Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rolling Stone: Ohio 2004: The Howard Dean Interview

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:18 AM
Original message
Rolling Stone: Ohio 2004: The Howard Dean Interview
Ohio 2004: The Howard Dean Interview



Rolling Stone: How confident are you Ohio in 2004 was fairly decided?

Howard Dean: I’m not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided. We did our own Democratic party study in Ohio with a panel of experts. We absolutely know that there was a systematic voter suppression. We couldn’t say one way or another if the election was stolen. We couldn’t rule it out, but we couldn’t prove that it was. We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. That’s clear.

...........................

RS: You’ve been sounding the alarm on touch-screen voting machines, particularly Diebold machines. Why?

HD: Touch-screen voting machines absolutely cannot be relied upon. Our recommendation was optiscan ballots — where you actually have custody of the actual ballots after the ballots have been passed through the computer. That’s the most reliable system to use. And people should not use the electronic voting machines. Even electronic voting machines with paper trails can be manipulated.

I’ve personally made phone calls to some Democrats who seem to think that these machines are not so bad. I’ve made calls to Pennsylvania and New York to Democratic officials who are thinking of using these machines, warning them that they’re not reliable and that they’ll throw the results of an election into doubt. There are some Democrats who’ve OK’d these machines in their state. I’ve told them ahead of time I think that’s a mistake.

Diebold’s are not the only machines that don’t work, but certainly they are associated with the most suspicious — the machines that are the least reliable.

RS: What do you mean ‘’suspicious'’?

HD: We mean that the majority of the reports that we’ve received, where you push the screen for one candidate and the other name comes up repeatedly — most of those reports are on Diebold machines. In the governor’s race last year, we had reports from a southwestern district in Virginia that people were in fact pushing Democrat Tim Kaine’s name and Republican Jerry Kilgore’s came up.

The problem is that the federal government has essentially put huge incentives to states and counties to use the machines. Billions of dollars from the Republican Congress that will pay for these machines but not other machines.


more at:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=175
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. It makes me crazy that there are people who want to dump Howard
from the leadership of the DNC. If I evder read this article before (and I must have done so) I forgot about it. Thanks for bringing it back to our attention.

And thank you Howard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Who the hell wants to dump Chairman Dean? Anonymous sources Mediawhores
cite?

Do you have full quotes from named Democrats that state they want Dean gone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks. Hope this will be read by those who often say:
But what is the DNC actually DOOOOing about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. I love Howard. I know he is doooooing something about it and
He needs to be having more done, publically, involving voters nationwide - the GOP has 1,000's of election activists, election officials and elected officials who are working to suppress the vote and prevent secure voting systems.

The national Democratic Party needs to put out an "ALL HANDS ON DECK NOW" bulletin that outlines all of the ways that the GOP is f*ing up the system and how Dems can inhibit, detect, and fight election fraud.

Howard -> :applause:

Now -> MORE! MORE! MORE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
4. Somebody ought to clue him in
about the problems with the highly hackable tabulators on the optical scanners. He was quoted as singing their praises in a different thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. But with optiscan you can have a hand recount.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I think his point with those
is that at least you can go back and physically count the paper ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-07-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The critical part of this argument is that
Edited on Wed Jun-07-06 03:35 PM by stellanoir
if there is a margin of victory over 5% the ballots are never scrutinized. They are thrown out after 3 years and not ever reflected upon.

I know because I called the secretary of state's office. He is clueless as to the complexity of the technology.

In my dinky deeply blue state, we use opticans. Kerry had been polling in the low 70's. His vote tally was in the low 60's. It was manipulated to insure mister Wonderful's popular alleged mandate. I know in my heart and soul that that is true. But can't prove it at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC