Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor
The Crisis Papers
November 5, 2004
The issue of the unwavering quality of paperless electronic casting a ballot is on a very basic level misinterpreted: The native isn't committed to demonstrate that his ticket is secure; rather, the subject has a privilege to be certain that his vote will be tallied, as he cast it. What's more, for reasons recognized by both the commentators and protectors of “e-casting a ballot,” the American subject who cast a ballot with these machines, is denied this central right.
Was the 2004 Presidential race “settled”?
The inquiry is essentially missing in the standard, corporate media, as though it is at any rate “discourteous” and at the very least jumpy and capricious even to ask it.. The last aggregates of this race are an undisputed “given,” and media exchange pursues from this in-your-face presumption. The issue of the legitimacy of the last decision returns, for the country or for urgent states, for example, Florida and Ohio, is infrequently brought up in the predominant press.
In the interim, in “the online worlds” theory with regards to the reasonableness and legitimacy of the “official” vote check is dynamic and expanding. Bev Harris' BlackBoxVoting.org has documented the most broad Freedom of Information activity ever, trying to demonstrate that “misrepresentation occurred in the 2004 race through electronic casting a ballot machines. What's more, Greg Palast has declared straight-out that, had every one of the votes been tallied, John Kerry would have won Ohio, Florida, and along these lines the race.
I must reveal to you who got the most votes in the choosing states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry.
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting in favor of Kerry. At 1:05 a.m. Wednesday morning, CNN's leave survey demonstrated Kerry beating Bush among Ohio ladies by 53 percent to 47 percent. The leave surveys were later joined with – and along these lines defiled by – the arranged outcomes, at last turning into a reflection of the evident real vote. Kerry likewise vanquished Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Except if a third sexual orientation casted a ballot in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
So what's happening here? Reply: the leave surveys are exact. Surveyors ask, “Who did you vote in favor of?” Unfortunately, they don't ask the critical, question, “Was your vote checked?” The voters don't have a clue.
Back to crisispapers.
Back to Homepage: reviewinstitute.org
Thom Hartmann reports:
The hot story in the Blogosphere is that the “incorrect” leave surveys that indicated Kerry conveying Florida and Ohio (among different states) weren't mistaken in any way – it was the numbers created by paperless casting a ballot machines that weren't right, and Kerry really won… [B]loggers and insightful correspondents are finding an odd inconsistency in leave surveys being to a great extent exact in paper-tally states and strangely off base in contact screen electronic casting a ballot states Even crude voter investigations are indicating extraordinary peculiarities in contact screen-run Florida, and falcon looked at bloggers are finding that news associations are retroactively adjusting their leave surveys to agree with what the machines eventually said.
Check Crispin Miller composes:[T]his decision was certainly fixed. I have no uncertainty about it. It's a measurable difficulty that Bush got 8 million a larger number of votes than he got last time. In 2000, he got 15 million votes from conservative Christians, and there are around 19 million of them in the nation. They were anxious to get the other 4 million. That was practically Karl Rove's system to get Bush chose.
In any case, given Bush's low prevalence appraisals and the colossal number of new voters – who skewed Democratic – there is no chance to get on the planet that Bush got 8 million additional votes this time. I think it had a great deal to do with the electronic casting a ballot machines. Those machines are totally conniving, and that is the reason the Republicans use them.
Lastly, Mike Whitney[T]ens of thousands of individuals who arranged for up to four hours on end in Ohio and Florida to have their vote checked, were not remaining there to support the animosity and self-destructive approaches of the present organization…
The extraordinary high turnout combined with new enrollments ( that were overwhelmingly for John Kerry) recommend that there was unfairness at the casting a ballot booths….
The truth is (as each sensible individual who hasn't been tricked by the pomp of decision night misrepresentation understands) that the race was stolen again in full perspective of the American open. The Republican possessed casting a ballot machines beat leave survey projections and the desire of the American individuals.
Obviously, the Republicans and the Bush Administration deny unequivocally, and the media deny verifiably (by overlooking the story), that there was any extortion whatever in the race. The safeguards of the paperless casting a ballot machines answer, accurately, that the commentators can't demonstrate their charges. The machines yield no immediate proof of the supposed vote altering. Rather, the pundits must depend on incidental and measurable proof. (In my next paper, I will plot the case for a deceitful race. In any case, that isn't the goal here).
The safeguards' reaction is right: the machines create no autonomous paper record of the casting a ballot, and the source codes that transmit and record the voters' determinations are mystery and “restrictive” – the property of the organizations that manufacture the machines and compose the product codes. These are the straightforward realities, that the two sides will consent to.
The issue for the safeguards of the machines is that while the commentators can not straightforwardly demonstrate vote altering, for the specific same reasons race authorities can not demonstrate that the votes were given and recorded a role as the voters proposed.
So it comes down to this. How might we realize that the product codes were not composed to intentionally “toss” a decision? The appropriate response of the producers, code scholars and decision authorities is straightforward: “trust us.” Given the conditions just exhibited, it is the main answer that they can give.
In a free society, where the authenticity of the administration must dwell in the assent of the represented, “trust us” is an absolutely inadmissible reaction to the resident's interest for confirmation of the uprightness of his vote. It is doubly unsatisfactory, when “trust us” is expressed by a representative of a privately owned business, the officers of which have reported their help of a political gathering and of competitors whose names show up on the poll.
Also, that is actually the condition in which we end up in the Presidential decision of 2004.
Thus, as very couple of onlookers have seen, is the core of this issue: it isn't the capacity of the pundits to demonstrate constituent misrepresentation, but instead the failure of the producers and programming software engineers to demonstrate appointive respectability.
Give us a chance to express the basic good and political issue plainly and unequivocally:
The subject has no commitment to demonstrate that his ticket is secure; the native has a privilege to be certain that his vote will be checked, as he cast it. Furthermore, it is the serious commitment of the legislature to anchor that right.
The privilege of the resident to a protected vote is the establishment of a just society and the assurance that the administration rules with the assent of the represented. In the event that that privilege has been disregarded by supporters or potentially specialists of the administration, that legislature has no authenticity.
We don't know whether Election 2004 was deceitful. Yet, similarly vital, the paperless machines have made it difficult to confirm that it was reasonable, exact and finish. Also, it is the basic right of a free people that their establishment be reasonable, precise, straightforward, and obvious.
This, in any event, we can insist: there are disturbing signs that this Presidential race, similar to the past, was a fake and that in a reasonable decision, John Kerry would now be the President-elect.
It is impossible that the media will raise the issue and that there will be a thoroughgoing examination of this race. Not except if an insulted open requests such an examination. Thus, if John Kerry was falsely denied of his office, and a conceivable larger part of American voters denied the race triumph that they had earned, at that point that wrongdoing can not be redressed after December 12, when the Electoral College settles the decision. On the off chance that the case is to be made, and if Kerry and Edwards are to expect their genuinely won workplaces, this must be cultivated in a minor five weeks. It is in the hands of the general population.
On the off chance that the race was fixed by the victors, American Democracy is dead today, despite the fact that couple of Americans are willing even to mull over that plausibility. On the off chance that in reality the decision was fixed, and if nothing is to be done to reestablish the respectability of the ticket, at that point the Democrats may very well too spare their time and cash and not try to challenge the following mid-term race in 2006 and the Presidential race of 2008. The result of these races will be pre-decided, similar to the decision simply finished. The standard of the Republican party will be perpetual, and autonomous of the assent of the administered.
What's more, that definitely characterizes an oppression.