The Holy Ghost Victory For The GOP

[Nbadan]

As ES says, the problem with electronic voting is that is not auditable. Your are putting our democracy in the hands of a programmable machine, which are not by any means secure (http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/).

Given that we want secret ballots, I think there is little choice but to have a corresponding paper ballot for recounting.

The paper trail needs to run deep. A receipt for voters so that they know that the candidate they voted for received there votes. In 2004, there were numerous incidents of people reporting voting for Kerry in Ohio and other places only to have their votes switched to Dubya by the machine. A copy of that receipt that goes into a voting lock box so that the automatic tabulation on every machine can be verified at any time by counting the votes on the receipts on assigned locked boxes. There has to be some sort of check mechanism so that precient chiefs can verify that the total being reported by the machines can be backed up by both the automatic tabulations on individual e-voting machines and by the total of votes of receipts in locked-boxes. Finally, e-voting companies need to be put out of business and run by the non-partisan GAO or some on other non-partisan en y using open source software that can be checked for foulability.

[boutons_]

The Most Advanced, Most Powerful Country in the History of the Universe cannot master voting technology.

The USA not being able to count the ing votes with precision is just one more failure condemning the entire political system as broken.

Some ideas:

e-voting entirely, it's obviously a bogus exercise designed to be compromised.

Paper ballots have to be serialized, like paper currency, so each ballot is unique (no duplicates). There is no personal info on the ballot which remains anonymous.

ballots are in two identical parts. One part is left at the voting booth to be counted, the other part is taken away by the voter as his record.

The voter makes his choices on a touchscreen, confirms the choice.

The voting machine prints out the two-iden cal-part ballot.

Since the vote is machine-printed, it's easily machine-readable by the counting machine with very high accuracy and very high speed. The OCR technology can be very simple because the characters printed and the names printed are fully defined in advance.

Because the voter has confirmed the ballot by reading the text, the machine-reading of the ballot must be of the human-readable text on the ballot like "OBAMA", and not reading of some human-unreadable symbols like a bar code (a rigged machine could print out OBAMA but with bar code for JEB )

OK, let's move on to the next problem ...

[sandman]

The paper trail needs to run deep. A receipt for voters so that they know that the candidate they voted for received there votes. In 2004, there were numerous incidents of people reporting voting for Kerry in Ohio and other places only to have their votes switched to Dubya by the machine. A copy of that receipt that goes into a voting lock box so that the automatic tabulation on every machine can be verified at any time by counting the votes on the receipts on assigned locked boxes. There has to be some sort of check mechanism so that precient chiefs can verify that the total being reported by the machines can be backed up by both the automatic tabulations on individual e-voting machines and by the total of votes of receipts in locked-boxes. Finally, e-voting companies need to be put out of business and run by the non-partisan GAO or some on other non-partisan en y using open source software that can be checked for foulability.

Fully agree. The process is a mockery without integrity in the voting both. Now if we can only do something about the integrity of ALL of the candidates, and we will be good to go.

[Nbadan]

Ah, well, anyway, the W.H. remains defiant

y Democrats measuring drapes, says Bush

A DEFIANT George W.Bush yesterday taunted Democrats who, he said, were so sure of victory in the November 7 Congressional elections that they were already "measuring their drapes" for their new offices in the seat of power on Capitol Hill.

...

But Mr Bush said: "In Washington, people have already determined the outcome of the election, like it's over even before the people actually start voting. You know, they got them measuring their drapes."

He was referring to comments made by Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats' leader in the house who is in line to become the next speaker if her party wins power.

In a recent interview, she discussed the prospects of taking control, saying: "I'll have any suite I want."

Mr Bush said: "They're going over to the Capitol and saying well, 'My new office looks beautiful; I think I'm going to have this size drape there or this colour'. But the American people are going to decide, and they're going to decide this race based upon who is best to protect the American people."

The Australian

Measuring the drapes?!?

[Nbadan]

Three big clues the GOP/Karl Rove is planning on stealing the 06 election

1. "THE Math" - As discussed on Olberman last night. They talked about what he is doing but not why. Rove is spending RNC $$$ like water doing micropolls of the competetive races to find out exactly what the vote spread is. Why? He isnt planning to go to Vegas and bet his life's savings on the election results. Why does he need to know the final results with the margin of error? It wont affect his patented 72 hour get out the vote stratgy. He isnt going to say "We only need 72% of partsisan churches in this district to tell voters to go to the polls, but we need 96% of them to get out the vote in THAT district." He will mobilize the entire base,the way he always does. Polling might affect advertising decisions, but he doesnt need micropolling for that. The only reason to have mathematic accuracy is if he is planning to have votes shaved from the Democrat and added to the Republican and he needs to have it done so that the final tally will be within the margin of error of the pre-eletion and the exit polls, so that he and his henchmen will not be caught. If he were not planning to use election theft, he would be saving all those RNC $$$ for campaign ads and for more get out the vote efforts, the way that the Democrats are.

2. "Call me, Harold" - Did you know that this ad was created by a protegee of Rove and that the same guy did the infamous Cleland/Osama ad? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/26/politics/main... Recall that MSM idiot-pundits credited that ad with Cleland's defeat AND with the defeat of an in bent Democratic governor with a double digit lead in the polls in Georgia, even though there was no ad showing the governor next to Osama. The idiot-pundits assumed that hick-redneck Georgians were just so plain dumb that they would fall for anything. The truth, we now learn, is that Diebold illegally inserted a patch called "robgeorgia.zip" into new E-voting machines in Democratic voting areas right before the election. The "Cleland/Osama" ads were dreamed up by Rove to offer plasible deniability when the final results did not match the pre-election polls. Those ads were so off the wall, that they captured national media attention. The national media's prejudices against southern voters caused them to miss the mark about what happened during the election. Instead of asking questions about Georgia's first E-voting experience, they blamed it on redneck voters. They cited an angry white man upswing in voters when the actual increase was in african-american women!

"Call me, Harold" - is more of the same. This ad was made to be bad. It is parody of an ad. It was designed to capture national attention so that MSM pundits would ask "Will voters in Tennessee be swayed by this kind of racist advertising?" It isnt supposed to change the polls now. However, after the election, when the final results are vastly different from pre-election polls, MSM pundits will say "Call me, Harold" obviously appealed to a certain racist element within Tennessee which was embarassed to express its concerns to pollsters but which was drawn to the polls in greater than expected numbers." They will laugh or frown at racist-hick-hillbilly Tennessee voters who fall for stupid ads, never questioning whether the final vote tally has anything to do with the votes actually cast.

At least, this is Karl Rove's plan. How do I know? Because if a dirty trick works once for Rove, he will keep repeating it.

3. Florida's 100 Foot from the Exit Poll Rule for Exit Pollsters - I already posted about this one. The state says it is going to appeal. Exit polls become unreliable at 100 feet from the polling place. Any time anyone forces exit pollsters 100 feet away from the polls, they are trying to cover up planned election fraud activity. They know that the final vote tally will not match the votes cast (or the exit polls, which generally match the votes cast with a fair degree of accuracy). In Ohio, 2004, Blackwell tried to keep the exit pollsters 100 feet away from the polls but they went to court. Had he suceeded, there would have been no proof of a stolen election. Rove and Blackwell almost got away with it in 2004. Florida is trying to get away with it this time. The common link between Florida and Ohio is Karl Rove.

[gtownspur]

I'm ready dan!

Let's start the Revolution.

[SA210]

"measuring drapes"

[gtownspur]

"The Nina, the Pinta, the santa maria!!"


"Now Testify!!"