READER COMMENTS ON

"'I Can't Tell You Who I Voted For': Obama Casts Early Vote on 100% Unverifiable E-Vote System"

(36 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... WeMustDoBetter09 said on 10/26/2012 @ 3:11 pm PT...





We're in a world of shit. thanks Could Romney-Linked Electronic Voting Machines Jeopardize Ohio's Vote Accuracy? http://huff.to/WOYsZu

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Charlie L said on 10/26/2012 @ 3:21 pm PT...





POTUS has only himself to blame. He could have requested a paper ballot, rather than voting on the machine. What a bully pulpit statement THAT would have made. But no. He's a "go along to get along" kind of guy and he won't make a stink. He won't make a stink even if the lousy machines steal his votes and his Presidency. Either way he gets his paragraph in the history books. "Barak Obama was the first African-American elected to the Presidency of the United States. He presided over a contentious period of conflict in Washington marked by Republican obstructionism and general non-cooperation. He passed the (later repealed) American Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in the first half of his term, before Republicans won control of the House of Representatives and stopped cooperating. His single term in office was marked by racist attacks on his citizenship that were never repudiated by the Republican party."

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 10/26/2012 @ 3:24 pm PT...





My apology to Pete Seeger, but I can't help but paraphrase his anti-war song, Where have all the flowers gone Where have all the e-votes gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the e-votes gone?

Long time ago

Where have all the e-votes gone?

Gone to cyberspace, everyone

We'll never know who you voted for

We'll never know who you voted for Of course, the last two lines from Seeger could be substituted: When will they ever learn?

When will they ever learn?

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 10/26/2012 @ 3:38 pm PT...





Re WeMustDoBetter09 @1. The only problem I have with all the focus on Romney's link to an e-voting company is that the under-informed may mistakenly believe that accuracy could be insured if only we separated the Romneys from e-voting ownership. The only way that we can insure "accuracy" is via "transparency." The only means for insuring transparency is by applying Democracy's Gold Standard --- hand-marked paper ballots, publicly hand-counted at each precinct before all parties and media on Election Night with the results posted for all to see before either the ballots or results are forwarded to a central tabulating location.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 10/26/2012 @ 3:43 pm PT...





Hey, Brad. Is Jill Stein on the IL ballot? Maybe the President's vote was flipped to her instead of Romney. Meanwhile, perhaps Chuck Todd will want to move the CA Sec. of State and the Computer Science Group at the University of California into the "conspiracy garbage" column.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/26/2012 @ 4:57 pm PT...





Charlie L @ 2 - He could have requested a paper ballot, rather than voting on the machine. What a bully pulpit statement THAT would have made. Actually, he couldn't have. Not at the polls, anyway. As noted in the article, only 100% verifiable touch-screen machines are available to early voters in Chicago. On Election Day, they are allowed to vote on either paper or touch-screen. He could have requested a paper ballot via absentee, as Michelle did, though that would have been a similarly bad idea. You did, however, forget to include in your historical bio, that he is now the first President in U.S. history to have voted in person during Early Voting.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/26/2012 @ 5:01 pm PT...





Yes. Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party are both on the ballot in Chicago [PDF] along with Romney and Obama. Any of them could have received Obama's vote. Neither he, nor anybody else, can ever know.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Brandt Hardin said on 10/26/2012 @ 5:27 pm PT...





If Obama loses this election, you can blame/thank the Right for bamboozling him. How is it ethical that an entire news network questions the President’s citizenship for four years to create doubt in voters while a fringe element of the far right demonizes and degrades him? Most of this is financed by the rich who want to keep their stranglehold on the flow of wealth in our country. Watch the white hands apply the Blackface to our first African-American President at http://dregstudiosart.bl...0/bamboozling-obama.html

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Citizen92 said on 10/26/2012 @ 5:45 pm PT...





What's this all about? A private company mailing and printing ballots? "Ballots on demand?". Am I just late to the game? http://www.advancedballotsolutions.com/ I think I found another one of these companies in FL where one of the directors was a real estate broker when not printing ballots?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Seattle Bill said on 10/26/2012 @ 6:42 pm PT...





I was puzzled as to why the Romney people would be so blatant as to acquire the controlling influence in a voting machine company when the prior right-wing owners could be reliably counted upon to rig the vote for him against Obama anyway. Then it hit me --- they needed control to defeat Santorum in the G.O.P. primary!! The mathematically impossible "Romney Shift" stole both the Wisconsin and Ohio primaries for Romney.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... TksABunchJohn said on 10/26/2012 @ 7:14 pm PT...





Verrry interesting study reported on by Dennis Campbell at UK Progressive yesterday, whose website is now under ddos attack. "NSA Analyst Proves GOP Is Stealing Elections"

http://www.ukprogressive...attack/article20624.html P.S. Brad, don't let idiots like Chuck Todd and TP intimidate or shame you from boldly reporting the truth - it's what they are trying to accomplish.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 10/26/2012 @ 7:35 pm PT...





Brad @7 wrote: Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party are both on the ballot in Chicago [PDF] along with Romney and Obama. Any of them could have received Obama's vote. Or, the machine could have dropped his vote altogether, or recorded it as a negative vote for Obama.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Adam said on 10/26/2012 @ 11:19 pm PT...





This is incredibly frustrating and infuriating. Is Obama surrounded by a wall of lead that cuts off information on what is actually happening to US democracy?

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... gretchen m said on 10/27/2012 @ 7:47 am PT...





watch this link about voter machine manipulation in

Ohio,in 2004, this video was recorded a month or so before Mike Connell died in a plane crash in Dec, 2008. http://mikephilbin.blogs...-man-in-middle-ohio.html 53 min. of very interesting computer manipulation explanation.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Laughingcat said on 10/27/2012 @ 1:35 pm PT...





Brad, this just came across my desk: from Politichicks (http://politichicks.tv/2012/10/voter-machine-in-las-vegas-auto-checking-obama/#ixzz2AJZvD6Lc), a "women for Romney" site, it is alleged that vote machines are flipping Romney votes to Obama in Las Vegas and North Carolina. I followed the story as far as I can for now. But I figured you'd want to know if you don't already.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Flavio said on 10/27/2012 @ 1:39 pm PT...





Dear Brad: I think you are conflating Dominion and Smartmatic. In fact, Chavez lost an important referendum to amend the Venezuelan constitution using precisely Smartmatic's machines. Smartmatic's machines actually emit paper receipts--unlike Diebold or Dominion machines. Smartmatic is a "privately held" company and is based in London. Finally, Smartmatic has received praise by none other than the Carter Center which monitors elections all over the world. I'd like to think this was an oversight on your part and that you are not jumping on the "let's bash Chavez" bandwagon. His dissing of Bush at the UN ("I can still smell the sulphur in the air.") elicited chuckles from everybody back in 2006. Chavez isn't Hitler, which is why he has been re-elected by his people many times. FDR got four terms... But other rulers in other countries cannot? I'm not disagreeing that the e-voting machines in the US pose a problem, and can be hacked. I'm just saying, let's not try to make our point by slandering people. It's as if you are trying to get traction for an otherwise extremely legitimate point by maligning Chavez. See also: http://digitalvote.wordp...utomation-in-puerto-rico

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Paul said on 10/27/2012 @ 9:31 pm PT...





You got it all wrong. If the entire article is based on the hypothesis that the touchscreen used in Chicago and Cook county is the AVC Edge (as studied by Verified Voting) you would do well to take your article offline and review the facts. I told you over 5 years ago that the touchscreen used there is not the old one anymore. Since 2006 a new one is in place (the new generation, called Edge2plus), which by the way solved all the problems that VV complained about. VV has not studied it (or maybe they did, but never said anything about it, as there was nothing to complain about!!!) So again, do the public some good. Take your article offline, check the facts, and publish it again. That really would be the responsible thing to do.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Paul said on 10/27/2012 @ 9:38 pm PT...





Oh, and by the way, that link between the Venezuelan election company and Chavez (maybe you remember me now?) is BS, too. That company has gone through more audits than the US government. Nobody has provided any evidence of that. It's just simple misinformation. The ugly part is that it keeps n being repeated irresponsibly over and over by people like you. Fortunately with time some people do have researched the matter deeply and published the truth. One last thing you may be interested in publishing in your blog would be our own Jimmy Carter openly stating that the elections process in Venezuela is the best in the world. Did you hear that? Did you hear how he praised their verifiable system? No word from you or from Verified Voting on that. I think an article on that would be a very interesting post on your blog.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/27/2012 @ 11:31 pm PT...





Flavio @ 16: I think you are conflating Dominion and Smartmatic. Thanks. I am not. Smartmatic is the Venezuelan firm which ones the proprietary Intellectual Property used in Sequoia's voting machines. Sequoia used to be owned by Smartmatic until it was investigated by CFIUS (Treasury Department's Commission on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which tracks foreign ownership of key U.S. infrastructure.) To end the CFIUS investigation, a team of Sequoia execs "bought" the company from Smartmatic and it became it's own company again. As I revealed in 2008, however, Smartmatic retained the IP ownership in the Sequoia systems. Then CEO Jack Blaine was forced to admit that on a conference call to his employees after I revealed it here at The BRAD BLOG as found in court documents during the attempted hostile takeover of Sequoia by Hart Intercivic. (That hostile takeover failed, but later Hart, the nation's third largest voting machine company itself, would be acquired by the group associated with the Romney family in July of 2011.) Whether CFIUS knew that Smartmatic still owned the Sequoia IP even after they separated from the parent company, or whether they snookered CFIUS, I can't tell you. CFIUS operates in secret. Eventually, in 2010, the Canadian firm Dominion purchased Sequoia (not long after it had also purchased Diebold/Premier) and subsequently lied about the fact that Smartmatic still owned the IP used in all of Sequoia voting systems, which are still in use today. One such system Barack Obama cast his ballot on in Chicago a few days ago. The rest of your reply is a mix of fact and fiction, that I don't think I need to bother responding to, unless you insist. One point, however, I was neither bashing Chavez or Smartmatic. Not in the piece, and not in any of the reporting I've done on the matter. I've simply reported the facts, without fear or favor. Nobody has been "slandered", as you inaccurately charged.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/27/2012 @ 11:46 pm PT...





Paul @ 17 & 18 While I didn't go into detail to describe which Sequoia AVC Edge model name was used in Chicago, it's clear I was speaking about the Edge II with VVPAT Printer, since that's the only one that has a VVPAT (which I reference in my article, and which, as I note, the CA Sec. of State decertified after the computer experts from her "Top to Bottom" Rieview found that systems "were inadequate to ensure accuracy of integrity of the elections results" and that they "were able to create a working exploit on the Sequoia Edge that shifted votes from one candidate to another and was not detectable on the voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT)." You may want to actually go back and read the article you are commenting on here a bit more closely. For the record, the Sequoia AVC Edge II was illegally certified both in Nevada (by then Sec. of State Dean Heller, who is not running for re-election in the U.S. Senate on those same machines) and by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission back in 2004. I revealed all of that along with Michael Richardson and John Gideon in an investigative report we wrote and released as a chapter in the 2010 book Loser Take All. So again, do the public some good. Take your article offline, check the facts, and publish it again. That really would be the responsible thing to do. Actually, the responsible thing might have been to check your facts, before attacking me here for getting them right. The responsible thing for you to do now would be to apologize. But that's up to you. As to you claims about the VVPAT having "solved all the problems that [VerifiedVoting.org] complained about", well, you might want to check with them again. While they long called for Direct Record Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen systems) to add VVPATs, I believe they've since called for DREs to be banned all together. Either way, they were wrong, in my opinion, to call for VVPATs, instead of the decertification of all DREs way back when, and they know my position on that. I believe they now agree with my position, but I don't want to speak for them. I think they still prefer VVPATs if DREs are used (I join the CA Sec. of State in finding them equally unverifiable), but that they do not want DREs used at all. While I appreciate VVs work, as they know, we do not always see eye to eye on all things. The same is true with Jimmy Carter, who I respect immensily. He was fooled once with the private, phony Carter/Baker National Election Reform Commission into approving the idea of Photo IDs at the polls (a report which has been sighted by all of the GOP states who have since passed the disenfranchising law), and he is fooled again into believing that Venezuela's 100% unverifiable electronic voting system is in any way transparent enough for real democratic self-governance. But, again, the facts are the facts. Disagree with my opinions as you like, but please get your facts straight before basing anything on them.

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Paul said on 10/28/2012 @ 1:05 am PT...





Brad, first of all let me apologize. I didn't really mean to attack you, though I see my words were not the friendliest. So I will take that negativity back and I apologize for it. As to your reply, I honestly believe you are confusing two different voting machines. The second generation AVC Edge II which is in use in Nevada, and the Edge2plus, which is use in Chicago (and was actually designed and built from scratch for them). My records show that it's a orevious version of the first one that was decertified in CA. The second one has never been decertified (because it meets/exceeds all standards) and is still in use in Chicago. Both models have a VVPAT (the first was retrofitted onto the old Edge, while the second was designed in from day one). As to the comment on Carter, stating that Carter was fooled on the Venezuela situation (their verifiable voting system) is not a fact. It's an opinion that ignores all statements from the people who actually audited and observed the election. Even the losing political candidate praised the process before and after the election. For crying out loud, do you expect Mother Theresa and Jesus my Lord to come back and state that the system is verifiable and it works before you will accept these statements from people who actually audited these systems? Please take my words as positive. My intentions are. My best, Paul

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 10/28/2012 @ 8:05 am PT...





Paul @21-- If you could provide some evidence that the particular model of the machine you're talking about resolves the sorts of problems detailed by cybersecurity expert Steven Spoonamore(referenced here at Bradblog), CIA cybersecurity expert Steven Stigall(as reported here at Bradblog), and Roger Johnston from the Dept of Energy's Argonne Lab Report(also reported here), I'd very interested to look at it. Likewise, regarding Venezuelan elections--while I'd love to believe they've found a way to transparency and reliable verification with these error-prone, easy to hack, non-transparent machines, I so far haven't seen anything about how they've accomplished this, only unsubstantiated claims such as the ones you're making. Any info you could provide to clarify these issues would be appreciated.

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Flavio said on 10/28/2012 @ 11:25 am PT...





Brad, Smartmatic is not a "Venezuelan firm." "Por favor," bitte, prego, Gesubambino! Please prove to me that it is a Venezuelan firm and then we'll talk, but you seem to be of those who are on the "bash Chavez" bandwagon,and that really lacks originality, dude! Seriously, I don't know why you hate Venezuela (I can guess), but cut it out. Get more original, please!

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/28/2012 @ 6:53 pm PT...





Paul @ 21 said: As to your reply, I honestly believe you are confusing two different voting machines. The second generation AVC Edge II which is in use in Nevada, and the Edge2plus, which is use in Chicago (and was actually designed and built from scratch for them). My records show that it's a orevious version of the first one that was decertified in CA. The second one has never been decertified (because it meets/exceeds all standards) and is still in use in Chicago. Both models have a VVPAT (the first was retrofitted onto the old Edge, while the second was designed in from day one). There is no record at the EAC of this second certification you speak of. Perhaps it was certified under the previous NASED rules, or perhaps your speaking about local (or state) certification, instead of federal certification. The decertification discussed in my original response to you, as well as in the original article, was in California only. The Federal bodies responsible for certification at the federal level --- first NASED, and now the U.S. EAC --- have never decertified anything once they have certified it. They have no decertification program, in fact. All of the systems decertified by the state of CA were federal certified systems, and still are, despite the myriad security issues found in each one of them (as also found the OH study and many others.) If there was some special version of the Sequoia AVC Edge II made only for Chicago, I'm unaware of it. But it makes no difference. It has the same architecture as the old one, in any case, and, as a DRE, it is equally 100% unverifiable, as the original article above pointed out. If you, or anyone else in Chicago or elsewhere, has any evidence to prove that any vote ever cast on any DRE during an actual election for any candidate or initiative on the ballot was ever recorded as per any voter's intent, I hope you'll share it with me. As no such evidence exists, you won't be able to do that, unfortunately, and therein lies the problem. As to my comments re: Jimmy Carter, your opinion, or his, that any particular voting system is "secure" without the citizenry being able to know that, by overseeing it for themselves, is certainly your opinion. As is mine that he was fooled. It's funny you mention both Mother Theresa and Jesus [your] Lord in regard to these systems. Since the one you are supporting --- both in Chicago and Venezuala --- are 100% faith-based voting, it seems only apt. You are welcome, by the way, to argue (as Carter did) that the system is believed to be secure. You are not, however, welcome to argue that either are "verifiable" since they are not. You may wish to believe that. You may wish to have faith in that idea. But neither makes it scientifically true. Sorry. The science, in fact, is exactly the opposite of your assertions.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/28/2012 @ 7:04 pm PT...





Flavio @ 23 said: Please prove to me that it is a Venezuelan firm and then we'll talk, but you seem to be of those who are on the "bash Chavez" bandwagon,and that really lacks originality, dude! Seriously, I don't know why you hate Venezuela (I can guess), but cut it out. Get more original, please! Had you not been so obnoxious in your three comments, I might have bothered to engage you in this conversation. Such that it is, I'm not all that interested. I have no interest or reason to either "bash Chavez" or "hate Venezuela", your obnoxious and unsupported assertions not withstanding. As to the murky ownership and provenance of the Smartmatic company, there have been many thousands of words written about that, and tracing both its founding and various overseas ownership. For what its worth, however, here was a news item from the day that Smartmatic's Venezuelan co-founder Jose Anzola Jamuotte was killed in a small private plane crash near near the Caracas airport in 2008. And here is our news item from 2005 when the Venezuelan CEO of Smartmatic, Antonio Mujica --- whose Florida registered company (it was at a PO Box location) counted millions of U.S. votes (and still does, either accurately or inaccurately, nobody knows) was denied a tourist visa by the US Embassy that year and not allowed to enter this country.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Paul said on 10/29/2012 @ 3:12 am PT...





Brad, I am glad you have accepted your article is based on opinions, and not all are facts. That is the responsible thing to do. And you are right I don't have the ultimate facts either. But I don't like quickly dismissing factual reports presented by people who actually audited these systems as irrelevant. That is not scientific. I am sure we will agree both with that. The minute we open up to the possibility of an electronic system being verifiable when properly implemented (such as the possibilities suggested by people like Verified Voting), then the questions is whether/how we can implement these things in a way that we all can agree will work. That is the next step. I know people worldwide are seriously investing a lot of money in R&D to make these systems more verifiable. I am confident that some of the systems out there are certainly at least as verifiable as paper-only systems already (my humble opinion is that some are way more verifiable than paper-only systems because really it is very easy to rig a paper-only election). In the past, so many times around the world I have been told by politicians something to the effect of 'the systems you design are really good, and we are happy to see so much effort has gone into making a voting system so auditable... but we know that if we vote on paper ballots, we will win...". These are words from the real experts in paper-only elections rigging In any case, thank you for keeping track of the progress in verifiable voting in the US. You are absolutely right (as are most critics of electronic voting in the US) that most systems out there are poorly built and deserved to be scrapped. I couldn't agree with you more. Some other systems (built as collaboration between EMBs and private contractors, with the EMBs retaining ownership of intellectual property), however, may be really worthy of study. Best, Paul

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 10/29/2012 @ 10:17 am PT...





Paul @26 wrote: I don't like quickly dismissing factual reports presented by people who actually audited these systems as irrelevant. What "factual reports?" Which "people"? Links, please! Next Paul writes: I know people worldwide are seriously investing a lot of money in R&D to make these systems more verifiable. I am confident that some of the systems out there are certainly at least as verifiable as paper-only systems already. With all due respect, that claim calls to mind what Roger G. Johnston, Ph.D of the Argonne National Laboratory describes as the Arrogance Maxim: The ease of defeating a security device or system is proportional to how confident/arrogant the designer, manufacturer, or user is about it, and to how often they use words like "impossible" or "tamper-proof". This site contains thousands of articles produced over a decade in which claims that multiple generations of e-voting systems are accurate and verifiable have been debunked by experts and by massive e-voting system failures occurring over-and-over again in election-after-election. As reported in Democracy's Gold Standard, in 2009 the German High court ruled that all e-voting systems violated that nation's constitution because they lack transparency. Paul Lehto, a U.S. election attorney and Constitutional rights expert, summarized the German court's unambiguous, landmark finding: "No 'specialized technical knowledge' can be required of citizens to vote or to monitor vote counts."

There is a "constitutional requirement of a publicly observed count."

"[T]he government substitution of its own check or what we’d probably call an 'audit' is no substitute at all for public observation."

"A paper trail simply does not suffice to meet the above standards.

"As a result of these principles,...'all independent observers' conclude that 'electronic voting machines are totally banned in Germany' because no conceivable computerized voting system can cast and count votes that meet the twin requirements of...being both 'observable' and also not requiring specialized technical knowledge. Given the absence of transparency in all e-voting systems, not to mention the fact that e-voting systems are infinitely more expensive than the very successful application of Democracy's Gold Standard --- hand marked paper ballots, publicly hand-counted at each precinct on Election Night --- the burden should be on the manufacturers of e-voting systems to prove accuracy, reliability, transparency and cost efficiency. Until that happens, one must presume that all e-voting presents a clear and present danger to democracy.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/29/2012 @ 1:09 pm PT...





Paul @ 26 lied by saying: Brad, I am glad you have accepted your article is based on opinions, and not all are facts. That is the responsible thing to do. Paul, we have very few rules for posting here at The BRAD BLOG. Among them, you are not allowed to post knowing disinformation. If you'd like to continue posting here, you'll need to knock it off, or your comments will be removed, and you'll not be allowed to post here at all anymore. Consider this your warning. I have "accepted" no such thing, and you are obnoxious to falsely indicate as much. Given that you have now indicated you work for a voting machine company in this response, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you are willing to blatantly lie about any number of things. I know people worldwide are seriously investing a lot of money in R&D to make these systems more verifiable. "More verifiable"? Is that like, "sort of pregnant"? There are no verifiable DRE systems. Not in the U.S., not in Venezuela. But, again, as an industry shill, I'd expect you to lie about that as you have here. Why don't you, like me, offer full disclosure of who you are and who were for, "Paul"? If you stand behind your statements --- as I stand behind every one of mine, with my own name --- I suspect you'd have no problem doing that. As you haven't, and likely won't, that would seem to speak for itself. I am confident that some of the systems out there are certainly at least as verifiable as paper-only systems You may be as "confident", as I you like. You'll pardon me if I run a fact-based news site, rather than a "best hopes" propaganda organ, as you seem to be shilling for. I see no need to fact-check the rest of your obnoxious and factually inaccurate comment. Again, knock it off, or you won't be posting here for very much longer (which I suspect will be your choice any way.)

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/29/2012 @ 1:30 pm PT...





By the way, Paul - Since I see you're writing from the Netherlands, and since you indicate you work as a designer of e-voting systems, I'm wondering if you are responsible for the NEDAP system that was hacked on video tape in less than 60 seconds some years ago, leading to DREs being decertified in the Netherlands, and which was also the basis for the German High Court's ruling to ban such systems in Germany as well? I'd point you to the video of that hack, but it appears to have been taken off line. In any case, I suspect you know quite well what I'm referring to. I also suspect you have no interest in disclosure, unlike me, since your world is about secrecy and deception, unlike mine.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Paul said on 10/29/2012 @ 2:28 pm PT...





Brad, this didn't go the way I wanted it. I see you are critical of electronic voting, and totally ignore the fact (or is it just my exclusive opinion?) that paper ballot election rigging is so easy and widespread that many people have been trying (with different level of success) for years to come up with a technology solution to this huge cancer of democracy (fraudulent paper-bas elections). I am not sure you will agree with me that more ballots are cast fraudulently on paper than on any voting machine worldwide. But this, my friend, is a fact. You obviously have an agenda. I am disappointed. I would have welcomed an opportunity to discuss with you openly. But you are not willing to accept that electronic could be a way out (again, when properly implemented) to the massive fraud committed when voting happens on paper. I am not sayin is the only way. It is one way. But you don't want to accept that. I will write you again in five years. In five years time you will see that a new generation of verifiable voting technology will have come up in the US (already in the works). Germany will have realized they messed up when they decided to block certain types of e-voting (and will allow for the right kind to be adopted legally), among many other things. PS And no, I don't work for Nedap. Those guys did a really lousy job, and that's why they haven't done a single major project since. According to your website there's no other dutch e-voting company, right? Well, that's another fact you are missing from your website that you could recheck My best, Paul

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... GWN said on 10/29/2012 @ 5:52 pm PT...





For Paul

NEDAP system that was hacked on video tape in less than 60 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EowKalRT3lc via: translation, 'We do not trust voting computers'

http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/29/2012 @ 8:59 pm PT...





Paul @ 30 said: Brad, this didn't go the way I wanted it. As I recall, based on your first note, the way you "wanted it" was for me to retract my article based on your false charges that I hadn't researched my information. So, yeah, it didn't go the way you wanted it, because I had --- and you hadn't. And then you began posting knowing misinformation. I see you are critical of electronic voting, and totally ignore the fact (or is it just my exclusive opinion?) that paper ballot election rigging is so easy and widespread that many people have been trying (with different level of success) for years to come up with a technology solution to this huge cancer of democracy (fraudulent paper-bas elections). I am not sure you will agree with me that more ballots are cast fraudulently on paper than on any voting machine worldwide. But this, my friend, is a fact. Really? Please prove to me that a single vote cast on DRE in the entire 2008 election for any candidate or initiative on the ballot was not recorded fraudulently? There were about 140 million votes, about 40 million of them were on DREs, so it should be easy for you to prove that one of them was not recorded fraudulently. I'll be waiting. While you're at it, please show me where fraudulent ballots have been cast or counted in a fully 100% public, hand-counted-at-the-precinct tally system and In the meantime, if you're unaware that an entire election can be flipped in a matter of seconds --- fraudulently --- by an insider, in such a way that it can never be detected, then you either don't know what you're talking about, or are as full of shit as your first note posted here was. You obviously have an agenda. I am disappointed. An "agenda"? Transparent, overseeable democracy is now an "agenda"? Okay. If so, then yes, I have an agenda. I believe in democracy and self-governance. No clue what you think you believe in, other than privatizing our voting systems with your untransparent, unnecessary rocket science BS that has nothing to do with democracy. I would have welcomed an opportunity to discuss with you openly. But you are not willing to accept that electronic could be a way out (again, when properly implemented) to the massive fraud committed when voting happens on paper. I am not sayin is the only way. It is one way. But you don't want to accept that. You have had an open discussion with me, Paul. What are you whining about? You made an ass out of yourself along the way. But you were allowed to say anything you wanted, no matter how easily disproven it was. Welcome, if you are new here. But I've been covering this issue for nearly a decade here now. I am open to any type of citizen overseeable voting system. It just so happens that in the ten years I've been covering it, I've never seen one that is as transparent and difficult to game as hand-marked paper ballots, publicly counted at the precinct on Election Night with all parties and video cameras rolling and results posted at the precinct before ballots move anywhere. If you know something I don't, I'm sure you'll share it with me. If you can do so without being an obnoxious ass along the way, I may even give= a damn enough to look into it (and, probably, tell you how it isn't transparent and can be gamed.) I will write you again in five years. In five years time you will see that a new generation of verifiable voting technology will have come up in the US (already in the works). Germany will have realized they messed up when they decided to block certain types of e-voting (and will allow for the right kind to be adopted legally), among many other things. I can't wait. PS And no, I don't work for Nedap. Those guys did a really lousy job, and that's why they haven't done a single major project since. According to your website there's no other dutch e-voting company, right? Well, that's another fact you are missing from your website that you could recheck How long are you gonna keep pulling bullshit out of your ass and flinging it here as if it had some relationship to reality? When did my "website" report that "there's no other dutch e-voting company"? You certainly have the skills to work in the e-voting industry, however. Keep up the bad work! See ya in five years. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Irwin Mainway said on 10/29/2012 @ 10:22 pm PT...





Where was Michelle voting in person with Barack on those junk machines? She set the example of voting ABSENTEE. A Republican poll watcher could take great delight in challenging her absentee ballot based on the unique zipcode of the White House.

For Illinois:

"The affidavits on the application and the ballot envelope must be signed [EXACTLY the same way] These affidavits attest to the accuracy of the information provided on the application. The affidavit on the envelope attests to the fact that the voter is voting his/her own ballot in secret.

If an absentee ballot is done by mail, the voted ballot must be placed into the certification envelope provided. The certification on the envelope must be completed, signed, and the envelope sealed. ..... Mailed absentee ballots must be postmarked no later than midnight on the night prior to the election, and must be received within 14 days of the election."

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Ivy said on 10/30/2012 @ 11:01 am PT...





This article has its facts wrong. As you can see in the picture, Chicago's touch screen machines all have a paper scroll recording the votes cast. Voters are required to review the electronic screens and then the paper record, before casting the vote. If they disagree they are allowed to reject the ballot and start over. You have misinterpreted Obama's remark which was simply a joke saying he wouldn't tell the press who he voted for.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 10/31/2012 @ 7:42 am PT...





Ivy @34- 1. I do not see from the picture that all Chicago's voting machines have a paper scroll recording the votes cast. 2. If I could see that, it would not change the fact that scroll or no scroll there is no way to know if those machines are counting any vote as per any voter's intent. 3. You have missed Brad's joke on Obama's joke. 4. Please do your homework vis a vis the reliability/unreliability of the machines. If you find something different from the CIA and Dept of Energy cybersecurity experts who declared the machines to be easily manipulated and as such a national security risk, I hope you will share it with us.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 10/31/2012 @ 8:22 pm PT...

