Monday, March 16, 2009
Please Help Save The Peter B. Collins Show
Peter B. Collins announced on his syndicated talk radio show this past Friday (.mp3 via BradBlog.com) that his last show in its current "configuration" would be next Friday, March 20. Listeners are rallying to reverse this decision, and what I'm writing is an urgent plea for your help. Below is an explanation from Peter's website explaining this "tough decision", but first let me tell you the why and how to save the show.
Peter's reporting, coverage and exploration are unmatched on topics such as election integrity, 9/11 truth, depleted uranium, grassroots activism (more properly called public service), and others distorted or blacked out by the corporate/military/government/media juggernaut. Of all the talk show hosts I've heard, PBC is the most respectful of listeners, guests and callers, who are rarely interrupted and never shouted down, always allowed to make their point even when in disagreement with "the humble host." This show smartens us up rather than dumbing us down.
On Sunday night I made a bunch of phone calls adding up to $1,160 in pledges and donations to keep Peter on the air. Others are doing similar outreach and so I ask what is the least you can do? Can you pledge $10 per month for six months? At this rate just 500 regular sustaining contributions would keep the show on the air. This is how we vote with our dollars, and put our money where our mouths are. Click here to visit Peter's donation page (scroll to bottom for donation button).
We all know that not everyone can afford even $10. So maybe the least you can do is tell a friend who perhaps donates and/or tells another friend. Perhaps you own a business, or know a business owner you can encourage to advertise to a very smart and conscious audience. Speak up for (and on) our supposed public airwaves. We're past use it or lose it - we must reclaim what is ours, support and protect it dearly.
Try this: Imagine the PBC show as our after school club where we get together to stay informed and involved, a rare progressive media forum that supports real world work for change. If you can, pay some monetary dues. For the rest, dues means participating. Listen live all this week (and hopefully beyond) from 3-6pm PT via www.PeterBCollins.com.
I've mentioned my respect, appreciation and admiration of Peter B. Collins on the We Do Not Consent blog many times these past few years, often referring to my appearances as a guest or caller on the show. I was honored to be part of two live broadcasts from here in Humboldt, CA, and even one visit to the secret PBC studio location in the Bay Area (when he signed on to the open letter to the media from the media). Brad Friedman at BradBlog.com has been a much more frequent guest, contributor and even fill-in host, and has posted his own reflections that have prompted much fan-to-fan discussion of how to save and subsequently sustainably support this vital program.
* * *
"I made a tough decision..."
On Friday, I delivered the news of my decision to end the daily broadcasts of the PBC Show.
Our last live broadcast will be Friday, March 20, which will replay on some stations through March 22.
Since we started on KRXA in 2005, I've been covering the costs of producing the show and delivering it to our affiliate stations by satellite. With phone bills and the other expenses, it adds up to more than $5,000 a month. We get a little advertising revenue and some generous listeners contribute, but most of it is absorbed by my small business, Collins Media Services. Until last summer, I was able to cover the costs from my work as a radio producer and consultant. Like everyone else, the Bush recession has hit me hard.
To make money in syndication, we need to be on 20+ stations and at least one of the big 3, NY, LA, Chicago. As an independent, self-syndicated show, we've had to compete with Air America, Dial-Global and Nova M programs, and for various reasons, the PBC Show didn't break through. Air America is the brand that most people connect with progressive talk radio, and their bankruptcy and sequence of blunders has, unfortunately, defined our collective efforts in a negative way that has provided an easy target for the non-liberal media. As a result, the total number of stations offering progressive talk in the US peaked at about 105 in 2006, and is now around 70. Miami, DC, and even Ann Arbor have lost their progressive stations in the last month.
Over the past 3.75 years, I've tried it all. I pitched all of the Air America programmers except the current one, who never returned my calls or emails. I was offered a deal by Nova M, but they reneged in a bizarre story I'm saving for my talk-n-tell book. Air America just announced that Montel Williams will be their new offering in the Thom Hartmann time slot, which tells us that Jerry Springer's flameout was just their first attempt to retread a tabloid TV host as a "progressive" radio host.
As I said on Friday, I'm very proud of what we've done here, and grateful to my partner, Kathee Shatter, for indulging my risky business, and to two exceptional producers: Matt Renner (now DC editor at Truthout.org) and Katrina Rill. Katrina was with me when we euthanized my satellite radio show, and I'm sorry she has to go through it again.
I'm grateful to every listener, even the ones who think I'm full of it, for taking the time to listen. And to those who called and emailed and sent letters and checks, I couldn't have done this without you. To the many fine guests who spent time on the show, and especially to the regulars, I thank you for your immeasurable contributions to my program and to the knowledge base of my listeners.
Thanks for all the emails in response to this news, I will try to answer as many as I can, and all will be saved so we can notify you of future plans. I'm not going away, and may launch a podcast and/or weekend radio show after I take a break to recharge and re-wealth. Special recognition to generous individuals who have clicked on "You Can Help" and made contributions, including the whopper from Seattle. Your contributions will be used to retire some debt, pay off the bills and give Katrina and Nick something extra for their dedication. No pressure, no guilt, but if you can help, you have my gratitude.
Many people who heard the $5,000 monthly cost figure have emailed to pledge $10 a month and said, "how do we find the other 499?" We have tried that to some extent, but I don't want to turn the show into a pledge-a-thon, 'cause I listen to the radio, too, and don't like them. Plus, I'm well aware that many of my listeners can't even spare $10 a month right now. Overall, I don't think we can shift to a voluntary subscription plan to produce a reliable funding stream.
If you disagree, email me: fullofit@peterbcollins.com Tell me if you're willing to subscribe for at least 6 months, and how much you can pay. If enough people respond by Monday night 3/16, I will make a final review of this decision. Dave Berman in Eureka, Tom McAfee in SF, and Aldous Tyler in Madison have offered to coordinate this kind of effort, but I need to give them your names and emails.
Keep listening this week, call in when you can–we'll try to get allof our favorite guests to check in, too.
warmly,
pbc
Please help save the Peter B. Collins Show...
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/03/please-help-save-peter-b-collins-show.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, BradBlog.com, open letter, Peter B. Collins, public service
Monday, January 12, 2009
Funding Frozen For Proposed Humboldt Voting Machine Switch
According to the agenda, this Tuesday the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors will consider a proposal from Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, who seeks approval for the purchase of Hart InterCivic eScan optical scanners to replace the similar Diebold/Premier equipment used to "count" votes here since 1995. Linked from the agenda is a 22 page .pdf called Voting Modernization Project Plan Phase II. From page two:Because of the current fiscal crisis in the State of California, the voting Modernization Bond funds designated to cover this project were frozen by the State Treasurer on December 19, 2008. We will return to your Board for change order and funding plan approval once the funding plan is developed and approved by the Secretary of State. The delay in obtaining these funds should not impact the approval of the concept of this plan.
As previously reported at WDNC, the Registrar has created a sense of urgency around this proposal (reinforced by quotes in a Eureka Times-Standard Sunday cover story that is oddly absent from the paper's website). But how can she expect the Supes to hurry up and approve a proposal for a purchase requiring funds that are not currently available and which would be based on a contract that has not been made public? Further calling this urgency into question, from page 6 of the same agenda attachment:Because there is currently no county-wide election scheduled until November 2009, full implementation of the system will be possible before the next election.
One other quick point about this implementation plan. On page 9 it calls for "sleepovers," a period of two days prior to the election when precinct inspectors will have the eScans in their private possession. This is despite myriad warnings, even in the California Secretary of State's own Top To Bottom Review of Hart voting systems. From that report:Conclusion (p.16):
No procedural mitigation defeats unfettered access to machines that can be undetectably manipulated. In addition, deletion of audit trails occurred in this past November's election, as revealed by the Election Transparency Project (ETP). Volunteer Parke Bostrom commented on this in a quote previously posted here at WDNC and also found in this December 8 article at Wired.com:
Although the Red Team did not have time to finish exploits for all of the vulnerabilities we discovered, nor to provide a complete evaluation of the Hart voting system (System 6.2.1 [now proposed for Humboldt]), we were able to discover attacks for the Hart system that could compromise the accuracy, secrecy, and availability of the voting systems and their auditing mechanisms. That is, the Red Team has developed exploits that – absent procedural mitigation strategies – can alter vote totals, violate the privacy of individual voters, make systems unavailable, and delete audit trails.This means the audit log is not truly a "log" in the classical computer program sense, but is rather a "re-imagining" of what GEMS would like the audit log to be, based on whatever information GEMS happens to remember at the end of the vote counting process.
Bostrom is referring to the Diebold central tabulation program responsible for the 197 secretly deleted ballots, though the point is the same with Hart's equipment. Beyond undetectable manipulation, the system can cover its tracks, destroying assurances of built-in memory redundancies and making a mockery of logic and accuracy testing.
The We Do Not Consent blog on Friday posted an announcement from the Humboldt County Republican Party that it has adopted a resolution in support of a public discussion process prior to a vote by the Supervisors on Crnich's proposal. In Sunday's (so far) print-only T-S article, Eureka City Councilman Larry Glass adds, "I think that's an issue that I'd like to see get some more public dialogue, and I'm going to try to make a point of contacting the supervisors and expressing that." Another member of the Council assured me he will attend Tuesday's Supes meeting to make this point in person.
The Voter Confidence Committee, which I co-founded nearly four years ago, distributed an e-mail newsletter on Sunday evening encouraging supporters to attend Tuesday's meeting, or at least to call Supervisors with some or all of the following messages:--We want and are entitled to have a choice and a say in how we count our votes;
There has been other recent media coverage of this developing story. In the third hour of Friday's Peter B. Collins show, I spoke with PBC and Brad Friedman about the day old announcement of a second discrepancy found by the ETP, showing 57 ballots were scanned twice into the official certified results.
--This plan calls for $600,000+ of public money to be spent, and any expense this size deserves careful public scrutiny;
--Prior to voting on the proposed plan, the responsible thing is for the Supervisors to invite the public to participate in the decision making process;
--In any case, there is no reason to rush this decision as the funds for this purchase have been frozen by the State Treasurer;
--The proposed replacement equipment are still secret corporate vote counting machines (a "false alternative");
--State-sponsored reviews of the proposed replacement machines have revealed many problems; we do not want to repeat the past mistake of investing in flawed technology despite knowing of the risks and warnings;
--The manufacturer of the replacement machines has withdrawn from the federal certification process, meaning no software or security updates of any kind will be possible, and no newer versions will be available.
After a commercial break (edited out of linked recording), we got into discussing Tuesday's upcoming Supes meeting and were then joined by a surprise phone call from Crnich. She has appeared on PBC's show many times before, and this is not the first time she has called in immediate response to my presence on the show. There was an unusually long and uninterrupted segment where Friedman challenges Crnich in ways that just have to be heard, including telling her flat out in the end that she should slow down and allow more public input. Overall, I come on the show at about 16:30 into the recording; Crnich joins around the 24 minute mark.
Finally, borrowed from the VCC newsletter, a summary of recent related links:
North Coast Journal, 12/4/08, Election Results: Wrong
http://ncjournal.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/election-results-wrong/#comments
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/5/08, Software glitch yields inaccurate election results
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11145349 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/7/08, Local elections office commended
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11161383 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard (editorial), 12/7/08, A glitch that should never have been
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_11161384 (archive)
Wired, 12/8/08, Serious Error in Diebold Voting Software Caused Lost Ballots in California County
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/unique-election.html
Wired, 12/8/08, Unique Transparency Program Uncovers Problems with Voting Software
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/unique-transpar.html
Eureka Times-Standard (Letter to the editor), 12/10/08, Who Dares Defend Diebold?
http://www.times-standard.com/letters/ci_11183863 (archive)
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/17/08, Humboldt's False Alternative to Diebold
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/12/humboldts-false-alternative-to-diebold.html
North Coast Journal (Letter to the editor), 12/18, Has Humboldt Hit a Tipping Point?
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/issues/2008/12/18/vote-smart/
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/22/08, Registrar of Voters considers dumping equipment
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11287543 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard, 12/29/08, Federal election commission eyes Humboldt
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11328669 (archive)
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/6/09, Exclusive: Humboldt's Secret Hart Attack
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/exclusive-humboldts-secret-hart-attack.html
We Do Not Consent blog, 12/9/09, Humboldt Republicans Call For Public Discussion of Proposed Voting Machine Switch
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/humboldt-republicans-call-for-public.html
Eureka Times-Standard, 1/10/09, New error found in county election results
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_11422921 (archive)
Eureka Times-Standard (Editorial), 1/11/09, Thank you, Humboldt County Transparency Project
http://www.times-standard.com/editorials/ci_11428478 (archive)
* * *
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2009/01/funding-frozen-for-proposed-humboldt.html
Labels: Board of Supervisors, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Diebold, Hart Intercivic, Humboldt Republicans, Parke Bostrom, Peter B. Collins, Top To Bottom Review, Transparency Project
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Humboldt At The Tipping Point: Who Dares Defend Diebold?
Here in Humboldt County, CA a local story of national interest broke last Thursday on the websites of the Eureka Times-Standard (archive) and North Coast Journal. The next morning I wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in today's T-S (archive). I'll let this serve as a summary then provide links to much of what's been published already and add some further reasons for optimism at the bottom.Any defenders?
So here's a summary of links from the past several days, then I've got a few more observations.
Letters to the editor
Posted: 12/10/2008 01:15:38 AM PST
First I'd like to congratulate Kevin Collins, Tom Pinto, Mitch Trachtenberg, Parke Bostrom and all the volunteers of the Election Transparency Project.
Their work revealed a discrepancy caused by Humboldt's electronic voting equipment last month.
Over the last few years I've made many different arguments for getting rid of the Diebold (now Premier) equipment used to count votes in Humboldt County. Somehow it wasn't enough that they “count” in secret, can be easily manipulated without detection, and report results impossible in a legitimate election.
Somehow local decision makers weren't deterred from doing business with a company that admitted to illegally installing uncertified software here and elsewhere; that was sued in class action suits filed by company shareholders; and whose then -- CEO said he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes” to Bush in 2004.
Now we learn that Humboldt has finally experienced what is euphemistically called a “glitch.” In reality it was a bug in Diebold's central tabulation program, GEMS. This caused the results of November's election, already certified as accurate by Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich, to be proven inaccurate.
Worse still, Diebold knew about the bug at least four years ago and never fixed it. Other counties were made aware of the problem and told how to work around it. Crnich says she never knew, and I believe her.
This raises many questions, most important among them: Who dares defend the continued use of these machines and the county's relationship with Diebold/Premier?
Dave Berman
Eureka
T-S, 12/5/08: Software glitch yields inaccurate election results (archive)
T-S, 12/7/08 Local elections office commended (archive)
T-S Editorial, 12/7/08 - A glitch that should never have been (archive)
Wired - two Kim Zetter articles from 12/8/08:
Serious Error in Diebold Voting Software Caused Lost Ballots in California County
Unique Transparency Program Uncovers Problems with Voting Software
Election Transparency Project volunteers:
Parke Bostrom - http://hum.dreamhosters.com/etp/news/20081204.html (main site)
Mitch Trachtenberg - http://www.mitchtrachtenberg.com/ourvotes.html (main site)
Tom Pinto - http://humtp.com/
John Gideon & Brad Friedman at BradBlog.com, 12/8/08 - 'Humboldt Transparency Project' Reveals Diebold, U.S. Federal E-Voting Scam
The BradBlog piece includes this link to an .mp3 of Crnich with Brad on the Peter B. Collins show on the afternoon of 12/5/08.
* * *The fact that Diebold/Premier did not take the action to recall the systems, actually puts them into a situation where they may very well have violated federal law. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 Title III Section 301(a)(5) mandates an acceptable error rate for voting systems in use in federal elections. That error rate, not counting any error caused by an action of the voter, cannot exceed 0.00001%.
Parke Bostrom's post above describes how "deck zero" became the batch of ballots that were handled properly by the elections department, and yet vanished from the final certified total. He comments further that the audit log for the Diebold GEMS central tabulation software matched the wrongly decreased total:
However, in the case of the Humboldt County vote count, the error rate was 0.31%.
We have asked both the Secretary of State of California and the EAC if they plan to take action by asking the US Attorney Office to investigate this seemingly clear violation of federal law. Neither the CA SoS, nor the EAC has yet replied to our queries on that matter.This means the audit log is not truly a "log" in the classical computer program sense, but is rather a "re-imagining" of what GEMS would like the audit log to be, based on whatever information GEMS happens to remember at the end of the vote counting process.
This demonstrates the system will cover its tracks when reporting an inaccurate result, destroying assurances of built-in memory redundancies and making a mockery of logic and accuracy testing. Not just here, everywhere. Frankly this is just another example of something we've known a long time.
Crnich herself has been very interesting through all of this. In the "Serious Error..." article above, Zetter reports:Crnich told Threat Level the issue has made her question her confidence in the voting system because, even though the company provided officials with a workaround, the problem indicated a fundamental flaw in the company's programming. She said she'd heard a lot of stories from other election officials about problems with voting machines, but never thought they applied to California.
Crnich losing confidence of course should be music to our ears. She also said a great thing in the interview with Peter B., explaining why she's been willing to work with citizen volunteers. As Humboldt County Clerk/Recorder and Registrar of Voters, Crnich is an elected official and I'm glad she acknowledged a responsibility to listen to constituents.
"I've always sort of listened to those anecdotal incidents with a jaundiced ear because California has some very stringent requirements of election systems that are in use here as well as some very strict security procedures and I didn't think those things affected us here," she said. "But this has sort of put a cloud over any confidence that I had in the Premier equipment that's been in this department since 1995."
In all, the media coverage above practically lionizes Crnich, which I think goes too far. Consider this analogy. Someone builds a fire in the middle of their bedroom and burns down the house. Would this person be praised for the wisdom of having an insurance policy? Using secret corporate vote counting computers, whether by Diebold or any other vendor, is playing with fire.
I've been unable to reach Crnich by phone in the past two days, repeatedly getting voice mail that could not accept more messages.
Also today, The North Coast Journal came out with Hank Sims' "Town Dandy" column called Deck Zero. Sims writes in reference to the known failure of the GEMS central tabulation software:The fact that Diebold/Premier let it stand for over four years, potentially undermining the first principle of American democracy, is an absolute outrage. These people should be shunned. Maybe indicted.
Throw in a little validation from the T-S editorial board...:They were loud, and they were strident in proclaiming that they didn't trust election technologies as much as they trust the ability of actual human beings to count votes.
...and it is starting to sound like we may be at a tipping point here. You might expect me to be frothing about hand-counting paper ballots right about now. You'd be wrong. Thinking as an organizer, I would hope now to establish three things that would be widely agreeable throughout the community:
The recent discovery, thanks to the Humboldt County Election Transparency Project, of a discrepancy in election results due to flawed software reveals that these activists were right to make noise, and right to complain about a company that has been less than responsible in dealing with the problem.
That said, if this is the nature of the opportunity now, I will re-offer to the community the materials I've developed to evaluate hand counting, most notably the forecast tool (spreadsheet) for estimating time, cost and labor needs for hand-counting in the precinct on election night. Back in the summer of 2007, when I first made this public, Sims noted: "Initial twiddling with the numbers suggests that it wouldn't be all that time-consuming or costly -- and wouldn't you rather wait a few days and spend a little more for a trustworthy count?"
I'd like to see more consistency in Sims' election integrity advocacy. And bottom line, I hope he'll push for a thorough examination of Diebold alternatives, as I'm sure Transparency Project volunteers will have other preferences and ideas to contribute to what could become the most envied process and dialog in the country.
This is all another way of saying "what would be better" is an inclusive and engaging community dialog aimed at literally defining "better" than Diebold.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/12/humboldt-at-tipping-point-who-dares.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Diebold, Eureka T-S, Hank Sims, Humboldt Transparency Project, Kevin Collins, Mitch Trachtenberg, North Coast Journal, Parke Bostrom, spreadsheet tool, Tom Pinto
Friday, October 17, 2008
John Nichols: 2000, 2004 Elections "Inconclusive"; Humboldt Dems to Show "Uncounted" This Sat
Sorry for the split headline, but it is time to do some dot connecting.
First, a note for Humboldt readers. The local Democratic Central Committee will be hosting a free screening of "Uncounted" beginning at 7pm this Saturday (10/18) at 129 5th Street, Eureka. The film is a "documentary that shows how the election fraud that changed the outcome of the 2004 election led to even greater fraud in 2006 - and now looms as an unbridled threat to the outcome of the 2008 election."
I'll be there and anticipate a lively group discussion (read: confronting Dems' cognitive dissonance) following the film. If you've ever met me or read anything else I've written, you may already have a sense of what I'll be saying, especially now that others are saying the same thing. Say what?
I was both pleased and bemused last week when John Nichols posted to The Nation website a piece called "No More Stolen Elections." Two key excerpts (emphasis added):"...[Bush campaign co-chair and Ohio] Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, made it possible for the Republican ticket to secure an election night "result" that was of dubious legitimacy, and circumstances taht [sic] made the ensuing recount an inconclusive exercise in frustration."
Certainly I am pleased to see a major American journalist take the position I've held for years, that the Bush regime claim to power is illegitimate, and was made possible by election conditions that ensured inconclusive results (see: Voter Confidence Resolution, adopted by Arcata, CA City Council, 7/20/05).
(snip)
The bottom line from both 2000 and 2004 is this: Smart, engaged activists from across the country were caught unprepared for monumental struggles over not just clean elections and electoral votes but, in a very real sense, the future of the republic.
Good people tried to intervene. But it was too little, too late. Mistakes made in the hours and days after the presidential elections in each of those two years would haunt the process to its conclusion -- or, to be more precise, to an inconclusive moment when power would be allocated without legitimacy.
But Nichols has two major disconnects that I'd like to put back together here. First, he attributes the inconclusive results to the election conditions - which are largely the same in 2008. To look back and say the previous results were inconclusive requires a degree of honesty which could only be called ruthless honesty if it acknowledged that the same conditions will always and again produce inconclusive, unknowable, unprovable results. "Too little, too late" last time means take a different approach this time.
The second disconnect is Nichols' call to action:What should smart activists be doing?
If we already recognize that election conditions guarantee inconclusive results, waiting until after the "election" to protest is not what smart activists would do because it would again be "too little, too late." In fact, the same well-meaning progressive leaders behind "No More Stolen Elections" put forth a similar pledge that I wrote about just prior to the 2004 "election."
Preparing to say, without caution or compromise, that they will not sit idly by and allow another presidential election to be gamed.
That's what the Rev. Jesse Jackson, populist leader Jim Hightower, author Barbara Ehrenreich, singer Holly Near, activist Tom Hayden, Rabbi Michael Lerner and other activists, academics and writers -- including this author -- were thinking when we signed on to the call to action for the "No More Stolen Elections!" campaign that launches this week.
The campaign asks Americans to take a simple pledge:
"I remember Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, and I am willing to take action in 2008 if the election is stolen again.
I support efforts to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 4th.
I pledge to join nationwide pro-democracy protests starting on November 5th, either in my community, in key states where fraud occurred, or in Washington, D.C..
I pledge: No More Stolen Elections!""I remember the stolen presidential election of 2000 and I am willing to take action in 2004 if the election is stolen again. I support efforts to protect the right to vote leading up to and on Election Day, November 2nd. If that right is systematically violated, I pledge to join nationwide protests starting on November 3rd, either in my community, in the states where the fraud occurred, or in Washington DC."
It has become cliché to cite the definition of insane as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Does it make me a bad writer to use a cliché or a smarter activist to say let's do something different?
The original link to the first "No Stolen Elections" pledge no longer works, but I found it archived here. That's a page on the site of the Liberty Tree Foundation, one of the sponsors of the new pledge. There is a lot of other great work happening there, but I can't consider either of these pledges as good examples. It is counterproductive to reinforce the frame: "if the election is stolen again." We all know already the "election" is a charade. We also all know more than enough to conclude with certainty that the "election" results will be inherently uncertain, inconclusive, and unprovable.
Even though I've been making this point for more than four years, it has morphed and sharpened somewhat in the past several weeks. For reference, read here and here, and listen here (.mp3) as I spoke at a Constitution Day rally in Eureka last month, and here (.mp3) for a few minutes with Peter B. Collins and Brad Friedman.
While my blog posts have not been frequent, I have been doing other writing that I'll soon make available. It will be another, bigger example of others saying what I'm saying we should say. If you get it, you need to pass it on to the media. Don't be shy about expressing disbelief or even disdain that media would expect us to accept their reporting of election results as fact when the results have not and can not be independently verified by media, can not even be proven, and come from only one source -- the government whose power is at stake. If we buy that, we really are insane by any definition.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/john-nichols-2000-2004-elections.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Democratic Central Committee, inconclusive, John Nichols, No More Stolen Elections, Peter B. Collins, The Nation, Uncounted, unprovable
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Slacker Uprising? Not in the Charlie Brown Nation.
Michael Moore released a new film this week called "Slacker Uprising." After watching the free download tonight I realized nobody would have paid to see this had it been released in theaters.
"Slacker Uprising" chronicles Moore's 62 city "get out the vote" tour in the weeks leading up to the 2004 "election." He drew huge crowds, controversy, and media coverage in cities and towns of all sizes. His affable personality, quick wit and good humor were shown in abundance. And as Rady Ananda observed in her own review of the film, the events were depicted as anti-war and anti-Bush but no so much on selling positive attributes of John Kerry or the Democratic (sic) party.
Frankly, this movie was painful to watch, but not in the way that it hurts see a mom talking about losing a son to war (which was a sad and moving moment in fine Moore movie making tradition). This was painful--for me--in the same way even conservative pundits describe cringing during Sarah Palin interviews. I doubt that everyone will respond to "Slacker Uprising" this way, though perhaps you can understand my reaction through the prism of the words I was writing at the time these rallies were happening:The GuvWurld Blog is Back, September 4, 2004
In general, I like Moore and his films. But watching "Slacker Uprising" was like seeing the Charlie Brown Nation running up to kick the football that is always pulled away at the last moment. Will Charlie ever learn? Will we?
...I think there needs to be a planned response to the inevitable election uncertainty. We have disaster contingencies for all sorts of emergencies so why not a Constitutional crisis? It behooves us to know what we'll be calling for and that we have some harmonized voices in a chorus. I think it also makes sense to encourage elected officials to pledge a response. They must be held accountable for their responsibility to hold others accountable.
Simulated Competition, October 12, 2004
The real competition occurs in these [court] battles while Bush vs. Kerry is simulated competition perpetuating the myth of democracy. This is the only point that now really needs to be made on behalf of the No Confidence Movement - if both major parties are preparing and planning for the uncertainty, so too must we plan and prepare.
Bush Lawyer Anticipates Delay in Tally, October 16, 2004
More validation for the premise of No Confidence:President Bush's top campaign lawyer said yesterday that the winner of next month's presidential vote may not be known for "days or weeks" after Election Day if the contest is close.
Full story from today's Washington Post (in GuvWurld News Archive, links to original)
NYTimes Ponders Uncertain Election Outcome, October 16, 2004
I still have not read or heard of anybody making the argument that they have absolute confidence that the election will be 100% legitimate with a universally accepted outcome. This is an untenable position because there is NO BASIS for such confidence. From today's NYTimes:
(snip)Some observers see potential for lasting benefits from another disputed election, at least once the dust has settled: they say it may finally rouse the country to overhaul the presidential election process.
While I recognize the election cannot and should not be pre-empted, I find this final excerpt to be highly motivational:One thing that seems certain, though, is that there is no certainty about how the nation will handle the aftermath of a disputed election.
We can't know how the nation (or the world) as a whole will respond, but there is no reason for us not to be gathering in our communities to determine appropriate expressions of rejection for the impending sham.
Post-"Election" Planning October 28, 2004
So what else, let's see...the GuvWurld News Archive has several recent stories about expecting an uncertain outcome:
San Francisco Chronicle - Various Controversies Expected To Delay Election Outcome - 10-23-04
FindLaw - The Coming Post-Election Chaos - 10-22-04
GovExec.com - Justice Dept Not Prepared To Document Election Aftermath - 10-19-04
NYTimes - Imagining the Danger of 2000 Redux - 10-17-04
Here we are four years later and my last two blog posts were "The Real Election Math," proving election results will again be unprovable this November; and "Hey Media! - Don't Report As Fact What Can't Even Be Proven (Federal Election Results)," in which linked to this speech (.mp3) I recently gave outlining a new campaign calling for the grassroots, progressive politicians, and progressive media to confront the corporate media in the simplest of terms.
Despite Moore's gung-ho "get out the vote" attitude, or perhaps because of it, he is now a must on the media outreach list for this campaign. I stuck my toe in that water Friday afternoon with a call to the Peter B. Collins show during Brad Friedman's regular guest spot on election integrity. Listen to the excerpt in the GuvWurld News Archive, or catch the full hour in PBC's podcast archive.
"Slacker Uprising" had no potential to come anywhere near Moore's box office financial successes, so I can see keeping it out of the theaters. What I'm struggling with is why anybody thought there was a good time to show this dated and painful reminder billed in the opening as "one filmmaker's failed attempt to turn things around."
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/09/slacker-uprising-not-in-charlie-brown.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Bush, GuvWurld blog, GuvWurld News Archive, John Kerry, Michael Moore, no confidence movement, Peter B. Collins, Sarah Palin, simulated competition, Slacker Uprising, unprovable
Saturday, December 22, 2007
A Missed Opportunity
Almost a month ago I wrote a post called Time To Check Your Least, in which I said I wasn't going to beat myself up for not writing enough. Since then I've posted more often than in quite some time. This reinforced the notion explained in that post that commitment to the least you can do philosophy will inherently increase what the least can amount to. I have to take this same outlook in considering yesterday's appearance on the Peter B. Collins show as a missed opportunity.
Click here for the full .mp3 archive of the show. Drag the slider of your media player to the start of the third hour and listen to Peter B. and Brad Friedman question Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich about the so-called Humboldt Transparency Project. I was not given an opportunity to respond or comment on this, but I would have only repeated the concerns I have raised previously, including in this Eureka Reporter OpEd from July 6, 2007.
In summary, the Transparency Project would allow the public to view pictures (scanned images) of all ballots cast to perform a recount in whatever way one chooses. However, a secondary computer count is promoted as the way to go, although this completely defeats the purpose of checking the official, original count done by secret computer programming; and it relies on post-certification auditing which recent history shows will have no chance at overturning an inaccurate outcome. In addition, to do this ballot image recount without a secondary computer count would be entirely unwieldy and impractical, without even the prospect of proper observation or witnessing typically associated with post election hand-counting or manual auditing.
Not getting to respond to that wasn't really the crux of my missed opportunity. After returning from a commercial break, Peter B. prompted an exchange between the Registrar and me. This is where I blew it yesterday. The Registrar questioned the assumption of six seconds to count each contest per ballot. I noted that this is a variable that can be changed by the user of the hand-count forecast tool, but I then veered off into discussing the New Hampshire origins of that data point. What I should have said is that we have been trying for months to get assumptions from the Registrar herself plugged in to the forecast tool so that the community would have the opportunity to judge the Voter Confidence Committee's (VCC) hand-counting proposal based on the Registrar's official assumptions. Immediately after the segment had ended I realized my missed opportunity and e-mailed Peter B. with one last thought...
Peter B. took a call at that point from Jim Lamport, another regular attendee of the Registrar's monthly Election Advisory Committee meetings here in Humboldt. I have no problem with Lamport's defense of the Registrar, especially since I was not attacking her. I do respectfully disagree with Lamport's assessment that computers are ideally suited for vote counting. Since my phone line into the broadcast was already cut off, I was very glad to hear Brad Friedman challenge this position. Upon concluding that call, Peter B. did me a real solid and read the e-mail I submitted, quickly summarizing that the VCC is in search of official numbers from the Registrar precisely so the public can objectively judge our proposal. This was a save, in my view, salvaging to some extent the opportunity I see as missed.
There was another aspect of the discussion I wish I had handled differently. I noted that New Hampshire counts votes by hand in 45% of its polling places and the Registrar replied that this leaves a 55% majority of polling places being counted by optical scanners. Of course this is true, and I explained it as a function of jurisdiction level choice as opposed to being a state mandate. The opportunity I missed was not asking the Registrar whether Humboldt voters have had an opportunity to make the same choice, which of course we have not.
Earlier in the day, several hours prior to the radio show, the Registrar left me a voice message in response to the two messages I had left her in the two days prior. She mentioned that she and Kelly Sanders in the Humboldt Elections Department were busy gathering up all the data the VCC requested last week in an open letter. When these numbers are provided, yesterday's missed window of opportunity will open once again.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/missed-opportunity.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, hand-counting paper ballots, Humboldt Transparency Project, Jim Lamport, Least you can do, Peter B. Collins, spreadsheet tool, VCC
Monday, December 17, 2007
Suggested Reading For The Teenagers In Your Life
My friends at Veterans For Peace Humboldt Bay Chapter 56 have really put together a phenomenal counter-recruitment pamphlet. Please share it with parents or young people you know.
Perhaps of less interest to teenagers, but relevant for the regular WDNC reader, Teresa Hommel has far surpassed me with her compilation of documents from the amicus brief (see this press release if you haven't been following this story).
Peter B. Collins responded to the press release this morning by inviting me back on his radio show this Friday at about 5:20pm or so. Brad Friedman and Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich will both be on at that time as well. As an old friend used to say, "Let's get nice!"
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/suggested-reading-for-teenagers-in-your.html
Labels: amicus brief, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Peter B. Collins, Teresa Hommel, Vets For Peace
Thursday, December 13, 2007
NY Attorney Stands Up For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
Coming right up on tomorrow's filing deadline, NY attorney Andi Novick will be submitting a brief regarding the state's response to Department of Justice pressure to comply with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). New York is the last state not in compliance and the DOJ appears intent on forcing the state to purchase and implement some ridiculous electronic vote counting system or other in time for the November 2008 presidential election. The state, political parties and watchdog groups are all weighing in. Novick's brief, a proposal really, would keep NY's lever machines in place through next November, and it would allow hand-counting paper ballots for the two federal races on that ballot.
I suppose I have been peripherally aware of this situation, and began to learn a little about it before speaking in Commack, NY at the end of August. Here are several articles about the situation:
As I noted at the end of my "teamwork" post last weekend, I was recruited onto Novick's team to apply the hand-count forecast tool (.xls) I built for the Voter Confidence Committee to forecast cost, time and labor needs for hand-counting in 15 NY Counties. Over the past week the forecast tool has done some more evolving. Once Novick files I will make available the workbook showing the NY forecasts. In the meantime, the version that has been publicly available (.xls) for months has been updated to reflect these innovations:All innovations developed in cooperation with Andy Novick, Rady Ananda, Nancy Tobi, Sally Castleman and Pokey Anderson.
As part of Novick's brief, I had to draft a declaration stating my qualifications and specific contributions. I look forward to sharing that soon too. Papers due tomorrow are for the case scheduled to be heard on December 20.
The biggest fundamental difference in this new version is the distillation to the exact number of hours *required* for a four-person team to be able to hand-count an average poll site in the county. The benefit of this is showing very small numbers, in some cases, and also instances where a second team might be considered.
This still computes the number of people needed countywide, but now makes a more accurate computation of their collective pay. Before it was based on an arbitrary user input suggesting how late counting would be allowed to occur. Now the pay is completely prorated to the actual amount of counting time required.
Two new guide calculations have also been added for the sake of creating checks and balances, really a reality check for other numbers in the equation. The first new one is registered voters per poll site, computed by dividing the total number of registered voters by the number of poll sites. The other new guide is the poll site-level voter turnout, derived by dividing the average number of ballots cast per site by the average number of registered voters per site.
Removed from this version: time *allowed* for counting (both hours and seconds), teams required per poll site, and people required per poll site. Instead of quantifying people on a per poll site basis, it is now framed around the exact amount of time counting will require.
There was a wonderful confluence of events today as the VCC released this media advisory making public a letter we delivered yesterday to Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich. We have waited a long time for her to provide her own forecast assumptions to be plugged into the forecast spreadsheet tool. By renewing our request publicly, we are hoping the media will become determined to know these numbers as well. This is how the community will be able to judge the viability of our proposal for hand-counting all ballots in Humboldt elections. The Registrar has already agreed to return to the Peter B. Collins show a week from tomorrow, December 21, presumably between 5-6pm when Brad Friedman is a regular guest.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/ny-attorney-stands-up-for-hand-counting.html
Labels: Andi Novick, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, DOJ, hand-counting paper ballots, HAVA, Nancy Tobi, Peter B. Collins, Pokey Anderson, Rady Ananda, Sally Castleman, spreadsheet tool
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Humboldt Registrar Explains Opposition to Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
In my recent report on Peter B. Collins' live Eureka broadcast, I mentioned that Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich had phoned in unexpectedly during the final few minutes of the show. I didn't go into any detail about her comments but they are worthy of note. First, to hear the full show, click here. To hear just the excerpt with the Registrar, click here. The entire third hour features Brad Friedman from BradBlog.com, as well as Aryay Kalaki and me. You can drag your media player's slider 2/3 of the way if you want to queue that up.
Now, here are the Registrar's words that I think didn't sit right with people. Peter B. asked Carolyn to comment on the Voter Confidence Committee proposal for hand-counting paper ballots:CC: "Frankly, having 800 people handle our live ballots is not an appealing idea to me."
The process of hand counting has checks and double checks built into it. Four people have to agree on everything and additional citizens may be observing. There is less trust required with hand-counting than with trade-secret proprietary software.
PBC: "Because..."
CC: "Do you not think that opens a door to fraud, too? 800 people handing live paper ballots? I'm not saying its the wrong thing to do. I'm saying I think it is an excellent audit tool for the way we count ballots now or, or in the future on some other equipment perhaps but..."
PBC: "I would argue that in a group situation, the group would basically police itself. So you're not putting individuals in a room with ballots that they could tamper with, you're putting a group to count them"
CC: "Yes, and I don't know that group and you don't either, and, and, do you see my concern?"
That's just for starters. Notice how she says "opens a door to fraud, too?" She is acknowledging the manifest weaknesses in the security of electronic vote tabulation and attempting to say hand-counting would be at least as bad. I'll have to go looking around, but I know there are studies comparing "attack vectors," points within a vote counting system that may be vulnerable to tampering (perhaps my best researcher friend Rady Ananda will post a link in the WDNC comments?). It would be embarrassing to think anyone believes hand-counting has more security holes than any existing electronic vote counting system.
Now think of how community members likely feel, being told by a public official in a small rural community where people actually know each other, that counters would somehow be untrustworthy strangers as opposed to respected neighbors. This is bordering on incitement. In fact, it did move VCC members Ruth Hoke and George Hurlburt to submit the following letter published in Wednesday's Eureka Reporter, online as of two hours ago.http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=31390
# # #
County has the human power to hand-count ballots
12/4/2007
Dear Editor,
Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich astonished the audience of Peter B. Collins’ live radio broadcast from the Eureka Theater Friday evening by stating on the air that she would not trust 800 (registered voters) to count live ballots. This was during a conversation with Mr. Collins, well-known election integrity journalist Brad Friedman and Dave Berman of the local group Voter Confidence Committee. VCC members are gathering signatures to show there is enough human power to hand-count all ballots during Humboldt County elections.
Having met with Ms. Crnich on several occasions, our impression is that she is honorable and dedicated in her profession; therefore, we’d like to assume she made an off-the-cuff comment without forethought. But if the statement does reflect her real view, we must respond.
First, why would the ballots be more valuable or important than the voters who created them? Keep in mind that hand-counters must be registered voters. When we were hand-counters after the 2006 election, we both thought the security measures were reassuring and counters were competent and diligent.
Consider our judicial system, which uses ordinary citizens as jurors. They are expected to possess and exercise good judgment, not just an ability to count. The system has served us well for more than 200 years. Why is Ms. Crnich so resistant to counting by citizens? Does she think there aren’t enough people in the county who can count or follow directions? Or does she hold the belief that more technology is always better?
We hope she will call Peter B. Collins’ show on Dec. 14, as she promised, and address these issues in depth.
Ruth Hoke
George Hurlburt
Carlotta
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/humboldt-registrar-explains-opposition.html
Labels: Aryay Kalaki, Brad Friedman, BradBlog.com, Carolyn Crnich, Eureka Reporter, George Hurlburt, hand-counting paper ballots, Peter B. Collins, Rady Ananda, Ruth Hoke, Voter Confidence Committee
Saturday, December 01, 2007
An Excellent Day in the Humboldt Nation
Friday may have been the most fun day I've had since the last time Peter B. Collins broadcast live from Humboldt. This time the location was the Eureka Theater. The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) had a table in the lobby featuring the items in our hand-count campaign tool kit, all of which is linked on our home page.
Kalaki, Ruth Hoke, Dave Berman
hand-count spreadsheet tool
on Peter's computer
During the third hour we talked about why the VCC is organizing on behalf of hand-counted paper ballots and how we are going about it. The VCC website now has a sign-up form which relieves some of the pressure for us to be doing outdoor tabling in adverse weather, so we were happy to get that message out, as well as soliciting the help of a webmaster.
We also talked about the hand-count cost estimator (.xls) and the diagram comparing the sequences for electronic vote counting and hand counting, both resources developed not only for our own local purpose but with sharing nationally in mind.
In the last few minutes of the show, Humboldt Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich called in, prompting Peter to forgo some comments from the live audience. In particular, it was really too bad that he didn't have time for Verbena who wanted to talk about Redwood Curtain CopWatch and the epidemic of citizens dying near police officers. Peter invited Carolyn to return to the show for a longer discussion and she said she would in the near future. I encouraged Peter to also make time in the near future to come back to Verbena.
There was a great energy all afternoon, and you can hear the crowd cheering at the start and end of the segments of the show. I mentioned on the air, for the first time, that we have already collected roughly 200 names of willing hand counters. In the next few days I'll get an actual count.
I also tried out a new talking point. We have roughly 80,000 registered voters in Humboldt County. We will need roughly 800 hand-counters to get the job done on election night. That means only 1% of registered voters are needed to participate. All of a sudden it sounds like a much lower bar to clear.
After the show I went to the Redwood Peace and Justice Center (RPJC) annual dinner at the Arcata Community Center. I attended last year at the Bayside Grange and I eagerly looked forward to the warm and wonderful vibes I encountered tonight. Peter even made the scene. We were seated together and discussed, among other things, the Project-Based Format, the radio talk show idea I've written about periodically for the past five years, most recently this past week. I told him I didn't expect to be able to pursue this fully until at least the spring. He said, when I'm ready, let him know and "I will conspire with you." Very encouraging.
Big thanks to Tom Pinto of our local 911 Truth group for treating me as his guest tonight. I also got to talk to several of my friends from Vets For Peace Chapter 56.
I didn't get any really great pix at the dinner, but here is a decent one of two men I admire. Peter is on the right, talking with Dave Meserve, board member of the RPJC and former Arcata City Councilmember. I'll always be grateful to Dave for casting one of the three votes in favor of the Council adopting the Voter Confidence Resolution.
'Twas an excellent day in the Humboldt Nation.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/excellent-day-in-humboldt-nation.html
Labels: Aryay Kalaki, Brad Friedman, Carolyn Crnich, Dave Meserve, Peter B. Collins, Redwood Curtain Cop Watch, Redwood Peace and Justice Center, spreadsheet tool, Verbena, Voter Confidence Committee
Monday, November 26, 2007
Press Release: VCC Gathers Support For Hand-Counting Ballots
Syndicated talk radio host Peter B. Collins will be broadcasting his afternoon radio show on 1480AM KGOE live from the Eureka Theater on Friday November 30. Local election integrity group the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) will be represented in the lobby promoting their recent Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, and collecting names from voters interested in and willing to hand-count paper ballots in place of the electronic voting machines currently used here.
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Dave Berman
707-845-3749 or
info@VoterConfidenceCommittee.org
Group To Participate in Local Broadcast of Peter B. Collins Radio Show
"We want to provide the County with hundreds of names of voters who will do the work and help build a more involved electorate," said VCC co-founder Dave Berman. "Hand-counting provides transparent, secure and verifiably accurate election results that we just can't get with machines counting the votes in secret."
Collins' progressive talk show airs from 3-6pm weekdays in Humboldt and several other radio markets. Each Friday, Collins devotes the final hour of his program to the topic of election integrity.
"The integrity of our elections has declined sharply in recent years, partly due to exposure of the flawed processes in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004," said Collins. "The switch to touch screen voting machines has made things worse, and each Friday at 5:00 pm we talk with Brad Friedman of Bradblog.com about the full range of issues that lead to corruption and loss of voter confidence. I think it's really important."
VCC members are scheduled to appear between 5pm and 6pm during Collins' live local broadcast. For more information about Peter B. Collins, visit www.PeterBCollins.com. For more information about Humboldt County election reform efforts, visit www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org or e-mail info@VoterConfidenceCommittee.org.
Following the broadcast there will be a musical performance by political satirist Roy Zimmerman, who has been making funny songs for many years, previously as the founder of The Foreman. For more information see www.RoyZimmerman.com.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/11/press-release-vcc-gathers-support-for.html
Labels: Brad Friedman, BradBlog.com, Eureka Theater, hand-counting paper ballots, KGOE, Peter B. Collins, Roy Zimmerman, Voter Confidence Committee
