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: 
...
|
| (USA) 3/11 - TOWARD MORE EFFECTIVE AP... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11323
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 34 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 6:31 am: | 
|
by Bev Harris
About once a week, I am asked to bring in a team somewhere and demonstrate the hacking of a voting system. I don't, because I've concluded this is a form of insanity, tracking the old adage that insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different result.
If you want to see a demonstration of hacking voting machines, just click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hNxBa6KENE to watch the Emmy-nominated HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy."
That was a groundbreaking effort, by the Black Box Voting organization and two exceptional British filmmakers (Russell Michaels and Simon Ardizzone). But in the end it changed nothing, and new hacking demonstrations never will.
That's because they focus public attention on security, diverting attention from the real issue: Our right to self-government, and how current election systems have stripped away necessary public controls.
The crucial concept here is not "security" -- because as it turns out, you can NEVER secure a system against its own administrator -- but rather, the right to self-government. It is smack dab front page in the US Constitution that representatives shall be chosen "by the people", and what has happened with our election system is that the choosing system for our governance has been usurped by the government itself, removing it from the public. And if you doubt that we have an inalienable right to self government, take a close look at the Declaration of Independence, and for added academia read the diagrams carefully in the eminent Laurence H. Tribe's book "The Invisible Constitution," where self-governance is a cornerstone.
Back to hacking: You cannot secure a computer from its own administrator. Its administrator is an insider in a government office, and/or the vendors he selects.
WHY WON'T HACKING MORE SYSTEMS PROVE OUR POINT?
It was a good start, to help the public with conceptual issues about computerized vote counting. But:
1. Nothing meaningful has changed, and some elections jurisdictions actually went right out and purchased the exact specifications they saw in the demonstrations, for in-house use.
2. Further thought on this reveals an incontrovertible truth: Any concealed, computerized system can be subverted by its own administrator.
3. Focus on computer security gave birth to an ivory tower and rather greedy little sub-industry, self proclaimed "security" experts who promise to make a system that we could trust. Upon further review, what they mean is that we should trust THEM to tell us that the system "has been verified."
If you doubt this, try asking any one of these consultants if they mean "the public can see and authenticate" or "it will be verified for the public to trust." Inevitably, (after professing not to understand your question and sometimes, attempting to divert you to some altogether different topic), they come down to this: "It will be verified [by us] for you."
This simply shifts trust from the government to an academic elite, and makes the system not a whit more accountable to the public.
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE
Black Box Voting recently helped sponsor an event called The Democracy School in New Hampshire. The Daniel Pennock Democracy Schools are a key piece of community organizing by The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
Those running the Democracy School are focused on environmental issues. But the lessons they bring to the table about what works to take back public controls are illuminating.
They are faced with exactly the same obstacles we encounter when fighting for the restoration of public elections -- corporate takeovers of the public commons, nonresponsive legislators, structurally problematic systems which block self-governance, and the CATTLE CHUTE.
The Cattle Chute is their term for that pervasive tactic whereby public problems are redefined into microscopic single issues; then public complainers are funneled to a hearing, over a nonessential micro-issue like "should version 1.54 be certified?"
The public is taught that the cattle chute is democracy, while what it is really doing is diverting from the core issue.
Only after years of being funneled down the cattle chutes do many of us see that this does not take us nearer to our goal.
The core problem in elections is concealment of the essential processes, removing public ability to see and authenticate the crucial steps (who can vote, who did vote, chain of custody and the count).
Engaging in these issues on human rights grounds is amazing. People understand it in 10 minutes. Then we get to the real issue: "Do you believe in self-government or not?"
I find that many of the USA scientists who have become part of the elections industry admit they do not believe the public has a right to authenticate. Rather, they contend, the public should accept having the elections "verified" on their behalf, again using insiders and concealed systems.
That is not freedom, it is simply transferring control over the process from one entity (government) to another (a small handful of scientists).
German scientists were more intellectually honest, or at least, actually believed in freedom, and so they testified in court that you cannot secure the system from its own administrator. Here in the USA, our scientific community is not so honest. They are raking in millions on grants and consulting fees, and government officials are relying on them. So we have to circumvent them.
The Democracy School faced the same problems - cattle chutes, corporations, and academics striving to answer the wrong problem.
They have succeeded by going local, focusing on Home Rule in the most real way -- and that means, knowing that laws which remove our right to self-governance are invalid laws, and should be ignored if necessary.
In the face of resistance from every level of every "elected" official, local citizens have begun taking control, passing local ordinances that prohibit, for example, dumping sludge on their property. This despite efforts to overrule by the state, and refusal of local officials (at first) to comply. They simply did it, made it happen, and when the state tried to tell them their law was not legal, said "so sue us." The state did, the first time -- in this case, the state was Pennsylvania, but other local ordinances in other communities followed, forcing a Pennsylvania state official to utter the words that he does not believe there is a right to self-governance.
Eh?
Wow. Now THAT'S a statement that will make you unelectable. If we had real public elections.
When faced with undemocratic arrogance, it is useful to get it out in the open. They want to say that? Good. Mark them with yellow tape so everyone can see what they really stand for. Laugh at them, for they are ridiculous, and know who they are, for they need to be removed.
Now let's translate the concept of taking power through local control to restoration of public elections.
Nancy Tobi passed a law in her local community prohibiting concealed election processes. She researched the process, got the signatures, presented it in public meeting, got the vote and now it's law.
In Lyndeborough, the list of who can vote can be purchased for $25. The list of who did vote is at the polling place and can be reviewed by anyone. The chain of custody is in public view at all times, with all votes, including the minute number of absentee votes allowed for need-only voters, hand counted in public on Election Night before any ballots are moved anywhere.
Does this mean only hand counting will do? Engaging in debate on that transfers your activism from rights to mechanics. When asked what mechanism she is recommending, New York attorney and activist Andi Novick replied, "any mechanism that lets the public see and authenticate, without need for special expertise."
Carve out local laws in terms of RIGHTS, not MECHANICS.
There are 80,000 home rule locations in the USA, and many different derivatives empowering various actions for incremental gain. And for those locations without Home Rule, the Democracy School points out that structures which remove self governance are invalid structures. "Just do it," they say. Never apologize. Stay on message. Don't back down.
When it comes to elections, there is some low-hanging fruit, you know. Over 1,000 locations still hand count in public -- a path of least resistance to set multiple local precedents.
The key is no longer hacking the machines, but instead, educating our constituencies on their right to public controls, and then -- starting local -- organizing, empowering, and taking control.
PERMISSION TO EXCERPT OR REPRINT GRANTED, WITH LINK TO http://www.blackboxvoting.org |
Charles Christopher
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ilikeinfo
Post Number: 260
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 7:57 am: |
|
>You cannot secure a computer from
>its own administrator
Nailed it.
My continued thanks Bev. 
Problem definition *FIRST*, solution formulation *SECOND*.
The frog just needs to *SEE* the thermometer
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth
|
Thomas Manaugh
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tmanaugh
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 8:07 am: |
|
Here's one grass-roots approach to enabling scrutiny and increased control by the public over elections. It would be inexpensive to carry out and would be an effective safeguard against failing to detect equipment that flipped votes because it had been hacked or had otherwise failed.
A man videotaped his voting during as recent election in Texas. The video showed that his voting choices were flipped. Did the election equipment come under scrutiny and suspicion? No, the voter did -- for breaking a law against videotaping in a polling place. Rather than a crime, that should be a RIGHT so long as video recordings were used for auditing the election and not for selling votes.
Specifically, a $100 video camera and existing staff could be used to audit with video recordings the votes of any and all voters who were willing to waive their right to a secret vote for purposes of auditing whether their votes were recorded accurately. Though video recordings would be retained by election officials, there would be no part of an audit -- matching video recorded votes to electronically recorded votes -- where the public would need to be excluded from the auditing process.
I and many other voters would jump at the chance to waive secrecy of our personal voting choices for the opportunity to know that our votes were accurately recorded, as attested to by video recording that would become a public record. There is nothing complicated or expensive about that procedure. Any citizen could determine by personal inspection that any vote recorded on video could and would match electronically recorded voting records -- in an honest election.
If the records matched in EVERY CASE, that would be compelling, concrete evidence that the electronic recording system had honestly recorded votes. If even five or ten percent of voters voluntarily waived secrecy and had their votes confirmed as accurately recorded in every case, that would be highly significant and convincing evidence that the honesty of election results had not been compromised by votes being flipped. |
Vane Lashua
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Vlashua
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 9:04 am: |
|
@Thomas Manaugh
If you video or photograph your ballot -- or get a "receipt", you can be bought, just like the bosses did back when.
"Show me the picture of your ballot and I'll give you $5 if you voted for the Democrats". That's why there's no receipt and no photoing.
The counting itself is what the public should observe. Marked paper ballots can be scanned any number of times by any number of machines to provide verification of results. A statistically significant number of ballots are pulled and both hand-counted and machine counted ... twice ... for verification.
How did the voter show his vote was "flipped"? In most US votes, the count, the machine and the inspectors should know nothing of who cast which ballot. That's why it's "secret".
It's very simple to validate scannable ballot counts. (Soon there will "be an app for that." Base the results on the concept of "peer review". It would be he extra step of having two different vendors each provide a machine that does the same thing and compare the results. On the other hand, I've been testing machines (all from the same company) at a board of elections for a couple of elections now and just witnessed a hand recount of a very tight race. Machines and humans agreed on the counts. You don't have to believe me, believe both candidates' legal teams. It came down to a judge not agreeing to open a hundred absentee ballot envelopes.
Our congressperson was elected by 27% of the eligible voters in our district. Only 53% overall showed up. You don't have to mark the ballot for anyone, but not showing up, THAT's the crime. |
Ashley Stearns
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ashleys
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2011
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 11 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 10:48 am: |
|
I am all for the secret ballot. So much more happens today to coerce people to vote in a particular way - or else - that we cannot do away with it (my congressional rep told his constituents, when he was stumping for Barack Obama, not to come to him for help "if you write in Mickey Mouse or RALPH NADER on your ballot," which is contempt for the oath he took to take office; he's supposed to represent EVERYBODY). However, I live in a city that hand counts ballots, and I think anyone is welcome to watch/participate (which is not to say that the voting process is entirely free of problems; my vote was stolen in the 2000 election by a highly-orchestrated PSYOP). We check into our polling places by address. We check out of our polling places by address. It would be just as easy to delete the names from these checkpoint lists because our addresses are on our IDs, which could be anything: library card, utility bill, license, etc.
Bev -- I always learn so much from reading your posts. Ever since Henry Kissinger got the Nobel prize I've looked down on awards and honorariums, but I swear I'd cheer until I was hoarse if you were given the Nobel Peace Prize. You're a treasure - a TRUE leader. Thank you. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11324
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 18 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Regarding the Texas example, while I commend the voter who proved the screen reported a different vote than he entered, I'd like to make these points:
1. No matter what the screen says, there's no way to know what the machine actually recorded.
2. The right to secrecy of your vote is a lower level right than the inalienable right to self governance, but it is still a right, and it was put in place not just to prevent vote-selling, but to prevent coercion by EMPLOYERS.
Our right to self-governance has been recognized since 1776, but the right to political privacy was established in the late 1800s, due to Tammany Hall abuses. Tammany Hall had a brilliant scheme, and an empowering one for ethnic minorities. As the starving masses got off the boat, they were scooped up with assistence for housing and food, then with jobs which were essentially contingent on voting for the designated Tammany ward boss. If they didn't vote for the right guy, bye-bye job and food and by the way, you might get beat up. The perks for voting for the right guy weren't just jobs and money; they included political positions. Those who were good enough at recruiting people, herding them to the polls and yes, beating them up when necessary, were annointed for elected positions.
So there are good reasons to protect political privacy, and there is no reason to abandon it.
Once again, let's return to the straightforward and the simple. A way of videotaping without loss of political privacy is to use paper ballots and allow members of the public to videotape the face of every ballot when the polls close. Deal 'em out like a deck of cards, and the public can see and authenticate by comparing input to output.
Or, simpler and less expensive still, hand count in public before moving the ballots to any other location.
But again, let's focus on rights, not mechanics. If we restore protection of our right to see and authenticate without need for special expertise, the mechanics will quickly follow.
Now, just imagine those thousands and millions of dollars in grants and consulting fees going to developing great ways for the public to see and authenticate all essential steps. Have you noticed nothing is spent on that, while everything is spent on developing machines that can walk, talk, dance a jig and steal your rights?
One of the perps, I noticed at Democracy School, is the PEW Foundation. It has sponsored some very odious studies on environmental issues. This I noted without surprise. It is playing the same role with the election studies and news it sponsors.
Let's stick to our guns on this. As Nancy Tobi has demonstrated, it can be done. |
Charles Christopher
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ilikeinfo
Post Number: 261
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 6:17 pm: |
|
For those interested, it's worth spreading the URL for this thread around to as many sites as you can. Or other BBV thread you feel strongly about.
As people search this and related issues your spreading these threads around will push up these threads in the search results. It's a simple thing everybody can do and takes very little time.
This does not replace the other actions suggested above, it's just another straw that can be placed on the back we are trying to break .....
Problem definition *FIRST*, solution formulation *SECOND*.
The frog just needs to *SEE* the thermometer
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth
|
Thomas Manaugh
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tmanaugh
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Bev is right; we do spend too much energy arguing about mechanics of elections when we need to focus more on transparency and control by citizens. Most of us agree that hand-counted paper ballots is the gold standard. However, I see zero or near zero interest among election officials, politicians, and the public to return to that standard. Even egregious examples of clearly bent elections get little public attention -- for example the election of unemployed, accused felon, and non-campaigning candidate Alvin Greene to be the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina last year. Nanct Tobi has had some good results in her small community after years of work. If each one of us in the election protection community got one small community to switch back to the gold standard once every 10 years, how many centuries of easily hacked elections would we still face in our future. Let's give some serious consideration to each and every proposed way to gain more transparency and control over electronic voting. Indications are electronic voting is going to be with us a long, long time; but there are actually ways that it can be made to be less opaque and more accountable. |
Tom Courbat
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 122
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 8 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 - 8:58 am: |
|
Bev,
I so totally agree with your direction. We have spent far too many years doing the same thing over and over again. We've even gotten very good at it, just as the weasel gets very good at going faster and faster on the wheel!
I would like to learn more about the Democracy School and (without knowledge) wonder if it is being duplicated throughout the country, or soon may be.
Germany taught us it's about the constitution, stupid! How basic is that? I look forward to your continued leadership in this field. You light the way in what would otherwise be a very unenlightened arena of democracy. The most important arena of democracy - self government and self determination.
You go girl!!! |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 314
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 - 9:51 pm: |
|
To Ashley,
Your post number one reveals a lot about yourself.
You seem well informed and have been reading BBV.
You mention PSYOP and the Pulitzer Prize all in one post.
Well-- welcome to the club!
You are much better than I at firing volleys across the bows of our opponents.
QUOTE:
“I am all for the secret ballot.”
That is why I am answering your post.
The secret ballot is an endangered species it seems.
I sometimes feel it is me against the world as I review the global situation.
When you mention the PSYOP , I recognize myself as one being bombarded constantly by some form of you name it …(Media ?)
Since financial and material support are being used to promote propaganda regarding everything from guerilla warfare in other nations to choice of tooth paste brands at home and rekindled conflicts from 1000s of years ago --- burning brightly in the USA.
I feel compelled to connect some dots .
It so happens that high on my list of most important features of an election are:
1. Secret Ballot.
2. No Bar Code allowed ever!
3. Absolute accurate counting of paper Ballots.
4. Secure storage of outcome.
So how to connect the dots to an election.
It depends on what you call an election.
Is it a primary election ? If so what Party is conducting the election.
Is it a Union Election ? If So what are the rules of engagement? Who is in control -- The Feds?, The Union,? the Management….?
Secret Ballot or Show of hands?
Is it a small town election like Scarsdale?
If so …. the dots can end right here.
We are back to “SQUARE ONE” .. Who needs elections anyhow.?
We always have people that will handle food, weapons , curfews, martial law and crowd control.
My personal hope is that we have not prostituted democracy out of existence by selling her to the highest bidder.
Dale |
Jonathan P. Chance
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jpchanceorg
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2011
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 23 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Article 19.
Treasurynet.US
19.1 - Legitimate elections, being necessary for the liberty and security of Citizens, Counties, and the United States, shall be held each and every year on the first Tuesday of November, and shall include these requirements:
19.1.1 - Open and public debates among all candidates;
19.1.2 - Balanced and non-libelous media coverage for all candidates;
19.1.3 - Public financing that prevents bribery and media monopolization;
19.1.4 - Election-day voters' registration and holiday;
19.1.5 - Voters' proof of age, address, and United States Citizenship;
19.1.6 - Manual, public, and visible paper-ballot tabulation at each and every local voting precinct;
19.1.7 - Complete privacy of each and every Citizen's voting selections;
19.1.8 - Prohibition of electronic and mechanical voting devices;
19.1.9 - Self-sufficient backup energy and lighting sources at each and every local voting precinct;
19.1.10 - Write-in ballots for all candidates;
19.1.11 - Instant-runoff voting;
19.1.12 - Prohibition of mail-in or absentee voting; and
19.1.13 - Two-term maximum consecutive service for all elected officials in the United States.
19.2 - Direct popular referenda proposed by Citizens, Counties, and States, shall be held during the annual general elections, shall be limited to no more than three amendments to this Constitution each and every year, and shall be limited in length to five hundred words per amendment.
19.3 - Direct popular referenda shall be publicly defined in the English language, and published in the United States Congressional Journal and Record, one or more years preceding entry in annual general elections.
19.4 - Direct popular referenda shall require the approval of three fourths or more of eligible voting resident Citizens to be passed into law or to repeal any legislation.
19.5 - Dual or multiple citizenship and other vows or oaths of equal or higher loyalty with any other nation, state, corporation, limited-liability entity, monarchy, private trust, secretive society, or theocracy, is expressly prohibited for all candidates, officers, officials, other public servants, and eligible voting Citizens.
19.6 - Eligible voting Citizens shall be age sixteen or more, and shall be the judges of all general election results within the County and State of their residence.
Treasurynet.US
http://Treasurynet.US |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 315
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 8:16 pm: |
|
To Jonathan P. Chance,
Are we rewriting the constitution?
If so I am having a little trouble understanding why we need
Back up energy at each precinct if electronic and mechanical devices
are prohibited.
PS. I get the part on account of sex.
==============================
Amendment 19 (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
================================
19.1.6 - Manual, public, and visible paper-ballot tabulation at each and every local voting precinct;
19.1.7 - Complete privacy of each and every Citizen's voting selections;
19.1.8 - Prohibition of electronic and mechanical voting devices;
19.1.9 - Self-sufficient backup energy and lighting sources at each and every local voting precinct;
19.1.10 - Write-in ballots for all candidates;
19.1.11 - Instant-runoff voting;
19.1.12 - Prohibition of mail-in or absentee voting; and
===========================
Dale |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 317
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 9:59 am: |
|
Hi Bev, On March 8 you kicked off a thread that I thought was interesting.
The first day I saw about 8 posts
The second day 2 posts
The third day 2 posts
I wish you would check this thread because I feel there is something dreadfully wrong here.
Could you please explain the Jonathan P. Chance posts .
He is a newcomer with a version of the constitution that I question.
Dale |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3705
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 11:51 am: |
|
In this day and age, when one can carry an ultrathin iPod Touch in a shirt pocket, which does 720p video all by itself with no additional tricks or software, IF one votes in a secure environment (such as a booth or within a Danaher or Sequoia Advantage curtain) HOW ON EARTH could anyone ever prevent someone from videoing (no tape, just RAM) their own voting experience?
Jeeper creepers! No bulky camcorder; just a device the size of a small stack of business cards!
Can you say, "Laws being left behind by technology"?
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 318
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hi Kurt, Does conspicuous by your absents ring a bell? or I‘ll put it another way -- Haven’t seen you for so long I don’t care much about you any more --Just joking of course and I am glad to see your post.
=======================
It means you have been reading BBV and you might be considered an unseen referee. You have straightened me out in the past when I wandered too far afield.
=======================
I would like to reply to your Question QUOTE:
“HOW ON EARTH could anyone ever prevent someone from videoing (no tape, just RAM) their own voting experience?”
A quick answer would be :
EASY! Using current state of the art technology as used at airports, government buildings and prisons ---
Just do a full body scan and remove all electronic devices, cameras and or weapons before entering the polling place.
As always, Dale |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3707
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 5:42 am: |
|
Dale,
If we get to the point where we are scanning voters at polling places like we do at airports, the ballgame will have long since been over. The police state will have been made complete, and Orwell will have been shown to be a cockeyed optimist.
Think: Philadelphia has 10-20 scanners at the International Airport. The City itself has 1681 polling places, and a similar number in the surrounding suburbs. If we start spending THAT kind of money scanning voters, your civil liberties will have long since been erased to an extent history's most severe tyrants could not have imagined.
As for my "conspicuous absence", in the process of wrapping up one legislative session, ramping up a new one, learning the new members, learning how my job changed when "we" went from the majority to the minority caucus (I work for the D's), getting my member's legislation redrafted and resubmitted, with tweaks here and there, vetting bills through new legislative liaisons, it's been a little nuts in the Capitol. We'll survive. But the R's do seem to have less "tolerance" for dissent than the D's did when they were in power.
R's can be quite uniform in message. Working for the Democrats has shown me that Will Rogers was right:
"I'm not part of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Herding cats, Dale, herding cats.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 321
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2011 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Hi Kurt, Do you really herd cats?
Phil Roe (R) from Tennessee, chairman of a subcommittee , Health, labor and pensions says he believes in the secret ballot.
Party labels are meaningless because rank and file people like me are caught in the middle of triangular shaped power struggles that excludes us from any “say” on any issue.
While Roe is describing his endorsement of SBPA
He is spotlighting Unions, Management and NLRB
positions regarding secret ballots.
His stance on the Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act regarding State and Federal actions also puts rank and file participants out of the running.
It sounds like he means well but I feel he does not have a clue about the concerns of the people to have
A say in their government via of a secret ballot.
By the time it all gets sorted out about who is in control of any election and who gets the lucrative
management positions to manipulate the outcome it is too late for the rank and file to decide anything.
Dale |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3708
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 11:29 am: |
|
Yeah, Dale, there's lots of "siloing" going on.
IOW, the bologna gets sliced thin enough that the populace thinks they are being consulted via the franchise, but so much is excluded from "things that are up to the people" that real democracy is quite illusory too often. Sometimes this is good (Should 'the people' be able to decide that the new standard for criminal convictions is merely that the jury has a hunch the defendant is guilty?), but often it's not a good thing.
Time has slowly but surely not been kind to the idea of popular sovereignty. Bev is trying to address that. She is doing "God's work". She is to be praised for it. Quixotic? Maybe. We'll see. If there are no Bevs, nothing could ever get done in this area. That much we know for sure. As long as Bev and her friends are at work, the "wheel doth squeak". Without the squeakers, democracy fades away by its very nature due to complacency.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 322
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Kurt, You take the prize for getting so much communication into 13 lines.
For instance your one word “siloing” blasts into my brain (brain is debatable) a complete disclosure of corrupt and prejudicial behavior on the part of agencies
claiming to be US Government entities.
I feel that the worst kind of prejudice is being aimed at the populace in this way:
These agencies have sided with the promoters of electronic voting methods in spite of overwhelming evidence that elections can not be conducted this way and maintain the voters privacy nor his or her secret ballot choices.
I am planning to send a poison pen letter to
Phil Roe , my congressional representative.
In my letter I want to attempt to call his attention to the fact my hatred of the E-Voting is approaching the status of a hate crime.
Here is my sample letter:
TO Phil Roe (R) from Tennessee, chairman of a subcommittee , Health, labor and pensions
You say you believes in the secret ballot.
I say since party labels are meaningless because rank and file people like me are caught in the middle of triangular shaped power struggles that exclude us from any “say” on any issue -- IMPOSSIBLE!
You are endorsing SBPA and
spotlighting Unions, Management and NLRB
positions regarding secret ballots.
Also your stance on the Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act regarding State and Federal actions also puts rank and file participants out of the running.
Your concern about wanting people to have
“A say” in their government via of a secret ballot is commendable but by the time it all gets sorted out about who is in control of any election and who gets the lucrative management positions to manipulate the outcome --- it is too late for the rank and file to decide anything.
My reason for feeling this way about my magnificent obsession the “secret ballot” is because independent agencies that should be keeping our economy and government running smoothly have somehow failed
to protect the individuals right to a secret ballot.
It seems to be unthinkable to expect the EAC, SEC, SSA, OSHA, NLRB the USPS or any other individual agency to even remotely consider one voters opinion regarding any thing -- least likely his or her choice of a candidate for a political office.
You have stated that the SBPA will also protect the workers from being negatively affected by any sweetheart deals between unions and management because the SBPA prohibits such negotiations.
Does this protection also protect precinct voters in the various states from similar negotiations between
E-voting promoters the various election commissioners who purchase equipment, conduct elections and count the votes?
(ES&S nearly monopolizes the USA voting scene.)
(The universally hated Diebold re emerges as ES&S)
Further I feel that soon the pressure will be on to go to e-voting -- internet voting ..please note my opposition.
Also the FCC should not be trying to control the internet.
Please use you influence in this regard because the
freedom to speak ones mind is the only method we have to protect the secret ballot.
Dale McClain
================
Kurt , Some of the “silos” that come to mind were included in that letter which I have not sent as yet.---- But I am thinking about it!
Dale
PS . The DOJ 89 page anti trust document
Regarding Diebold and ES&S seemed to help fill a lot of “silos“. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 6:47 am: |
|
I'm thinking about all this but really have to organize what I have to say and get to its essence before I can write much. It's taking awhile.
What may seem to be a non sequitur but is not: I just finished (belatedly) reading Michael Lewis's book, The Big Short. The book outlines a set of experiences and events that I suspect may be descriptive or emblematic not merely of what ails Wall ST, but --if we changed the characters and specifics - of what ails many facets of our society. The themes of "Who's in charge here?", "Is anybody paying attention, doing their homework, or minding the store?", "Does the boss understand what his underlings are doing?" "who's smarter and on top of their game -- the regulators/legislators/executives or the people supposedly being regulated/governed/managed?" all are playing out and awaiting the chaotic end games that will --if my gut is right -- unravel in a matter of time in a variety of arenas.
The Cliff's Notes version: The Big Short chronicles, through the eyes of a few Wall ST outsider type players, the gradual emergence of facts and details that fleshed out a growing conviction that the market was inexorably headed for the 2008 crash. When, as outsiders, they tried to describe what they saw to others -- their investors, spouses, regulators, complacent CEOs unaware they were sitting on time bombs or that their methodologies were fatally flawed -- they quite often were unsuccessful in convincing them that they knew what they were talking about. The explanations as to why that was the case varied, but that is the phenomenon that Lewis describes.
I think the basic template of a few people irreverent about the as-built system perceiving its shortcomings and attempting to comunicate their observations/perceptions to people who have bought into the insider norms, beliefs, and "given wisdom" could be used to write probably another 8 to 10 books, just changing out the specifics. People who see a flawed system can decide either to profit from it, or to try to change it. Even in trying to convince people there was profit to be made by betting against the system - even where huge money could be made -- some of the people described faced big challenges in convincing investors that
going with the given wisdom was not the right choice.
It would be easy to vent about Wall ST here, and so let's not do that -- I don't want to hijack the thread in that direction.
The point is, there is much to contemplate about the very nature of being an outsider with a non-consensus point of view, and much to learn about how to be the messenger under such circumstances.
Food for thought and some of my take home conclusions: It is possible that when tribal outsiders try to communicate to people inside one or more tribes -- tribes holding beliefs that they may share together (and elevate to the status of "facts" their mutually unexamined and shared beliefs) -- that operating merely in the world of rationality and what the outsider tribe perceives as facts and reasonable conclusions may not be successful. I offer that as food for thought. I'm considering it myself.
Elections are so joined at the hip to people's beliefs about democracy, and to a whole imagined but unarticulated set of beliefs about what happens when they vote. I would compare it to the set of beliefs that the world becomes cleaner when you flush a toilet, and an unarticulated understanding of what happens when the contents of that toilet go to a fuzzily perceived place called "away". That's a whole lot of unexamined belief accepted as fact, and a whole lot of beliefs that come with the democracy tribal membership card, to address with facts.
I'll leave it at that for the moment. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3709
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - 11:37 am: |
|
Oh christine (and Dale compliments ME for brevity with some measure of insight?),
You NAILED such an important point with this nugget:
"a whole imagined but unarticulated set of beliefs about what happens when they vote"
Wowserie!
You stumbled on what explains my sometimes enigmatic postings here. Having spent four years as a county election director (RoV, some call it), and MANY years before that toiling at the precinct level, I am under NO ILLUSIONS AT ALL about the nature of our voting democracy, or the lack thereof. When I say that the democratic nature of voting is very limited, I say that without any outrage - it's a cold dispassionate statement of plain fact. I'm so familiar with that fact, or maybe too old and infirm now, that I can no longer summon up large amounts of righteous indignation about it. Est quod est.
It's not good for the morale here for me to remind the collective "you" here about that as regularly as once. I'm too much a wet blanket. So I mostly lurk, and give a metaphorical "atta girl" when I feel it is especially warranted.
Example? Tonight I will vote in a special election to fill a State Senate vacancy due to a death of a sitting legendary Senator. I had NO WAY AT ALL to influence the choice of either party's candidate. I am less than ecstatic with my party's nominee. My democratic choices have been greatly "abridged" by a less than democratic process. Outraged? Nah. I knew the system. Disappointed? Sure.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 324
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 - 7:25 am: |
|
I just watched a U-Tube video about hacking snapshot pictures posted on the internet.
I think it parallels hacking of a voting system and should spark some alarm.
The parts about leaving invisible trails that defie criminal experts and can lead to children’s home address, maps including their playground location
should demonstrate the reality of our worst fears here on BBV.
http://tinyurl.com/smartphonerisks |
Jody Holder
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Holder
Post Number: 41
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 11:28 am: |
|
The claim that photography or videography at a polling place will enable vote buying was debunked years ago when absentee or mail-in ballots were pushed as a mass method of voting.
Today the push for mail-in or drop off voting has increased the danger of vote buying, and elimination of mailed-in ballots by pre-screening demographically or geographically.
Challenge those that make false claims in their effort to deny our right to document what we observe. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3711
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 9:59 am: |
|
I'm not sure I understand, Jody.
Yes, mail-in voting has with it the inherent risk of non-private or coerced voting, surely. No dispute. But it clearly also does not ENSURE it. And I submit that "drop off" voting is asking for trouble. Mail-in voting is, to me, only defensible for those too infirm to vote in person or those out of town. I see that as a de minimus risk that pays off by not systematically disenfranchising disabled or absent voters. The least bad of two bad alternatives. Our code disincentivizes geographically targeted challenges of mailed in absentee ballots by requiring all challenges to be accompanied by a $10 fee PER BALLOT, in CASH! Funny how all those portraits of Alexander Hamilton discourage shenanigans.
But I agree that drop-off voting is bad in and of itself, as is, in my personal opinion, any form of voluntary or discretionary "early voting". In my state, both are illegal, for reasons that if any fraud vector CAN be used, it HAS BEEN used in the Keystone State's colorful electoral history.
Vote buying concerns, however, are very real. Maybe they haven't been seen "in the flesh" where you live, but they are LEGION where I live.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11328
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 11:56 am: |
|
One of the arguments against letting the public have copies of or videotape all the ballots goes like this:
"There may be a scheme of 'pattern voting' -- voting in an unusual combination which signifies that the person voted in the prescribed way to sell their vote."
This is actually an argument FOR letting the public obtain copies of all the ballots, and this is why: The biggest risk in absentee voting is drop-off ballots produced by an insider with access to the voter list. If these ballots are designed to favor a certain set of candidates and ballot questions, they will produce a "pattern."
Now, if 10,000 pattern votes show up is it more likely that someone put an ad on Craig's list and trained everyone to vote in a certain pattern, or would it be more likely that one insider created a lot of absentee ballots favoring a set of choices?
Certainly the latter, and that's a compelling reason for making sure the public can see the ballots. And by the way, I note that the people objecting to letting the public obtain copies of all the ballots because they might see "pattern voting" are often the same people pushing no-fault absentee voting.
Kurt, you are certainly correct that absentee voting should be limited to need-only and that no-fault absentee, which always seems to be combined with drop-boxes (thereby avoiding the U.S. Postal system), is an invitation to wholesale election fraud through absentee voting.
Remember, in the rights framework the public must be able to see and authenticate all four essential components - who can vote, who did vote, chain of custody and the count. Absentee voting conceals three of the four components (who did vote, chain of custody and the count).
As it is done in Whatcom County Washington it may not necessarily conceal the last step, the count, but most locations don't do what Whatcom County does. In Whatcom County citizens can watch the scanning of the ballots and flag any batch for an immediate hand count.
However, concealment of ANY ONE of the four crucial elements enables tampering of the entire election.
Since absentee voting conceals who did vote and chain of custody, even if citizens can authenticate the count as in Whatcom, they have no way of knowing if what they are counting is real ballots or substitute, voted by real voters or by an insider with access to the list. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3717
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2011 - 6:58 am: |
|
Absentee voting NEED NOT conceal any of those four, IF IT IS DONE AS WE DO IT! It sounds draconian to some, but it's ALL ABOUT not concealing.
1) The list of who has applied for, who gets, and who actually has voted an absentee ballot, are ALL public record here, and may be viewed AT THE POLLS and before Election Day. Voters on the permanent absentee list are so identified in the pollbook, and we have NO Election Day registration.
2) Election Day drop-off ballots are NEVER allowed, EVER! The last drop-dead any excuse deadline is the Friday before Election Day.
3) Absentee ballots have a SUPERIOR chain-of-custody to precinct cast ballots since they MUST BY CONSTITUTIONAL mandate be counted in public at the polls, unlike DRE votes, where only a total is generated.
Pennsylvania has lots of weird crap in its Election Code, but at least we do absentees better than anyone.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Marilyn Marks
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Marilyn_marks
Post Number: 43
Registered: 11-2009
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2011 - 7:12 am: |
|
Kurt,
Sadly, Colorado is going the other direction so fast, that we are probably a hopeless case now.
Question---in PA how do authorized watchers (those not selected as judges from the D's or R's) verify the legitimacy of an absentee voter? Is the watcher allowed to review the signature record and verify the voter's identity that way, ---similar to the right to challenge a voter who walks in to vote and claims a false identity?
There seems to be no ability for 3rd parties, independent candidates, issue committees, etc. to validate eligibility of voters for Colorado's mail ballots. How does PA handle?
Marilyn Marks
www.GlassBallotBox.org
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3718
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, April 1, 2011 - 8:04 am: |
|
Marilyn,
One of our problems is that those without "a dog in the fight" (Hey, this is where Michael Vick plays, right?) can't verify anything in the polling sites. All watchers must be appointed by a candidate or party or issue committee that is on the ballot. However, once one has cleared THAT hurdle, they may institute any kind of challenge.
But challenging an absentee ballot requires a $10 deposit, in cash, which is only refundable if the challenge gets upheld in the end.
The absentee ballot signature match was given the initial once over at the central office (it's on the outside envelope) before it got to the polls, but it IS challengeable there, if you pony up the sawbuck. Then all challenged absentees are returned unopened to the central office where the Board of Elections rules on them just like provisionals, again in a completely utterly public process, which may then be appealed to a court.
Expanded mail-in voting is in pursuit of voter "convenience", which is the natural enemy of security and fraud prevention.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
