natty bumpo goes to washington

Bumpity bump bump bump. BUMP!

this could very well explain much, including the representatives regard for our 'focus groups' on political dissent. Read it. Vote now to restore the vote.

When you read the stories, please don't be too critical of things like my complete misrepresentation of data backup. I was desperate to include some juicy stuf in my new book "Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering In The 21st Century ".

Sure, I just speculate about how a crooked person could use their password to log into the system and conceivably manipulate some non-electronic ballots (absentee). But, then again, that's not much of scoop...

That was me. Aren't I clever? My mommy thinks so!

What ever you do don't look behind that BLACK Curtain.

We want you to think your elections are honest.

Have some Prozac.

Go back to sleep.

Disinformation attack?!

Read the two articles.

Then read this: http://elections.kennesaw.edu/services/gems_and_securityv2.ppt

(I know you won't, because you don't care enough. But if you did, it is a presentation on how they go about securing the system to minimize the opportunity for human error/crime)

Then ask yourself: who is presenting disinformation?

That would be me, Bev Davis! I'm trying to sell a book. Give me a break.

That was me. Aren't I clever? My mommy thinks so!

You will believe what you want to believe. You can either sift through the data and come to a reasoned conclusion or you can automatically side with one position or the other.

This is too important to ignore.

The official spin will always be to discount any “irregularities”. Bev Harris is not the first or the only to question the honesty of Black Box Voting. Notice that you get the standard Shill Line in the above post: “she’s writing a book”. This is supposed to plant in your mind the thought that she is writing the articles to hawk her book. Obviously because she is writing a book she “must be crooked”. This is a disinfo line to discredit the author.

You can count on Diebold’s PR Shills to be visiting Web Sites to try and counter any adverse reporting. After all this is their business and it represents a lot of money and Patronage.

You can also expect Shills for insiders benefitting from these crooked machines to be active as well.

Note: The mainstream Presswhores have not touched the story at all. You can draw 2 conclusions:

1. They have been ordered not to.
2. There is some “there” there.

More Data:

Bald-Faced Lies About Black Box Voting Machines
and
The Truth About the Rob-Georgia File

URL: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00078.htm
Backup at What Really Happened: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/blackbox.html

The following article is a follow up to the first one listed above and goes through the procedure step by step.

Inside a U.S. Vote Counting Program: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
Backup at What Really Happened: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/insideUSvote.html

Some Amazing Election Results:
Diebold Magic?: http://www.bartcop.com/111102fraud.htm


I would invite everyone to read ALL the data currently available and decide for yourself.

"You can draw 2 conclusions:"

Is that all? I drew a lot more than two.

Could it be you would not be willing to back them up?

Or can't?

This story is not going away.

You and the other Shills can distort and divert all you want.

A clean thread will be posted as needed.

I thought the whole reason for the migration to electronic voting was the problems with the old paper ballots (people, somehow, weren't able to vote for the candidate they intended to vote for).

And, as far as fraud is concerned, wouldn't it be easier to rig a paper-based election?

This is sensationalist reporting designed to sell books. Yes, the conservatives do it too. But to deny that this woman is writing a book because she has determined that there is demand from the "Bush Stole The Election" crowd is being naive. This is not a scholarly tome. Amazon should create a bundle and sell this book along with Michael Moore's crap.

Are you so dense they have to be listed for you?

I believe the reading audience is more intelligent than that. They can come up with more than 2 conclusions without my help.

Electronic totals with no auditable trail (or one that can be "cleaned up") are MUCH easier to cook than hard copy Paper Ballots counted by Citizens drawn at random from the precinct. The hard copy Ballots are confimable proof of voter intent.

The dishonest diversion on paper ballots concerns ONLY punch card ballots not hard copy Sheets marked with indelible pen.

Only an idiot would maintain otherwise. Or a Shill.

You have to be kidding. What makes you say that the electronic systems have an inferior audit trail to paper-based systems? That is asinine.

I would prefer a computer to tally my vote rather than a "citizen drawn at random", anyday.

You Luddites never give it up.

And that supposed to bother me because.........................?????

...obviously knows shit about auditing...

The standard against which electronic voting machines are compared to for calibration is a HAND COUNT you fucking moron.

You prove by your own words that you have NOT read the articles and DO NOT know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Calibrated against a handcount, huh?

I assumed that the "citizen drawn at random" would conduct a handcount...

And I assumed that the machine would conduct a machine count.

Sorry for the confusion.

...does not mean better it just means computerized.

The objective in a vote count is an honest count not a "convenient" or even "fast" count, but an honest and true count.

The only way to achieve that is with a Paper Ballot counted and tallied by honest people. One way to do that is to draw people from the precinct at random, the way you select a jury pool, and have them do the count. It requires 4 people.

A Reader
A Tallier
A Watcher to keep the other 2 honest.
Someone to transmit the Tally with the other 3 as Witnesses.

The Reader and Tallier should, ideally, be of different Parties. If possible the Watcher should be an independent or of a 3rd Party.

You replicate this at the district headquarters with, again, multiple safeguards.

If the programming of a Black Box that is not transparent and 100% traceable by a verifiable Audit Trail it is subject to "discrete" manipulation.

Diebold has consistently refused to make their Code public.

Why?

It is Copyrightable so it cannot be that they fear someone else will copy their code.

Therefore it is reasonable to infer another reason.

Perhaps the "Back Door" which would destroy the illusion of an honest count.

I would like to see a hard copy Paper Ballot that would be "tallied on hard copy Sheets marked with indelible pen". Not instead of current digital voting systems, but as an independent validation to them. If the numbers between the two are far off (>5%) from each other,
then I would question the count, and either do a recount or dismiss the vote. Think of it: >5% discrepancy should not be permissible. Are we really going to risk the "one person one vote" principle that the people of this country believe in? Are some of you ready to propose that?

I say this to those critical of an independent paper ballot.

What are your fears that you should lobby against this perfectly valid request? My fears are the misrepresentation of the will of the people and where that will lead (such as unelected officials). My fears have to do with the invitation to manipulation of the vote without the people's consent or knowledge.
If this does not concern you, why doesn't it? It must or I must question your motives. What are your real fears? If they make sense nothing I can say will alter that fact. We are listening. In the meantime the public needs to be alerted. To advocate sitting down on this one is to injure this country.

Alright, sometimes people get misled. Well, on this issue, this is definitely a case of "do the right thing". The outcome of this issue will affect hundreds of millions, if not billions, after all. So I'm going to the do most I can with my attention to this.

Last night I went to a meeting and the woman speaker* said that there was a basic rule where you have to make it More expensive to undermine voting safeguards than the possible rewards in order for someone Not to attempt to manipulate a vote. So what is the equation in the case of a presidential election?
Seems priceless to me, therefore my thinking self has to figure some one is going to try it.

It's that important. Which means it's that important to all of us. And the interest of the people is a mighty powerful thing once it gets focused. So Focus on this issue.

During this transition period, an active, living democracy requires conscious, dedicated oversight of the actual practices that the democracy is based on. The Vote must be validated. Period.

I hope what some of you are posting is true, that there is no reason to be concerned, that there are effective safeguard systems in place. I wish I didn't have to worry about this or make this a priority. But that's not the case. And so it is a priority. And will be for many others.

Spread the word...

*Laura Gelman, Assistant Director of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society

(She was very good. Spoke at a Gracenet meeting)

Yep, the previous title was wrong.

Let see what you comment on. Issues always strike me as more important than typos. Perhaps they do to you too.

I guess this communication is an example of what is called "...democracy by the people...".

Go Democracy of the United States, in the year 2003!

Indymedia lies/innuendo:

"Diebold has consistently refused to make their Code public.
Why?
It is Copyrightable so it cannot be that they fear someone else will copy their code.
Therefore it is reasonable to infer another reason.
Perhaps the "Back Door" which would destroy the illusion of an honest count."

--------

Reality:

"National laboratories selected by and monitored by the National Association of State
Election Directors (NASED) Voting System Board administer the Qualification tests.
During these tests the system is evaluated for accuracy, reliability, availability, and
maintainability. In addition, the system is subjected to various environmental conditions
that simulate the conditions under which an election system may be transported and
stored. A major component of these tests is a line-by-line examination of the source code
for the system. This review includes an evaluation of the function of each module of the
code to insure that no extraneous code is contained in the system. A complete description
of the Qualification tests can be found in the FEC Voting System Standards section on
the FEC web site: http://www.fec.gov.";

(Yes, they're talking about Diebold GEMS. Read it here:)

http://www.votescount.com/georgia.pdf

...and you will find out that the tests you cite do not address the issue of "openness".

Again you avoid the issues raised and documented in the above listed articles.

What do you mean by "openness"?

If you want to have a secure system, shouldn't the source code ONLY be shown to the election authorities?

...as long as the machines are isolated from intervention having the code publicly available is actually a security measure in that it demonstrates the exact procedures used.

However, Voting Machines without a Paper Trail to Audit are always subject to manipulation. There is no getting around it.

So your solution would be to have only the people doing the manipulations to have access to the code?

In my world, grass is blue.

means that there are a thousand eyes on the code excpt just a few.
backdoors can't hide. look at linux.

Good article.

Pandora's Black Box:
Did It Really Count Your Vote?: http://www.votefraud.org/relevance_o'halloran_pandora's_box.htm

They show the source code to the FEC. If the FEC approves it, a copy of the code (FEC approved) is sent to an escrow agency. Before tabulation at the local precinct, the local code is compared to the code held at the escrow agency. This assures us all that the local code is the same code that was approved by the FEC.

(And, no, I am not affiliated with any of these parties. I just believe in the truth. I love debate, but it is worthless debating if the premise is based on misinformation.)

...I - G - N -O - R - A - N - C - E.

Your post above proves you have not read ANY of the articles, no nothing about Programming, the ways in which such a system can be "Back Doored" and elections rigged.

You may continue prattling on in blissful ignorance but I do hope you will excuse the rest of us.

Actually given your willful ignorance I think is safe to conclude, as a working hypothesis, that all you are is another stinking PR Shill.

You show all the hallmarks:

1. Spout the Party Line.
2. Attack anyone who questions the Party Line.
3. When confronted with hard data that refutes your position return to a defense of the Party Line while totally ignoring any data which contradicts that position.

As writing styles are composed of personal quirks and yours bears a striking resemblence to a couple of departed Posters I think we can also speculate as to what your prior discarded Nicks are.

What part of my last post is not true? Don't call names. If you want to challenge what I say, please be specific.

I did read the two articles.
I am a programmer. Tell me how the sealed source code can be "back doored". Remember, the FEC has analyzed the code and placed it in escrow. The local source code is compared to the escrow code. Please enlighten us.

The articles you mention are alarmist and are limited to what can happen if somebody crooked logs into the system and falsifies absentee ballots. You make it sound like a crooked person couldn't conduct illegal activity in a paper-based system. Ever hear of Mugabe and his thugs and the last election? Ever hear of the Democrat absentee ballot scandals of Philadelphia and Chicago 2000?

Sure. I will stipulate that somebody can log into the system (if they have a login ID and password) and manipulate the paper ballots (absentee). But with the source code secure, you needn't worry about the system miscounting electronic votes.

...some of the key data and questions.

There is no reason to not make the code available for public view. Given the secretive operation of Diebold it is reasonable to suspect a reason for the secretivness. Given the limited market and Copyrights theft of the code does not work as a reason.

There is no need for modems yet they were installed.

The file loaded as a "patch" just prior to the Georgia election was not checked or certified. Funny that the filename was "robgeorgia". Interesting choice of filenames.

5 Congressional Races in the last election, in Districts with Diebold Machines, had Republican winners with IDENTICAL Vote Tallies of 18,181. 3 in Texas, 1 in Michigan, 1 in Maryland. The odds of that occuring naturally make winning the lottery seem like good odds.

Without being able to inspect the Source Code it is impossible to know whether there is or is not a back door. Bev Harris' Group appears to have proven the existence of a back door. The existence of one back door lends credence to the possibility of more. However, even manipulation of Absentee Ballots is enough to turn a close election.

Further I distrust on principle any system which does not provide a verifiable hard copy trail. Election results are too important to trust to an unverifiable BLACK BOX. There is no way to PROVE the results posted by the machine. It in not like election Fraud has never been known to occurr. I don't think even you would maintain that.

So I return to the point that the primary objective of a Vote Count is an honest and accurate Vote count. Speed and convienience are purely secondary to the primary objective of an HONEST Count. Their is nothing onerous in using a Broadsheet Paper Ballot and having it counted by hand with built in checks and balances and transparency. Further it is cheaper to boot. The Electronic voting Machine is a problem looking for a solution. It is neither needed nor wanted by any citizen desiring an honest election.

"5 Congressional Races in the last election, in Districts with Diebold Machines, had Republican winners with IDENTICAL Vote Tallies of 18,181. 3 in Texas, 1 in Michigan, 1 in Maryland. The odds of that occuring naturally make winning the lottery seem like good odds. "

If you would be so kind, please provide some verifiable data to support this.

By the way, don't waste your time with the MAryland Board of Elections site as all their data DOES NOT back this statement up.

But I'm sure they must be incorrect. Please give some proof.

...I mis-spoke - they were not all Congressional Races.
However, the data is otherwise correct.

Vote Watch: http://pub103.ezboard.com/fsoldiervoicefrm5.showMessage?topicID=73.topic

Michigan: Note Lapeer County: http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/election/results/02GEN/06010000.html

Maryland: Note District 36: http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/42electg/html/2002/2002del.html

Texas: http://mathforum.org/epigone/sci.math.num-analysis/wixchaikrung

Not the official Results Website but the Mathematical explanation is interesting and gives a possible explantion for the number 18,181.

Houston TV Station ABC Affiliate: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/110802_sn_number.html

I was wrong in one respect and stand corrected. They were not all House Seats. However, they were all Republicans and they were all Diebold Machines.

Thanks for the links. I appreciate it.

The numbers are somewhat interesting.

Mildly.

The good skeptic, which of course, I am, must ask, "How many of the TOTAL election machines inuse NATIONWIDE were Dielbold?", and of course, given the HUGE amount of races and results how many results matched up for Democrats?

Five in a field of well over thousands is hardly reason to jump staright to election rigging.

Mind you, I'm not saying it wasn't rigged, I'm simply saying that this minor coincidence may point to something bigger but much, much, much more evidence and answers are needed.

Until then....

Thanks for the links though.