Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Brad Friedman, Champion of Fair Elections and Challenger of Election Theft: An Election Day Wake Up Call

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

HAVA (Help America Vote Act) has been the single, solitary most destructive event in terms of Election Integrity that I can think of. It was a disaster of a bill and has made our system far worse than it was in 2000.

-- Brad Friedman, Election integrity citizen/journalist and blogger at BradBlog.com

* * *

Since BuzzFlash started online in May of 2000, we have seen many tenacious, committed individuals who have been pursuing the goal of ensuring voting integrity in the United States, particularly after the multi-faceted attack on voter's rights -- and the private ownership, ability to manipulate results, and just plain unreliability of electronic voting machines -- that became apparent in the theft of the presidency from Al Gore.

Unfortunately, the voting issue is rather complicated and made even more confusing by the intentional strategic obfuscation of the Republican Party.

In essence, there are two basic categories of the GOP attack on voting rights: the disenfranchisement of non-Republicans and the manipulation of the actual vote (this is where electronic voting machines come in). Within these two broad categories, there are many techniques that have been employed for achieving these goals.

One of the key chroniclers of efforts to undermine our voting system is Brad of Brad Blog. Brad has been unrelenting in documenting the details of the dark side of our voting system. Unfortunately, many Democratic leaders have not taken the issue seriously enough, perhaps because they don't understand the depth of the problem, perhaps because they can't believe that the Republicans are as nefarious as they are.

BuzzFlash thought that on election day, it would be appropriate to once again focus on the ongoing need to reform our voting system, ensure every eligible voter gets a ballot, and end the privatization of our vote counting systems.

And so here is our interview with Brad Friedman.

* * *


BuzzFlash: You are perhaps the top blog specialist doing first-hand reporting almost solely on what we call the GOP war to keep all eligible voters from voting, which is to say the Republican effort to keep Democratic votes from being cast or counted. Are we correct in saying that this is primarily a Republican strategy?

Brad Friedman: It's entirely a Republican strategy. And a long-term, well-funded and systematic one at that.

I've seen absolutely no evidence that Democrats are doing the same. I have seen extraordinary incompetence and utter denial from Dems, including the Barack Obama campaign's "election protection" effort when it comes to concerns about voting machines, and even about voter suppression and voter roll purging. But I've seen no evidence that Dems are interested in purposely keeping anybody's vote from being cast or counted.

BuzzFlash: The actual issue of voting integrity is quite complicated, to say the least. Most people, including progressives and legislators, don't understand its full dimension. But let's start with a simple premise: Are the two major issues voter suppression and electronic voting machines?

Brad Friedman: Well, let's start with your language, actually. The concern is election integrity, not "voting integrity," in that it implies the voters are doing something wrong. They're not. They're doing fine. Let's leave them alone.

The elections on the other hand, and their integrity, are another matter entirely.

Voter suppression and concerns about wholly unverifiable, wholly un-transparent, outsourced and privatized control of our public elections are two sides of the same coin. You can't worry about one without worrying about the other. That there remains an extraordinarily self-defeating rift between some of the camps concerned about front-end voter suppression, and back-end concerns about electronic results has always been troubling to me. That gap must be bridged if we want to see real election reform.

If every legal voter who wanted to vote was able to vote, it wouldn't much matter if the results are not overseeable by the citizens so that we can have confidence they are correct. On the other hand, if we finally restore a transparent voting process, but voters are still disallowed from casting their vote, we've gotten nowhere either.

I'm frequently asked about "the most important concern" for Election Reform. I'll say "all of the above!" Driving a wedge between the two concerns is incredibly self-defeating, unhelpful and just plain stupid.

BuzzFlash: Let's start with your specialty: electronic voting machines. What, in the broadest sense, is the threat that electronic voting machines pose to the electoral process?

Brad Friedman: If you can't oversee it, you can't trust it. If the citizens can't look at the voter's intent for themselves, they shouldn't ever trust it. The insane move to fully un-transparent and completely unverifiable Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting machines -- even those with fully unverifiable "paper trails -- has caused a tsunami of damage to our democracy.

The reliance on private companies to completely control and oversee our elections has become nothing short of a national security crisis. And that concern is true across the use of DREs, optically-scanned paper ballots (counted by no human beings, only greatly flawed, hackable, and unreliable secret software), and even in the voting roll and absentee ballot processes which have been similarly outsourced to private companies, held accountable by no one.

BuzzFlash: If I recall, as two examples of that threat, in 2006 we saw a race for Katherine Harris's former congressional district be determined by 18,000 electronic voting machine recorded votes that "went missing" on election eve and the Republican, Vern Buchanan, "won" by less than 400 votes. Also, there was the infamous Don Siegelman defeat in 2002 when he was declared the re-elected Governor of Alabama, only to have an electronic voting machine "error corrected" in the middle of the morning, and then he suddenly was the loser. Needless to say, the beneficiaries in both elections were Republicans. What do these two examples illustrate about the dangers of electronic voting machines?

Brad Friedman: That they are destroying the most basic American value we hold: The right to have your vote counted, counted accurately, and in such a way that society can have confidence in the determination of elections -- the right that protects all others.

BuzzFlash: What are provisional ballots and why are they dangerous to democracy?

Brad Friedman: Provisional ballots are infrequently counted. A huge percentage of them are thrown out entirely, and voters are given little or no recourse.

Also, they are not counted on Election Night when preliminary results are released to the media, and reported as "fact." You need look no further back than Bush v. Gore in 2000 when the Republicans actually argued their client would be harmed if ballots were actually counted since the media had already announced Bush the "winner" of the election.

In general, whoever is announced the "winner" on election night, gets to be the winner, whether they've actually won or not. That's why we've got to get it right on Election Night. Period.

BuzzFlash: Wasn't the federal HAVA bill supposed to resolve our voting integrity crisis? Or did it just worsen it?

Brad Friedman: HAVA has been the single, solitary most destructive event in terms of Election Integrity that I can think of. It was a disaster of a bill and has made our system far worse than it was in 2000. While the lead author, Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), eventually went to jail, Democrats such as Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT) also need to be held accountable for their co-sponsorship of the bill, and their continual denial to this day about the harm that it's caused and the hoax that it was.

BuzzFlash: What should a voter do if challenged at the polls to prevent being declared ineligible or given a provisional ballot?

Brad Friedman: Fight like hell. Make noise. Bring your video camera to document what's going on and send that video to VideoTheVote.org. Fight for your rights, courageously, boldly (and peacefully). But fight for them.

Document it well, and report what happened via official complaints to your county clerk, or Secretary of State, and call voter hotlines such as 866-MYVOTE1 and 866-OUR-VOTE. Then tell your local newspapers about it. And tell the bloggers.

BuzzFlash: We asked this of Greg Palast a couple of weeks ago: Isn't the GOP daily drumbeat against ACORN just an effort to make Americans think that there is massive voter fraud (when it is actually statistically almost non-existent) in order to engage in a broad pattern of voter suppression (i.e., Democratic votes from the poor and minorities.)

Brad Friedman: The GOP's ACORN "voter fraud" hoax is exactly that -- a hoax from top to bottom. There is no ACORN "voter fraud". I have asked and asked for any evidence of same, at the UK's Guardian, at The BRAD BLOG, and elsewhere. So far, I've been given none, because none exists.

This is about fraud against ACORN (voter registration fraud, not voter fraud) -- not fraud by them.

But most importantly, it's about creating the fear of "voter fraud," since the Supreme Court has given the signal that it doesn't matter whether voter fraud exists or not (it doesn't, not to any substantive measure in a way that could affect an election). The SCOTUS has said, wrongly in my opinion, that merely the fear of "voter fraud" is enough to implement draconian Photo ID restrictions at the polling place, and other disenfranchising voter roll purges.

The GOP heard that message loud and clear, and has been doing all they can to create the chimera of "voter fraud" even where it doesn't exist, so that they can go to court and argue that, though they can't actually demonstrate any actual voter fraud, the public "fears it," and thus, new, disenfranchising anti-voter, anti-democracy laws are needed.

It's an insidious scam, well-exploited by the bad guys. But I've learned to expect no less from a party that has become wholly bankrupt of morals and ethics, hates democracy, and despises the life-blood of our most basic American values.

BuzzFlash: Getting back to the electronic voting issue, have we made any progress in holding these private companies with sole access to their software accountable?

Brad Friedman: Not much. And I'm sorry to say it, but thank the Democrats in denial for that, and hold them accountable for it in the bargain. They've not stood up for us, even as a few private groups and citizens have (most notably, VoterAction.org) Groups such as People for the American Way, Common Cause, The National Lawyers Committee and others who are normally on the right side of most issues -- including several election reform organizations, such as Verified Voting and The Brennan Center who have been very good on other aspects of election reform -- have enabled the Democratic Party by allowing them to take the wrong steps, or no steps at all towards what needs to be done to truly reform this system.

Hate to name names, but we have to. If we wish to hold anybody accountable, we've got to start by naming "our own" and holding their feet to the fire first or nothing will ever change.

BuzzFlash: What would be your ideal voting system in the United States?

Brad Friedman: If I were King of Democracy? (I realize that's a bit of an oxymoron.) I would decree that every vote shall be cast on a hand-marked paper ballot (allowable exceptions for disabled voters, as needed); that it shall be placed in a clear box on a table in full public view until the polls are closed, that the box shall be opened and every ballot shall be counted in full public view by all parties and all members of the community who wish to participate right then and there at the end of Election Day; that results from those precinct-counted ballots shall be posted publicly before those ballots are moved anywhere.

That's an incredibly simple system, very inexpensive, fully transparent, easily re-counted again and again as needed, and very difficult to game in such a way that an election can be maliciously affected without the bad guys conspirators getting caught in the process.

Here endeth my decree.

Now get out there and vote, fight to ensure that every eligible voter in your community gets to vote, that their vote gets counted and counted accurately, and don't stop fighting this time until that happens.

After the dust has cleared, start holding everyone accountable to ensure this nation never faces these horrors again. We can either begin on Wednesday if things don't melt down on Tuesday (as I suspect they will), or on Jan 21, 2009 if we're still fighting for results we can believe in by then. Either way, it's time to get started. Please don't wait until September or October of 2010.

 

Brad Friedman:

BuzzFlash Interview conducted by Mark Karlin.

* * *

Resources

The Brad Blog

VideoTheVote.org

http://www.bradfriedman.com/

Bio (Wikipedia)

Bio (BradBlog)

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Brad is a tireless,

Brad is a tireless, determined patriotic fighter for all that is Constitutional and/or Holy. I have been following him since 2004, and I can say that he has done more investigative journalistic WORK than all the mainstream media COMBINED since then. He should be paid their combined salaries and they should be taking his orders.

Right on Brad!

I'm not familiar with all the details of HAVA but I trust Brad's take.

Political interference with voting is the most serious threat to our democracy.

1. Registration should be simple and straightforward. In Massachusetts, where I
live, you need only give your address. No ID is required to register or to vote.
I assume the towns and cities check to make sure the address is valid and that the
number of registered voters per address is more or less consistent with the size
and type of dwelling.
When you vote you give your address and your name and then you are crossed off when
you are handed a ballot.

2. When the ballots are counted the results should be posted outside the polling location -
# of registered voters, # voting in this election, #'s for each candidate, # for and
against each proposition, ballot question, bond issue etc. This way the voters can
see for themselves if the results make sense to them.

3. Optical scan or other system where the actual ballot is paper even if the counting
is electronic. There should be rules about how long paper ballots have to be preserved.
I think the old lever machines had an undeserved bad reputation. In any case, touchscreen
voting cannot be verified and should not be permitted anywhere. A paper copy of your vote
is useless because it doesn't even assure that your vote was accurately recorded much less
is it any good for demanding a recount. It's not like your bank where you can demand
consistency between your receipt and the bank's records of your own account.

4. Ballot design is more problematic but still important. Does Brad have any ideas
about how bad design, like the infamous "butterfly ballots" of Florida 2000, can be
prevented?

There should be national legislation ensuring the rights of felons to vote, at least
those who have served their sentences.

There should be no cross-checking of lists. There are ALWAYS mismatches and the voter
is left in the position of being "guilty" unless (s)he can prove her/his innocence.
I myself use one or two middle initials, and sometimes all 4 names written out. Once
my state of residence (NY) made a mistake on one of my middle initials and all efforts
to get it corrected were in vain, until I renewed. If a clerical typographical error
had disenfranchised me I'd have been enraged.

All the rules should apply to local as well as state and national elections.

Personally I don't like the idea of vote by mail. Mail can get lost or not delivered
to the correct address. I hadn't thought of the problem of lack of secrecy, but the
right to the secret ballot should not depend on the trustworthiness of those who
live at the same address.

If the Democrats are asleep on these issues, shame on them!

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

"... your ideal voting system in the United States?"

Brad's answer sounds a lot like Oregon's Vote-By-Mail system, which also provides many ballotbox drop-off sites. Most Oregonians love it, and other States would be wise to also opt for this easy fix of their current voting ills.

Perfect ought not be good's enemy.

Vote by Mail is the worst possible of ALL systems

A 2004 study shows that 0.5% of oregonians actually reported having changed their votes from what they otherwise intended because of household or other pressure while they vote their ballot at home (or wherever). That's tens of thousands of proven vote flips, and the best (indeed, the only) evidence of the intent of the voter is the voter's report. Vote by mail destroy's ballot secrecy completely and opens the Pandora's box of fraud, intimidation, violence and pressure that was epidemic in the late 1800s and is why the secret ballot was instituted in the first place. Here's what Real Voter Fraud Looks like (this is another, but related, subject) http://www.alternet.org/democracy/106042/here%27s_what_vote_fraud_really_looks_like/ lehto.paul@gmail.co

Silly objection

Oregonian's ballots are as secret as they wish them to be.

Oregon's voting percentage is so high that it obviates such small "imperfections", which likely would even out naturally anyway.

Bottom Line: It works well and very few Oregonians would even think about other systems. At least its a whole lot better than anything else out there, or at all probable to be out there anytime soon ........ so what's your and Brad's hangup with a real solution?

Anxiety of Theft

The anxiety of the possiblity of the theft of this election makes me feel like vomiting. Losing a contest fairly and squarely is acceptable, but losing to cheaters is unacceptable. If the election is stolen, I feel a JUSTIFIED NO HOLDS BARRED action on the perpetrators and thieves should and will result.