Posted August 7, 2007 | 10:06 PM (EST) (Cross Posted From Huffington Post)

Over the weekend, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen took the courageous step of decertifying Diebold Hart and Sequoia electronic voting machines. She did this after an exhaustive study by the University of California that demonstrated clearly the violability of such machines. In short, she acted to assure when we vote for president beginning with the primary on February 5 and then finally in November of next year, we'll know that our votes are counted.



This makes perfect sense to me. As 2,000 Californians have said in the last four days in a Courage Campaign petition supporting the Secretary of State's review, if we have time to vote, we damn well want those officials to count our votes. Democracy is far too fragile to allow doubt of any sort to enter the minds of an electorate already weary of manipulations by media and money. (Over at Brad Blog, you'll see that even Lou Dobbs' asserts that Bowen is right on target.)

Then there's the Sacramento Bee's Dan Walter's who thinks what Secretary Bowen did makes no sense, principally because he is fundamentally confused about the concepts of public trust versus crime and punishment. In today's column, Mr. Walters says that "Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a lawyer by trade, should reread that (the reasonable doubt) section of the Penal Code. She cast aside the principle of reasonable doubt when she tried and convicted electronic voting system manufacturers of making unsecure devices."

Mr. Walters misses the point, no doubt purposefully. He uses his ideological bias (he says that Bowen's appointed Republican successor certified Diebold machines, so it must be okay) to assert that those who worry about voter fraud or at least worry about lack of transparency in the process when electronic machines are involved are somehow "conspiracy theorists... akin to--and about as rational as -those who worry about an invasion of space aliens in flying saucers."

So let's be clear: the University of California, one of the most respected institutions of higher learning in the world, has concluded that Diebold machines are hackable. In short, UC confirms the lack of trust in the system that many voters have had for years. Yet Mr. Walters concludes that UC's process would somehow similarly prove the existence of flying saucers.

It gets even worse. In impugning an open, transparent and fully accessible set of data from an exhaustive set of studies, Mr. Walters states that California's top elections official should wait for an actual crime to be committed, even though we now know clearly that a crime easily can be committed against the most sacred right in democracy: voting. In short, it's okay if votes can be stolen via Diebold machines. Mr. Walters thinks that the concept of crime prevention is the same thing as the concept of judgment at trial after the crime has been committed.

If we follow Mr. Walters' logic, we should not inspect luggage or people at airports because by so doing we are judging everyone guilty of a crime. Or perhaps Mr. Walters would assert that to force an audience through metal detectors at an event at which Mr. Bush is appearing would be to imply that we are all guilty of some horrible crime. And maybe Mr. Walters would like to demand that we have no border controls at all because to do so would imply that everyone trying to cross the border in either direction is guilty a priori of an illegal crossing.

California is the largest state in the union. We may tire of having that repeated, but it's a key point here. When California takes an action, the rest of the country notices and quite often follows. Perhaps Mr. Walters fears that by undergoing an open, clear and demanding process to protect votes in advance of them being cast, somehow other states or even the nation will do likewise. Maybe Mr. Walters would prefer to have doubt reign in the sphere of vote counting. That would likely suppress voter turnout because people already concerned about manipulation by large media conglomerates might have another excuse to stay home. "After all, if they are not going to count my vote, why bother?"

Surely Mr. Walters would not want to do anything to make it more possible for a few to decide the fate of the many in our state or our country. At least I hope not. Mr. Walters concludes his column by quoting a reliable source on this entire issue, Mr. Dave Byrd, the president of Diebold Election Systems, who says, "Secretary Bowen's top-to-bottom review was designed to ignore security procedures that are used during every election."

So let's think about this: Mr. Walters seems to think that the very vendor that has hundreds of millions of dollars at stake is more reliable than dispassionate University of California. Hmmm... Diebold or UC. Whom to trust? The choice is clear for Mr. Walters. It's also clear for me.

I remember when tobacco executives literally swore on the bible before congress that they had no knowledge that cigarettes cause cancer and that the idea of putting nicotine in cigarettes was somehow never designed to addict people. But then there was a memo that contradicted all of that. And oh yeah, the surgeon general warned people that smoking might kill them, even though the courts at that time had never once ruled that cigarettes cause cancer.

Mr. Walters probably thinks that it's best to leave these weighty decisions to leaders like Diebold's Mr. Byrd. If Mr. Walters smokes cigarettes, I hope he doesn't read that nasty little warning label. After all, a puff of smoke might not hurt him at all. He'll want to wait until he's sick before imagining there's a problem.

Debra Bowen did the right thing and of course entrenched conservative interests, such as those representedy by Mr. Walters, don't like it. She knows the system of electronic voting machines is already sick. As any sound-minded public official would do, she gathered information, made a public report and then took a stand to defend democracy. Thanks to Debra Bowen for standing up for the voters. And thanks to Mr. Walters for underscoring why she had to.


Comments (21)



NewsSophisticate (See profile | I'm a fan of NewsSophisticate)
Diebold and ES and S are both owned by the same company. Two brothers started them Chuckie Hagel is involved. In fact both companies are owned by IMARK...who in turn is owned by the McCarthy Group. Hagel sits on their board of directors..

Democrazy subverted.
http://newssophisticate.blogspot.com/2007/08/tuesday-afternoon-cinema.html


Log in | posted 10:23 pm on 08/07/2007
baylaw73 (See profile | I'm a fan of baylaw73)
What a jackass. No wonder he writes for the Bee(S). I am so proud of Debra Bowen I can't stand it. Any, I mean ANY suspicion that voting machines can be rigged, tampered with, whatever, must be taken very seriously. Why do we need machines anyway? After 2004, we all better damn well pay attention.
Log in | posted 10:24 pm on 08/07/2007
StevenHyde (See profile | I'm a fan of StevenHyde)
"Mr. Walters states that California's top elections official should wait for an actual crime to be committed, even though we now know clearly that a crime easily can be committed against the most sacred right in democracy: voting."

Not only *can* a crime be committed. Crimes *were* committed in Ohio in 2004; they have simply never been prosecuted.

I'm sure Mr. Walters would be happy to consider Rep. Conyers' congressional report another purported example of conspiracy theroism, though.

Good article.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

--Hyde

.



Log in | posted 10:55 pm on 08/07/2007
TXfemmom (See profile | I'm a fan of TXfemmom)
Debra Bowen is a true hero to the people of California and this country. She has experts, who are not owned by the companies and devices being examined, thoroughly test and evaluate them and actually rules on that information.

What a novelty in this country.
Log in | posted 11:09 pm on 08/07/2007
mommadona (See profile | I'm a fan of mommadona)
He's a BigFishinLittlePond.
No one reads him outside of Sacramento.
If you've ever been to Sacramento, you'd know why
Log in | posted 11:44 pm on 08/07/2007
LisaP (See profile | I'm a fan of LisaP)
Pin a medal on the heroic Ms. Bowen. Stick a fork in mr. walters.
Log in | posted 11:56 pm on 08/07/2007
Woofer58 (See profile | I'm a fan of Woofer58)
YEAH !! Debra Bowen !!
woo hoo !!
This decision has national weight. Good for her.

I love that rhetoric, though, from Mr Walters... kind of like saying- "you have to let the barn burn to the ground before you go in to see if the horse was really there". (then you can say- "the horse did it !")
I just love totally nonsensical logic. (as you can see..LOL)

BTW.. as for flying saucers, he'd best watch himself--- the Flying Speghetti Monster does not like being made fun of.

Log in | posted 01:29 am on 08/08/2007
BuzzingAlong (See profile | I'm a fan of BuzzingAlong)
Does Dan Walter own stock in the electronic voter disenfranchisment machine companies?
Log in | posted 01:52 am on 08/08/2007
FrogTheNaziHunter (See profile | I'm a fan of FrogTheNaziHunter)
Mr. Walter is such a corporate whore. Why does he continue to buy crack from Diebold?
Log in | posted 02:35 am on 08/08/2007
Dem02020 (See profile | I'm a fan of Dem02020)

I hope that California can lead the nation in this matter, and demonstrate how without integrity is the registering and counting votes electronically.

What is so hard about marking a ballot, either with a pen or with another machine?
A permanent and verifiable record of your vote is what results.
And such a method of voting as that, takes an extraordinary effort to corrupt; one where similar ballots must be counterfeited, but in so doing they can always be subjected to inspection... something that can't be done with votes registered electronically.

What's so hard about that?
Nothing.

And as far as counting those votes, what's so hard about counting them at the place they're cast, and then reporting that tabulation upward?
That's how it's done you know; nobody counts millions of votes at some central place... not even tens of thousands.
Votes are counted at the place they're cast, and the tabulations are reported upward.

How hard is that?
It's not hard at all.

To make for an electronic tally of votes, is to make for a central place where that tally can easily be manipulated, and who would ever know?


I hope California makes for the example to the rest of the nation, that votes can be cast and counted manually, by way of a marked record, that serves as a permanent record, to be stored and verified easily...
Unlike what we get when our votes are cast and counted electronically.

And lastly I'd add this: Do not make too much of your focus, in opposing electronic voting, the company Diebold.
For the reason that, the more you appear to be opposed simply to Diebold, the more someone will think the solution to this problem will be to just get another company...
Perhaps even Diebold, resurfaced under another name.

You see what I mean here? The devil isn't so much Diebold, but the technology itself... to focus too much on the name Diebold, is to maybe let the devil (the technology itself) go underground, and resurface under another name.


Log in | posted 08:04 am on 08/08/2007
BigTuna (See profile | I'm a fan of BigTuna)
I don't disagree with anything you said and I think you are correct to point out that the concern shouldn't be limited to a particular company.

However, just for the record, the Diebold CEO *did* promise to deliver the Ohio vote to Bush in 2004, so there is still cause to single out Diebold along with the more abstract issue of voting technology.
Log in | Parent | posted 12:32 pm on 08/08/2007
Dem02020 (See profile | I'm a fan of Dem02020)

Yes, I recall that about Diebold.
The CEO's name was Walden O'Dell (he has since resigned from Diebold, without explanation); and he "held a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser at his home, telling invitees that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to [President Bush]."
He subsequently held a press conference, inviting as many who would listen, to plead for the integrity of his company, and the technology of electronic voting...

But we know better.

All that resulted at Diebold, was the knowledge that they should keep their mouths shut, about their own personal politics, and their preference of candidates.

And I know that you understood what I meant when I said for us to appear to be making a demon out of Diebold alone, might invite some to think we should preserve electronic voting, and simply cast out Diebold...
Which would leave us with the threat, just in the hands of another company (perhaps even Diebold, under the name of another, new company).

And truly, electronically registering and counting our votes, is so prone to manipulation and corruption, and so impossible to verify and inspect those votes and their count...
...that were this technology to be not in any way in private corporate hands, but completely owned and operated by Public Servants...
...it would in no way reduce the risk of manipulation and corruption; it would in fact make it worse, as simply transferring the task of corrupting the election, to that of corrupting the Public Servants.

Which is too easy a thing to do, as you know.

And so it is the technology, in any hands at all, that threatens us here.

And I ask again, what is so wrong with manually registering and manually counting marked ballots?

It is extraordinarily hard to corrupt in even small numbers, and requires no private company (which means private concerns) at all.

I hope California can lead the way in demonstrating these truths for the American People...
...because if the biggest state can register and count it's ballots by hand, then every other state can too.


Log in | Parent | posted 03:24 pm on 08/08/2007
OtterBill (See profile | I'm a fan of OtterBill)
The Bee's Daniel Weintraub wrote a anti-Bowen column a few days ago that was truly awful journalism. One example: his sources were the president and a salesman for Sequoia.

Walters stance is no surprise, but it's hard to believe that a hack like Weintraub took over the 'John Jacobs' desk at the Bee. What's up over there?


Log in | posted 10:58 am on 08/08/2007
nohobear (See profile | I'm a fan of nohobear)
Kudos to Bowen for being a voice of sanity. Hopefully other states will be pressured to follow suit. 2008 is not that far away, and there is no widespread outcry to reform electronic voting. Once again the MSM is not reporting the all the voter irregularities of the last 2 national elections. Unless the people demand it, we are going to see (yet again) more stolen elections.
Log in | posted 11:19 am on 08/08/2007
OneFish (See profile | I'm a fan of OneFish)
The decision made by Debra Bowen was not that the electronic voting machine companies had committed a crime, though that IS a possibility, but rather that the equipment they produce is flawed and unsuitable for use in California elections. I've been making embedded computer systems for more than 25 years and I think she's correct. The penalty for the companies was not a criminal penalty, it was the judgement of the free market. The righties should respect that at least. Are you listening Danny Boy?

The counter argument made by the manufacturers that it was unfair for the the analysts to have access to the internal workings of the machines is phony: security through obscurity doesn't work. A secure system design has to remain secure with the assumption that the opponents, foreign or !domestic!, have full access to the system and its design.

I will not trust an electronic voting machine until the complete design is publicly available and the procedures in place for deploying and using the machines guarantee that what is in the field is exactly what is published and cannot be altered. For the time being I am perfectly willing to wait a week, or two, or three, for the election results if I can trust that the results are accurate.

Log in | posted 11:37 am on 08/08/2007
flatus (See profile | I'm a fan of flatus)

It is not just a question of 'hacking'. There must be a paper trial in case a recount in needed.
Log in | posted 12:37 pm on 08/08/2007
FogBelter (See profile | I'm a fan of FogBelter)
Good for Secretary of State Bowen ... There is something disingenuous about, Diebold, a company that makes ATM Machines for Fortune 500 Financial Institutions, having such a difficult time creating an unhackable Voting Machine. Unless we are now to rethink the safety of our money that is accessible via Diebold ATMs as well?

As for the Sacto Bee ... it's a paper best used at the bottom of a bird cage, but that's about it.
Log in | posted 12:53 pm on 08/08/2007
indypete (See profile | I'm a fan of indypete)
Of course the machines are hackable, that's why the right wants them... well, that and the bribe money. We just have to hope the left wing hackers are talented enough to hack better than those on the right but the bias is probably built into the machine in the first place. Am I parnoid? Probably. Do I have good reason to worry? Absolutely.
Log in | posted 01:04 pm on 08/08/2007
yellowdogSC (See profile | I'm a fan of yellowdogSC)
I'm not from California.

Please, is Ms. Bowen married?

Thank you.
Log in | posted 02:01 pm on 08/08/2007
OCPatriot (See profile | I'm a fan of OCPatriot)
Dear Mr Walters:
This guy has a gun and he's pointing it at you. They've proven he has already shot someone else. So we're gonna let him shoot you first before we take any action. Right? Remember, in your words, nobody knows for sure he's going to shoot you and we can't "cast aside reasonable doubt" that he might not shoot you, after all.
Truly yours
OCPatriot