Home > Democrats, Paper ‘Trails’ Aren’t Good Enough; Count The Damn Ballots!

Democrats, Paper ‘Trails’ Aren’t Good Enough; Count The Damn Ballots!

by Open-Publishing - Saturday 2 April 2005
10 comments

Edito Parties Elections-Elected USA

by Lynn Landes

March 19, 2005-After the 2004 election I thought I would barf if I heard one more Democratic pundit or politician lament the lost election and blame it on the party’s "message." As grassroots activists across the country reported thousands of election irregularities and voting machine "glitches" that overwhelmingly benefited Bush, the Democratic leadership seemed unusually willing to look the other way. John Kerry quickly conceded, former President Carter attended Bush’s ignoble inauguration, and Bill Clinton now pals around with Bush the First.

Rank and file Democrats are tearing their hair out.

Now, in a gesture calculated to win back their base, but gain little else (in terms of voting security), both House and Senate Democrats have offered a flurry of bills (with many state legislatures following in hot pursuit) that require ballot printers for touchscreen voting machines.

Incredibly, none of these bills call for the ballots to be counted .. except in the extremely remote event of a recount.

It takes your breath away. The Dems know that two Republican-controlled companies (ES&S and Diebold) count 80 percent of all votes in America. Why do they still trust these companies and their lousy machines, particularly after the last two presidential was first introduced, machine malfunctions almost always benefit Republicans. Perhaps that’s why the Republican stranglehold over the political landscape has grown so tight. Otherwise, things don’t add up. One example, if Bush’s war on the world is so popular, why don’t lots of young Republicans sign up for the military? Haven’t the Dems noticed that?

The proposed legislation, popularly known as "voter-verified paper audit trail", sounded all right when I first heard about it a few years ago. But, on closer inspection it became clear that it wasn’t a good idea at all. Fundamentally, it allows "voter verification" and "audits" to replace our constitutional right to mark, cast, and count ballots. Under this legislation, machines and election officials continue to control theelections? In fact, since the 1960s when computerized voting technology process, while meaningful citizen participation and oversight is effectively destroyed.

Besides all that, don’t Dems understand that malfunctioning machines make ballot printers irrelevant? What are they thinking?

In the real world, recounts are very rare. In general, they only get triggered if an election is "close." Many people think that if a candidate wins by a significant margin (as Bush appeared to do), then vote fraud or system failure is unlikely. I call it, "The myth of the margin of victory". There are four things to consider regarding recounts and margins of victory:

First, anyone contemplating vote fraud will certainly want to win by a significant margin in order to avoid triggering an automatic recount.

Second, two corporations are counting 80 percent of the votes. Millions of votes can be easily manipulated by a handful of company technicians. There will be little chance of detection. So, even a landslide election is not evidence that massive vote fraud or system failure did not occur.

Third, a significant margin of victory packs a powerful psychological punch against the opposing candidate. They will be unlikely to contest the election under these circumstances. Some observers contend that is exactly what happened to John Kerry in this past election. On the other hand, something was fishy when candidate Kerry said that he was going to make sure that "every vote will be counted" in the 2004 presidential election. Who was he kidding? He had to know that 99 percent of all votes are processed by machines, not people. Kerry sent thousands of attorneys and volunteers to the polls on Election Day 2004 in a futile attempt to monitor an unobservable vote count.

Fourth, although polling data can be used to raise red flags where election fraud may have occurred, polls can also be used to shape public opinion, create false expectations, and even support rigged election results. The relationship between the corporate news media and polling organizations is completely nontransparent. There is no reason to believe a thing these polls have to say. And there’s plenty of reason to suspect the news media. This country’s largest voting machine company, ES&S, is owned by one of their members, The Omaha World Herald.

But, none of this should be news to the Democrats. So, why aren’t they demanding the obvious solution? Get rid of the machines. Or, at least don’t wait for a recount. Count the damn ballots the first time. Again, what are they thinking? Either the Democrats are unbelievably naive or they’ve been bought off.

The Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) leadership on the issue of voting systems has been mind-bending. On Oct. 3, 2004, the DNC voted to endorse the policy of requiring paper ballots for touchscreen voting machines by the 2004 election. Then, on Nov. 22, the DNC approved the use of the most insecure voting system on the face of the planet for the 2004 Michigan Democratic primary-Internet voting. That was the second time. In the 2000 Arizona Democratic primary, the Internet was also used. Strangely, the Democrats tried to stonewall this journalist from finding out the name of the company that conducted the online Michigan primary. What did they have to hide? (See "Democrats Send Mixed Signals In Voting Technology Debate.")

There’s more. John Fund, author of the book, Stealing Elections, writes, "Joe Andrew, chairman of the Democratic National Committee until 2001, is a senior adviser to a biotech firm that owned several Internet companies. He says the conspiracy theories aren’t healthy and last month he told the Maryland Association of Election Officials that "When it comes to electronic voting, most liberals are just plain old-fashioned nuts.’

While conservatives were skilled at coordinating their messages, he added, ‘that does not mean there is a vast right-wing conspiracy trying to steal votes in America, as the loudest voices on the left are saying today’ . . . Mr. Andrew said the people obsessed about DRE manipulation are either computer experts with impressive technical knowledge but little practical experience with elections or left-leaning computer users who are conspiratorial by nature. He noted with regret that they have been joined in their hysteria by prominent Democrats who ‘are rallying behind the anti-DRE bandwagon in a big election year because they think that this movement is good for Democrats.’"

Mr. Andrew appears to be batting for the other side.

Will things change under Howard Dean’s leadership? Maybe not. Back on Oct. 02, 2003, the Associated Press reported, "Eight of the presidential candidates have written national Democratic officials to support a challenge of Michigan Democrats’ plan to allow Internet voting in its caucuses Feb. 7. Only Howard Dean, former Vermont governor, and Wesley Clark, the retired general who just joined the race, did not sign on to back the protest."

Perhaps, the Democrats need a crash course in Voting 101. There is an enormous difference between people marking, casting, and counting ballots and machines performing these same functions. People can be observed and machines can’t. If poll watchers can’t observe the process, then they’ll have no real opportunity to discover if vote fraud or miscounts occur. It’s that simple. But, it’s a simple truth that seems to elude congressional Democrats.

In contrast, the Republicans have figured it out. An HBO documentary that aired on October 11, 2004, shows Congressman Pete King (R-NY) bragging about the upcoming election, "It’s already over. The election’s over. We won It’s all over but the counting and we’ll take care of the counting."

They sure did.

Lynn Landes is one of the nation’s leading journalists on voting technology and democracy issues. Readers can find her articles at EcoTalk.org. Lynn is a former news reporter for DUTV and commentator for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Contact info: lynnlandes@earthlink.net / (215) 629-3553.

http://www.freepress.org/department...

Forum posts

  • Count? Who can is so educated in the states, so he can count higher then 3?

  • As Ms. Landes points out in her piece, the Democratic leadership is not really addressing the issue. And that issue is election fraud. I can understand their hesitancy — the mere hint that one thinks the 2004 U.S. presidential election results may have been corrupted draws incredible ire from the right, and plenty of scoffing from the Democratic Party’s establishment. But those leading Dems who scoff at those of us who are upset about the "irregularities" need to know that we’re not going to be digging into our pockets next time around, nor are we going to be volunteering our time, and quite possibility a lot of us aren’t even going to vote for them again, unless they can demonstrate a genuine interest in counting our votes. The fact that John Kerry is now authoring bills on election reform after he hightailed it out of Dodge on November 3, or that Hillary Clinton is authoring bills on election reform when she refused to stand with Barbara Boxer in contesting Ohio’s electoral votes is obvious grandstanding on their parts. How dumb do they think we are?

    We Democrats need to forget all about the Kerrys, the Kennedys, and the Clintons. We need to support Rep. John Conyers and his colleagues in the House who backed Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones contesting of the Ohio electoral votes. We need to support Senator Barbara Boxer who was the lone Senator courageous enough to stand up for our votes. I am sick and tired of elite Democrats who rally us to the fight and then take off to go skiing or hobnob with the Republican right while the rest of us are left in the dust.

  • What is going to be done to educate the public regarding this very, very important issue! All other issues –the economy, the environment, health care, taxes, social security, jobs, energy policy, wars, poverty, minimum wage, etc.—are contingent upon the outcome of elections. Without fair, honest, accurate, transparent, unbiased procedures, the American people are definitely doomed (if it is not already too late).

    How can Republicans claim to want to spread democracy around the world when they have destroyed the process here in the US? Why haven’t the 2004 voting irregularities been a topic on Real Time, The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, 60 minutes, 20/20, Dateline NBC, Oprah, the Tonight Show, David Letterman, Conan O’Brien, Dr. Phil, Ellen Degeneres, Hardball, etc.? Why aren’t there documentaries on this topic and why isn’t the subject incorporated into fictional tv and movies? Why haven’t there been articles in Reader’s Digest, Ladie’s Home Journal, Men’s Health, Money, Fortune, Information Security, Consumer Reports, etc.?

    I believe it is because John Kerry has been in denial about any major problems. If he won’t voice protest about all the wrongdoing, but instead runs away from the truth (e.g., trip jan 6 to the mid east), it makes it near impossible for others to have a strong case. Regardless of whether or not he has been advised to be silent on this to prevent from being called a ‘whiner’, he is very guilty of hiding the facts from the people and allowing the Republicans to get away with murder. He claimed he wanted to lead America but he has totally shirked his responsibility to take the helm. [I think it is inexcusable and hope he does not think he can once again take up the spot of the Dem nomination, only to turn out to be a big empty void.]

    Don’t the Democrats realize that being silent on the voting issue is FAR MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THEM than anything Karl Rove could devise or retaliate with? Why can’t they overcome their fear of his propaganda machine?? There are plenty of intelligent, articulate, clever Dems to match Rove’s talents. Why can’t Democrats find a comparable agent and no longer be so totally paralyzed or manipulated by him? If the spokesman anticipates what Rove will say and warns people, the power of any of his spin should be diffused.

    Part of the Democrat’s INEFFECTIVENESS is due to their ACCOMMODATION and silence. When people hear the word LIBERAL, they often think of being overly-accommodating. Most people do not think favorably of being easily manipulated or controlled and that is why the word Liberal has earned such a bad reputation.

    Democrats BE ASSERTIVE. SPEAK UP and BE HEARD! Do not compromise on achieving honest and verifiable democratic elections. You will never win another election again until you make things right.

    • It seems quite clear that the Dems. are part of the problem and, like the followers of Ralph Nader, have decided to be purchased by the Repubs. to ensure a one party country, not that one doesn’t already exist. If the American people are to have a choice, then the machines must be discarded in favor of an honest and fair voting system and a new party must be formed that truly expresses the will of the people. Election reform will not take place in this Congress, nor the one which (witch) will be selected by Repub. machinery in 2006. The elite have shown their cards and it doesn’t matter who sees them because they are holding all the chips (the banks, media, gov’t, military, corporations, etc.). The people are being blackmailed with their very existence if they do not cooperate, from the Congress to the guy working at Walmart. The representatives of the USA have become completely amoral, infected with greed and total self-regard. They do not love their neighbors and they obviously hate the truth, otherwise, why would they be so afraid of dissent, free discourse and discovery.

      Instead of acceptance,cooperation, understanding, compassion, and peace, the US has division, intolerance, hatred, war and torture inside the country. The abused have become the protectors and defenders of their abusers. This is typical of trauma, fear and anxiety imposed from the inside (the power elite) and the removal of freedom. "Free speech zones"? to control free speech and assembly, propaganda disguised as media to control thought, ever increasing gasoline prices (even when the oil and energy companies are making record profits) to control the movement of people, government secrecy to control discovery of illegal actions like voter fraud. Why is it that when people risk their freedom in order to protest, there seems to be more and more black shirts than colors, more "non-lethal" weapons than posters, more violent force than enforcement of the real laws (not trumped up pseudo-charges)? Who or what is being protected? The NSA/CIA/FBI/DOJ/etc. is probably monitoring this site. While the people debate, the Bill of Rights burns.

      If it is still possible, the people, not the politicians must come together to form a party that represents them, regardless of the Hack American Voter Act. If the will of the people is not expressed before the imposition of martial law then democracy may indeed be dead and no amount of denial will cover that reality.

  • I understand the pain behind this post. Y’all think W. is an idiot. He beat you. So what does that make you?

    • We know he is an idiot, and he is the son of an asshole. The bigger question is what does that make you having supported him blindly while you listened to a ton of his lies and all you were interested in was jacking off with your gun.

    • "Blindly"? What makes you say that? You think that of the roughly half of the voting US population who voted for W., all of them did so without thinking things through?

      You lost me on the other part—if you confuse your dick with your rifle, you’re not going hunting with me.

    • Read it again carefully, try to comprehend, go look in the mirror while you’re trying to figure out who you are.

    • Okay, wait . . . . . Nope, tried it, and your words still don’t make much sense. (Although I did notice that I had a hard time seeing my reflection, seeing as how I’m an Evil Conservative and all.) You might try making your point again. Talk real slow, help me out here. Who knows? I might get it.

  • That sure is a handsome crowd in the photo.