New Zogby Poll On Electronic Voting Attitudes - New Zealand

[Guest guest]

" Arlene Montemarano " <mikarl

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:39:45 -0400

****ZOGBY: NEW POLL ---STORY REPORTED FROM NEW ZEALAND

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

 

New Zogby Poll On Electronic Voting Attitudes

Scoop.co.nz (press release) - New Zealand

A recent Zogby poll documents ground breaking information on the

attitudes of American voters toward electronic voting. They are ...

 

 

Scoop News http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00220.htm

 

New Zogby Poll On Electronic Voting Attitudes

Monday, 21 August 2006, 11:00 pm

Article: Michael Collins

New Zogby Poll: It's Nearly Unanimous

 

Voters Insist On Right To Observe Vote Counting

Plus Other Findings From This Unique Poll

By Michael Collins

" Scoop " Independent Media

Part I of a II part series.

Washington, DC

 

A recent Zogby poll documents ground breaking information on the

attitudes of American voters toward electronic voting. They are quite

clear in the belief that the outcome of an entire election can be

changed due to flaws in computerized voting machines. At a stunning

rate of 92%, Americans insist on the right to watch their votes being

counted. And, at an overwhelming 80%, they strongly object to the use

of secret computer software to tabulate votes without citizen access

to that software.

 

The American public is clear in its desire for free, fair, and

transparent elections. An 80%-90% consensus on the right to view vote

counting and opposition to secrecy by voting machine vendor is both

rare and remarkable in American politics. If only the public knew that

these options are virtually non existent in today's election system.

 

Viewing vote counting will soon become a process of watching

computers, somewhat akin to watching the radio, but without sound.

Secret vote counting with computer software that citizens cannot

review is now a fait accompli. Most contracts between boards of

elections and voting equipment manufacturers bar both elections

officials and members of the public from any access to the most

important computer software; the source code that directs all the

functions of the voting machines, including vote counting.

 

As a result of the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), a majority of

these voters will be using touch screen voting machines with a lesser

amount using special paper ballots counted by optical scanning

devices. There are very few localities using paper ballots for the

November 2006 election. If the federal government gets its way, they

will be a thing of the past.

 

The supreme irony is that HAVA was sold to Congress as the solution to

the problems of the Florida 2000 election. Of course, we now know that

as many as 50,000 black Floridians were wrongly removed from the

voting rolls through a highly suspect " felon purge " that missed felons

but captured legitimate registered voters. And we know further that

over 100,000 ballots in mostly black precincts were disqualified due

to the old voter suppression standby, " spoiled ballots. " Neither of

those voting rights and civil rights problems is addressed by HAVA.

It's all about " the machines. "

 

A Zogby Poll was commissioned and sponsored by election rights and

business law attorney Paul Lehto of Everett. Washington. This author,

Michael Collins, Editor, www.electionfraudnews.com was a contributing

sponsor. It consisted of 1018 interviews over a five day period

beginning August 11, 2006. For further details, please see the

" Appendix " at the end of this article.

 

This article focuses on three key questions from the survey. The

responses reveal public attitudes as they were measured very recently.

The outcome should give policy makers and bureaucrats serious pause

for reflection upon just exactly what they have done to America's

system of elections and just how far from public beliefs they have

strayed.

**********

 

Voters Aware of Risks of Electronic Voting – Changing an Entire Election

 

 

How aware are you that there have been reports of flaws in

electronic voting or computerized voting machines that make it

possible to tamper with one machine in such a way as to change the

results of an entire election?

 

Very aware 28.5%

Somewhat aware 31.8 Aware 60.3%

Somewhat unaware 14.9

Very unaware 22.8 Unaware 37.7

Not sure 1.9

 

 

 

The response shows a wide spread awareness of the potential for flawed

voting machines to overturn an entire election. This is highly

significant since the change in election outcome represents a

violation of the expressed will of the people. Elections using touch

screens computers or optical scan tabulators would seem to present

entry level doubt concerning any election, particularly the type of

nail biters that are common in America over the past few years.

 

All subgroups were near or exceeded 50% or greater in awareness (

very, somewhat) of the risks of electronic voting.

 

The breakdown politically is instructive. Combining the " very " and

somewhat aware responses shows a near parity by political

identification: Democrats 59.9%; Republicans 58.3%; and Independents,

the highest at 63.8% awareness. Dividing the sample by political

ideology shows Libertarians with the highest level of awareness

concerning the risks of computerized voting, 81%, and Moderates with

the lowest at 55.9%. Of interest, Liberals and those describing

themselves as Very Conservative were nearly identical in their

awareness at 62.7% and 61% respectively.

**********

 

Near Universal Demand to See the Votes Counted

 

 

In some states, members of the public have the right to view the

counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other

states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even

if they would like to view the process. Which of the following two

statements are you more likely to agree with – A or B?

 

Statement A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain

information about how election officials count votes. 91.8%

 

Statement B: Citizens do not have the right to view and

obtain information about how elections officials count votes. 5.9

 

Neither/Not sure 2.3

 

 

Most all likely voters (92%) agree that citizens have the right to

view and obtain information about how election officials' count votes

(Statement A). Just 6% feel citizens do not have this right (Statement B).

 

Four fifths of respondents within every demographic group selected the

right for citizen review and access, Statement A. This includes

overwhelming majorities of both Kerry (92.8%) and Bush supporters

(90.8%); independents (96.9%); Catholics (92.8%), Protestants (90.8%),

Jews (87.2%), and those with no religious affiliation (93.3%); and two

points above the average, NASCAR fans, 93.9%.

 

If and when citizens begin demanding this widely assumed option, they

will be gravely disappointed. Viewing vote counting in the era of

electronic voting means something different than it did in the days of

paper ballots. In the case of touch screen devices, the vote count

consists of poll workers or technicians taking data tapes out of a

computerized touch screen device. With optical scan ballots and voting

machines, tabulation (vote counting) involves pressing a button for a

total count after the special paper ballots have been scanned through

the computerized scanning device.

 

The process of removing public review of voting and vote counting

began in earnest with the 2002 Help America Vote Act. In a previous

article with Paul Lehto, the clear intent to herd local and state

governments into the seemingly happy pasture of touch screen voting

devices is described in depth. In essence, the three step process of

forcing locals to accept touch screen devices, stripping voters and

government agencies of their rights to review and understand voting,

and locking that system in place for the indefinite future is nearly

complete.

 

The 2006 election represents the brave new world of electronic voting.

The American people want something entirely different: free, fair, and

transparent elections with full citizen participation and review. The

following questions and responses provide convincing evidence to

support that claim.

**********

 

Voters Opposed to Secret Software to Count Votes

 

 

With computerized electronic voting machines, votes are counted

using proprietary or confidential software from corporate vendors that

is not disclosed to citizens. Do you agree or disagree that it is

acceptable for votes to be counted in secret without any outside

observers from the public?

 

Agree 13.7%

Disagree 79.8

Not sure 6.5

 

 

There is overwhelming objection to vendor specific secret software

used to count votes outside the purview of public observation. This is

a sentiment shared by no less than 70% of the people in any sub-group

in the survey. This includes every political party; political

ideology; race, religion; age group; educational level; and income

group. This included 85.5% of rural residents and 79.8% of NASCAR fans.

 

Once again, the public is in for a profound disappointment. Nearly

every state and county board of elections has a contract with the

voting machine vendors that prohibit access to and review of voting

machine " source code, " the software that controls all of the key

functions of vote counting. These contracts are freely entered into by

government officials and in place for a period of months or years.

Even with full access to source code, the level of expertise and

manpower necessary to police malicious acts, which we know can occur,

makes such disclosure a Pyrrhic victory; a distraction from the return

to real ballots, counted by real people, open to full supervision and

inquiry.

**********

 

The Public's Right to Know and Their Right to Know What They Don't Know

 

The Zogby Poll makes it clear that the public insists on the right to

view vote counting. At 92% agreement with Statement A above, the

public clearly thinks that it should have this option. There is also

strong agreement that computerized voting should be transparent; that

secret software, meaning secret vote counting is totally unacceptable.

 

What will people think and do when they find out that these rights are

(a) not granted universally either in law or by custom and (b) that

even if they are granted, they are virtually unobtainable due to the

nature of computerized voting. Invisible ballots cannot be observed by

voters. Computer software calculations cannot be observed by voters.

Inquiring about and receiving information on these invisible processes

requires an act of faith of epic proportions. Voters are expected to

believe summary data and tables from election officials who routinely

deny and/or discourage access to vote counting and who sign contracts

with private vendors like Diebold, Sequoia, and ES & S, that surrender

the right of officials or the public to inspect the most important

software in the voting machines, the source code.

 

There has been a virtual media blackout on in depth coverage of these

issues by the national corporate media. The work of Lou Dobbs and

Catherine Crier are notable and powerful exceptions. Lou Dobbs'

coverage includes online polls that consistently show 80% and greater

preference for a complete dismissal of voting machines and a return to

paper ballots.

 

The public has the right to observe the entire election process. It's

called transparency. The public has a right to get information on how

that process works in order to satisfy the requirement for free and

fair elections. These rights are unavailable and the public does not

even know it. If and when these issues are covered by the broader

media with insight and attention, there may very well be the type of

outrage at the loss of our liberties that we have seen from Lou Dobbs

and Catherine Crier. That would be a most unpleasant event for those

who have bargained away voting rights for the sake of a free Federal

grant to buy voting machines people inherently distrust.

*** # # # # ***

 

Copyright. Permission to reproduce in whole or part with attribution

to the author, Michael Collins, a link to " Scoop, " and attribution of

polling results to Zogby International.

 

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting

rights. He is the editor of the election fraud web site,

www.ElectionFraudNews.com. He has written articles on a number of

topics for " Scoop " Independent News including: The Disenfranchisement

of Katrina's Survivors; The Unanswered Question: Who Really Won In

2004? ; Secret Vote Counting, a scathing critique of HAVA; and

Kennedy's Challenge, a detailed response to Salon's attack on the

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. article on stolen election 2004. Special thanks

to Stella Black for editorial assistance; Paul Lehto for very helpful

suggestions; and acknowledgement and thanks to the Zogby professional

® who did such an outstanding job summarizing complex data.

MichaelCollins @ electionfraudnews.com

 

 

***APPENDIX***

 

The Zogby poll was conducted from August 11 through 15, 2006. 1018

adult voters were interviewed by phone. The sample of people

interviewed reflects the demographic and regional diversity of the

United States. Due to the size, it has a 3.1 % (+/-) margin of error.

95% of Zogby's political polls have come within a 1% margin of

accuracy in predicting election outcome. The survey was commissioned

and sponsored by election rights and business law attorney Paul Lehto

of Everett Washington. This author, Michael Collins, Editor,

www.electionfraudnews.com was a contributing sponsor.

 

Voters were asked what type of voting machines they used to cast

their votes. All but 4% knew the answer to this question. A plurality

said that they use touch screens, 32%. Optical scanning devices for

special paper ballots were used by 18% of voters and the same percent

used " plain " paper ballots. Lever machines were used by 14% of voters

with punch cards representing 12% of the sample.

 

ENDS

 

--