Find Newest Content
New! Volunteer Registry
Special Volunteer Roles
Action of the Day
Defend the Vote Cause
Share EDA widgets
EDA Radio Programs
Enroll as an I Count! Volunteer
Save NY Levers
Click "Members" to visit Change
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendMeeting to Preserve NY Lever Voting, Manhattan, July 9
Thu, 07/09/2009 7:30pm - 9:30pm
DEFENDERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE GO HEAD-TO-HEAD
WITH STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER
July 9, 2009 7:30 PM
10th Street and 2nd Ave in Manhattan
WITH STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS COMMISSIONER
July 9, 2009 7:30 PM
10th Street and 2nd Ave in Manhattan
The Threat to Voting in New York and What to Do About It:
Why lever machines are safe to vote on (and affordable) and optical scanners are neither
Douglas Kellner, Commissioner of NYS Board of Elections
Mark Crispin Miller, renowned author of "Fooled Again, The Real Case for Electoral Reform"
Andi Novick, attorney, driving force behind efforts to preserve New York's constitutionally-compliant lever voting system
Main Sanctuary at St. Marks Church in the Bowery
10th Street and 2nd Ave in Manhattan
sponsored by the Village Independent Democrats -- all invited, free
(212 741- 2994)
10th Street and 2nd Ave in Manhattan
sponsored by the Village Independent Democrats -- all invited, free
(212 741- 2994)
New York State is the only left in the U.S. that stills has a transparent and verifiable method of voting. All other states have moved to electronic vote-counting systems that make it impossible for election officials, official observers, candidates, or the public to determine whether the announced vote totals accurately represent the votes cast.
These secret vote-counting systems violate the principles of a constitutional democracy as represented in two centuries of statutory law and judicial precedence interpreting New York’s Constitution, and as recently held by Germany’s Constitutional Court. Yet electronic voting systems are slated to be fully operational in New York by 2010.
At this free public event, Andi Novick will outline the reasons New York's Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA) is unconstitutional, Mark Crispin Miller will discuss the dangers of electronic vote counting systems, and Douglas Kellner will explain the state's insistence on an expensive change in election technology beyond what is required by the federal government.
Please Donate and Sign our Petition:
Mexican 2009 Election Winner Is . . . the Party of Abstention
This is the 2nd post in a 3-part series on the national election in Mexico July 5 2009
Michael Collins
The boycott of the election by registered voters will gain a clear plurality, around 48%, and possibly a majority, of registered voters.
The 2009 Mexican boycott includes those who deliberately nullified their ballots and those who simply chose not to vote. Early reports indicate that 8% are actively nullifying their vote (voto nulo) and that another 40% of registered voters are not showing up at all. That combined figure, 48% or so, will handily beat the vote totals for the ruling PAN Party and the former rulers, the PRI, without out any doubt. While totals will change, there is no way that PAN and PRI can overcome the anulistas and those who stayed away from the polls.
Los Anulistas
Abstentions in Mexican mid term elections for the 500 member Chamber of Deputies have grown from 32% in 1991 to 42% in 1997. In the most recent election for the Chamber in 2003 58% of citizens chose to avoid the polls (Mexidata). There is an argument, I suppose, that the formal boycott was the voto nulo movement, defacing ballots that would be counted as such. But that argument fails when we consider that there's a long term trend by those able to vote who simply boycott elections in Mexico and elsewhere.
Mexico's voters experienced what many believe to be a stolen election in 2006. That experience plus widespread disillusionment with the performance of government gave rise to the voto nulo movement.
The prediction that "boycott" would win could have been made at most any time prior to the election without much risk. But the press and politicians fail to even acknowledge this largest voting block, citizens who, by and large, see no purpose in voting. If they did, they would vote (except for those still barred by institutional barriers).
Vote nullification advocates celebrate
their sure victory July 5, Election Day
photo: Salamandra Negra
A Matter of Trust - The July 5 Mexican Legislative Elections
A Three Part Series Part 1
In the wake of Felipe Calderon’s surprising electoral win over Andrés Manual Lopez-Obrador in 2006 Presidential Elections, demonstrators protesting alleged election fraud occupied the center of Mexico City from July through December. On three occasions, crowds of over one million were reported. Image: Erasmo Lopez
Michael Collins and Kenneth Thomas
"Se requiere que las ciudadanos no estén ausentes ante una clase política que, desde el punto de vista ciudadano, no ha respondido y claramente ha fallado," dijo el Presidente de la República. Sociedad civil confronta a los poderes de la Unión El Universal, June 25, 2009
Translation: "It is necessary that the citizens not be seated behind a political class which, from the citizen’s point of view, clearly has failed," said the President of the Republic. (President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon El Universal, June 25, 2009)
"Independent analysis of the early vote reports indicated that there was little relationship between actual precinct totals and those reported by the Federal Electoral Institute, the IFE. . . . A graph of the initial results also revealed an odd statistical curve that looked more like the result of a computer algorithm rather than real vote totals."
Every once in a while, a politician tells the unvarnished truth. It's difficult to recall the last time it happened. Outgoing president Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 warning of the dangers of the U.S. military-industrial complex comes to mind. Ike told the truth but too late to matter since he was leaving power. President Calderon is just three years into his six year term as President of Mexico. Just two days prior to Calderon's statement, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador (ALMO), Calderon's opponent in the bitterly contested 2006 presidential election, had filed a complaint against the media conglomerate owned television network, Televisa. Obrador argued that Televisa has shown extraordinary bias against his party, the PRD. Candidates are entitled to make complaints about biased coverage to the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) created as part of Mexico's 1990 election reform law. Obrador said:
"I stand in front of you because you are the owners of Televisa and because you form part of the power elite in Mexico.
"I have considered... that you may disagree with my certainty that the national tragedy is the fault of a group which is guilty of acquiring enormous wealth through the employment of public power, and at the cost of suffering for the majority of the Mexican people." El Universal, June 23, 2009
ALMO's point reflects the fact that Televisa is owned and run by one of the twenty families, the wealthiest people in Mexico who dominate the political and economic life of Mexicans.
As their parties approach the 2009 legislative elections, the opponents from the bitterly contested 2006 presidential election seem to suddenly agree. Calderon's "political class," which he says has failed the people, rules "at the bequest of" Mexico's narrow moneyed elite, the class that the "leftist" Lopez-Obrador is accusing of biased coverage in the congressional campaign.
In the speech quoted in the opening of this article, Calderon admits "that the situation in place in matters of security and justice "is, without doubt, a consequence of many of our omissions, of indolence, of corruption, of illegality and of impunity' "June 25, 2009.
"Who can the Mexican people trust?”
The 2006 Mexican presidential election set the stage for this year's July 5 national election for Mexico's bicameral Congress of the Union consisting of the Chamber of Representatives (500 members) and the Senate (128 members). As of June 25, 2009, the two major candidates for president in 2006 see the election system as biased and flawed. ALMO's affirmation is explicit and Calderon says that the problems are related to class issues.
Numerous irregularities in 2006 raised suspicions. ALMO ran an effective campaign and was expected to win. Independent analysis of the early vote reports indicated that there was little relationship between actual precinct totals and those reported by the Federal Electoral Institute, the IFE.
Minnesota Supreme Court Rules: Franken Won
Minnesota Supreme Court Rules: Franken Won
June 30 2009
By Noah Kunin, Senior Political Correspondent
In a midday ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Former Senator Norm Coleman's appeal to overturn the decision by the three judge Election Contest trial court that Al Franken won the the 2008 Senate Election in Minnesota.
Coleman, in a humble concession speech, (which The UpTake was not allowed to record) said the process has gone far enough. This video is Senator-Elect Al Franken's response, from his home in Minneapolis, MN.
While Senator-Elect Franken will be the 60th Democrat in the US Senate, he says it's more important that he will be the "2nd Senator from Minnesota." He is expected to be sworn in next week.
For additional video click the Read More link to go to the jump page.
Iranian Election Fraud: Who Was the Real Target?
Original source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0906/S00163.htm
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
by Michael Collins
Iranian Election Fraud 2009: Who was the Real Target and Why?
There most certainly was election fraud in Iran in this election and every previous election under the current electoral system. The question is not, did fraud take place in this most recent election? Of course it did. You just need to study the Iranian Constitution and recent Iranian elections understand that, a step skipped by the major media and some nay-saying bloggers in the United States.
The real questions are who or what was the target of the fraud and why? The 2009 presidential election produced a 75% turnout, an alleged landslide victory for incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and widespread protests by supporters of the losing candidates. It also produced a pervasive and violent crack down by Iranian authorities.
The reelection of Ahmadinejad is highly significant to Iranians and the rest of the world. Iran is a major oil supplier and a political actor of major proportions in the South Asia and the Middle East. Iran may join the list of nations with nuclear weapons soon, it appears.
(Left: Is this man the target of Iranian election fraud?
Hashemi Rafsanjani, former two-term president
and Iranian power broker.)
The most pressing current problem with Iran is posed by the nation's president who happens to be certifiably insane. He is a holocaust denier; not just once but every time he's asked. Ahmadinejad even hosted a world conference for other deniers. The existence of the holocaust is not a required issue for discussion by Iranian politicians. Ahmadinejad actually goes out of his way to showcase his break with reality. He also continues the repellent advocacy of the death penalty for homosexuality and for capital crimes by children.
Yet he was approved once again by Iran's Guardian Council as a candidate for the nation's highest office.The council consists of six Islamic jurists appointed by the Supreme Leader of Iran and six from the Majlis, Iran's popularly elected parliament. They screen presidential candidates through background checks and a detailed written examination. Very few pass the test. Since 2004, the council has routinely rejected reform candidates. That's the fraud. It couldn't be more obvious.
Copyright MMV Siavush Randjbar-Daemi
"Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election -- and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own."
Exit Poll Effort Mobilizing in Iran
Was the Iranian election stolen? There have been numerous highly suspicious circumstances reported that strongly suggest that possibility-- and the government lockdown on the press and violent suppression of dissent only intensify that suspicion. Clearly, millions of Iranians are convinced they've been defrauded.
When in doubt, count. A global NGO called Avaaz (the word means "voice") is rapidly mobilizing resources for an exit poll of Iranian voters and a media effort to publicise it -- working with an international polling firm to do a telephone survey of Iranian citizens to ask how they voted.
Avaaz writes: "Public polling in Iran is heavily restricted, and no-one else is mobilizing fast enough to fund an international exit poll. It's urgent that we pitch in. A telephone poll won't be 100% accurate, but the difference between opposition and government claims is massive -- a rigorous poll can show which claim is remotely near the truth.
Unlike Western organizations, Avaaz's global network has a strong membership in Iran and across the Middle East. Backed by a respected polling firm, our effort will be harder to dismiss by Iranian conservatives. We'll send the poll results to the media and help our members in Iran to rapidly and virally spread the news despite the regime's blackout."
Avaaz is calling for 10,000 people worldwide to pitch in a small amount each to raise $119,000 in the next 72 hours to fund the telephone exit poll. Follow this link to support the Iranian exit poll and pass it along to others: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/iran_vote_truth/
We at Election Defense Alliance are in favor of this idea -- having organized and conducted exit polls ourselves in the U.S. 2006 midterm and 2008 presidential elections. And we know that it is crucially important to act quickly before perceptions are fixed and the momentum of events forecloses any possibility for a re-examination of the count.
"Confronted by a growing crackdown, millions of men and women are protesting across Iran, sparked by outrage at the mounting evidence that the Ahmadinejad government may have rigged and stolen Thursday's election. This is a crucial moment for Iran and the world. We can help by urgently organising a rigorous "exit poll" of Iranian citizens by telephone to ask how they voted, publiczsing the results and helping spread the news in Iran.
Over a third of the votes are at stake. Our poll can establish whose claims are credible. If we can reach $119,000 in the next 24 hours, we can release the results before the Guardian Council's review of the results is complete; and if we raise more, we can expand this campaign. We urgently need 10,000 of us to pitch in with a small amount each."
Support the exit poll now using this secure link: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/iran_vote_truth/?cl=255588905&v=3506
"The conservative Guardian Council, headed by a key Ahmadinejad ally, is reviewing the vote over the next 9 days. Our poll can be ready before they give their verdict, to counter any further rigging and the violent purge that could follow. There is a real possibility that democracy will prevail.
Georgia Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to State E-Voting System
Media Advisory
Georgia Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Voting Rights Case
WHO: Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia (VoterGA) is a diverse, non-partisan coalition of Georgia voters and organizations who filed a voting rights lawsuit against the current method of Georgia electronic voting that they contend cannot be properly verified, audited, or recounted.
WHEN: Monday July 13, 2009
10:00 am
WHERE: 40 Capitol Square #507
Atlanta Ga. 30334
WHAT: The Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a landmark E-Voting rights case that is being followed nationally.
Plaintiffs contend that their voting rights are being unconstitutionally abridged based on admissions collected by election officials that:
• Tabulation server results can be altered on Election Day without detection;
• Votes can be swapped between candidates on Election Day without detection;
• The voting machines do not meet legal requirements under which they were procured and allegedly certified;
• County and state tabulation servers cannot be certified according to state and federal procedures; and much more.
Media Contacts:
Garland Favorito
(404) 664-4044 or (404) 606-3206
Motions & Case Information: www.voterga.org
Additional articles on the evolution of this lawsuit: http://electiondefensealliance.org/georgia
»
Iran Election Protests and the End of Top-down News Control
About this blog:
The EDA Director's Blog will be largely about strategy and tactics for organizing the mass citizen movement that will be necessary to bring about real transparency and public accountability in U.S. elections. I'll be sharing ideas and techniques that election integrity activists can adopt and apply anywhere -- and I'll welcome your ideas and recommendations. -- Dan Ashby
Source: The TED Blog, http://blog.ted.com/2009/06/clay_shirky_how.php
Clay Shirky: How Cellphones, Twitter, Facebook Can Make History
While news from Iran streams to the world, Clay Shirky shows how Facebook, Twitter and TXTs help citizens in repressive regimes to report on real news, bypassing censors (however briefly). The end of top-down control of news is changing the nature of politics.
Video location: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/575
(Recorded at TED@State, at the US State Department, June 2009, in Washington, DC. Duration: 17:03)
Watch Clay Shirky's talk from TED@State on TED.com where you can download this TEDTalk, rate it, comment on it and find other talks and performances from our archive of 450+ TEDTalks.
Get TED delivered:
Subscribe to the TEDTalks video podcast via RSS
Riverside Elections Department Heeds SaveRVote for Big Improvements
But County Gets Negative Marks for Pushing DREs
Coverage from Riverside Press Enterprise
Voter Advocacy Group Praises Special Election
By DUANE W. GANG
The Press-Enterprise Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A watchdog group critical of how Riverside County has handled past elections said Wednesday that Tuesday's special election vote went smoothly with added accountability.
Temecula-based Save R Vote monitored Tuesday's election and praised Registrar Barbara Dunmore for putting a series of safeguards in place to maintain the integrity of cast ballots.
"This was the most improved, smoothest election that I have seen in seven elections," said Tom Courbat, the group's founder.
The safeguards came from an audit led by former district attorney Grover Trask.
The measures include adding a redesigned ballot statement that precinct workers fill out to account for ballots and signatures, adding a form at ballot collection centers for workers to report if there is something wrong with ballot boxes and installing two computer monitors at the registrar's headquarters for observers to monitor ballot counting.
"This proves they could do it in a big election. It didn't result in that much additional work," Courbat said. "It gives a higher degree of accountability."
Dunmore said Wednesday that the light turnout made the election a perfect time to unveil the new measures.
"We wanted to put them in place as quick as possible," she said. "We worked very hard on that."
Dunmore said she is pleased to hear that Save R Vote found the improvements well executed.
Still, the group remains critical of Riverside County for what it sees as the over use of electronic touch-screen voting machines.
"There's an agenda here, to prove people like electronic voting when given the choice.
It is not about liking. People like to drive 120 on the freeway, but it is not safe.
You cannot adequately secure these machines."
Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified the use of touch-screen voting machines in 2007, citing security vulnerabilities. She then set conditions for their limited use.
In Tuesday's election, poll workers asked voters whether they wanted to use a paper ballot or an electronic machine.
"There's an agenda here, and the agenda here is to prove people like electronic voting when given the choice. It is not about liking," Courbat said. "People like to drive 120 on the freeway, but it is not safe. You cannot adequately secure these machines."
Courbat criticized the county for not informing voters at polling sites that there have been issues surrounding the machines.
Dunmore said her office must offer voters the choice. She said poll workers can't provide a history of the machines to each voter, and if voters have questions, they can contact her office. The use of electronic voting machines on Tuesday complied with election rules, she said.
"We did see precincts where there were more votes cast on the electronic voting unit than on paper ballots," Dunmore said. "That is a choice made by the voter." On Tuesday, there were 28,148 votes cast on electronic machines, about 41 percent of the ballots cast a precincts, Dunmore said.
Riverside County had at least three precincts, two in Corona and one in Murrieta, where all the votes were cast on the electronic machines, Dunmore said. Fifty-seven precincts didn't have any votes cast on electronic machines.
Reach Duane W. Gang at 951-368-9547 or dgang@PE.com
»
Election Monitoring Report from Riverside County CA, May 19 2009
The following photos were taken on the night of the May 19, 2009 special election in Riverside County by Tom Courbat, as he made his rounds observing election procedures and conditions.
This photo guide to election monitoring explains the purpose of each election document or item pictured, commenting on recent improvements in election procedure, contrasted to the lax practices of the past, and pointing out where problems still persist.
Tom and the SAVE R VOTE group he founded have been thoroughly monitoring Riverside County elections for the past four years. Their repeated reports documenting serious breaks in the Riverside election system finally move the county Board of Supervisors to commission a countywide elections audit. Tom served as citizen advisor to the accounting firm hired to carry out the $300,000 review, which resulted in the Riverside County Elections Department finally implementing many of the procedural safeguards SAVE R VOTE had been advocating for years.
In the May 19th election, Tom was pleased to find Riverside's election procedures vastly improved as a result of the new policies adopted following the recommendations of the election auditing consultant and SAVE R VOTE.
Tom notes: "Many documents now contain the date and type of election on every page for the first time, as recommended by SAVE R VOTE (SRV). Previously, when pages were removed from a document for copying or scanning, there was no way to categorically state the page was from a specific election on a specific date."
Ballot Statement Instruction Sheet and Ballot Statement (left and right respectively).
Vastly improved from prior versions. The Ballot Statement is an official form required to be accurately completed by election workers following the close of polls and prior to sending all voting materials to collection centers. This form accounts for all regular and provisional paper ballots – blanks received, ballots spoiled, voted ballots, and unused ballots. It also accounts for all regular and provisional electronic ballots cast. SAVE R VOTE (SRV) had recommended numbering each line and constructing instructions accordingly. This was accomplished for the first time in the May 2009 Election.
HOWEVER, this form omits critical information, previously recorded in prior elections until a procedural change starting with the November 2008 election. The information that should be recorded on this form, but that is now missing, would compare information from the Voter Roster about how each voter cast their ballot, with the numbers of each type of ballot cast: electronic, electronic provisional, paper, or paper provisional. Without this comparison, there is no way to confirm that the voters who signed the roster as having cast a provisional electronic ballot, for example, actually did cast an electronic provisional ballot. The signature counts from the Voter Roster are simply “grossed up” to the total number of ballots cast, with no reference to the numbers of each type of ballot cast. So, for example, if more people voted on paper than signed up to do so, and fewer voted electronically than signed up to do so, the numbers could “balance” (one error offsets the other) but the discrepancy will not be noted, investigated, or reconciled. This is a step backwards. 
The electronic Results Cartridge (memory card) is placed in an unsealed clear plastic pouch and placed in the Voted Ballot carton along with the voted ballots and the carbon copy of the Ballot Statement. The Voted Ballot Carton is then sealed for delivery to the central counting location.
The red canvass bag contains vote-by-mail ballots that were dropped off at the precinct, provisional ballots, the street index, and other miscellaneous ballots and documents.
