Re: Bev Harris Trashed OVC at the Houston Election Hearing

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 17:13:33 CDT

Kathy, two points:

* While Bev may be taking a bit of a harsh tone regarding the computer
scientists and other "experts" already in the field, it's not entirely
without cause. To avoid this turning into a flamefest I'll just say
this: a lot of ongoing problems haven't been caught that should have
been by people who DID have enough inside access, and in too many cases
we've seen people dismiss fraud as "error". (And a few such as Brett
Williams and Steve Freeman appear to have actively aided the worst
bullshit but we'll set those aside for now.) Kathy, it is a VERY
seriously evil thing to not be willing to see evil going on when it's
staring you in the face. That's *exactly* how a monster like Hitler
gets into power - the ordinary German citizens couldn't believe he was
all THAT bad until their noses were rubbed in the death camps post-war.

Those who lack the moral conviction to call something wrong when it
obviously IS are enablers of the worst sort.

* It does NOT generally do any politicial movement any harm to have a
mixture of activist positions ranging from the "very radical" to the
milder. On the contrary, about half the time the milder crew wins out
because officialdom sees them as the less annoying alternative - Dr.
King's success as compared to uber-radicalism of the Black Panthers and
Nation Of Islam is an excellent case study.

However.

The other half of the time, it's the radicals who are right!!!

Personally, I have no idea which is which here but I've seen various
attempts to "squelch the radicals" backfire in spectacular fashion over
in the self-defense-rights field.

Jim

Kathy Dopp wrote:

> Jim March wrote:
>
>> Sigh. OK, obviously, I'm kinda "caught in the middle here".
>>
>> According to Bev, she didn't "trash" OVC so much as raise a few
>> concerns.
>
>
> I will let this list know as soon as a video tape becomes available,
> so you can see for yourself.
>
>>
>>
>> Now...I wasn't there, and I don't know what was said. BUT I do know
>> this: Bev Harris and Kathleen Wynne are both VERY well aware of the
>> current paper trail capabilities of the Sequoia and Diebold "toilet
>> paper roll" audit trail systems. If Kathy is saying they don't know,
>> then there was a miscommunication somewhere. Bigtime.
>
>
> You weren't there and I am reporting the conversation accurately.
>
> I do, however, agree with everything that Alan Dechert said and agree
> Bev continues to do a huge service to make folks more aware of the
> flaws of voting systems and we need to thank her for that.
>
> However, she has followers who dote on Bev's every word and I forgot
> to mention that Bev also thrashed U.S. computer scientists in general
> for not helping to study and uncover Diebold's flaws, and she
> neglected to mention that they would not be able to study Diebold's
> flaws without risking legal suits or without ending their own careers
> as voting system experts.
>
> Everything Bev says is deliberately designed to turn people off to
> consulting with the very voting system experts and computer scientists
> who they need to consult with the most and who understand more than
> Bev does, how to fix the problems so that we do ensure our votes are
> accurately counted.
>
> I'm only asking that you try to reason with her again. Thank you.
>
> I only wish that Bev understood her own limitations and would allow
> the experts, such as the folks at OVC, to proscribe the solutions, and
> stop publicly attacking other election activists who understand the
> solutions to better voting systems a lot better than she does.
>
> Bev's a great speaker, and has done a lot of wonderful positive
> things, but is being very destructive to the movement to ensure
> accurate vote counts by demanding a return to all hand-counted paper
> ONLY and trashing (wait until you hear and see what she said) the OVC
> and other election activists who are trying their best in their own
> way, and in many ways that are pushing solutions that are more logical
> and do-able than what Bev is pushing.
>
>>
>>
>> But let's say we get a "roll scanner" of some sort. Arright. Now
>> you have to have the software find the "spoiled alert" on the paper
>> and go back and trash the last one. Remember, not all "votes" on the
>> roll are valid! It CAN be done with software but B'Gawd what a pain
>> and God help you if you miss a "spoil alert".
>
>
> I've seen the actual ES&S open source system for scanning and counting
> their paper rolls in action. Note: I still favor the AutoMARK or
> Accupol systems, but the ES&S DRE paper roll counting system would
> catch all the "spoiled alerts" as you phrase it when subtractions of
> votes are needed, in fact, just as easily, the exact same way, as it
> catches the votes themselves. So missing either would be as likely.
>
> I agree with Bev that ballots should be "hand countable", not require
> this complex computer system to count them.
>
>>
>> The second issue at a minimum concerns Diebold's variant: when you do
>> "curbside voting for the disabled" the paper roll can NOT go with the
>> system and doesn't paper-record those votes. Once you have that
>> disconnect between the paper and electronic records you've got bupkis
>> as far as auditability goes.
>
>
> I agree completely.
>
>>
>> I don't know if the Sequoia box is similar.
>
>
> I don't either.
>
>>
>> Now let's make one more point clear: we (meaning BlackBoxVoting) are
>> at this point convinced that deliberate fraud is taking place,
>> engineered by at least some of the major vendors. Folks, once we
>> establish that rock-solid, to the point where people end up in jail
>> (and we're closing in on that!) then yes, the idea of allowing these
>> vendors to infiltrate OVC is horrifying. Even to me. And once fraud
>> is proven, then...guess what? Bev's "paper only" stance doesn't look
>> anywhere near as radical as Kathy is making out.
>
>
> It isn't merely "radical" (not a word that I used to describe it), it
> is a LOSING strategy. It is guaranteed to make 99.9% of all election
> officials ignore and discount anything you say after or before that.
> (Ask a few if you don't believe me.)
>
> Bev's prescription is also not the best strategy if one wants to
> prevent embezzling votes, as every member of OVC knows and we know
> from all the research being done now by folks in places like AZ where
> paper ballots are being substituted in as much as 13% of the ballots
> cast in some precincts.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Kathy Dopp
> http://electionarchive.org
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Jul 31 23:17:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT