‘Daily Voting News’ For May 02, 2008

15 Comments on “‘Daily Voting News’ For May 02, 2008”

1. Thank you John, just one of the thousand pound gorillas in the room!

2. Oh yeah, sorry to repost in entirety. But, I don’t want people to miss this chance.

   Dear [people who give a shit],

   We need your help in the next several days to ensure that future voting systems are reliable, accessible, and verifiable. The federal Election Assistance Commission is taking public comments on proposed guidelines for voting technology. The federal guidelines are voluntary, but many states require compliance, and vendors must meet these standards to remain competitive. We need you to express your support for a crucial requirement that is under threat: software independence.

   Software Independence (SI) is an important advance toward verifiable voting: it means that voting systems should not rely only on software, because software can contain errors or problems that are impossible to detect without an independent record of voter intent. Of present technologies, only systems that utilize voter-verifiable paper records or voter-marked paper ballots would be software-independent. However, software independence may not make it into the final guidelines; those who still support paperless electronic voting are opposing SI. Your comments are needed to ensure that software independence remains part of the federal guidelines for voting systems.

   Monday May 5 is the last day for the current phase of public comment. It will be harder to effect change in the voting system guidelines after May 5, so it is important that citizens comment now.

   For a list of other key voting system guidelines provisions that need strengthening (e.g., a standard data reporting format for auditing of elections), suggested comments, and directions for using the EAC website to make comments, please go to this webpage:

   http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5861
   If you have time only to comment on software independence, go to this webpage:

   http://www.eac.gov/vvsg/part1/chapter02.php/

   There, scroll down to section 2.7A – “Software Independence” and click the “comment” link at the bottom of the section. Below is an example comment. Please keep in mind that your own words are most effective.

   Example Comment: “All computer systems are subject to subtle errors. Moreover, computer systems can malfunction or be deliberateley corrupted at any stage of their design, manufacture, and use. The methods used to do this can be extremely difficult to foresee and detect. Therefore, it is crucial to the integrity of elections that voting systems provide a means of recording and recovering voter intent that does not depend on the reliability of software.”

   Remember, Monday May 5 is the deadline.

   Thank you for taking your time to comment on this important issue, and thank you for all you do.

   The Team at Verified Voting

   🙂

3. Did anybody see this?

   http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/2/california_secretary_of_state_debra_bowen

   Clue to Hillary: These are the kind of women we want in the office!

4. Ancient –

   Software Independence (SI) is not what it seems to be. Shamefully, “Verified Voting” of all people, are supporting it, despite the fact that there’s nothing “verified” about it, as it will allow for the cointinued use of wholly unverifiable DREs (touch-screens) with VVPATs (paper trails).

   It is that which I testified to the EAC about last week (see my testimony here, and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri’s, speaking specifically to SI, on behalf of The BRAD BLOG here [PDF])

5. Verified Voting is either insidious or the personification of the useful idiot.

   I’m leaning towards them being insidious because of their propensity for the astroturf.

   I smell a rat. Get them out of the election integrity movement, for real.

   Thanks to Mark Linderman {OnTheOtherHand} for making it so obvious he is a shill for the status quo. He gave it away. Check out his video. He spoke of annoying citizens who get on hobby horses.

   The Verified Voting Foundation – people are gonna want to tell them to get out of the way, that they are not part of any movement with integrity.

   http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=VerifiedVoting&p=r

6. “Verified voting” in America (not Amurka) is one paper ballot, hand marked by each and every voter, then put in a locked box (only to preserve the secrecy of voter’s choice), then opened in public after never having been out of sight (valid chain of custody), on video, and then finally counted in public on video.

   The rest of the election circus is evangelization for the bullshit election religion where those soaked in power (a corrupting toxin) say “trust us”.

7. But, but, but the conspiracy nutters won’t shut up about the exit polls.

   Look for Mark Lindeman to have a total meltdown at Democratic Underground, if the few reasonable election integrity writers keep holding him to the fire. People like OnTheOtherHand {Lindeman} can be annoying with their hobby horses.
   People are naive if they think Steven Hertzberg and the Election Science Institute was an anomaly.

8. OT but this seems to be getting swept under the carpet and I don’t think it should. Didn’t repugs go to jail for doing this in NH in 06?

   N.C. NAACP files formal vote-suppression complaint against Women’s Voices, alerts U.S. DOJ of concerns
   
   [snip]
   14. WVWV says it was fully aware of the closing of the registration rolls in North Carolina, the availability of one-stop registration/voting, and other important voting factors that would influence the impact of its call/mailing operation. In its letter to Mr. Bartlett, WVWV apologized for the confusion its poor timing caused, but dismissed the timing as an “unfortunate coincidence.”

   
   Link

9. Geez, Thanks for the correction Brad! There are so many layers and word games its really is easy to get taken on a busy day. But wouldn’t it be possible to just ask for a complete ban of dre’s and as Dredd sedd:
   “Verified voting” in America (not Amurka) is one paper ballot, hand marked by each and every voter, then put in a locked box (only to preserve the secrecy of voter’s choice), then opened in public after never having been out of sight (valid chain of custody), on video, and then finally counted in public on video.

   in the comment section?
   And if I can dream a bit here, where we have a 2 day holiday. One for casting our votes and one for counting them. Where we come together and celebrate our democracy by participating in it shoulder to shoulder, instead of going further in debt in a shopping mall. Just think of the sterotypes it could begin to melt away!

10. DIEBOLD SUPPORTS VERIFIED VOTING FOUNDATION

    Verified Voting Foundation Exposed As Rightwing PR Agency

    You heard it here first at The BradBlog. I’m not saying every astroturfer is a member of that Dill{weed} “non-profit.” I have poured through open source info concerning the election integrity movement. It’s time for people to spit out the truth loud and clear:

    These people don’t care about ending illegal wars, election fraud, the emerging surveillance state, the deliberate tanking of the economy, corruption, etc.. This is about wolves in sheep clothes.

    The Democratic Underground and The Daily Kos are corrupt to the core. Those are the two biggest forums in America. They have alligned themselves with the Verified Voting Foundation. People don’t talk too much about VVF. They slip under the radar. But I’ve taken an interest in researching this “hobby horse.” In a perfect world, people would take these truths to heart and drive these people off the map.

    There is a need for a new super forum to replace the corrupted Kos and DU.

    Otherwise, the two top forums are gonna continue to be influential shill repositories for the electronic machines. At the least, they will continue to allow scripted noise concerning election integrity to flourish.

    Now is the time to expose all the rats!

    http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/

    That’s rat #1’s website. What has he contributed to the election integrity movement? Incredible months and years of attacks on Beverly Harris.

    He’s not the only one.

    AnonymousArmy of Daily Kos has been linked to Steven Hertzberg via disinformation spook “Fintan Dunne.” Hertzberg is tied to Damschroder, David Allen, Lindeman, Febble, on and on. The script is right there in front of your eyes, but only a few have outed it for the bullshit it is. Lindeman and subsequently Verified Voting Foundation are linked.

    Exit polls, exit schmolls.

    There’s the scripted drama at Democratic Underground. Check out the archives. Or go to current threads. The script remains relentless.

    By confronting the disinformation that is on the internet, we take control of that ground that sincere people seek.

    DailyKos went the you are “conspiracy nutters” route. Then they came in with the uppercut of Febble and HudsonValleyMark {Mark Lindeman}. There’s Blumenthal who is a hack. It’s a pretty long list,

    A guy like Lindeman should shut his yapper up. Because of him, I think the whole picture can be seen, why all ye are struggling for true reform.

    Here’s Joyce McCloy of Verified Voting calling BradBlog types pseudo activists or worse. This is from the above David Allen link. This is more of the same Lindeman style astroturf about “annoying citizens with hobby horses.”

    THERE ARE PAID FAKES ALL OVER DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND AND DAILYKOS.

    What is Pseudo Activism? This is a new definition for an old tactic. It requires the participation of at least some well intentioned activists.

    What many people do not grasp is that some people’s interest in elections integrity is “tactical”. They are really interested in a much more fundamental transformation of society. Their goal is not to create election systems worthy of trust, but to use the untrustworthiness of elections systems as a lever to undermine the legitimacy of our government as a whole.

    Why wouldn’t we? Hello McFly.

    Compare “Pseudo Activism” to “CointelPro”:

    Settle down Franscis.

    An extreme example of “Pseudo Activism” is COINTELPRO. This may paint a picture that I hope the most innocent can see and understand.
    “COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States….

    The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to
    “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” the activities of these movements and their leaders.”

    Is there a “pseudo activism” element in the election integrity movement that purports to adhere to the tenets of democracy, but does the opposite?

    “Pseudo Activism” seeks to prevent the strongest avenue to protect civil rights of citizens – legislative remedy. They cry “no compromise no compromise”… all the way to ruin. It attempts to steer the legislative remedy into the ditch.

    How do people like this form such dogmatic beliefs? Is this organic? Or does it reek of being from a public relations firm? Or worse?

    The “It isn’t perfect so it must be evil theory”

    The Pseudo Activist points out that legislation is less than perfect, and hence should be rejected. Awful-izing is used to exaggerate and distort: The outcry is this – “its not perfect, therefore it is evil.” Never mind that the legislation improves the situation and advances our cause forward. Pseudo activism pushes the flawed theorem of “all or nothing”, which results in no positive out come, and further sets back the movement by 10 years through loss of creditability. Pseudo Activism grows in an echo-chamber, where no other voices are listened to nor are they heard. Different voices are labeled as “anti-democracy”. The assumption is that the rest of the world agrees with the pseudo activist – just like the colleagues of the pseudo activist.

    Not everyone who opposes legislation is a pseudo-activist. This is about the Pseudo Activist movement that diverts well intentioned activists energies into solution defeating efforts.

    Pseudo Activism is like crying wolf over and over, and when help is offered, they cry “Your help isn’t good enough, so go away.”

    And now here is your proof that Diebold supports the Verified Voting Foundation and the scripted election integrity movement found all over the internet.

    https://bradblog.com/?p=2215#comment-59277

    Posted by Arlene Montemarano on 1/3/2006:

    THE PROBLEM OF ELECTION RIGGING NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH

    News & Politics
    Chronogram – Kingston,NY,USA
    … “Maryland, where I live, uses Diebold DREs, which are … Three-voting vendors–Diebold, Election Systems and Software (ESS), and Sequoia–dominate the market. …
    See all stories on this topic
    ================================

    News & Politics > Voting 2.0
    Voting 2.0
    Will Your E-Vote Count?
    By Cheryl Gerber Illustrations By Dash Shaw

    Arlene works for Diebold.

    http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Montemarano_Arlene_926392207.aspx

    She showed up on BradBlog to critique her own company. Hmmm. She showed support for Verified Voting Foundation and critiqued her own bosses. She didn’t mention that she was from Diebold. I smell rats.

    It’s all been a script except for the few like BradBlog.

    Check out what she posted. See how this is all about scripted controlled opposition. They astroturf that ye are the nutters with hobby horses. Then the fakes like Verified Voting Foundation send in their Lindeman’s to evoke authority with a different dose of astroturf.

    And why would someone from Diebold post an article which said the problem of election rigging wasn’t being taken seriously?

    Efforts to Secure E-voting Stalled
    Apprehension about the lack of security in Diebold’s DREs and other touch screen computer voting machines spurred David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor, to establish the Verified Voting Foundation in November 2004. According to Dill, when federal legislators tried to create a law that would address e-voting security problems, it was “blocked by a committee chairman, so we focused on state legislation.”

    Since then, the group has been advising states on e-voting security problems and the need, at a bare minimum, for a verified voting paper audit trail….

    In lieu of the refusal of some at the federal level of government to address the issues surrounding the legitimacy of electronic voting procedures and work toward safeguarding American elections, Verified Voting turned to state governments. Since its founding, Verified Voting has helped 26 states establish state legislation that requires a paper audit trail in e-voting machines, and 14 states have requirements pending, according to verifiedvoting.org.

    However, paper receipts only begin to address the complexity of electronic voting problems. The most serious concern among computer scientists studying the problems is the “Trojan Horse,” a computer code that can be programmed to hide inside voting software, emerge in less than one second to change an election, then destroy itself immediately afterwards, going undetected…..

    For instance, according to information reported on http://www.blackboxvoting.org, a non-partisan, nonprofit consumer protection group that is conducting fraud audits on the 2004 elections, Diebold, one of the e-voting vendors, hired ex-felons, who were convicted in Canada of computer fraud, to program election systems software….

    Bypassing the Law
    One especially salient example (as recorded on http://www.verifiedvoting.org), shows that in response to numerous and varied voting system malfunctions that occurred in the November 2004 elections, North Carolina passed tougher requirements for election systems in its Public Confidence in Elections Act in early 2005. Under the new law, manufacturers must place in escrow the source code, the blueprint that runs the software, and “all software that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration, and operation of the voting system” as well as a list of all computer programmers responsible for creating the software….

    In response to the release of the GAO report, members of the House Committee on Government Reform issued a statement that highlighted a long list of voting system vulnerabilities, also reported by Dill’s Verified Voting Foundation. But the reality behind the GAO laundry list is that electronic election systems are grossly inadequate and that vendors are not being held accountable by election commissioners to provide security in their election systems or, as in the case of the North Carolina Board of Elections, even to comply with the law…..

    The article was ultimately propping up Verified Voting/Dill and their shills like OnTheOtherHand/Lindeman.

    Then Arlene Montemarano made a second post making clear that she supported the article.

    RE: PROBLEM OF ELECTIONS RIGGING NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH
    The article above, THE PROBLEM OF ELECTION RIGGING NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH, submitted by me, was missing the following link: http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2006/01/news/
    the author of this fine piece is Cheryl Gerber.
    I regret the error.

    Hat tip to myself.

11. Ancient asked:

    wouldn’t it be possible to just ask for a complete ban of dre’s

    Of course. And I’ve been doing it for years. To little success at the federal level, however. Which is just one off the reasons why it’s a joke to create new federal standards which will continue to allow the same shitty DREs to be used. That Verified Voting, et al, doesn’t mind that, is terribly distressing.

    Socrates –

    I’ve seen no evidence that Verified Voting is, as you alleged “a rightwing PR agency”. I’ve seen plenty of evidence which suggests they are just flat out wrong on a number of things, including, what the word “verified” means.

    As to Arlene Montemarano, the link you gave to her ZoomInfo page shows a page which says:

    Please Note:
    This profile was automatically generated using 2 references found on the Internet. This information has not been verified. Learn more…

    …before showing an article on which Arlene commented. I see no evidence that she works for Diebold as you allege.

    Nonetheless, presuming you are correct (that she works for Diebold), doesn’t necessarily mean she either speaks for them, or is a “bad guy” per se.

    Diebold is a very big company, though getting smaller, and not everyone there (or at the other voting machines companies) agrees with the management’s public position. That I can assure you, first hand.

    Please make sure you have hard evidence before making allegations, simply based on speculation and “connect the dots”. For that, there is Wayne Madsen. We can do better.

12. Ok, I just noticed the above info about Arlene Montemarano working for Diebold Inc. was not verified. Perhaps Zoom info should stop with the automatic generating of resumes. My apologies. Yet, I still believe all of the other info and ideas presented above are sound.

13. Yeah, sorry about that. I am used to working in forum format. I am always willing to admit mistakes. I go over my stuff to make sure it isn’t disinfo.

    Brad wrote:

    I’ve seen no evidence that Verified Voting is, as you alleged “a rightwing PR agency”. I’ve seen plenty of evidence which suggests they are just flat out wrong on a number of things, including, what the word “verified” means.

    They are in the way of authentic election integrity. Ok, I’ll clarify. Either they are tied in with some form of astroturf, or they are so blinded by the status quo, that they have become useful idiots.

    I doubt now that she works for Diebold. That would have been too good to be true, linking them to the real pseudo-activists.

    I believe that those who work for Diebold are bad news. I am against the electronic voting machines. I am against all of them, Diebold included. Do vegetarians work for McDonalds? Would someone who wants authentic elections work for Diebold? I don’t think so.

    Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to correct my post in time, but I was right there to do so. Sorry for any confusion.

    Anyways, there is plenty of proof that Verified Voting is on the wrong side of history. It is proven that they work with Mark Lindeman. That article by Joyce McCloy was quite telling.

14. I found one post by Arlene where she sounds like a kindred spirit to those favoring paper ballots.

    Re: Ms. Tobi’s overheated rhetoric

    As a ‘little person’, I appreciate recognition that all the computer jargon remains very much Greek to me, and very very intimidating to many of us without the capacity to understand what it is doing with my very precious vote. That does not make me a moron. I believe it makes me typical of voters.

    Nancy does understand it and wants to simplify the process for ALL of us down to its necessities. Paper ballot, I mark it myself, I watch people
    count it right there in the room, I can keep track of it all and do not have to ‘trust’ and hope and wonder. Can any of the experts in computer
    technology ever understand how empowering that is?

    It would be such a relief if we could all of us then become experts in voting and our own voting process.

    Sorry Arlene for my momentary Madsenitis.

15. Sorry again for my stupid Diebold thing. The rest was good, imho. The brain cramp unfortunately snuck in.

    I see the point that there are good Diebold people, uhm, good Diebold people who whistleblow.

    I just noticed the Hack The Vote video. So I concede that point too.

    Hack The Vote (Part 1)

Comments are closed.