Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 9

message: Passage: Insert passage here.
----
Discussion:
:This passage is whack. --kizzle 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template (one line description of passage)

message: As a heads up, my silence on this issue for the next few weeks should not be taken as my agreeing with anything in this article. (In fact, after looking at Kevin's most recent three edits to it, I'm even more appalled - he removed a right-leaning election watchdog group from the intro as partisan, while leaving Black Box Voting, which has always been particularly obsessed with Diebold's connection to the GOP?) Frankly, the stress of trying to fix this article in the face of an overwhelming number of POV pushers who are committed to fighting every step tooth and nail has achieved its goal - I don't have the stomach to fight this out right now, and trying to do so is distracting me from more important things in my life. Snowspinner 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note to Snowspinner, I believe those edits are wrongly attributed to me.  Not to use a cliche in the agressive sense, but literally speaking, I don' t know what he's talking about. (i haven't looked through the page history)  Not to say that i haven't mistaken one person's edits for someone else's before.  I think that's a common mistake on wikipedia. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikibreak

message: As there has been no supporting discussion here to justify the 'totallydisputed' and 'originalresearch' tags, they have been removed. The article still is far from 'ideal' or 'perfect' - please contribute to the improvement of the content. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ryan about removing the tags, just a note to anyone wanting to re-add them, he is not alone :).Voice of  All @|Esperanza|E M</font> 01:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent tags removed from article

message: We'll be updating the article to reference the latest GAO Report, which states:
: The nonpartisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."
The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.
Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.
Among other things, the GAO confirms that:
:1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.
:2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.
:3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.
:4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.
:5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.
:6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.
:7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the presidency of the United States was decided.
:8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.
This list taken from an article by Fitrakis and Wasserman]. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good info, we should tie it in with statistical evidence too (from Ohio specifically and the Judge vote count disparity controversy etc). zen master T 19:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try not to confuse the GAO report with left-wing editorials. Nowhere does the GAO report mention the Diebold CEO's offhand remark, nor does the report state that any actual fraud occurred in the 2004 election, immaterial or material. Rhobite 18:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you disputing that Diebold's CEO's comment actually happened? --kizzle 20:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but RyanFriesling said above that he was quoting the GAO report when he was actually quoting an editorial article. Grazon added content to this article taken directly from an editorial article, and he also claimed that the GAO report proved that there was fraud in the 2004 election. I'm just responding to incorrect statements about the GAO report, which are finding their way into the article. Rhobite 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then I think I'm on the same page.  As it stands, it can only be proved that there existed a widespread easy untraceable way to commit fraud, no actual fraud has yet been proved or probably ever will be. --kizzle 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not misrepresent the quoted sections. Everything in quotes is a quote from the GAO report, taken whole from within an excerpt of the editorial. I am sorry that wasn't clear. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GAO Report

message: I see that a Request for Arbitration has been filed and is in the process of being rejected.  Has mediation been attempted?  Robert McClenon 17:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure who the parties for mediation would be - I could be, but it would be a process of my continuing to have to do the research to catch up to what POV advocates already know. And I'm not sure which of the many people who support the article in its current form would be most appropriate to mediate with. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Has Mediation Been Attempted?

message: The fact that an RfAr has been filed (and is being rejected as not ripe) illustrates that there are serious issues about the neutrality of this article (regardless of whether it is the opinion of the majority of editors that there are no such problems).  I have posted an NPOV banner, and it should not be removed until neutrality and content issues are addressed.  Robert McClenon 17:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: let me know if there are concerns as to my major re-write of the intro. --kizzle 02:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you have just written the article more or less as it should appear. Much of the rest of the article is a hopeless collection of original research, trivia, and, as is becoming increasingly clear with the GAO plagiarism and the "loonies" quote, outright inaccuracy. The subject neither needs nor deserves more than this excellently written introduction. Phil Sandifer 02:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue re-writing and restructuring, though it's going to take a while.  I have an original paper of about 60 pages of info which I will not be putting in verbatim, as that would constitute original research, but I have carefully pruned sources in it which I will be inserting into the article. I think once you become familliar with the less-fringe aspects of this that shroud the actual legitimate case for electoral reform, you will differ in your opinion that this subject merely deserves a 2 page summary. --kizzle 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Far from it - I'm actually an advocate for election reform, and strongly disagree with electronic voting. And though I've not actually looked, I would hope our article on the Diebold machines is thorough. I would hope our article on the Black Box Voting site is thorough. I think there are lots of places for articles on the case for election reform. However I don't think that the 2004 U.S. presidential election as it actually happened provides a particularly important or notable instance in election reform. And I think that the issues are best discussed in articles in the context of the specific issues - black box voting being far and away the most important - and used as examples there. Phil Sandifer 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind, its purely the combination of such a massive exit poll discrepancy combined with essentially a beta test of a new insecure voting technology manufactured by highly partisan individuals, some of whom have a criminal record.  The voting machines coupled with partisan ownership make this a notable instance in electoral reform, for as long as we don't have voter-verified paper ballots (and not audit trails), we never really will be sure who we voted for.  It's just too easy. --kizzle 03:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still wonder, though, if the really notable stuff couldn't be migrated into election reform articles more effectively - if nothing else, I think it's doomed to look like conspiracy theory here, instead of what I think is its most sober and persuasive form, which is as a clear warning of what could happen. Phil Sandifer 03:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll see as pruning continues.  I think that what you propose should happen anyway, we should be fleshing out Diebold along with Diebold Election Systems, Voter-Verified Paper Ballots, Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trails, HAVA, etc.  We'll see how it turns out and I expect you and Rhobite to keep me honest. --kizzle 03:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the new intro. My only concern is that it is too long - typically lead sections should be 3-5 normal sized paragraphs. This one has seven paragraphs, some of them very hefty. We should move some detail into the proper sections. See Wikipedia:Lead section. Also the picture seems to be plopped down between the cleanup and POV tags. Maybe it's just my browser. Rhobite 02:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: K, just give me some time. --kizzle 03:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As w/Rhobite, I think the intro has gotten too long.  I also must add that it has changed in the proportion of its content: It has more analysis and less information.  Generally analysis is considered harmful and information is considered good.  This is a weakness that has been introduced into the new intro, though it reads well and I think that notwithstanding this aspect of it's direction, it is an improvement. Kevin baas 18:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the analysis part, as I tried to source most everything in the intro paragraphs...either way, this is a wiki, so I guess I'll see what changes you guys come up with.  I think right now it is as small as its going to get, intro sentence, 3 paragraphs covering the essential aspects: exit polls, voting machines, ohio voter suppression, then democrat allegations, and final results.  You can all bite me if you don't like it.  Just kidding, trying to share the thanksgiving love. --kizzle 03:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro