Turning the vote theft issue on its head

[kster]

By Bev Conover
Online Journal Editor & Publisher


Feb 22, 2007, 00:59

Email this article
Printer friendly page


The issue isn’t voter fraud; it’s politicians and election officials who opt for the convenience of computerized vote counting -- whether it’s optical scanners or touch screens containing memory cards.

The name of the game is blame the voters. Make them jump through hoops to cast their votes. Make ballots as confusing as possible. Pass laws that severely restrict or totally ban hand recounts of optically scanned ballots. Add to the mix an insufficient number of machines that cause unconscionably long waits in districts where you want to suppress voter turnout, in case intimidation and dirty tricks aren’t enough to keep the number down.

Yes, optically scanned ballots create a paper trail. But what good are they if the machine count is manipulated enough not to trigger the percentage the law requires for a hand recount or if the law prohibits hand recounting?

SNIP...The simple solution is hand-counted paper ballots. Paper and pencils are way less expensive, require no company technicians to set them up and maintain them, and have no need of costly storage facilities. Moreover, local printers would benefit from printing ballots.



http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1781.shtml

[Old and In the Way]

1. I'd wait a week for the hand ballots to be properly counted.

Rather than have to live with incompetence for 8 years because someone stole the office electronically.

[ArbustoBuster]

13. Amen.

I agree entirely.

[Bjorn Against]

15. I would wait a week too, but it wouldn't take nearly that long

It may take longer to perform a hand count than a machine count, but it really doesn't take that long to count. It is actually much more time consuming to sign the people in when they show up to vote and they seem to manage that in the mere thirteen hours the polls are open. With a hand count we may not get the results on election night, but there is no reason we could not get them the next day. After a campaign season that seems to last forever I think people can manage to wait a few extra hours to make sure the votes are counted accurately.

[Totallybushed]

2. The Repukes

would find a way. There was lot's and lot's of vote fraud when all ballots were counted by hand.

[pscot]

3. Paper ballots

matched with voter rolls are hard to fake. WE know how to deal with vote stealing in those kind of systems. Electronic systems are not transparent. Fraud may be inferred, as in Ohio and Florida, but it's damn near impossible to prove.

[Febble]

8. Especially if the votes hung around for a week

until the counting was finished. Secure chain of custody of ballots partly depends on speed.

[kster]

10. Machines offer a more secure chain of custody?

They count fast? but, did Alaska ever release this imformation to the Dems. Maybe Alaska didn't get the memo that the speed of the count is a part of the security, they REFUSE to release imformation so they definitely got the chain of custody part down path. They just keep the imformation in custody and REFUSE to release it. I see where that is a much better system :sarcasm:

Alaska Is At Again: Refuses to Release 2006 Election Database Despite Court Order

State Which Fought Release of Diebold Data Showing 200+ Percent Turnout in 2004 is Again Fighting Against Transparency

The state of Alaska which, as avid BRAD BLOG readers will recall, had been fighting tooth and nail to keep from releasing their database of how voters voted back in 2004, is at it again. Now, despite a court order, the state is refusing to release the new 2006 database, according to a press release just issued by the state Democratic Party. (Press release posted in full at the bottom of this item.)

Previously, the outgoing Governor Murkowski went so far as to have his top security man issue a memo saying release of the 2004 database would be a "security risk." The state had argued prior to that that they could not release the database because it was a "company secret" of Diebold's, according to their contract with the Anti-American Voting Company. All of that after Democrats had discovered a 200% voter turnout in some jurisdications across the state.

://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=012193&From=News

[Febble]

11. No, of course not

I just mean that speed is an important ingredient. In the UK we count fast. A long count gives more opportunity for corruption. HCPB elections can easily be corrupted (see Ukraine). If you are going to hand count you need to hand count fast.

And if you use a machine with paper ballots you have to ensure a secure chain of custody for recounts or audits, which also have to be done fast.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Great, no-nonsense article! What the hell are we doing still messing around

with these rightwing Bushite-controlled machines "counting" all our votes? What are we doing REWARDING them with more billions of dollars in contracts to "fix" the election system that they so obviously and deliberately broke?

Canada hand-counts their ballots in one day--no problem! We USED TO do that, quite efficiently. Why isn't this taxpayer money that is being so freely larded onto rightwing Bushite corporations going to local vote counters, precincts and registrars to count the votes in a way that everyone can see and understand?

Why are these billions to Diebold and ES&S treated as a fait accompli that we, the People, cannot undo?

A voting system that the corporations insisted be non-transparent--with a 0% audit in many cases, and a meager 1% audit in the best states--and that, by its very nature, was fraudulent to begin with, cannot be trusted. The Democrats in Congress are now agreed on a 2% audit (automatic recount, in some cases).

In Venezuela, they hand-count FIFTY FIVE PERCENT of the ballots, against the electronic totals, in all cases, cuz they don't trust the machines. 55%! THAT's an audit!

The machines that are now "counting" our votes--with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code--have been proven to be so insecure and insider hackable, they should have had a 100% audit from the beginning! But a third them don't even HAVE a ballot TO COUNT. That's how fraudulent Bush/Cheney's "reelection" was in 2004. And that's how we're getting this obvious 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists, so that the voters have to outvote the machines to get even a half-decent Congress, and even now, it's pretty obvious that Congress is still NOT very representative of the American people.

Why WASN'T there a 100% audit, in the first go-rounds with these new voting machines? That's the question we should be asking. (And the answer is not very pretty. Ask corporate 'Democrats' like Christopher Dodd, who colluded with Tom Delay and Bob Ney to engineer this corporate-run, non-transparent voting system.)

I'm for every inch forward we can make in transparency. And I know full well just how much corruption was involved in all this, and how hard it is to get past that, now that virtually every member of Congress is beholden to these corporations. (Some would have been elected anyway; many were not.) But we DO have to realize how woefully inadequate, collusive and corrupt HR 811 is--and keep plugging away at the local/state level for 100% TRANSPARENCY in our elections, and NO secret code between us and voting results.

Hand-counted paper ballots is actually the easiest, simplest, cheapest, and most transparent election method. Why not go with the best? Why go with the worst--the most burdensome, most complicated, most expensive and least transparent vote counting method ever devised by election thieves?

Because of all the corruption, we may have to put up with these machines, while we transition back to the best vote counting method. We need two things: 1) a ballot; and 2) a 100% hand-count (to begin with), with results posted at the precinct level before any electronics are used. They can use their expensive new machines to store and report data, and to double-check the hand-count. But if we have those two basics, we will have created a transparent system, that cannot be fiddled by electronic code. One way to accomplish this is to START WITH a demand that the Absentee Ballots be hand-counted, and the results posted before they are scanned (or while they are being scanned). There was a huge increase in Absentee Ballot voting in 2006--with voters trying to find a way around the rigged electronics--it was 50% and more of the vote in some places. This is a big constituency for transparent vote counting.

As with everything else, it's up to us. We, the People. But have heart, friends. Here are the three keys to the awesome democracy movement that is sweeping Latin America, and that has turned most of the South American continent "blue" already:

1. TRANSPARENT elections.
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

If the South Americans can do it--with their history of brutal fascist repression--so can we!

[kster]

6. The Politicians are now Pushers,Pimps and in some cases enforcers, of

the secret vote counting machines, if your state does not want the machines, the Government will take you to court and demand that your state, get the secret vote counting machines, the Politicians will push and pimp these machines with pretend-a-laws, that are made to convince the people that they (the Politicians) are doing everything they can to ensure an accurate vote count, BULLSHIT, They (the Politicians) are CROOKS plain and simple, they need these machines in between the voter and the vote count in order to control the count.

Its time for the People to WAKE UP!!

[BeFree]

5. My hometown

If I can get enough people interested, there will be a group of people around before the next election who will demand that we be allowed to count the paper ballots that have been scanned: a citizen's' audit.

In the meantime we must keep up the pressure on the scanners. If they sense that someone will be looking over their shoulders they won't cheat so much. But cheat they will, and citizen audits will expose that cheat and get the bastards banned once and for all.

Then that band of people will take over the counting and be lauded as true American heroes! Counting the vote must become a highly respected part of becoming a good citizen. Just as much as sitting on a jury, maybe even more.

[livvy]

7. And procurring vote counters could be done in a way similar to getting...

jurors. It could be a similar process with the same stipulations as with juries.
In our teacher contract there is language that deals with being called to jury duty. If you're called, you go, without any financial burden being imposed.

Counting the vote must become a highly respected part of becoming a good citizen. Just as much as sitting on a jury, maybe even more.

Perfectly stated, BeFree.

[BeFree]

17. Well

Thank you, Livvy.

Meanwhile most people think that either their vote is stolen, or doesn't matter, and we don't see the government making moves toward correcting those thoughts, do we? No.

Instead, what we see is the government reinforcing that perception.

[kpete]

9. paper

I can see, touch, feel and smell - YES!

[Kurovski]

12. HCPB is the safest way to go.

And as the author states, it's also the least expensive overall.

Folks who are in the business of promoting, creating or selling electronic voting machines/systems will bend over backwards for months on end in an attempt to convince us otherwise.

[In Truth We Trust]

14. Hand Counted Paper Ballots! Nothing more and Nothing less! k&r

[kster]

16. kick.nt

[Einsteinia]

18. The answer is also that we could

hand count 10% of the ballots at each and every precinct, on election night, BEFORE they leave citizen controlled purview, which would confer a 99% degree of election accuracy. If the tally of ALL of the precincts do not match because there is a significant discrepancy (and that a significant discrepancy would be defined as any margin that could, if reversed, oveturn the election), then a full hand count would be paid for by the State.

[kster]

19. I agree with you,, but if we have people,

ready, at every precinct, that are willing to Hand Count all the Paper Ballots in front of observers from both parties, with a video camera recording everything, why stop them at 10%?