The fallacy of paper trails
Dear friends
I served on an election reform think tank alongside several computer programmers, election officials, auditors, and the national election reform authority Victoria Collier. Perhaps some of you are familiar with Victoria's father's book, "Votescam, the Stealing of America" by James and Kenneth Collier. It contained so many truths that it was falsely listed as out of print, and both authors were murdered for their knowledge: Victoria now bravely publishes it, and is a nation-wide speaker/writer of many articles (please google her).
Here is what I learned from Victoria and members of the group, concerning so-called paper "Trails":
A) The vote recorded inside the black box of the DRE may or may not match the receipt, because (the computer programmers universally used this term) it is "easy" to misalign the pushbuttons on the screen with the computer's mechanism.
And here is an even greater concern: With the false confidence provided by having a paper receipt in hand, the voter is all the less likely to cry "foul" and challenge any election.
As for recounts, it would seem obvious that a paper receipt would put the lie to any falsified figures. However, there are significant problems even there, WHICH ARE OVERLOOKED BY THE PUBLIC AND ELECTION REFORM COMMITTEES ALIKE: A) A recount is prohibitively expensive. Further, the politician who calls for the recount is the one who has to pay for it, not the government. Thus, it becomes financially often impossible to even do a recount at all. B) The current 1% of recounts (or 2% if HR 550 passes) does not apply to auditing of VOTES: Instead, it applies to the auditing of PRECINCTS. That is a critically important distinction: According to Greg Palast and Victoria Collier, it is (in this order) Black, Hispanic and Democratic votes which are tossed out. THIS HAS OCCURRED FOR DECADES, AND DID NOT START WITH BUSH. Historically, it is Republicans who have stolen elections. (Just a correction for the record: It was not merely in the past several years that flaws were found).
THis ought to raise some eyebrows: "Random" spot checks are suspect. Consider, for example, Marin County, CA which just conducted such a "random" audit fully two weeks after the last election. WHY DID THEY NOT DO THIS AUDIT ON THE SPOT, WHEN THERE WOULD BE NO TIME FOR FALSIFICATION TO OCCUR?
Since election theft has occurred since the 50s (Votescam: The Stealing of America) it would seem apparent that "Random" audits have somehow managed not to catch the frauded Democratic votes. SOmething to think about.
Victoria Collier writes that Diebold machines are programmable by Satellite: Thus, no amount of in-person servicing guarantees a thing. All it takes is the push of a remote control button, and POUF! All is gone without a trace. In fact, writes Collier, the Diebold machines are the product of "Decades" of election fraud research.www.truthout.org/docs_03/102503C.shtml - 41k -
Another significant problem, and not the least of all, with paper trails and random spot checks, is that MOST OF THE FRAUD DOES NOT OCCUR AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL: Here, 3% of Democratic votes are tossed out, yes. Where the real mischief occurs is at the level where there are not 1% of 2%, but NO audits and NO oversight whatsoever: The State and Federal tally. THAT is where the falsification is done in good earnest.
Computer programmers on Moveon.org's forum have unanimously posted the same message: Not one of them trusts the malleability of computerized voting. They ALL state that hand-counted paper ballots are the only way to go.
FACT: Canada hand-counts its paper ballots in four hours, with very few mistakes: Why can't we?
FACT: Hanging chads leave at least an indication of a voter's wishes, whereas the computers swallow up all votes without so much as a trace.
MY PERSONAL THEORY: Did anybody notice that the hanging chads were a prevalent problem at one area only, namely, Florida? Is it possible that the paper was intentionally chosen for thickness and consistency, so as not to punch readily? If any of us ask the question about hanging chads, theory or not, the fact remains that never was this problem as prevalent anywhere, at any time, as it was in Florida. So I suggest anybody who immediately thinks "hanging chads" about paper ballots, might reconsider that assumption.
SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM CAN BE SIMPLE! CHEER UP, FOLKS! THE BEST RECOMMENDATION ANYBODY CAN MAKE IS THIS:
Citizen watchdogs (Common Cause members) should conduct exit polls at the precincts. RESULTS SHOULD BE POSTED TO THE INTERNET FOR PUBLIC VERIFICATION. Exit polls are "exquisitely" accurate, writes Senator Robert Kennedy.
I have written an election reform proposal, in which:
Citizens are summoned for the CIVIC DUTY of vote counting, by random summons, just like with jury duty.
Citizens conduct hand-counts of paper ballots in panels, so as to assure impartiality.
If any discrepancy occurs, a second panel of summoned citizens does a recount.
Counts should be televised in order to assure lack of fraud.
All results should be posted to the Internet. That way, citizens can do the math and track the State and Federal tallies.
VERY IMPORTANT: CItizens must do hand-counting, televised, at the State and Federal levels.
NO POLITICIAN OR OTHER PARTIAL CITIZEN MAY BE PERMITTED ANYWHERE NEAR THE COUNTING AREAS.
| 
