Nothing to see here... move along...
Or don't. Alternately you could get very worried. I'm sitting here this morning watching the recall of 9,000,000 toys and the moral outrage of consumer advocates who are very concerned about the way corporate America has "outsourced their responsibility to American consumers" with poor manufacturing standards in sweatshops. It's amazing how all the major news networks pick this up, but conveniently miss the piece of investigative journalism done by Dan Rather last night. (Which is not to say that they've been oblivious... but it's not getting the attention it deserves.) 45 parrots stolen from a store get a spot on the teaser, and I want to know why nobody cares about the theft of our right to have our voices heard. And this on the "liberal" news station?
I wonder if Fox will cover it.
This is frightening stuff. I've looked over some of the documents available on hd.net, and we've got all the classic signs of corporate negligence and quiet cover-ups here. (linkity, linkity) Are we really going into the 2008 election season with these problems unaddressed? Are we going to go after the people responsible for rubberstamping this project with no quality control? Negligence would involve stretching the metaphor of a living democracy a little too far for my comfort, and poor craftsmanship isn't something you can put someone behind bars for. Treason, though... that's an angle I think we could work with.
Sadly, I really don't think we care enough about our democracy to put the money into fixing the problem. I don't even think we care enough to go after the people responsible for this. Like the proverbial ostrich, we'll head off to the polls and vote like we think it counts. We'll pretend those machines work, because darnit, at $3,000 a pop, they ought to. A recall on a defective product? Nah. Just work with it.
The revolution may not be televised; apathy may already have taken root in a silent coup. Am I alone in thinking that a democracy with no reliable mechanism for counting the vote is something not-altogether-democratic? While I may not always be happy with the choices presented to me in the voting booth, I'm still old fashioned enough to be very angry at the thought that my time spent considering my choices will be randomized by the fruits of incompetence and corruption.
ETA: Full story available here.
Edit to add: after a few weeks of consideration here, I’m withholding judgment. It’s perfectly plausible that the Mr. Rather is 100% correct in his sinister assertions, but I’m not comfortable with a few things that he left out. I’d like to know more about how the other machines performed. I want to know about the financial state of the Sequoia plant prior to the decision to switch to cheaper materials. I feel vaguely resentful about the style of documentary at work here, and I wish that his investigative journalism had taken a more neutral approach. He got the reaction he wanted out of me, no question about it. It was an effective piece. I just resent his unwillingness to give me the whole picture in the process.
The difference between America and most of the world, is that America is designed so that the people have the power to fix most problems. In most other countries you have to rely on the politicians, many of whom are bought and sold to the highest bidder.
The problems you mention with corporations isn't a failure of a democracy, at least not in the way you suggest. Consumers have all the power they need in a truly free market to enforce their values on businesses. Don't like Walmart, don't shop there, don't get your friends to shop there, so on. The fact is, the American population more or less doesn't really care and so neither do businesses. I certainly think the world could be a better place if people practiced responsible consumerism (to a certain extent) but there is no way businesses will ever really be controlled by the politicians. Not in this political system. Sure, in China you could do it when you take people out and shoot them (something that has happened enough times in China which I imagine will increase their quality control), but I'm not sure anyone wants that here. Which brings me to an interesting point... you have product safety in a control with a very centrally-controlled economy which doesn't meet the standards, expectations, or qaulity level in a country with a very free economy. I'm not sure you can make the case for state control here. State control CAUSED this problem, it didn't solve it.
And I'd like to point out your very broad use of the word negligent. Usually it's used in the sense of "the should have known better" in the light of hindsight. I'd rather corporations behave reasonably than in a paranoid fashion, because in the end, only the consumer pays the very heightened cost of everything. What we consider safety in this country is a product that can't be misused by the dumbest person in society. And by dumbest, I don't mean unintelligent. I mean lacking in all common sense and sense of self-preservation. You shouldn't have to warn grown adults not to put their hands under a running lawnmower, or to use a lawnmower as a hedge trimmer. Yet those warnings are there because there was a lawsuit settlment where someone did something stupid and decided to try to win life's lottery. If anything, you know in this country if anything bad happens because of these product issues, people WILL get sued. If even something "bad" happens than can be somehow (no matter how imaginitively) can be connected to these product issues, people WILL be sued. We also have a court system to make people pay. So I don't think you can even defend the statement "I don't even think we care enough to go after the people responsible for this"... people do this all the time in litigation. They even (sometimes successfully) go after people not responsible.
You do make one statement I think anyone can agree with, that our choices for politicians are often randomized between incompetence and corruption. THAT is the question we should be discussing... why are our choices always so piss poor?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"the piece of investigative journalism done by Dan Rather last night"
Dan Rather is a proven fabricator with ZERO credibility. The woman that lost the election is spouting the same sour grapes loser drivel that Al Gore did when he lost. Give us a break with the grand conspiracy theories.
Anonymous 9:40 AM:
<<Dan Rather is a proven fabricator with ZERO credibility.>>
Well, at least you start your post right off with a logical fallacy. It's nice to know what to expect in terms of substantive analysis right off the bat. (See also: Poisoning the Well.) Dan Rather is certainly not the most unbiased person on the face of the planet, but his journalistic standards and his dedication to delivering a story with passion and eloquence are both on display in this report. I like a lot of what he has to say about the infotainment industry, too. It strikes me as very correct.
In any case, with regards to your issue with him, yes, he made a mistake. The blogosphere caught him, and he admitted it was a mistake after looking at what the blogosphere had to say. One mistake does not negate his entire career, nor does it have anything to do whatsoever with the content of this report. Did you even watch the clip? Nothing in there bothered you?
This is not a partisan issue. It's something that affects us all-- red, blue, or somewhat purple like me. (And, incidentally, Fox did cover it. story. They don't seem to think it's a conspiracy theory, either.)
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --Voltaire
Justkem
He got caught and defended himself with "fake but accurate"... that doesn't encourage people.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Dan Rather made a mistake, now that's funny.
"THAT is the question we should be discussing... why are our choices always so piss poor?"
So nobody wants to tackle this? I'll use what John said, proposing this the same statement is applicable to the majority of our current elected politicians and the two major political parties.
"In most other countries you have to rely on the politicians, many of whom are bought and sold to the highest bidder."
"In any case, with regards to your issue with him, yes, he made a mistake. The blogosphere caught him, and he admitted it was a mistake after looking at what the blogosphere had to say. One mistake does not negate his entire career, nor does it have anything to do whatsoever with the content of this report. Did you even watch the clip? Nothing in there bothered you?"
Actually, Rather has never admitted he made a mistake. The last time I saw, he was still maintaining that the documents weren't forged, and that even if they were forged, it didn't matter. "Fake but accurate" and all that.
And, yes, that refusal to take responsibility is enough for me to disregard any remaining "journalism" he tries to foist on me. There are too many other sources out there that haven't been caught lying to give Rather any consideration.
John,
<<Consumers have all the power they need in a truly free market to enforce their values on businesses.>>
Ayn Rand made a similar argument in favor of allowing Southern store owners to keep their businesses segregated and let the consumer make the "right" decision. Free markets as a source of justice don't really impress me. They fail to account for the power of human stupidity.
<<Don't like Walmart, don't shop there, don't get your friends to shop there, so on.>>
Sure. I practice that when I can. The problem is that living outside of the "made in China" label isn't quite as easy as that.
<<The fact is, the American population more or less doesn't really care and so neither do businesses.>>
Not necessarily true. If I had the financial freedom to do so, I would shop exclusively American made products and travel less. Sadly, I'm not at that point in my financial life right now, but I look forward to the day when I am.
<< I certainly think the world could be a better place if people practiced responsible consumerism (to a certain extent) but there is no way businesses will ever really be controlled by the politicians. >>
My issue is not with politicians controlling the businesses. My issue is with businesses controlling the politicians.
<<I'm not sure you can make the case for state control here. State control CAUSED this problem, it didn't solve it.>>
Outsourcing to businesses with shoddy ethics caused this problem. If I'm out to buy a car, I'm going to check to make sure it's not a Yugo. If my government is going to invest my money in a voting system, I want them to research the manufacturer and make sure that they are purchasing a quality product.
<< And I'd like to point out your very broad use of the word negligent. Usually it's used in the sense of "the should have known better" in the light of hindsight. >>
The Motorola plant just laid off how many workers? I'm just sayin'.
<<So I don't think you can even defend the statement "I don't even think we care enough to go after the people responsible for this"... people do this all the time in litigation. They even (sometimes successfully) go after people not responsible.>>
As someone who is ever so slightly familiar with the ironclad protections that corporate America cloaks itself in, I'd like to point out that it's unlikely in the extreme that the Ching family will be behind bars over this.
<< And by dumbest, I don't mean unintelligent. I mean lacking in all common sense and sense of self-preservation. >>
Sold. My opinion of the masses is... well... I work with the public. Let's just say I'm not very impressed.
<< You do make one statement I think anyone can agree with, that our choices for politicians are often randomized between incompetence and corruption. THAT is the question we should be discussing... why are our choices always so piss poor? >>
That was a bit of a spin on my real issue. I had no problem voting for Tim Johnson. I like him. I was happy to cast my vote there. I may not always feel that way about the people on the ballot, but my point was that my choices should be recorded accurately.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --Voltaire
Justkem
"THAT is the question we should be discussing... why are our choices always so piss poor?"
My answer: because there is more money to be made in the private sector if you are smart and competent, unless you are a crooked politician.
There are a few "true believers" that do it for the good of the county, state, and country, but, under my theory, the remainder are either not smart or competent enough to do better in the private sector, or crooked enough that they can do real well in the public sector.
IP:
"Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."
Full text.
It didn't take me all that long to find this. I think that counts as an admission of error, and it satisfies me. Had he not said something along these lines, I agree that his journalistic integrity would be questionable. However, it still would be a fallacy to assume that because his integrity was questionable his facts were not correct. President Bush's ability to formulate a line of debate that actually impresses me is questionable, but he still occasionally makes intelligent observations. Objective analysis is really all I'm asking for here.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --Voltaire
Justkem
"It didn't take me all that long to find this. I think that counts as an admission of error, and it satisfies me. Had he not said something along these lines, I agree that his journalistic integrity would be questionable. However, it still would be a fallacy to assume that because his integrity was questionable his facts were not correct. President Bush's ability to formulate a line of debate that actually impresses me is questionable, but this does not mean that he does not occasionally make intelligent observations. Objective analysis is really all I'm asking for here."
IIRC, that was the admission that CBS "forced" Rather to do in the middle of the firestorm. I believe he's since said, paraphrasing, that Rather stood by the story as accurate.
From Wikipedia: "On November 7, 2006, Rather defended the report in a radio interview, and rejected the CBS investigation's findings. In response, CBS spokesman Kevin Tedesco told the Associated Press, "CBS News stands by the report the independent panel issued on this matter and to this day, no one has been able to authenticate the documents in question."[64]"
Take it for what it's worth. I don't want to threadjack, but wanted to explain why I don't trust any of Rather's "journalism." I have other sources for news now that are more transparent, credible and responsive. I don't need to rely on the credibility of a liar.
Hmm.. Duly noted. I hadn't realized he recanted his recantment. I'm 29, and my political awareness really has very little to do with the CBS evening news. I remember being intrigued by some of his pieces as an adolescent, for whatever that's worth. In any case, I checked out the Slate article from September 21, 2004 on him, and I'll concede that he's a quirky character who may not have all of his marbles lined up. That doesn't change the fact that when he does have them lined up, his writing and his delivery impress me.
It's not precisely a threadjack to bring up Dan Rather's credibility as a start to the debate, but there's a difference between "not trusting" and "dismissing as bunk" because you don't trust the source. (Again, see the fallacy files link.) As long as we actually get into the meat of the issue instead of just arguing about whether or not Dan Rather is pinko scum, I'm cool with it.
For the record, I don't encourage anyone to trust anything they hear, ever. Not even from me, even though I, like you, am never wrong. :)
I do encourage research to see whether or not there might be something to it after all. It strains credulity to claim that everything in that report is fabricated. What did you think about what you saw?
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --Voltaire
Justkem
First attempt eaten by a non responsive server. Grump.
Is there any evidence that Rather knowingly attempted to foist forged documents off as real? I realize that Rather is a member of the press, so to most readers of this and other conservative blogs that means he is a liberal, probably Communist and terrorist sympathizer, and probably worships Satan on the weekends. From reading the Wikipedia summary of these documents, it sounds to me that there are a number of contradictory expert opinions and that they have never been conclusively proven to be either fake or authentic. Personally, if these are fakes, it's always seemed most likely to me that CBS received the documents and proceeded to use them without having them sufficiently authenticated. In other words Rather was the victim of a hoax rather than the perpetrator.
The November 7, 2006 interview from the Raleigh paper.
So now justkem, I guess the question is whether that "admission of error" you cite still holds water for you. I think you can understand why it doesn't for many people.
As to the story, I want to see the next part. It seems incomplete, or am I missing something? I just saw 12 minutes that ended kind of abruptly.
<< So now justkem, I guess the question is whether that "admission of error" you cite still holds water for you. I think you can understand why it doesn't for many people. >>
Absolutely. As stated earlier, I get my news from a lot of sources. I "trust" none of them, although some have more credibility than others. Rather has less credibility with me than he did this morning, but that doesn't mean I'll dismiss everything he has to say.
You're not missing something, it is incomplete. I haven't been able to find the full report online yet, but then it just aired last night.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --Voltaire
Justkem
"First attempt eaten by a non responsive server. Grump."
Sorry about that.
"Is there any evidence that Rather knowingly attempted to foist forged documents off as real?"
There is no way of knowing. There is evidence that Rather now should know that the documents aren't authetic, yet he still maintains they're real.
"I realize that Rather is a member of the press, so to most readers of this and other conservative blogs that means he is a liberal, probably Communist and terrorist sympathizer, and probably worships Satan on the weekends."
Not at all - but he's a "journalist" who is still pushing a story based on documents that clearly aren't authentic. So why should I rely on him as a journalist any more? Why should I reward him by adding to his audience?
"It's not precisely a threadjack to bring up Dan Rather's credibility as a start to the debate, but there's a difference between "not trusting" and "dismissing as bunk" because you don't trust the source. (Again, see the fallacy files link.) As long as we actually get into the meat of the issue instead of just arguing about whether or not Dan Rather is pinko scum, I'm cool with it."
I'm not dismissing any of Rather's other work. I just choose not to consume it, because I don't trust him, and I have so many other, more trustworthy options available. Even on this story - a quick google search reveals thousands of other sources that don't have Rather's track record of lying. Rather may be telling the truth on this story, but why should I even have to wonder? So I choose to get my news elsewhere.
I"ll withhold judgement until I see the rest of the story, and get the other side which I highly doubt will be provided by Dan Rather.
Isn't this the blog that a number of the posters hold up John Stossel as a paragon of truth?
Stossel makes Dan Rather look like George Washington.
I seem to recall people quoting Goldberg here too. Or does he get a free pass because he just makes gross, false generalizations, but has no facts in his writing, so it's hard for him to fabricate something that doesn't exist?
Or what about Shelden's statements on Obama where he knew nothing about Obama's past?
I'm not saying that Rather is know-all end-all, but I would imagine that it would make sense to hold everyone to the same standard.
I find it interesting that there are some other forged documents of importance in recent history: namely the forged Niger uranium documents. Bush should have knows that Iraq was not attempting to get yellowcake from Niger -- his own CIA director asked that the reference be removed from the SOTU address. Yet there's one standard for Rather, another for Bush.
It really seems to me that this is a case of confirmation bias. Conservatives, who rabidly distrust any media, are quick to demonize Rather for this incident because it was critical of Bush. You have almost the exact same situation in a pro-Bush story, and it's hardly talked about. I think this is a case of people giving more credence to something that reinforced their own preexisting beliefs than to something that doesn't. After all, Bill O'Reilly did a story a couple of weeks ago on lesbian gang activity that was essentially a complete fabrication. Yet other than a bit of outcry from gay bloggers, there's been virtually nothing on the subject.
"Isn't this the blog that a number of the posters hold up John Stossel as a paragon of truth?"
I don't think I've ever quoted John Stossel. I didn't even know he was still on TV.
"I'm not saying that Rather is know-all end-all, but I would imagine that it would make sense to hold everyone to the same standard."
My standard is be open about biases, transparent with your sources, and admit the inevitable mistakes. When someone fails to meet those standards, I usually just stop paying attention to them.
"Conservatives, who rabidly distrust any media, are quick to demonize Rather for this incident because it was critical of Bush."
One, this conservative doesn't distrust all media.
Two, I'm not demonizing Rather. I'm ignoring him, and answering questions about why I choose to do so.
"After all, Bill O'Reilly did a story a couple of weeks ago on lesbian gang activity that was essentially a complete fabrication. Yet other than a bit of outcry from gay bloggers, there's been virtually nothing on the subject."
I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, so I didn't see the story. And I didn't see a single blog post about it (even from you, Narc), which probaby tells you how much credibility an idiot like O'Reilly has in the blogosphere. So forgive me for ignoring something about which I'd heard nothing.
justkem, I agree that we need to be able to trust our voting machines in this country. The example demonstrated in the clip shows a stylus slightly missing a square, registering another square. It highlighted the registered selection. A voter could see that the wrong vote was registered, and by being more accurate on a second attempt, could register the correct vote. True, it is not absolutely perfect and should be improved, but I don't see how it rises to a conspiracy of incompetence.
The reason Dan Rather's credability comes into question here is because of his blind partisanship in the Bush story. Why would Rather be trying to sound the alarms on voting machines? I suspect he is trying to create doubts in voters' minds so that if the election results don't come out in favor of Democrats, he can cry foul! I can predict with some certainty that if Democrats sweep in 2008, there will be no MSM stories on problems with voting machines.
IP:
Fair enough. I think we've now established your opinion on Dan Rather. Thanks for the head's up on encouraging me to be skeptical. As it happens, it's a line of thought I'm very comfortable with. No issues there.
What I'm actually curious about, though, is what your opinion is on touch screen voting and the integrity of the elections process. My run around the net this morning in search of expert opinions on the security and the reliability of the foundation of our democracy took me quite a few places:
Hackers Test California Voting Machines
Election Security 2006
New Questions Arise About Touch-Screen Voting Machines
etc...
Yours? If this report was not something you could stomach simply because the source was poisonous, what sources did you find that were more agreeable? What's your take on the actual issue? (And please, everyone, inspire confidence in me. Don't let this thread turn into a "Dan Rather sucks and you suck for posting anything to do with Dan Rather, and Dan Rather is a Communist, too..." Pretty please? With sugar on top?)
__
Justkem
"What I'm actually curious about, though, is what your opinion is on touch screen voting and the integrity of the elections process."
I like a paper ballot. I think the optimal scan system we just switched to here in Champaign County is a nice compromise between ease-of-use and ease-of-counting, with paper ballots as a backup in case a hand-count is necessary.
I don't have time today to read all of information you've gathered, but touch-screen systems that don't have a corresponding paper record of votes (versus a paper record of how someone voted) make me nervous.
Mark Shelden is actually much more knowledgeable about these things than I am - he went through the whole process of selecting a new system for Champaign County, so he's much better acquainted with the advantages and disadvantages of different systems.
In November 2006, I was an election judge and the voting machines were pretty impressive - I liked the way there was a paper trail that supported recount by hand.
Handymom:
<< The reason Dan Rather's credability comes into question here is because of his blind partisanship in the Bush story. Why would Rather be trying to sound the alarms on voting machines? >>
Why is this a partisan issue? It's not as though Rather is the only one concerned about the integrity of the vote.
<< I suspect he is trying to create doubts in voters' minds so that if the election results don't come out in favor of Democrats, he can cry foul!
You're entitled to that belief, but it doesn't make it true.
<< I can predict with some certainty that if Democrats sweep in 2008, there will be no MSM stories on problems with voting machines. >>
Unless, of course, there are problems with the voting machines, in which case I sincerely hope there are stories about it.
__
Justkem
"I liked the way there was a paper trail that supported recount by hand."
It's also important to me that a particular paper ballot not be traceable back to an individual voter. In other words, we should be be able to see the votes (i.e., the results of someone voting) and we should be able to record that someone voted, without being able to see percisely which candidates got votes from a particular individual. I'm saying it clumsily, but that's one reason why I like Champaign County's system so well.
Thanks wayward.
I appreciate the comment. I'm really not into the whole conspiracy theory agenda, but this sort of thing bothers me. While it's possible that Rather might be spinning the whole thing out of thin air, it strikes me as unlikely. It's good to know that the screens I voted on are backed up by the hand count.
__
Justkem
IP:
<< My standard is be open about biases, transparent with your sources, and admit the inevitable mistakes. When someone fails to meet those standards, I usually just stop paying attention to them. >>
Good standards. It's also possible that he reconsidered his reconsideration and changed his mind again. I honestly don't care enough about the issue to research both sides thoroughly. It's enough for me to know that he made a mistake and didn't do his homework when he knew he was going into the line of fire. By September 20, 2004, he should have had a position he could stand firm on. It weakens his credibility with me that he didn't.
But it doesn't shoot it all to hell. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone is allowed to change their minds when presented with compelling evidence to do so. I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, in any case. Occasionally, I'll find that there is no baby in the bloody, stinking sludge that's being sold as bathwater, and then I'll get disgusted and completely ignore everything from that source (such as... say... Bill O'Reilly), but Rather's not quite at that level for me.
Just another human being prone to error. There's an awful lot of us out there, last time I checked.
__
Justkem
justkem,
"It's not as though Rather is the only one concerned about the integrity of the vote."
I'll wait with baited breath for Dan Rather's story on the benefits of Voter ID cards and other safeguards to prevent illegal immigrants or felons from voting. He could start by highlighting Chicago, with the motto "Vote early, vote often" and all of the deceased voters who seem to rise from the dead on voting day.
handymom:
I'm not sure I remember reading anywhere that Dan Rather was in favor of voter fraud. I'm not sure what that has to do with the initial post I made, either. *shrugs* You can't say I didn't try to drag this back on topic.
For anyone who is curious, the full video is up now. Link.
__
Kem
Re Dan Rather: please. One supporting document in a report on Bush's dodging his draft-dodging service during Vietnam turns out to be a recreation of a document that was probably illegally destroyed and suddenly, according to the LGF crowd, no one can ever ever mention Bush's draft-dodging again.
It's amazing. The same people who try and belittled John Kerry jumping off a patrol boat and charging into the jungle after VC attackers, have managed via Dan Rather to make over Bush into some sort of hero, during a time when he was doing nothing but racking up DUI's and hooking up with "ambitious secretaries" in his swingin little apartment complex.
Make no mistake, Rather is being attacked by the right wing not because he lied (or because he made a mistake), but becuase he told the truth about one of many incidents that tended to reveal Bush's pathetically irresponsible and childish conduct throughout his life.
By shouting about Dan Rather, Republican operatives did a nice job spreading confusion around election-time. But guess what? Even Republicans have seen through the deception now.
(LINK)
Mark:
I look forward to your input.
IP:
<< I like a paper ballot. I think the optimal scan system we just switched to here in Champaign County is a nice compromise between ease-of-use and ease-of-counting, with paper ballots as a backup in case a hand-count is necessary. >>
I agree. I like the new screens in our county. I'm glad they don't have the iVotronic logo on them. I'm very curious about the other side of this story.
__
Kem
I'll wait with baited breath for Dan Rather's story on... "
"Baited breath"? Like, with worms or something?
Well, I'll also be waiting for Rather to do an episode of pink-gun wielding lesbian gangs that are terrorizing our daughters. Then we'll know he's on the side of truth.
""Baited breath"? Like, with worms or something?"
Heh.
"I agree. I like the new screens in our county. I'm glad they don't have the iVotronic logo on them. I'm very curious about the other side of this story."
Also, I have had no experience with our County's touch screens - I think they're for disabled voters, and I'm not sure exactly how they work.
<< Also, I have had no experience with our County's touch screens - I think they're for disabled voters, and I'm not sure exactly how they work. >>
My polling place in Mahomet used touch screens in 2006. I thought they made the voting process fast and efficient, and I'm generally in favor of moving towards well-engineered touch screens with a paper trail.
__
Kem
"My polling place in Mahomet used touch screens in 2006. I thought they made the voting process fast and efficient, and I'm generally in favor of moving towards well-engineered touch screens with a paper trail."
Did all voters at your polling place use touch screens, or did the majority use the fill-in-the-oval paper ballot which were then read by a tabulator electronically?
I thought, countywide, that touch-screens were for disabled voters.
Honestly, I can't say with 100% certainty that it was touch screens in every booth. (Lake of the Woods polling place if anyone else remembers more clearly.) I showed up after work, and although turnout was high, it was a pretty quick process. In and out, barely a line in front of me. You've got me curious though... I suppose it's possible I may have used a booth designated for disabled voters. *shrugs* If so, it wasn't clearly marked as such, and I'm positive that no disabled voters were harmed while I did my civic duty. :)
__
Kem
No worries, I was just curious.
So you didn't fill out a "darken the oval" paper ballot?
Either I used a touch screen, or my wild and crazy college days damaged my grey matter more than I thought they did. :)
__
Kem
My bad, let's replace "Baited breath" with "I won't hold my breath...". Anyway, sorry for the incorrect spelling.
As for my point regarding why Dan Rather would do a story about voting machines vs. fraudulent voter registration, etc. There were similar cries about Diebold machines being rigged to effect the election in favor of Republicans in 2004. The implication was that "Big Business" could skew the results undetected. There was never any evidence to support the claim. Meanwhile there have been cases of proven voter registration fraud recently in Washington State that actually affected outcomes. In the 2004 election there were incidents of voter intimidation by Democrat operatives in Wisconsin.
BTW, in my area we also have the touch screen voting machines with an internal paper record. My polling place offered either option to voters.
Handymom-
No worries re "baited" vs "bated" breath. Just a litte humor.
Now as for the various points you make re election irregularities....I obviously can't comment, since you haven't linked to a any sources to support your allegations. Without cited sources your allegations may or may not be true, but don't constitute evidence and are not really subject to useful discussion.
I hope and assume by the way that you would be just a willing to consider and condemn examples of vote manipulation committed by Karl Rove and other Republicans if you saw evidence as strong as you've seen re the Democrats, indicating that the Republicans had manipulated election results in questionable ways.
Happy to oblige....
Here's a recent article summing up many incidents.
... and I did have to pop up my Microsoft Word to make sure I spelled oblige correctly!
As for Wisconsin here's more, more and more.
And just type in "Diebold voting machines fraud" in Google and you will see all the conspiracy tripe you would want to find.
I didn't mean to suggest that you, specifically, were. I was just trying to say that discounting a media report because of "liberal media bias" is a fairly consistent meme on the Right.
Ahem. You are obviously not obsessively reading my blog, waiting with bated (!) breath for my next brilliant piece of writing. I tell you, I'm crushed. Seriously, I'm surprised you hadn't heard about this; I found it on Pam's House Blend, Orcinus, Pandagon, Feministing, and Replace the Lies with Truth. Parts of the story have also run (in a credulous manner) at World Net Daily, Lifesite.net, Ilinois Review, and the truly vile Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, most of which have not yet acknowledged O'Reilly's semi-retraction.
Again, I didn't mean to suggest you repect O'Reilly or that you think he's anything other than a horse's ass. But the problem is that a lot of people do respect him. He's a news anchor on a major cable news network.
<< And just type in "Diebold voting machines fraud" in Google and you will see all the conspiracy tripe you would want to find. >>
Sure. Type "evolution and Christ" in, and you'll get all sorts of bogus sites, too. You'll also find some thoughtful approaches out there. Evidence that poorly researched and slightly hysterical websites on any given topic exist is next to worthless if you're trying to build a case against something. With regards to Diebold, you'll also find studies like this with a little patience. I'm not a Real Geek™, but the force runs strong in my family. I am at least familiar enough with servers and how they operate to say that I'm satisfied that the concerns are legitimate. Hacking the vote is a very real possibility when there are backdoors that only competent sys admins who are looking for access from a hidden remote server would be able to monitor. Election night is hectic enough. Why the shadow access panel? This bothers me, period, in a very non-partisan sort of way.
You're building a fine Red Herring here. Call me old fashioned, but before I express an opinion on something, I like to research it-- at least a little bit. Maybe even watch the twelve minute clip and comment on what I see there. I've obligingly moved the full video to the front page in case anyone is interested. It has nothing to do with swastikas being burned in lawns, I can assure you.
I don't like to pull the holier than thou card, but when a thread starts falling into the tired but predictable pattern of Godwin's Law or some variation thereof before it even gets off the ground, this annoys me greatly. Nobody is calling anyone a Nazi here. I thought your choice in showing what some zealot did to someone else's yard was questionable at best. It does nothing to further the debate, and much to derail it. It's a little like me stepping into a thread on conservative approaches to social security reform and linking something about Operation Rescue. Irritating. I'd jump on whoever was responsible for the shoddy debate in that situation, too.
__
Kem
Hey, thank you for noticing that I did not, nor never would call someone a Nazi! Jeesh, whose pulling a Red Herring! I did watch the full 12 minute clip and I have already explained what I saw in the video, which wasn't much. You don't have to acknowledge the WSJ editorial about voter fraud or the Milwaukee Democrat felonies that were committed. Talk about shoddy debate!
I never said you called anyone a Nazi. I pointed out that you linked imagery of a swastika being burned into someone's yard as a demonstration that liberals are intolerant of conservatives and will do anything to steal the vote. (I think?) Indirectly, this is playing the Hitler card. "Democrats compare Bush to Hitler, so that explains why they are the ones who steal elections?" That's the message. Whether or not you meant it that way? I have no clue... but I'm a little hypersensitive to the whole Holocaust/Fascist/Stalinesque/etc... line of debate precisely because it is so often abused. Why does it matter whether the Republicans hack the vote or the Democrats hack the vote? Isn't it equally intolerable in both cases?
For the record, I don't trust anyone in politics. I'll extend that and say that I don't trust anyone who votes the party line or believes that one side is inherantly more corrupt than the other. I've yet to meet the person I agree with on every single issue... even my husband and I occasionally must compromise and respect our respective rights to be wrong. Certainly, I've yet to meet the politician I don't sometimes disagree with. Jefferson is about as close as it gets, and even he had his faults.
In any case, I advocate making any member of government work to earn my respect, and I maintain a position of skepticism and a healthy distrust at all times. See also: Federalist Papers No. 10
Voter fraud bothers me wherever it occurs and politicians can be corrupt whether they are asses or elephants. It's a question of staying on target and not running off into a "conspiracy theory" tangent by talking about other "conspiracy theories".and missing the whole point.
Your original comment:
<< The example demonstrated in the clip shows a stylus slightly missing a square, registering another square. It highlighted the registered selection. A voter could see that the wrong vote was registered, and by being more accurate on a second attempt, could register the correct vote. True, it is not absolutely perfect and should be improved, but I don't see how it rises to a conspiracy of incompetence. >>
..doesn't really address the concerns of workers in the plant and the fact that quality control was axed in favor of cheap production costs. Instead, it seems to say: "Oh, well, it's not really so bad. We'll just try a little harder to make sure we mark the right box."
I said nothing about a conspiracy of incompetence. Greed without regard for ethics is something else entirely, and far more sinister. You don't have to acknowledge that the WSJ article you linked cites the same research paper I linked for you when I googled "Diebold election fraud", either. I just want to get a feel for whether or not this is something we can correct, and how we should go about doing so.
I think we're agreed that there is a problem here, no?
__
Kem
There are horrible human conditions that can be highlighted anywhere. I have complete sympathy for the workers in the factory highlighted in the Dan Rather piece. He could have done a piece on the brutality of the Taliban in Afganistan. My point is that the reason Dan Rather raises this issue is, once again, a partisan attempt to manipulate the minds of voters into believing that "big business" wins out over our electorial process. Your original post calls this "frightening stuff" and that "we don't we care enough to go after the people responsible for this" even though you provide the links to the court cases regarding the problem. I'm trying to point out that Dan Rather has an agenda and I am hoping you will be as cynical about this report as you seem to be regarding any other media source.
<< There are horrible human conditions that can be highlighted anywhere. >>
The touch screens themselves came from Minnesota. The question about working conditions and fair labor standards in free trade agreements is a whole 'nother topic... while related, it's not really what I'm getting at here.
<< I have complete sympathy for the workers in the factory highlighted in the Dan Rather piece. >>
Me too, but it happens all the time. They're better off than many of their friends and family in the shanty town with their guaranteed $2.15/day.
<< He could have done a piece on the brutality of the Taliban in Afganistan. >>
Sure, if the Taliban in Afghanistan was somehow connected to sabotaging the vote. But they weren't, so he didn't.
<< My point is that the reason Dan Rather raises this issue is, once again, a partisan attempt to manipulate the minds of voters into believing that "big business" wins out over our electorial process. >>
And again, I ask, how is this partisan? All Americans are equally screwed if we can't trust the machines we vote on. It's simply not a partisan issue.
<< Your original post calls this "frightening stuff" and that "we don't we care enough to go after the people responsible for this" even though you provide the links to the court cases regarding the problem. >>
Good point. There are court cases in the works, demonstrably so. I doubt they'll go anywhere, but it's nice to think that they will. I wish I had that kind of faith in the legal system. Having an uncle who was one of the Superlawyers in Minnesota before he got caught in highly unethical practices probably contributes to my cynicism. I know there are good lawyers and honest judges out there who want to see justice served, but I'm a little jaded. He with the most money tends to come out on top, more often than not.
I'm also a little surprised that this is the first time I've heard about the history behind the whole hanging chad thing. Were the people Rather interviewed really that unwilling to talk when the first media blitz came to the Sequoia plant? My dad taught me hexidecimal when I was six. I'm aware of how accurate the punch cards used to be. Why were the paper ballots suddenly so unreliable?
<< I'm trying to point out that Dan Rather has an agenda and I am hoping you will be as cynical about this report as you seem to be regarding any other media source. >>
I am. This doesn't look like a partisan hack job of reporting, though. It looks like the real deal, and I'm genuinely curious why the same group that supplied the faulty touch screens is being contracted to supply the new optical scanners... which the college educated employees are also expressing concerns about. I'd very much like to hear the other side of the story. I haven't found it yet, but it's not because I haven't tried.
__
Kem
"My dad taught me hexidecimal when I was six."
My dad taught me exponential math when I was about eight. He was a terrific guy!
Wow, where to begin??? This almost deserves a whole post, and maybe I'll do it in the next few days. Let me say a few things now. I watched the whole video. here are some of my thoughts.
Let me start out by saying that the move to touch screens across the country was obviously short sighted. I always opposed them, and still do. For that you can blame Congress, where the Help America Vote Act received over 90 votes in the Senate and over 400 in the house.
It seems like the timeline for the problems cited in the story was some number of years prior to the 2006 election. Is that correct? I wasn't able to figure out if the story was about the problems in 2006.
The need to calibrate the machines exists for any touch screen machine. These machines are differnt than many other machines because they are being moved, whereas many of our every day touchscreens are stationary. The story did not give any indications as to what the specs are for calibrating the machines. For example, did ESS say that the machines should be calibrated before each election? Don't know, but it seems to be important.
Did they look at the 2006 election? When they ran those machines, were there the problems that they are citing in this video? I just didn't see this pretty obvious question addressed.
The hanging chad might have been unique for the Sequoia cards in 2000, but it wasn't for our county. We've always had hanging chad. We dealt with it effectively, to the point that each recount we held after 1990 resulted in no vote changes.
The whole businesses cutting costs angle doesn't do much for me. Of course they are trying to cut costs. That's what businesses, and governments, and households do. You make judgements about where you can cut costs without adjusting your lifestyle or service level or reputation. If this story is true, Sequoia's cost cutting resulted in "inferior" ballots, that is, inferior to the ballots from the previous election. Not so inferior that they wouldn't have worked. Same with ESS. Did they try to find cheaper ways to make the products that they make. Absolutely. I can't believe that anyone was really shocked to find that out.
I like the breathless "You were rejecting 30% of the touchscreens?" like this was some problem. The company rejected defective touch screens. Shouldn't Rather have been impressed with their vigilance?
ESS wanted to avoid a public relations disaster? OK, another shocker. I would have been in the same boat. If ESS calls me up and tells me that there is a defective part in my machine that needs to be replaced, I think we'd both want to avoid a PR disaster. Obviously the public needs to know about any defects that affected previous elections. But problems that are addressed proactively don't need to be publicized.
A number of the issues talked about here, (hanging chads, calibration) are administrative issues as well as the testing. So to blame the company for problems that might lay with the government is unfair.
The quality of the machines is important. But at the same time, states were passing mandates that companies were having a tough time fulfilling. Florida eliminated punch card for the 2002 election for example, without really considering the ability for companies to fulfill those orders. Once again, I don't know the full story here, but if ESS let out "inferior" machines which would operate fine if tested and maintained well, that wouldn't be a problem. If they let out machines with material defects that couldn't be detected prior to election day, that is another story.
They used the term inferior far too much for my tastes. It's a relative term. A Buick is generally considered to be "inferior" to a Lexus, but that hardly makes a Buick unsafe and Buick dealers and Buick manufacturers shouldn't hang their head in shame.
One distrurbing item was when the one Lee county guy said the machines were running right at the county office but then didn't work in the field correctly. I didn't like hearing that, but would be curious as to what that error rate was and how it was dealt with. Without knowing exactly what the election day procedures are, you can't really know how big a problem that is. For example, if there is a test mode on the machines that the judges are supposed to use first thing in the morning to see if the machine needs calibration, that would address a very real concern. Once again, not as much information as I'd like to have.
I'll watch it again. Probably a lot of points I missed here.
Heh... my daughter (6) was telling me about Earth in the days "when it was all volcanoes"... she used the words "carbon dioxide" while telling me about the first humans. Nova for the win.
(She's a Doctor Who junkie, too... I figure if I'm going to raise a nerd, I'm going to at least do my best to make her a well-rounded nerd.)
I used it as a good excuse to try a few excerpts from "Dragons of Eden" at bedtime... which she rejected in favor of Mythbusters.
*sigh*
Hitler or Mythbusters, the inevitable graveyard of all good threads. :)
__
Kem
Okay, here's some more.
Rather talks about the increased maintenance on the machines as some sort of problem. It's not a problem, it's a reality. Your computer requires more maintenance than your typewriter. The typewriter more than a legal pad. Big deal.
I liked this question from Rather. "would you agree or disagree that what happened in 2000 the presidential campaign was a fiasco" Is there a single person in this country who would answer "no" to that question? Just what does that mean? Rather then opines about the questions about 2004, but doesn't ask his "expert" if that was a fiasco...ya know, don't ask a question if you don't know the answer that will come back.
The issue about the humidity causing cards to expand is well known within the election officials community. I'd want to know a lot more before I criticized Sequoia for what they did, if they did it.
Mark:
Thanks for the comments.
<< Did they look at the 2006 election? When they ran those machines, were there the problems that they are citing in this video? I just didn't see this pretty obvious question addressed. >>
Very good point. I'm not sure why that glaring omission didn't occur to me. There's an abstract available here, but it looks like the GAO is still running tests at the moment. I'll follow that with interest.
<< I always opposed them, and still do. >>
Sometimes tried and true is better than new and improved.
<< They used the term inferior far too much for my tastes. It's a relative term. >>
Heh. I live in an inferior home. It still keeps the rain off my head. My feeling here though is that their use of the word "inferior" was contextually consistant with actual problems that resulted from defective products. A Buick might be inferior and still work. It might not be a Lexus, but it's also not quite the same thing as a Ford. (with apologies and heartfelt empathy for any Ford fans)
<< Once again, not as much information as I'd like to have. >>
Agreed. I wonder, though, whether or not that information was looked at before they taped.
I'd like to see the actual research used, too. The eye witness reports didn't inspire confidence, but then people sometimes do lie for whatever reason. My gut tells me the ex-Sequoia employees weren't out to trash their former employer for the fun of it. Seems like a very big lawsuit waiting to happen if they did, no?
<< We've always had hanging chad. We dealt with it effectively, to the point that each recount we held after 1990 resulted in no vote changes. >>
Adapting to the flaws inherent in lower quality cardstock is always an option. Still... when you're expecting high quality cardstock from the same source you've always dealt with and you're not prepared to deal with the results of very low quality ballots... what a nightmere.
<< Help America Vote Act >>
Gotta love those names that no politician in their right mind would want to come down with a "nay" on. Drives me up the bloody wall.
<< without adjusting your lifestyle or service level or reputation. >>
Emphasis added for obvious reasons. I have no problem with cutting costs, that's smart business. I do have a problem with a lack of quality control in an effort to cut costs. A 30% reject rate is... err... not efficient. I'm truly amazed that a company can stay in business with that many defects rolling off the line.
<< I like the breathless "You were rejecting 30% of the touchscreens?" >>
Heh. Old habits die hard, I'm sure. Salesmen do the same thing, and it's annoying when they do it, too. Heck. Sometimes I catch myself using the same technique when necessary. Not everyone picks up on things quickly, and sometimes restating something with a bit of exaggerated interest is necessary if you want it to sink in. It's hard not to sound like I'm mocking myself when I do it, but it's effective and efficient. Communication calibrated to the lowest common denominator... love it or hate it, there are techniques that do work in an age of short attention spans, anti-intellectualism, and general apathy.
__
Kem
"Adapting to the flaws inherent in lower quality cardstock is always an option. Still... when you're expecting high quality cardstock from the same source you've always dealt with and you're not prepared to deal with the results of very low quality ballots... what a nightmere."
The tests on the cards that Sequoia were conducting at the factory were not what you would do at the County level. The cards would be put in a machine and punched with a stylus. I suppose it is possible that these counties NEVER had a problem with hanging chad so this problem caught them off guard, but I highly doubt that. Once again, that would be a good question for county officials.
ESS wanted to avoid a public relations disaster? OK, another shocker. I would have been in the same boat. If ESS calls me up and tells me that there is a defective part in my machine that needs to be replaced, I think we'd both want to avoid a PR disaster. Obviously the public needs to know about any defects that affected previous elections. But problems that are addressed proactively don't need to be publicized.
Eh? Mark "FOIA Request" Shelden has a different attiude when it comes to letting the public know about problems with elections in Champaign, as long as he feels that such problems are being "proactively addressed" and believes that the problems haven't changed the outcome of any elections?
I wonder what "proactively addressed" problems Mr. Shelden feels "don't need to be publicized," so that he can avoid "a PR disaster"?
Am I the only one sort of shocked by this? I mean, I'm sure the County Board is "proactively" addressing all Sheldern's concerns, too. Just ask them. Frankly, I don't see how or why any government offical can justify secrecy on the basis of avoiding bad PR, and I hope Mr. Shelden will not only explain here exactly what problems he's thus far declined to make public, but that he will also make a detailed report about all such problems available on the County Clerk's website.
It's extremely important for elections to be conducted in a transparent way. This year's "minor" problem could be next year's legal nightmare, and it isn't the County Clerk's sole responsibilty to determine whether the problem has been addressed as "proactively" as possible. People understand that there may be election problems; however they also believe that part of dealing with those problems properly is to make them publically known. If we expect and demand that elections be transparently and properly conducted in Miami and Chicago, we have to require the same standard in Champaign.
I'll give you one Interloper. The batteries on a couple M100 machines went dead on election day and had to be replaced. We now have more batteries on hand to deal with the issue should other batteries die in future elections.
PRESS RELEASE!! Batteries might run out of power on election day!!
We've got a technical issue that needs to be addressed. We address it. We don't make a big deal out of it. I"m not sure of the exact number but we have sent back about three M100 machines because they failed to meet our standards during testing. I'm sorry that you think I should have made a big public display of that, but I didn't. The parties who sent representatives to the testing would have known. If you want to come to the next PUBLIC test, you can find out these things too. Or if you want to ask, you can.
The failure to turn every little technical issue into a press release is not hiding anything. One of the reasons we have a crisis in the confidence of people in elections is that some people have exagerated problems that really had no impact on the election.
And yes, I've had to "manage" press that was out of control because of outlandish accusations by partisans.
Just out of curiousity Interloper, do you want to be on the mailing list to be informed every time a government agency returns a product that they feel is defective?
<< Just out of curiousity Interloper, do you want to be on the mailing list to be informed every time a government agency returns a product that they feel is defective? >>
lol... you're a cruel, cruel man. I like that.
__
Kem
PRESS RELEASE!! Batteries might run out of power on election day!! [. . .] Just out of curiousity Interloper, do you want to be on the mailing list to be informed every time a government agency returns a product that they feel is defective?
Well, I can probably do without the extra reading material. On the other hand if the products are defective because the contract to provide them was inappropriately awarded, or oversight was neglected, or businesses are milking the taxpayers for extra $ by getting it wrong repeatedly, then I'll definitely be interested.
In this case you said that you'd cooperate with a voting-machine company for the express purpose of concealing embarrassing information and avoiding bad PR. I hardly think that they battery example you mention would produce the sort of "PR disaster" you seem to believe it would be permissible to conceal. I mean, you wrote:
If ESS calls me up and tells me that there is a defective part in my machine that needs to be replaced, I think we'd both want to avoid a PR disaster. Obviously the public needs to know about any defects that affected previous elections. But problems that are addressed proactively don't need to be publicized.
I have no grudge against you, and in fact have always respected your work as County Clerk. That's why this is such a surprising thing for you to have written, because it implies that you’d conceal things significantly more worrying than the battery example you mention. I don't doubt that you've had to deal with "outlandish accusations by partisans;" however an announced policy of concealment does little to prevent such accusations. In fact, I cannot think of a situation in which it would be acceptable to withhold information about election irregularities for the purpose of avoiding "bad PR." Can you?
I never once said that I would conceal anything and I resent the implication. The failure to publicize something that has NO impact on an election is not concealment. In fact, in this particular instance, if you had come to our very public and publicized citizens advisory post election meeting, you would have heard about the battery problem and a number of other problems. But because they had ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION, I didn't do a press release. Managing the public relations surrounding any governmental office is part of the job. That includes getting out all the relevant facts and being honest and forthright in answering questions. But it's nice to know that if you were County Clerk you wouldn't have a problem 'concealing" the battery problem.
"I never once said that I would conceal anything"
Well, you wrote that you would refrain from publicizing voting problems that you feared would produce a "PR disaster" if known by the public in cases where you judge that the problems have not affected election results and have been "addressed proactively" by your office.
Of course, I didn't claim that you said you would conceal anything; as you know, I argued that the policy you announced amounted to "a policy of concealment." You have advocated a policy which states, in my succinct but accurate summary: We will sometimes choose to not reveal embarrassing election problems when we judge then to be trivial. If you don't feel that this amounts to a "policy of concealment," you might instead substitute the phrase "policy of intentional and selective non-disclosure;" however I think many interpretive communities would fail to find an important distinction here. When you announce an intent to act in a way that's calculated to avoid the public finding out embarrassing information about you or your office, that amounts to a policy of concealment, I think a reasonable person would determine.
So Mr. Shelden, I'm sorry if you feel resentful, but I don't believe that you have reasonable grounds for such feelings. In fact, if you re-read your post, you will probably see that you misspoke while writing an off-handed comment in a weblog, and that you may wish to rephrase some of your comments, to avoid some of the implications that you may not have intended. In your most recent post, you write that in fact you did publicize at a meeting one of the two problems you mentioned, so perhaps you in fact do believe that "the public needs to know" about election problems, even when they may be embarrassing and inconsequential to the final outcome of an election.
I'm a bit disappointed at the repeated (and even ALL-CAPS) exclamation that the problems didn't effect election results, since I went out of my way in my previous comment to explain my reasons for believing that it's important to disclose problems before they compromise an election result, and even when election officials believe the problems have been or will be effectively addressed.
Two penultimate notes: 1) I do not understand how you infer that if I were County Clerk, I " wouldn't have a problem 'concealing" the battery problem," and 2) you, troublingly, seemed to have declined to provide an answer to my concluding question which I therefore pose again: "I cannot think of a situation in which it would be acceptable to withhold information about election irregularities for the purpose of avoiding "bad PR." Can you?"
And now a final conclusion:
I would suggest, with respect, that a useful practice for the Champaign Clerk's office, and other similar offices to adopt, would be to produce standardized post-election reports documenting all problems (Or do these exist already?). Compared across counties and over time, such records could provide useful information, and be used to increase reliability of election results in the US and elsewhere. I hope you will consider ways of making post election assessments (perhaps externally prepared) a regular part of election practice here in Champaign County.
I interpreted this to mean that you thought I would conceal something. Now I know that you didn't mean that.
"I cannot think of a situation in which it would be acceptable to withhold information about election irregularities for the purpose of avoiding "bad PR."
Withholding information to me implies that it has been asked for. I haven't done that, but of course there have been a host of problems that haven't gone much past the election judges and pollwatchers and voters. We do an assessment after every election taking in the problems that we heard about election day, the concerns given to us by judges and voters, as well as our own experiences. We look for ways to improve the processes. A "standardized" form is a little much. The input from various people wouldn't be easily put in a standardized report. I'll have to think about that. Certainly worth looking into.
Nevertheless, I still am not sure what line you set for publicizing. Which side of the line are the battery failures on? The failure of a machine in CC35 in the November election that had to be replaced on election day? The failure of judges in three precincts to lift up the flap preventing the first ballot from dropping in? Judges misnumbering applicatoins? Judges who fail to mark a name in the book, even though there's a signed application to vote? Voters showing up at the wrong polling place and needing to be redirected? Voters claiming to have not received a notice of a polling place change? When one of my staff people enters a ballot name incorrectly into our database? The mistake gets caught the same day by the person who proofs, but , as you say, "it's important to disclose problems before they compromise an election result, and even when election officials believe the problems have been or will be effectively addressed."
It bears mentioning to that regardless of what an election official publicizes, it's up to editors to run it. I really find it hard to believe that anyone is going to cover a story when I send out a press release prior to the next election saying that we sent a voting machine back because it wasn't working right and received a replacement that we tested and is working right.
I interpreted this to mean that you thought I would conceal something. Now I know that you didn't mean that.
I haven't been making claims about any behavioral tendencies on your part, only discussing the message you posted above, in which you accidentally implied that it would be acceptable to decide whether or not to supply election information to the public on the basis of whether or not you found it embarrassing. I am glad to know now that you specifically disavow this practice, and would never decide not to provide information about an election on the basis of whether that information might embarrass you or your office.
However, must admit that I remain somewhat troubled by the statement that "withholding information to me implies that it has been asked for." Presumably you do not mean that it is acceptable to withhold information as long as no one happens to ask a question about exactly the issue that came up in a recent election. Obviously, no one would have thought to ask about battery problems when the recent problems occurred. So I understand that you are referring to the fact that as County Clerk, complete and accurate information about election problems is always "asked for" from you, by virtue of the office you hold (please correct me if I am somehow mistaken).
As for the question of election reports, you write: "It bears mentioning to that regardless of what an election official publicizes, it's up to editors to run it." Yet this isn't quite the case. Since you have a website, you are quite able to make this information public, without depending on the News-Gazette or other sources to publish it. Again, I'd suggest using regular election reports to build a trackable record of election problems. I'm not an expert on such things, but I suppose it might be broken down into categories of some kind, and include numerical information and notes regarding problems with machines, personnel, printed materials,locations, disruptive incidents, supplies, or "Other." These could form a record that could help track the status of problems from year to year. If more counties would do this using similar forms, it would be even better, and help to establish more widely used "best practices" for polling by making it possible to more specifically compare the results of different technologies and policies.
Okay, when I talk about not releasing things not asked for, I'm talking about the volume of input we receive about an election. It would take me days to have a press conference to talk about everything. Many other elected officials would be faced with similar issues. (I'm assuming your concern about disclosure of information doesn't just apply to me.) At some point you have to make a judgement call about what is so important for the public to know that you broadcast it and what is less important (even trivial) and should be available but doesn't merit putting in a report or press release. Do you think that it is really to important to release after each election a list of people who didn't realize their polling place had moved? I'll guarantee that we'll get more calls in February. I just fail to see why I should go out of my way to make that available to people.
On the less trivial side, I guess I still even wonder why anyone would care that I send a machine back to the manufacturer to get a new one. It just seems to add absolutely nothing to the process. Perhaps you think it does.
As to a standardized form to track problems, you're asking for quite a bit there. When we had election officials in Florida that couldn't even keep their punch card machines cleaned out, I"m not sure how we get them to voluntarily track information such as that. This is done informally by County Clerks at assocation meetings, national meetings, and at meetings set up by vendors for training etc. Nice idea though which I'll add to my list of things to try to get done before I get kicked out of office. The Election Assistance Commission is putting together a number of best practices manuals based on these types of meetings I believe, but I've never heard your suggestion before.
<< It bears mentioning to that regardless of what an election official publicizes, it's up to editors to run it. >>
Or, sometimes, up to the reporters to find it. Leaving aside the local issues and non-issues for a bit, the part about this report that bothers me the most (with more than 24 hours to think about it) is that none of this came to light in 2001-2003.
I'm still gravely concerned about the symbolism of outsourcing the manufacture of voting machines to any company that does business with white collar criminals as a means of trimming costs. I'm slightly sick to my stomach about the thought that Americans vote on machines manufactured by college educated people at slave wages. I'm still curious about why the standards for QA may (or may not have) gone thorugh such a drastic turnaround at Sequoia. As a member of the service industry whose relatively high tech job could easily be in India tomorrow or next year, I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to corporations gutting operating costs in the name of turning a profit.
My own biases are out on the table. Now than... it looks as though ES&S replaced the defective units after the concerns were brought to them. Sharon L. Harrington, Supervisor of Elections, Lee County Florida, has this to say about the report:
"I flat-out reject any suggestion that our touch screen system is not reliable.
Incredibly, in an effort to visually depict the issues we experienced in 2003, HDNet staff requested that our personnel deliberately uncalibrate a touch screen voting unit, completely altering the way in which it would function in a real-world scenario. Again, in the promotional spots I have seen, it leaves the suggestion that these issues are still relevant, today. This is not only a gross manipulation of the facts, but a manipulation of my staff, as well." Story.
Right. So then, Dan Rather is now on my zero-credibility list. I may still agree with some of his sentiments when he pops up on the Thom Hartman show, but I will never again believe a word he says without double or triple-checking his "facts". I resent being manipulated like that. It's a mockery of the whole idea of investigative journalism. Shame.
IP, I'm sorry to say you were dead right on this one. More sorry for Dan Rather than I am sorry to be wrong. It's slightly tragic that someone who has devoted his entire life to delivering the news to middle America has such a warped sense of integrity.
__
Kem
It's very important to keep a record of the number of people who show up at the wrong polling places; it indicates where voter education efforts have failed, and guards against tactics of lowering voter turnout by moving polling places in certain areas. It could also provide evidence for legal or media investigations into deliberate efforts to confuse or mislead voters, in case unethical activists starts employing such tactics in Champaign county.
It's also a good idea to have numbers on the reliablity and durabilty of voting machines, so that technology decisions are made with good data.
It's very important to keep a record of the number of people who show up at the wrong polling places; it indicates where voter education efforts have failed, and guards against tactics of lowering voter turnout by moving polling places in certain areas.
Or, it could indicate an effort by people to vote at multiple polling places. (just a thought)
I think our judges have more important things to do than to track the number who show up at wrong polling places. You should not place administrative burdens on judges with little to no benefit at the expense of the entire voting population. We receive calls from judges when they get questions about these things that they cannot answer themselves. So, for example, a judge at Faith Methodist Church may know that the voter who shows up there really needs to go to Good Shepherd. They just tell them that information. Another judge may not know that information, or may not be able to locate the voters address on a map.
You make one of my points. There are thousands of voter inputs every election that could potentially be tracked but which, if tracked would be unduly burdensome and essentially provide no benefit.
I'd also be curious as to what election officials across America are tracking such information as voters showing up at the wrong polling place.
Dan Rather is now on my zero-credibility list [ . . . ]t I will never again believe a word he says without double or triple-checking his "facts". I resent being manipulated like that. It's a mockery of the whole idea of investigative journalism. Shame [ . . . ] It's slightly tragic that someone who has devoted his entire life to delivering the news to middle America has such a warped sense of integrity.
Justkem-
I don't really have time to spend on IP today, but I have to ask: what the heck are you talking about? On what basis are you saying DR "made a mockery" of journalism here?
The only thing you quote to explain your sudden change of heart is an anti-Rather email from the official who is in charge of the election(s) that seem to have been a fiasco, and which are the subject of Rather's very unflattering report. So she's says that Rather's wrong and that Lee County elections are reliable. I mean, what else did you expect her to say? "Elections in my county are a total joke and a waste of time, so stay home and don't even bother casting your vote?" Perhaps she'd add: "Also, my staff and I bear a lot of responsibility for this, so please fire me ASAP and also consider a class-action lawsuit against us."
Of course Harrington is going to say that elections in her County are working properly. She could be right or wrong or whatever, but you can't be shocked, or impressed by, the mere fact that she says everything in Lee county is A-Ok.
So what are you objecting to? Being "manipulated"? How? Did you even watch the video you posted to IP? Rather *says* in clip you posted that technician Gene Hinspeter "discovered a serious problem with the Ivotronic voting machines in 2003, which he recreated for us in a demonstration." So, I'm not sure what "manipulation" you're talking about. Also, Rather explicitly points out that the screens in 1800 machines with the problems in 2003 were replaced by Ivotronic.
Does all this mean that everything was fine in the 2006 Congressional election that is the focus of Rather's report? Doubtfully. In this election, 240,000 people cast votes, and 20,000 ballots recorded no choice having been made. What we see in Rather's report is that these machines have been having problems since they were first procured in a process that had little oversight with regard to quality, and that according to the technician interviewed, these problems continued even after the screens were replaced. Basically, the technician in the report contradicts his bosses claim that these machines are just fine, lending credence to the suspicion that technological problems may have been to blame for at least some of the 20,000 votes that mysteriously disappeared in 2006. (I hope this technician fellow still has a job somewhere....)
Ok, I don't really have time for more IP'ing today. But please exercise at least a little skepticism towards the emails of goverment officials, in the same way that you rightly refuse to accept the words of journalists on faith alone. Conservatives may have an ax to grind against Rather, but I see nothing here to impeach the intergrity of his reporting.
<< On what basis are you saying DR "made a mockery" of journalism here? >>
The GAO report is still ongoing. Was it a hack, completely outside of anyone's ability to predict or control? Was it a last minute firmware patch that "should have" fixed the issues (including the need to post signs) that went somehow awry too late for anyone to do anything about it? We don't know. How did the machines perform in tests before election night? *We don't know.* We are led to believe that it was simply faulty and/or non-existant attempts to repair defective equipment on the part of a company or negligence on the part of the county. No other alternatives.
I'm not ruling these possibilities out. But I do want the balanced perspective here. This didn't start to bother me until after I'd had some time to think about it-- so no, it wasn't a "sudden shift".
<< So she's says that Rather's wrong and that Lee County elections are reliable. I mean, what else did you expect her to say? >>
Well, there's this thing called burden of proof. I assume (I think fairly) that the business of running an election is a great deal more time consuming, expensive, and irritating when the equipment is malfunctioning; thus, it would be a top priority to fix any issues before the next elections and run tests prior to the election night. I assume (I think fairly) that the company responsible for machines that have issues would do everything they can to correct those issues, because reputation matters in the business world. It's not as though elections are low profile events.
These are red flags that bothered me while watching the report the first time, but which were buried by my general disgust for big business practices that ignore the conscienscious objection of front-line workers who are passionate about the quality of the products they produce. My knee jerked so hard it damaged my natural sense of proportion. What can I say, I'm human.
Rather's report makes it seem very much as though the county is at the mercy of the evil corporation that's pushing out inferior products intentionally and then doing shoddy repair work once the problems have been spotted. Something about that doesn't sound right to me. It might be true, but then again it might not be. There could be something else entirely going on here. I agree that it's unlikely that 14.88% of the voters in Lee County using the iVotronic machines made a protest vote of no confidence in either candidate in the general election for the 13th district. (Compared with 2.5% of the absentee ballots.) Still, this doesn't conclusively prove that the source of the problem was ES&S. Other alternatives (hacks, problems that were fundamentally impossible to solve, etc...) weren't even addressed.
<<'Also, my staff and I bear a lot of responsibility for this, so please fire me ASAP and also consider a class-action lawsuit against us.'>>
Assuming, in the absence of evidence otherwise, that the work she and her staff put in resulted in a successful test run before the election in 2006, I think I'd be pretty pissed at Rather, too.
<< Did you even watch the video you posted to IP? Rather *says* in clip you posted that technician Gene Hinspeter "discovered a serious problem with the Ivotronic voting machines in 2003, which he recreated for us in a demonstration." >>
Yes, he says it. What he leaves unsaid, though, is important. (Hint: Scroll to bottom.)
<< Also, Rather explicitly points out that the screens in 1800 machines with the problems in 2003 were replaced by Ivotronic. >>
..."but problems [source of problems understood to be the company, even without conclusive proof] continued."
<< Does all this mean that everything was fine in the 2006 Congressional election that is the focus of Rather's report? Doubtfully. >>
That's not the way I work. It's not the way good journalism works, either.
<< Did you even watch the video you posted to IP? >>
Of course. I also listened to Rather's interview with Thom Hartman the day before, and did a little poking around the blogosphere before I threw down my own post. But I missed some things that I don't normally miss, due in part to my assumption that Rather did his homework on both sides of the issue. In a solid piece of journalism, the aforementioned GAO report (Aug 3rd) would have been mentioned-- particularly the line about it being too early to draw any conclusive evidence about the source of the undervotes without further testing.
<< Basically, the technician in the report contradicts his bosses claim that these machines are just fine, lending credence to the suspicion that technological problems may have been to blame for at least some of the 20,000 votes that mysteriously disappeared in 2006. (I hope this technician fellow still has a job somewhere....) >>
I really don't think there's any doubt that there were technological problems in 2006. 17,846 undervotes out of 119,919 total votes cast on these machines is a