Standing Alongside Kos

OK, imagine an issue where this site closely aligned with a Daily Kos diary.

Right now, if you live in California, there’s something you need to do. Here’s what’s on Kos:

The Plan:  CALL 5 SENATORS on CA Senate Rules Committee (see #s below)

You will be requesting Subpoenas on KEY WITNESSES — on election industry and certification insiders who did not come forth on the 16th to testify under oath.

The Goal:  Subpoena-induced sworn testimony from voting machine vendors and errant testing labs, voting machine examiners.




Here is your contact list for the Rules Committee, you need not be Californian:  Urge support for subpoenas of election industry and certification insiders who didn’t testify on the 16th.


Senator Don Perata (Chair) D

(916) 651-4009  
District office (510) 286-1333

Senator Jim Battin (Vice-Chair) R
(916) 651-4037

Senator Roy Ashburn R
(916) 651-4018

Senator Debra Bowen D
– (Ms. Bowen is mounting this case and will be busy preparing, emails are welcomed– See below*)

Senator Gilbert Cedillo D
(916) 651-4022


SECOND-  What to say:

Be concise, be polite, be professional. Here’s your message: ask for “Rules Committee support for subpoenas of election industry and certification insiders who won’t otherwise inform the Elections Committee as to what’s going on”.

The key people:  Diebold head programmers, federal testing labs (Ciber, Wyle) that repeatedly certified these flawed systems, voting system examiners who took taxpayer money, spent hours on  so-called “security exams” on systems your 12-year old sister can hack, then repeatedly recommended for certification.

This is about volume of calls logged, emails sent.  Not only should YOU make calls, but this needs to go out to your list.

Polite, professional, short clear message, FIRM is what works. Your passion and conviction will speak volumes.

Once subpoenas go out, that will have nationwide impact. Never before have the key witnesses had to answer questions under oath in public.  That will unravel the garment, and we are so close.  Demonstrate that the citizenry of America wants those guys compelled to testify, with subpoena power, under oath.  Per Bev Harris…”Perjury will follow”.  It’s our best shot that is achievable before the critical Nov. elections.


THIRD – if you want to do more:

Suggestions from Bev Harris of

Next comes gathering evidence in the form of public records.  I’ll work with any who volunteer to send customized public records request letters, will help
you learn the ropes, will suggest some really juicy stuff to ask for.  This year, it is all about mentoring individuals to regain their power as citizens. Just one
person can make a difference.

But you need evidence, and records requests are the best way to get it. For the power of a single records request by a single individual, look at what Joan Quinn achieved in the article called “Voting machine examiners chickening out” on our home page, I think it’s the third article down on

* UPDATE:  State Senator Debra Bowen, working feverishly on the forefront of election integrity, wrote me last night to request that we email her offices rather than call. Her words:

“Email is great because it is easy for us to log and report — and we can actually prove how many emails we’ve received!”

“We are going to need an enormous amount of people power in the next couple of weeks.   Together we can change this whole pathetic mess.  Let’s stand up for our democracy RIGHT NOW.”

“Please email me in support of issuing subpoenas rather than calling  — you will save my staff a great deal of time logging calls, and you know what kind work we have
to do right now.  You can always call and fax later!”

Use this address:

“Anyone cross-posting, please include the contact info —  and the email address.  My team will strategize
about this in the next 24 hours.  There is so much happening at once.”

“I have a stack of documents to read, so I’m going to log off.  We’ll get our  contact plan out before offices open on Tuesday, but email doesn’t have to wait for the end of a holiday weekend.”



For more information on election issues, see my website: Who’s Counting? Recommend the Chapters on “Technology” and “The Companies” as a Primer.

Tags: Diebold, McPherson, California elections, Election fraud, Action Alert, Election reform, 2006 elections, Debra Bowen (all tags)

11 thoughts on “Standing Alongside Kos”

  1. Before “this site” hitches its wagon, it should probably know that Bev’s spiel is predicated on the assumption that the 2004 election was stolen by Bush, Rove, Diebold, et al. IMHO, any serious voter reform advocacy movement must jetison the BDS crowd and present their analysis in a bipartisan manner.

    I’ll just ask these questions straight.

    Is it the opinion of WOC that evidence exists that casts doubt the outcome of the 2004 US Presidential election?

    What does _”Perjury will follow.”_ mean?

  2. As a professional, based on what I have read of these Diebold machines, I agree that they are probably badly flawed and that the process is flawed.

    However, this post is not going out to a technically knowledgeable audience. It is going out mainly to people who have no way of knowing whether anything in this post is actually true (they are not going to read up on the technical background to the material linked to by the material that is linked to, to determine whether or not it is really all true), and it is trying to convince those people that they really know what is going on, that they’re mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore, that they’re so mad in fact that they are going to fire off an angry letter or phone call.

    I think this is irresponsible.

    Also, the actual KOS post is even worse than you make it appear. It says that there is “100% public opposition” to the machines, and that the machines are part of a plot to make the state “Rovian Red”.

  3. Guys, I’ve dipped pretty deeply into this, and the level of risk presented by these machines is just unacceptable.

    I don’t believe that the 00 or 04 elections had outcomes that were tampered with – any more than most elections have been – in part because electronic voting machines were not pervasive enough to have swung the election in the key staesttes.

    But the rising tide of doubt in the legitimacy of the outcomes is the strongest possible argument for electoral processes and systems that are transparent, auditable, and trusted.

    All racers want accurate stopwatches.


  4. But the rising tide of doubt in the legitimacy of the outcomes is the strongest possible argument for electoral processes and systems that are transparent, auditable, and trusted.

    What is the evidence of a “rising tide of doubt in the legitimacy of the outcomes” other than the usual griping and conspiracy-mongering by those who disagree with the outcome?

    Seems to me that by hitching WOC’s wagon onto DK’s only serves to validate this behavior and ensure that we will have more of it in the future.

  5. Thorley, I’m not hitching WoC’s wagon onto DK’s, I’m hitching it onto a critically important issue. People do have issues with election outcomes, and are being more aggressive in raising them.

    I need to do another post explaining this, I think…


  6. LTEC- I find your reasoning slightly mindblowing. You seem to be pro ignorance if I read that right. You state that you have looked into it and feel that it is a flawed process. and then poo poo getting more info. Aren’t you at least currious to see more? I am relying on techie types like yourself to get to the bottom of this and make sure our ‘stopwatches are accurate’. I dont want to win an election that is tainted by doubts, do you?

  7. Marc – if you’re going to argue from authority (#3), then associating the argument with DKos is probably not the place to start, given the ‘reasoning’ pattern of “We lost, therefore they cheated.” A lot of us have grown understandably leary of fellow traveling with those whose motives are grossly different.

    How about an argument from first causes? And remember I say the following as a practicing venture capitalist:

    If there’s one place you can make an argument for externalities, it’s clean elections. The benefits are truly indivisible and non-exclusive. Even a libertarian leaning R like myself won’t push back on saying this is and should be public goods.

    If so, what argument is there for the machinery of the process being in any way opaque and proprietary? Surely, if there’s one place for open source and open process, it’s here. (And it doesn’t even mean Diebold dies, just that they have to build on an open base.)

    Why should the electorate be worse served than the gaming industry (which manages to do code reviews of slot machines, for instance)? If the electorate is going to foot the bill, perhaps it should be entitled to a few non-negotiable items in the deliverables?

    See, no paranoia required!

  8. Max —

    I am not advocating ignorance. I feel that I know enough about this issue, and I am advocating that if other people are interested in this issue, then they should actually learn about it. Then, and only then, if they feel so moved, should they write and make phone calls to complain.

    I feel that KOS and AL are advocating that people who are ignorant of an issue should nevertheless be convinced by fiery writing to take a stand. I think this is wrong. It is certainly short-sighted on AL’s part.

  9. Tim –

    That’s what the “I need to do another post explaining this” was about…I’ll work on it tonight.

    LTEC –

    Most political organizing relies of passionate people calling out for others to join them. You (and others) have to decide whether you want to.

    I clearly need to do a compendium post on this, and will.


  10. I wish I lived in California (well, for this singular issue anyway). Phoenix doesn’t have them though (thank god), but I may be in a state next year that does, and then I’ll petition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>