David Cobb's Testimony on Voting Irregularities
Published December 14, 2004
David Cobb, Green Party candidate made a startling deposition before the House Judiciary Committee today. The Green Party candidate and Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate have filed affidavits asking for a recount in Ohio. Details are at the BradBlog, an evidently partisan site. An mp3 of the testimony reported here, ending with a mix of Steve Earle's "The Revolution"
The Cobb testimony concerned an eyewitness account from an Elections Official about election machine tampering by a worker from Triad Governmental Systems, Inc. as late as last Friday!Said Cobb at today's hearings, "A representative came in on Friday to see if there were any questions, the Triad representative had told him that [the machine] 'had a bad battery' and had 'lost all the data'. The machine was then taken completely apart" and it's memory apparently permanently lost.
All of this before the full Ohio state recount demanded by the Green and Libertarian parties has been able to get fully underway.
Th eyewitness, who was unnamed in the public hearings, was later identified and interviewed privately by staffers from the office of Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary committee.
The electoral votes were cast by the state electors today, including the 20 votes of Ohio. Are these candidates serious in their efforts or are these attention-grabbing stunts?
- David Cobb's Testimony on Voting Irregularities
- Published: December 14, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Aaman Lamba
- Aaman Lamba's BC Writer page
- Aaman Lamba's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
the disconnect is that there will always be a certain percentage of error - if humans are involved (and that includes making and maintaining machines), then there will be errors. The key is to keep the errors well under the margin of victory, to address systemic issues, and to have a back-up system (i.e. paper trail until someting better comes along) in place for when absolute precision becomes paramount, as in very close races
I'd like to reference the FAQ on EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) by the Indian government, which ran a relatively uncontroversial electronic election earlier this year - posted by me on my blog on 11/2/2004
Q17. Wherever an election petition is filed, the result of the election is subject to the final outcome. The courts, in appropriate cases, may order a recount of votes. Whether EVMs can be stored for such a long time and whether the result can be taken in the presence of the officers authorised by Courts? Will not the battery leak or otherwise damage EVMs?
Ans. The battery is required only to activate the EVMs at the time of polling and counting. As soon as the polling is over, the battery can be switched off and this will be required to be switched on only at the time of counting. The battery can be removed as soon as the result is taken and can be kept separately. Therefore, there is no question of battery leaking or otherwise damaging EVMs. Even when the battery is removed the memory in the microchip remains intact. If the Court orders a recount, the Control Unit can be reactivated by fixing the battery and it will display the result stored in the memory.
Q18. Is it possible to vote more than once by pressing the button again and again.
Ans. No
As soon as a particular button on the Balloting Unit is pressed, the vote is recorded for that particular candidate and the machine gets locked. Even if one presses that button further or any other button, no further vote will be recorded. This way the EVMs ensure the principle of "one man, one vote".
excellent info, thanks
Having intimate knowledge of one of the two party's involved, my money is on 'publicity stunt'.
Respectfuly, having no intimate knowledge of your intimate knowledge, your comment means nothing.
Which one? What's the deal?
I got this big long drawn out e-mail from the Libertarian Party, basically telling me that it wasn't the parties doing, it was Badnarik himself that signed up for this recount deal. If you'd like a copy let me know and I'll forward it.







Thanks Aaman - I heard a very good piece on this on the local NPR station about this and the central thesis was that since every county in Ohio had two Republican and two Democratic representatives on the election boards, that the Democrats would have had to be in on the "fix" for there to have been any kind of widespread fraud. This is preposterous