Slashdot Mirror

For example, there is very strong evidence that Scott Brown reached the US Senate as a result of election fraud. Details are in http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/BelieveIt_OrNot_100904.pdf That analysis compared the results in machine count jurisdictions and hand count jurisdictions. The usual disparity between hand count and machine count results (based on prior elections) runs around 0.25%. Coakley led in hand count jurisdictions by 2% and Brown in machine count jurisdictions by 5%. That is a 7% disparity. It also turns out that the company operating the machine counts was Republican-connected, and that the ballots were neither saved nor sampled to validate the accuracy of the machine counts. There are numerous ways to tamper with a machine count of paper ballots, especially in a two-person special election.

The method published in the subject paper could not pick up this kind of election fraud.

Dude, I talking 4th amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, not ex-post-facto law. FISA trashes the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

--------

"...Unfortunately, even with such a safeguard, the proposed legislation would still grant both retroactive and future legal immunity to telecom companies that help government conduct its surveillance activities. Not only does H.R. 6304 grant immunity from civil action to telecoms that participated in the presidentâ(TM)s surveillance program during the period beginning on September 11, 2001 and ending on January 17, 2007.

It also unconditionally releases these companies from any future liability (presumably both civil and criminal). For it unqualifiedly states, "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1)." So, if American citizens cannot file suit against these companies for past or future violations of their Fourth Amendment right to privacy, then it has to be questioned how this Act preserves this constitutional right..."

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/2008/07/fisa_amendment_just_time_steal_election

"The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an electronic communication service provider to a) "immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary . . . b) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished. . . ."

And hereâ(TM)s the kicker: "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider" for providing this information.

Thus we have the Congress granting to the Executive Branch and the private sector enormous new powers to violate our privacy.

In essence, the government can now conscript the private sector to do its dirty work. But donâ(TM)t pity the companies; the government will pay them for coughing up our secrets, the bill says. âoeThe government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, an electronic communication service provider for providing information, facilities, or assistance...."

http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx071008.html

Ya' think making corporations completely immune from prosecution of any kind for any legal or illegal work it does to spy on people for the government in the past PRESENT AND FUTURE might be a just a wee bit of a violation for the 4th Amendment?

How can you comment on this issue and not be aware of the problems with computerized voting? If you spent more than 30 seconds googling, you'd find acres of information which completely contradict your statements.

and the only sensible system is electronic with paper trail which removes small errors (and provides accessibility) but allows for backup (albeit with aforementioned small errors) in the case of an electronic failure.

Computerized voting is much more error prone than using paper ballots.

Perhaps you recall the 16,000 under votes in Sarasota, Florida?

ESI report of the Cuyahoga County Ohio's election meltdown details all sorts of errors with computerized voting.

No intellectually honest person who has looked into this agrees with you.

You either didn't bother to look or stubbornly remain willfully ignorant. Either way, thanks for posting.

Bush got elected the first time, and I didn't understand... I thought it was obvious he was an idiot. Time proved me right. But to RE-ELECT him? I was amazed. Granted, I didn't have much confidence that Kerry would be our next great President, but compared to Bush? I voted for Kerry, but not because I really wanted him as President, but because he was the only one who had a chance to get Bush out of office. Getting Bush out of office was my number one priority in that election, and I stand by that decision. Our 2 party system sucks because you essentially only have 2 choices, and in this case it wasn't about choosing which dildo felt the best, it was about choosing which one hurt the least.

If you voted for Bush the first time, you may be forgiven. But if you voted for him the second time, you are a fool and should be ashamed of yourself. All the evidence you needed was in front of your stupid face, yet you chose to ignore it. If you chose not to vote, then fuck you too and stop your complaining. Or, maybe START complaining because it might mean you are starting to care.

Your own words illustrate precisely my point. You didn't vote for who you wanted, you voted against the guy you didn't want to win. You voted that way because you had no real options.

The system is fundamentally rigged so that the people who really have power, those who run the big corporations, keep that power and expand upon it. You don't think they'd be stupid enough to rig it in such a way as to leave any holes open, do you?

I voted in the first election for the person I wanted to win (one of the third parties, I forget which one at this point). I voted for Kerry in the second election as you did. It accomplished nothing. I have a very strong suspicion, as do others, that the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections were both rigged in favor of Bush. The exit polls clearly show that the same thing was attempted for the 2006 congressional elections as well (well, if the source I cited is to be believed, anyway), and the only reason that didn't work is that the democrats managed to gain enough additional support right before the election to overcome the rigging (you don't rig an election in such a way as to make it obvious it was rigged, you know. You rig it so that the rigging bias is just enough to allow your guy to win. It takes time to plan it and time to make the right preparations). Even so, the same people (more or less) who got the current guys into power are also behind the Democrats. They exert a great deal of control over who lands on the ballots of each of those parties, and cement that control by controlling what the media says about the candidates that wind up on the ballots.

Against forces like this, what can the common man do? Not a whole lot, that's what. Expecting the common man to be able to fix this is to expect a miracle. It basically won't happen.

The only way out of this is in fire.

Ye gods! That EDA site is fugly. There may important information about this bill in there somewhere, but if so it's masked by hideous site design. Here's a tip: if you're linking to a site with a ton of extraneous information, provide a direct link to the relevant bits that you want us to see. Bonus points for a summary in your comment. Linking to the front page of a site like that is akin to telling me about a very important article about computers from a few weeks ago on Slashdot - it's not on the front page and there's no way I'll find it using the search box.

Anyway, I managed to find some bullet points here (by clicking mostly at random) that are some of opponents' concerns, though I confess I didn't read the article that may put them into context:

* The bill violates state sovereignty and cements control over the nation's voting systems in the hands of four white house appointees.
* The bill codifies into federal law the use of secret vote counting technologies in the United States of America.
* The bill mandates impossible, ineffective and controversial audit and reporting requirements and timetables.
* The bill confuses technology with democracy, embracing the tenets of the one over the other.
* The bill furthers the misguided and undemocratic direction initiated with the Help America Vote Act that replaces observable voting with verifiable voting

-f

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm by no means here to defend the design of those sites, and I'm sorry about any inappropriate ads (insert some generic TOS language about no control over third party links).

Here's the page of more detailed analysis of the bill:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/hr_811_the_ holt_ii_bill_to_amend_hava

Maybe in particular check out Bruce O'Dell's analysis:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/hr_811_ten_ blunders

I'll see if I can find additional links that are more directly related and useful.

Thanks!

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm by no means here to defend the design of those sites, and I'm sorry about any inappropriate ads (insert some generic TOS language about no control over third party links).

Here's the page of more detailed analysis of the bill:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/hr_811_the_ holt_ii_bill_to_amend_hava

Maybe in particular check out Bruce O'Dell's analysis:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/hr_811_ten_ blunders

I'll see if I can find additional links that are more directly related and useful.

Thanks!

I'm looking at the links you sent, and comparing them to the EFF page, on HR 811 and I think you are being misled.

The Brad Blog you link to has a porn ad at the top, a bunch of attempts to discredit people by assocation, and poorly photoshopped heads of various villains. Their article on the bill doesn't say anything bad about the bill itself: It just says that it isn't as good as the original bill that was proposed. That's not a reason to vote against the bill. In some cases it directly conflicts with the EFF's reading of the bill. Brad's blog says that HR 811 "prohibits" disclosure of the source - while the EFF's reading says it "allows" disclosure if the states choose to do so, which is no worse than what we have now. I believe the EFF reading is correct.

The Election Defense Alliance page makes a good use of red, white, and blue colors to look patriotic. But they seem to do nothing other than name calling using things like "The Patriot Act of Elections" which doesn't add any meaning to the discussion. I suspect that this page is a phony grassroots page. For example, in their Article on HR 811 under section 7 they explain how releasing the source code doesn't improve security. Any Slashdot reader can see through this logic. Several of the points in the article are listed under the "misconceptions and misrepresentations" section of the EFF article. That is another reason I suspect the Election Defense Alliance articles to be phony - they seem to be scaremongering.

I'm looking at the links you sent, and comparing them to the EFF page, on HR 811 and I think you are being misled.

The Brad Blog you link to has a porn ad at the top, a bunch of attempts to discredit people by assocation, and poorly photoshopped heads of various villains. Their article on the bill doesn't say anything bad about the bill itself: It just says that it isn't as good as the original bill that was proposed. That's not a reason to vote against the bill. In some cases it directly conflicts with the EFF's reading of the bill. Brad's blog says that HR 811 "prohibits" disclosure of the source - while the EFF's reading says it "allows" disclosure if the states choose to do so, which is no worse than what we have now. I believe the EFF reading is correct.

The Election Defense Alliance page makes a good use of red, white, and blue colors to look patriotic. But they seem to do nothing other than name calling using things like "The Patriot Act of Elections" which doesn't add any meaning to the discussion. I suspect that this page is a phony grassroots page. For example, in their Article on HR 811 under section 7 they explain how releasing the source code doesn't improve security. Any Slashdot reader can see through this logic. Several of the points in the article are listed under the "misconceptions and misrepresentations" section of the EFF article. That is another reason I suspect the Election Defense Alliance articles to be phony - they seem to be scaremongering.

I don't doubt that the original author of this bill was well intentioned (there was so much to fix about HAVA, after all), but this bill is not the answer, and it's _not_ good. We don't want computers enshrined as the method of resolving or counting votes. The Canadian (and the Europeans, e.g., the Swiss) have it right. Paper ballots that are manually marked that _anyone_ can verify are the right approach. Slashdot is what got me involved in this issue originally, and it's thanks to the skepticism of computer professionals that we know how bad these systems are.

This bill is being called the "Patriot Act of Elections"...be sure to get all the facts before you decide it's a good thing, and I'm sure you'll decide it isn't. Here are two great resources to start with:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

http://www.bradblog.com/

(and in particular on the Brad Blog, check out Ellen Thiesen's analysis of problems with this and the Senate bill currently being worked on)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4678

It's worse than that, I think.

It looks to me (and others) like the Republicans attempted to steal the entire 2006 congressional election (more precisely, enough to maintain a Republican majority in both the House and Senate) and failed only because voter opinion became even more favorable to the Democrats at the last minute. See http://electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denie d_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006 for details.

And lest you think the pre-cooked exit polls were "inaccurate" this time around, the details of how they did the exit polling are important. In particular, they also asked how the voter voted in the 2004 presidential election, which allows them to independently determine whether "adjusting" the exit polls to correspond with the official count is realistic.