(Election Humor)
While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."
"No problem, just let me in," says the man.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the senator.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course.In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress.
They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes.
They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises.
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
"I don't understand," stammers the senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar. I drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted."
[the post below is also election humor]
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Bio-Elections
by John Varley, in Wizard, Berkley Books, 1980:
Me, too, Rocky.
They're more like insects, actually, but water-breathing. They're true
colonies, with a hive brain like ants or bees. But they don't have a
queen.
They apparently hold free elections, complete with primaries and campaigns and propaganda in the form of pheromones released in the water at election time.
The winner is allowed to grow to be a meter long and holds office for seven kilorevs. His function is mainly morale. He releases chemicals that keep the hive happy.
At the end of the term the hive eats him. Sanest political system I
ever saw.~ Cirocco Jones
Me, too, Rocky.
US to NY: You Gotta HAVA Faulty Voting Machine
November 7, 2007 US to NY: You Gotta HAVA Faulty Voting Machine
In USA v. New York State Board of Elections, et al. (US District Court, Northern District of NY, Civil Action No. 06-CV-0263), Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney Brian Heffernan argues that even though no electronic voting systems exist that meet NY’s voting technology standards, NY must use the faulty technology.
He admits that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) allows states to develop stricter standards, but claims this is trumped by HAVA’s deployment deadline of January 1, 2006. New York has extended this deadline to allow high-tech vendors time to meet its stricter standards. None has yet done so.
According to Andi Novick, founder of Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, the effect of the federal government’s logic is, “It doesn’t matter that these machines are hackable, you must use them in the 2008 elections.”
Tonight, Novick spoke with Mary Ann Gould on Voice of the Voters, explaining:
She envisions HCPB being taught in high school civics, with senior students counting the official ballots on election night.
Novick and other speakers on Voice of the Voters decried how these machines have repeatedly failed the public, in practice and in the lab. Test after test after here show these machines can be hacked in less than a minute. Prior studies, including this one, reach the same conclusions: electronic voting is not securable, neither touchscreen nor optical scan.
Dan Rather attacked high technology from a different angle, showing how outsourcing the manufacture of our election systems further defeats democracy, with faulty equipment being built in sweatshop conditions.
The absurdity of the DOJ’s position goes even further. Heffernan worries that someone might get away with something:
If the federal government is magnanimous enough to grant immunity to such gross violations of law and liberty in the Land of the Free, certainly it can allow a State an extension when seeking a securable and well-designed voting system, despite HAVA’s arbitrary deployment deadline.
Heffernan cites federal supremacy over States’ rights, an argument that loses its validity as Congress and this Administration continue to support aggressive illegal wars, torture, extraordinary rendition, and the dismantling of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, centralized authority that ignores the rule of law is a growing problem, with waning legitimacy, and waning public support.
States are better positioned to defend a free society, and certainly it is within a State’s purview to reject voting systems that cannot be made secure. Honest citizens agree that the security of US elections trumps any willy-nilly law passed by the current crop of politicians.
High tech voting systems are a proven product failure. They represent privatization of public elections, denying access to ordinary citizens since expertise is required to review the source code. High tech voting systems– touchscreen and optical scan– thru the use of software, count the vote in secret, which violates one tenet of free and fair democratic elections.
Andi Novick offers a common sense response to the problem of privatized technology in our public elections. “We need a non-vendor public solution for our elections.” It is hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted at the precinct on election night, before all who wish to observe. This voting system is time-tested, the least expensive, and the most securable of all voting systems.
Sources and Further Reading:
Election Technology Tests:
Dan Rather’s video, The Trouble with Touch Screen, can be accessed at http://voteraction.org/
Free & Fair Elections, International Parliamentary Union, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ysca9t
In USA v. New York State Board of Elections, et al. (US District Court, Northern District of NY, Civil Action No. 06-CV-0263), Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney Brian Heffernan argues that even though no electronic voting systems exist that meet NY’s voting technology standards, NY must use the faulty technology.
He admits that the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) allows states to develop stricter standards, but claims this is trumped by HAVA’s deployment deadline of January 1, 2006. New York has extended this deadline to allow high-tech vendors time to meet its stricter standards. None has yet done so.
According to Andi Novick, founder of Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media, the effect of the federal government’s logic is, “It doesn’t matter that these machines are hackable, you must use them in the 2008 elections.”
Tonight, Novick spoke with Mary Ann Gould on Voice of the Voters, explaining:
“A HAVA-compliant system already exists. It’s far less expensive, requires no certification testing which costs taxpayers millions of dollars, and which has a proven track record: hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB).”
She envisions HCPB being taught in high school civics, with senior students counting the official ballots on election night.
Novick and other speakers on Voice of the Voters decried how these machines have repeatedly failed the public, in practice and in the lab. Test after test after here show these machines can be hacked in less than a minute. Prior studies, including this one, reach the same conclusions: electronic voting is not securable, neither touchscreen nor optical scan.
Dan Rather attacked high technology from a different angle, showing how outsourcing the manufacture of our election systems further defeats democracy, with faulty equipment being built in sweatshop conditions.
The absurdity of the DOJ’s position goes even further. Heffernan worries that someone might get away with something:
“To view this scenario otherwise would allow a state to ignore with impunity HAVA’s minimal federal voting systems requirements for however long it pleases.”Hmm. Is this anything akin to the telephone companies violating the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and various state and local laws by spying on US citizens for the federal government, with impunity?
If the federal government is magnanimous enough to grant immunity to such gross violations of law and liberty in the Land of the Free, certainly it can allow a State an extension when seeking a securable and well-designed voting system, despite HAVA’s arbitrary deployment deadline.
Heffernan cites federal supremacy over States’ rights, an argument that loses its validity as Congress and this Administration continue to support aggressive illegal wars, torture, extraordinary rendition, and the dismantling of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, centralized authority that ignores the rule of law is a growing problem, with waning legitimacy, and waning public support.
States are better positioned to defend a free society, and certainly it is within a State’s purview to reject voting systems that cannot be made secure. Honest citizens agree that the security of US elections trumps any willy-nilly law passed by the current crop of politicians.
High tech voting systems are a proven product failure. They represent privatization of public elections, denying access to ordinary citizens since expertise is required to review the source code. High tech voting systems– touchscreen and optical scan– thru the use of software, count the vote in secret, which violates one tenet of free and fair democratic elections.
Andi Novick offers a common sense response to the problem of privatized technology in our public elections. “We need a non-vendor public solution for our elections.” It is hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted at the precinct on election night, before all who wish to observe. This voting system is time-tested, the least expensive, and the most securable of all voting systems.
Sources and Further Reading:
Election Technology Tests:
California: http://tinyurl.com/yv7aaj
Florida: http://tinyurl.com/2xkzd4
Univ. of CT Oct. 2006 Diebold OpScam Report http://tinyurl.com/34pc49
Univ of CT July 2007 Diebold Touch Screen Report http://tinyurl.com/2u2t3n
Prior Studies: http://tinyurl.com/2gwlve
Dan Rather’s video, The Trouble with Touch Screen, can be accessed at http://voteraction.org/
Free & Fair Elections, International Parliamentary Union, 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ysca9t
I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici
December 15, 2007 I am Voter Hear Me Roar: Meet the New York Amici
Over 200 pages of legal documents from dozens of organizations, activists, election officials, and county legislators, representing tens of thousands of people, spoke on behalf of hand-counted paper ballots yesterday, through an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court), filed in USA vs. NY State Board of Elections.
In this federal case, the Dept. of Justice seeks to force New Yorkers to buy computerized voting systems, which have failed across the nation, election after election, and which the scientific community repeatedly condemns.
Attorneys Andi Novick and Jonathan Simon, from Election Defense Alliance, head the cooperative effort. Novick saluted the “cooperation and enthusiasm displayed by our colleagues across the election integrity spectrum,” noting that “it means a great deal in court, as well as in the court of public opinion, when so many groups and leaders pull together behind such a proposal.”
Dave Berman’s HCPB Forecast Tool provides the Court with a simple and effective means of calculating what it would cost New York to hire a 4-person hand-counting team per precinct (Election District) should the court allow it.
Also on December 14th, Ohio released the results of its “Project EVEREST,” but not in time to be included in the annotated bibliography of expert reports submitted in the New York case.
Ohio’s team looked at Hart InterCivic, ES&S and Premier (fka Diebold), and all systems are still hackable. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner insists Cuyahoga County will switch to a computerized, networked system that uses centralized tabulation, a process wholly condemned in the scientific literature.
The Quotes
But, ignoring that absurdity for now, have a bowl or a glass of wine (or for those who can relax without chemical assistance, sit back) and quietly contemplate these gems of wisdom from people who stand for government by the people:
Friend of the court, Joel Tyner, NY Dutchess County Legislator, continues:
Nancy Tobi of New Hampshire writes:
Citing NY history (above) to make her point, Tobi continues:
Author and four-time research award winner, Professor Steven Freeman states in his Declaration:
Ulster County Legislator Gary Bischoff, who chairs the Efficiency, Reform and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, asserts:
Pokey Anderson of Houston’s radio news show, The Monitor, writes to the Court:
She goes on to quote others, starting with former National Security Agency code-breaker, Michael Wertheimer:
She also quotes computer security professional Dr. David Dill:
And another computer security professional, Bruce O’Dell:
Peacemakers of NY Schoharie County supports the proposition that
Federal election ballots could be hand counted in 2008 (and Peacemakers) commits to participating in the hand counting of ballots. Wayne Stinson promises:
Parallel Elections use a hand-counted paper ballot system, and are run outside of an official polling site. PE organizer and national speaker, Judy Alter, then analyzes the difference between official results and voter reports of how they voted. She writes:
Karen Charman of the Ulster County Shandaken Democrat Club recognizes the precarious position in which computerized voting systems puts us:
Susan Zimet writes in her amicus Declaration:
ARISE.org spokesperson Dennis Karius declares:
ARISE is made up of thousands of active citizens thru congregations and community groups in the tri-county area of Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady in the CapitalDistrict. As part of this amici team, it stands for voters.
So did Abraham Lincoln:
Abe is quoted by Mary Ann Gould (Voice of the Voters Radio) in her Declaration.
Hand Count in 4 Hours
Everyone involved in this team of amici assures New York that if the Court rules for hand-counting the two federal elections in NY’s November 2008 election, they will bring enough people to get the job done in less than four hours.
Dave Berman and I crunched the numbers that allowed us to conclude:
Oral Hearing Next Thursday
Jonathan Simon will appear for oral arguments being heard on Thursday, December 20th at 9 AM, at the US District Court, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207. He explains:
He’s confident in the merits of the HCPB position, “which I hope will prick the interest of the court.
The brief (p.14) points out the most important interest - that the public be able to “see” the vote count:
Given the millions of voters whose interests are represented by the HCPB amicus team, a democratic election run by the people will again have its day in court.
Over 200 pages of legal documents from dozens of organizations, activists, election officials, and county legislators, representing tens of thousands of people, spoke on behalf of hand-counted paper ballots yesterday, through an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court), filed in USA vs. NY State Board of Elections.
In this federal case, the Dept. of Justice seeks to force New Yorkers to buy computerized voting systems, which have failed across the nation, election after election, and which the scientific community repeatedly condemns.
Attorneys Andi Novick and Jonathan Simon, from Election Defense Alliance, head the cooperative effort. Novick saluted the “cooperation and enthusiasm displayed by our colleagues across the election integrity spectrum,” noting that “it means a great deal in court, as well as in the court of public opinion, when so many groups and leaders pull together behind such a proposal.”
Dave Berman’s HCPB Forecast Tool provides the Court with a simple and effective means of calculating what it would cost New York to hire a 4-person hand-counting team per precinct (Election District) should the court allow it.
Also on December 14th, Ohio released the results of its “Project EVEREST,” but not in time to be included in the annotated bibliography of expert reports submitted in the New York case.
Ohio’s team looked at Hart InterCivic, ES&S and Premier (fka Diebold), and all systems are still hackable. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner insists Cuyahoga County will switch to a computerized, networked system that uses centralized tabulation, a process wholly condemned in the scientific literature.
The Quotes
But, ignoring that absurdity for now, have a bowl or a glass of wine (or for those who can relax without chemical assistance, sit back) and quietly contemplate these gems of wisdom from people who stand for government by the people:
This … federal takeover of a state election board … is ‘bizarre and unworkable.’
Friend of the court, Joel Tyner, NY Dutchess County Legislator, continues:
Secret vote counting is not only unconstitutional, but is un-American. All touch screen and optical scan voting machines … count the votes (in) secret... This is beyond absurd— from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Nancy Tobi of New Hampshire writes:
“New York’s Constitution of 1777 makes the observation that a vote cast on a tangible ballot preserves democracy better than one cast in the air:
And whereas an opinion hath long prevailed among divers of the good people of this State that voting at elections by ballot would tend more to preserve the liberty and equal freedom of the people than voting viva voce…
Citing NY history (above) to make her point, Tobi continues:
With the advent of computerized voting, a new form of voting viva voce has made its way into the nation’s elections, with the lion’s share of America’s total ballots now being counted – and often cast – in the Ethernet.
Author and four-time research award winner, Professor Steven Freeman states in his Declaration:
There is little question but that elections using newer HAVA-indicated op-scan and Direct Record Electronic machines can be stolen. Indeed, it has been proven time and time again.
Ulster County Legislator Gary Bischoff, who chairs the Efficiency, Reform and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, asserts:
Our democracy depends on citizens to express their will and choices in a repeatable, fair and reliable election.
Pokey Anderson of Houston’s radio news show, The Monitor, writes to the Court:
While there has always been manipulation in elections, the difference between stealing in a hand-counted paper ballot election and an electronic election is the difference between successfully robbing a convenience store and successfully robbing Fort Knox.
She goes on to quote others, starting with former National Security Agency code-breaker, Michael Wertheimer:
If you believe, as I do, that voting is one of our critical infrastructures,
then you have to defend it like you do your power grid, your water supply.
She also quotes computer security professional Dr. David Dill:
Think about it rationally. What are the assets being protected? If we're talking presidential elections or control of Congress, there aren't a lot of assets in this world in monetary terms that are worth more than that. You're talking about the whole US economy.
And another computer security professional, Bruce O’Dell:
The technology to invisibly compromise voting systems is mature and the rewards are essentially limitless. It’s professionally irresponsible to not presume vulnerable extreme-high-value systems are already actively being exploited.
Peacemakers of NY Schoharie County supports the proposition that
Federal election ballots could be hand counted in 2008 (and Peacemakers) commits to participating in the hand counting of ballots. Wayne Stinson promises:
“We will actively promote other citizens’ engagement in the process.”
Parallel Elections use a hand-counted paper ballot system, and are run outside of an official polling site. PE organizer and national speaker, Judy Alter, then analyzes the difference between official results and voter reports of how they voted. She writes:
We will continue to hold parallel elections and train others to do the same so that we can demonstrate the assault (machines have) on our democracy.
Karen Charman of the Ulster County Shandaken Democrat Club recognizes the precarious position in which computerized voting systems puts us:
If the people lose control over the election process, they lose the right
to govern themselves.
The inalienable right of self-governance rests squarely on the
integrity of our elections. We believe that only an observable transparent count of the votes can protect our elections and our sovereignty.
Our organization will volunteer to assist our county in finding as many
volunteers as we need to help hand count the elections should the Court order same.
Susan Zimet writes in her amicus Declaration:
As a County Legislator, I will not allow my constituents to be
disenfranchised on unreliable and theft enabling machines. I am prepared to take whatever legal action is necessary for the voters of Ulster County to know that their vote was counted accurately.
We have been looking for the most secure means to provide our
constituents with … a transparent, accountable, fair and reliable electoral system. Hand counting of the Federal Elections is HAVA
compliant.
I will personally assist in organizing citizens in my county to be
trained and available to hand count elections in my county should the Court order same. I know of many Ulster County residents that would gladly make themselves available to assure that we could successfully accomplish this endeavor.
ARISE.org spokesperson Dennis Karius declares:
Where there’s a will there’s a way and the people are willing to help our officials effect our will through the most secure, reliable, transparent electoral system that exists: hand-counted elections.
ARISE is made up of thousands of active citizens thru congregations and community groups in the tri-county area of Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady in the CapitalDistrict. As part of this amici team, it stands for voters.
So did Abraham Lincoln:
Elections belong to the people. It is their decision.
Abe is quoted by Mary Ann Gould (Voice of the Voters Radio) in her Declaration.
Hand Count in 4 Hours
Everyone involved in this team of amici assures New York that if the Court rules for hand-counting the two federal elections in NY’s November 2008 election, they will bring enough people to get the job done in less than four hours.
Dave Berman and I crunched the numbers that allowed us to conclude:
In most of the counties studied only one team of four will be needed per (Election District of 1,150 registered voters) to complete hand-counting in four hours or less.
Oral Hearing Next Thursday
Jonathan Simon will appear for oral arguments being heard on Thursday, December 20th at 9 AM, at the US District Court, 445 Broadway, Albany, NY 12207. He explains:
“It is a lot less likely that I will be called upon to give an oral presentation per se; more likely that, if the court sees merit in or takes an interest in our brief, I may be asked questions about areas we have covered.”
He’s confident in the merits of the HCPB position, “which I hope will prick the interest of the court.
"I think the sheer number of groups and individuals who have signed on will help in that regard… But a lot of it will be determined by the interests of the court and the parties.”
The brief (p.14) points out the most important interest - that the public be able to “see” the vote count:
Electronic voting machines have caused citizens to lose their ability to
observe and oversee the voting process. For this reason the use of computers destroys the basis for legitimacy of elections and the elected government.
The loss of these integral aspects of the right to vote is in direct
violation of the repeated pronouncements of the highest court in New York that the constitutional right to vote includes the right to "see" that one's vote was "given full force and effect."
Deister v Wintermute, supra at 108
Given the millions of voters whose interests are represented by the HCPB amicus team, a democratic election run by the people will again have its day in court.
Inherent Uncertainty and NH's Primary Results
January 9, 2008 Inherent Uncertainty and NH's Primary Results
“I don’t trust in your statistics; I ain’t got no crystal ball. If I had a million dollars, well, I’d, I’d spend it all to Hand Count Paper Ballots. Toss those vote machines away. Pay my neighbors to guard the ballot box all day…” Santeria Ballots (with much apology to Sublime).
Blogs are bursting over the fact that ALL the major pollsters, including Hillary’s and Barack’s internal polling, had Obama winning New Hampshire’s presidential primary election.
Yet in a surreal recurring nightmare, official results say otherwise.
Votes that are recorded and counted in secret only and always produce inherent uncertainty. There’s no way around it. It’s why election experts from around the globe, when describing democratic elections, call for a secret vote and a transparent vote count.
Specifically as to vote counting, Goodwin-Gill notes in Free and Fair Elections,
But with an ever-expanding mountain of scientific condemnation of software-driven election systems, there is no basis for confidence in results from software-driven machines.
Because 1/5 of New Hampshire’s ballots are counted by hand, we can compare results from hand-counted precincts with computerized results. Lori Price, of Citizens for Legitimate Government, produced that comparison, which shows that in hand-counted precincts, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton 39-35%. Ron Paul’s War Room is questioning the results in this 6-minute video, asking for a hand count.
Bob Koehler (Tribune Media Services) writes:
Bev Harris reports:
Nancy Tobi, of Democracy for New Hampshire, notes in an email:
Dave Berman describes this idea in two ways:
He explains further, in tonight’s email to me:
Instead of fighting about who was right, the pollsters or the machines, we are better served by removing machines from public elections and reaching conclusive outcomes - results that can be repeatedly verified by anyone.
We do this by upgrading to hand-counted paper ballots at the precinct, on election night, before all who wish to observe. Results are then posted at the precinct for all to verify.
There are several hundred precincts in the nation that still hand count paper ballots, on election night. It takes 4-5 hours, depending on the number of counting teams. It’s done at the precinct level, which handles about 1,000 registered voters. A fresh team of counters can be pooled from the list of registered voters, and the audit verification is part of the hand-counting process.
Hand-counting is simple – we’ve been doing it for over 125 years on a mass scale. It’s the least expensive, and the easiest to secure from fraud. It is a “high order civic duty” according to Sally Castleman, Executive Director of Election Defense Alliance.
Transparent vote counting will yield inherent certainty, since any group of people can count the voter-prepared ballots to arrive at the same conclusive outcomes. This is what we deserve and demand.
Call or write your representative and demand these machines be banned from use in the United States. Stand up for transparent vote counting that leads to conclusive results. Stand up for democracy. Do it now.
“I don’t trust in your statistics; I ain’t got no crystal ball. If I had a million dollars, well, I’d, I’d spend it all to Hand Count Paper Ballots. Toss those vote machines away. Pay my neighbors to guard the ballot box all day…” Santeria Ballots (with much apology to Sublime).
Blogs are bursting over the fact that ALL the major pollsters, including Hillary’s and Barack’s internal polling, had Obama winning New Hampshire’s presidential primary election.
Yet in a surreal recurring nightmare, official results say otherwise.
Votes that are recorded and counted in secret only and always produce inherent uncertainty. There’s no way around it. It’s why election experts from around the globe, when describing democratic elections, call for a secret vote and a transparent vote count.
Specifically as to vote counting, Goodwin-Gill notes in Free and Fair Elections,
“votes are tallied in a process that inspires confidence in the electorate.” (p.152)
But with an ever-expanding mountain of scientific condemnation of software-driven election systems, there is no basis for confidence in results from software-driven machines.
Because 1/5 of New Hampshire’s ballots are counted by hand, we can compare results from hand-counted precincts with computerized results. Lori Price, of Citizens for Legitimate Government, produced that comparison, which shows that in hand-counted precincts, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton 39-35%. Ron Paul’s War Room is questioning the results in this 6-minute video, asking for a hand count.
Bob Koehler (Tribune Media Services) writes:
The fact is, whatever actually happened in New Hampshire voting booths on Tuesday, our elections are horrifically insecure. For instance, Bev Harris, of the highly respected voting watchdog organization Black Box Voting, recently wrote that the Diebold 1.94w optical scan machines used by 80% of New Hampshire’s voters are "the exact same make, model and version hacked in the Black Box Voting project in Leon County (Florida)" a few years ago. They haven'tThis 10-minute video shows LHS’s president lying about the fixes to these optical scans, and it shows how easily optical scan machines can thwart the authentic vote.
been upgraded; the security problems haven't been fixed.
Bev Harris reports:
LHS Associates programs every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine.
But did state officials in five New England states ever do a criminal background check on this company's executives? Do the laws of these five states even ALLOW them to hire convicted criminals for services paid for by the state? What about over 500 local towns and municipalities?
According to my sources, LHS Marketing and Sales Director Kenneth Hajjar … pled guilty to "sale / CND" and was sentenced to 12 months in the Rockingham County Correctional facility, and fined $2000. As things go for the politically connected, he was then given a deferred sentence and $1000 of his fine was suspended.
Hajjar doesn't limit his involvement in the voting machine business to
sales. According to an interview conducted by Brad Friedman, Hajjar totes memory cards around in the trunk of his car and defends the boggling concept of swapping out memory cards during the middle of elections.
Nancy Tobi, of Democracy for New Hampshire, notes in an email:
We do have a lot of questions. But we will never have answers as long as we have privatized secret vote counting. The questions are out there and maybe eventually will cause enough people to want to stop asking the questions and get rid of corporate-run elections.Why do the powers-that-be insist we use hackable voting machines? When experts tell us that optical scan systems are just as hackable as touch-screen systems, why is anyone using either? Why invoke inherent uncertainty in reported results?
Dave Berman describes this idea in two ways:
[W]e have the intentional creation and perpetuation of inherent uncertainty. It serves the power structure to keep the masses divided. Wedge issues are just the most superficial and obvious ways. More insidious and apparently not as easy to recognize is the rift in the perception of reality created by inherent uncertainty.
He explains further, in tonight’s email to me:
I think inherent uncertainty is intentionally created through various means including sheer laziness and false balance, but also in situations where "truth" can never really be known - secret vote counting, for example. Whatever is published is presented as if it were a certain fact….
Leaving it to the media consumer to decide also facilitates a rift in the
perception of reality. This is the linchpin of it all, since matters of fact are forcibly devolved into differences of opinion that can never be resolved (since we can never know the true outcome of any election counted in secret).
Instead of fighting about who was right, the pollsters or the machines, we are better served by removing machines from public elections and reaching conclusive outcomes - results that can be repeatedly verified by anyone.
We do this by upgrading to hand-counted paper ballots at the precinct, on election night, before all who wish to observe. Results are then posted at the precinct for all to verify.
There are several hundred precincts in the nation that still hand count paper ballots, on election night. It takes 4-5 hours, depending on the number of counting teams. It’s done at the precinct level, which handles about 1,000 registered voters. A fresh team of counters can be pooled from the list of registered voters, and the audit verification is part of the hand-counting process.
Hand-counting is simple – we’ve been doing it for over 125 years on a mass scale. It’s the least expensive, and the easiest to secure from fraud. It is a “high order civic duty” according to Sally Castleman, Executive Director of Election Defense Alliance.
Transparent vote counting will yield inherent certainty, since any group of people can count the voter-prepared ballots to arrive at the same conclusive outcomes. This is what we deserve and demand.
Call or write your representative and demand these machines be banned from use in the United States. Stand up for transparent vote counting that leads to conclusive results. Stand up for democracy. Do it now.
Writers Campaign for Transparent Vote Counting
January 10, 2008 Writers Campaign for Transparent Vote Counting
This collection of articles on New Hampshire's disparity between hand-counted precincts and machine-tabulated precincts contain a wealth of resource and video links from most of the biggest names in election integrity. The best and the brightest have written with persuasion, arguing for transparency. Most articles contain action links, to write Congress and newspapers. Spread the word.
###
For any who missed this collection of articles on NH’s disparity between hand-counted precincts and machine-tabulated precincts, these articles contain a wealth of resource and video links from most of the biggest names in election integrity. The best and the brightest have written with persuasion, arguing for transparency.
Rob Kall and Joan Brunwasser of OpEdNews.com organized a writer’s campaign, so most of these articles (except the last few) contain action links that allow you to draft a letter to your local newspaper or to Congress. OpEdNews will send the letter for you.
The only way we will have a reliable vote count is if we count the ballots ourselves. EDA is taking the Humboldt County Voter Confidence Committee’s idea and organizing a national list of willing hand counters. See the “I COUNT” article by Andi Novick and Sally Castleman to sign up.
As Rob points out, Super Tuesday is just around the corner. Citizens who face the threat to our democracy wrought by secret vote counting will be those who use these action articles to write their members of Congress, and/or their local newspapers. Or, they're already organizing their own campaigns for election integrity or justice.
Spread the word. Maybe one or more of these articles will inspire citizens to stand up for transparent vote counting, a basic tenet of democratic elections.
~ Rady
Do New Hampshire Vote Count Questions Harbinger Super Tuesday Vote Theft Disaster?by Rob Kall
We were warned that there could be problems with vote counts, because of e-voting vulnerabilities. The warnings came true. And now, we face a disastrous set of e-vote rigging risks on Super Tuesday.
Before the New Hampshire primaries we were warned:
By Nancy Tobi: NH: NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting)
By Michael Collins: ALL Diebold ALL the Time - It's the New Hampshire Primary
By Bev Harris: The Cat That Controls New Hampshire Election Programming
Oh, no, the mainstream/corpsestream media didn’t say a word. The Democratic party didn’t mention it. They’re afraid to dampen voter turnout. But we sure covered it. Thers were headlined stories.
We expected vote count problems. And lo and behold, when the word came in that there were huge discrepancies between electronic and paper ballot records, we were not surprised. And the corpsestream media failed to cover the story.
Sure, they asked questions, “Why did the pollsters fail?” They even convened special discussions, unfortunately, using the regular pundits. And of course, nothing was mentioned of the data that explained WHY THE POLLS FAILED.
It didn’t’ take long for the reports to come in and for our writers to report on them. As soon as the first one came in, I decided to jump on this—that it was a major, important story that I knew the mainstream media would pass on, even though, just this past weekend, the NY Times did a major article on it in its magazine.
I contacted our voting integrity editor, Joan Brunwasser and asked her to put out the word to our team of voting integrity writers and activists. We put a 12 noon Thursday deadline on the articles. OpEdNews is generally a volunteer site. Writers submit articles they’ve written. They don’t do articles on assignment and they don’t do them with deadlines.
So this is something new. We put the deadline on it because the freshness of the New Hampshire story would quickly be lost in the news cycle.
The word went out and the stories started to come in. Here they are:
The Surprising Democratic Primary Results in New Hampshire By Pokey Anderson. The pundits speak for themselves and the NH results. [Live broadcast, evening of January 8, 2008, New Hampshire Public Radio. NHPR comments are notes ...
Primary Concerns By Bob Koehler. No one wants to risk spoiling the fun of primary season with downer news about voting machine insecurity. If only red flags were considered patriotic.
Obama-Clinton: Opscan v. Handcount Results By Bruce O'Dell. Based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, wh...
In the Meantime, in Between Time, Ain’t We Got Fun? By Michael Green. The New Hampshire Primary is a straightforward fraud in which electronic voting machines were programmed to shift votes away from Barak Obama and add ...
"Hey Ron Paul, I'm in your primary stealing your votez" By Amy Demiceli. Not even twenty four hours passed before reports of fraud surfaced in New Hampshire, it began in the town of Sutton. Initially the reports released sa...
Alarms Should Go Off Whenever the Discrepancies Between the "Official" Results and the Polls Can't Be Explained By Andi Novick. In all other countries we understand that when the "official" results are so different from the polling results, the "official" results must be questi...
Inherent Uncertainty and NH’s Primary Results By Rady Ananda. Blogs are bursting over the fact that ALL the major pollsters, including Hillary's and Barack's internal polling, had Obama winning New Hampshire's primary. We’ll never know because software driven devices invoke inherent uncertainty.
Criminal Record Of Kenneth Hajjar- New England Voting Machine Firm ExecBy Bev Harris. They program every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. But did state officials in fi...
How John Edwards Can (Still) Win the NH Primary By Emily Levy. Questions about the accuracy of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary election results provide a perfect opportunity for Democratic presidential candid...
Getting the Framing on Election Polling Right By Mary Howe Kiraly. Polling, especially exit polling, is a well-recognized science. Computerized voting, on the other hand, is vulnerable to human error,programming error,and ...
New Hampshire Election Fraud By Ron Corvus. New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the...
99 Ways to Steal Elections: The Story of John Fund and Ron Paul by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. We need a Ballot Bomb to pay for a Whistle Blower: $1,000,000.00 will loosen a lot of lips. This way we can make all the Greedy, corporate, pundits, think tanks, and greed candidates cry.
Clinton Tainted Victory In New Hampshire By Allen L Roland. Voting irregularities in New Hampshire point not only to the previously discredited Diebold Accuvote optical scan but to the distinct possibility that...
Sign Up To Take Back Our Elections – The "I Count" Corps By Andi Novick and Sally Castleman. It is time for us to take back control of our elections. Machines have shown themselves to be unreliable and vulnerable to tampering. The unexplainable discrepancies between polling and the official count have only risen in proportion to the use of computers in our elections.
New Hampshire Vote Results – Are They For Real? By Jean Hay Bright. Things don't add up in New Hampshire. I cast my vote for a recount.
Can You Spell Deep Trouble? By James Strait If you have even the slightest interest in voting integrity.....well, The CITIZENS of New York State are in the tall grass without a lawn mower. All while the bureaucrats twiddle their pudgy little thumbs.
Votergate Redux 2008: A Look At The Exit Polls By S.Drobny This is what I wrote in OpEdNews in 11/04 and was picked up by my friend John Zogby. Votergate 2004: We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.
Fraud US-Style: Fake Videos and Elections By Stephen Lendman. More evidence showing official news reports can't be trusted.
99 Ways To Steal Elections: The Story of John Fund and Ron Paul By Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. We need a Ballot Bomb to pay for a Whistle Blower: $1,000,000.00 will loosen a lot of lips. This way we can make all the Greedy, corporate, pundits, think tanks, and greed candidates cry.
(Rob continues:)
Now, the problem is not just with New Hampshire. The terrifying threat is Super Tuesday. With so many states running primaries on February 5th, there is a frightening likelihood, given recent history, that more vote count abuse will take place.
Maybe there’s a reason the Democrats have failed miserably at passing legislation to make voting safe, verifiable, reliable and trustworthy. Maybe they feel they can use the vulnerabilities of the system to meet their own interests. It is too late to do serious correction to the problems. But, at the least, congress could pass legislation requiring any voter who chooses to do so to use a paper ballot to vote on.
At the least, primary candidates, particularly democratic candidates, since the Dems have a history of failing to challenge vote rigging, should declare ahead of time and promise that they will look at vote rigging issues and demand recounts if questions arise. The risk on February 5th that some vote count corruption will occur is huge.
What can you do? Tell your federal legislators to do something already. Contact your local daily paper and ask them to cover this issue. It’s a new story, a new angle—potential vote rigging on Super Tuesday!.
Contact your favorite mainstream media—CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Al Jazeera, the Guardian… and then tell your favorite left wing news publishing sites too—Salon, Huffington Post, Village Voice, Raw Story, Alternet, TalkingPoints memo, The Nation, Counterpunch, Truthout, Think Progress, Buzzflash, SmirkingChimp, TomPaine, InformationClearinghouse.
Tell them to reprint articles, aggregate articles, ask their writers to write articles. Contact your favorite TV hosts—Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers, Wolf Blitzer, Jack Caffrey, Bill O’Reilly (not,) Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert. Tell them to cover this issue. Ask them why, when they explore what went wrong with the polls in New Hampshire, they failed to talk about e-vote problems, about the one man who has his hand in over 80% of NH vote counts.
It is shameful that the Dems have failed to pass legislation that protects the trustworthiness of the vote. Time is short. Already, the failure to pass legislation has introduced doubt and mistrust into our primaries. It is time to end this embarassing phase in the history of democracy.
Tell your legislators, your local media to deal with this firmly and finally, so Americans no longer have to worry about the trustworthiness of the election system.
This collection of articles on New Hampshire's disparity between hand-counted precincts and machine-tabulated precincts contain a wealth of resource and video links from most of the biggest names in election integrity. The best and the brightest have written with persuasion, arguing for transparency. Most articles contain action links, to write Congress and newspapers. Spread the word.
###
For any who missed this collection of articles on NH’s disparity between hand-counted precincts and machine-tabulated precincts, these articles contain a wealth of resource and video links from most of the biggest names in election integrity. The best and the brightest have written with persuasion, arguing for transparency.
Rob Kall and Joan Brunwasser of OpEdNews.com organized a writer’s campaign, so most of these articles (except the last few) contain action links that allow you to draft a letter to your local newspaper or to Congress. OpEdNews will send the letter for you.
The only way we will have a reliable vote count is if we count the ballots ourselves. EDA is taking the Humboldt County Voter Confidence Committee’s idea and organizing a national list of willing hand counters. See the “I COUNT” article by Andi Novick and Sally Castleman to sign up.
As Rob points out, Super Tuesday is just around the corner. Citizens who face the threat to our democracy wrought by secret vote counting will be those who use these action articles to write their members of Congress, and/or their local newspapers. Or, they're already organizing their own campaigns for election integrity or justice.
Spread the word. Maybe one or more of these articles will inspire citizens to stand up for transparent vote counting, a basic tenet of democratic elections.
~ Rady
Do New Hampshire Vote Count Questions Harbinger Super Tuesday Vote Theft Disaster?by Rob Kall
We were warned that there could be problems with vote counts, because of e-voting vulnerabilities. The warnings came true. And now, we face a disastrous set of e-vote rigging risks on Super Tuesday.
Before the New Hampshire primaries we were warned:
By Nancy Tobi: NH: NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting)
By Michael Collins: ALL Diebold ALL the Time - It's the New Hampshire Primary
By Bev Harris: The Cat That Controls New Hampshire Election Programming
Oh, no, the mainstream/corpsestream media didn’t say a word. The Democratic party didn’t mention it. They’re afraid to dampen voter turnout. But we sure covered it. Thers were headlined stories.
We expected vote count problems. And lo and behold, when the word came in that there were huge discrepancies between electronic and paper ballot records, we were not surprised. And the corpsestream media failed to cover the story.
Sure, they asked questions, “Why did the pollsters fail?” They even convened special discussions, unfortunately, using the regular pundits. And of course, nothing was mentioned of the data that explained WHY THE POLLS FAILED.
It didn’t’ take long for the reports to come in and for our writers to report on them. As soon as the first one came in, I decided to jump on this—that it was a major, important story that I knew the mainstream media would pass on, even though, just this past weekend, the NY Times did a major article on it in its magazine.
I contacted our voting integrity editor, Joan Brunwasser and asked her to put out the word to our team of voting integrity writers and activists. We put a 12 noon Thursday deadline on the articles. OpEdNews is generally a volunteer site. Writers submit articles they’ve written. They don’t do articles on assignment and they don’t do them with deadlines.
So this is something new. We put the deadline on it because the freshness of the New Hampshire story would quickly be lost in the news cycle.
The word went out and the stories started to come in. Here they are:
The Surprising Democratic Primary Results in New Hampshire By Pokey Anderson. The pundits speak for themselves and the NH results. [Live broadcast, evening of January 8, 2008, New Hampshire Public Radio. NHPR comments are notes ...
Primary Concerns By Bob Koehler. No one wants to risk spoiling the fun of primary season with downer news about voting machine insecurity. If only red flags were considered patriotic.
Obama-Clinton: Opscan v. Handcount Results By Bruce O'Dell. Based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, wh...
In the Meantime, in Between Time, Ain’t We Got Fun? By Michael Green. The New Hampshire Primary is a straightforward fraud in which electronic voting machines were programmed to shift votes away from Barak Obama and add ...
"Hey Ron Paul, I'm in your primary stealing your votez" By Amy Demiceli. Not even twenty four hours passed before reports of fraud surfaced in New Hampshire, it began in the town of Sutton. Initially the reports released sa...
Alarms Should Go Off Whenever the Discrepancies Between the "Official" Results and the Polls Can't Be Explained By Andi Novick. In all other countries we understand that when the "official" results are so different from the polling results, the "official" results must be questi...
Inherent Uncertainty and NH’s Primary Results By Rady Ananda. Blogs are bursting over the fact that ALL the major pollsters, including Hillary's and Barack's internal polling, had Obama winning New Hampshire's primary. We’ll never know because software driven devices invoke inherent uncertainty.
Criminal Record Of Kenneth Hajjar- New England Voting Machine Firm ExecBy Bev Harris. They program every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine. But did state officials in fi...
How John Edwards Can (Still) Win the NH Primary By Emily Levy. Questions about the accuracy of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary election results provide a perfect opportunity for Democratic presidential candid...
Getting the Framing on Election Polling Right By Mary Howe Kiraly. Polling, especially exit polling, is a well-recognized science. Computerized voting, on the other hand, is vulnerable to human error,programming error,and ...
New Hampshire Election Fraud By Ron Corvus. New Hampshire Election Fraud: Hillary LOST the paper ballot count but WON the optical scan ballot count. Obama WON the paper ballot count but LOST the...
99 Ways to Steal Elections: The Story of John Fund and Ron Paul by Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. We need a Ballot Bomb to pay for a Whistle Blower: $1,000,000.00 will loosen a lot of lips. This way we can make all the Greedy, corporate, pundits, think tanks, and greed candidates cry.
Clinton Tainted Victory In New Hampshire By Allen L Roland. Voting irregularities in New Hampshire point not only to the previously discredited Diebold Accuvote optical scan but to the distinct possibility that...
Sign Up To Take Back Our Elections – The "I Count" Corps By Andi Novick and Sally Castleman. It is time for us to take back control of our elections. Machines have shown themselves to be unreliable and vulnerable to tampering. The unexplainable discrepancies between polling and the official count have only risen in proportion to the use of computers in our elections.
New Hampshire Vote Results – Are They For Real? By Jean Hay Bright. Things don't add up in New Hampshire. I cast my vote for a recount.
Can You Spell Deep Trouble? By James Strait If you have even the slightest interest in voting integrity.....well, The CITIZENS of New York State are in the tall grass without a lawn mower. All while the bureaucrats twiddle their pudgy little thumbs.
Votergate Redux 2008: A Look At The Exit Polls By S.Drobny This is what I wrote in OpEdNews in 11/04 and was picked up by my friend John Zogby. Votergate 2004: We Don't Need Paper to Prove Fraud, But We Do Need Money and Leadership, NOW.
Fraud US-Style: Fake Videos and Elections By Stephen Lendman. More evidence showing official news reports can't be trusted.
99 Ways To Steal Elections: The Story of John Fund and Ron Paul By Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. We need a Ballot Bomb to pay for a Whistle Blower: $1,000,000.00 will loosen a lot of lips. This way we can make all the Greedy, corporate, pundits, think tanks, and greed candidates cry.
(Rob continues:)
Now, the problem is not just with New Hampshire. The terrifying threat is Super Tuesday. With so many states running primaries on February 5th, there is a frightening likelihood, given recent history, that more vote count abuse will take place.
Maybe there’s a reason the Democrats have failed miserably at passing legislation to make voting safe, verifiable, reliable and trustworthy. Maybe they feel they can use the vulnerabilities of the system to meet their own interests. It is too late to do serious correction to the problems. But, at the least, congress could pass legislation requiring any voter who chooses to do so to use a paper ballot to vote on.
At the least, primary candidates, particularly democratic candidates, since the Dems have a history of failing to challenge vote rigging, should declare ahead of time and promise that they will look at vote rigging issues and demand recounts if questions arise. The risk on February 5th that some vote count corruption will occur is huge.
What can you do? Tell your federal legislators to do something already. Contact your local daily paper and ask them to cover this issue. It’s a new story, a new angle—potential vote rigging on Super Tuesday!.
Contact your favorite mainstream media—CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, NY Times, USA Today, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Al Jazeera, the Guardian… and then tell your favorite left wing news publishing sites too—Salon, Huffington Post, Village Voice, Raw Story, Alternet, TalkingPoints memo, The Nation, Counterpunch, Truthout, Think Progress, Buzzflash, SmirkingChimp, TomPaine, InformationClearinghouse.
Tell them to reprint articles, aggregate articles, ask their writers to write articles. Contact your favorite TV hosts—Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers, Wolf Blitzer, Jack Caffrey, Bill O’Reilly (not,) Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert. Tell them to cover this issue. Ask them why, when they explore what went wrong with the polls in New Hampshire, they failed to talk about e-vote problems, about the one man who has his hand in over 80% of NH vote counts.
It is shameful that the Dems have failed to pass legislation that protects the trustworthiness of the vote. Time is short. Already, the failure to pass legislation has introduced doubt and mistrust into our primaries. It is time to end this embarassing phase in the history of democracy.
Tell your legislators, your local media to deal with this firmly and finally, so Americans no longer have to worry about the trustworthiness of the election system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)