| Want to be a .....President? Then follow this simple how-to formula for stealing an election: ELECTION = TECHIE + MOTIVATION That's it. One reasonably clever techie. Period. More startling is the realization that from a single point of infiltration, potentially every.....every voting machine in the country can be infected... OpEdNews.com. |
| Truth, Lies, & Politics When is a coincidence too much of a coincidence to be one? |
| For the Politics Articles and Blogs Assorted Articles 1 |
Fiction Stops Here |
| ~~~ |
| A Closer Look at the GAO's Florida District 13. No smoking gun.....Not if but when and how often. Could Red be next? As Americans we the people, individually and independently can choose to vote for our future... or not. Our vote is our power to be heard, to take an active part in our own destiny. When that right is taken from us by negligence, error, incompetence or an accident of technology, it is an insult to this country and those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms. None of us, not red, not blue, not independent, not indifferent should accept this chipping away at democracy. Continued. |
| The "He Did It / She Did It" Business Model for Elections Did you know that most advocates of paper ballot technology are fuddy- duddy, itchy-witchy thinking, nervous Nelly, skittish souls over 40? That's the gist of an article that re-circulated recently. Perhaps it was penned by a reporter who never balanced a bank account. Nonetheless, the resurgence of the article triggered a lively thought provoking e-debate and introduced again the need to look at elections and counting votes from a business perspective. The importance of the business perspective and business model points of view cannot be overstated. In part because, until we define the problem we're trying to solve, we will never solve the problem. That is to reliably count votes and prove the number of votes we count is correct today, correct tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. One voter --- one vote, one count. Every time. Fraud isn't committed all the time. Mistakes aren't rampant every election. Technological failure doesn't occur every election. But had we followed good business practices, we never would have bought into paperless touchscreens (to count 100 votes per machine) as a voting method in the first place. In fact, had we followed good business practices, Florida would have sent 2000 and 2006 back to the voters in precincts where the voting process failed. From a business model perspective, who owns the ultimate responsibility? Nobody. The fox guards the henhouse. Our election business model encourages the classic "he did it / she did it" method to problem definition and solution.
Except in Florida, voters' voices were heard. So we rushed out to buy new machines, a new solution. But we still haven't corrected the problem. Our business model has not changed. Until we develop an election business model that includes high standards for recognizing flawed election results and insists on prompt and consistent corrective action (such as a re-vote by hand if necessary), we cannot ensure all votes will be counted and counted accurately. Until we develop an election business model that requires sound business practices, independent audits, comprehensive computer development and testing methods, and looks rationally at the problem we're trying to solve, we cannot guarantee that any voting technology (DRE, optical ballot scanner, e-voting, mail, or hand counts) will succeed. OpEdNews. |
| ~~~ |
| It's Time to Run Elections the Way a Business Would. I heard Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning ask on NPR if the amount of time spent in defending the voting system & trying to prove to the public that it's accurate & secure is worth the effort when we should be spending our time running good elections ["Diebold Flaws Pose Risks in Fla."] Oops. The voting system is not secure & until it is, you can't run a good election. Still, his words drill to the core of Florida's voting woes. There's time to do it over, but never time to do it right. The recent testing in California & Florida that revealed flaws in the systems should have been conducted prior to squandering our tax dollars - and our votes - by buying the machines. It's time to start thinking like a business. Let's define the problem before we rush to another solution, implement more rigorous guidelines for voting machine providers and election officials, and fix our election laws to protect us from machine and human error - and human interpretation. Until we do, our election process will continue to be broken. Diebold Flaws Pose Risks in Fla. Computerworld.com. |
| ~~~ |
| ~~~ |
| Can we borrow Secretary of State Debra Bowen in Florida? Recent studies in California and Florida are important baby steps in providing secure, fair and honest elections. However, reaction by vendors and some officials seems shortsighted. In computer security, there are two longstanding axioms: Locks keep the honest people out. And if it can, it will. It's only a matter of time. More importantly, the more certain we are that it can't happen here, the greater the risks are that it will... California Progress Report. |
| ~~~ |
| Election system prone to a breach... The more open portals a system has, the more prone it is to a breach. We must do more, be more business wise. We must implement high-bar guidelines for voting machine providers and elections officials to uphold. And we must fix out election laws to protect us from machine and human error. Houston and Texas News, Chron.com |
| ~~~ |
| Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning assures us that our voting machines are fixed. This is the same Kurt Browning who drilled to the core of our voting problems when on NPR he asked if the amount of time spent in defending the voting system or trying to prove to the public that it's accurate and secure is worth the effort. The irony of his words is that you can't run a good election if your machines don't work. If our vendors and elections officials had spent the time upfront following good-business practices, we wouldn't be facing another questionable election... The Ledger, Lakeland, Polk Country. |
| ~~~ |
| Finally a common sense approach. Daily Voting News for January 17-18 reported on the discovery of 440 uncounted ballots in Hillsborough County, FL for the Nov. 4 election. Subsequently David Penoyer, the former city council candidate who lost the election by 84 votes announced plans to file suit against Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections Phyllis Busansky. Penoyer wanted those newly found votes counted. Even so he was apologetic in the asking, saying “I do not want it to sound like sour grapes, but I feel it's something I need to pursue." Why? Why should any candidate have to ask, let alone file suit to have our votes counted? However, in this one case, common sense prevailed. Elections Supervisor Busansky didn’t wait for a law suit. Instead, Busansky allowed the votes to be counted. In the end, Penoyer picked up an additional 31 votes, not enough to win. Nonetheless, this voter believes Penoyer did win, as did we all. Our voices were heard and our votes were counted. And unlike Sarasota’s 2006 debacle, taxpayer dollars weren’t squandered in an attempt to prevent it. http://www.votersunite.org/news.asp, http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jan/17/170056/na-hillsborough-finds- uncounted-ballots/ http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/jan/30/na-uncounted-votes-dont-sway-results/ |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |