The Truth about ACORN and Voter Fraud

Before we have any discussion about voter fraud, we need to clarify the difference between voter registration fraud and voter fraud.

Voter Registration Fraud is when Mickey Mouse registers to vote. For this to be an issue at all, a fake voter registration form needs to be turned in (actually, it's legally required that is turned in) then election officials need to someone how not realize that Mickey Mouse isn't a real person and then someone who claims to be Mickey Mouse needs to show up and actually vote. Oh and this would need to happen hundreds of thousands of times to have any affect on an election.

Vote Fraud on the other hand is when someone who isn't allowed to vote for whatever reason actually does vote.

ACORN "committed" voter registration fraud ... sort of. ACORN, like most organizations that register voters or petition, often pays people by the signature/registration form. Obviously, there will be unethical people that turn in bogus papers to get paid. (Incidentally, this is the reason that petitions often have a goal of double the number of signatures they actually need). In the incidence that has beeen highlighted this campaign season, ACORN itself was the one who pointed out the phony forms to the state. They are legally required to turn in the forms anyway. Let me repeat: ACORN told the state the forms were fault and followed through on their legal obligation to turn in the forms.

Here's a video with more info: The Truth About ACORN.

But there is another kind of activity that limits people's right to vote: Voter Suppression. There are many tactics that are used to suppress voters: purge lists, "challenging" voters, provisional ballots, intimidation, and whatever else the Republican party comes up with. The Republican party has been engaged in systematic disenfranchisement of voters on a national scale since at least 2000. The ACORN story (as noted in the video) is just another tactic. How you may ask?

Well, here's how it works: Republicans cry voter fraud before the election which in turn gives them fuel to challenge the results of the election once it's over. Or they may do what they're planning to do in Michigan which is to get a list of voters registered by ACORN (or whose homes are foreclosed or whatever) and then have people at polling stations who challenge those voters as they come into the polls. As noted in the Palast article, most of the provisional ballots handed out (along with many absentee ballots) in 2004 were never counted.

Worried about whether your vote will count? You should be.

Here is information and a guide to ensuring your vote will count from Greg Palast and Bobby Kennedy Jr. ... in the form of a comic book!!

The key points are:

• DO NOT Mail in your Ballot
• Vote Early
• DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote provisionally
  

To verify that you are registered, go here.

Obama & McCain on Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math

This is an issue close to my heart:

Campaign Responses to Questions from The Association for Women in Science & The Society of Women Engineers

Obviously I'm biased, but McCain really comes off and not knowing anything about the issue. His answers are much shorter than Obama's, he doesn't show that he even knows what the initiatives they are asking about are, and his focus seems generally to be on education. What about female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians working right now? McCain's only real input is to say that he will create a presidential commission to study the issue. Why? There is a plethora of research out there on these issues. To me, this just says that he doesn't care enough to get informed and he doesn't want to committ to a decision.

At the very least, it becomes clear that this is an issue that the Obama/Biden campaign either already was somewhat knowledgeable about or they did some research before answering the questions. McCain comes off as if this is just a waste of his precious time and he'll just delegate all the work to "commissions."

Find Voter Info On Google!

2008 Voter Info on Google

Even though Wired says you're evil, I love you Google.

Bloomberg says 'F*ck You' to Voters

NYT Times article on Bloomberg seeking a third term despite term limits that have been upheld, overwhelmingly twice - in 1993 and 1996. Apparently, he has the support of the 'business community' so it's a-ok.

We have spent the last 8 (or 20 depending on your perspective) years throwing democracy out the freakin' window in the face of crisis after crisis. Did it occur to anyone that, perhaps, it is this very action that is causing/exacerbating the crisises? Now is the time to rally around what we stand for - citizens in power; not business in power (cuz that, my friends, is fascism).

The Largest Rally in Alaska History was for ... Alaska Women Reject Palin

Despite the angering total lack of respect for life and liberty and the lack of ethics or morality by a conservative, Alaska talk show host, this article about the rally for Alaska Women Reject Palin - the largest rally EVER in the state of Alaska - is quite uplifting.

Biggest Rally in Alaska History... Alaska Women Reject Palin

Why I'm Voting for Nader

I thought I'd start my election '08 blogging off with why I'm voting for Nader. True, I'm a little late on the uptake - in more ways than one. Firstly, I've been meaning to write this post for some time but haven't had a chance until now. Secondly, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 or 2004 so why, - you might ask - in 2008, would I vote for him?

Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.

Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.

The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."

Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.

So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.

Hillary didn't win; she just didn't lose ...

Last night, CNN was covered with talk of 'Hilary Won!' and peppered with 'Why did Hilary win?' and 'Why did Obama lose?'

Here's the thing: Hilary did not "win" any votes yesterday. In fact, she lost many.

Prior to election day, Obama was polling at around 20% in Texas and Ohio. (Now we could go into a diatribe about how polling is bullshit but I'll hold off). Which means that, since Obama got around 45% of the vote , he won 25% of Hilary's voters or, put in another way, Hilary lost 25% of her voters.

Now I'm no Obama lover, but my hatred for simplistic media coverage trumps all political affiliations.


One guest on CNN finally got it right around midnight: The media (and perhaps the country) is treating this election like a general election, in other words, we are treating it like it is 'winner take all.' It's not. The delegate difference remains virtually unchanged.

Frankly, that delegate difference is the real issue and could result in another riot like the one in 1968 (i.e. if the super delegates don't vote for the popularly elected canidate or Hilary fights for Michigan and Florida's votes to count even though no one else campaigned or was even on the ballots there.)

The primary system is failing us!!

I just found out that Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race. This right after Kucinich - by far the best progressive candidate and the only politician i know with the balls to risk his career to do what's right - dropped out due to a fierce re-election campaign.

I'm heartbroken and I blame the primary system. Here's why:

• Having primaries on different days in different states gives more weight to those states that come first. Super Tuesday hasn't happen yet. Four states - count them four - have voted. (Well technically 6 states have voted but since the democratic party has used its corrupted weight to disenfranchise Michigan and Floridian democrats and not count their votes, I won't either). Only 8% of the country has weighed in on primary candidates and already 4 candidates (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, andBiden) have dropped - one of them (Edwards) even had a real shot. Moreover, none of the states that have voted are states significant enough to swing an election. Plus I don't want Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to make voting decisions for me. Do you?
  
• Caucus's are bullshit. The caucus system (used in Iowa and I think Nevada), just like th electoral college, are fucking us time and time again. They are complex and time-consuming - we can't even get people to come out and pull a lever, let alone show up at a specific time to play musical chairs. Moreover, it gives a skewed perception of people's votes. If my candidate doesn't get enough people standing in the corner, then I have to more all my voting power to another candidate that I don't want. It makes it an all or nothing race and convinces people that a) certain policies are more popular than they are and b) that they can never vote for a long shot candidate because they'll have to pick the mainstream choice anyway. I do understand the motivation behind caucusing - it gives some semblance of a second choice. However, there are better options out there - like Instant Run-Off which allows you to rank candidates giving the politicians and the media and you a better picture of what Americans really want.
• The god damn media. Something needs to be done about the FCC and it's total unresponsiveness to the American people. (Don't believe me? The FCC recently ruled to open up media companies to even more conglomeration despite holding hearings across the country in which citizens overwhelmingly said NO to this proposal.) The media has talked about 2, maybe 3, democratic candidates - Clinton, Obama, and somtimes Edwards. And what do they talk about? Clinton's tear; whether race or gender will cause one or the other to win. It's ridiculous. Maybe, for once, CNN could mention some of their policies?
  
• Debates not being debates. This plays into the above topic. Kucinich - despite meeting their set criteria - was not allowed in multiple televised debates. Remember when we had fair access laws? Think we still do? Thanks to Reagan the media can favor a single candidate - even in a debate - for no reason what so ever. The American public - we included - tends to think that debates are run by the government or some non-partisan organization. Not so. Debates are run by the Democratic party and the Republican party period. So what you might say? So this means that they are not going to include third parties or even their own candidates if they seek to create change.

Ahh. I'm so fucking pissed about this. Now who am I going to vote for? Mrs. Corporate interests or Mr. I talk the talk but never show up for Senate votes?

Why Computers Don't Work and Touchscreen Voting Machines are BAD FOR DEMOCRACY ...

Over Thanksgiving, Adam and I visited an old friend and his new girlfriend. The conversation, predictably, turned to politics. Adam or I somehow or another, predictably, brought up Greg Palast and his investigations into systematic voter disenfranchisement by the republican party in 2000 & 2004 in FL, NM, and OH. Don't know what I'm talking about? Read about it on GregPalast.com and/or buy his book, Armed Madhouse.

Girlfriend commented that we are less sophisticated with voting that Honduras (or some Central American country) because they use touch-screen voting machines.

I was instantly transported back to my Computer Science professor's office after the 2004 elections and our, admittedly random, conversation on the horrors of touchscreen voting.

That's right: Two people with advanced degrees in Computer Science think touch screen voting machines are a bad idea. Bad bad BAD.

I think this surprises many people who equate technological advancement with 'better.' But let me ask you this: Has your computer ever crashed and lost ALL of your life's files? Has your computer ever crashed when you had a serious deadline in, like, 10 minutes? Have you ever read through a manual for a new gadget or software? Have you ever understood said manual? Have you ever had to wait days or weeks for someone to come fix your internet connection? Have you ever had to leave your computer for days or weeks to have it repaired?

Of course you have. Why? Because computers don't work.

Nah, I jest ... sort of. The truth of the matter is that computers are insanely complex. There are whole areas of theoretical computer science devoted to proving that software and computers do what they say that they can do. Most commercial software and hardware are never put to these tests - they tend to live in the minds and papers of disheveled professors and disgruntled students. The point is that a computer cannot be guaranteed to work when you need it, where you need it, and how you expect it to. And this isn't even taking security into account.

And touch screen voting machines are simply computers with fancy screens. Now it is true that there are computers systems out there (banking anyone?) that guarantee that their computers work exactly correctly and are rarely down. It takes a lot of money, planning, and techy people to make this happen.

Does every county in the state have a super tech on hand to immediately fix issues with touch screens? Do they have the money to pay for a redundant system and high security measures? Have they put in the time and effort to train the election volunteers on how to use, fix, and troubleshoot the machines?

Hell no.

In a disturbing turn of events, the Department of Justice has settled their lawsuit with the New York State Board of Elections by forcing NY State to comply with disabled-access provision in the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002. Now I am all for ensuring the voters can vote, no matter the circumstance. Who isn't? (Besides Bush, Cheney, and the Republican party) The problem with this settlement is that is defines both Paper Ballot Optical Scan Systems (PBOS) AND touch screen electronic voting systems (DRE) as acceptable disabled-access ballot marking devices.

The good news is that your precinct has a choice. The bad news is that many people, like Girlfriend, think that touch screen voting machines - machines that have been proven to be unreliable and easily tampered with - are better. Remember kids - shiny and pretty aren't better! Never forget the Ford Pinto.

Alright, now for some facts. I am totally stealing these talking points from the NY Chapter of Progressive Democrats for America:

OPTICAL SCAN TECHNOLOGY (PBOS) IS BETTER THAN TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES (DRE’s)
TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE

One Example: AccuVote-TSX machines (Diebold) in Cuyahoga County, Ohio
May 2006.

• The poll workers were baffled on how to work the machines and the manuals from Diebold were useless.
• 143 machines broke down. Dozens of other machines had printer jams or mysteriously powered down.
• More than 200 voter-card encoders (which create the cards that let voters vote) went missing
• One audit of the election discovered that in 72.5 percent of the audited machines, the paper trail did not match the digital tally on the memory cards.

TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES ARE BEING REJECTED BY
ELECTION OFFICIALS AND LEGISLATORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

• Spring 2006: Florida decides to get rid of their electronic voting machines.
• July 2007: California decertifies every electronic voting machine in the state after a Top-To-Bottom Review.
  
• December 2007: Colorado decertifies about half of its touch-screen devices.
• December 2007: Ohio secretary of State Jennifer Brunner releases a report that states touch-screens “may jeopardize the integrity of the voting process.” Brunner is now ordering Cuyahoga County, Ohio to scrap its touch-screen machines and go back to paper-based voting before the Ohio primary, scheduled for March 4th 2008.
• December 2007 Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sponsor a bill (S.2295) that would ban the use of touch screen machines across the country by 2012.

THE BEST CHOICE IS “OPTICAL SCAN” TECHNOLOGY

• The voter marks her votes on a paper ballot, filling in bubbles to indicate which candidates she prefers. Voters with disabilities or non-English languages directly mark and verify their ballot by using an accessible ballotmarking-device (BMD).
• The vote is immediately tangible to the voters; they see it with their own eyes, because they personally record it.
• The tallying is done rapidly, because the ballots are fed into a computerized scanner. There are no delays for voters because one scanner can countthousands of ballots a day (3500). With DREs you may have to stand in line because it takes twice as long to vote on a DRE as on a lever machine or paper ballot. You need at least two DREs to replace each lever machine. If a DRE breaks down, you are stuck, but if the scanner breaks down, you can keep on voting on paper ballots.
• If there’s a recount, the elections officials can simply take out the paper ballots and count the votes by hand.
• The voter-marked paper ballots prevent endless fighting over tight election results.
• Optical scanning is used in what many elections experts regard as the “perfect elections” of Leon County, FL where the error rate — how often his system miscounts a ballot — is three-quarters of a percent at its highest, and has dipped as low as three-thousandths of a percent.
• PBOS systems are MORE COST EFFICIENT to acquire, maintain, and use PBOS machines cost about one third what DREs cost. One DRE serves 200-300 voters, while one optical scanner and one accessible ballotmarking-device serves 2000-3000 voters, so far less equipment is needed. The cost efficiency of PBOS over DRE’s has been acknowledged by New York County Elections Commissioner Douglas Kellner.

myspace message from adam entitled "My Mind Has Just Been Fucking Blown"

"An analysis of the National Election Study exit poll data by Harvard political scientist Barry Burden showed that only 9% of the people who thought Nader was the best candidate actually voted for him. If people had not voted strategically, but instead voted for their favorite candidate, Nader would have had over 30 million votes instead of 2.9 million and might have won the election"

The full Barry Burden study is on line(PDF), but it's 23 pages long, and written by a political scientist at Harvard....so it's very fucking boring. I took this from the Draft Nader Page. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Oh, and a reminder, that's 30 million votes for a guy who spent about 80 million less than the other two candidates and wasn't in the debates. Which leads to think....maybe he should have run as a Democrat.

my mind has similarly been blown ... like, to pieces.

Green on Gore ...

Harsh words from the Green Party directed at leftist Gore supporters ...

It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that Depleted Uranium weaponry was first authorized. It was under was the Clinton/Gore administration that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi children died from the sanctions, which is still a greater death toll than the Bush administration, although the Bushies are catching up quickly.

The Clinton/Gore administration first authorized "extraordinary rendition" and signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has further consolidated the corporate media, which is, in my opinion the biggest risk to democracy we face today. Let us also not forget "Welfare Reform" and the "War On Drugs", both an attack on poor people. Clinton/Gore again.

Then let us not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election and instead of standing up for those who voted for him, including the 90,000 illegally purged from the voting rolls, Al Gore told the Congressional Black Cacaus to "sit down and be quiet", as noted in the Michael Moore movie Farenheight 9-11.

The WTO protests of Seattle in 1999 were targeting the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. This includes signing up for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the IMF, massive give-a-ways of public land to the Mining Industries and of large tracts of our forests to the Lumber Industries.

None of this was mentioned in his cute little film. Instead of targeting the corporate responsibility for the crisis of global warming, he tells us what "we little people" can do. Buy a Prius, change a light bulb etc, not what General Motors should be forced to do. Just us "little people" changing bulbs etc. He also obviously did not target the policies started under his vice-presidency. No talk of NAFTA or corporate globalization in his movie.

Al Gore is a well packaged, corporate friendly "environmentalist." Al Gore is a "green-washed" corporate prostitute who has been green-washed just as surely as British Petroleum or any other corporate polluter. My fullest apologies to prostitutes for comparing you to Al Gore.

Now that is really an "inconvenient truth" and I can guarantee that this is something you will never hear from the Sierra Club, Dennis Kucinich or any of the local versions of him here in Minnesota. That is another "inconvenient truth."

In other words, wake up people. Pay attention to the actions instead of the words. You are being lied to, again.