Is Olbermann covering the e-voting stuff anymore?

I was first introduced to Keith Olbermann around the 2004 election. He was the only one in the MSM who was willing to report on all the crap going on in Ohio, exit polls, e-voting etc...

Since then I've had him on my Tivo every day and I watch him a couple times a week. With all the incredible stories in the last few weeks concerning Diebold and the other voting machine manufacturers (Hursti hack, California, Texas, Chicago...) I would think he would be reporting on some of this. But I haven't noticed him mention any of it, even once.

Am I just coincidentally not watching when he covers these stories, or is he not covering them?

Too much other Crap to report on I guess. Olbermann is still the only one who covers stories such as this one, so when he doesn't, it receives no coverage at all. It would be nice if he did, but I appreciate that he is the only one who at least tries to shed light into what's going on.

because this story is just as important as the other things he's reporting on. The damn Secretary of State of California is being sued for certifying illegal voting machines. the Diebold machines have been found to have illegal code on them. This story is huge. If he's not covering it, i'd like to know why.

he certainly covers enough other stuff that is meaningless, like gossip and entertainment news...

The damn Secretary of State addressed legitimate issues raised by informed authorities. The "compiled code" was a matter of interpretation.

You're not going to get serious coverage until you understand the real issues involved. The more hysterical you sound, the easier you are to ignore.

I wish DUers would get over the hype and start working on real solutions to the inherent flaws in DREs. The moment you cry "Diebold" you demonstrate your ignorance.

the machines are illegal in california. they violate Federal Election Code guidelines, volume 1, section 4.2.2 which state clearly that interpreted code is not allowed.

California law requires the systems to be in compliance with the guidelines.

McPherson certfied the machines knowing that they were illegal. He is being sued. It is a huge story.

with all due respect, what planet are you on?

I'm a computer engineer and was informed on this issue when you were still figuring out how to post - I have examined the Diebold code ... did you?

I guess not - then you'd be wise to listen to what I have to tell you. As for planets, Google my name and Florida - you'll see what I've accomplished by knowing facts and reporting accurately.

There's nothing clear about the "interpreted code" issue - go look at VerifiedVoting.org.

The Cal SoS certified the machines conditionally ... addressing all the issues raised by legitimate professionals. You're someone who revels in his ignorance.

So with all due respect, the reason you're getting no traction with this story is because you don't understand it - and the more you should "Diebold", the lower you'll be regarded.

I think that's harsh on gary, although I probably understand your frustration as well as anyone at DU. But that's not what I'm posting about. I'm having a hard time sorting out the CA issues -- too much else going on.

What on earth is a "conditional" certification? I mean, the phrase implies that the certification can and will be revoked if conditions aren't met by a date certain. But my personal experience with "conditional" approvals does not inspire confidence. (Sort of like when Congress votes on presidential war powers -- often a colossal buck-pass that cannot readily be walked back. Hmm, that's a caffeine-deprivation mixed metaphor, but I kinda like it.)

Maybe you could comment on pertinent parts of Debra Bowen's letter at (e.g.) http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=968&Itemid=113 and/or articulate why you think that McPherson's actions adequately "address() all the issues raised by legitimate professionals"? I really want to know.

The thread started with a question and I answered it; if you don't like it, don't attack the messenger.

Conditional certification happens all the time - it's part of the discretion elected officials have. In long and heated discussions with my brother, the lawyer in the family, I have learned to appreciate the wide latitude they're afforded.

Back when DREs were first applied to voting systems, I came to rely on the judgment of Dr David Dill, who started http://www.verifiedvoting.org. I can wholeheartedly endorse their analysis which can be found at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6339

I'm not frustrated. You can't imagine how satisfied I was when Florida was prevented from applying their scrub list in 2004 - and I'm pleased that the prevailing attitude toward DREs is suspicion ... I helped, and that's the remedy.

But it's easy to be led astray and that's what happened here - long after reliable sources like Dr Dill pronounced the Diebold was no worse, but no better than any other e-voting system, some hold fast to the illusion that there's evidence out there of deliberate coding fraud.

In general, the trend is positive - more state legislatures are adopting paper trail requirements but, as on many other issues, conservative interests have been acting for decades and we're in damage-control mode. If I can awaken just a few to the possibility that repeating a discredited allegation does a disservice to the cause they wish to promote, it's worth the unfounded criticism.

Yes, I've read Axelrod too. I don't think that Gary would interpret your strategy as tit for tat, since you criticized him before he criticized you. But I know that I would like to impose a cost for confidently stating things that aren't true, which is apparently what you think he did.

For instance, someone just proudly linked to a new overview of the 2000 and 2004 elections that claims flatly, "Exit polls are so accurate that the variation between the final vote count and the sampling is plus or minus one tenth of one percent." Let's see, if we could assume that exit polls were unbiased, then to attain a margin of error of 0.1%, we would need samples of one million voters per state. Actually bigger because exit polls use a cluster design, but let's not quibble. (It's stupid to assume that exit polls are unbiased, although of course it is hard to prove that to someone who really, really wants them to be.)

So... I am looking for a strategy to increase the (immediately observable) cost of defection from reality. From that vantage, I think I can more or less understand your position. I certainly agree with your conclusion: both that repeating a discredited allegation is harmful, and that it is worth trying to make that point. (Now, if you can honestly say that you aren't frustrated that people do repeat discredited allegations, then you are far more phlegmatic, or something, than I am. Lucky for you.)

OK, back to substance. I don't disagree with you on the broad principle of official discretion; I just don't know how it plays out in this instance, partly because I am missing some key facts. Does conditional certification mean that boards can actually buy these machines? If so, then what is the remedy if Diebold doesn't meet the conditions? The analysis that you linked to says, "Further, Verified Voting strongly questions the wisdom of permitting counties to make new purchases of either the Diebold AV-OS or AV-TSx systems, at least until such time as Diebold has successfully implemented and obtained federal certification for the longer-term solutions recommended in the Berkeley report." That seems reasonable to me.

I'm not trying to cherry-pick: it also seems reasonable to me that where these machines are already in use, short-term mitigation strategies are reasonable, especially in local elections. I don't labor under the illusion that Diebold, or "electronic voting," is the first and last threat to election integrity.

I imagine he would avoid it if he could, but it gets viewers and ratings, among the more "stupid" set I suppose. But unfortunately, in his position, I'd rather have him spending half the time covering news intelligently, and the other half doing fluff pieces....than not have him on the air at all.

I think it's going to be hard to get acceptance of this in the Corporate Media, even though it's obvious to a great many of us at DU that something is Fraudulent.

if people don't know what's going on, they won't try to do anyting about it.

if you want to help get the word out, copy and distribute the free CDROM-- "Electronic Voting: A Threat to Democracy"

http://solarbus.org/cd

How he handles the 9-11 truth explosion will be edifying.