you folks are alienating people who could help your cause or hurt it. Now they will hurt it because they will call you the tin-foil hat brigade for berating and alienating them as you have done to most of the community you profess to protect. It is because of these failures the CA SoS did not invite you to the Hursti test, which was, by the way, cancelled because Hursti told them he flat out could not do it under the process proposed (the one actually used on election day. Feel free to ask him on here to dispute that.
It is good there are steps being taken to review the integrity of the code, but every vendor has the same code (in one form or another) as mentioned above. The Ca SoS unfortunately came to this way too late as usual, and merely punished the counties for trying to be compliant. Believe me, most of them would prefer to not be under the HAVA pressure because as we all know it was not well thought out.
Age old adage: It is easier to attract flies with honey than vinegar. You folks are some serious vinegar. WHEW! |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3095
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Craig,
You write "it is good there are steps being taken to review the integrity of the code."
Note that the Optech, which this post is about, has been around since the late 1980s. This information is just now coming out, nearly two decades later now that the machine is going to be retired.
The Diebold optical scan has been around since 1988. It's design defects were not examined until Black Box Voting arranged it in May 2005, after seeing anomalies in Volusia County for two presidential elections in a row. I'm not sure we can consider the current oversight process to be very healthy if it takes 17 years to realize that a system that counted 30 million votes in 800 jurisdictions in four presidential elections contains "the mother of all security holes."
The honey didn't work very well.
Thanks for your insights. Did you say you work for San Diego County? How's it going there? Will people be able to watch the tallying of the vote without getting arrested next election? I hope so!
Bev Harris |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 2:45 am: |
|
Hi 'Craig', You posted,
"It looks like, from previous postings, that you folks are alienating people who could help your cause or hurt it. Now they will hurt it because they will call you the tin-foil hat brigade for berating and alienating them as you have done to most of the community you profess to protect.
If you're referring to the esteemed members of academia as the people we're "berating and alienating" and who will "hurt" the movement because of it then I've got some news for you.
In my opinion, those people are the very reason this movement is needed. They choose to 'play nice' with the government entities who are forcing these unsecured systems on us and they are rewarded with multi-million dollar grants for multi-year studies of how to fix the problems.
They are being used as part of a campaign to manipulate public perception. Despite the nature of their words and expressed opinions on the subject, the nature of their participation with the government lends a veneer of credibility to totally unfit election systems as perceived by the public at large.
Take the following recent quote by Diebold spokesperson David Bear, "Although some people "are going to believe conspiracy theories," Bear said, "we have to believe what history tells us. The systems are safe, they're secure, they're accurate. They've been validated by voters, by election officials, by institutes of higher learning, by the market."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002713287_voting31m.html
Who do you suppose he's referring to when he says "institutes of higher learning"?
It's a lie just like everything else in his statement if Dill, Rubin, and Jones et al are to be believed but I don't hear them actively challenging such statements.
As for your contention, "It is because of these failures the CA SoS did not invite you to the Hursti test, which was, by the way, canceled because Hursti told them he flat out could not do it under the process proposed (the one actually used on election day. Feel free to ask him on here to dispute that."
Perhaps you can post a link to where you heard that rumor. It's really very simple, it's your claim, prove it! Can you back it up?
Facts speak for themselves. We're armed with facts.
If people want to call us names then fine, let them. They had better be prepared to face a growing army of other experts who are armed with facts.
Propaganda only works for so long if you can't control all of the sources of information the target population receives. In that sense they've already lost the game. Look all around you. Everywhere you look people are waking up and asking questions. When they learn the answers, the machines get dumped. No tinfoil required.
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
Phil McCracken
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_mccracken
Post Number: 3
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 8:32 am: |
|
Bev:
I logged onto the website last night and noticed two posts by "Craig Lister" on this thread. Today, there is only one post by Craig Lister posted on this thread. The second post seemed to ask a question about proving whether any election over the last twenty years was fruadulent, tampered with, or compromised. It looked like "Craig's" post with that question was deleted. Why did you delete it? It is a relevant question. I want to ascertain the facts, not antidotal statements about election fraud, or statements such as "we heard this occurred."
I am a new member, and if those types of questions are not addressed, or addressed by deleting those posts so others do not have a chance to posit on them, is this site a truly objective site? I logged onto this site because I heard this was a good website for information. Now, I am skeptical. Please help me out. |
BBV Admin - Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3107
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Phil,
The question was legitimate. I will re-enable Craig Lister after a few days of cooling off, because he was combining legitimate questions with inflammatory talking points.
Craig first came on this board violating the rules, and would not give his name. I suspended his account and asked him to sign in again following the rules. Very quickly, he began posting inflammatory and unsubstantiated information.
There is another poster, Ken Hajjar, who you'll find in the Massachussetts forum. He works for the Diebold vendor in New England and posts strongly worded information that questions the Black Box Voting positions. As you'll see, he is indeed a valued member and we don't eliminate his posts, because they address issues. Passion is okay, vigorous debate is encouraged, but hurling generalized personality-based insults isn't part of the culture here. Ken Hajjar has been up against some tough critics, but has handled it appropriately and we continue to welcome his insights.
Now, I'll answer that question:
"Has election over the last twenty years been proven to be fraudulent, tampered with, or compromised?"
Yes.
Tampered with: Volusia County 2000, basically admitted by Diebold's own chief engineer, with a replacement memory card. The direct result of the tampering was the TV networks calling the election for George Bush.
An internal report from CBS traces the incorrect projected winner to the bogus vote upload in Volusia County. This appears to have been an effort to get Al Gore to concede. When CBS was asked when they were going to pull their erroneous projection, CBS president said "Let's wait and see what Gore does." Gore conceded privately to Bush, based on the Volusia County numbers, and was two blocks away from conceding to the nation when the bogus vote total was revealed to him. He withdrew his concession. That manipulation dented history, and nearly changed it altogether.
Tampered with: Volusia County 2004: The evidence for this is circumstantial, but I believe it will pass the test of "preponderance of the evidence." I'm not sure it's to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The evidence is in the form of internal reports, unexplained need for extra memory cards, and poll tapes that contain incorrect dates, times, and occasionally, results. The Volusia County report will come out this month.
We're not done with Volusia. The evidence there and the Hursti evidence have opened up several new lines of inquiry.
Compromised: King County Washington: During the Sept. 2004 primary, three hours was deleted from the GEMS central tabulator audit log. The elections chief gave the explanation, which is in our video archive, that this was because there was no activity during this period. However, we have results reports with his signature on them, time and date-stamped, showing that there WAS activity. Not only were multiple reports printed, an event which appears in the GEMS audit log, but votes were being accumulated.
We learned yesterday that he DID NOT refer the matter to the prosecutor's office for investigation, nor take steps to learn who did it. We will make sure this matter is further investigated through the appropriate law enforcement agency, as alteration of a voting machine audit log is a Class C felony in Washington State.
Do these instances actually affect elections?
Well, let's consider. The deletion of information from the audit log shows that the King County perimeter defense failed. King County is using the defective Diebold GEMS program and has never even explored the ideas of mitigating its now well-established risks with anything but a perimeter defense. King County is now going to all mail-in balloting, which lacks even a poll tape as a backup record.
Since tampering with electronic evidence tends to overwrite, erase, or alter the data, it may not be possible to reconstruct the original and correct votes.
But what about the paper ballots?
That all comes down to citizen's ability to see the paper ballots and the chain of custody over the ballots.
In King County, there was a hand recount of the 2004 governor's race, but elections chief Dean Logan kept "finding" new ballots. This happened over and over. In fact, he found ballots again four months after the election!
This problem of finding new ballots is combined with a King County-area Diebold ballot printer whose employees and records indicate they print large numbers of unaccounted-for ballots. Though King County must account for the ballots that are DELIVERED, an outside vendor is involved, and they don't have to account for their ballots. Yesterday, Black Box Voting asked Dean Logan what procedures are used to account for the extra ballots at the Diebold printer, and he said, basically, none.
In Volusia County, one employee was given a key to the ballot vault and 24-hour access, plus that employee had access to the warehouse. We found homemade ballots and lots of ballot masters in the warehouse trash.
So much for being able to see what compromised electronic votes were supposed to be.
Bev Harris |
Phil McCracken
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_mccracken
Post Number: 4
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
Bev:
I have other questions:
1). When are you, or your group going to be more of a group recommending solutions, rather than being a perceived "flamethrower?"
(red is from Black Box Voting) Please review the solution-oriented content of this site. 
We are a watchdog group, not a lobbying group. I founded this group with a consumer protection model in mind. Now, think back to when Nader was a consumer watchdog. Was it his job to identify exploding gas tanks or to hang around the Ford Motors plant engineers thinking up new automotive designs?
Election integrity is a complex issue which needs many different approaches. Someone needs to identify problems and let people know about them, in a credible way, with evidence. That is our role. Lobbying, designing, and organizing is also needed. It would be egotistical for any one group to believe they can do it all alone.
In any reform movement, you have "insiders" and "outsiders." Both are needed. Insiders negotiate with public officials and outsiders agitate and educate to create public awareness. The insiders typically recognize that the outsiders play a critically important role, and sometimes individual actions are loosely allied. Frankly, if the insiders want to kill off the outsiders, that would be very odd, and should call into question their real motives. Most of those doing lobbying and research and design are fully aware of the symbiotic nature of the insiders and the outsiders. (I suppose you could also call it the carrot and the stick.)
I visit the Democratic Underground website and that site claims that you took money and have not accounted for it. Please explain this issue.
Phil: Our form 990 will be available on schedule. The allegations at Democratic Underground are libel, nothing more, nothing less. Please pose the identical question to Ballot Integrity Project, VerifiedVoting.org, VoteTrustUSA.org, VotersUnite, and all the other organizations. Black Box Voting is the only organization that has been subjected to this kind of smear campaign. It is inappropriate. If, after reviewing the 990, you believe that I "took money" I will be happy to revisit the discussion. My salary is $60,000 a year and in 2005 I donated $68,000 to this organization.
2). Why was Black Box denied permission to be a part of the California certification test? Also, is it true that Harry Hursti is now denying or has asked you not to link him with your group?
California has not denied Black Box Voting permission to do the 19202 request. Harri Hursti has not asked us not to link him with our group.
If you will review Harri Hursti's interview in our online Think Tank, from August, you will see that he has always been a free agent. We respect him, enjoy his wonderful sense of humor, appreciate all the expertise he continues to offer us. However, if by "link" you mean he is a representative of Black Box Voting or an employee of Black Box Voting, that has never been the case. I consider him a friend. The last time he and I communicated was this morning.
The Leon County results, according to the Hursti report, appears in the report to involve manipulating the data after the memory card is set for election. Thus, it appears that the so-called "hack" is done in election mode, which means that the Hursti test conducted in Leon County, does not represent a real world scenario.
The memory cards, set for election mode, are sent home with poll workers inside the optical scan machines. I suppose another round of testing could be done: 1) altering the votes and the L&A test report, prior to election mode, or 2) breaking and reaffixing the seal without detection or 3) reprogramming the machine using the serial port or the modem port while the card is in it (see Diebold memos; the ability to reprogram the card through the modem port is listed as a FEATURE in the release notes); or substituting votes after the ender card is run through.
The issue is that there is interpreted pseudo-code (source code, in this case) which is enacted after the election begins, a violation of FEC standards. This design presents a whole host of attack points. The issue is also, exactly as Hursti says in his report, that the architecture places an unsustainable burden on the perimeter defense (people & procedures). And finally, the issue is that both FEC standards imply and real world security dictates that proper security must be layered, such that if one layer fails, the others remain intact.
In real election terms, only ONE thing stands between an outsider gaining control over an election using the FEC noncompliant design of the AccuVote: A 2-cent plastic seal you can purchase off the Internet.
It seems ludicrous that we are entrusting nation-state security to this, or even arguing about it.
My question is :The "computer scientists" or folks like Jim March (your investigator), who claims to be a computer expert but according to many does not have any credentials to prove his "expertise" on this thread would dispute this by stating that a hacker does not need a real world scenario but only show "the weakest link" in a system. Why did this test not go forward in California?
Jim March does not claim to be a "computer expert." It is so frustrating to hear people making things up, then shooting them down. There is a term for this tactic: Erecting a straw horse, then knocking it down. Jim March has a good ability to explain technical subject matter in plain English, a critically important skill to bridge the gap between computer experts like Harri Hursti and Dr. Herbert Thompson and the general public.
In fact, in writing the ES&S article, Jim March interviewed Dr. Doug Jones (an expert), converted it to English, then ran it by our in-house "ordinary citizen" Kathleen Wynne to make sure she could understand it. Nothing you provide rebuts any of the substance of the story.
3). Why do you believe, that even with a paper ballot, that absentee processing is vulnerable?
Read my comments in the "Don't believe the Seattle Times" article in the Mainstream News section.
4). Have you ever been involved in elections as a poll worker? Do you understand the internal elections process?
Poll workers monitor the voting. Black Box Voting focuses on monitoring the counting. Two different processes.
I spend about 30 percent of my time in the field, in actual elections offices, monitoring elections, meeting with elections officials, and meeting with voters and experts. (That's down from 70 percent last year, which was grueling.)
Yes, I understand the internal elections process in most locations. One of the understandings I have come to after more than a year in the field is that there is tremendous VARIATION in "the internal elections process" not just from state to state, but from county to county. I have also seen that "the internal elections process" is only sometimes followed.
Elections, as they are run in the United States, remind me of a company with ten thousand locations, and various operations manuals, missing the quality control program. Anyone who has worked in multi-site quality control knows that having an operations manual and following it are two very different things.
5). Why claim Diebold's ballot printing is not accounted? It appears that their ballot printing shop is just that, a print shop.
Because we have financial documents gathered from two separate locations (Everett and McKinney) showing internal figures that estimate a whopping 25 percent spoilage rate. That was mind-boggling. In addition, we have not one but TWO sources from the inside ballot printing shop who have taken it upon themselves to express concerns about what happens to the extra ballots. And added to that, I confirmed with King County elections chief Dean Logan yesterday that the county does nothing to account for the extra ballots printed unless they are delivered. That leaves a security loophole. Now, when you have an elections division that keeps "finding" more ballots, that is not just an academic concern.
Also, I understand from your website that John Elder does not work for Diebold anymore. Why keep bringing this guy up, and dragging him in the ground? It the guy paid his debt to society, and is no longer involved with ballot printing, is this not an improvement?
This convicted felon was not only employed by Diebold, but was IN CHARGE OF ITS NATIONWIDE BALLOT PRINTING PLANT. That implies there is, at a minimum, questionable judgement among Diebold executives. When you add this to the history of the programming personnel, which include embezzler Jeffrey Dean, and the history of the founders of the original voting company Diebold purchased (two convicted stock market manipulaters, one of whom was also an embezzler, and a swindler) -- well, I'm having a difficult time understanding why anyone thinks this is irrelevant, especially when at the same time they are urging us to trust the perimeter defense (the people who are insiders). What it demonstrates is that the perimeter defense must be shored up with other defense mechanisms that can stand alone.
Why not ask the same question about Sequoia printing? Or ES&S or any other print shop? Why does it appear that Diebold is the only one your group targets?
Both Sequoia and ES&S have indicted people and criminal people working in positions of influence. See chapter 8 of my book.
You may not be aware of the vulnerability of ballots. See the attack tree presentation on optical scan machine functions that are triggered by codes printed on the ballots.
Curious questions...I do not want to burden you with all my questions, but I just want to understand this website, and the purposes for which it is created...more to follow...
As a heads up if there is "more to follow" -- most of your questions are issue-oriented, and appropriate fodder for discussion. However, in your next post, any repeating of unfounded libel from other Web sites will be edited out by one of the admins, and any straw men erected and knocked down will also be edited out.
Thank you for your interest in this topic. May I ask you a question?
Do you think there should be no independent elections watchdogs? You sound like you qualify as an "insider" in terms of your alliances (some voting activism groups are also "insiders" in the model described above). Do you think outsiders should be eliminated so that only insiders are left? |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Many if not all of your questions have already been answered elsewhere on this website, though I can appreciate that it might not be easy for a new visitor to sift through them all. Perhaps you're not yet familiar with the Advanced Search facility here.
For starters you might want to carefully consider the thread here: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/15710.html?1136336709 and then check where you are getting your information from. The material on the above thread is relevant to several of your questions.
I'd like to respond to the first part of your question 1:
When are you, or your group going to be more of a group recommending solutions, rather than being a perceived "flamethrower?"
Before making such a statement it would have been polite to first spend a few minutes looking at the topics and structure of the BBV Forum.
Did you notice the One-on-One Help section, where anyone can ask for help relating to a situation in their area? And get practical, useful advice, be it legal, technical or tactical?
Or did you notice the 10-day Think-Tank held this fall which featured guests from the full spectrum of election reform, and which was focused on solutions?
Have you noticed that the threads here tend to deal with practical matters--such as, how to use a certain state regulation in a way that it supports those who want fair elections?
And if the practical investigations are not helping move towards solutions, I don't know what is. The results of these investigations (e.g. original Diebold spending records showing illegal payments to lobbyists) lay the groundwork for litigation, are shared with election reform groups and individuals throughout the country, and also play a key role in understanding what "solutions" will be most meaningful.
If Bev Harris were to spend all her time responding to anonymous accusations that are unfounded she'd never get anything else done. This appears to be the purpose of those who originate or perpetuate libellous rumors.
The respectful, helpful, practical tone of this website speaks for itself. The quality of factual information that is present here--to those who spend just a little time to look for it (hint--try out the Advanced Search facility using the link on the upper left-hand side of every webpage)--is quite extraordinary.
There are many other good election-related websites and groups, too. It's good to appreciate what they all have to offer. (e.g., VotersUnites, CountVotesUSA, BradBlog, and numerous other national groups and state & local organizations)
BBV focuses on investigations and practical support for folks who are doing something.
You'll also notice that people here tend to document what they're talking about. If they're talking about a government regulation, they quote relevant passages and/or provide a link. Take some time to actually read through several threads here--you'll find useful and accurate information. You won't find the kind of mud-slinging and name-calling that you see on some other websites, because that's not the purpose of BBV.
BTW, BBV has no control over how others claim it is perceived. If I start spreading rumours all over the internet about you being a "flamethrower", does that make you one? Have a good read of that link up above.
When an organization such as BBV becomes a threat to established power it is inevitable that it experiences such attacks. Their viciousness is an indication of BBV's effectiveness and that it is getting closer to the truth.
A closing comment for you, Phil.
If you show up here not having looked at the website at all, and then repeat baseless and unsubstantiated allegations, who or what purpose does that serve, I wonder? What is your own intention? If you want to find out what this website is for, then wouldn't it make sense to have a look first? The home page and the forums would be a good place to start. |
BBV Admin - Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3097
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 4:45 am: |
|
"Everywhere you look people are waking up and asking questions. When they learn the answers, the machines get dumped. No tinfoil required."
That's a great quote, and an accurate one.
And the next step to that is: Soon people will wake up and ask questions about the specific mechanics of influence peddling. When they learn the answers, they'll insist on more citizen oversight. You shouldn't have to make nice with someone who's picking your pocket. |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3108
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Catherine,
Your responses are much appreciated. I have also posted answers within Phil's post above. People have a right to ask questions. Most of Phil's questions are legitimate, though the original location was not the most appropriate location for the posts and I moved it to general discussion.
Unfortunately, the cyber-libel that's been perpetuated using the distribution channel of Democratic Underground has created an "us against them" mentality in the election reform movement.
If you Google "cyber smear campaigns" you find that this type of damage is done to a lot of perfectly nice people, and also that it is a cheap, unethical, and common new way for corporate competitors to attack each other.
As you can see in the articles, it's really very easy. All that's required for a successful cyber-libel campaign is a bunch of throwaway IP addresses, a bad script writer, and about five unemployed people with a cash flow problem. This is made easier if you tap into people who enjoy:
• A sense of power
• Sadistic pleasure
• A sense of importance, e.g. “saving the world”
• A justification for their own lack of effectiveness
• Financial Reward (from backers antagonistic to the accused)
• Entertainment, hobby value
Bev |
Phil McCracken
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_mccracken
Post Number: 7
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Bev / Catherine:
Thank you for getting back to me on the responses. I appreciate it. I would like to clarify that my purpose for being on this site is to learn, not throw around baseless allegations. I am new, but still somewhat familar with elections, and yes Catherine, I did start to search the website. It is vast with posts, so in all candidness, to take and examine every post on every issue would be days. I needed to just start asking questions.
Catherine - First of all, you do not know me. I am polite. However, I was attempting to get a question addressed. Bev answered my question. I think the question about the DU was legitimate. Unless you are on this site for hours at a time, or surfing the internet, how do you truly know what is around in cyberspace? There is so much information on everything, and sometimes it is quite confusing or mind boggling. So, please excuse me for being terse, but also do not appear to be on the defensive. I want the facts and truth to come out.
Many times a website, as Bev mentions, comes out and it is full of smears, lies, baseless allegations etc. That could be true of any site. In fact, I would assume that there are individuals posting on this site that make erroneous or false statements without checking out the facts. We are reminded AGAIN this week of individuals (e.g., media folks) making false statements about the health of the West Virginia miners (e.g., giving them water, being alive) when it fact it was based on erroneous or antidotal information. In elections, whether as insiders or outsiders, we must not do this, and that is why I request and am searching for objectivity on this subject of elections.
Bev -
"Do you think there should be no independent elections watchdogs? You sound like you qualify as an "insider" in terms of your alliances (some voting activism groups are also "insiders" in the model described above). Do you think outsiders should be eliminated so that only insiders are left?"
ANSWER - I am an interested person. I "sound" like an insider, but yet I am a person that whats the truth. I do like to research and learn various aspects of public policy and issues affecting the public good. I appreciate and want all individuals, regardless of this labeling of outsiders and insiders involved in the election process, to improve upon the process, regardless of political or personal affliation. Hope that answers your question.
Please do not censor or block me out for making "baseless allegations." I plead ignorance. Censoring is not fair, and it implies a lack of objectivity as well as an inability to examine all viewpoints. I recognize this as a private website, but it should be a website for public consumption, given that it involves a public function - that of elections.
BTW - On Jim March, what did I say made a conclusion that "Nothing you provide rebuts any of the substance of the story?" I am only stating that Jim was / is a registered lobbyist in California, according to the Secretary of State's website, not a computer scientist. What am I rebutting about that? I appreciate his ability to discipher computer issues into English, if he can do that. What am I knocking down - like a straw horse? |
Phil McCracken
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_mccracken
Post Number: 8
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
(from admin) - Post below is in response to a quick I.D. of apparently a different guy with same name. Pat, thanks for the post but I deleted it since he says it's not him. I knew you'd understand.
Phil's not a vendor (we have a rule that they must identify themselves or we'll out them or ban them). He's not trolling, just asking, so let's all control our feisty impulses.
Pat:
Dude, do not slander my good name. It has been a source of anguish my entire life, and I do not appreciate your search.
Thanks |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3113
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Phil: I can't think of a time when Jim March has ever represented himself as a computer scientist.
Jim was a registered lobbyist in California, experience that is valuable as an investigator for Black Box Voting. He's very good at finding and deciphering public statutes, and has a feel for general strategic issues, and he's a good communicator and therefore a big help when the media calls.
I'll let him define his computer experience more precisely if he wants, to make sure I don't get any terminology wrong.
I don't erase or block out people unless something is counterproductive. As you can see from the above example, I'm an equal opportunity deleter -- Pat Vesely has been a valued mentor for voting activists for years now, yet I just nuked one of his posts. Pat will be back to get nuked another day. He's one of the funniest, most articulate, and most voracious researchers I've seen and we can hardly wait for his upcoming book.
You'll see plenty of spirited debate, and we think that's a good thing, as long as it moves us all forward on election integrity issues. Your questions are welcome. |
Pat A. Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Sorry Phil, please be advised that it was not an attempt to slander you, merely an honest question and an attempt to exercise due diligence owing to the nature of your inquiries.
I offer my humblest apologies for my question.
Just so you're aware, I wasn't singling you out in any way. I typically do a quick search for any new person that I encounter on any web forum in an effort to to tailor my responses to the person's background and experience level on the subject at hand. I hope you can understand why the results of my search triggered that question.
By the way, I'm a former DU'er who went by the name ParanoidPat for a couple of years. I'm no longer paranoid. Now I know they're out to get me!
Thanks for your understanding.
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
BBV Admin
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3115
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 5, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Pat -- you have helped us immensely by noticing when vendors came on without identifying their ties. Still love ya! |
|
|
