« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
FL-13: Voting Company Expert Says Problems Cost Dem Race
Next year, the House of Representatives will have to decide what to do about the contested election in Florida's 13th District. Republicans have characterized the Democrats' challenge of the results as a desperate power grab. But here's something to crystallize the issue -- a voting expert representing the manufacturer of the machines has written that there were certainly major problems in the election, and that those problems cost Democrat Christine Jennings the election.
Yesterday, Prof. Michael Herron of Dartmouth testified on behalf of Election Systems & Software Inc. in the state court battle over the election results. He argued that the design of the ballot (which you can see here) was at fault for the large "undervote" in Florida's Sarasota County, where voting machines did not register a vote in the congressional race for approximately 14% of voters. But while he may argue that machine glitches weren't at fault for the result, he doesn't dispute that something went wrong on Election Day.
“It is hard to imagine that the Sarasota result reflects deliberate voter choices," reads a report (pdf) issued earlier this month by Herron and his colleagues on Florida's 13th District. Even more tellingly, Herron found that "there is essentially a 100 percent chance that Jennings would have won the CD 13 race had Sarasota voters" voted in another county.
So keep that in mind as the battle heads further along in court and into Congress. The dispute is not whether voting irregularities cost Jennings the election -- among experts, even opposing experts, that issue is largely settled. It did. The dispute, in court at least, is whether those irregularities were caused in significant part by glitches in the machines, as Jennings has argued, or simply by bad ballot design.
Isn't that essentially the same conclusion that was reached in Bush-Gore 2000? Good thing the Supreme Court made clear that its decision in Bush v. Gore has no precedential value.
December 21, 2006 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of sounding shrill, I must point out a third (not mutually exclusive) possibility: deliberate manipulation of the county voting results.
"Glitch" is usually used to refer to hardware or software malfunctions.
One would not have to be paranoid to note that a motive is clearly present, and unless I missed it, nothing has ruled out the means or opportunity yet.
December 21, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear from the exit polls, before they were "adjusted" to match the reported results(and somebody tell me do they do that when using exit polls countries to determine whether elections are rigged or not?), that there was a nationwide fixing of the electronic voting machines on behalf of the Republican Party.
But then this wasn't the first election to be that way. Without the fixing close Democratic victories as with Webb in Virginia would have been handy wins and no doubt several close Dem losses would have been wins. It's been several years since there has been a national election in the USA where the votes were counted fairly. The Democratic win was a function of a wave election. The machines had to be fixed ahead of time and the Republicans just didn't realize how far behind in the polls they would be.
Unless our election system is made more fair between now and 2008 the Republicans won't make the same mistake again. They'll steal enough votes to gain back power next time.
December 21, 2006 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miguel DeGrandy, a lawyer for ES&S Inc., contends that Christine Jennings (and a bevy of concerned voters) has not shown enough specific evidence to warrant a review of their clandestine computer codes. This is the sort of paradox that Joseph Heller would have a field day with!
Voter: Pardon me. Might we have a gander at those hash codes?
ES&S: We won’t show you the hash codes. You don’t have enough evidence to warrant an investigation of our hash codes.
Voter: Well, where do I get the evidence to warrant an investigation?
ES&S: I guess you’d have to look at the hash codes.
Voter: But I can’t see the hash codes?’
ES&S: Unfortunately, no. They’re a proprietary secret and can only be revealed when sufficient evidence is presented that there has been a malfunction.
Voter: And to provide sufficient evidence I would have to see—
ES&S: The hash codes, yes.
A classic Catch 22 which, in effect, grants the proprietary secrets of ES&S more legal protection than the voting rights of 18, 000 Americans. It would be funny if it weren’t so heartbreaking and dangerous to our democracy.
The overwhelming reaction to Christine Jennings’ unrelenting and seemingly unwinnable battle is one of disgust. Sally Tibbets, a spokesperson for Vern Buchanan, insists that Jennings is “ignoring the will of the people and undermining voter confidence in the democratic process”. Well, maybe our confidence in the democratic process SHOULD be undermined. I would go so far as to say it already is.
Representative Tom Feeny says that Jennings goal is not voter reform but instead a “total political dictatorship’.
The avoidance of this kind of histrionic, partisan outrage is probably what was behind the decisions of Gore and Kerry when they folded prematurely. It seems that when one stands their ground and uses their position to protest an issue that is patently absurd in its transparency they stand to be chastised, called cry babies, egomaniacs, and forced to face political ruin by such just the sort of hyperbole that Rep. Feeny is spouting. The simple fact is, the to chagrin of her detractors, that Ms. Jennings has nothing to lose and this sort of verbal bullying will not dissuade her from tackling this issue head on. The American public has been victimized by one of two things a)official incompetence or b) official dishonesty. In any event, Jennings and her outraged constituents will personally see to it that these sort of shenanigans are brought out into the open, investigated in earnest, and remedied before another era of dishonesty, tyranny, and cronyism is ushered in by complicitly programmed computers.
I challenge anyone who takes issue with this investigation to tell me why this process shouldn’t be permitted. If election officials and ES&S spokespeople are so certain that there were no computer errors then why not give up the hash codes and allow independent investigation? The threat of undermining voters’ confidence in the democratic process comes not from asking questions but from refusing to find answers to them.
December 21, 2006 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quibble from a computer veteran: We're not talking about "hash codes" here, which are mathematical signatures which uniquely identify specific items within the computer. We're talking about the instructions ("codes") which implement the procedures used by the computer. Hash codes are, by their nature, secret, but they can't be used directly to execute instructions.
December 21, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the loss WAS due to bad ballot design (see http://heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061205/NEWS/612050604 for more details on how that could possibly have been the case), the legal case for having the election reheld is far weaker -- after all, once you start voiding elections on the grounds that the ballot was "badly designed", you are opening the gates of legal Hell. Originally I was absolutely certain that there had been voting-machine problems (deliberate or accidental); now I'm not so sure.
What I AM sure of is that paper-trail-less voring machines are not only a clear and preaent danger to democracy; they're a major one. They allow, for the first time in US history, NON-CLOSE elections to be untraceably stolen. They ought to be abolished by nothing short of a Constitutional amendment, and this ought to be among the Dems' top priorities.
December 21, 2006 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it really were bad ballot design, then to me the next pertinent question is whether the campaigns saw the design beforehand and, if so, did either campaign object to it? If not, then, yeah, it sucks, but it's hard to see how it's fair to force a do-over.
December 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the makers admitted to "bad *ballot* design" as the lesser evil. They don't want to admit bad *program* design (whether rigged on purpose or malfunctioning).
My security code seems to agree with me -- it says "screw" :)
December 21, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Glenn's query:
The Democratic Committee was shown a sample ballot which they approved. It was, however, later discovered that the sample ballot did not match the actual ballot.
December 21, 2006 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam >"...the sample ballot did not match the actual ballot."
Sounds like an illegal activity to me.
Why wasn`t the actual & the sample the same ?
The deeper we dig, the more it reeks
"...The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power..." - Henry Wallace
December 21, 2006 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intransigent State Government is probably what Jennings is dealing with in the post election contention. A kind of catch 22. The State will probably contend they don't have control over the vendor machine and ballot and the vendor will say that the State signed off and accepted the vendor product, in this case the ballots.
The State Government will never enter the "fairness" issue and most likely will fight as hard a possible against a new election. State governments seldom do the right thing...only the bureaucratic out.
December 21, 2006 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi,
Thanks for the article, getting more accurate vote counts
seems to be the right thing to do, President Bush was correct in one of his African speeches when he said the only acceptable form of government is democracy. He also defined democracy, in that speech, as one vote one-person majority government. This requires every vote be counted and every vote is counted correctly AND Verifiable when QUESTIONED. In the republic of Ireland, they seem to have a very reliable paper ballot system without using machines. They do not use e-voting machines they bought a few years ago and have in storage. The same kind that were shown to be unreliable in Holland’s elections where the wrong results were given by the machines.
It takes more time to count in Ireland because each ballot box is opened and votes counted in front of both partisan and neutral vote observers using hand counting.
It, also, takes additional time because they count twice. They start with an overall total count with out regard to whom the votes are for because of proportional representation. This lets them know how many votes are needed to win a particular race. By this method, votes for a person are counted until he has enough votes to get a seat.
If 5 seats are being contested as soon as one candidate gets twenty percent he is elected and the ballots of other people who chose him continued to be counted using their second choice as their first choice. Everyone’s vote is counted. This way more peoples votes count in making up the legislature. If you voted for a person who already has enough votes to be elected WHEN your vote is counted then your second choice is counted as your vote in that particular race.
They do this to overcome a legislative districting map that, like in Pennsylvania, packs many voters of one party into one district where the majority wins the seat by a wide margin, but allows minority parties to win other districts by small majorities. Minorities in these cases can win majorities in the administration and legislatures, and control of public laws and policies goes to minorities. This is defiantly not one -vote one-person democracy goverment, because a minority of voters can control the legislature and policy. The extra cost in time in getting the results in one-person one vote democratic majority government is a requirement for democracy to result from election procedures. Optical scan paper trail voting could speed up the counting if necessary.
December 21, 2006 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Bender interviewed Chris Jennings and her lawyer on his Air America program Politically Direct last night; the program archive is available as a free podcast at the Air America website. If you're following this case, you'll appreciate the detailed discussion. The lawyer for Jennings is Kendall Coffey, who was Al Gore's lawyer in the 2000 post-election mess in Florida, and they discuss the ballot design issue.
December 22, 2006 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sam Mossler: That's the same Tom Feeney who stood up in the Florida House of Representatives after the 2000 presidential debacle and declared that he didn't care who the majority of Floridians had voted for, he would not allow - seriously, he said he "would not allow", the state of Florida to be declared for Gore.
He hired a so-called Constitutional expert to help in the fight. Turned out the only one he could find was a guy with a web-site touting Christian-based Constitutional interpretation.
Feeney has his own history of corruption, and was involved in the DeLay/Marianas Islands sweatshop/sex trade scandal. When Clinton tried to clean up what the Repugs were doing there, they went after him with the impeachment. It was never about Monica, always about sex and money - their sex and money.
It's because we have allowed idiots like Feeney to run the show that we are in this mess now. And Feeney is still in office, wallowing at the public trough and shooting off his big mouth.
He needs to be constantly tied to Foley, Delay, Abramoff and Bush. He is up for election in '08 and he needs to be thrown out on his sorry, lying ass.
December 22, 2006 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
large black penis sex
April 26, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
large black penis sex
April 26, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis
April 30, 2007 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
April 30, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 1, 2007 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 5, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 7, 2007 5:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 29, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 29, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 29, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 29, 2007 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
May 30, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 30, 2007 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
May 31, 2007 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@durgs.com
June 1, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 1, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 1, 2007 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 1, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 1, 2007 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 2, 2007 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 3, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 4, 2007 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 5, 2007 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 5, 2007 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 5, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
herbals@drugs.com
June 5, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
adult dvd rental
October 4, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night
January 11, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink