Oh, I guess MoveOn doesn't "get it...."

[garybeck]

Couple days ago they ask to sign a petition for paper ballots and audits on all elections.

NOW TODAY, on the day after some crazy results in NH, I get this email:

Email subject: Trust NH Results?

Dear Gary,

Imagine if yesterday's New Hampshire primary had been decided by insecure electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots. With polls saying one thing and ballots another—and a thin margin deciding the winner—the results could be forever in doubt.

And that could still happen in dozens of key states in November unless we act quickly. More than 180,000 of us have signed already.

Can you forward the electronic voting machine petition below to 5 more friends and family today? We'll deliver the signatures to local election officials as well as Congress, so every signature from your neighborhood makes a big difference.

Your friends can sign by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/paper2008

they don't get it. the NH vote WAS on electronic voting machines. a paper ballot does not mean anything if you are shoving it into a Diebold scanner with secret software and no audits.

I thought they were getting it, but I guess not.

They seem a little confused. First they say they want audits, but then when there's an election with no audits and suspicious results, they claim it's trustworthy.

ARG!

[truckin]

1. It is amazing how many people still don't get this, especially

in DU. There is a lot of work to be done on this issue.

[garybeck]

4. I know, and I'm starting to feel

tired, and drained of the whole thing.

I feel like I've been banging my head against the wall for 4+ years now.

[truckin]

8. Hang in there, Gary; you're one of the good guys. nt.

[DCKit]

11. I can certainly understand where you're coming from.

I unintentionally stumbled upon a couple of election threads today and was shocked to see how much ignorance and obfuscation there is on the issue of election fraud. Instead of dealing with the simple facts of truly open and honest elections, far too many people are arguing semantics and bringing entirely bogus issues into and conflating the argument to ridiculous proportions.

Despite and regardless of what may have happened in NH on Tuesday, the simple fact is that electronic voting does not and will never work for the U.S.. We need a paper trail and a voting system that EVERYONE understands. The infamous Florida vote of 2000 was a setup from the get-go - undersized ballots, confusing ballots and a(n intentional) lack of voter education. A revolt should have resulted.

Stick to your guns and don't allow anyone to drive the argument beyond the simple facts: Paper ballots worked for over two hundred years and electronic voting is far more corruptible than any other system imaginable. Colored stones in a barrel would be preferable.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. The awful truth

... is that most people (and, apparently, that would include MoveOn) aren't tremendously sophisticated when it comes to technology. Surprising in their case, however. You think they'd know better.

Yes, you technically have an auditable paper trail if the optical scan paper ballots are retained, but otherwise it's far easier to fix an election by hijacking the central tabulator than it is by wreaking havoc on individual touchscreen machines or in particular precincts.

[garybeck]

5. you missed one BIG point

there is BIG BIG HUGE difference between these two words

AUDITABLE
AUDITED

yes, NH is AUDITABLE, but it is not AUDITED.

the difference is the difference between a democracy and an open invitation for election fraud.

the fact that NH is auditABLE is insignifcant, considering it is not auditED.

makes it basically equivalent to a DRE.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Thank you. Point taken

I tried to hint at this by writing "you technically have an auditable paper trail" (In retrospect, I guess I should've italicized technically) but the key distinction you make between audited and auditable is essential.

Thanks for emphasizing this.

[KaryninMiami]

3. GEEEEEZ just when we thought they were seeing the light- it was nice while it lasted.

They are confused- so are many folks here at DU who think those of us who are questioning what happened last night in NH is unnecessary or that we are "sore losers". What's with people that they don't get the facts? Why would anyone be against making sure that the votes were counted and the results were credible and verifiable? What do we have to do to convince people - MoveOn Included that those machines are owned by corporations with an agenda?

Did you see the paper VS machine count numbers? Very disturbing, indeed.

http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html

Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results
By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

[helderheid]

6. They need to see "Hacking Democracy" and see NH is using these machines

[Kurovski]

9. K&R. (nt)

[Wilms]

10. We've failed to educate people.

Perhaps, as a movement, we can do something about it.