"Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted - was once eccentric."   

                                                                                                            _{- Bertrand Russell; Author, Mathematician & Philosopher}

Opponents to election reform frequently like to portray voting rights activists as people who “fear that which they do not understand”---that being, in this case, “new voting technology.”  The organization of national election officials, the Election Center, out of Texas, recently put out a piece of literature informing their members how to deal with groups or individuals who express doubts about the new electronic voting systems:

“– We see renewed fears of introducing the newer technology.<snip> The problem is that well intentioned people, some of them even highly educated and respected, scare voters and public officials with claims that the voting equipment and/or its software can be manipulated to change the outcome of elections.  And the claim is, it can do so without anyone discovering the theft of votes.  Since so many people tend to distrust technology they have limited knowledge about, it only makes the situation worse.”

As you will see within, the overwhelming majority of Computer Science professionals have signed on in recognition of the abysmal security risks existing in our current voting systems.  Many even advocate a return to hand-counted paper ballots—and these are people who spend their lives, earn their livings amidst the most sophisticated technology.  Their adamant distrust is not because, as the Election Center maintains, “they have limited knowledge about it.”

The paper goes on to use the inability to attain perfection in the technology as a reason not to improve its security. This too is a common argument on the opposition to reform side. It’s equivalent to telling your child—“If you can’t get an A+....settle for a D-, what the heck. Nobody’s perfect.” The imperfection argument stops short however when they discuss why they would not entertain the idea of a paper verification for a vote.  Their answer is that the printers are bulky, could be compromised and the paper might jam...in short—they are imperfect, therefore should not be considered as an option.

The Election Center then concludes their report with this glaringly imprecise bit of specious reasoning, regarding the potential for electronic tampering in voting equipment: 

“The real question is whether there are sufficient and proper safeguards to make it highly improbable.  And the answer to that is yes.  It may be possible to do many things, but, like time travel (which is theoretically possible) it is highly unlikely at this time.”

I should like to ask the author for evidence or proof of any measurable successes in time travel experimentation. I’m not aware of any.  On the other hand, as recently as February 2005, yet another election system (Diebold’s GEMS) currently in widespread usage, was successfully hacked into by computer professionals, in no time, resulting in the alteration of just under 100,000 votes. And this is after years of similar studies demonstrated the same results.  Now, I should like to visit the Renaissance period in Florence, please...  

It should not surprise anyone then to learn that the Election Center is hosting its annual convention this year in Beverly Hills, with three of its stellar events being “hosted” by Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia Voting Systems, the three largest suppliers of electronic equipment in the country. 

Listen to the experts (or the people, per the Election experts above, who fear and distrust the technology that “they have limited knowledge about” ):

• IT Auditor/ ‘Professional Hacker’ Chuck Herrin (CISSP, CISA, MCSE, CEH, and lifelong Republican) states, upon first testing the systems: “This is what I do for a living...surely it can’t be as bad as Liberal whiners are making it out to be.  What I found truly shocked me and made me physically ill... It IS that bad.  As an Information Security professional, I can tell you it would have been very, very easy to perpetrate fraud.  Our systems appear to have been designed specifically to allow fraud rather than prevent it... “ 

• Attorney Cliff Arnebeck, former counsel to the Senate Republican Committee, has brought the 2004 election case (Moss v Bush) before the Ohio Supreme Court claiming   “…clear and convincing evidence of fraud, vote migration, and violations of fundamental voting rights.”  Stating that overturning the election result is not the objective, Mr. Arnebeck says he’s seeking to verify the accuracy of the vote and the voting process.

• Dr. Avi Ruben, (Computer Science Professor, Technical Director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University) after exposing massive vulnerabilities of Diebold electronic voting equipment, “The vendors, and many election officials, continue to insist that the machines are perfectly secure.  I cannot fathom the basis for their claims.  I do not know of a single computer security expert who would testify that these machines are secure.” 

• Weighing in on the machinery, after a $2.6 million http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2004/04-130.htm settlement resulting from Diebold equipment disasters in California, Kevin Shelley (former Secretary of State) opines, “The core of our American democracy is the right to vote---and the right that that vote be private, secure, and counted. I think what we’re encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all that is being called into question.  It troubles me, and it should trouble you...”

• Fortune Magazine, declares paperless voting the worst technology of 2003

• Popular Science Magazine - In a 2004 article about electronic voting flaws -

        "The Presidential election may well be a crap shoot.”

The professionals agree that we need a serious investigation in order to protect the sanctity of our voting process... to insure our right to a vote free from possible fraud.  Here are just some of the members of the team currently working to restore election integrity and remedy the problems we experienced in November 2004:   

• 14 Members of U.S. Congress led by Representative John Conyers of Michigan (a former Watergate Attorney)  Honorable Conyers was moved to act when, after the 2004 election, he received over 30,000 email complaints of election irregularities.

• The G.A.O. - urged to investigate by numerous citizens complaints.

• Bev Harris - Forensic Auditor, Founder of Black Box Voting and Lead Investigator for 2 years, filed 3000 Freedom of Information Acts for discovery.  Extensive pre-election testing showed our equipment to be, in Bev’s words, “90% hackable.”  She too is convinced fraud took place in 2004.

• Cliff Arnebeck - Lead Attorney, also convinced, brought case to Ohio Supreme Court, Four Presidential Candidates, Recognized Scientists, Professors and IT Specialists – from Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Johns Hopkins, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, NASA, etc., and a host of esteemed Mathematicians, Statisticians and Accounting professionals.  See lists here.

A recent survey of American members of the world’s

oldest and largest computer society http://www.acm.org/usacm/weblog/index.php?p=73

ACM (Association of Computing Machinery), showed 95% of respondents opposed deployment of unauditable electronic voting machines... precisely the kind we used on November 2nd, 2004.

Someone should tell the Election Center in Texas.

Not a coalition of fringe conspiracists, not out of the mainstream, but rather highly respected and acclaimed members of academic and professional circles.  Don’t take my word for it---

• Douglas Kellner, (former Manhattan Commissioner of Elections-NY) “Any good computer person can alter the electronic record.  They could steal the Presidency.”

• Ian Solomon, (Yale Law School Assoc. Dean) - “How can we expect our allies to take seriously US efforts to hold elections in Iraq and elsewhere?? No reasonable argument can be offered against disclosure and accountability. We can afford whatever expense, inconvenience, distraction and possible embarrassment may be caused by an election audit and congressional investigation.  What we cannot afford are unresolved doubts about the legitimacy of our democratic government.”

• Chuck Herrin, (IT Auditor) - “I’ve been against these voting systems for years...I wouldn’t trust my bank with computer systems this insecure… I wouldn’t keep recipes on a system this insecure!”

• Jim March, (Republican gun lobbyist and computer consultant) - On the GEMS electronic vote counting system:  “…it was designed to be tampered with in ways that would evade detection of local election officials.  This program should never have been certified.  It is a fraud, and quite possibly part of a literal coup attempt.  This is NOT hyperbole, or conspiracy theory - this is outright disaster in the works and undermines everything our Republic stands for.”

• Rebecca Mercuri PhD., (Computer Scientist, Radcliffe fellow, current research fellow at Harvard—14 years of research into electronic voting) - In her paper delivered to Congress  in 2003, “Urgent Threat to Democracy - The case against computerized voting,” she says: “Any programmer can write code that displays one thing on a screen, records something else, and prints yet another result.”

• Michael Shamos, (Computer Scientist and longtime voting machine examiner with Carnegie Mellon University) - speaking to a Congressional Panel on electronic voting in June 2004, “The system is much more out of control than anyone here may be willing to admit.  There’s virtually no control over how software enters a voting machine.  There are no adequate standards for the machines nor any effective testing protocols.”

• Steve White, former Assistant Attorney General of California, when asked in 2000 about the possibility of stealing a Presidential election by computer fraud: “…sooner or later it will be attempted. There is a real reluctance to concede the gravity of the problem.”

• Electors - For the first time in our country’s history - Electors across America actually broke with tradition at recent Electoral College proceedings by speaking out against rampant election violations.  From Vermont to California, they transformed the normally formal, scripted and ritualized procedure into vocal protests and demands for congressional investigations.  In an unprecedented move in California, one Elector actually announced his ballot was to be cast with a contingency:   that ALL votes be counted, including those of voters who were disenfranchised, intimidated, turned away or discouraged by 5 to10 hour waits in lines.         

Electors Across America    http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/2004/12/electors_across.html

But I’ll hazard a guess that you didn’t hear about any of this in the media.

“When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards.  It’s not a door without locks; it’s a house without doors."           

         - Howard Strauss, Director of Advanced Computer Applications- Princeton University

Copyright © 2005 - whoscounting.net -http://www.whoscounting.net