Bev Harris smearing anti-BBV scientists AGAIN!

[Kelvin Mace]

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/9665.html

UC Berkeley put out this press release:

Berkeley -- Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, will join colleagues at five institutions nationwide in a bold, new
effort to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of electronic voting technology.

The National Science Foundation today (Monday, Aug. 15) announced that it will provide $7.5 million over five years for the new endeavor called A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections (ACCURATE). UC Berkeley is expected to receive approximately $1.3 million of the funds.

The new center, led by Johns Hopkins University, will bring together experts in computer science, law and usability in an interdisciplinary effort to improve the nation's voting systems. Avi Rubin, professor of computer science and technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins, will be principal investigator of the new center, the first large research effort into robust electronic voting systems.

Bev, seeing she hadn't been included in a project she owns :sarcasm: began the attack:

An announcement today will result in an unspecified shuffling of the players in the election reform movement (as usual, ordinary citizens aren't invited, and only high-tech voting solutions will be considered)

...

Called "ACCURATE," the project will be funded by the National Science Foundation and directed by Avi Rubin. The other participants: David Dill, David Jefferson, Cindy Cohn, Dan Wallach, Doug Jones, David Wagner, Michael Byrne, Diedre Mulligan, Dan Boneh, Drew Dean, Peter Neumann, Whitney Quesenbery, Chris Edley, Josh Benaloh, David Chaum.

The thing about an NSF grant is this: You can't wear certain kinds of hats concurrently while taking NSF money. Therefore, plan to see the deck chairs being rearranged a bit in the election reform movement. Running a organization that raises funds and/or does lobbying, and working for an NSF grant on a related issue at the same time would be likely to raise eyebrows with funders.

We should cast a quick watchful glance at the ITAA, because in August 2003, the ITAA set up a lobbying arm for voting machine vendors like Diebold, ES&S, and Hart Intercivic. While doing this, the ITAA's Harris Miller proposed a twin strategy of "discrediting critics" and "creating approval" the latter appearing to involve setting up an entity similar to the new NSF-funded group."

However, it would seem unlikely that if vendors got their way, they would want Rubin, Dill, Jones or Cohn. All have landed blows to shoddy security, secrecy, and paperless touch-screens. Diebold documents unearthed by Kathleen Wynne do show an apparent warming trend between vendors and some of the NSF project participants. A hand-written Diebold document mentioned Avi Rubin, David Jefferson, and UC-Berkeley scientist Barbara Simons as potential allies with a Diebold/VoteHere implementation.

Here Bev is making a spurious connection between people who have been fighting for paper ballots from the start and the vile whores at ITAA.

Next she flogs herself and all the work she's done to save the world.

We'll also offer a short watchdog "arf!" at this:

None of the scientists selected for the NSF project revealed all they really knew about Remote Access Service (RAS) vulnerabilities, central tabulator risks, nor did they flag the elegant exploits offered in the Diebold memory card (simple integer overflow hacks enabling one-step election theft, finally exposed when BBV engaged the assistance of European security expert Harri Hursti). This enabled a presidential election to take place despite serious known vulnerabilities in the voting system.

...

Watchdog groups, like Black Box Voting, are more action-oriented. We investigate vendors aggressively (and get investigated and subjected to "discredit the critics" actions). We sometimes even get arrested, as BBV Director Jim March did while trying to view the counting of the vote in San Diego on July 26. We jump in dumpsters to dig out the truth about payola, make late-night visits to interview voting machine employees with whistles to blow, and provide a nonstop flow of ammunition for scientists and activists alike.

...

The files Rubin used for his breakthrough study came from BBV founder Harris, and the Black Box Voting Web site's IP logs show frequent, almost daily silent visits from the same scientists who were chosen for the new NSF project. They quietly visit BBV to pick up documents and review our latest findings, but never admit this publicly.

At Black Box Voting, we know we will be able to perform much more effective watchdog work when armed with more ammunition in the form of NSF-funded studies and recommendations. The scientists also know (but again do not publicly admit) that their work is more effective because of the work of our more aggressive consumer protection group.

The new NSF-funded group offers a real shot in the arm for the election reform movement by offering U.S. scientists a way to expose what they know in a less fettered way. At the same time, the group should be observed to catch any actions too friendly to vendors, and certain ties among the NSF participants with their current activities will need to be cut.

Bev then gives us her expert opinion on the scientific method:

Scientists operate in a fundamentally different way than consumer protection groups, and this may explain the difference in approach. Academics take a long time to produce studies, are litigation-averse, select topics that will not jeopardize grant money, avoid voicing opinions and generally do not exhort American citizens to action. While a consumer organization like Black Box Voting engages in whistleblowing, scientists may feel no obligation to reveal information publicly if they happen to come across it, especially if it may jeopardize funding, selection for congressional testimony, or appointments to prestigious projects.

[mogster]

1. Still trying to wriggle her way back in, isn't she?

Too bad she has a back record not too clean and bright ;-)

> We sometimes even get arrested, as BBV Director Jim March did while trying to view the counting of the vote in San Diego on July 26. We jump in dumpsters to dig out the truth about payola, make late-night visits to interview voting machine employees with whistles to blow, and provide a nonstop flow of ammunition for scientists and activists alike.

I sense an inappropriate taste for cloak and dagger stuff in this sentence.

[merh]

2. Publicity stunts do not election reforms make.

We want some results Bev - how about it?

Do you have anything to show for all of the FOIA's you supposedly filed?

[ohio_liberal]

3. Is there anyone

...who still takes her seriously?

[Stephanie]

15. No.

[garybeck]

17. Yes.

[Boredtodeath]

18. Sadly.

.

[garybeck]

21. what's sad is that

some people throw out the baby with the bath water.

Bev's organization has enlightened MANY MANY people on the problems of electronic voting. Anyone who denies this isn't looking at the facts.

Her recent report on opscans has been VITAL to many in getting their states' Election Officials to open their eyes.

She's not perfect, and either am I.

But if anyone think's she's not really an advocate of election reform, and rather a "plant" by the rightwingers who just want to steal the next election, they aren't looking at what she has done. Her book is FULL OF useful and VITAL information.

Yes, she has done some stupid things, and yes she has been slammed here on DU. But some of the accusations are completely ludicrous. I've had one person tell me that Bev alone is responsible for the fact that the general public doesn't know about the problems with electronic voting. That is simply ridiculous. The fact is that many people still find out about the subject through her work. I've had a person tell me that BBV pocketed millions by settling the lawsuit against Diebold in CA. That is simply untrue and people who are propogating lies like that are just as guilty as she... The fact is BBV only got $75,000 for the settlement. The rest went to the State. And more importantly, the settlement was shoved down their throat by the attorney general. It was not their choice to settle the case out of court in the first place.

MANY MANY people who are VERY PROMINENT in the election reform community still value her input. She has been invited to speak at virtually every election reform conference, for good reasons.

I'm not saying Bev is perfect or an angel or anything like that. I'm just saying, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Her organization still puts out important and useful information.

NOTE: I am not going to engage in a useless thread going back and forth about this. If people are looking for that, just do an archive search on "Bev Harris" and you'll find plenty.

peaceout,
gb

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------

[Boredtodeath]

23. Remind me not to hire you for research

Your argument for Bev Harris is so full of holes, it would be impossible to trust your work.

Let's start here:

She has been invited to speak at virtually every election reform conference, for good reasons.

That alone is a stretch not to be ignored. Hell, Bernie in TN wouldn't even put up with her prima donna behavior to put her on the speaker list.

And then there's this:

Her book is FULL OF useful and VITAL information.

On this you would be correct - except that it's NOT HER WORK. She took the research of many people and put her name on it.

Since she ran them all off, through unwarranted, untrue and public accusations - like we see here - her work since then has been useless and unsupportable.

Not to worry, your turn is coming. ANYONE who allies with her has their day in her limelight.

[garybeck]

26. OK, don't hire me for research.

There are plenty of other people who respect my work.

[merh]

30. Not after that bunch of misinformation you just tried to spread.

Would you like me to get the DUers that did most of the work for "her book" to come and enlighten you about "her book"?

[tommcintyre]

85. Hey Gary. I'll hire ya any day. ;)

Nice job on the CD.
http://www.solarbus.org/election/cd



Bit Torrent:
SolarBus.org multimedia ELECTION FRAUD CD (2004 STOLEN ELECTION) new seed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=389154

SolarBus.org multimedia election fraud CD .iso TORRENT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=388164

Keep up the good work!

[merh]

28. There are other organizations involved in reform that have done

more than BH and that actually work with the folks running the elections. They don't go around accusing them of being corrupt and/or liars, so their efforts are more effective.

Most I know who have to deal with these issues in real life and not as message board advocates think BH is a loon and her presence as suspect at best.

She and her organizations ANTICS hurt the election reform efforts, imho.

:hi:

[Kelvin Mace]

32. And I would like to point out that in the states

where laws have been changed to stop paperless voting, Ms. Harris did not testify or present evidence. The HARD work was done by LOCAL activists.

[merh]

36. Exactly.

The elected officials that have the sworn duty to conduct elections don't want a thing to do with her as she is not reliable and/or predictable. Sort of like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it.

In my area, we know not to use BH as a resource or her reference her web site. Plenty of other legitimate information and an understanding of the information is available at sites operated by true activists.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. In our initial discussions

on the NC committee, Bev's name was poison. I don't think she was cited once, much to the disappointment of the officials ready to pounce on us if we did.

[merh]

51. If you want someone to doubt your efforts, use her as a reference

:shrug: I'd prefer to sound educated and informed when I have discussions with the folks that actually make a difference and have experience in the election process.

[Boredtodeath]

52. She has alienated every aspect

From activists to academics to scientists to election workers.

Anyone who brings up her name is immediately lableled a "kook."

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Can't change the facts

But if anyone think's she's not really an advocate of election reform, and rather a "plant" by the rightwingers who just want to steal the next election, they aren't looking at what she has done. Her book is FULL OF useful and VITAL information.

A book which she stopped from being picked up by a mainstream publisher simply to spite me. Also, as we have since learned, little of the research in the book was her's.

I have never accused Bev of being a "plant". I have accused her of being a greedy, lying, opportunistic ego-maniac, but never a "plant".

Yes, she has done some stupid things, and yes she has been slammed here on DU. But some of the accusations are completely ludicrous. I've had one person tell me that Bev alone is responsible for the fact that the general public doesn't know about the problems with electronic voting. That is simply ridiculous.

And I would agree with you. Bev is the reason people in power will not take us seriously, but she is not the reason people are unaware of the problem.

The fact is that many people still find out about the subject through her work. I've had a person tell me that BBV pocketed millions by settling the lawsuit against Diebold in CA. That is simply untrue and people who are propogating lies like that are just as guilty as she...

Again, you are correct. She only pocketed $76,000 from the lawsuit. The problem is that since the suit was settled "with prejudice", the facts that many people dug up against Diebold are pretty much excluded from future actions. This was the lawsuit Bev accused others of filing, if you recall.

I do know that she took in over a million from her publicity stunt in November, but yes, "millions" is a lie. If you wish me to set such a person straight, ask them to write to me.

the settlement was shoved down their throat by the attorney general. It was not their choice to settle the case out of court in the first place.

This was why we (including Bev at the time), agreed to not file such a suit. When you file such a suit and the government steps in, they call the shots. This is why no one else, (except Bev) file such a suit.

MANY MANY people who are VERY PROMINENT in the election reform community still value her input. She has been invited to speak at virtually every election reform conference, for good reasons.

Could you name some?

NOTE: I am not going to engage in a useless thread going back and forth about this. If people are looking for that, just do an archive search on "Bev Harris" and you'll find plenty.

Certainly, and you should start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x340188

[stevietheman]

133. Thanks for spelling it all out far better than I could. n/t

n/t

[Stephanie]

19. I assume you are speaking of yourself?

Then it's only a matter of time. Everyone who goes near Bev Harris gets burned.

[Boredtodeath]

20. Yep, not long now

We can even predict the scenario:

When the Solarbus CD doesn't get distributed to Bev's standards, it will all be garybeck's fault because he didn't "brand" it as BBV.

Then Bev will slam garybeck for "stealing" BBV's research and documents and slam him publicly.

Just a matter of time. The pattern is all too familiar.

[garybeck]

22. that's funny

quite a while ago Bev worked with Bob Fitrakis and the Open Voting Consortium (some of the most important leaders in this community) and they haven't had a falling out.

[Boredtodeath]

24. Coming soon to an internet community near you

and, of course, her attack on OVC is being completely overlooked by you, right?

Did you miss those attacks? You know, where she claimed OVC was being "bought off" by the vendors and their work could no longer be trusted?

Surely you didn't miss that little moment in history?????????

[Stephanie]

25. I missed it - link please

thank you!

[Boredtodeath]

43. See post #4 in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=382087#382108

[BQueen]

84. Link to the OVA part "Page not available"

or something like that -- error message.
the other one I couldn't find any references to the DU admins...just a question about a particular DU member...

edit to add, no confrontation sought/not saying couldn't have been scrubbed -- just someone else who missed all this when it was going down and trying to self-educate

[Boredtodeath]

88. True to Bev's behavior

I see she scrubbed her OVC lashing out when called on it.

But, as you can see from the thread, several DUers saw it while it was there.

[loudsue]

89. Here's the entire e-mail sent out....

I received this, as I was formerly signed up, and have never stopped the e-mails they send out. Notice the last entry on this clip: a place to "donate".


An announcement today will result in an unspecified shuffling of the
players in the election reform movement (as usual, ordinary citizens
aren't invited, and only high-tech voting solutions will be considered):

"Johns Hopkins-led center will study and develop voting technologies.
Technology, public policy issues and election booth behavior will
receive scrutiny," says the press release.

Called "ACCURATE," the project will be funded by the National
Science Foundation and directed by Avi Rubin. The other
participants: David Dill, David Jefferson, Cindy Cohn, Dan Wallach,
Doug Jones, David Wagner, Michael Byrne, Diedre Mulligan, Dan
Boneh, Drew Dean, Peter Neumann, Whitney Quesenbery,
Chris Edley, Josh Benaloh, David Chaum.

The thing about an NSF grant is this: You can't wear certain kinds
of hats concurrently while taking NSF money. Therefore, plan to
see the deck chairs being rearranged a bit in the election reform
movement. Running a organization that raises funds and/or does
lobbying, and working for an NSF grant on a related issue at the
same time would be likely to raise eyebrows with funders.

David Dill, along with his wife, and his EFF attorney (Cindy Cohn)
have been the directors of powerful Verified Voting organization
and foundation, a 501c(3) and 501c(4) respectively. These
organizations do voting advocacy and lobbying, and together
form one of the largest, best funded, and most respected
organizations in the U.S. A Verified Voting directorship also
presents a significant conflict of interest, and there is probably
a plan for Verified Voting to take on new management.

David Jefferson heads a technical advisory committee for the
California Secretary of State's office (a new committee, recently
created by Calif. S.o.S. Bruce MacPherson), where his technical
prowess is badly needed. Jefferson has also been a director for
the California Voter Foundation, a group that raises funds and
participates in voting-related public education and lobbying.
Jefferson was also, at one time, involved with a vendor
called "Votegrity," together with another member of the new
NSF-funded group, David Chaum. Jefferson is probably clean on
these relationships, since his involvement with the NSF project is
reportedly only an advisory role, and he has taken care to
observe proper protocols all along, since he must observe
security requirements in connection with his position at Lawrence
Livermore Labs.

Avi Rubin, according to WiredNews.com, recently launched his
own company to perform security evaluations, Independent
Security Evaluators (ISE). Rubin, a former advisory board
member for voting system vendor VoteHere, says his new
"ISE" company will only test voting equipment "pro bono" in
order to remove any potential conflict of interest with his
academic work on voting system security. Rubin is also
reportedly hoping to author a mass market book featuring his
own role in the e-voting movement.

Doug Jones is also considering writing a book --likely to cover the
history of voting integrity problems, a subject on which he
possesses a wealth of fascinating knowledge. A stickier situation
for Dr. Jones will be any continued involvement as a director with
Open Voting Consortium, a vendor (although he has reportedly
stepped back from his OVC involvement recently).

Cindy Cohn is involved with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF),
the organization that litigated the groundbreaking punitive damages
against Diebold for abusive use of cease and desist notices. The EFF
frequently produces Amicus briefs related to important election
litigation.

Many of the above activities may present no conflict, depending on
the terms of the NSF grant. Some relationships, however, will have
to be terminated, causing a change in roles played by key election
reform advocates.

The new "ACCURATE" center can provide an outstanding contribution
to election science, as long as there is no vendor influence.

We should cast a quick watchful glance at the ITAA, because in
August 2003, the ITAA set up a lobbying arm for voting machine
vendors like Diebold, ES&S, and Hart Intercivic. While doing this,
the ITAA's Harris Miller proposed a twin strategy of "discrediting
critics" and "creating approval" the latter appearing to involve
setting up an entity similar to the new NSF-funded group."

The original ITAA proposal sought to create a "gold standard" by
combining well-placed academics and government agencies, in order
to restore public confidence in computerized voting systems. The
ITAA plan was to allow vendors to exert quiet influence on research,
certification, and media information while acting in the background.

However, it would seem unlikely that if vendors got their way, they
would want Rubin, Dill, Jones or Cohn. All have landed blows to
shoddy security, secrecy, and paperless touch-screens. Diebold
documents unearthed by Kathleen Wynne do show an apparent
warming trend between vendors and some of the NSF project
participants. A hand-written Diebold document mentioned Avi Rubin,
David Jefferson, and UC-Berkeley scientist Barbara Simons as
potential allies with a Diebold/VoteHere implementation.

We'll also offer a short watchdog "arf!" at this:

None of the scientists selected for the NSF project revealed all they
really knew about Remote Access Service (RAS) vulnerabilities,
central tabulator risks, nor did they flag the elegant exploits offered
in the Diebold memory card (elegant integer overflow hacks
enabling one-step election theft, finally exposed when BBV
engaged the assistance of European security expert Harri Hursti).
This allowed a presidential election to take place despite known
vulnerabilities.

The VBA script hack developed by Dr. Herbert Thompson was
known by the NSA-selected scientists by September 2004. Dr.
Thompson discussed the RAS and VBA script vulnerabilities in
person with Jefferson in August 2004.

When Harris asked Jefferson when something would be done about
the GEMS vulnerabilities, he responded that the problems would be
dealt with "after the election."

Information about the executable program in the Diebold memory
card has been available to the NSA-selected scientists through Wyle
ITA reports obtained in mid-2004 public records requests by EPIC,
and also in the Diebold memos litigated by EFF, and the Hursti hack
could be also demonstrated using files in the CVS.TAR file studied
by Rubin in July 2003 report.

The failure of the scientists to go public with what they knew about
RAS and central tabulator vulnerabilities, and to flag the memory
card hack, must be considered curious, but is perhaps explainable
by understanding the ponderous pace and controversy-avoidance
behavior typical of academia.

Scientists operate in a fundamentally different way than consumer
protection groups, and this may explain the difference in approach.
Academics take a long time to produce studies, are litigation-averse,
select topics that will not jeopardize grant money, avoid voicing
opinions and generally do not exhort American citizens to action.
While a consumer organization like Black Box Voting engages in
whistleblowing, scientists may feel no obligation to reveal
information publicly if they happen to come across it, especially
if it may jeopardize funding, selection for congressional testimony,
or appointments to prestigious projects.

At the same time, scientists like Rubin, Dill, and Jefferson play a
crucial role in providing bulletproof ammunition to help activists,
and eventually elected officials, to act.

Watchdog groups, like Black Box Voting, are more action-oriented.
We investigate vendors aggressively (and get investigated and
subjected to "discredit the critics" actions). We sometimes even get
arrested, as BBV Director Jim March did while trying to view the
counting of the vote in San Diego on July 26. We jump in
dumpsters to dig out the truth about payola, make late-night
visits to interview voting machine employees with whistles to
blow, and provide a nonstop flow of ammunition for scientists
and activists alike.

When we point out that scientists have failed to alert the public
about known security problems, we are told that we have
"misbehaved." What is the misbehavior? Calling it as we see it.

There will probably always be a somewhat uneasy synergy
between the two kinds of groups. Both our approach and the
scientists' approach are needed -- and, just as we are not
immune from criticism, neither should scientists be free of
scrutiny.

The files Rubin used for his breakthrough study came from
BBV founder Harris, and the Black Box Voting Web site's IP
logs show frequent, almost daily silent visits from the same
scientists who were chosen for the new NSF project. They
quietly visit BBV to pick up documents and review our latest
findings, but never admit this publicly.

At Black Box Voting, we know we will be able to perform much
more effective watchdog work when armed with more ammunition
in the form of NSF-funded studies and recommendations. The
scientists also know (but again do not publicly admit) that their work
is more effective because of the work of our more aggressive
consumer protection group.

The new NSF-funded group offers a real shot in the arm for the
election reform movement by offering U.S. scientists a way to
expose what they know in a less fettered way. At the same time,
the group should be observed to catch any actions too friendly
to vendors, and certain ties among the NSF participants with
their current activities will need to be cut.

It's called "checks and balances." It's the American way.

# # # # #

REAL PEOPLE, REAL SOLUTIONS: Attend the upcoming online think tank:
"THINK OUTSIDE THE BLACK BOX" -- just go to
http://www.blackboxvoting.org any time during Aug. 27-Sep.5 and
you'll be guided into the think tank.

* * * * *

To sign up for "Think Outside the Black Box", go to:
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-profile.cgi?action=register
(Real first and last name required).

* * * * *

To donate: Send to 330 SW 43rd St Suite K, PMB 547, Renton WA 98055
or online: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html

[Boredtodeath]

91. All that money slipping out of her fingers

Is really driving her crazy, isn't it?

[loudsue]

94. LOL! Yep. I'd bet she misses DU, huh?

She forgot which side her bread was buttered on, when she took us all to the cleaners.

:kick:

[Boredtodeath]

95. True, true, true

Not to mention the only researchers she ever had on her side.

Nothing quite like biting the hand that feeds ya', huh?

[loudsue]

97. I remember it too well. Plus, what she did to Andy!

Talk about biting the hand that feeds ya!

Man. I REALLY miss him! :cry:

[Boredtodeath]

100. I miss him too

But the activists and academics she slandered were just a warm up to what she did to Andy with her freeper buddies.

But, have no doubt - he's the angel on our shoulder as we fight this battle.

[loudsue]

105. I feel it too!

:hug: Thanks, BtD. Your words are encouraging. :loveya:

[troubleinwinter]

4. "silent visits from the same scientists..."

Probably for the same reason I go there sometimes: To see what outrageous, cock-eyed thing the loon is saying now!

[Kelvin Mace]

10. What exactly is a "silent visit"

Am people supposed to hire heralds?

[Boredtodeath]

13. I suspect she means visitors to her web site

But, you know........."silent vists" sounds so much more ominous!

Where WOULD we be without Bev's special brand of paranoia? :sarcasm:

[troubleinwinter]

55. I imagine she'll herald

all over freepland that "Bush visits my site every day!", just as she imagines that he had her book overnighted to the WH. :eyes:

[Boredtodeath]

5. Such a sad, blatant display of jealousy

No doubt, Bev Harris thinks that money should be in her bank account.

[Generic Other]

6. I had to ask to be removed from her mailing list

UGH.

[troubleinwinter]

56. SHE blocked my email, because I asked one time too many

WHERE are the FOIA results? "Tens of thousands of pages". Hahahah!!!

[symbolman]

7. I know some of these people, I worked on a film about E voting

fraud for a year before it was stolen by the editor - my wife set up all the contacts with these same folks, and they liked us, got along well, didn't bullshit any of them..

We also know a lobbiest in DC who told us a long time ago that these NICE scientists will have nothing to do with this person considered to be a NUTCASE dumpster diver ego maniac.. she's a laughing stock in DC, and they are classy enought to not say so.. hence her flailing about trying to rationalise it..

She's in denail, won't see it, but the fruit they are bearing is not available to her, she's shit the bed Majorly all over the web and with the media..

I love it. No one deserves to be banished more.

One of the battles in our film was that she NOT BE INCLUDED in the film at ALL...

[Boredtodeath]

8. She brought it on herself

After years of bad behavior and manic publicity stunts, the chickens have come home to roost on the BBV fence.

[Boredtodeath]

9. Any idea what happened to Russell and Simon?

My friend told them both that Bev Harris would destroy their credibility and reputations more than a year ago.

They refused to believe her and went forward with certain destruction. I'm sorry to see them hurt by her insanity as they are good guys - if a bit too hungry for spin.

[Pobeka]

11. What, and she doesn't hide or distort information for her own ends?

Sheeesh. This is worthy of a new saying, like, "the lamp black calling the kettle black".

BTW I'm a scientist, and what she says is partly true about scientists not jeopardizing grant money. But there is this thing called peer review, and that largely eliminates the problem. You don't get published in a credible journal without peer review, and at some point in time another scientist will attempt to either reproduce your results or dig a little deeper and you will be exposed if you did shady work.

[Boredtodeath]

12. Lack of peer review is BBV's biggest problem

If she would subject her findings to legitimate peer review, she'd gain some credibility.

But when you fish someone off the internet, from a foreign country and call him an "expert" because he has some experience in computers, you can't submit that kind of work for peer review. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[Pobeka]

14. And, I can't review my *own* ballot on a BBV system.

That's the only review that matters to me as a voter.

[Boredtodeath]

16. And there you have it

The very basis of the problem.

Peer review and replication of an election is impossible.

[Cleita]

27. Somebody ought to sue her. Maybe if she loses and has

to pay for her dirty deeds, it might make her think twice about smearing anyone else.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Questions

1. Is she wrong in saying this setup is going to be wide of the point regarding these machines?

2. Wouldn't we want Rubin, Dill, Jones or Cohn on this crew?

[Kelvin Mace]

33. My brain must be fuzzy today

Can you clarify question #1?

I think we certainly would want all the scientists named on this project. They have the most experience and credibility (despite Bev's "assistance") on this issue.

Hell, we just got a mandatory code review provision here in NC and I'd love to get them involved.

[WilliamPitt]

34. I'm just wondering

if she has a legitimate beef about this thing that is coming together.

[Kelvin Mace]

39. Not from what I can see

This puts the problem in the position of being attacked from two sides.

Activists will be able to point to academic findings of problems when they push local goverment to deal with the issue.

The academics will benefit from what the activists dig up in the field.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Thanks for the clarification

[garybeck]

104. I don't think she has a "beef" I think she is saying

to keep a watchful eye on them, which seems like good advice.

so how does the t-shirt fit?

gb

Solar Bus Election Justice Center
http://election.solarbus.org

[Boredtodeath]

37. Answers

1. Is she wrong in saying this setup is going to be wide of the point regarding these machines?

She has no way of knowing that - nor do we. The point is all of these people have proven to be tireless workers on this issue which bring very credible data to the table. As always, she makes unsupported allegations which paint allies to the issue (just NOT allies to Bev) as less than honest and hard working on the issue of electronic voting.

2. Wouldn't we want Rubin, Dill, Jones or Cohn on this crew?

Absolutely! And every OTHER name on that press release and foundation. They are the allies we need to bring the security concerns, which have long been ignored, to the table.

[stevietheman]

35. Even if jealous, there are kernels of truth in what she's saying n/t

n/t

[Boredtodeath]

38. No, there aren't.

Find just ONE and point it out. Rest assured, however, that we WILL find the truth to any of your points and post them in response.

[stevietheman]

44. Here's one

"Scientists operate in a fundamentally different way than consumer protection groups, and this may explain the difference in approach. Academics take a long time to produce studies, are litigation-averse, select topics that will not jeopardize grant money, avoid voicing opinions and generally do not exhort American citizens to action. While a consumer organization like Black Box Voting engages in whistleblowing, scientists may feel no obligation to reveal information publicly if they happen to come across it, especially if it may jeopardize funding, selection for congressional testimony, or appointments to prestigious projects."

There's a lot of truth in this opinion, for instance.

I'd be interested in seeing a rebuttal to this.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. Depends on the scientists

Given the fact that this batch of scientists have a record of not kow-towing to power, the genrealization is untrue.

This aside, am I the only person offended by Bev's characterization of voters as "consumers"?

[stevietheman]

47. I'm not in love with Bev by any stretch...

but I do believe scientists do sometimes constrain themselves based on funding consideration, and I do wonder, like Bev, if scientists would shrink from the necessary activism that would be required based on their findings. Maybe this won't apply to this group of scientists.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. The whole point of her post

was to cast doubt on these people. They have an excellent track record for pulling no punches, so by any objective standard they are going to prosecute the issue forcefully.

[Boredtodeath]

48. Patently untrue

Election protection was a direct action of Verified Voting and David Dill's work, with assistance and advice from everyone of these academics.

Avi Rubin has begged activists to work in polling locations like he did in 2003.

Doug Jones undertook a study of the Florida ES&S voting machines when the redundant files didn't match the election day files. He published his findings immediately.

David Dill, David Jefferson, Avi Rubin and Kim Alexander testify before congress and hearings on a regular basis.

Barbara Simons led a member revolt against the LWV when they refused to endorse voter verified paper ballots.

David Jefferson is on the VSPP committee in California.

The list is endless which PROVES Bev Harris to be a liar.

There is absolutely NO instance of fact where Bev Harris can point out any of these scientists are guilty of ANY of the allegations.

[merh]

54. Not only is truth slanted in this statement - hypocrisy abounds.

"Scientists operate in a fundamentally different way than consumer protection groups, and this may explain the difference in approach. Academics take a long time to produce studies, are litigation-averse, select topics that will not jeopardize grant money, avoid voicing opinions and generally do not exhort American citizens to action. While a consumer organization like Black Box Voting engages in whistleblowing, scientists may feel no obligation to reveal information publicly if they happen to come across it, especially if it may jeopardize funding, selection for congressional testimony, or appointments to prestigious projects."

What has all of BBV's efforts produced? Where are the results of the efforts? She wants to talk about a long time to produce studies, I have yet to see any results from her efforts. She uses the efforts of others and claims them as her own. Where are her studies? She doesn't use the courts to obtain results, she joins in other lawsuits filed by other parties and settles out for herself, or she and/or her minions will violate the rules and laws for the sake of publicity but will not ask the court for assistance.

What whistleblowing? Where are all the FOIA's?

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Not really as I see it.

Could you point out these "kernels" for me?

[Generic Other]

46. Another example of her biting the hand that once fed her

Guess she's mad the scientists aren't including her in the loop.
Afraid some of that "Qui Tam" money will slip out of her hands.

[hunter]

50. I have grave concerns about anything that legitimizes electronic voting

My personal opinion is that electronic voting cannot be made secure, and that all ballots must be paper.

I was very uncomfortable when David Dill's verifiedvoting.org partnered with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, since I was afraid eff.org might eventually legitimize some sort of electronic voting. I expressed my concerns to many people here on DU, and to Bev Harris and other election activists.

One of the occupational hazards of being a computer geek is that technical solutions such as electronic voting machines will always look better than they really are. And historically, Americans like gadgets. There is no other explanation for our widespread use of very primitive mechanical voting machines like these:



People who have never used a mechanical "lever" voting machines should check out this:

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/election/2004/voting_fanelli01.asp

So yes, stevietheman, I believe "there are kernals of truth in what she's saying."

I also believe David Dill, David Jefferson, Cindy Cohn, Dan Wallach, Doug Jones... et al. are heading down a dangerous path that will not be fruitful.

Nevertheless, I do not question their integrity.

But I do stay away from Bev Harris.

[Boredtodeath]

53. No one is legitimizing it

And it takes a huge leap of logic to even infer it about these people who have worked so hard to halt it.

Why do you have such a problem with EFF? They certainly did an excellent job for the Swarthmore students against Diebold AND cost Diebold a big chunk of change!

[hunter]

60. To quote from the press release, "robust electronic voting systems"

I don't believe such a thing is possible without a paper ballot.

Just as I would not assemble a team of respected evolutionary biologists to investigate the legitimcy of "Intelligent Design" I would not assemble a team of computer scientists and other experts to investigate "robust electronic voting systems."

Chasing after a fairy tale legitimizes it.

This is very much my personal opinion. All I'm really saying is that Avi Rubin and his team need to be very careful. Often it takes a sceptical magician to unmask the con man, not a scientist.

EFF does very good work. Their blue ribbon decorates quite a few of my web pages.

[Boredtodeath]

62. So, when/where did you see Bev Harris say anything like this?

David L. Dill, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University, and Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation and VerifiedVoting.org, gave this testimony Before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, June 21, 2005, Hearing on Voter Verification in the Federal Election Process;

We can have a trustworthy voting system if, instead of a futile effort to ensure that the voting equipment is error-free by design, we empower each voter to verify that his vote has been accurately recorded. In other words, we need voter-verified paper ballots.

The call for paper ballots is not based on nostalgia. Paper has specific properties, as a technology, that we don’t know how to replicate in electronic media. For example, most voters can verify the contents of a paper ballot without computer mediation; paper can be written indelibly; and the procedures for handling critical paper documents are easily understood by ordinary poll workers and voters. In addition, electronic ballot marking devices now exist to enable voters with disabilities to mark and verify optical scan ballots.

Paper is not a magical solution to our election problems, but, at least, understandable procedures exist for ensuring the accuracy of an election conducted with paper ballots. In particular, the ballots must be protected, and the processes for storing, transporting, handling, and counting them must transparent. Ideally, members of the public and non-governmental organizations as well as political party representatives should be able to observe all of the steps of an election, including machine testing, polling place operations, counting of votes, auditing and recounting.

One of the most important practices that could be adopted is the routine auditing of elections by choosing a small random sample of the ballots and manually counting them. This practice would make a valuable distinction between “audits,” which are routine checks on the quality of elections, and “recounts,” which have become increasingly politicized. Routine random audits would often catch procedural, equipment, and personnel problems in uncontroversial elections, so that those problems can be fixed before they potentially affect an election outcome.

Now, help me out here, but I'm lost on your statement about how you're concerned about David Dill and EFF teaming up?

[hunter]

64. "Paper is not a magical solution."

See, right there we are off on the wrong foot. I agree with everything else in your post.

Our opponents' greatest expertise is in derailing people on the small points.

[Boredtodeath]

65. Completely out of context

Paper is not a magical solution to our election problems, but, at least, understandable procedures exist for ensuring the accuracy of an election conducted with paper ballots.

We are NOT off on the wrong foot. Paper ballots ARE NOT the be all/end all solution.

Hell, if no one USES the paper they are a waste of time and effort.

[eridani]

86. Yes, that's a big problem for me as well

There are such things as complex systems (electronic and otherwise) that are robust, but I think it's a flat out impossible goal for voting machines. There is only one way for complex systems to become robust, and that is to bang them up against reality, hard, millions of times. That's why ATMs and Office 2003 are useable. And think how badly cars would suck if the only time anyone ever drove was for 2 hours once a year.

We just plain don't vote often enough to have that kind of real world testing, so every electronic voting system must of necessity be a beta test, which is absofuckinglutely unacceptable in a democracy. Hiring specialists to fly me in a plane is fine, but I refuse to hire specialists (even very competent and honest ones) to vote for me.

(OK, there's another way for complex systems to be robust, namely a whole buttload of redundancy. Like the space navigation systems with four computers calculating trajectories and a fifth one to do tie-breaking if necessary. That is way, way too expensive an approach for voting.)

My fear is that our coterie of experts will regard computers and voting the way hammer owners see all problems as nails. Post WW II saw a lot of household tasks automated with electricity. Lots of this made sense, like washing machines and vacuum cleaners. But there were also stupidities like electric carving knives and frying pans. A wise old teacher of mine was once asked "How would you do that by computer?" His reply was "That's the wrong question. The right question is 'How would you do it at all?' If your answer can be written as an algorithm, you can do it by computer. But whether or not it makes any sense at all to do it that way is an entirely separate matter."

[Boredtodeath]

87. You are taking leaps of logic

That you aren't entitled to.

These very same scientists have acted as citizen activists for years on this issue.

Their bona fides are well established and they aren't unknowns in this area.

You are allowing a completely unreliable woman, a KNOWN LIAR, to cast doubt and aspersions on people who have earned your respect and are proven allies in this battle WITH us.

That's just wrong.

[eridani]

96. This has nothing to do with Bev

It's about whether or not experts (even competent and honest ones) should ahve the right to interpose their technical expertise between me and my vote. I don't want to vote using a system that I can't understand, period.

I have no problem with the grant money or anything (we surely need computer security experts on our side)--I just want activists to be monitoring this work.

[Boredtodeath]

98. Nice try. But it would be BEV who is slandering them

It has EVERYTHING to do with Bev Harris.

Everything.

It is, after all, her words we're discussing here.

Have to give you an A for the attempted diversion, however.

[eridani]

106. Please refer to post #50

This is the post I was responding to. Interpolation of expertise between people and their votes is a problem, regardless of the skill and integrity of the experts.

[Eloriel]

67. I have similar concerns

I am, of course, thrilled to see such an excellent collection of voting activists collected in one place with MONEY. Warms my heart, tends to give me hope.

And then I remember how eager for a technical solution David Dill was, and how amenable to the idea Avi Rubin was, and I worry.

I simply do not believe that adding more technology will EVER be the right answer. That's not to say that that's where these people are going, but neither have I seen proof or any indication that "more technology" is unlikely to be among the solutions or suggestions, etc. I haven't kept up with these people all that well, so perhaps Dill has redeemed himself on that score (he really was in the pockets of VoteHere at an earlier time) - ?? And maybe Avi Rubin isn't nearly so eager to say perhaps better technology can work.

The bottom line is: I can't imagine what it would take for me to ever, ever, ever trust any computerized voting machine again. Ever. It's just not possible. If God herself assured me these machines were now trustworthy, I wouldn't buy it. What I want is a VVPB, period. Use the damn computer as a fancy printer, as Dan Wallach (I think it was) suggested.

I am also deeply concerned that the current fascist climate in the US as a whole and in this industry, have been riddled with deceit and corruption. No, I don't think Avi Rubin is paricularly corruptible; but I can't say that about everyone. (I wouldn't have called David DIll "corruptible" either, but he certainly got led down a garden path by the industry and may still be there for all I know. :shrug: I still wouldn't call it corruption, but they certainly were able to reach him, for whatever reasons.)

I will hope and expect good things, but I'll remain cautiously optimistic about this group and what they can accomplish.

[Boredtodeath]

68. I agree we should be cautious

and commend you for putting that concern and cautious optimism in your own words instead of using the Bev Harris slanderous comments to do so.

I had great hope in Dean's DNC report and was sorely disappointed, so I'm not terribly optimistic about any of these groups. Once they are "identifiable" as a group, they are also easily corrupted. See BBV, and USCV, and many such organizations.

We can't let down on the fight while we can HOPE that ammunition to better arm ourselves comes from the promise this group might hold.

[Kelvin Mace]

70. I think Eloriel

would be one of the last people on earth to use anything of Bev's.

:)

[Boredtodeath]

73. ROFL, true, true

But I was trying to make a larger point. :evilgrin:

[Junkdrawer]

79. Hi Eloriel. I'm also a little worried with overly complex solutions:

:hi:

I look at the Canadian paper-ballots-hand-counted-in-front-of-scrutineers system and think: Why not here? Especially for national offices?

Most troubling are solutions that rely on "uncrackable" encryption. Were I from the CIA and if I wanted a "solution" to be implemented world-wide, that would be it. Then I could sleep knowing that only my cryptographers could crack elections.

[Kelvin Mace]

80. Personally

I will accept NO system that doesn't have a paper ballot and which we don't have independent means to test and verify. No system is tamper-PROOF, but I'll settle for highly tamper-RESISTANT.

[Spazito]

81. As a Canadian, I can only echo your question

It works fine here, it would work fine in the US too, imo. The numerous excuses for why it can't be done in the US are nothing but empty excuses propagated by those who WANT electronic voting for their specific purposes.

The volunteer scrutineers from each party at the count which takes place at the SAME place the voter cast their ballot are the KEY and, regardless, of the size of the 'precinct', it works.

[Junkdrawer]

83. Yep. Not like it's a hard problem....

Counting the hundred-or-so votes in a given precinct isn't like, say, trying to figure out how a protein folds.

[Boredtodeath]

90. Over simplification

First, most precincts are much larger than a "hundred-or-so" votes; most being 2,000 voters with 100% turnout. But even at 50% turnout, you're talking about 1,000 votes.

Second, as you well know the Canadian elections involve one or two races on a ticket, not the multiples of 10s we see on the ballots in the US.

Far be it from me to advocate for these junk machines, but the oversimplification of using a Canadian counting process diminishes the hard work many are doing to come up with REAL answers to this situation. It's an insult to intelligence.

Instead of throwing out strawmen arguments, why not fight the warehouse voting proposed by The Election Center to prevent hand counted paper ballots?

If you stand here and argue for strawmen, while our opposition is attempting to bar hand counted paper ballots by enlarging the precinct to tens of thousands, you allow them to win the war while you fight in a battle they redefined while you were looking the other way.

[loudsue]

93. Smack on, Boredtodeath! And Eloriel, also, mirrors how I feel

about it.

The "powers that be" have circled their wagons way too tightly for ANY level of comfort, to those who are paying attention.

I'm to the point that, any solution they agree to, needs to be looked at again!

:kick:

[yowzayowzayowza]

102. I've kinda come to view the...

"hand count only" reaction to our election problems as the flip side of the "computers gotta be better" reaction. Neither are particularly reasoned positions which simply avoid the reality of both election requirements and mechanization implementation.

[Boredtodeath]

109. Not to mention

that it sets up a battle between election officials and voters while folks like The Election Center and Diebold walk off with the prize.

We sit here debating counting 100 or 1,000 paper ballots, while they are 2 steps ahead of us making that proposal equivalent to a statewide recount with warehouse voting.

Some of us are awake and trying to counter the 2 chess moves they are ahead of us.

[Kelvin Mace]

129. Agreed

any solution will be a hybrid, with one system validating the other.

[Junkdrawer]

113. First, I asked "Why not here? Especially for national offices?"...

Second, the average voters per precinct in Ohio is about 350. I severely doubt the national average would be 2,000 or 1,000.

Now you talk about strawmen and insults to intelligence!

[Boredtodeath]

114. You need to do some research

Because I can SHOW you 2004 election records with 700 - 1,000 voters CASTING A BALLOT in each precinct.

You've obviously NEVER worked a polling place. Nor done any real time election auditing or review.

ON EDIT:
And, BTW, you have YET to answer the question - what do you propose when precincts make up 10,000+ voters as they are doing TODAY in Colorado with warehouse voting?

[Junkdrawer]

117. California has a law that limits precincts to 1000 voters...

and there are several proposals to limit this to 500 voters nationwide.

Link:
Updating counties’ election management/geographic information systems and voter registration databases is an incredibly meticulous and time-consuming process that takes months for counties to accomplish following reapportionment each decade. This exacting process does not entail simply importing a data file with all of the new boundary lines into county databases. Rather, voting precinct boundary lines must be redrawn to accommodate the new district lines, registered voters must be re-assigned to the newly drawn precincts, revised polling place assignments must be based on the new/re-configured precinct boundaries, and ballot styles/groups relative to the newly formed districts must be created within the re-drawn precincts. Counties must assure that when creating these new precincts that the maximum limit of 1,000 registered voters per precinct is not exceeded

http://www.votescount.com/redistricting/redist.htm

[Boredtodeath]

118. And Georgia has a law that limits precincts to 2,000

So it STILL makes your point a "hundred-or-so" votes untrue and illogical.

Once again........what happens when they change those laws to accomodate 10,000+ voters for warehouse voting?

You do know, I presume, that laws can be changed, right?

[Junkdrawer]

119. I bet they will, too. ANYTHING to make hand counts impossible...

Once in, the thieves will insure that machines become indespensible.

Thank GOD computers were invented so that democracy could become possible! :sarcasm:

[Boredtodeath]

120. They already did in Colorado

They are eliminating precincts to make way for warehouse voting - combining 10+ precincts into one large one.

[Spazito]

124. More ballots to count simply means more scrutineers

We, too, have issues attached to our elections at times and cities like Toronto have large precincts yet they manage to do the count and have the results often within 2 to 3 hours without undue problems. I find the argument that the US is different because it has 'multiples of 10' on it's ballots to be a straw man issue.

During our municipal elections we have ballots for council, school board and, in rural areas, regional districts. We have multiple party candidates listed and it creates no problems.

We have hand counted ballots as you are saying you want as well so I find your argument confusing, to be honest.

[Boredtodeath]

134. The problem is we can't "staff" election centers now.

Americans are not nearly participatory enough for "more scrutineers."

Unless staffing election centers becomes mandated, we can't supply the bodies required.

[Spazito]

136. Given the rancor at the recent US elections, I suspect volunteers

would not be a problem were you to get paper ballots back.

The scrutineers are volunteers from EACH party that watch the count. Those who count are employed by either the Provincial or Federal government, Elections Canada, depending on which type of election it is.

It seemed to me when I followed your recent elections, it was not for a lack of volunteers, it is because the vote is counted electronically whereas with each party having a scrutineer to oversee a hand count at the place where the vote took place, I suspect volunteers would be numerous.

[Boredtodeath]

138. I'm sorry, but you would be wrong

It's a very large part of the apathy of American voters (and sadly, Democrats, for the most part).

When I work in elections, almost every poll officer and worker is a republican, even in heavily leaning Democratic precincts.

[shance]

57. I agree with Bev. She's right. I see no citizen advocates included.

That concerns me.

I recently went to the EAC meeting here in Pasadena and it was very disappointing to me. From what I observed, I felt it was little more than window dressing.

Personally I feel voting rights/citizen advocates are the most important element in promoting substantial electoral change, because many are making often great sacrifice to take on this issue, quitting their jobs to take this issue on full time.

I think this is an important point.

<<because in August 2003, the ITAA set up a lobbying arm for voting machine vendors like Diebold, ES&S, and Hart Intercivic. While doing this, the ITAA's Harris Miller proposed a twin strategy of "discrediting critics" and "creating approval" the latter appearing to involve setting up an entity similar to the new NSF-funded group." >>

How does one rationalize and gloss over such a red flag??

Am not saying others arent motivated by the truth, however when organizations and universities become overly entangled with private companies with a strong vested interest and in addition Republican ties, I think there is a problem.

[Boredtodeath]

58. There's only one problem

There's no truth in that statement. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

It isn't even stated as FACTUAL.

While doing this, the ITAA's Harris Miller proposed a twin strategy of "discrediting critics" and "creating approval" the latter appearing to involve setting up an entity similar to the new NSF-funded group."

What part of this don't you get?

the latter appearing to involve Appearing. As in NOT doing.

an entity similar to As in NOT this group. As in MAYBE a group like this.

As in it was someone's PLAN to do. Not in as it's been done. Also not in as these people did it.

[Boredtodeath]

59. One more point

EVERY ONE OF THESE ACADEMICS has acted as citizen activists for the last 2.5 years.

They EARNED their stripes as citizen activists.

Not one of them has been paid for their activism for all this time.

But your hero Bev Harris has ensured herself a paycheck, hasn't she?

If there are no "citizen activists" in a group it's the BBV group; not the academics who NOW have funding.

[shance]

61. Whew boy you're defensive!! What's the need for all the overspent energy?

Not that I need to even remotely explain myself from your headspin of a reply, but Bev is not my hero.

I don't invest in heroes. Heroes are illusions.

But you sure seem to invest in demons don't ya? And Bev, for whatever flaws I'm certain she has, is on your cross today, huh?

If you really care about rigged elections, which the jury's looks out at this point, you'll get off the obsession with Bev and try to find some perspective.

Yes, I'm sure some of these folks are in it for the right reasons, and Im not saying Bev's NOT MAKING MONEY. Im not saying I don't have criticisms of Bev. I do.

However, I'm worried about this country, apparently more than you are. Im not interested in not wasting more finite energy on a person who isnt thinking about you or me.

[Boredtodeath]

63. Bev Harris has it all coming AND MORE

She's done a great deal of damage to this cause.

And trying to do more.

When are you going to take Bev to the carpet over the lies she's spewing about these people today?

I guess the truths in my post hit just a bit too close to home, did they?

[hunter]

66. Um, okay.

Watch out for the Rodents of Unusual Size as you are make your way through there.

[shance]

75. What's your point Hunter?

Where am I making my way THROUGH???

[hunter]

82. The Fire Swamp, of course.

It's from "The Princess Bride."

[Swamp Rat]

115. Jeeez, anyrat knows that!

:eyes: :D

[Kelvin Mace]

72. We are not "obsessed" with Bev

just trying to keep any of her lies from propogating.

Bev's "flaws" are impossible to overlook, since they are at the core of her credibility. She has ZERO.

I'm worried about the country. Many here are in the thick of it. What we don't need is Saint Fuckin' Bev coming along and screwing up our work.

[stevietheman]

99. Zero? That's extreme.

Bev has obviously been at the forefront of looking at the flaws in these DRE machines. How can this even be disputed?

Even if she's causing trouble now, that doesn't mean she didn't help start ringing the alarm bells early on, which she indeed did.

[Boredtodeath]

101. Not true. Not even close.

She took the work of others and claimed it as her own.

DUers were ringing the bells and Bev ran with it - she applied her amateur PR skills to the work of others. That. Is. All.

[stevietheman]

121. Very much disagree.

This so-called "PR" is a large part of what brought this issue to the surface. To degrade her work as "zero" is unconscionable.

I'm afraid that attacks on Bev here seem to be emotional to the point of denying that she has done any good. I won't deny any wrongdoing on her part, but she deserves credit for the good things she has done.

I'm convinced that some people here are getting too personal about Bev. Smells like how Freepers usually act.

[Kelvin Mace]

125. Excuse me?

I'm afraid that attacks on Bev here seem to be emotional to the point of denying that she has done any good. I won't deny any wrongdoing on her part, but she deserves credit for the good things she has done.

Have you read the evidence against Bev (including much which is her own words)?

Awfully easy for you to blow off her actions when you haven't been the target of them. You haven't had to spend thousands of dollars fending off her legal attacks, or spent the last days of your life harassed by her cronies from Freeperville.

Speaking of freepers. Are you accusing me or anyone else of being or acting like a freeper? The only person I know who posts regularly to FR is Bev. The only person I know who has publicly smeared people with lies (a freeper specialty) is Bev

[stevietheman]

132. As I said, I'll take your word on the allegations against her...

but she did elevate this issue early on. I'm just saying this cannot be denied.

[Kelvin Mace]

139. The point you are missing is

she would have had NOTHING to "elevate" if it had not been for a good dozen people on this site.

She owes an incredible debt to Alistair at Scoop New Zealand for publishing her work and getting the media ball rolling. She repaid him in her usual fashion.

Bev's initial credibility was directly related to other people's work.

[Stephanie]

130. "Smells like how Freepers usually act."

Bev is a good friend of the Freepers. Check her posts over there. Observe how she egged them on in their harrassment of Andy while he was sick and dying. She's a monster, and I'm here to make sure everybody knows it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=100516

[Kelvin Mace]

131. Just spoke to Joyce McCloy

of the NC Voting Coalition, who told me that she responded to Bev's latest attack by asking to be removed from the mailing list.

This resulted from a call from Wynn wanting to know if she was quitting because of the "campaign to discredit BBV, Inc".

These people think there is an organized campaign to "discredit" them.

Well, actually, there is. And they run it.

[Kelvin Mace]

123. Have you been reading the posts on Bev's history?

All of the substantive work she "did", was other people's work with her name on it.

She just didn't start causing trouble now, she has been causing trouble for almost three years now.

Try reading these posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=211132
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x340188

[smartvoter]

74. It's not obsession. It's a long, ugly history... nt

[shance]

76. Let's see.....one, two, three, four responses to one poster

Nope. You're not obsessed at all.

[yowzayowzayowza]

77. Looks more like...

abject disgust than obsession.

[Kelvin Mace]

78. There are 17 million+ posts on this site

Many. MANY mention George Bush. Are we "obssesed" about George Bush?

Seem easy to blow people off by simply labeling them "obssessed". Since when is providing facts a bad thing?

[Boredtodeath]

92. You'll note, as well

He/She never answers ANY of the points made about Bev and her organization being the ones ensuring themselves a salary while her targets have acted as unpaid citizen advocates for these years.

Typical - when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

[Kelvin Mace]

69. I'm sorry?

Are scientists automatically not citizens? Some of the folks have beene advocating for citizens for some time now.

Money from the National *Science* Foundation tends to go to *scientists*, not non-scientists.

There is NOTHING sinister about this and I'll believe what thses people say a long time before I believe ANYTHING Bev says.

Am not saying others arent motivated by the truth, however when organizations and universities become overly entangled with private companies with a strong vested interest and in addition Republican ties, I think there is a problem.

Could you provide evidence linking these folks to ITAA? Just because Bev has them in the same sentence, this is not eveidence of a link.

[Eric J in MN]

71. Hand-counted paper ballots are best, optical-scan ballots second-best,

and so if the purpose of this group is to promote electronic voting machines, I don't support it, either.

With electronic voting machines, most voters don't check the printout.

They may press 'Kerry' and have the touchscreen register 'Bush.'

There is also more room for confusion with a touch-screen than with a piece of paper.

[kurtyboy]

103. And ------------Oh yeah, -------Fuck Bev!

I didn't even have to read the whole thread....

My friend Andy is dead, and FUCK BEV!!!@!@!

G'night, BHarris. You'll be in my dreams....

[evilqueen]

107. Maybe I'm just being stupid, but...

Let's say we do get paper ballots in every state and every precinct. This might assure voting accuracy at the precinct level, but how on earth do we ensure accuracy at the tabulator, where there are no papers to verify anything?

What's to stop someone from simply flipping the numbers in the tabulator?

[Kelvin Mace]

126. Nothing is done in a vacuum

In NC, we required random audits to compare paper counts and tabulator counts.

[evilqueen]

135. Ok, that makes sense.

I had been pondering my question since last November, and it seemed to me there was no way to really be sure that everything was on the Up and Up. But yes, random audits would help.

[loyalsister]

108. If you make a demand for ACCOUNTABILITY the market will follow

Noone will buy equiptment that does not provide it.
If the conspiracy theorists attempt to push an agenda we will get nowhere.

[Boredtodeath]

110. Simply not true

Some of us have been demanding accountability for more than 2 years now.

Some of us didn't begin this battle after the 2004 election, but long before it.

Some of us demanded accountability before the first electronic voting machine was purchased.

[loyalsister]

111. Did you run for county clerk?

get a job in the office?
If you're the one buying or NOT buying the equipment, it drives the market.
Talking about it doesn't.

[Boredtodeath]

112. Sorry, but incorrect.

I lived in Georgia when the law was changed to accomodate a statewide purchase and yes, at that time I was part of the commission to "study" the purchase before it was made.

I wasn't "talking," I was actively involved in PREVENTING.

How about you?

[loyalsister]

116. We're under local control

Statewide control is a bad thing. Just like national standard would be bad. We need to have local control of the election process. I am good friends with my county clerk, who is basically an expert on this stuff. She has held a national post.
I am a disability rights activist and my people have been left out of this. People with disabilities are given an opportunity to cast a private ballot for the first time in their lives sometimes. But they are being sold out by the democrats who are buying into the copnspiracies.
My conversations with the sec of state's office were ineffective.
My Democratic sec. of state called for statewide standard and standardized equipment. That creates more problems than it solves.
Instead of allowing the demand of an increased voting population to drive technology by including people with disabilities and celebrating this opportunity and demanding that it be perfected, people are throwing it out and possibilities saying let them keep using those special accomodations...... or just not voting.

[Kelvin Mace]

127. As the husband of a disabled woman

I have NOT been working against the disabled. This is not an issue of local control versus national control, but one of local STANDARDS versus NATIONAL standards. Variations in voting laws were used quite effectively to disenfranchise black voters until the Voting Rights Act became the law of the land.

I have a county election director who has made it quite clear he will work to "undo the damage" our new law mandating paper ballots has "caused".

Am I to trust him with local control?

Arguments made by *some* (no, not you) advocates for the disabled have been spurious and *some* have even been getting funding from Diebold.

I have the utmost sympathy for the disabled, but sometimes, you just CAN'T accommodate every need.

Advocates for the blind have claimed paper ballots discriminate against them since they must have assistance to vote. They claim that DREs allow them to vote by themselves. But this is specious. The blind person still relies on someone to accurately present and record their vote.

On top of this, why should we accept any system that accommodates the blind if that system imperils democracy as a whole in the process?

And even if we solve this problem, how do we handle quadriplegics? They must rely on someone to mark the ballot for them since they can't do it unassisted.

It is not a "conspiracy" to say them machines don't work, aren't secure and make big mistakes which can't be corrected. That's fact.

[preciousdove]

122. "Ignoring" Bev defenders is such bliss

Guess I am officially jaded but after the campaign against Andy I just couldn't read any more from defenders, apologists, false "lets work togetherists" so I used the ignore feature on a select few.

When I got to this thread today, whoohoo, I could read the real information and ignore the propaganda. Almost half of the posts are gone. I didn't realize that they do monopolize and disrupt any discussion that questions Bev.

Since this is the only group I have done this with it is also interesting to see where else on DU they are trying to work their spin.

[Kelvin Mace]

128. I am so sick of the various excuses used to defend this woman

It's like being a legless soldier listening to someone defend Michelle Malkin for attacking Cindy Sheehan.

[NC Beach Girl]

137. kick

.