Info and links re Election Audit Demand and "Count Every Vote"
Responding to a few questions that have been thrown my way or thrown
out in general:
CarolC, If you don't have access to a fax machine right now and want support to Nader's efforts, you can send him a check. I think you can get the address from therandirhodesshow.com or from Bev Harris at www.blackboxvoting.org.
But it may be as important to support Bev Harris's FOIA suits as to
support Ralph's investigation. She's mounting a major FOIA
suit for access to the "proprietary" source code in several states and
really needs contributions -- even if only a buck or two apiece -- and
you can use PayPal if you like.
CONTACT: Bev Harris
Location: Renton, WA
Time Zone: PST
LittleHawk - "What you should do is dig up all the evidence possible comparing exit polls to final voting tallies, and pointing up the gross differences in final results in the computerized voting districts as opposed to the others. Publicize it. And start indicting people for it. Contact your congressmen to do this."
Little Hawk, you're right about gathering evidence and contacting Senators and Representatives and the media about it. One person who wants as many e-mails as she can get about this is
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-TX.
Sheila Jackson Lee's website
She will be bringing the issue up in Congress and needs these emails to bolster her effort -- not just stuff about e-voting, but ALL problems people had getting registered, voting, etc.
Bat Goddess, I'm not sure why Ralph singled out New Hampshire
for his first 'target." One report I read said that the exit polls and election results in NH were very close. It may be that it was only certain counties that used paperless machines and the results seemed odd there.
But take a look at the graph here:
results vs. Exit Polls / Paper ballots vs. e-voting
But it is not just the e-voting machines that are suspect, it's also
the electronic machines that COUNT paper ballots such as optical scan machines.
Yes, if there's a paper trail, a hand recount could be done, but if the
"results" are not CLOSE, states usually won't do that. It's still
important for the source code to be public.
And, Goddess, DMcG, bearded bruce, etc., the election officials can be as fair-minded as Socrates, but if the source code is "proprietary"
to the machine manufacturer -- which it is in most cases so far --
even the election officials can't prevent e-cheating. Only the companies, like Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S, etc., have access to the "innards" of the electronic machines.
Herby, you asked "What was wrong with the old system?"
Plenty, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
In this case, HAVA (Help America Vote Act) was intended to make the
election results faster and more clear-cut -- which in many ways has happened.
Only problem: Congress didn't FUND HAVA properly, so it ended up being
implemented in a half-assed way and on the cheap. (At least that's what the pols would LIKE us to believe was the reason for not requiring recountable paper ballots. As to why they didn't require public source codes, I DK if that was negligence or deliberately intended to allow cheating.) I think HAVA also didn't have "teeth." We need new and stronger legislation.
And, oh, BTW, just wait till a popular Republican Senator loses to a
Democrat upstart in a Dem-controlled state via an unverifiable e-voting
machine. We'll soon be getting bipartisan support for a paper trail. LOL
CarolC -"paper ballots that use a pen to mark the vote
are an excellent system, as long as members of both parties are involved in the counting process every step of the way, as long as voters can use provisional ballots when necessary, and as long as all votes are counted."
Ah, yes, Carol. An important string of "ifs."
It seems Warren Co., Ohio, at the last minute announced it would keep the press and all other observers away from the vote-counting room -- "for security reasons" (related to terrorism threats). [I saw that kind of thing coming the first time I heard Bush & Cheney talking about the need for "extra security" for this year's election.]
More importantly, I've learned that MOST states DO NOT count all
the votes. Unless specific races are very tight, they often don't even bother counting absentee ballots (including military ballots) and provisional ballots.
There's a move to require all the votes to be counted this year, especially in the "swing states."
Count Every Vote.org
Other important sites:
Article on Voting problems (verifiedvoting.org)