FLORIDA - the monkey-wrench, AGAIN???

[patricia]

Problems have arisen, in the voting machines in Florida, in the wake of the state elections in March. Apparently, 44,000 ballots were "lost", although the back-up system found them again.................after the election was decided.

These are the same machines which will be used in the upcoming Presidential Elections and the problems with the voting itself, as well as the lack of a verifying paper trail remain.

My solution?? FLORIDIANS SHOULD DEMAND PAPER BALLOTS, with a neutral overseeing body [perhaps the U.N.] much as banana republic-like countries have the U.S. do for them now. Sure, it's low-tech, but the space-age methods seem to be highly questionable. Why not??

Am I overly concerned about a state which decided the last Presidential Election?? This could be Election 2000 all over again.

[jesus marion joseph]

To answer your question: I personally feel you (and others) are so focused on Florida that nobody is paying attention to the fact that there are many states that have the same problems. I seriously doubt paper ballots are the panacea that some envision them being. If you're really determined, you can "lose" paper ballots, too. Having said that, I think any system that dispenses with punch ballots is an improvement.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

To answer your question: I personally feel you (and others) are so focused on Florida that nobody is paying attention to the fact that there are many states that have the same problems. I seriously doubt paper ballots are the panacea that some envision them being. If you're really determined, you can "lose" paper ballots, too. Having said that, I think any system that dispenses with punch ballots is an improvement.

The reason I mention Florida is that this is where the problem is now. The fact that Jeb Bush is the governer is not incidental. I don't think that this is a small problem.
While paper ballots may very well not be a panacea, they are certainly better, assuming that the vote was monitored by a neutral body, than whatever they're doing right now. Of course you can "lose" paper ballots too. They do it all the time in countries whose solution was to have monitors, ironically, from the U.S., such as Jimmy Carter to oversee the voting process. But, using the rationale that no system is foolproof, and not being able to trust the results of an election undermines the entire idea of a true democracy.

[RBS]

Patricia,

I found out that many, many Floridians are going to be using absentee ballots because of exactly what you're talking about.

Like 3 times as many as in 2000.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by patricia

The reason I mention Florida is that this is where the problem is now. The fact that Jeb Bush is the governer is not incidental. I don't think that this is a small problem.
While paper ballots may very well not be a panacea, they are certainly better, assuming that the vote was monitored by a neutral body, than whatever they're doing right now. Of course you can "lose" paper ballots too. They do it all the time in countries whose solution was to have monitors, ironically, from the U.S., such as Jimmy Carter to oversee the voting process. But, using the rationale that no system is foolproof, and not being able to trust the results of an election undermines the entire idea of a true democracy.

Anyone who thinks that Florida 2000 was an anomaly would be in for a serious shock if they read about what happens all the time in every election. Not that I'm condoning it, I'm just saying that all this focus on Florida and/or Jeb Bush is like squashing one cockroach and thinking you've solved your insect infestation problem.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Anyone who thinks that Florida 2000 was an anomaly would be in for a serious shock if they read about what happens all the time in every election. Not that I'm condoning it, I'm just saying that all this focus on Florida and/or Jeb Bush is like squashing one cockroach and thinking you've solved your insect infestation problem.

Of course you're right that squashing one cockroach does not mean you've solved your insect infestation problem.
Using that analogy, one has only to look at the capturing of Saddam Hussein as an example of how one man captured, or TWO if bin Laden is captured, as I think he will be, closer to the election, does not shut down the "insurgency" in Iraq, or the continued unrest in Afghanistan. Would that it were that easy.

However, the problem of the voting machines is not isolated in Florida, so, you're right, the entire network should either be fitted with printers and people monitoring them, or junked. You DO want an honest election this time, don't you??

I still say that paper ballots, monitored by a neutral world body, would be preferable to a non-tamper-proof electronic election. Try it. Use the newly updated, by then, paper-trail creating electronic voting machines in "08, so as to amortize their cost, from then on. Do you seriously think that the purchasers of these machines did not check to see if there was a results-view program, producing a hard-copy report and records when the machines were purchased?? Whoever brokered the buy should be fired.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by patricia

You DO want an honest election this time, don't you??

The altruist in me says "yes", because we all do. The realist in me, however, says that if umpty-million people are casting votes, the term "honest election" becomes an exercise in relativity. Accordingly, I would settle for a relatively honest election.

[patricia]

Well, there you go. And I thought we Canadians were apathetic.

[Brian Olewnick]

Does the governor of any state have control over voting methods therein? I thought it was the local municipalities. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is in NY.

[GoodSpeak]

JMJ,

The problem with Florida is not the fact other states have the same difficulties....the problem is King George's brother runs the show there.

Now if this doesn't set off loud alarms and raise big, giant red flags in your mind, then I have to wonder what would.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

JMJ,

The problem with Florida is not the fact other states have the same difficulties....the problem is King George's brother runs the show there.

Now if this doesn't set off loud alarms and raise big, giant red flags in your mind, then I have to wonder what would.

I was wondering how long it would take for the conspiracy contingent to pipe up.........

[patricia]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

I was wondering how long it would take for the conspiracy contingent to pipe up.........

Even if the problem were just carelessness and inefficiency and not nefariousness at all, it would warrent correction, before November.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by patricia

Even if the problem were just carelessness and inefficiency and not nefariousness at all, it would warrent correction, before November.

I think you've misunderstood my position. I agree that Florida should ditch the punch ballots and hold open, free elections. In fact, I think all of the states should do the same. Massachusetts had its own punch ballot flap, when Bill Delahunt faced off in the congressional primaries against Phil Johnston. The results were contested in court and, as a result, punch ballots were outlawed in Massachusetts as "unreliable". It had absolutely nothing to do with who was governor, even though the governor was a republican at the time, and the state republican machinery would have loved to have gained that seat, which was formerly held by Gerry Studds, a very liberal democrat and, IIRC, the first openly gay congressman.

It is my understanding that Florida has also ditched punch ballots. Unless someone has some proof that Jeb Bush is working to rig the elections, it seems silly to point to his role as governor of the state as evidence of voting irregularities. If you're looking for a villain, look at the secretary of state, as that is the state official who has control over state elections (remember Katherine Harris?)

[Jazzzoline]

How many times did the americans dropped bombs on other countries cause they didn't have a decmocratic election process ?

I wonder why no country dropped their bomb on USA yet... or maybe they did?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Unless someone has some proof that Jeb Bush is working to rig the elections, it seems silly to point to his role as governor of the state as evidence of voting irregularities. If you're looking for a villain, look at the secretary of state, as that is the state official who has control over state elections (remember Katherine Harris?)

The expression "disingenuous" is forming on my lips. Why could that be?

In the last election Jeb Bush promised out loud that he'd deliver Florida for his brother. I see no reason to think he's changed his mind this time out. It is not a good sign that the Florida Election Commission refuses to have its new voting system audited.

Even the most casual student of American politics knows that elections have been sources of scandal practically from the beginning of the Republic. That doesn't excuse looking away from what seems to me a brazenly transparent effort to screw with the ballot process ahead of a crucial election.

[Dr Dave]

Here's the news story from the other Florida thread, posted here for the edification of a certain attorney friend:

The New York Times July 28, 2004
Lost Record of Vote in '02 Florida Race Raises '04 Concern
By ABBY GOODNOUGH

MIAMI, July 27 - Almost all the electronic records from the first widespread use of touch-screen voting in Miami-Dade County have been lost, stoking concerns that the machines are unreliable as the presidential election draws near.

The records disappeared after two computer system crashes last year, county elections officials said, leaving no audit trail for the 2002 gubernatorial primary. A citizens group uncovered the loss this month after requesting all audit data from that election.

A county official said a new backup system would prevent electronic voting data from being lost in the future. But members of the citizens group, the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition, said the malfunction underscored the vulnerability of electronic voting records and wiped out data that might have shed light on what problems, if any, still existed with touch-screen machines here. The group supplied the results of its request to The New York Times.

"This shows that unless we do something now - or it may very well be too late - Florida is headed toward being the next Florida," said Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, a lawyer who is the chairwoman of the coalition.

After the disputed 2000 presidential election eroded confidence in voting machines nationwide, and in South Florida in particular, the state moved quickly to adopt new technology, and in many places touch-screen machines. Voters in 15 Florida counties - covering more than half the state's electorate - will use the machines in November, but reports of mishaps and lost votes in smaller elections over the last two years have cast doubt on their reliability.

Like "black boxes" on airplanes, the electronic voting records on touch-screen machines list everything that happens from boot-up to shutdown, documenting in an "event log" when every ballot was cast. The records also include "vote image reports" that show for whom each ballot was cast. Elections officials have said that using this data for recounts is unnecessary because touch-screen machines do not allow human error. But several studies have suggested the machines themselves might err - for instance, by failing to record some votes.

After the 2002 primary, between Democratic candidates Janet Reno and Bill McBride, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida conducted a study that found that 8 percent of votes, or 1,544, were lost on touch-screen machines in 31 precincts in Miami-Dade County. The group considered that rate of what it called "lost votes" unusually high.

Voting problems plagued Miami-Dade and Broward Counties on that day, when touch-screen machines took much longer than expected to boot up, dozens of polling places opened late and poorly trained poll workers turned on and shut down the machines incorrectly. A final vote tally - which narrowed the margin first reported between the two candidates by more than 3,000 votes - was delayed for a week.

Ms. Reno, who ultimately lost to Mr. McBride by just 4,794 votes statewide, considered requesting a recount at the time but decided against it.

Seth Kaplan, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade elections division, said on Tuesday that the office had put in place a daily backup procedure so that computer crashes would not wipe out audit records in the future.

The news of the lost data comes two months after Miami-Dade elections officials acknowledged a malfunction in the audit logs of touch-screen machines. The elections office first noticed the problem in spring 2003, but did not publicly discuss it until this past May.

The company that makes Miami-Dade's machines, Election Systems and Software of Omaha, Neb., has provided corrective software to all nine Florida counties that use its machines. One flaw occurred when the machines' batteries ran low and an error in the program that reported the problem caused corruption in the machine's event log, said Douglas W. Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa whom Miami-Dade County hired to help solve the problem.

In a second flaw, the county's election system software was misreading the serial numbers of the voting machines whose batteries had run low, he said.

The flaws would not have affected vote counts, he said - only the backup data used for audits after an election. And because a new state rule prohibits manual recounts in counties that use touch-screen voting machines except in the event of a natural disaster, there would likely be no use for the data anyway.

State officials have said that they created the rule because under state law, the only reason for a manual recount is to determine "voter intent" in close races when, for example, a voter appears to choose two presidential candidates or none.

Touch-screen machines, officials say, are programmed not to record two votes, and if no vote is recorded, they say, it means the voter did not cast one.

But The Sun-Sentinel of Fort Lauderdale, in a recent analysis of the March presidential primary, reported that voters in counties using touch-screen machines were six times as likely to record no vote as were voters in counties using optical-scan machines, which read markings on paper ballots.

The A.C.L.U. of Florida and several other voting rights groups have sued to overturn the recount rule, saying it creates unequal treatment of voters. Counties that use optical-scan machines can conduct recounts, though only in extremely close races.

Mr. Kaplan says that the system crashes had erased data from other elections besides Ms. Reno's, the most recent being municipal elections in November 2003. Under Florida law, ballot records from elections for state and local office need be kept for only a year. For federal races, the records must be kept for 22 months after an election is certified. It was not immediately clear what the consequences might be of breaching that law.

Mr. Kaplan said the backup system was added last December.

An August 2002 report from Miami-Dade County auditors to David Leahy, then the county elections supervisor, recommended that all data from touch-screen machines be backed up on CD's or elsewhere. Professor Jones said it was an obvious practice long considered essential in the corporate world.

"Any naïve observer who knows about computer system management and who knows there is a requirement that all the records be stored for a period of months," Professor Jones said, "would say you should obviously do that with computerized voting systems."

Buddy Johnson, the elections supervisor in Hillsborough County, which is one of the state's largest counties and which also uses touch-screen machines, said his office still had its data from the 2002 elections on separate hard drives.

Mr. Kaplan of the Miami-Dade elections office could not immediately explain on Tuesday afternoon the system crashes in 2003.

Martha Mahoney, a University of Miami law professor and member of the election reform group, said she requested the 2002 audit data because she had never heard an explanation of the supposedly lost votes that the A.C.L.U. documented after the Reno-McBride election.

"People can never be sure their vote was recorded the way it was cast, but these are the best records we've got," she said. "And now they're not there."

[patricia]

Thank you Dr Dave.
There is also a lengthly article in April's "Vanity Fair" regarding the Diebold voting machines and the possibility of hacking the system, by altering the count in any or all voting districts. It is possible, by altering the vote by only ONE per voting district, one way, or the other, to affect the results of the Presidential Election itself.
Remember that, in 2000, Bush was given the victory with only five hundred votes. Do you know how many voting districts there are which will be using the Diebold system, which has, so far, been ordered with NO paper, or disc backup??
Most troubling, given the fiasco of 2000.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

In the last election Jeb Bush promised out loud that he'd deliver Florida for his brother. I see no reason to think he's changed his mind this time out. It is not a good sign that the Florida Election Commission refuses to have its new voting system audited.

Now who's being disingenuous? Every head of every state election committee makes that same claim every election cycle (for their candidate, of course). Often these committee heads are sitting governors (see GG's "Pimple on GW Bush's Butt" thread). Are they messing with the votes, too?

I'm not suggesting that Florida is hunky-dory with the '04 vote. I'm just saying that we could be uttering the term "the next New Mexico" as easily as we say "the next Florida", yet nobody even remembers New Mexico's irregularities in 2000. And there still is nothing but sheer conjecture that Jeb Bush has messed with, or will mess with the Florida vote. The Bush and Gore campaigns did plenty of post-vote tinkering on their own last time around. Remember, it was Gore who asked for only selected counties to be recounted at first. Only later, when it became obvious that his gambit was failing, did he look for a recount of the entire state.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

I was wondering how long it would take for the conspiracy contingent to pipe up.........

I see.

So conspiracy never happens then, eh?

Hm.


see also;

Watergate
Iran-Contra
Arms for hostages
Oliver North
The Clinton Chronicles













War on terror

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Now who's being disingenuous? Every head of every state election committee makes that same claim every election cycle (for their candidate, of course). Often these committee heads are sitting governors (see GG's "Pimple on GW Bush's Butt" thread). Are they messing with the votes, too?

I'm not suggesting that Florida is hunky-dory with the '04 vote. I'm just saying that we could be uttering the term "the next New Mexico" as easily as we say "the next Florida", yet nobody even remembers New Mexico's irregularities in 2000. And there still is nothing but sheer conjecture that Jeb Bush has messed with, or will mess with the Florida vote. The Bush and Gore campaigns did plenty of post-vote tinkering on their own last time around. Remember, it was Gore who asked for only selected counties to be recounted at first. Only later, when it became obvious that his gambit was failing, did he look for a recount of the entire state.

Not exactly.

The "selected" counties were the ones hardest hit by the ballot scam.


Geez, JMJ...you should write copy for Fox News.

[Lenny D.Guitarist]

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. These babies hold the key to the election. You read it hear first.

[jesus marion joseph]

[QUOTE=GoodSpeak]Not exactly.

The "selected" counties were the ones hardest hit by the ballot scam.[QUOTE]

Bullshit. He thought he could win by targeting those counties alone. He was wrong, and by the time he realized he was wrong he couldn't do anything to correct course.

[GoodSpeak]

[QUOTE=jesus marion joseph][QUOTE=GoodSpeak]Not exactly.

The "selected" counties were the ones hardest hit by the ballot scam.

Bullshit. He thought he could win by targeting those counties alone. He was wrong, and by the time he realized he was wrong he couldn't do anything to correct course.

Bullshit.

That is what you want to believe.


Conspiracy, JMJ?

[patricia]

It seems to me that Mr Gore asked for recounts in selected areas because he felt that there would be a reluctance to do a complete recount of the entire state of Florida. This, to me, was understandable, since Ms Harris and her minions did not want to do ANY recounts, citing time constraints.
Mention was made of when the inauguration would be and what traditionally happened between the election and January etc. and that there was a possibility that the new President wouldn't get sworn in on time if the recount dragged on.
There were also several submissions by Bush and Gore to the courts. Time passed. Gore, having asked for selected areas, probably wished that he asked for a total recount of the entire state at the outset. A case of too soon old, too late smart.
In any case, it's not certain that the same thing couldn't happen again this time.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

It seems to me that Mr Gore asked for recounts in selected areas because he felt that there would be a reluctance to do a complete recount of the entire state of Florida. This, to me, was understandable, since Ms Harris and her minions did not want to do ANY recounts, citing time constraints.

I don't buy that at all. Gore selected certain counties because he wanted to give himself the best chance to win. Had he asked for a recount of the entire state (there was an automatic recount right after the election, but Gore would have asked for another recount to examine the undervotes) Ms. Harris and her "minions" would have been powerless to stop it had the courts okayed such a recount. And given the Florida Supreme Court's actions during the controversy, I am quite certain that Gore could have had a state-wide recount from the beginning had he simply asked for one. He didn't, because he wanted to win, and he believed the best way to win was by looking specifically at heavily-Democratic counties.

[crawjo]

A general question:

Does anybody believe that if the situation were reversed, Gore would not have done exactly the same thing? Imagine it. Gore narrowly wins the election in a state with a Democratic governor. The automatic recount shows him as still being the winner. Republicans start complaining that some votes weren't counted, that they want to go back and count more ballots. Does anybody here think Gore would have consented to ANY recount after he had been certified the winner of the election?

In Florida, neither the Dems nor the Reps wanted to count "all the votes." That would have left too much to chance. Who knows what happens? The goal is to win. Under other circumstances, would Gore give two shits whether a dimpled chad was a vote or not? Of course not! He wanted to win. So he came up with a strategy to do that. And of course Bush was against any recounts. The automatic recount had already taken place, and he was ahead. Why on earth would he want to recount again? He might lose! If their situations had been reversed, the two candidates would have played the same roles.

[Ron Thorne]

I'm far more concerned about the widespread use of electronic voting machines than any one state's balloting. Afterall, 5 out of 6 of approximately 115 million voters will be entering their choice on a computer. That's a fact, Jack!

So that I don't get blasted for posting an unduly lengthy article here, if you're truly interested in an overview of some of the potentials for this November's presidential election, click here. There should be enough facts and areas for concern here for people of all political affiliations, or those who have none.

[patricia]

I mentioned Florida only because it has been in the news again, because of the problem in March. I think, of course, that ANY state with electronic voting machines is at risk for election skulduggery.
All your points are valid, Crawjo, but the fact remains that the upcoming election is an important one, so errors and omissions, whether deliberate or not should be a concern. That is not to say that all elections are not important, but, considering the fiasco that was Elections 2000, people are just a bit more antsy than they usually are.

Ron, thank you for the article. The points raised would probably never have been raised, had it not been, partly, due to a woman in Florida, about whom there was an article in Vanity Fair, earlier this year. She raised the question regarding the Diebold machines, because three of the four manufacturers are public supporters of the Republican party and that struck her as odd.
I'll say it's odd!!! Not just odd, but disturbing, given, again, the fiasco of Elections 2000.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Bullshit.

That is what you want to believe.


Conspiracy, JMJ?

You're right. I'm a one man conspiracy out to get Al Gore.

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by crawjo

A general question:

Does anybody believe that if the situation were reversed, Gore would not have done exactly the same thing? Imagine it. Gore narrowly wins the election in a state with a Democratic governor. The automatic recount shows him as still being the winner. Republicans start complaining that some votes weren't counted, that they want to go back and count more ballots. Does anybody here think Gore would have consented to ANY recount after he had been certified the winner of the election?

In Florida, neither the Dems nor the Reps wanted to count "all the votes." That would have left too much to chance. Who knows what happens? The goal is to win. Under other circumstances, would Gore give two shits whether a dimpled chad was a vote or not? Of course not! He wanted to win. So he came up with a strategy to do that. And of course Bush was against any recounts. The automatic recount had already taken place, and he was ahead. Why on earth would he want to recount again? He might lose! If their situations had been reversed, the two candidates would have played the same roles.

Not so sure what happened after the election would have been the same with Gore. But what do I know, I'm Canadian. Maybe every American got only one word in mind: "WAR".