Michael- Are you aware of whether there will be local attorneys or others around to assist voters in AP if there is a voting machine or other issue? I am aware that there will be a number of attorneys available generally, I was just wondering whether there would be any here (as we are not a battle ground state).
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Michael W. Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you feel your vote will not be counted, as outlined below. You can make > sure it is counted the way it should be! > > > > Take the 20 minute drive (+/-) and head over to the Monmouth County Board of > Elections, 300 Halls Mill Road, Freehold. > > > > You may have to stand in lines to vote by absentee ballot, but it will be a > paper vote vs. the "bad" machine! > > > > Michael > > > > > > Michael W. Brim, Municipal Chairman > > Asbury Park Democratic Executive Committee > > 321 Sunset Avenue, Unit 5F > > Asbury Park NJ 07712-5550 > > Cell: 732-996-8160 > > > > > > > > From: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Gabrielle Obre > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:32 PM > To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [AsburyPark] The Vote Grab: Voting Machines Are Unreliable and > Inaccurate > > > > This is FREAKING me out. No intention to troll, just reach more > people. This is ONE of MANY articles. Call in the international > election monitors! > > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/29-0 > > Published on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 by The Independent/UK > The Vote Grab: Voting Machines Are Unreliable and Inaccurate > > by Peter Tatchell > > As early voting in the US presidential elections gets underway, ES&S > iVotronics touch-screen electronic voting machines have been observed > in four separate states [1] flipping the votes - mostly from Barack > Obama to John McCain but sometimes to third party candidates too. This > has already occurred during early voting in the states of West > Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. > > A county clerk in West Virginia invited a video crew to watch his > demonstration of the reliability of the disputed voting machines but > instead he saw the machine flipping the votes, as critics claimed. He > put this down to the faulty calibration of the voting machine. > However, even after he recalibrated the machine it continued to flip > votes. Watch the video here: > > This is further evidence that the electronic voting machines that will > be used in the 4 November election are not reliable and accurate - > that they are prone to malfunction and may not record the actual vote > winner. > > Democrats are not the only people who are worried. Stephen Spoonamore, > a Republican security expert, explains why electronic voting is > inherently unsafe in an eight part series of interviews. You can watch > Part 1, and access Parts 2 to 7, here [2]. > > Writing in the New Statesman way back in 2004, reflecting on > criticisms of the electronic voting systems used in the presidential > election that year, Michael Meacher MP pointed out that statisticians, > academics and political analysts had highlighted significant voting > differences [3] between electoral districts that used paper ballots > and those that used electronic systems. These cannot be explained by > random variation. The investigators found a much larger variance than > expected and in every case it favoured George W Bush over John Kerry. > In Wisconsin and Ohio, the discrepancy favoured Bush by 4 per cent, in > Pennsylvania by 5 per cent, in Florida and Minnesota by 7 per cent, in > North Carolina by 9 per cent and in New Hampshire by a whopping 15 per > cent. > > Research by the University of Berkeley, California, revealed election > irregularities in 2004 in Florida. These irregularities, all of which > were associated with electronic voting machines, appear to have > awarded between 130,000 to 260,000 additional votes to Bush. > > The discrepancies between paper and electronic voting could be the > result of simple technological glitches. But some experts detect > something more sinister: outright vote fixing by interference with > voting machine and tabulation software. > > Meacher [3] reported that Diebold company voting machines and optical > scanners may not be tamper-proof from hacking, particularly via remote > modems. Diebold machines were used in counting a substantial > proportion of the 2004 votes and will be used again in next week's > presidential poll. > > Two US computer security experts, in their book Black Box Voting [4], > state that "by entering a two-digit code in a hidden location, a > second set of votes is created; and this set of votes can be changed > in a matter of seconds, so that it no longer matches the correct votes". > > This is entirely possible, according to Clinton Curtis, a Florida > computer programmer. He has confirmed that in 2000 he designed an > undetectable programme for Republican congressman Tom Feeney. It was > created to rig elections by covertly switching votes from one > candidate to another to ensure a predetermined ballot outcome. See a > video of his sworn testimony here [5]. > > As Robert F Kennedy Jr, nephew of JFK, has exposed [6], the US is one > of the few democracies that allow private, partisan companies to > secretly count votes using their own proprietary software. > > Moreover, the vast majority of western democracies have independent > Election Commissions to oversee voting methods and corroborate the > results. The US does not. > > Most election ballots next week will be tallied or scanned by four > private companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), > Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic. > > According to Kennedy: > > Three of the four companies have close ties to the Republican > Party. ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck > Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. > Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in > which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former > company. Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom > Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, > making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over. And according to > campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their > families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and > party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the > Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the > company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral > votes to Bush in 2004." > > Is it right and proper for partisan pro-Republican companies to count > the votes? It is certainly not objective and impartial. > > Kennedy recounts how computer scientists at Johns Hopkins and Rice > universities conducted an analysis of the Diebold voting machine > software source code in July 2003. "This voting system is far below > even the most minimal security standards applicable in other > contexts... (it is) unsuitable for use in a general election," the > scientists concluded. > > "With electronic machines, you can commit wholesale fraud with a > single alteration of software," Avi Rubin told Kennedy. He is a > computer science professor at Johns Hopkins who received $US7.5 > million from the National Science Foundation to study electronic > voting. "There are a million little tricks when you build software > that allow you to do whatever you want. If you know the precinct > demographics, the machine can be programmed to recognize its precinct > and strategically flip votes in elections that are several years in > the future. No one will ever know it happened." > > Electronic voting machines not only break down frequently, their > security and integrity is also easily compromised, says Kennedy: > > "In October 2005, the US Government Accountability Office issued a > damning report on electronic voting machines. Citing widespread > irregularities and malfunctions, the government's top watchdog agency > concluded that a host of weaknesses with touch-screen and optical- scan > technology 'could damage the integrity of ballots, votes and > voting-system software by allowing unauthorized modifications'...Locks > protecting computer hardware were easy to pick. Unsecured memory cards > could enable individuals to 'vote multiple times, change vote totals > and produce false election reports.' > > An even more comprehensive report released in June by the Brennan > Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank at the New York > University School of Law, echoed the GAO's findings. The report - > conducted by a task force of computer scientists and security experts > from the government, universities and the private sector - was > peer-reviewed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. > Electronic voting machines widely adopted since 2000, the report > concluded, "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and > local elections." While no instances of hacking have yet been > documented, the report identified 120 security threats to three widely > used machines - the easiest method of attack being to utilize corrupt > software that shifts votes from one candidate to another. > > There is no evidence that the voting machine malfunctions, flaws and > security risks identified in the 2004 ballot have been fully corrected > in time for the 2008 vote. This calls into question whether the 4 > November ballot will reflect the will of the American people. As > Kennedy concludes: > > "You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to fear for the > integrity of our electoral system: The right to vote is simply too > important - and too hard won - to be surrendered without a fight. It > is time for Americans to reclaim our democracy from private interests." > > To contact Peter Tatchell and for more information about his human > rights campaigns visit www.petertatchell.net [7] > C 2008 The Independent > > Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org > URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/29-0 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
