Democratic Party leaders, fearful of the size and scope of voting machine fraud, have chosen to turn their heads at their, and our risk. With public awareness and outcry that this is not yesterday's issue, Ohio attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and Robert Fitrakis can shine the light on Rove's machinations to steal the upcoming election, if it is a close one. It is not enough for the Obama people to raise funds, turn out the vote, etc. if the devil's advocates are in the software and the devil is Karl Rove.

Dianne Feinstein has, with Republican Robert Bennett, introduced perhaps the worst bill yet drafted on the issue of electronic voting. Meet S.3212, the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act.

S.3212 does not require a voter-verified paper record,  paper ballot, or paper anything.  The bill allows "independent records" of ballots which could be electronic, audio, video, pictorial, or "other independently produced record." The bill is so crappily written that it seems these independent records don't necessarily have to be seen by the voter before she casts her ballot. The bill places a representative of the voting system industry on the federal committee that drafts voting system guidelines (not an unheard of practice in the federal government, but the voting system industry just ain't ready for this kind of role, to put it kindly).

Click here to sign VerifiedVoting.org's action alert opposing S.3212.  More on the flip.

From Federal Computer Week:
"The House rejected a bill last week that would have funded the purchase of paper ballots as a backup to electronic voting systems for the upcoming election.

   The bill would have directed the Election Assistance Commission to establish a program to make the grants in time for the November vote."

http://www.fcw.com/...

If Democrats, who lost two presidential elections under questionable e-voting can't pass a bill providing alternative paper ballots to guarantee free and fair elections, then you have to ask "which lobby paid them off?"

What happened in Georgia in 2002?
http://rawstory.com//news/2008/Cyber...

Some critics of electronic voting raised questions about the 2002 Georgia race even at the time. Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken a week before the vote, lost 53% to 46%. Incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, who led challenger Sonny Perdue in the polls by eleven points, lost 51% to 46%. However, because the Diebold machines used throughout the state provided no paper trail, it was impossible to ask for a recount in either case.

Once again, Europeans have shown themselves to be smarter than Americans.  While we Americans have experienced repeated reasons to ban electronic voting, we had neither the votes in the Congress, nor the veto proof majority required to rid ourselves of Republican Rangers and partisan hacks who continue to undermine our democracy.

While the industrialized world continues its love of everything technological, our neighbors to the North, continue to use paper ballots.  While environmentalists may find this disconcerting for the sheer number of trees diminished by democracy, it leaves a paper trail (puns intended) that even Justice Scalia would be able to follow.

Alas, America the corruptible, will continue to use computers whose code remains a corporate trade secret, leaving in place the possiblity that a county in Ohio with 4,200 voters, returns ballot counts of 16,000.

Having worked for Congressman Conyers for five years, I know well the threat to democracy that is e-voting.  I have seen firsthand the terrors of FL and OH.  And until we as a country toke down and man up to the example of our friends in the Netherlands, we will continue on the downward spiral of a dying empire.

Brad Blog has an exchange between Don Siegelman and Mark Crispin Miller (author of "Fooled Again", an important work about the integrity of elections in America.

The goodies on the flip.

Don't Go Postal!

Fund urges in today's Wall Street Journal, his screed today against a mail-in primary in the states of Michigan and Florida.

Yesterday, I wrote Sequoia Voting Systems threatens Princeton researchers.  This morning, it appears that the threat has been successful in attaining its goal: Union County, NJ has dropped its plans to have security uber-expert Dr. Felten of Princeton University examine these systems.

Meanwhile, in a related story, Ohio voting machines declared an official crime scene.

Professor Ed Felten and his Princeton colleagues are known internationally -- and with good reason. They've done some of the most thorough, ingenious, groundbreaking research on security issues to be found anywhere.  Their most recent tour-de-force was demonstrating a technique that overcomes a wide variety of full-disk encryption methods: Attack on computer memory reveals vulnerability of widely used security systems.

It seems that the folks at Sequoia Voting Systems -- one of the makers of black-box voting systems -- are concerned about what Dr. Felten and his team might find if they get their hands on a Sequoia system.  Their response?  A direct threat.

Two reports today worth reviewing, both of which indicate that the accuracy of electronic voting leaves enough to be desired that anyone who wants their elections to be honest and accurate, whatever side they are own, might want to support the drive to restore paper ballots that can be audited and read by human beings.

The ACLU was the first membership organization I ever joined, some time back in high school. I'm sure I don't need to go into my reasons with this crowd here. In guarding freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, and the freedom to vote and be heard, it's always seemed to me they're doing the fundamental work of democracy (the fact that none of that should really be in contention is another issue altogether.) Time and time again, they've stood for the rights of great and small to stand up and be counted, chants of "Communism!", "Terror-Simp!", "Anarchy!", and the rest be damned.

Which is why I'm so very confused by today's press release trumpeting their lawsuit to prevent Cuyahoga County from dumping their much-maligned Touch Screen voting machines in favor of a verifiable paper ballot.

Snide but I think somewhat deserved post on BradBlog.com about resistance by many on this site to doing a recount in New Hampshire.

BradBlog.com posted an update report last night on new coming our of New Hampshire as the recount got under way. If what is being report is true, this may turn out to be a stunning indictment of our current train wreck of a balloting and vote counting process.

I mean, little things like 550 ballots that were not counted by the machines because the voters had been given pens with the wrong color ink?

Reports that reveal that the proprietary company running the machines may or may not have properly preserved materials or followed procedures to insure integrity of the ballots?

Some quotes below.

Kos and DHinMI have both weighed in on the hubub on the front page. Frankly, on whether or not there is a "there" there, I agree with them that this will likely amount to nothing. Where I disagree with them is about whether or not it is a waste of time making sure of that.

Follow me over the fold where I will follow a time honored tradition of letting a more talented writer express what I feel by quoting him.

OK, I don't really write diaries (It has been nearly a year since my last one), and until a few days ago I didn't really comment either.  My connection to DailyKos has always been a very interested reader.  I am not sure what stirred my passion the past week, but if I had to venture a guess, it has been the excitement around the Democratic nomination process.

The past couple days I have found myself in some diaries challenging the assertions of people claiming, both passively and directly, the New Hampshire vote is unreliable because the Diebold OS results were in direct contrast to all the available polling and the results of the hand counted ballots.  Therefore suggesting that Barack Obama could well be the victim of vote fraud.  I found myself writing long comments that ultimately get buried in the avalanche of comment debate, leading me to try to make my point with a diary.

More after the flip.

The Pima County (Tucson) board of supervisors voted to release computer records from a disputed 2006 election after "raucus" citizens demanded the action in a board meeting Jan. 8. The Democratic Party had sought the records in a suit against the county alleging irregularities in a vote that passed a regional transportation plan, including a sales tax, that had been defeated several times previously. The suit pointed to problems with results from the Diebold voting machines and to unusual processing activities by a county technician following the election. The county fought the Democratic request for the records but in December a judge ordered it to release of some of the databases sought. At the meeting Tuesday, the board voted not to appeal the ruling and to release more of the databases than were covered by the judge's ruling.
More below.      

Look, lets face it, no one can sit here and say they know the New Hampshire primary was stolen on Electronic Diebold voting machines without evidence of election fraud.  But that isn't the point.  

The real question should be: Did we protect ourselves as well as we could have, were the protections in place, so that we can be confident that the results were legit in the face of huge pre-election poll discrepancies in only 1 race?  

The answer to this question has nothing to do with the results last night.  If New Hampshire failed this test, they did it before the first ballot was cast.

Where Paper Prevailed, Different Results By Lori Price 09 Jan 2008

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: - 2.308% (-6,604 votes)