Republican computer expert re need to have audited paper ballots

This guy's entire interview is a must see. Here's the part I want to draw your attention to first, but then please, PLEASE, watch the other parts, below. This guy is my new hero, Republican or not. He tells the truth. And he shares my passion for accurate elections:

There are people out there - and there's a lot of them - who don't want to win elections. What they want to do is to steal them. They have enormous incentive for power, they have enormous incentive for money, and they have enormous willingness to go and do it. I don't want to have a society where we're not sure who won. I want to live in a democracy where there's a valid capacity to audit the entire trail.

In this section, he describes that the ONLY system that can give us a verifiable result is one cast on paper ballots, scanned optically, and then randomly handcounted - audited - to verify or challenge the results. There is NO other way to have elections with computers than to do this. Any other way is an open invitation for fraud, and if you watch the other segments, this guy is basically accusing Diebold of doing exactly that.



That was Segment 6. Here are all the segments. This guy was interviewed by ABC, but they never aired the interview. See the last segment to clearly understand why.

Segment 1 - "...there's a very strong argument to be made that the 2000 election was electronically stolen. Hanging chads was a distraction."



Segment 2 - "...[voting on a touchscreen is] basically like you walking up and opening a curtain - there's a little man there - and you say, "Hello, what's your vote?" And I say, "Well, I'd like to vote for this." He goes, "Okay, thank you," then he closes the screen and goes to a different screen and tells someone else. That next layer is the operating system. Now, you don't really know what the screen is telling the operating system because you can't see it. So unlike a vote that you've marked, the screen now takes that information and passes it to a field set in the operating system. Who knows who wrote that operating system? Diebold won't tell us."



Segment 3 - "... if you're carrying a memory card... you can just change the information on that card by overriding it ..."



Segment 4 - "I reviewed the patch that they put in Georgia 2002 that many of them claim is a clock function - it's not a clock function. ... if I were to guess what that code is, it's a vote-flipping function."



Segment 5 - "It shouldn't be [a partisan issue]. This is a fascist issue. People who don't want voting and want fascist control and people who think they're voting..."



Segment 6 - "They're lying. They're lying. Diebold is lying. There is no electronic system in the world that cannot be hacked. ... There is no system in the world - none - that cannot be hacked. ... I can't make it any clearer than this. You cannot have secure electronic voting. It doesn't exist. ... If you had complete transparency in the process ... there's no reason not to use optical scanning ... you have a paper ballot, people mark it, you scan it very quickly into a system. Now, at that point those need to have random sampling to compare the way the computer has actually recorded things to ... the handcounted paper ballots...."



Segment 7 - "...I think they're brilliantly designed. They're designed to steal elections....There are backdoors in the tabulation machines, which is what the US CERT warning is about. There's a backdoor communication that allows secondary computers to talk to the electronic tabulators electronically from a distance...."



Segment 8 - "I'm a Republican. I worked on Giuliani's campaign. I worked on Bloomberg's campaign. I worked on John McCain's campaign. I've been a lifelong member of the party. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. This is not a partisan issue. This is a democracy issue. If you actually care about a constitutional democracy in which each person votes, that vote is validated, and the people who end up in office are reflected on the basis of the way people voted, you care about this issue."

"I certainly know that in all statistical information, it seems that in every single bizarre circumstance, where exit data, polling data, or informational data swings, it has all been in favor of Republicans, but not the sort of Republicans who I want to see in office at all. These are people are people who lie, and people who cheat. This is not the conservative way. Conservatives conserve things. We are respectful, and we are constitutionally based."

You know what the real problem is? People do not want to believe that people want to steal elections in this country. ... [Overseas, we'd warn people if there was more than 2% variance between polls and results.] We have had numerous elections now... where what happens with the vote is way off - 5, 10, as much as 12% from the exit polling and the actual survey - these statistical numbers are impossible. And the problem is, Americans do not want to believe that we have people stealing our elections, and they must come to the realization that there are people in this country who want to steal elections, and we must stop them.

Amen, and thank you, Stephen Spoonamore.