According to the Washington Post article How to 'Steal an Election' author Steve Freeman is about to show in an upcoming
book to be published in July that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair vote count.
Because the piece is about a comparison Freeman makes between electronic voting machines and Las Vegas slot machines,
we are assuming Freeman will charge George Bush didn't win the 2004 election because electronic machines didn't work properly.
There are numerous reports that showed irregularities during 2004 election (see
No Voter ID = Passport to Fraud) in felons voting, dead people's names being used to register to vote, and vote, multiple and duplicate voting in different
states because unchecked voter registrants are registered in more than one state, fraudulent absentee ballots, and
so forth.
Where is the comparison between how many votes were obtained through "voter registration" fraud. That kind
of fraud largely goes uncaught as well because of the illegal immigration problems wherein illegals can fraudulently obtain
illegal identification in many states with lax driver's licensing programs. The illegal ids are then used to acquire
voting rights.
Voter registration fraud largely goes unpunished because it is difficult to obtain evidence, and put the law enforcement
manpower on cases to track individuals who used fake names, false identifications, and the like to vote.
How much security is adequate in an electronic voting system?
What safeguards are there in a paper-trail if used in electronic voting systems?
How does anyone know, even if they vote on a paper ballot, that their vote was actually counted? And especially,
how does a voter know for certain using a paper ballot, even if there are no errors on the paper ballot so it isn't voided,
how does a voter know their vote was counted as recorded?
One of the features precinct-based voting systems must contain as HAVA requires for compliance is a method to provide
the voter an opportunity to "verify" the votes selected before the ballot is cast and to have an opportunity to correct errors.
And if the voter over-voted on a paper ballot (using optical scan readers) the voter has an opportunity to obtain a replacement
ballot.
what HAVA wants
in the section entitled Balloting Errors
The voting system must permit the voter to verify privately and independently the votes selected before casting a ballot
and must permit the voter privately and independently
to change or correct a ballot before it is cast, including receiving a replacement ballot.
The new technology includes a paper ballot voting system that complies with HAVA's requirements for "second-chance" voting
and replacement ballot.
The new voting technology includes the electronic voting system that complies similarly with HAVA requirements for second
chance voting. (Electronic voting systems that consist of the display of ballot on a screen doesn't need to comply
with a replacement ballot as the voter can alter votes on the screen at any time prior to finally pressing the cast button)
With the paper ballot that doesn't enable second-chance voting, absentee ballots, it is a fact - people mess up and over-vote.
When that ballot appears at the precinct with over-votes - it is voided.
All of this is not to say that voters don't want a process in the electronic voting that is like the process in paper
ballot with optical scan reader.
That process should include at the very least a visible paper record of the ballot that is not permitted to be taken
from the precinct.
Back to the article How to Steal an Election.
As the introduction to the chart shows - Freeman intends to cast doubt on the 2004 election and its outcome.
... Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his 2004
win to an unfair vote count.
Freeman's comparison of slots machines and electronic voting machines appears to be nothing more than a way to sell a
book with a little different twist.
I for one can't take anything he says as an honest discussion of electronic voting machines, or how to steal an election.
Also, since the Washington Post entitled the article How To Steal an Election, the Washington Post is to be discounted
as trying to inform people of facts, what they have done is propagandized a viewpoint - a viewpoint that remains unproven.
What do you think? (posted by Citizen Mom)
How To Steal an Election
It's easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania
visiting professor Steve Freeman. That's because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America's voting machines,
Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair
vote count. We'll wait to read his book before making a judgment about that. But Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest
Americans protect their vices more than they guard their rights, according to data he presented at an October meeting of the
American Statistical Association in Philadelphia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/03/16/GR2006031600213.html
