Can someone please fact check this LTTE (CA/Diebold)

[EFerrari]

Editor

Bruce McPherson took an oath to serve California voters and instead, gives them bad theater in his determination to certify Diebold machines for our 2006 elections over the objections of California voters. McPherson (who was appointed, not elected himself) held public hearings that excluded the public and which he didn't attend. He ordered security testing but didn't wait for the ITA's results before announcing that he will recertify Diebold in California. The printers he proposes to use have a 30% failure rate. Where does he think he is, Ohio?

Californians voting in any county that uses these machines have no reasonable basis to believe their vote is counted or that election results reflect the will of the voters. At bottom, this is a simple matter. Electronic votes cannot be recounted. Qui bono?

Elizabeth Ferrari

In response to this story:

McPherson gives conditional OK to Diebold voting machines

Friday, February 17, 2006

(02-17) 18:53 PST SACRAMENTO, (AP) --

California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson gave conditional approval Friday for counties to use two voting machines produced by Diebold Election Systems that he had previously questioned.

McPherson's office said in December that the Diebold machines failed one of the 10 criteria he established for voting machines because the source coding, or computer language, on their memory cards was not reviewed by independent investigators.

The coding performs two critical tasks — securing ballot entries and later providing instructions to election officials on how to access and tally the votes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/17/state/n175845S67.DTL&hw=Diebold&sn=001&sc=1000

[Peace Patriot]

1. If you say "electronic votes cannot be recounted," someone will say, well,

what about "voter verified paper audit trails" (VPATs)? It's not technically correct. The problems are the speed of electronic tabulation and reporting, the inadequate auditing recounts for invisible, speed of light fraud, the SECRECY of the vote tabulation software, and the difficulty and cost of obtaining recounts--also, the central tabulators. You have to find a way to say all this without all the complication.

I use "virtually no audit/recount controls."

How about this for yours?: Electronic voting has virtually no audit/recount controls.

------

Still re-reading, thinking.

[EFerrari]

3. Well, I had to send it in before 10 so I will be technically incorrect.

They will not print it because the Friday news dump doesn't get covered on the Editorial pages, either.

But I want to send a letter a day to the Chronicle -- a responsible party in this fine mess.

Thanks for the clarification, Peace Patriot!

[Peace Patriot]

2. I think the "bad theater" thing is a distraction. Make it simpler.

Yours:
Bruce McPherson took an oath to serve California voters and instead, gives them bad theater in his determination to certify Diebold machines for our 2006 elections over the objections of California voters.

Suggested edit:
Bruce McPherson took an oath to serve California voters and is, instead, doing us a great disservice in his determination to re-certify Diebold voting machines for our 2006 election over the strong objections of California voters.

Second go at edit: (I would add this, if you can...)

Bruce McPherson took an oath to serve California voters and is, instead, doing us a great disservice in his determination to re-certify Diebold voting machines for our 2006 election over the strong objections of California voters, election integrity groups, and disinterested experts.

[EFerrari]

4. One of the ways I try to induce the Letters Ed to click on

my submission is by using the Subj line. This time it was "Diebold Theater". lol

It is a distraction, I agree.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Just a few small changes:

You don't need the word "himself."

Did he succeed in excluding the public? Should it read, "tried to exclude the public"? Or maybe say something broader about secrecy?

Don't say "ITA." Just say "testing." (Public won't know acronym.)

Suggested edits: "McPherson (who was appointed, not elected) has operated in secret, with hostility toward the public. He ordered security testing but didn't wait for the testing results before announcing that he will recertify Diebold in California. The printers he proposes have a 30% failure rate. Where does he think he is, Ohio?"

-------

Suggested edits (a few more):

California voters who use these machines have no reasonable basis to believe that their vote will be counted or that election results will reflect the will of the voters. At bottom this is a simple matter. Electronic votes are tabulated with "trade secret," proprietary software and with virtually no audit/recount controls. Que bono?

[Peace Patriot]

6. Good luck on this, Elizabeth! I'll do mine tomorrow, and it's a good idea

to think of this as a bulk project. Bombard them--and him--and our derelict state legislators--with letters. (I have to go to work shortly.)

(The theater ref--it's just not very well explained in the letter, and might take too much explaining. There must be another hook for the subject line. Or try faxing or even snail mail, to get them to look at it. Or call them.) (It's okay--it could go as is. It's just that I know readers of LTEs have a short attention span. So do editors. If the point of it doesn't smack 'em between the eyes in the first sentence, they may not read on.)

[EFerrari]

7. Thanks for your care. My personal plan is to work this every day

very directly, up to and including submitting to the Chron. They used to publish me every six weeks like clockwork. I haven't submitted in a while, so don't know where I may be in the mix.

It's pretty much useless to submit on a Fri, Sat or Sun. Otherwise, before 10 a.m. and try to stay below 120 words.

Thanks and good luck, Peace Patriot!

:)