Urgent: If you want to solve Black Box Voting, start here:

[BevHarris]

We have seven months to solve this problem. The time to act is NOW.

We need your help! Currently, one of the biggest obstacles to getting a voter-verified paper trail is the position the League of Women's Voters has taken against voter-verified ballots.

First: Send this message to everyone on your e-mail list. Make copies. Post at your web site, on your blog, wherever you can.

We are asking that you pick up a phone, mail a letter, send an e-mail, send a fax, to the LEAGUE OF WOMEN'S VOTERS, who has taken a stance AGAINST voter-verified paper trails. Make a formal request that they reconsider and reverse that position, and ask them to take action to support Rush Holt's bill, HR 2239, which mandates a voter-verified paper trail, eliminates risky remote access mechanisms, and mandates spot-check auditing:

First, educate. If that doesn't work, the next step will be to agitate (contact every local LWV office). And if that doesn't work, the next step will be to castigate (send press blasts and letters to the editor castigating the League for allowing our votes to become roadkill).

Points to cover (always in your own words):

1) There is NEW INFORMATION pertaining to problems with security and tamperability, that should directly affect their position on voter-verified paper trails. (Web pages: Refer them to http://www.blackboxvoting.org, and for new evidence of security flaws, to http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold, which details bypassing passwords, altering audit logs, and changing votes)

Specifically: It has now been shown that
- We have been misled regarding remote access capabilities.
- Votes can be changed without anyone knowing
- Passwords can be bypassed
- Audit logs can be overwritten
- At least 112 elections have been miscounted by machines

2) Urge them that the time is NOW to change their stance. It is imperative that they help us support a voter-verified paper trail, eliminate remote access to the machines, and require audits of voting machine accuracy.

3) If you encounter resistance, present a well-reasoned and firm argument. Thanks to activist LINDA, here are talking points and rebuttals that will help you: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/tpoints.htm

4) If you still feel you aren't getting anywhere, ask for a copy of their budget, and specifically a list of contributions and funding, and ask if they have accepted any contributions or funding from any voting machine vendor. Ask how many times they have met with vendors, and whether anyone in the organization has ties to any vendor.

5) Ask what information would be needed to change their minds on this critically important issue.

Here are the names of the key people at the League of Women's Voters:

President
Kay Maxwell
Connecticut

Vice-Presidents
Janis Hirohama
California

Shelia Martin
Massachusetts

Secretary-Treasurer
Shirley Eberly
Rochester, New York

Directors

Rosetta M. Davis
Nashville, Tennessee

Jan Flapan
Illinios

Linda Claire McDaniel
Florissant, Missouri

Xandra Kayden
Los Angeles, California

Joan Paik
Clarksville, Maryland

Carol Woodward Scott
Oklahoma City

Rosemary Stephens
Lake Oswego, Oregon

Olivia Thorne
Wallingford, Pennsylvania

National Office contact info:
1730 M Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036-4508
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

FOR MORE IMPACT:
1. Always write your own message, in your own words. No cookie-cutters.
2. E-mail is easiest, but certified mail is more effective
3. If you get someone on the phone, begin typing. Say, "I'm taking notes, so I can publish your response to my newsgroups and send it to activists." Then do it. That lets them know this is serious, and demands accountability.
4. Make note of any conversations and report them here. Especially, share tips and suggestions, but also, if you run into resistance, name names and provide contact information.

Go to BBV contacts at the Black Box Voting .org site for hundreds of LWV contact numbers (thanks to the contact list researched by voting activist called "Think Tank.") When you find more, just click "new" at BBV contacts (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cgi-bin/contacts.pl) and add to the list.

Common Cause is next.

Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[mike6640]

1. kickin' it

:kick:

[BevHarris]

23. CORRECTED LINK FROM ORIGINAL POST

Sorry, time had expired, I forgot the "htm" on the end of it:

This is updated version of Scoop article --

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm

[DoctorMyEyes]

2. Doing it now!

will be back with any news.

[BevHarris]

16. Thanks! People love to hear news, so be sure and let us know

Great job. Each one teach one.

Bev

[pansypoo53219]

3. the league of women voters

should be ashamed of themselves.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. kick

:kick:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. The League of Women's voters did this?

The book VoteScam claimed that the League of Women's voter were involved in vote fraud in Florida (this book was written in the early 1980s).

I thought it sounded too crazy to be true, but if they are standing in the way of a voter-verified paper trail it certainly raises suspicions?

What possible reason can you have for not wanting a paper trail, other than fraud?

[BevHarris]

6. Ask them that.

Call them.
:)

Bev

[trof]

30. I just did, by e-mail.

Will post answer here.

[4dog]

39. League of Women Voters Caught Tampering on Video

In Florida in 1982, as reported in Votescam, "concerned citizens . . . told us that members of the League of Women Voters, a private political club, were sitting up there in the Data Processing Center on Galloway Road punching holes in the vote cards." The Collier brothers managed to videotape on the day of an election precinct workers and LWV people committing several highly illegal acts clearly part of the vote tampering process. E.g., "a woman . . . was busy poking a new hole in a card. Then she reached around the back side of the card and pulled away the piece of 'chad' that dangled by a thread." Chad was everywhere. The description covers too many pages to transcribe.

They were kicked out shortly after that, but the video and the book are available through

www.votescam.com

James Collier and Kenneth Collier, Votescam, the Stealing of America

Victoria House Press: 4391 ndcbu, Taos, NM 87571, 1-866-280-9090

[4dog]

41. The Colliers of the Votescam book were early heroes...

in the struggle to expose and prevent voting fraud. They were rock and roll concert promoters who ran against Claude Pepper, an ancient Florida Congressman, for the hell of it. When they encountered voting fraud, they thought it was an aberration and tried to tell various authorities about it, eventually bringing lawsuits, which didn't get far opposed by such as Antonin Scalia and Janet Reno. They devoted their lives to the voting project and produced the book cited above, which is a very worthwhile read.

[Fredda Weinberg]

48. very true

and depressing to read.

[BevHarris]

54. Bears another mention: The Colliers were the pioneers

along with investigative reporter Ronnie Dugger, who did an expose on this in the 1980s -- outlined everything we now know, no one did a damn thing about it -- and Drs. Rebecca Mercuri and Peter Neumann, computer scientists who have been on this issue for 14 years.

Now, isn't it about time to get it SOLVED?

[Cocoa]

7. a tip, for if they don't immediately agree with you

first, accuse them of not caring about democracy. Be ready with some quotes from the Founding Fathers, implying that you are more patriotic than they are.

Then, if they still don't agree with you, accuse them of working for Diebold.

Go get them bastards! :toast:

[BevHarris]

10. Obviously, Cocoa is being sarcastic

Those techniques would be counterproductive.

Cocoa: I thought you CLAIMED you are in favor of a paper trail. So why would you make suggestions to sabotage attempts to get the LWV in favor of a paper trail?

Whatever.

Bev

[Cocoa]

13. I am in favor of the Holt bill

especially the part about the paper trail. Common sense, backed by the judgement of Dill and the other scientists, tells me that the paper trail is needed.

At the same time, the LWV's explanation of their position also makes sense.

I've contacted my rep about this, and I also have no problem with the LWV and Common Cause also having their say. I'm confident they're taking their positions for honorable reasons.

I was just commenting on the tendency here to treat people who disagree with "the cause" as some kind of enemy, rather than as people with honest disagreements. It's a little frightening how easily people have been convinced that certain people are "bad." I would include LWV, Chuck Hagel, Fredda Wineberg, Diebold, Doug Lewis, Shawn Southworth, and others.

[papau]

40. Hi Cocoa - let us know when Hagel does a good! - but I agree

honest disagreements are for discussion - not name calling.

The LWV thing is a joke - election worker instructions in the 70's and early 80's would tell you to remove already loose chad that is in a slot for a vote (it would not register unless you did this). Taking a video tape of someone doing so via pencil or finger only shows the IQ level of the idiot claiming vote tampering. The new rules are to not touch the poorly punched out chad, but instead to go back and repunch a good card that reflects how the card would look if the chad had properly fallen out.

As always - the GOP in Florida in 2000 ignored their own rules - and never did this in most cases (which is why the manual recount found so many votes not counted - undervotes - where intent was obvious (and the sum total of these corrections were not always against Bush - so this fraud is more stupidity and being lazy)).

The knock the chad out procedure at least was done by the election workers - pity we improved the security to the point folks just do not count the vote.

[DEMActivist]

11. Whoooo hooooo, Cocoa! Go get 'em!

And be sure to report back here how many times they hang up on you before you can get the whole sentence out, OK? </sarcasm>

Some people just need to grow the hell up.

[nolabels]

8. Do we have friends in Germany?

http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00102.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522%252Bwww.blackboxvoting.org/%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8
Mud report #154 large than Watergate!

Sludge report = mud report
This is A translation into German OF Sludge report #154? Bigger Than Watergate!
- translation by Sigrid Doehmen - thanks tons http://www.danielpwelch.com
Sludge report #154
More largely than Watergate!
The history, which you read straight, is according to opinion of the author one of the largest political scandals of the American, if not even world history. And it plays today here in New Zealand.
This history reduces the machinery of the today's American democracy up to the bones. Democracy is our only protection against the despotische and arbitrary government and this history turns up us deeply.
Please you introduce yourselves only once that you are in a political group of interests, which wants to always remain at the levers of power. Imagine in addition that you want to probably intersperse expressed an unpopular political program and that you did not cause one by the choice relapse to be switched off to want.
A way to reach would be the pursuit of the strategy of Mugabe (Zimbabwe) or Hun the Sen (Kambodscha). They are for holding from elections, but and strike you at the same time arrest your opponents and their trailer. They plug wahlurnen fully, discourage voters, who do not want to be correct for you, distort the choice borders and provide for incomplete being correct counting out stations in areas with large opposition.
(snip)

[HiroP]

31. Black Box Voting articles on German website

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but "Heise Online" which, I'd venture to say, is the most popular IT news website in Germany had an article on Black Box Voting a few days ago.
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/mw-12.07.03-001/)
Secondly, there is a more detailed article at
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/15193/1.html

The Telepolis online magazine (http://www.heise.de/tp/) has also been covering all of the BFEE's lies and shenanigans for the past 2 years, btw.

[Capn Sunshine]

9. Kick

this is tremendously important
:kick:

[leftchick]

12. consider it done Bev..

thanks!

[BevHarris]

17. Thanks, LeftChick. We know this is the right thing, we will convince

Thanks for being one of the activists that makes this happen.

Bev

[ramblin_dave]

14. Is the League's position online?

I found this link which suggest's the League of Women Voters wants voting machines that "allow the voter to privately and independently verify her votes on the ballot". (see the Voting Systems heading)

http://www.lwv.org/where/promoting/votingrights_hava_recom.html

Does the League understand that a paper trail is the only way to achieve this? Are we sure the League is not objecting to voting receipts that the voter could take out of the polling place? There are good reasons to object to this and this concept is sometimes confused with the concept of a paper trail.

[BevHarris]

18. Yes, the League has come out against a voter-verified ballot

and we are talking about one that is locked in a ballot box at the polling place, not a receipt the voter takes with them, which does have other problems (buying votes, threatening voters).

The passage you quoted is interpreted as looking at the touch screen and pressing "yes" to "verify" your vote. Of course, you have no idea how it was actually recorded, or if it gets changed electronically after casting it.

Bev

[LiberalLibra]

47. Bev: I don't get this. Why would the LWV's of all people oppose....

...anything that would help regain/maintain faith in our elections??

[HFishbine]

15. Local Action Too

I checked the board of directors for my local LWV and found that I know three of them personally. I'm going to make some phone calls today. Maybe some bottom-up pressure will help too.

You can find your local league here:

http://www.lwv.org/about/state.html

[BevHarris]

19. Thanks, and appreciate the useful link

I'll distribute that link elsewhere.

Bev

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

20. sadly I must decline

I for one can't in good conscience harrass anyone on the basis of unfounded allegations and innuendo.

You downloaded a series of files from an open FTP site at Diebold. You've demonstrated as recently as yesterday, with the uproar over mysterious makefiles (complete with totally unrelated commentary from a web site in Czechoslovakian), that you people are utterly unqualified to interpret it. Show me the code that demonstrates either the voting machines are miscounting or GEMS is changing the results. Your assertion that it must be there simply because you were able to download some files is entirely spurious. I see no evidence of any such code in what I've looked at, although perhaps I've missed it and you can point me in the right direction.

Despite all the noise made by the anti-Microsoft crowd about the use of Access as a database, I don't actually have a big problem with it. Your more ardent supporters argue that use of any Microsoft technology is unacceptable is simply ridiculous. I suppose I can buy the argument that someone with direct access to the database could potentially manipulate totals in one of the tables. However your current analysis fails to move me to take action for at least two reasons. First, your "two rooms" example is written up as pure sensationalism. I fail to understand why someone intending to develop a system in which a savvy operator could change certain totals would be so incompetent as to trouble themselves with keeping another table or tables full of the original incriminating vote totals. Second, and more importantly in my mind, nothing in what you've posted to date explains how these "hacked totals" are reconciled with the paper reports printed by each voting machine prior to upload. I have seen passing reference to those paper reports by your crew, although the issue was glossed over for what I must assume is expediency's sake. Or perhaps they were all busy trying to find the smoking gun in the insidious makefile you posted yesterday?

You've made (or certainly implied) some kind of conspiratorial connection between Diebold and ES&S, which I simply fail to see. Two brothers who originally worked at one company now work at competing companies. OK. Conspiracy? I'm unmoved, somehow. This sort of thing isn't even that uncommon. Furthermore your crack team of programmers and analysts routinely misattributes program behavior from one company to the other (for example, your "181818" total -- by ES&S if I recall correctly from your original story -- being attributed to Diebold simply because, as far as I can understand the argument, that's what source code they happen to have.)

I missed the list of 112 elections that were miscounted and your link doesn't work.

I'm also in favor of getting a printed receipt after casting my vote, but it doesn't address the issue of potential widespread vote-selling. The arguments in your talking points that "smart crooks wouldn't choose to try the paper way" is really pretty weak unless you've got a scientific poll of smart crooks to support it, and assume that there are no stupid crooks to worry about. Your argument that "Italian Mafia tried to buy votes by having cell phones with video capability used to record votes as proof of vote" does nothing more than make me worry all the more about the issue of vote-selling.

Moreover, it doesn't address the issue of what should (or will) happen when a single DU activist (or to be fair, a freeper) goes into the touch-screen voting booth, holds their nose and votes for George Bush (or for a freeper, the Democratic candidate) and then takes the printed receipt and screams I didn't vote for Shrub!.


I could go on but the main point here is that innuendo and sensationalism and unfounded allegations simply do not move me, nor do I expect them to move anyone else. If "the fix is in", as it were, then why is it so hard to show me where? I'm a reasonable person and relatively easy to convince but I've seen no malicious source code to date and there are giant holes in the rest of the big conspiracy theory. I can't in good conscience start calling people up and ranting with nothing but a bunch of smoke to stand on, so I'm going to wait until I see a convincing argument.

JC

[BevHarris]

21. This is not a thread to discuss whether you like my research --

Please limit discussion to activism pertaining to League of Women's Voters. If you do not agree with Rush Holt's bill HR #2239, don't engage in activism with LWV.

If you would like to critique my research, that's fine, start another thread, but I ask DUers not to hijack this thread for that purpose.

This thread is to get a paper trail in place, along with auditing and removal of remote access mechanisms, as per the proposed HR 2239, and we are approaching LWV because their opposition to the provisions of this bill stands in the way of getting it passed.

Please do cooperate by not reinforcing those who would hijack threads. Let's stick to this topic, and if you are posting responses, it would be very much appreciated if they are to topics about LWV and HR 2239.

Thanks,

Bev Harris

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

22. let me rephrase

I'll be happy to lobby the LWV if someone can provide me with some compelling arguments to use. Your original post provided links to what purports to be just that and I simply (although lengthily) explained why I need something more. There's no hijacking here; I've made my points and they're entirely on-topic.

JC

[nolabels]

25. A little helper

Please go to the top of the forum heading, hit search, then type in blackbox voting in the box and see if you can find anything that way, thanks for your concern.

ON edit: little of that spelling thing kicking in. :silly:

[Zan_of_Texas]

28. more evidence available

Not convinced? Looking for more evidence, more viewpoints?

Would the words of nearly 1000 technology experts from around the country have any weight with you?

Check it out:

www.verifiedvoting.org

Here is one of their statements, prepared by David Dill, professor of computer science at Stanford University, and three other computer experts:

"The risks of paperless DRE machines are large. Programming errors are an inevitable fact of life given current technology. With these paperless DRE machines, there is nothing that can stop a determined group from achieving large-scale election theft. We see no reason why major problems will not occur, including obviously messed up elections, election of incorrect candidates, and, certainly, disillusioned and disenfranchised voters."

Lots of good stuff at that site.

[nolabels]

32. Thanks for the link

:kick:

[alfredo]

27. I just called my local LWV

they picked up the receiver then hung up. In other words, they didn't want to talk to anyone. I will try later.

[papau]

42. Black Box tampering in a networked world

Hi JC,
Re: Black Box voting - & tampering proof requiring code in machine

I have not done serious (as in make a lot of money) programming in 20 years - so if the answer to my question is obvious, please forgive me and chalk it up to my age.

I agree Aschroft's approach for a court has been and will be show me the crime - indeed the turning off of revote for optical scan in black/brown areas in Florida, and having it on in White GOP areas, was met with a Justice response of "Yes, that happened - but can you prove intent - and on whose orders?"

I suggest for a voter to be concern about such behavior is not the same as going off to "harass" someone on the basis of unfounded allegations and innuendo.

In a networked world the evil code need not stay on the machine it is affecting. And the concept of "audit" is not to ask those who disagree with the totals presented to show how the vote change occurred - it is to have in place a procedure that prevents vote changes and to verify that that procedure was followed.

As to the program development process, the "two rooms" example is exactly what one would have during development as you play with report formats - and not removing test code is not unusual - and given this was Beta with many fixes coming in on a daily basis, I would have been surprised to see a cut to "live" and one file.

Given that the network feature leads one to believe that at least one avenue for fraud is to hack the totals prior to machine summary onto paper and upload, "reconciled" means little if the question is correct vote totals.

Two GOP controlled operations lead to conspiratorial thoughts, but I agree nothing is proven. The miscounted elections are to be expected - it is the bias toward one party that us of interest. Check the MIT study of voting machine error.

Vote selling is something the rich are always afraid the Dems will use because we know the poor are poor and vote Dem and are not as honest as the rich or the generic GOP voter. The sociology studies may surprise you when you see how uptight and honest - and relatively conservative - the poor are. Bev's Mafia cell phone photo is a stretch in my opinion - but she is aware of a much larger picture than I am able to see.

And as to you final point as to the fellow who takes his printed receipt and screams I didn't vote for Shrub! - I suspect one does the same as one does with a supermarket checkout error - you note the error on the machine - void the old, put in the new, and move on.

[LiberalLibra]

46. I'd suggest you stick around a little longer and.....

....learn a little more. Then, in time you will understand that if it looks fishy, smells fishy, feels rather fishy, then it is probably fishy.

[Rose Siding]

24. Thanks Bev

:kick:

[donsu]

26. kick

nt

[flpoljunkie]

29. [e-mail] is the League of Women Voter's e-mail address

:kick:

[BevHarris]

33. Thanks for that! (It wasn't previously in our database)

bev

[nolabels]

34. A little more for anybody interested

It's not easy to find things on search engines typing in "black box voting" But I did find this link on excite

https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/26/22521/9799

Do we really want "black box" voting machines? (Politics)

By cce
Thu Feb 27th, 2003 at 09:17:08 AM EST
New computerized voting machines are quietly being rolled in across the country, promising to put an end to voting irregularities and "dimpled chads" forever. These machines, however, are doing just the opposite -- rarely providing a verifiable paper trail, with all inner workings undisclosed and classified as "trade secrets." Many concerned citizens and notable computer scientists (Leiserson, Rivest, Schneier, for example) are attempting to lead a charge against these new machines, but their voices aren't being heard
(snip)

[dusty64]

35. Interesting, I

can't figure out the motive to their lack of concern.

[talkinghand]

36. kick

:kick:

[HFishbine]

37. Bev, Broken Link

Hi Bev,

Can you fix this link that you cited in your original post:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold

I forwarded it to the local LWV, but it's not working.

[DEMActivist]

38. Fixed in a later post, but here it is

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/access-diebold.htm

[northofdenali]

43. Bev, I have Alaska's LWV info and will post it on BBV

For us DU'ers -

Ms. Cheryl Jebe
LWV of Alaska
6520 N. Douglas Highway
Juneau, AK 99801-9405
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

[BevHarris]

45. Thanks! Appreciate the effort.

Bev

[BevHarris]

44. Getting tired of malicious misquoting --

Please be at least a little careful when quoting "what Bev said" that you are remotely accurate. Specifically, this quote from whoever...

"Your argument that "Italian Mafia tried to buy votes by having cell phones with video capability used to record votes as proof of vote" does nothing more than make me worry all the more about the issue of vote-selling." --

The "your" refers to Bev, and I did not bother to answer, since I have no idea where this came from, but certainly not from me."

Then, the reply from Papau: "Bev's Mafia cell phone photo is a stretch in my opinion..."

There is no such quote, no such anything, from "Bev." I have never discussed the mafia in connection with voting, and vote-buying is not one of my discussion points.

I have a bit of a quandary: When people like tinfoilhatprogrammer come on the list and make up a bunch of poppycock from wherever, attributing it to me, I can either respond -- which sets up a whole chain of responses and hijacks the purpose of the thread -- or ignore -- which implies that they have their facts at least 10 percent straight.

Well, I'm not going to keep replying, because some of these people's objective is to hijack productive threads into personalities and quibbling. But PLEASE do not repeat stuff that someone misquoted, or made up altogether, and attributed to me. Check your facts, and quote from what I have written, not from what some disruptor claims I said.

This kind of thing is happening a lot lately, and is simply a way to dilute the message and confuse the issue.

Irritatedly yours,

Bev Harris

On Edit: And while I'm straightening out misattributions:

"Show me the code that demonstrates either the voting machines are miscounting or GEMS is changing the results."

Go to http://www.blackboxvoting.com for a few dozen documented cases where machines miscounted elections; Machines miscounting: I have at least 112 footnoted and documented examples in my book; among the most egregious (which are also the easiest to spot; it is the smaller errors, which may go unnoticed, which are most dangerous) -- Allamakee County Iowa, Nov 2000 presidential election, machine was fed about 300 votes and reported 3.9 million votes cast. Orange County California, 1998, 100 percent error -- all the "yes" votes were counted as "no" and vice versa.

GEMS changing the results: You can easily replicate changing the votes in GEMS -- download from the New Zealand ftp site, install GEMS 1.17.17, (you can check from http://www.FEC.gov -- that is the officially certified version) -- run a database, go in and alter votes in Table 2, run a GEMS report and you get bogus results.

"Despite all the noise made by the anti-Microsoft crowd about the use of Access as a database, I don't actually have a big problem with it"..."your most ardent supporters" etc...

I'm sorry, but what you appear to be quoting is the jist of about 400 quotes at slashdot.org, which I don't belong to (why would I?) and never posted on. It might amaze you to know that citizens have independent opinions and Bev Harris doesn't instruct slashdotters on what to say.

"I suppose I can buy the argument that someone with direct access to the database could potentially manipulate totals in one of the tables."

Which is what I said. I also showed that passwords and audit logs could easily be defeated, and provided letters from the certifiers indicating that the primary security for these voting machines is: passwords and the audit log.

"Your "two rooms" example is written up as pure sensationalism."

Actually, it's plain English for people whose eyes glaze over in discussions of accounting and computer tables, and it's an appropriate comparison. I am a writer. Take notes please, this is called a metaphor.

"I fail to understand why someone intending to develop a system in which a savvy operator could change certain totals would be so incompetent as to trouble themselves with keeping another table or tables full of the original incriminating vote totals."

Because the other table passes a spot check. Based on the fact that entire states are now making the precinct totals report inaccessible, and sometimes candidates don't see it until a week after the election, this may or may not be risky -- no one can get at Table #1 from GEMS, so how would they ever know the tables didn't match? There is no report in GEMS to allow comparison with Table 1 and Table 2. Furthermore, if you wait a whole week to give people the detail reports, all kinds of things can happen...

"Second, and more importantly in my mind, nothing in what you've posted to date explains how these "hacked totals" are reconciled with the paper reports printed by each voting machine prior to upload."

Then you haven't read everything I've posted. In fact, the poll worker documentation is quite inconsistent -- it does NOT consistently say to print the reports prior to upload, and I have pointed that out as a worrisome procedure. If reports are printed after upload, there is no reason to believe that they are necessarily the original data, since data can transmit both ways.

"You've made (or certainly implied) some kind of conspiratorial connection between Diebold and ES&S, which I simply fail to see. Two brothers who originally worked at one company now work at competing companies. OK. Conspiracy? I'm unmoved, somehow."

The word "conspiracy" is yours, not mine. What I said was the the same man who was the main programmer for ES&S supervised the programmers at Diebold, and the software is built on his architecture. The names are in the programming files, by the way, along with I-Mark Systems, which is specifically a company founded in Omaha by Bob Urosevich, who not only was a key programmer for ES&S, but founded that company. He is now CEO of Diebold. If something nefarious is found in the Diebold code, it absolutely indicates that ES&S code must be looked at too.

"Furthermore your crack team of programmers and analysts routinely misattributes program behavior from one company to the other (for example, your "181818" total -- by ES&S if I recall correctly from your original story -- being attributed to Diebold simply because, as far as I can understand the argument, that's what source code they happen to have.)"

Can you not get it through your head that individual citizens can have independent opinions? You are mischaracterizing them as "my" team of programmers, when actually we are all just people with opinions. I have corrected the Diebold attribution and the 18181 story. I have not said that Comal County's machines are Diebold. Stop misquoting. Now, I did say we are looking into 18181-like possibilities in the source code, and what that means is that we are looking at whether any preset formulas attach themselves to the vote-tallying process.

"I'm also in favor of getting a printed receipt after casting my vote, but it doesn't address the issue of potential widespread vote-selling.

This is a prepared talking point by the voting machine vendors. At no time did I say print a receipt that voters carry out of the polling place. Using the official talking points, are you? That fools no one at DU, we've heard it all before, ad nauseum.

"The arguments in your talking points that "smart crooks wouldn't choose to try the paper way" is really pretty weak unless you've got a scientific poll of smart crooks to support it, and assume that there are no stupid crooks to worry about."

Again, you are quoting someone else -- I am not sure who, perhaps Linda, who submitted talking points she has used? Quickly now, let's get up to speed: BlackBoxVoting.org is a CITIZEN ACTION site, with citizens encouraged to submit their work. Linda, by the way, has and outstanding record of getting ACTION -- she has already led the derailing on one bill that would take away our right to an audit trail.

Have I said the word "disruptor" yet? Oh yeah, I have.

By the way, on that makefile: The key was in what it made. You'll see.

[jimmynochad]

57. Mafia quote came from me...

The story is from the BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3033551.stm

And I thought no one reads my posts cause few ever respond to them.

Thanks.

[BevHarris]

60. NO no, see, you just keep blowing us away --

I read every one of your posts, EVERY time, and marvel at how much you know -- and wonder, gee, is he someone famous or an election official, or who...

But you don't need to answer that. Keep 'em coming, jimmynochad.

Bev

[jimmynochad]

61. One thought had the hair on my arms stick up

I was wondering of this Diebold thing is a set up by Diebold and or GA. Are they waiting for the official release of the book to say "We never release a patch for GA elections, we had old software that did fail and now we are recertifying for next election." In the Santa Clara report, Diebold claims to have had touch screen problems in GA but they could not fix the problem in time for the election because the fix was not certified. The Santa Clara report is on the county server somewhere i am told, i have a paper copy only.

I know you have witnesses but even they could be set up someway.

Asked a programmer friend about using Access and he said something that no one has mentioned that I have read, sorry if it was...

Access does not require information in tables that are linked to be deleted in a particular order. What I mean is that while one is creating a ballot, say you make a Governor Contest with four candidates. Then for any reason, you want to delete the Governor Contest (maybe because it was improperly assigned - all legitimate reasons). You delete the Governor Contest, but in Access you do not have to delete the candidate names first. This could mean extra info that may foul up the program. For a database like SQL, you would have to work back and delete the candidates first before the overall contest name can be deleted.

As far as my qualifications to post this kind of stuff, here is my resume in the Reader's Digest form:

- Lived for 27 years in the shadows of Washington D.C.
- Parent works for NSA for over 34 years (where I get my security info).
- Know all the players mentioned in this sage save for the Rob GA guy and Spillane (although I think I met him once). Know Doug, Shawn(I am surprised he did not answer CA - he did have back surgery recently so maybe he was out and the others took it as junk mail??), Jim D., Radke, Van Pelt, Cox, Hoyer, Rush, Ney, Chet, Brit, Craft, some ESS guys, Deborah Seiler, Kathyrn Ferg., Penelope at FEC, Dill, Mercuri, Neumann, Kim A. and it goes on....
- I have yet to meet or talk with Bev but almost did once.
- I am not an election official.
- Have read all of HAVA, FEC std 1990, 2002, and at least the state laws of 25 states.
- Have very little programming skills other than learning Fortran and Basic in the 80's.
- Have followed almost every article on voting machines and every patent and published patent application on voting machines.

No cheating, Bev, or BBV admins...

[BevHarris]

62. Oh, now I know. I won't tell. Here's the dope on Georgia

"I was wondering of this Diebold thing is a set up by Diebold and or GA. Are they waiting for the official release of the book to say "We never release a patch for GA elections, we had old software that did fail and now we are recertifying for next election." In the Santa Clara report, Diebold claims to have had touch screen problems in GA but they could not fix the problem in time for the election because the fix was not certified. The Santa Clara report is on the county server somewhere i am told, i have a paper copy only. "

1. I have the .pdf of that report. Diebold never mentioned the multiple patches before the election, but said they had a buffer overrun problem during the election which they handled by going around turning machines off and on.

2. They can't claim they didn't install patches, at this point. Diebold gives a wishy-washy denial (we have no knowledge of that happening, some such thing) but we have a memo from the Secretary of State's office that refers to doing patches on all the machines, and we also have a written response from the Secretary of State's office that admits to the patches, plus I interviewed Michael Barnes, of the elections division of the S.O.S. office, and he actually admits to installing patches himself.

Also, the patches were done with vanloads of people driving all over the state, and it was kind of a production from a logistics point of view.

And, of course, we have the patches themselves...

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

66. still unconvinced

Malicious?

I read your lengthy ad hominem reply with much disappointment, albeit without much surprise.

I checked the source of my quotes from my earlier post, and it does in fact turn out that they came from Linda's prepared talking points. Specifically, I refer to the bit about the Italian mafia buying votes. I agree that you yourself have never (to my knowledge) said anything of the sort; your involvement was limited to posting said statement on your web site and directing people to it. Profoundest apologies for the mis-attribution. That being said, I do stand by my original point that the story in itself causes me concern over the possibility of vote-buying in the US. If Linda herself points out that it does in fact happen, then why am I to conclude that it won't or can't happen here? I suppose I need to ask Linda, so I won't trouble you for an answer. As I have explicitly stated, I am in favor of a paper receipt. I do however have concerns over the potential for vote-buying scams, voter identification issues, and the difficulty of handling claims by the voter (through mischief, fraud, or sheer incompetence) that the receipt doesn't reflect the intent of their vote. As you say, vote-buying is not one of your discussion points. It is one of Linda's, on a page that you referred me to. Either way, neither your own apparent indifference to the issue nor Linda's entirely spurious dismissal of it provides me with an intelligent rebuttal to arguments that might be made by the people I'm supposed to call and lobby.

You mentioned 112 miscounted elections, and I asked where this was documented. I thought it was a fair question. I even helpfully pointed out that the link in your original post was broken; perhaps this is where said documentation could be found. Your latest message indicates that it's documented in your book, which (unless I missed it) isn't available yet. That doesn't help me. Just like the case above where I'm supposed to (according to Linda) make the asinine argument that "smart crooks wouldn't choose to try the paper way" of perpetrating vote-buying election fraud, I'm now supposed to lobby people with claims about 112 miscounted elections for which I have no documentation or indeed any information whatsoever except that someone said so on a message board. Once again, I must defer on the grounds that I don't want to make the LWV think we're imbeciles.

You quote me as saying "show me the code that demonstrates either the voting machines are miscounting or GEMS is changing the results" and then respond with some apparently documented cases where machines miscounted some results. You also demonstrate something of a tendency to nit-pick over language and semantics instead of addressing actual issues or questions so let me reiterate as clearly as possible that my request was for someone to show me the code that demonstrates the miscounting or result-fixing, since it's been implied over and over and over again by various people that there's something intentionally malicious going on. If the code is available and the "fix is in" then where is it? I'm a professional programmer, I've looked, and I've missed it. If there's a better programmer than me here who can point me at the right place, I'll be thrilled. And I must admit I'm a little relieved by the revelation that there are allegedly 112 documented cases where machines miscounted -- it seems to me that if the evidence actually exists to demonstrate they miscounted then that's really the entire point of the debate.

Thank you for your sarcastic instruction in the ways of comparison by metaphor, I'm always happy to receive some free instruction from a professional writer whose grasp of the written word is so much better than my own. And if I may return the favor, let me give you a little free advice as a long-time professional software developer: stick to writing, and leave the software analysis to qualified professionals. The fact that you can't distinguish between a makefile and written source code demonstrates nothing but utter incompetence in this field, and any ensuing statements that you make in the area of software analysis and design are sure to reflect that. I solemnly promise not to write any books if you'll promise to refrain from insulting software developers everywhere with idiotic posts about source code (or other random files that are purported to be source code but clearly aren't).

In that same vein, I look forward to the big revelation about the secret inner workings of the atlps.dll library that you allude to in your post. I can only hope it's as compelling as yesterday's theory that the makefile appears to send a packet and then delete all evidence of itself.

I never referred to Slashdot. As a regular slashdot poster myself, I'll have to agree with you on at least one point: I'm quite certain that you don't instruct us on what to post. What I said was "your most ardent supporters", by which I meant the most vocal supporters of your efforts on this board and on your own forum, who have almost all expressed (with varying degrees of erudition) that Access is at best inappropriate for use in a vote-counting program, and at worst "an unreliable pile of steaming manure". As I said, I don't have a big problem with it but other people do and I'm content to disagree on the point.

I'll have to recheck all your recent posts to verify your claim that you've never actually used the word "conspiracy". I'll even concede the point, since it's a technicality. Certainly you've made the implication on several easily-demonstrable occasions, and that's good enough for me. You haven't actually said that Diebold is going to "have you killed" either, but you've made vague (and entirely laughable) implications of that ilk as well. Or maybe I just misinterpreted -- as you know, I'm not a writer by profession and I may have missed some of your usual carefully-crafted nuance with my feeble grasp of the language.


This is long and going nowhere. You made a call to action and I explained why I couldn't follow through, along with the reasons why and a request for some supporting information I could use. Your response is entirely unhelpful, both in tone and in content... you dismiss my questions as "poppycock" and dismiss me as a "disruptor". Shame.

Oh wait, upon re-reading your post I note that you were careful not to actually call me a "disruptor". Good use of nuance, that; you seem to do that a lot. I take the mis-attribution back. Apologies.

JC

[Fredda Weinberg]

68. The problem is real - that's why this is heartbreaking

the LWV is eager for a convincing argument - but like phoning supervisors of elections, this activity is counterproductive.

As I posted below, they have their priorities. I saw - and heard when I called - nothing that said the LWV had taken a position on paper ballots.

[Junkdrawer]

69. See post #67 n/t

.

[Fredda Weinberg]

71. and replied

 

[Fredda Weinberg]

49. I called the LWV

and was told they didn't have a position. When did this change?

[gristy]

50. I don't see any mention of this on their web site either

And they even have a section called "Where We Stand" which is where I would expect to find it.

So maybe someone at LWV stated an unofficial position? Their personal opinion?

[BevHarris]

51. My sources documenting opposition of LWV to a paper trail

1) Letter sent in from California voter, quoted at DU, in fact
2) Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, phone conversation with me on July 5, 2003
3) The New York Times (letter from LWV) June 2003
4) Dr. David Dill, e-mail to me, July 3 2003

Bev Harris

[Fredda Weinberg]

64. Not a single verifiable source

&bnspl

[Fredda Weinberg]

65. Here's what the LWV actually wrote - where are they against a paper trail?

June 5, 2003, Thursday

CIRCUITS
Voting by Computer

To the Editor:

The concerns raised about electronic voting machines in ''To Register Doubts, Press Here'' (May 15) are worrisome because they unnecessarily scare voters and ignore the larger problem: reforming election systems. Although it is important for voting machines to accommodate an individual audit, election reform is about much more.

It's about choosing machines that are accessible to all, providing provisional ballots to voters who need them, developing statewide voter registration databases, establishing procedures that protect against erroneous purges, recruiting and training poll workers, and educating voters.

Let's focus on protecting the right to vote and to have that vote counted.

KAY J. MAXWELL
Washington

The writer is president of the League of Women Voters.

Published: 06 - 05 - 2003 , Late Edition - Final , Section G , Column 4 , Page 7

[Junkdrawer]

67. Try here...

http://www.lwv.org/where/promoting/votingrights_hava_drevm.html

<snip>
It has been suggested that DRE machines are inherently subject to fraud unless there is an individual paper record of each vote. This seems extreme. DREs are extremely sophisticated machines and most DREs store information in multiple formats and in multiple places within its program. To tamper with a DRE someone would need to know each and every format and storage capacity and be able to manipulate it undetected. Additionally, it must be remembered that DREs are not an election system unto themselves; they are simply an instrument within a complex election system. The key is to design an overall system that builds in multiple checks making it improbable that the system will be tampered with.

The LWVUS does support an individual audit capacity for the purposes of recounts and authentication of elections for all voting systems, including, but not limited to, DREs. The LWVUS does not believe that an individual paper confirmation for each ballot is required to achieve those goals; in fact this is unnecessary and can be counterproductive. An individual paper confirmation for each ballot would undermine disability access requirements, raise costs, and slow down the purchase or lease of machines that might be needed to replace machines that don't work. Simply because a voter verifies their vote on a piece of paper does not guarantee the same results have been be recorded within the machine and vice versa. And why would we assume that, if the total from a paper count and the total from a machine count are different, the paper count is accurate? Is it not just as easy to tamper with an election by "losing" a couple of paper ballots or miscounting them during a recount? And what about the number of ballots involved? In Florida, in the 2000 presidential election, nearly 6 million votes were cast. Do we really believe that recounting that many paper ballots is more accurate than using certified electronic equipment?
<snip>

Which sounds a lot like what the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has put out:

http://www.electionline.org/site/docs/pdf/lccr_analysis_-_voter_verification.pdf

<snip>
Fact: Security and Reliability Concerns With DRE Machines Have Been Exaggerated
DREs are highly sophisticated, with most of them storing ballot records in multiple formats and in multiple locations. Furthermore, DREs are already required under federal law to create records that can be audited, and most machines currently provide not only the total vote tallies but also a record of how each individual ballot was cast. In many cases, like the machines used in Georgia, DREs produce 3 records of the vote: the official count, a backup count on a separate chip, and a paper record printed out once polls close. In order to rig a DRE, an individual would need to be intimately familiar with its software, gain access to it long enough to change its code, conceal the changes during pre- and postelection testing, and do this on enough machines to actually alter the outcome of an election. While such rigging is possible in theory, in practice it is highly improbable – in fact, in practice, it would be far easier to simply “lose” paper ballots.
<snip>

[Fredda Weinberg]

70. "We" seem extreme ... this campaign doesn't help

"The experts that we have consulted say that there are many safeguards other than an individual ballot paper confirmation that can protect the sanctity of the ballot and that other issues are far more important in safeguarding our election systems."

This is what basically what I heard. Now, who wants to tackle their legitimate questions?

"And why would we assume that, if the total from a paper count and the total from a machine count are different, the paper count is accurate? Is it not just as easy to tamper with an election by "losing" a couple of paper ballots or miscounting them during a recount? And what about the number of ballots involved? In Florida, in the 2000 presidential election, nearly 6 million votes were cast. Do we really believe that recounting that many paper ballots is more accurate than using certified electronic equipment?"

[Junkdrawer]

72. You just spent 3 posts saying "Not a single verifiable source"...

I think you owe Bev an apology.

As for their "legitimate questions", all we want is an audit trail for spot checks - a complete hand count only comes into play if the spot check fails. I'm sorry, but to my ear the cited argument sounds like a clever and calculated mischaracterization - typical of what we have encountered so far.

[Fredda Weinberg]

73. An apology? This wasn't on her list

"clever and calculated"? Sounds like we've gone beyond principled disagreement with the League's experts.

They're not against us. What you've posted is what I heard - grappling with the issue and priorities.

[Junkdrawer]

74. Ah..back to form.

Attacking at every opportunity and accusing anyone who puts up a defense of going beyond "principled disagreement". I'm sorry, but I think people have your number.

[Liberator_Rev]

52. Thanks for your great leadership on this issue, Bev.

Will do!

[BevHarris]

53. Outstanding! And as you know,

I find your own leadership to be absolutely inspiring. For those who don't know, Liberator Rev is actively reclaiming Christianity from the far right (it was never really there anyway, and he has statistics to prove it; Christ, of course, was most certainly a liberal...)

Glad to see you here, Rev. I still follow your posts, and have referred people to your site.

Bev

[LiberalLibra]

55. Bev: Had asked this above #47 but am afraid you may miss it, why....

....would the LWV oppose anything that would ensure the integrity of our elections?

I appologize ahead of time if you've covered this issue before but I've obviously missed it. So I want plenty of ammo when I contact these people so I need to understand the whys.

BTW, Thanks for going over this stuff for those of us who miss things along the way.

[DEMActivist]

56. LWV email dated 6/12/03 - with link

From: [e-mail]
To: (redacted)
Subject: The League of Women Voters: Election Reform, Voting Machines, Support Clean Air
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 03 22:32:21 GMT

Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Machines and Election Reform

The possibility of election fraud resulting from the use of DRE voting machines has been a topic of discussion as part of the implementation of the new Help America Vote Act. In an effort to address the concerns that have arisen, the League has considered expert opinions from all sides of the debate.

The LWVUS does support an individual audit capacity for the purposes of recounts and authentication of elections for all voting systems, including, but not limited to, DREs. The LWVUS does not believe that an individual paper confirmation for each ballot is required to achieve these goals. An individual paper confirmation for each ballot would undermine disability access requirements, raise costs, and slow down the purchase or lease of machines that might be needed to replace machines that don't work. The experts that we have consulted say that there are many safeguards other than an individual ballot paper confirmation that can protect the sanctity of the ballot and that other issues are far more important in safeguarding our election systems.

To read more about this issue go to
http://www.lwv.org/where/promoting/votingrights_hava_drevm.html

================================================

---

Can we put these unfounded accusations against Bev to bed now? Apologies anyone?

[BevHarris]

58. Wow! You found that early letter -- great job!

That letter sums it up.

To help address the points they raised:

An individual paper confirmation for each ballot would undermine disability access requirements,

I believe that Avante, which manufactures touch screens with a voter-verified paper trail, has a method to assist the blind.

raise costs, and slow down the purchase or lease of machines that might be needed to replace machines that don't work.

Having a voting system we can't trust is a high cost indeed.

Replace machines that don't work? Huh? Are we investing $3.9 billion of taxpayer money for junk sh*t machines? Oh, that was just the description of technicians testing machines in Georgia, 25% (or more) of which were malfunctioning at one point. Surely we won't buy those, will we? Those machines should never have been accepted in the first place, and manufacturers with a high defect rate need to step aside in favor of more reputable vendors, like Avante and Hart Intercivic. (Hart Intercivic needs a paper trail, though).

The experts that we have consulted say that there are many safeguards other than an individual ballot paper confirmation that can protect the sanctity of the ballot

Not exactly. The League of Women Voters HAS consulted with Dr. David Dill and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri and they have been told there are NO safeguards other than individual paper ballot confirmation that are adequate.

What they did was decide to take the word of the likes of R. Doug Lewis (was his training program the one that convinced county election officials it was "okay" to just erase votes and overwrite with new totals when they need to make a correction???)

And Shawn Southworth (whose certification center declined to answer questions posed by the California Task Force on Voting earlier this month).

Oh, and they probably listened very carefully to Dr. Brit Williams, the official voting machine examiner who said "these machines are not connected to any communications device," and assured us that passwords and audit logs will protect our vote.

Let's help the League of Women Voters understand that they can still do the right thing, they just listened to the wrong people.

Bev Harris

P.S. I don't think LibralLibra was making an accusation, she (he?) was probably just confounded and amazed at the position taken by LWV. It will help greatly when we can get more than 2 hours of sleep a night. Hopefully we are almost there...

Tinfoil, on the other hand, was unfounded.

[DEMActivist]

59. Didn't mean to direct it to LiberalLibra...sorry

I meant to respond to the thread in general, but DU2 is really making things tough lately. Growing pains, ya know....

LL, didn't mean to offend and I'm sorry if I did. I was directing my comments to the thread hijackers and accusatory tone in some of the replies.

[oasis]

63. We'll stay on it

there is far too much at stake.

[trumad]

75. I'd say post 56

pretty much sticks in the ass of the above naysayers who wanted proof... But I'm continually amazed that when the proof is offered they continue to obfuscate with such benign dribble.

[BevHarris]

76. TODAY: "We just wear them down" -- Voting machine vendors

Top activists, those on the level of Dr. David Dill, Dr. Douglas Jones, Kim Alexander and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, are out there running up against the opposition to auditable voting on a daily basis.

I stay in contact with these folks, some more than others. Here's what they are telling me: Do you know that Diebold and other vendors are still totally confident they will win this issue? Here's why:

They say people come up against them, but they just wear them down. Sooner or later, people just give up. That's the chatter behind the scenes.

They aren't worried about a little DU and BBV activism, calling the LWV and such. Sooner or later, we'll "just give up."

Meanwhile, they are steamrolling over America -- holding supposed town meetings about the machines, but burying official notice, and blitzing the local news media with happy-happy joy-joy press releases about how happy people are about the machines.

Please indicate that you are continuing to make contacts. Make just one more -- pick from the list of over 200 in the "Contacts" section at http://www.blackboxvoting.org

As you can see, this issue is REAL and if we don't act, we will get stomped. Let's not let them just "wear us down."

I will call the national office (again) today and have begun the media phase of this, incorporating the urgent need to change minds at LWV and Common Cause in every interview I do.

Bev Harris

[Junkdrawer]

77. Bev: check your PM

.