National Summit to Save Our Elections--"Scoop" Mon. 3 Oct. 2005

[Tinoire]

Thank you for DOING something! And thanks for this report. So... who did you meet and what did you think of their commitment to this important issue?
I'm just thrilled Autorank! :booga:

[Michael Collins]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/images/scoop_logo_cropped.gif

[h2]National Summit to Save Our (US) Elections – Day 1[h2]
Monday, 3 October 2005, 12:32 am
Article: autorank
[h3]The National Summit to Save Our Elections Convenes in Portland, Oregon[/h3]

Report By DU & PI Poster autorank
On special assignment for
"Scoop" at the conference

[h3]Day 1: A Clear Outline and Rationale for the Ongoing Voting Rights Movement[/h3]
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00003.htm

In this report:
Activist Attorney Paul Lehto Makes a Strong Case
VotersUnite.Org's Theisen Explains How Citizens have "Outsourced" the Voting and Tabulation Process to Corporations
A Huge Opportunity in New Mexico and Three Weeks to Raise the Money
Green Presidential Candidate and Litigant in Ohio 2004 Suit Presents
Media Participation
Other Presentations (Marybeth Kuznik, Rady Ananda, Blair Bobier, Penny Little, Kat L'Estrange, Warren Linney & Steve Chessin)

Portland, OR. 9/30/05: The National Summit to Save our Elections is the logical follow up in a process begun at the Nashville Conference on Election Reform in April of this year. Organized by activist Bernie Sanders, that meeting featured Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, among others. The emphasis was on blatant fraud discovered in the 2004 Presidential Election. Journalist Bob Koehler said, "I had a rebirth in outrage" as a result of attending that event.

Largely a reaction to the irregularities in 2004 Presidential elections, the voting rights movement has matured significantly in the five months since Nashville. The current meeting agenda looks more like a professional or trade association meeting than a political function. The messages are offered with conviction and passion yet the approach seems to be addressing consistent themes based on extensive research. These themes appeared in every presentation on the first day of the conference. The conference is jointly sponsored by Alliance for Democracy, Portland; Democracy for Oregon; the First Unitarian Church, Portland; Campus Pacific Greens; and Democracy Matters.
ADVERTISEMENT

**********

Activist Attorney Paul Lehto Makes a Strong Case

The initial day's activities centered three key themes: the political rationale behind the voting rights-election-fraud movement; the technical rationale; and getting the message out through available media. Activist and attorney Paul Lehto of Snohomish County Washington framed the core rationale for those challenging the legitimacy of the 2004 election and seeking solutions to prevent future electoral travesties.

Lehto is currently suing Sequoia voting systems as a result of clear failures to produce an accurate vote count during the 2004 presidential election. He outlined a simple syllogism: the software used by voting machine companies to capture votes on electronic voting machines is "proprietary" software developed and owned by the companies; these companies keep the software and methods a trade secret; therefore, the results of our elections can no longer be trusted or accepted as legitimate since we have no way to review software, performance, and security guarantees.

"Whenever there is electronic vote counting, there is no basis for confidence in the results of elections. You have no right to believe in those elections." - Paul Lehto, Attorney.

The presentation was powerful and well received by the audience.

**********

VotersUnite.Org's Theisen Explains How Citizens have "Outsourced" the Voting and Tabulation Process to Corporations

Ellen Theisen, Executive Director of www.VotersUnited.Org provided the second half of the rationale for the voting rights movement. A technical writer in the software industry for 20years, Theisen now devotes her full time efforts to the cause of free and fair elections. She noted that in most districts using electronic voting, vendors install, maintain, and repair voting machines and software. The vendors also reconcile errors.

In one instance cited, a district in New Mexico's 2004 Presidential Election had inconsistent data on votes. The vendor for that district removed the memory card, took it to company headquarters outside the state, and the elections results were essentially recreated. All of these technical functions were and continue to be handled, for the most part, by private vendors, usually from one of three major firms: Diebold, ESS, and Sequoia.

County election officials employed by the board lack the sophistication to handle any of the technical aspects of the vote process, and have ceded effective control of the voting, reporting, and tabulation process to private vendors. None of the major vendors allow any inspection of software or hardware using the argument that the equipment and software are "proprietary" to the company and not for outside review.

Theisen reviewed the problems arising out of the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA). HAVA was quickly moved through both houses of Congress and signed into law in 2002.

The law has been interpreted by some - either through intent or lack of understanding - to favor a rapid conversion from paper ballots, punch cards, and lever voting machines to electronic optical scanning machines and DRE's [Direct Recording Electronic], sophisticated voting machines that provide touch screen voting, vote totaling, and reporting through self contained hardware-software system.

Theisen pointed out factual misstatement by vendors and county Boards of Elections (boards) used to justify conversion from paper to electronic voting.

Boards and vendors argue that HAVA requires dropping punch cards. Theisen argued the opposite, that punch cards are acceptable under HAVA given certain safeguards.

Boards and vendors argue that HAVA requires electronic tabulation of votes cast. Theisen countered that hand counts can be justified under HAVA.

A glaring contradiction arose with regard to cost. Some boards and the parent county governments seem to think that HAVA funds, generous at the equipment purchasing phase of electronic conversion, are a source of permanent support. This is not the case. Maintenance, upgrades, supplies, and other support costs are all carried by the county as time goes on. The costs can be considerable and have gone unnoticed.

**********

A Huge Opportunity in New Mexico and Three Weeks to Raise the Money

Voter Action Co Director Holy Jacobson brought the summit up to date on a critical legal action in New Mexico. The scene of clear wide spread election problems, Jacobson discussed the suit brought in behalf of eight citizens of New Mexico, each of whom "wishes to have their vote properly counted and weighted in any forth coming elections" (from plaintiffs filing).

Initial research and depositions have revealed significant and wide spread problems with "under votes" for president. There were 24,000 of these, predominantly from Hispanic and Native American voters, more than enough to change the result of the presidential election.

Jacobson described this case as the very best opportunity the voting rights movement has to expose problems with equipment, the conduct of elections by states and counties, and other barriers to free and fair elections.

So far, lead attorney Lowell Finley of Berkley, CA (one of the few attorneys to litigate successfully against a voting machine manufacturer) and his legal team have uncovered significant findings in depositions. A voting machine vendor admitted under oath that machines used throughout the state erased presidential votes unintentionally. The state of New Mexico seems incapable of conducting a reliable post-election canvass failing to detect clear errors found by Voter Action attorneys and consultants.

Voter Action (www.voteraction.org) has only three weeks to raise approximately $250 thousand to complete depositions. Sworn depositions could include demands to review vendor hardware and software, examination of the state-county-vendor relationships and any problems created, and significant statistical inconsistencies that make "under votes" many more times likely in predominantly minority precincts

MORE at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00003.htm

[Michael Collins]

I'll give you a more thorough comment tomorrow since I'm slammed after 4 days away.

:)

[All_The_States]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of a solution to this mess...

Someone should go there to Washington, with Freeman and other lawyers and discuss the reality of the gender-crossover and put it on camera.

To me this is single the most hot-button issue of the entire election fraud problem, female voters actually crossed over and became male bush voters on election night. According to exit polls no less!!!

[link:www.verifiedvoting.org|Verified Voting]
And not one person has actually discussed this problem with Mitofsky! The secrecy game could end so quickly, if legal eagles took on Mitofsky head on and showed him it is -flat-out-impossible. If not convince him, embarrass him. The gender debate is issue 101.

[davidgmills]

For the gender voting analysis. For several months (at lest since May when the census data came out) I saw the gender angle as something that needed real analysis, especially when the exit poll gender split had the confirmation of the census. But since I was banned from DU, I could not contact TIA to have him work on it. I kept thinking that TIA or someone else would see the need to do such analysis, but apparently no one else did.

But to me, it is the most compelling analysis because it is not subject to many of the flakey arguments that are so often used to refute the exit polls. Each one of has things that convince us and this may not be nearly as convincing to others, but it sure is convincing to me.

It also finds a way to make the analysis one of 70,000 subjects (state polls)not just 13,000 (national polls) and significantly lowers the MOE.

It also raises the presumption that if 70,000 exit poll subjects had the same split on gender that 60,000 census survey subjects did, how those 70,000 exit poll subjects claimed they voted would also be presumably correct.

I have not seen TIA's gender analysis referred to yet on DU. Would you mind posting a thread there to call attention to it?

[All_The_States]

Seems to not be a good thing to call "attention" to certain realities over there!! Sounds like a form of censorship if you ask me.

[davidgmills]

When and why?

[All_The_States]

No explanation given.

Can't sign up again easily at all either.

[davidgmills]

Elections or something else? I was banned after making a post.

[All_The_States]

It was strange...I just said "I don't like or trust Bill Clinton" and was....talking about how I don't want to see certain democrats in office....And how all of them should be looking at the exit polls and form a debate for once..

ATS

[davidgmills]

You sure are dangerous.

The great irony of the naysayers is this: Exit polls are no good for showing why we won; they are only good for showing why we lost and how we ought to change course.