Votergate
I heard about concerns surrounding so-called Black Box voting machines some time ago. Now, however, with Tuesday behind us, I've been unable to shake my suspicions about the digital returns from Ohio. A friend mentioned Bev Harris, the PR person-turned-investigative reporter from nearby Renton, WA, who started researching electronic voting machines a year and a half ago. Bev is at the helm of blackboxvoting.org, a site which tracks her research and offers substantiating data. Bev's work has revealed some pretty interesting information, like the tidbit about the Nebraska senator who was the former CEO of the company which manufactured the voting computers for his very election.
Each piece I've now read about Bev mentions that she is a normal-seeming grandma. Thus far there have been no claims that she is not credible. She's now been quoted in the NY Times, among dozens of other publications worldwide. Her findings are amazing.
I encourage you to watch the 30-minute film about Bev and electronic voting. Surely there is something to all of this - that it can't be disproved is cause enough for concern.
I went to the Ohio Secretary of State web site to look at the reporting of the returns. There is surprisingly little detail, all things considered. For instance, there is no notation per county about what type of machine or tabulation was used. There is no breakdown of absentee vs. in-person vote. There is no mention about whether provisional ballots were counted - only cast. There is no easy-to-find documentation about vote count rules per various scenarios (e.g., what happens when mid-count a candidate concedes?). The lack of detail is strange, especially since one of the benefits of using computers to count votes is that all of the data is dumped into a large database, where it can be analyzed and sliced and diced using any number of variables.
Voting mechanics should be transparent. How can we use counting machines which are developed by privately-held companies? If another country (especially one with predominently brown skin tone) were to employ counting mechanics which were run by private companies we* would call their bluff and question their legitimacy**.
Where are the contemporary Woodward and Bernstein (and Katherine Graham, especially)?
Perhaps the most ridiculous element of all of this is that I can't help but wonder if grandma Bev has noticed windowless white vans stationed in her neighborhood. Let me say that while I've been accused of excessively locking my car doors (I grew up in L.A., it's genetic!), I'm not a paranoid sort. But... Well, none of this sits right with me. Will I get my very own FBI file if I speak with Bev? Will I be labeled a conspiracy quack?
*Cheney and Rumsfeld
**invade them, overthrow their government, and show them a real election
Each piece I've now read about Bev mentions that she is a normal-seeming grandma. Thus far there have been no claims that she is not credible. She's now been quoted in the NY Times, among dozens of other publications worldwide. Her findings are amazing.
I encourage you to watch the 30-minute film about Bev and electronic voting. Surely there is something to all of this - that it can't be disproved is cause enough for concern.
I went to the Ohio Secretary of State web site to look at the reporting of the returns. There is surprisingly little detail, all things considered. For instance, there is no notation per county about what type of machine or tabulation was used. There is no breakdown of absentee vs. in-person vote. There is no mention about whether provisional ballots were counted - only cast. There is no easy-to-find documentation about vote count rules per various scenarios (e.g., what happens when mid-count a candidate concedes?). The lack of detail is strange, especially since one of the benefits of using computers to count votes is that all of the data is dumped into a large database, where it can be analyzed and sliced and diced using any number of variables.
Voting mechanics should be transparent. How can we use counting machines which are developed by privately-held companies? If another country (especially one with predominently brown skin tone) were to employ counting mechanics which were run by private companies we* would call their bluff and question their legitimacy**.
Where are the contemporary Woodward and Bernstein (and Katherine Graham, especially)?
Perhaps the most ridiculous element of all of this is that I can't help but wonder if grandma Bev has noticed windowless white vans stationed in her neighborhood. Let me say that while I've been accused of excessively locking my car doors (I grew up in L.A., it's genetic!), I'm not a paranoid sort. But... Well, none of this sits right with me. Will I get my very own FBI file if I speak with Bev? Will I be labeled a conspiracy quack?
*Cheney and Rumsfeld
**invade them, overthrow their government, and show them a real election
posted by O'Mc Bloggivan at 9:39 PM
2 Comments:
Responding to your last questions: probably.
(And I am the most blindly-trusting person I know.)
(well, second to my parents. Make that, the most blindly-trusting LIBERAL I know.)
Here are some relevant, shoddily-remembered facts, courtesy of CNN (and, I think, 60 Minutes... see? Shoddy memory):
Of the 119 functioning Democracies that hold nationwide elections, the U.S. ranks AMONG THE WORST.
Indian elections are all electronic and have a remarkably low incidence of problems. They make their own machines, of course. When they offered to help out with our conversion to electronic voting and send us some of their machines (even just to demonstrate on), they were rebuffed. That whole brown skin thing can be a real drag. Their machines are tamperproof, have a paper trail and are extraordinarily reliable...
Well done!
http://avzykuoi.com/nnmy/azkt.html | http://wguglyik.com/mece/uzjj.html
Post a Comment
<< Home