The 2000 election was stolen, and we did nothing. In fact, we did so much "nothing" that the goose-steppers and ignoramuses in this country managed to RE-elected Bush in '04. I'd love to hear some real ideas about what we can do to push back, as you say, because if the Democrats don't nail it down this time, we ought to riot....er, I mean, we ought to exercise our right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yeah, that's it.

I'm most worried about computer fraud in the voting machines, and would expect that it's most likely where the races are close enough to have a Republican win be plausible. 

For the life of me, I can understand why there's not more public opposition to systems where the code and hardware are proprietary and beholden to vendors, who are prone to be partisan (Diebold).

This is one thing that's so important that the code ought to be open, as in Open Source, and subject to public and independent audits.

The paper trail thing isn't as attractive as it sounds, since there's no way to get all the voters and their little slips of paper together again to do a recount. So what if I bring mine back in? Without everyone doing that, it's a meaningless exercise.

We the People ought to own the code our democracy runs on.

And I would say this were Dems in charge. I frankly don't trust anyone who's in power all that much. It's the founding principle or our Constitution, so I'm in good company. :-)

"According to Jimmy Carter, head of US election monitoring abroad, his Carter Institute would not even undertake the task because elections here are so blatantly dishonest."

If memory serves, Carter was not dismissing the quality of all American elections. He was speaking about Florida in the last Presidential race.

What JC  said was that if the Carter Center was asked to observe elections in Florida, they would have to decline, because the electoral regulatory environment in Florida falls below the threshold the Center applies for undertaking observation missions.

This means that Florida electoral mechanics fall below Nicaraguan electoral mechanics.

Professor John Stuart Blackton

I think that paDem's points here are good. We shouldn't put too much trust in anybody; open source code is good (and I believe has been shown to be more secure than proprietary code).

Assuming that Democrats succeed in taking control of some part of Congress, they would be well-served to move in the direction of national standards of voting with paper trails. Personally, I like scanable paper forms, which are reliable and automatically create a paper trail. If electronic machines are used, they must print out each voter's ballot when it is tallied (I think two paper copies are called for: one saved for recount purposes, and the second given to the voter, both with matching, unique ID numbers). The focus of this should be protecting against computer malfunction and ensuring fair elections, more than fraud issues (which are too easily portrayed as scare tactics).

I'm glad you wrote about this, since it occurs at a time when, for the first time, am willing and ready to engage in civil disobedience. Not alone dependent on the results of the vote today, but because I have the intuition that, regardless (or even because of, if Dems win or win big) the authoritarian trend will not cease, and in intensity and illegality may well increase. Remember, Bush/Cheney/Rove have shown any partiality to any constituency that opposes it. Further, the campaign we have witnessed by the Administration in all likelihood redouble, demagoging any issue or wedge to cast Democrats, individually and collectively as obstructionist and defeatist, whether Democrats are or not.

Karl Rove means to have his permanent Republican majority by any means possible and feasible, legally or illegally. Anything will be exploited. All mud all the time if need be.

How may that be? Is it really possible? The administration and Rove have shown no compunction about undoing democratic institutions and checks, etc., and now Republicans will be on notice to comply, or die. Moreover, many of these illegalities are done in plain sight, flaunting their ability to undermine, and by whipping up the base and commentariat, and overwhelm opposition. They aren't half-way done.
The key to their method and madness is classic authoritarianism, mixed with classic methods of pitting group against group, interest against interest, and constantly stirring the pot of disunity and despair.

We say they can't succeed if Democrats are in power, that their power will be checked. Perhaps, but don't bet on it. As one prominent political insider remarked, "don't ever bet against Karl." Game ain't over until, as our Great Leader puts it, "until the job is done." Our freedoms and civil rights and constitutional protections are fair game when the game is win-at-all-costs.

If I sound alarmist, I don't mean to persuade you, I'm just saying what I've been contemplating that tells me "if not now, when!").

Exit polls? What exit polls. I understand that they've been cut way, way back this year.

They're being majorly controlled - see here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/election_time.html

Again, standard democratic process in most of the Western world is for exit poll results to be embargoed until polls close... bit of a problem here in the States given the size of the country, but anyhow this is the plan for 2006.

The main point, however, is that exit polls are generally accurate, and they are highly valued indicators of a fair election (or not).

But my argument however is that on their own, discrepancies between the exit and the actual poll wouldn't trigger a serious protest a la Ukraine. You see, we still have such unshakeable faith in Democracy Inc, that you can't really evisage a popular uprising even if presented with prima facie evidence of electoral fraud. Too many people would simply refuse to believe it.

we still have such unshakeable faith in Democracy Inc, that you can't really e[n]visage a popular uprising even if presented with prima facie evidence of electoral fraud. Too many people would simply refuse to believe it.

Absolutely right! Two years ago is a perfect example.

Try this link.

Don't forget, civil disobedience is only effective when applied towards a very clear and easily definable goal that has potential mass appeal.

The war. I expect it will not end despite vague non-specific suggestions to the contrary coming the administration; nor will moves to roll back civil rights and suppress access to information and intimidate and pressure MSM abate. The blogosphere by itself is virtually useless to press for counteraction. Dems, despite brave talk, are easily cowed in fact, fearing alienating voters.

And it works best when you can use the force of your enemy against your enemy.

Yes, and suppression of free speech and access would be countered by aggressive and unrelenting demand for open inquiry and facts - and assertion of free speech. Remember, the tactics of civil disobedience become necessary when government refuses or strongly resists redress of grievances.

For example, would you be calling for mass demonstrations to get Lieberman seated if it became clear that the Republicans won that election by fraud?

No, that would be silly and counterproductive.

What I'm saying is, for the first time, I'm willing to participate in an act of civil disobedience to protest the war etc., and toward the end of motivating others to make visible and palpable their intention to stop the momentum to suppress, control and manipulate free expression.

Really, I don't know that ending the war at once altogether will help the civil liberties situation. It might exacerbate it. But I am convinced that the war on terror(ism) blah blah blah, is a pretext for suppression, and suppression unopposed or weakly resisted emboldens the administration to continue with both the war and suppression.

Re: For the life of me, I can understand why there's not more public opposition to systems where the code and hardware are proprietary and beholden to vendors, who are prone to be partisan (Diebold).

Actually, there is a lot of opposition. For example in Tallahassee voters are being given a choice between the computerizerd systemsand the old punch-paper system. Guess what-- as of this morning at least 90% of the voters were opting for the old ballots.
Short of passing a referrendum though (maybe that's an idea?) there's nothing the voters can do about what sort of voting machines they use.

Dems in the House should take the issue public.

**I am assuming that the Dems will win the House.**

That said....

The House Judiciary Committee should hold hearings

And add to these national folks a few of anti-hispanic the gun toting poll watchers from the southwest, and you might just have a real media spectacle that even Len Downey and Lou Dobbs can understand.

Oregon did pass such a referendum in 1998. They did away with voting stations altogether. They vote only by mail and it WORKS!!

"The paper trail thing isn't as attractive as it sounds,"

You've totally misunderstood it.

Here's how the paper trail works on an electronic voting machine. The machine prints out a paper statement of your vote. You read it and verify it (and if it's not right, you reject it and complain to the election judges). Then it goes into a locked ballot box. You do *not* take the paper away with you, *eveer*. In case of a recount, the ballot box is opened and the paper ballots are counted.

The only problem with this is that you have very little recourse if the machine misprints the ballot, besides complaining.

The better system is simply to fill out a paper ballot yourself (or with machine assistance if, for instance, you're blind), and then place it in a ballot box.

My mother has for the last ten-or-so years been part of the voting staff at a voting station. Their job in the evening ends with vote counting of papers ballots for hand.
The results are confirmed in a second counting a few days later, done by other people somewhere else. The errors use to be small to very small with differences in one or two-digit numbers.

(Yes, this is overseas.)
(And, no, there are no mashines involved what-so-ever. The voting register is on paper, the ballots are of paper, and you don't need to punch anything anywhere.)

Whether such a system is possible or not is most of all a matter of how it's organized.

But it is kind of ironic that Americans talking so much about democracy abroad make the U.S. system only less and less reliable.

Maybe it's time for a change?

I know I'm rubbing it in on nostalgia for paper, but two other points. First, it doesn't eliminate technology even if you do not scan. At some point, numbers get entered into a system to be tallied. Yesterday some scanned votes had to be retallied because someone admitted to an honest mistake, of hitting the wrong button and deleting them, but that they were scanned rather than counted made no difference.

Second, the Times "Editorial Observer" today on GOP dirty tricks at the box office in Westchester.

The Democrats were particularly on the lookout for efforts to push voters into using paper ballots instead of voting machines. It’s a familiar vote-suppression tactic, since paper ballots are susceptible to technical flaws and are frequently thrown out.

Need I bring up the hanging chads? And again, don't forget the biggest fight of all, which is to manage the (paper) voter registration lists. 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/