An impending voting fiasco?

I wrote earlier about the well-documented problems with the new electronic voting machines. Some argue that these machines are flawless. They contend that anyone who asks questions is nothing more than a liberal, Bush-hating ideologue looking for reasons to whine. Ad hominem against anyone who dares question the status quo is the modus operandi of those presently in power and their apologists.

(Sorry for so many Latin phrases in one sentence)

However, the latest concerns about the accuracy of these voting machines comes not from some left-wing advocacy group but from the staid pro-business magazine The Economist.

The widely respected weekly expressed fears that the 'wrong kind of voting machine could bring chaos to the mid-term elections.'

The problem is not a vast conspiracy but simple accuracy.

A thermal printer to produce a record is available as an added extra on some touch-screen machines. But when these were tried out, as they have been across the country in primary elections in the past few months, the results were not encouraging. If the paper is put in wrongly, the printer does not print at all. Even when it was the right way round, there were many cases of the paper jamming, tearing or producing unreadable results. The fact that most election officials are unpaid volunteers, very often elderly and with little or no training, also caused difficulties. At any rate, with a touch-screen system the paper-trail is produced by the machine, and so is only as good as the machine. And the machines, it also turns out, may be vulnerable to tampering.
In September three scientists at Princeton University got hold of the most popular touch-screen model and took it and its software to bits.

They found serious flaws allowing a competent hacker to infect the machine with a program to transfer votes from one candidate to another.

Such a change could be undetectable without a recount (assuming one were possible), and the program could be introduced into the machine far in advance by anyone having access to the machine's memory-card reader for as little as a minute. The readers are protected by a lock, but the lock is a standard one, and keys can be bought on the internet:

Furthermore

[Some] of the problems occurred not with the voting machines but with other terminals, designed to ensure that people are entitled to vote and have not voted twice.) Elsewhere, there have been horror stories of votes failing to register or upload, of memory-cards going missing, and of machines crashing and losing stored votes. Only a few such cases can damage confidence badly: and crashes, at the least, cause huge delays.

Do you necessarily have to be a Democrat or a progressive to be concerned about the integrity of the most basic procedure in an electoral democracy?

The solutions, according to the weekly are very simple.

[A] wholesale switch to paper ballots and optical scanners; more training for election officials; and open access to machine software. But it is too late for any of that this time--and that is a scandal.

John Sweeney: chicken, weasel or both? You decide on Nov. 7

Talk about a race that really begs for a good smaller party candidate.

The daily Post-Star newspaper had scheduled the only debate between candidates for New York's 20th district Congressional seat. But Republican incumbent Rep. John Sweeney decided to weasel out.

His fake pretext: Democratic opponent Kirsten Gillibrand has refused to publicize her personal tax returns for the last few years, something she isn't legally obligated to do.

Gillibrand has said financial disclosure forms she filed with the Federal Election Commission show more details about her finances than tax returns would, reported The Post-Star.

This is one of the more creative excuses to avoid a real debate. If Sweeney had much of a (positive) record to defend, he should welcome the chance to be on the same stage as Gillibrand. Then he could embarass the Democrat by grilling her face to face about the tax return issue in front of the voting public. By making it a pre-condition to debate instead of using it to what should be his advantage, he's clearly searching for ways to avoid a face-to-face confrontation; this says more about his character than hers.

Gillibrand has insisted Sweeney release his police records. Apparently, he was involved in shenanigans like pulling a fire alarm back in his younger days. It seems nonsensical to bring up college pranks from the late 70s, but at least she's not making it a condition for debating. Gillibrand accepted the daily's offer.

In a sense, Gillibrand is reaping what she's sowed. The whole premise of her campaign is that she holds herself to a higher ethical standard than merely respecting the letter of the law. She has some sort of personal Ethics IOU on her website that she promises to respect. Sweeney was clever to call her bluff.

This campaign has been very pathetic. But sadly, it's typical of campaigns in this country. The more competitive they are, the nastier they get.

Four years ago, Sweeney ran against a poorly funded Democrat and a single-issue (anti-war) Green. I attended one of the debates between the three. It was an excellent debate. Each candidate stuck pretty closely to the issues at hand and personal attacks were almost nil. The whole campaign itself was pretty much the same way. The reason everything was so clean is that no one considered it a competitive race. The Democrat was a sacrificial lamb and everyone knew it. The Green so shrill and single-issue that even I, someone who regularly votes for smaller party candidates, refused to pull the lever for her.

This race is different. For reasons which I'm still not entirely sure, this year's race is considered competitive. The national Democrats and outside liberal activist organizations have poured a ton of money into this race, something they almost never do in this district where Democrats are outnumbered by Republicans by something like 2-1.

But this district also contains a lot of independents and smaller party members. And the Republicans in the Adirondacks part of the district are a pretty independent-minded ornery bunch, not the straight party-line voters they might be in other areas.

Unfortunately Gillibrand hasn't exactly given them an overwhelming reason to vote for her. The whole 'Sweeney backs Bush 100 percent of the time' line can only go so far. She is a corporate Democrat backed by the Democratic establishment, hardly the ideal candidate to shake things up.

On the other hand, John Sweeney's contempt for democracy might be typical of an entrenched incumbent, but it's disturbing nonetheless. More worryingly still, it's hardly the first time.

And at least Gillibrand isn't take junkets sponsored by organizations linked to garment factory hellholes and then failing to report them.

He may not care about the voters but at least we know he has the best interests of sweatshop owners at heart.



Update: It looks like Sweeney chickened out of a candidates' forum in Wilton yesterday too.

Further update: And he apparently dodged a third offer to spar with Gillibrand.

Still further update: The latest 'issue' in the race brought up by the Sweeney campaign is whether Gillibrand voted in the 2002 elections. I propose the real issue is not Gillibrand's voting record but Sweeney's. Like his vote to reverse 800 years of freedom.

If you want to be an informed voter, read this

I've written before about the farce of electoral debates where most of the candidates are excluded. During the 2004 campaign season, I decided to boycott the presidential debates because in excluding most of the presidential candidates, they were a wasted opportunity to fully inform the electorate. Worse yet, they insultingly claimed otherwise. I continue to refuse to watch any debate that excludes legitimate candidates.

I define a legitimate presidential candidate as one who's on the ballot in enough states whose combined electoral votes total at least 270. A legitimate candidate for any other office is one who is ballot certified and who has not withdrawn from the race. These both seem like reasonable definitions.

Some argue that debates with more than two candidates are unwieldy. This is nonsense. Canadian political debates regular include four or more party leaders. Even in this area, the local daily sponsored a debate last year that involved all five mayoral candidates (sadly, their actual reporting on the race wasn't anywhere near so inclusive). Multiparty debates can be done, if the will is there.

But sadly, the will isn't there. And the corporate media sponsors rarely have the backbone to stand up to the major party candidates and demand all-inclusive debates or none at all. The 'we make news, we just report it' media unilaterally decide who is a 'viable' candidate based on arbitrary factors like fund-raising figures.

For the media to ignore anyone who hasn't raised millions of dollars is arrogant. And it certainly flies in the face of the 'we don't make news, we just report it' pablum so regularly spewed.

Maybe it's self-interest. In deciding that fund-raising figures are relevant, maybe the big media conglomerates help ensure that those with money get more money... so they can give it to big media conglomerates for TV commercials and newspaper ads. 'Wall of separation' between editorial and commercial? You be the judge.

Several of these faux debates were held recently. The New York League of Women Voters decided to withdraw sponsorship for the faux debates for state attorney general and senate debates because legitimate candidates were excluded. They argued that such arbitrary and unfounded exclusion 'would violate the League's fundamental belief in the public's right to know.'

The non-partisan League's guidelines for who should be included in the debate are very straightforward.

The national League of Women Voters used to run the presidential debates. But the two major parties got upset when the League invited independent candidate John Anderson to its 1980 debate. So two major parties jointly formed a bipartisan (not to be confused non-partisan) Commission on Presidential Debates. Its co-chairmen: a former head of the Democratic National Committee and a former head of the Republican National Committee. Not surprisingly, only once has it included a candidate not from the Democratic or Republican parties... and that was under public pressure. (Not coindientally, it was the best series of debates they ever sponsored)

Since the corporate media can't be trusted to provide comprehensive electoral reporting (or debates), it's a good thing the League offers resources for voters who actually want to be well-informed.

Night is day

The Bush administration has been re-writing history for many years. Such as when it decided that 800 years of liberty were null and void.

But now, it's re-writing history in another way. In a most Orwellian way.

(Admittedly, references to this administration as 'Orwellian' aren't exactly new)

In a recent interview with ABC News with George Stephanapoulos, the president had this exchange:


STEPHANOPOULOS: Exactly what I wanted to ask you about, because James Baker said that he's looking for something between cut and run…

BUSH: Cut and run and.

STEPHANOPOULOS: … and stay the course.

BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been stay the course, George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics, constantly.

Let that sink in for a minute.


"we've never been stay the course"


There are countless examples which demonstrate that this comment is a bald-faced lie. Check out the president's own words here.

Or here.

Or here.

Or here.

Or here.

The president and his administration have ALWAYS been 'stay the course.'

They just have no clue what that course is.

Although Orwellian obfuscation and deceit are clearly at the heart of whatever that course is.


Update: Continuing the Orwellian theme, presidential spokesman Tony Snow has no idea why anyone would be confused about this issue.

Q Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?

MR. SNOW: No.

So this begs the question: if The Decider isn't responsible, then who is?

Blaming the voters usually isn't the best strategy two weeks before an election

Ridiculed straight

The Evil doers strike again.

A 'scientific' advisory panel of Christianist 'ex-gay' group has caused outrage by advocating the bullying of children who don't conform to gender stereotypes.

The Los Angeles Times noted that supposed psychiatrist Joseph Berger said that instead of teaching tolerance, schools should "let the other children ridicule" boys and girls who don't conform.

"It is a mistake for various interfering, ignorant and biased busybodies to try to 'counsel' the other children into accepting the abnormal," Berger wrote. "It is very healthy to be able to draw the line between what is healthy and what is sick."

Among those 'sick' individuals: a cross-dressing kindergartner and other children with "gender-variant" behaviors.

Of course, Berger isn't the member of the panel with disgusting views. This is hardly surprising since the whole 'ex-gay' group is based on an insulting premise.

Another board member, a therapist, asserted that slaves may have been better off in chains than in "savage" Africa.

Gay teens face enough social ostracization for their innate (and innocuous) feelings without having sadistic quacks encouraging further mental anguish being inflicted on them. And just because the 'therapist' might harbor kinky desires toward chains doesn't mean he should impose them on others.

Lies, damned lies and headli(n)es

Here's a great example of how deceitful headlines can be and why you should always read beyond them.

Today, the French daily Le Monde ran an article entitled, 'According to a poll, nearly a third of the world population accepts the use of torture.'

But then when you actually read the article, you find out that the survey in question only interviewed people in 25 countries including those 'most at risk of terrorist attack.'

So how can a survey of 25 countries (in a world with around 200 of them) be considered a representative sample of world population? Were there African countries in the poll? Central Asian ones? Central American ones?

Totalitarian regimes almost certainly would not allow such a poll to be taken in their countries. Such regimes are also the ones most likely to actually use torture on its citizens. And when you live in a country where a 'terrorist' is a honest journalist or anyone belonging to an opposition party (or a Quaker), that might give you a different opinion of torture.

October surprise?

This this news item caught my eye.

The Department of Homeland Security has sent an advisory to the National Football League and local officials advising of a possible, uncorroborated bomb threat against some NFL stadiums.

But

DHS said the posting is not considered credible and the information was being shared only in an abundance of caution so that league officials and others could determine what steps they want to take.

So this begs the question: if the threat was not credible, why was it so heavily publicized?

North Korea explodes a controversy

A controversy exploded recently when North Korea detonated a nuclear device. International condemnation rained down on Pyongyang. The UN Security Council unanimously imposed sanctions against the country. However, North Korea deemed the sanctions a declaration of war. The key player appears to be China, as it's the leading trade partner and most important ally of the isolated North Korean regime. By many accounts, Chinese suspicious of their one-time close ally appears to be growing.

Presidential aspirant Sen. John McCain and other conservatives blame then-President Bill Clinton's 1994 deal with North Korea for the present situation.

Critics called it appeasement. But bribing countries to do what we want is hardly new. How else to explain the Bush administration's cozying up to the monstrous regimes in Equatorial Guinea and Uzbekistan?

Another former presidential aspirant, Sen. John Kerry, rubbished his colleague's remarks. "The truth is the Clinton administration knew full well they didn't have a perfect agreement. But at least they were talking. At least we had inspectors going in and we knew where the [nuclear fuel] rods were. This way, we don't know where the rods are. The rods are gone. There are no inspectors. Ask any American which way is better," Kerry said.

Other Clinton critics say that the real problem with the 1994 deal was bilteral, rather than multilateral.

Those involved with negotiating the 1994 deal said that it was actually a success, not a failure. Robert L. Gallucci, the chief negotiator of the accord and now dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, said it is a "ludicrous thing" to say that the Clinton agreement failed. For eight years, the Agreed Framework kept North Korea's five-megawatt plutonium reactor frozen and under international inspection, while North Korea did not build planned 50- and 200-megawatt reactors. If those reactors had been built and running, he said, North Korea would now have enough plutonium for more than 100 nuclear weapons.

The failure, he says, occurred when the Bush administration changed the policy. North Koreans complained bitterly that the United States was the chief violator of the pact because the reactors were years behind in construction and because promises to end hostile relations and normalize ties were not fulfilled.

Clearly, the Bush administration's aggressive militarism pushed North Korea to speed up its nuclear research. The regime saw what's happened to fellow 'Axis of Evil' country Iraq and that some on the far right are demanding the same fate for the third 'Axis of Evil' nation Iran. Who can blame Pyongyang for seeking a nuclear deterrence?

Though the Clinton administration's tepid response to the 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan certainly did nothing to discourage future nuclear aspirants.

Why would a nuclear North Korea be a problem? Some on the left make the mistake of thinking that just because the Bush administration is demonizing North Korea that this situation is necessarily overblown. Others contend that North Korea is a sovereign country and can have nukes if they want.

I'm not convinced that North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il is crazy, as neo-conservatives describe anybody they want to invade. A nuclear deterrence for North Korea is perfectly rational given the Bush administration's rhetorical belligerence has often been followed by the military version.

The Dear Leader may be narcissitic and dangerous and probably eccentric. But irrational? I doubt it.

And the regime's rationality is my main concern.

The regime is extremely strapped for cash because they are wasting it all on their hugely bloated military. What does a rational man do when he has no money? He seeks ways to earn some.

What's a good way for a corrupt regime to earn a lot money? By selling nuclear weapons material or technology to rogue, non-state entities.

I do not think the regime in Pyongyang is foolish enough to actually use nuclear weapons against the US or South Korea or Japan. But I think they are desperate enough to sell them to al-Qaeda operatives or other terrorists. That's far more dangerous.

In international geo-politics, the most disturbing thing is unpredictability. The Soviet Union may have been 'The Evil Empire' but they acted in a way that was entirely predictable for a giant state power. This is why Ronald Reagan, who'd so demonized the USSR, was able to negotiate with them. The Cuban Missle Crisis erupted when the Soviets acted in an unpredictable way next door to the US.

State actors, even isolated ones like North Korea, are generally bound to a code of conduct in their relations with other state actors. When non-state actors get involved, it's much more unpredictable because they don't, as they say, have a return address.

The question now is what can be done to reign in North Korea, to ensure they don't sell their nuclear technology to al-Qaeda or other malicious actors.

I'm not sure there's a good answer to that question. I think international sanctions are a good temporary step. They should've been applied to Pakistan and India after their tests but that didn't happen. But given how isolated Pyongyang is already, I'm not sure how much more economic leverage can be placed on them.

Ultimately, the best way to reign in North Korea is to basically bring them back into the international system. This is where the Clinton administration really erred. Offer them a non-aggression pact. Restore diplomatic relations with them. Encourage them to sit down for peace talks with South Korea (with whom they are officially still at war). Perhaps try to pry the country open with the carrot of World Trade Organization membership. But only on the condition that they agree not to sell their nuclear technology and allow UN weapons into the country.

The trouble with this is that it's very difficult to enforce the North Korean part of the bargain. Even a high-ranking official in Pakistan, a nominal US ally, was guilty of illegally transferring nuclear technology. And that's a far less secretive country.

But as problematic as this solution is, I haven't heard anything better.

Bush administration bullying is increasingly leading to defiance, not submission. It's long past time to try something else. I'm highly skeptical that Bush's entourage would ever let him pursue such a course of action with North Korea; these are the guys that patented defamatory phrases like 'cut and run' and 'defeatocrats' to describe anyone who believes that militarism should be option number one for every problem.

Yet if you can believe it, that is exactly what his administration tried with another rogue state recently. The US re-established diplomatic relations with Libya earlier this year. It just goes to show the president and his advisors can make diplomacy work if they actually get serious about it.


Update: some hawks that if the international community simply cuts off food aid, it will starve North Koreans into an insurrection that would topple the Kim regime. This is non-sensical.

For one thing, there is little food aid going into North Korea anymore anyway; the regime didn't like so many foreigners running around the country so it kicked them out.

But moral questions aside, 'the starvation will lead to regime change theory' doesn't make sense. A hungry man may be an angry, as Bob Marley sang, but a starving man doesn't have enough energy to be angry. If you want to forment a revolt from within, you need to empower the people, not weaken them to near death.

Several countries have suffered famines or hunger emergencies in recent years. Niger, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe come to mind immediately. Not a single one of those famines lead to a public uprising that toppled the government in place.

There have been many popular uprisings that toppled governments in recent years. Such as Serbia, the Phillipines and Ivory Coast. In all of these countries, the people were for the most part at least moderately well-fed.

NPR has a good piece on how political change is the last thing on the mind of North Koreans.