You write,

Though some consider the stances of BlackBoxVoting.org and "Hacking Democracy" to be extreme, real problems at the polls in several states during this year's primaries lend some credence to the critics of e-voting.

Neither you nor the Post's reviewer Paul Farhi saw fit to mention the lawsuit that Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting instigated against Diebold in California, which was settled out of court to the tune of $3.5 million. This "oversight" is a common one in the media as reporters write dismissively of her efforts under headings such as "The Sky is Falling."

Since I get tired of repeating myself, I would refer you to a letter I submitted to another reporter in 2004: http://simplyappalling.blogspot.com/2004/11/watchdogs-demand-vote-accountability.html

As for the National Federation for the Blind, its links to Diebold were also revealed in 2004-- http://simplyappalling.blogspot.com/2004/06/blind-leading-blind.html

Andy R said Diebold machines would be fine if they just had paper receipts. I would add to that a point made on the Daily Show last night--these private companies making voting machines are keeping secret some of the details of their operation as proprietary. That doesn't fly with me. Ordinarily, of course I recognize a business's need (or at least right) to keep private certain details of their business that *are* proprietary, and would kill their business if made public (the ingredients of Big Mac "special sauce" for example--LOL).

But in the case of voting machines, we need to know how they're working, or supposed to work. These are literally the nuts and bolts that allow our democracy to function as a democracy (or not), and just as courts have ruled that preventing the *appearance* of impropriety is an important or compelling government interest (I forget which, I think compelling), it seems to me that ensuring public confidence in our voting systems and equipment is equally important. People need to be able to vote with the confidence that their vote will be counted, that a power failure or computer screw-up won't erase thousands of votes, that machines can't be hacked, that there's some kind of reliable backup (e.g. paper trails) in case a recount is needed, that the makers of the machines can't influence the results, and that fraud is virtually impossible to commit.

I don't mean to say that precludes all rights of voting equipment makers to keep proprietary information private--I hardly know all the details of what's really necessary for the companies to keep private and for the public to know to have the confidences listed above. But the latter is more important to the functioning of democracy. I say with no malice, if these companies can't give the public the information they need to be confident in the process without going out of business, then the government itself should be making the equipment, software, etc. The confidence of the people in voting mechanisms is fundamentally more important than the ability of private companies to make profits in the business of making voting equipment.

Definitely our standards for voting machines should be as high as those for ATMs--but as voting and elections and democracy are more important, i would go a little further and say we should have even higher standards and expectations for voting equipment than for ATMs. Obviously we have a ways to go before we get there, but that's what we should be striving for.

By the way, I read the Amy goldstein article on the front page of the post. Is it really too much to ask that someone present a valid ID in order to case a vote. I mean in many states you are required by law to carry ID on you (I don't agree with that but it is the state of affairs). To me, if voting is important enough to do, it is important enough to make sure you do it correctly. Presenting ID helps to prevent the fraud that we have all crowed about. I have zero problem with it. I know this might present the long held practice of throwing money on the street and getting whomever to show up to vote but so be it.

Republicans do not seem to be near as concerned about voting machines as others. Does this mean that voter fraud could not hurt BOTH sides of the isle?

I think that the documented errors in E-Voting machines are PROBABLY just coincidence and not systematic. I think that when Diebold said that they'd do anything to deliver Ohio to the Republicans, they PROBABLY just meant anything legal. I think that E-Voting machines are PROBABLY not being implemented in part of a plot to undermine the votes of Americans. I think they are PROBABLY not being used to steal the vote for Republicans. I think that the large swings from final polls and exit polls to the actual results of elections on Diebold machines in 2002 and 2004 are PROBABLY due to failings of the polls, rather than failings of the elections.

I think Diebold PROBABLY is resisting paper trails because that technology would eat into their profits. I think elections officials (Democrats as well as Republicans) are PROBABLY choosing E-Voting due to a combination of geniune civic values and lobbying efforts on behalf of manufacturers.

But, if someone were stealing elections in the U.S., I think it would PROBABLY look a lot like this. I don't think my guesses about E-Voting machines are a smart basis for policy. I think it's better to take positive steps to prevent fraud than it is to trust that it won't ever happen.

I think I PROBABLY won't get into a car crash this evening, but I'm still going to wear my seat belt.

I'd imagine that e-vote hacking this year would most likely be done on a small level by rogue techies instead of a wide spread and coordinated effort. Which of course means that the tampering could be done to favor any party. I still don't understand the refusal to require e-voting have auditable paper trails. Audits are a common method to allow confidence in a result. Just about every business/organization (including diebold) gets audited annually. It's not to find wrong doing, but to give confidence to the belief that no wrong doing occurred. I'm guessing a lot of the hesitation is state election officials not wanting to admit that they have to get an expensive fix to what was already a few million dollar purchase b/c they screwed up the first time (aren't these machines like $7k each?).

As for this Haggard guy, how many people had actually heard of him before this morning? Maybe if I went to church I'd know him? I doubt the story has legs.

When confronted with the outing of his mishandling of Iraq by Bob Woodward's Book, "Sate of Denial", closeted gay Mark Foley was thrown to the woods so the book would not get much attention, and it worked, the attention was minimal.
 
    When confronted with the possibility of his election being illegitimate and stolen and being declared the winner by Republican sponsored Diebold machines, due to an HBO documentary which aired yesterday evening, November 2, 2006, which clearly shows how easily the Diebold machines can be easily hacked into and other voting anomalies during the Florida debacle, closeted gay Rev. Ted Haggard has been thrown to the woods, so the discussion on these Republican sponsored e-voting machines, which were used in 2004 and are still being used, will not get much air time and discussion and thereby swept under the Rug!
 
How many more closeted gays in the future, will have to be thrown to the wolves, to protect this President from being exposed and to keep the American public from finally getting and seeing the truth.

I watched the HBO program last night. My take on it?
Diebold's company motto: Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?

Drindl, could you please attach a link to the article on the appropriations bill and the abolishment of the Office of the Special Inspector General in Iraq. I would like to look at it. Thx

"No doubt the HBO documentary was slanted,"

Sorry, but that is a matter of personal speculation, not a "given."

"No doubt" should be replaced by "From my perspective" and while you may believe yourself to be right, you shouldn't claim it with such authority, because you may just be wrong.

The HBO documentary may very well be right-on the money.

And Chris, your "libertarian hacker-kid" gaffe only shows how fearful you are of offending SOMEONE "R", whoever that may be.

You walk on eggshells around Republican issuess, but boldly go forth when it a Dem.

Chris, you are a very good writer, a reliable pundit and a rising star in the multi-media world.

But you are still folding for ideological influences that are apparently quite personal, almost as if you don't want to offend your R father, or your R girlfriend, your R peer group, or someone "R" OTHER than the general public.

It seems more personal than professional, though, to me, as if you were raised a Republican and you don't want to offend all those good folks you remember from those lost days of honest Republicans, with at least a modicum of party integrity.

Which is why you used the word "libertarian" rather than "republican."

Transparent, almost blatant, tippy-toeing around Republican indignation.

No doubt the HBO documentary was slanted, but the question raised is no less valid and it deserves thorough journalistic treatment, not a dismissive tone.

Of course, the issue is heightened by partisan election officials in Florida and Ohio in prominent positions who made pivotal decisions, but the star is the technology and the vendors.

The man in the middle of the documentary raising questions is the Volusia County Florida elections administrator who was dismayed with the 2000 and 2004 process and sought answers to his questions. His point of contention: the vendors incorporating the technology are driving the process more than public officials responsibility for overseeing it.

If the allegation is that memory cards for electronic voting machines can be pre-programmed to add and subtract votes, that's certainly a worthy story worth debunking, don't you think?

Drindl,
The Haggard admission seals the fate of any hardline GOP guy in colorado. You know that the evangelical voter are going to lose a little steam after this. Also he definitly did something because he admitted "some guilt" to the acting pastor.

Message to Ted, you aren't guilty of anything except for hypocrisy.

I agree with Sandwich and LS that the optical scanner system is the way to go. It works great up here in the bastion of freedom, Cambridge Mass. Diebold voting machines would be fine IF there was a paper trial to follow if a problem arose. We wouldn't allow getting rid of a paper trail for our ATM transactions, so if we require it for our money then why not for the most important thing in our country, our vote.

Also if Lamont is smart he will have a commercial out tomorrow that has that Liebermann quote from Imus.

'Facing shocking allegations that he paid a gay prostitute for sex, prominent Colorado Springs pastor Ted Haggard placed himself on administrative leave Thursday from his church position and resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a platform that made him a rising star in conservative politics.
Haggard, 50, said in a statement released by his 14,000- member New Life Church that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations made on Denver talk radio this morning."
In interviews over the past two days with KHOW talk radio, 9News and The Denver Post, Michael Forest Jones, 49, of Denver alleges he had sex on a monthly basis with Haggard over three years. Jones claimed Haggard used the name "Art," admitted he was married and used meth before the two had sex.'

Had to comment on this story. Bloggers n the left and right trying to find out who the accuser is -- is he a paid operative [timing is suspicious] a loon -- or an angry lover? Nobody knows.

But one thing seems clear -- if the preacher was innocent, he wouldn't step down, would he? He'd simply say --'This an absurd charge. This man is a liar.' But no. He very quickly disappears from the public eye instead. Wonder what it must feel like to be an evangelical christian right now?

I have to agree with sandwich. Optical scan has been used in R.I. elections for the past 8-10 years and it is virtually fool-proof, if handled appropriately. The chronic problem here is not the voting machines but the squabbles and court cases swirling around the ABSENTEE BALLOTS which are prone to mismanagement and "timing" manipulation,in a close race depending upon who on the Board of Elections is running the count.

So after a week of saturation coverage of a stupid joke by John Kerry, do you think any of the rest of the media could pick up on this latest outrage? And it is an outrage... where are the true conservatives? Do any exist anymore?'

'Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen's supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation. '

They WILL cheat, in any way necessary, especially if it is thier last and only chance to hold onto power and protect themselves from inevitable oversight.

You need to get this into your head, and into your writing, Chris, because it isn't in there already, and I think you probably know it is the truth...

Beware the cornered beast.

"though the Post's reviewer was less than kind."

You mean disingenuous?

What a hack job.

Here's an excerpt from Mike Stark's post on the Huffington blog this AM, this is about as straightforward as it gets.

"A staffer, David Snepp, inserted himself between the Senator and I, invaded my personal space and told me that I couldn't ask these questions because the event was for "real journalists" only.

Real journalists. Ponder that."

We need some real journalists watching over our elecoral process these days, it seems most of our 4th Estate is ignoring the obvious.

Just the thought that our leaders would let the question mark hang like this only suports the "conspiracy theory" you guys so casually dismiss.

Anyone who believes the neocons are not willing to use our electoral system to enrich themselves is just naive. And anyone who does not believe they are capable of it is forgeting John Poindexter's beastly database.

The technology is totally in thier control, to commit these election fraud crimes,right down to the hacking of it.

Anyone who thinks they won't use every dirty trick in the book to gain and hold onto political-power-for-profit wasn't raised in the same divided nation I grew up in.

Try some "real journalism" for a change, not this fraud-enabling nicey-nice drivel.

'Though some consider the stances of BlackBoxVoting.org and "Hacking Democracy" to be extreme, real problems at the polls in several states during this year's primaries lend some credence to the critics of e-voting. '

I would iike to know who the 'some' are who consider these organizations to be extreme. Please quote one of them, and what support they have for this allegation. What sloppy reportage. And lazy. There are hundreds of documented cases of bizarre malfunctions, hacking, fraud and a host of other outright crimes, which you characterize as 'lending some credence to critics. There's encough credence and solid evidence to warrant thorough investigations -- if those in power wanted to correct the problems. They don't.

'Don't buy into the paranoia, say the companies that make electronic voting machinery. Diebold Election Systems, an Ohio-based company that has become the focus of many anti-e-voting campaigners'

Oh, puhleeze. Are you a reporter or a sales rep for Diebold? Did not the CEO of Diebold, a Bush Pioneer, promise Bush in an email that he wuld 'deliver the election'? God. you so-called journalists are hopeless enablers for the corporate partners of the Republican party.The fact that you have all become so cozy with each other is a substantial danger to democracy.

But you don't want to rock the boat, do you?

Where is all the hysteria about the Haggard sex scandal? If the few words that Kerry uttered warranted headlines for 3 days, surely this does. Both stories have a link on the WaPo and NYT front page of their web editions, but you have to click through to see anything more - and haven't seen the paper editions.

How can the media not make a big deal out of this after what they did to Kerry?

"Don't buy into the paranoia, say the companies that make electronic voting machinery. Diebold Election Systems,"

ignore that man behind the curtain...

More Wizard of Oz election mentallity.

There is a simpole answer to this problem, I call it the "hundred up" solution, and it has been part of our culture for a long time, it is called a "pyramid scheme" but instead of moving money it moves the vote results, as a "shadow ballot" up the line with hand-carried numbers that should by all the laws of physics and math, match the electronic results at any given moment..

Also, as long as we have "deadline" democracy, that demands a final count or certified results within a given time-frame;

and as long as the Supreme Court can step in and order a recount stopped;

and as long as State officials responsible for election results can act as partisan campaign operatives, we will never know the truth.

Those three factors need to change before any credibility can be restored to this ailing system.

Until then, we can only hope there are enough honest, independent election officials sprinkled among the partisan Republicans who now dominate the election system, to salvage a respectable election this time around.

Another suggestion... If someone challenges you at the polling place, you can require them to provide thier own credentials and personal identification, first, before you are obligated to prove your own local residency. And you have the right to demand to take a photo of them, also, if they refuse, you can tell them "no." If they won't willingly identify themselves for posterity, you owe them nothing.

You can ask just as much, even more, of them as they can of you, so don't be intimidated by any bullies, just get a good record of it.

If they are being paid for this intimidation, they and the person who hired them are breaking the law.

So, if there's someons hanging around taking names or writing down license plates, get thier name and photo, too, you have every right to know why they are there and ask them in front of witnesses if someone has paid them to be there, and who it is.

If you ask them that question in front of witnesses, or on video, and they deny it, but it can be proven later that they were paid provocatuers, they have committed a crime.

A couple seasons of this "reverse scrutiny" will end this bullies-at-the-polls shenanigan for good.

Especially if they are being paid for it.

Oh and btw, I cant believe how the NYT has AGAIN supported the terrorists. Right GOP?

What?! The Republicans posted information valuable in making a nuclear device on the INTERNET? For political purposes?!?!?!

It must be the Dems and the NYT fault somehow right Ken Mehlman? Right George Bush? Right GOP?

U.S. shuts Web site said to reveal nuclear guide: report
Fri Nov 3, 2006 7:12am ET144

The U.S. government has shut down a Web site it set up in March containing documents captured during the Iraq war after experts raised concerns it offered a guide to building an atom bomb, the New York Times reported.

It said the Bush administration started the site under pressure from congressional Republicans who hoped to use the Internet to find new evidence of dangers posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

In recent weeks, according to the Times, the site posted documents that weapons experts said contained detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Gulf War that one diplomat called "a cookbook" for building an atom bomb.

On Wednesday night, after the Times informed the government about the concerns, it said the government suspended the site. It quoted a spokesman for the director of national intelligence as saying the site was withdrawn "pending a review to ensure its content is appropriate for public viewing."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-11-03T124158Z_01_N02171090_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-INTERNET-IRAQ.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-1

Anyone who votes for the Republican Party is damaging American security. Period.

This post reads like a GOP/RNC reaction to the show yesterday on HBO called "Hacking Democracy"

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200661102023

Ya know, I really dont appreciate the "Sky is Falling" header, the intimation that this is not really that big a problem and the IDIOTIC line about some "hacker kid" swaying votes to the LIBERTARIAN? What in the heck are you talking about? This is INSULTING to my intelligence and to anyone who has taken even ONE SECOND to research the Diebold e-voting nightmare.

Thanks for your CONTINUED biased writings at The Fix even through guest hit pieces. It motivates me to elect Democrats.

Hilarious.

Yesterday, the discussion was about Congressional races and Che delivers a long diatribe about voting machines and election fraud.

Today, the discussion is about voting machines and election fraud and Che premieres a rant about Congressional races.

Chris, you wrote, "That some new-fangled voting machines are gonna eat your vote or some hacker kid is going to figure out a way to swing the Senate race to the Libertarian Party?" Clearly you meant to write, based on the facts, "switch the vote to the Republican Party." Don't you read the news?

Off topic, but very important.

Lieberman was just on Don Imus's show. Imus asked him about whether he would caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman responded that he had said early on that he would caucus with the Democrats. He then went on to say that he had made that decision to protect his seniority. He now thinks that it would be better for him to be "very, very independent."

In other words, Lieberman has clearly backed off from his decision to caucus with the Democrats. That is not to say he will caucus with the GOP. However, if there is a 50-49-1 split in the Senate, with Lieberman holding the balance, look for him to push for a coalition-style government.

DEAR MR. CILLIZZA,

FINALLY WHAT WE WHERE ALL WAITING FOR.

THANK YOU MR. CILLIZZA, KEEP THE GOOD WORK.

KEEP ALSO USING YOUR GOOD SIDE.

YOURS,

CHE

ELECTION ALARM!! SPREAD THE WORD!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15913217.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

AP Exclusive: Pa. congressman paying ex-mistress about $500,000

MICHAEL RUBINKAM
Associated Press

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A Republican congressman accused of abusing his ex-mistress agreed to pay her about $500,000 in a settlement last year that contained a powerful incentive for her to keep quiet until after Election Day, a person familiar with the terms of the deal told The Associated Press.

Rep. Don Sherwood is locked in a tight re-election race against a Democratic opponent who has seized on the four-term congressman's relationship with the woman. While Sherwood acknowledged the woman was his mistress, he denied abusing her and said that he had settled her $5.5 million lawsuit on confidential terms.

The settlement, reached in November 2005, called for Cynthia Ore to be paid in installments, according to a person who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal is confidential. She has received less than half the money so far, and will not get the rest until after the Nov. 7 election, the person said Thursday.

A confidentiality clause requires Ore to forfeit some of the money if she talks publicly about the case, according to this person and two other people familiar with elements of the case.

It is common in settlements for payments to be made in installments and for the parties to be held to confidentiality.

Sherwood admitted no wrongdoing, a standard provision in such agreements, this person said.

Sherwood, a 65-year-old married father of three who is considered a family-values conservative, had one of the safest seats in Congress until Ore sued him in June 2005, alleging he physically abused her throughout their five-year affair.

Reached by telephone Wednesday, the congressman and successful car dealer said: "I can neither confirm nor deny because this was a private settlement. If I'd like to talk to you about it, I can't."

The Associated Press has been trying for months to find out the terms of the settlement.

According to a police report, Ore called 911 on her cell phone from the bathroom of Sherwood's Capitol Hill apartment in 2004 and reported that Sherwood had choked her while giving her a back rub. Sherwood admitted having an affair with the woman, but vehemently denied ever hurting her, and criminal charges were never filed. But Ore, now 30, sued for damages.

Sherwood's challenger, Chris Carney, has hammered the congressman over the affair in TV ads, calling Sherwood a hypocrite who brought "Washington values" to his rural northeastern Pennsylvania district.

Sherwood responded with his own ad, in which he looked directly into the camera and apologized for his conduct. Last month, his wife mailed a letter to voters that accused Carney of "needlessly cruel" campaign tactics.

Although GOP voters greatly outnumber Democrats in his conservative district, many people have said they would not vote for him again because of the affair.

Even before Ore settled, the congressman tried to keep a tight lid on the case. His lawyer asked a judge to prohibit disclosure of materials from the case, warning that Sherwood's opponents might try to use the information to harm him politically.

The lawyer, Bobby Burchfield, was especially adamant that any videotaped deposition of Sherwood not be released, saying the footage could be used against him in negative political ads.

Ore's attorney, Ning Ye of New York, declined to say where she is living now or how she can be reached.

Old fashioned paper ballots are best. Also, Secretaries of State with their partisan interests should not have any influence on the process. Blackwell in '04 stole Ohio for Bush and there was Kathleen Harris in Florida. Perhaps most importantly we need to have a uniform system nationwide. Every state does it their own way. Every county within every state does it their own way. We're suppossed to be one country.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Rothenberg state legislative ratings--MI and NH updated: http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/11/state-legislature-ratings.html

Wow, you're up early! Seems to me optical scan is the way to go. There's a verifiable paper record, and at least in many cases, the ballot is immediately rejected and spit back out to the voter if something is wrong with the ballot, so they can correct it. Doesn't seem vulnerable to hacking or power failures like some electronic and touch screen voting (the NC election in 2004 that had to be revoted because a few thousand votes disappeared in the computer??) It's not the highest tech option out there (nor is it the old levers), but it just may be the most reliable right now. I voted optical scan ballots in WA in the 2000 primary and general--when the Senate race was extremely close and there had to be a statewide recount of 2 million or more ballots. While Florida was making a mockery of American democracy to the rest of the planet, WA's recount proceeded very smoothly, with virtually no media coverage outside the state, and the recount found a result only 70 votes off from the first tally, with Cantwell edging Gorton by 2229 votes instead of 2159. I'm no expert, fanatic, or conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure some of these shiny new technologies are ready for prime time yet. Sometimes the tried and tested methods are better than the latest bells and whistles option.

My 2 cents (1.8 cents US).

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com