Guest guest Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm VOTING BY MACHINE OR ABSENTEE VIOLATES YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE and to have your vote counted properly. Elections must be fair and open in order to have integrity. Voting by machine or absentee introduces concealment and invites deception to the voting process. (see SUMMARY below) Those parties in a perfect position to commit election fraud include: voting machine company insiders, election officials, and any of the news media (such as the Associated Press-AP) that could receive a direct feed of vote data from voting machines or central computer 'vote tabulators' via 2-way wireless, modems, or other electronic means, and as a result, be in a position to manipulate vote data through the porous backdoors of voting machine software or firmware. (See http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/tabulation.html and http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/GEMS.htm) A few disturbing facts about the Associated Press (AP) which reports vote totals on Election Day: * The AP.org is a not-for-profit news cooperative that has earned over $500 million annually for the past five years. Spokespeople for the AP have so far refused to release to this journalist full information on who are on its Board of Directors, how they are elected with over 16,000 " bond votes " , who controls these votes, or how the AP receives vote tallies on Election Day. * Burl Osborne is chairman of the AP board of directors and publisher emeritus of The Dallas Morning News (endorsed Bush). * Tom Curley is the AP's CEO and president and publisher of USA Today. * Kathleen Carroll, senior vice president and executive editor of AP, was a reporter at The Dallas Morning News before joining AP in Dallas in 1978 (Carroll is also on the APME's 7-member executive committee) * The Associated Press Managing Editors (APME.com) allegedly " works in partnership with AP to improve the wire service's performance " . * APME's president Stuart Wilk is also managing editor of the Dallas Morning News. * APME's vice president Deanna Sands, is managing editor of the Omaha World Herald, a subsidiary of Omaha World Herald Company, owner of the nation's largest voting machine company, ES & S. LATEST NEWS... PHILADELPHIA, Pa., July 2: Lynn Landes files federal lawsuits against voting machines and absentee voting. The Complaints were filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against MARGARET TARTAGLIONE, Chair of the City Commissioners of Philadelphia, PEDRO A. CORTES, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and JOHN ASHCROFT, the Attorney General of the United States. " Plaintiff challenges the use of voting machines in elections for public office as a violation of the Constitutional right to vote, to have votes counted properly, to observe the voting process effectively, and to have those rights fully enforced. The use of voting machines prevents election officials, poll watchers, Federal observers, the press, and the public from effectively observing if persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote and if votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated. Voting machines offer substantial opportunities for technical failure and vote fraud, with minimal opportunities to detect irregularities. The long-term and widespread use of voting machines calls into question the results of both past and future elections. A separate but similar Complaint will be filed against the use of absentee voting. " See at bottom of following webpage: Department of Justice " Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses " and Federal Observer Report Please read: Nov 1996 Pandora's Black Box by Philip M. O’Halloran of Relevance (excellent summary to that point in history) Lynn's articles: (For other writers news stories, click here) * May 10, 04: Federal Commission Nixes Talk of Paper-Only Elections - Stacks Panels With Proponents of Paperless Touchscreens * Apr 27, 04: Two Voting Companies & Two Brothers Will Count 80% of U.S. Election - Using BOTH Scanners & Touchscreens * Apr 13, 04: Republicans Walk Out Of Federal Hearing On Voting Machines - While Some Civil Rights Groups Support 'Paperless' Elections * Apr 6, 04: Faking Democracy - Americans Don't Vote, Machines Do, & Ballot Printers Can't Fix That (I think this is the best analysis I've done so far. LL) * Mar 10, 04: Philadelphia Hearing on Electronic Voting * Feb 10, 04: Questions Mount Over New Hampshire's Primary * Jan 12, 04: Democrats Send Mixed Signals in Voting Technology Debate * Dec 15, 03: NIST Ignores Scientific Method for Voting Technology * Oct 16, 03: An analysis of 'solutions' to the problem of paperless voting (This is an exercise, not an article.) * Oct 2, 03: Republicans and Brits Will Count California's Recall Votes / California recall election: Voting systems - by county * Oct 2, 03: Lynn submits comments to U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit for Susan Marie Weber case. * Sep 17, 03: Lynn Landes submits comments to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on ACLU Foundation of Southern California case * Sept 7, 03: Philadelphia Forum on 'Voting Technology & Democracy' Landes speech / press release * Aug 27, 03: Internet Voting - The End of Democracy? * Aug 18, 03: Voting Machine Fiasco: SAIC, VoteHere and Diebold...Scam To Vet Voting Software? * Aug 1, 03: Computer Voting Expert Ousted From Elections Conference * Jul 16, 03: Offshore Company Captures Online Military Vote * Apr 14, 03: Voting Machines Violate Constitution - Who Will Launch Legal Challenge? * Jan 20, 03: Suspicion Surrounds Voter News Service * Nov 26, 02: Mission Impossible - Federal Observers & Voting Machines * Nov 8, 02: 2002 Elections: Republican Voting Machines, Election Irregularities, and " Way-Off " Poll Results * Oct 28, 02: It's A High-Tech Ambush - Just Say " No " To Voting Machines / PR Newswire press release * Sep 23, 02: Election Night Projections - A Cover For Vote Rigging Since 1964? * Sep 16, 02: Elections In America - Assume Crooks Are In Control * Aug 5, 02: The Nightmare Scenario Is Here - Computer Voting With No Paper Trail Video of Sept 7th Philadelphia Forum on 'Voting Technology & Democracy' is available. Contact: lynnlandes / (215) 629-3553 / press release 8 ways to steal an election: My focus on elections is usually limited to voting technology issues. This list is simply to give readers a more comprehensive idea of what can and has gone wrong with elections in America. 1. Use machines & Internet to vote - this prohibits direct voter participation in and oversight of the entire voting process. It is also an open invitation to massive vote fraud and technical failure. 2. Encourage absentee voting - the chain of custody is lost. No one can ever be certain if absentee ballots are sent, received, or counted properly - particularly if the process has been outsourced. However, given the choice between machines and absentee ballots - I vote by absentee. 3. Privatize the election process - hire corporations to redistrict, register voters, and process votes (including absentee ballots). Outsourcing also inhibits direct public participation and oversight. Privatization also helps distance election officials from direct involvement in vote fraud. 4. Use bogus polling data to shape expectations - this can apply to both pre-election and exit polls. 5. Control the news media - so that people vote in ignorance of the issues. 6. Redistrict your way to victory - the old divide and conquer strategy. 7. Let the winner take all - denies minority parties any representation on town councils or in legislatures. 8. Just buy it - allow wealth to concentrate in the hands of a few. SUMMARY: Any Voting Machine Violates Your Right To Vote and to have your votes counted properly (edited 3/31/04) by Lynn Landes If people are voting on machines, they are not voting at all. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that, A " legal vote, " as determined by the Supreme Court, is " one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter.' " If a machine is involved in the voting process, the voter has been relegated to making inputs and hoping that the machines' output is the same. That output can only be 'circumstantial' evidence of what the voter intended. It is the voters' right to create 'real' evidence of their own intention. It's an enforcement issue. The 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution is enforced through the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And the Act could be the 'silver bullet' for any litigation in federal court to end the use of voting machines. Under Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.Code §1973f, Federal Observers may be authorized to observe " ... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast by persons entitled to vote are being properly tabulated... " Furthermore, under " Prohibited acts " in §1973i, the " Failure or refusal to permit casting or tabulation of vote " ...can result in civil and criminal penalties. " No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote...(and) Whoever...knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals a material fact... shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five year, or both. " http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachines-ConstitutionalIssues & FederalLaw.htm Voting machines violate those provisions. Vote casting and tabulation take place inside of a box. Federal Observers can't observe " ... whether persons who are entitled to vote are being permitted to vote ...(and) whether votes cast ...are being properly tabulated.. " And voting machines by their very design " conceals a material fact. " Voting machines have indecipherable source codes and internal mechanisms that are hidden from inspection by design, and bogus legal contracts that protect the proprietary rights of private companies. Voting machines have known error rates and extensive documentation that they can fail " to permit the casting or tabulation of votes. " How can Federal Observers " observe " the accuracy of voting machines? " They wouldn't know that, " says Nelldean Monroe, Voting Rights Program Administrator for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in a November 26, 2002 interview with this reporter. Her agency is responsible for the recruiting and training of Federal Observers who are sent by the DOJ to monitor elections if violations of the Voting Rights Act are suspected. In an email, Monroe elaborated, " The only observance of the tallying of the votes is when DOJ specifically requests observers to do so. This rarely occurs, but when it does, it is most often during the day following the election when a County conducts a canvass of challenged or rejected ballots. In this case, Federal observers may observe the County representatives as they make determinations on whether to accept a challenged or rejected ballot. Federal observers may also observe the counting of the ballots (or vote tallying) when paper ballots are used. " In other words, Federal Observers can only observe people counting paper ballots, not machines. Monroe confirmed what this writer suspected...there is no training and no opportunity for Federal Observers to observe the accuracy of voting machines. The unavoidable conclusion is that voting machines make the role of the Federal Observer - moot, and in that regard, the Voting Rights Act - unenforceable. We are now living in a country where one person can manipulate millions of votes in elections across the country. With the use of polls to run cover for vote fraud, very race is in doubt, even landslide elections. And it's not just political elections that are put at risk by voting technology. The expanding use of the Internet to elect the leaders of our civic associations, business groups, and labor organizations threatens the very fabric of our society. (Internet Voting) Meanwhile, the government has taken hands-off, eyes-closed policy toward voting technology and those who control it. http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm The right to vote and to have that vote counted properly belongs to the people, not machines. In most countries, voters mark their own paper ballots and then observe election officials counting the votes at the local precinct. However, in the United States over 98% of votes, including absentee ballots, are processed by some type of voting machine. Yet, there's no effective way to ensure that voting machines count votes properly. Last minute changes can be made to voting equipment and computer programs. Votes can be altered before, during, or after an election by computer technicians or outside hackers. Computer experts agree that vote fraud could easily remain undetected. (Technical) Worse still, there is no federal agency charged with regulatory oversight of the elections industry and no federal restrictions on who can count America's votes. Felons and foreigners can and do manufacture, sell, and service voting machines. And contrary to public perception, there is a long history of technical " glitches " and irregularities involving voting machines. (Irregularities) In theory, it makes no difference in the argument against the use of voting machines, if the machines are controlled by government officials or corporate employees. But, in reality, it appears to make quite a difference in election results that a handful of Republican and foreign-owned corporations control most of the technology that counts Americans' votes. The evidence over the years points to Republicans benefiting far more than Democrats from election " upsets. " (Company Info) Adding to the atmosphere of mistrust is the fraudulent manipulation of pre-election and exit polling data that some activists say has been used to shape public expectations and bolster rigged election results. (Polling) Requiring voting machines to produce paper ballots or receipts will not give citizens back their right to vote and have their votes counted properly, although much credit should be give to the efforts of Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, and others for bringing to the public's attention the insanity of a paperless voting system. (Experts) The fact remains, whoever controls the voting machines controls the process. Brazil retrofitted 3% of their DREs (touchscreens) with printers for their 2002 election. Someone made sure the printers jammed. So, Brazil is going back to paperless elections and zero integrity. Considerations of time, convenience, or cost cannot supercede a citizens right to vote and to have that vote counted properly. But there are common sense solutions for most of the challenges faced by voters and election officials. For disabled voters who've been told that they need voting machines in order to vote privately and independently, ballot templates are a low tech solution that are used in Rhode Island, Canada, and around the world. (Ballot Templates) For voters who don't speak English, they can apply for a ballot in their native language in advance of an election. And to get the ballot count done within a four hour period, voting precincts should be kept to under 500 people as is done in Canada. A very basic argument against the use of voting machine is the obstacle voting machines create for voters. How many people will not vote because they don't want to use a machine? How many people will think they voted on a machine, when in fact they didn't? And for those who think that we as a nation will not " go back " to paper ballots, we already have. Thirty percent of voters in the 2003 California Recall election cast absentee paper ballots. According to ABC news, " In 2000, 14 percent of voters cast absentee ballots or participated in early voting. In some states, just over 50 percent of voters participated before election day. It's a recent trend of late; in 1980, only five percent cast absentee ballots... In 2000, the highest rates of early/absentee voting was in Washington State (52 percent), Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona (each around 35 percent), Tennessee (33 percent), New Mexico and California (22 percent). " Oregon election are mail-in ballots only. The problem with absentee voting is that those ballots are very vulnerable to tampering. But still, the voters are choosing paper in increasing numbers. And that speaks volumes about the public's trust in voting technology. news shorts: (these may be future articles, given time and energy) * California Recall election: Why is the ACLU of Southern California litigating and adopting policies in favor of DREs with no printer attachment http://ga1.org/campaign/touchscreenvoting/explanation & http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/recall, when it is the technology with one of the worst track records? See table and excerpts - CalTech/MIT report / for complete report, see http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/july01/July01_VTP_%20Voting_Report_Entire.pd\ f. Experts are looking at the voting machine accuracy data source for the ACLU legal brief - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/elections/svrepvshlly82603aob.pdf Here is Henry Brady's declaration, plus the website that has more information on Dr. Brady http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/brady1.pdf / http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/15_recall.shtml. Also see Roy Saltman's testimony Sept 17th, 2003: Lynn Landes submits comments to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It was not submitted as a formal motion, so the judges may or may not read it. Here is an excerpt: " Henry E. Brady, who provided expert testimony in this case, issued a study in September 2001 that was funded by Sequoia Voting Systems, considered to be the third largest voting systems company in the United States. At the time of Dr. Brady’s separate study for this lawsuit, only one county (Riverside) in California was using Touchscreens. Yet, in Dr. Brady’s “declaration” Figure 1, Residual Vote Rate in 2000 in California by Type of Voting System, he puts all types of systems at the same percentage of residual (lost) votes except punchcards. The rates may or may not be correct, but the small sampling provided by Riverside, does not reflect an accurate picture of the problems experienced nationwide with touchscreen machines, particularly in the 2002 elections. " ...nor did Brady's report reflect the experience of Riverside County in 2000, according the following: 02-13-2001 " ...the manufacturers of Riverside's system, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., based in Hayward, Calif., insist that their machines, which are plugged into the wall and not hooked up to a central network open to hackers, are thoroughly reliable, accurate and secure. There were glitches in November. The tabulating machines shut down shortly after 11 p.m. with 10 percent of the ballots uncounted because the system did not have a large enough capacity. Although that was an embarrassment — delegations from as far away as Japan were observing that countywide debut — Sequoia officials said the solution was a simple matter of adjusting the software. " http://www.kioskcom.com/articles_detail.php?ident=308 * The push for electronic voting is global. The organization heading this effort (IFES) was founded by the late F. Clifton White, a right wing member of the Republican Party. VotingMachineCompanies o Students and parents are being encouraged to vote on the Internet. http://www.nationalmockelection.org/ o Microsoft also wants kids to vote for political leaders on the Internet http://www.youthevote.net. Notice that Microsoft isn't listed as a sponsor, although it is - http://www.microsoft.com/issues/essays/10-31vote.asp. For voting systems companies who will use Microsoft read Windows: Insecure by Design By Rob Pegoraro, The Washington Post, 8/24/03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.