Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Think Ohio Needs More Than 2 Parties on Our '08 Ballot???

OK democracy advocates – it’s time to get moving here.

Even the staunchest Republicans and Democrats must recognize that to have a robust democracy, we must have choices. And most election integrity advocates, and it seems more and more voters not aware that elections take active year-round participation of all of us, are realizing that the future of our country is no longer about simple duality, no longer simple choices or alignments anymore.

On May 21, Secretary of State Brunner put out an important Directive about what we must do to keep more than just the traditional two parties on next year’s Ohio ballot.

Greens, Libertarians, or ??? will not automatically be allowed to be on without our a) creating and getting approved a petition for each party additional to R’s and D’s and b.) getting the required number – over 20,114 of valid signatures by November 26, 2007 to just allow the party to get on the ballot.
Those parties’ candidate’s petitions will then be yet a whole separate matter – a whole separate set of petitions.

Here is the very explanatory Directive 2007-09 - Political Party Access to the Ballot in Ohio. It was in a an image scanned form so I could not cut and paste the text. And because I can't seem to access it again on the SoS site at this time, I provide a link to my saved copy.

Who out there is willing to take up the charge of standing for one (or more) of the more minority parties, and starting a statewide petition campaign. Almost 25,000 signatures- when one considers that we must get enough to end up with the required number of valid signatures, even after mistakes of some some signers and some circulators - by early November makes it NOT TOO SOON TO START NOW.

Secretary Brunner Starts Process of Testing Electronic Voting Systems

Brunner Seeks Proposals to Test Voting Systems

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on Monday sought proposals from experts to test the capability and security of the voting machines used in Ohio.

According to the Request for Proposals released by Secretary Brunner, system evaluations will examine the technology of the touch-screen and optical scan machines as well as the software. The evaluation will also conduct volume and usability testing on each election system.

The evaluation, expected to begin in mid-summer and to be completed in the fall of this year, advances a top priority of Secretary Brunner's: Improving the integrity of and bolstering public confidence in Ohio's elections. Proposals are due by July 9, the Secretary of State's office said.

The results of the testing process will be used to make improvements in the handling and securing of voting machines before, during and after elections, the Secretary of State's office said.

“This is a vital step to assuring voters that Ohio's elections are safe, reliable and accurate and that the results can be trusted,“ said Brunner, Ohio's top elections official.

“With Ohio's pivotal role in the last presidential election and the likely emphasis that will be placed on our vote in the next, we owe it to our state and the nation to bring in the best experts available to examine these systems,“ said Brunner.

“If problems are detected, we will work to find a solution. We will also gain valuable insight to improve election security procedures to ensure the integrity of our vote,“ Brunner added.

The testing seeks a comprehensive, independent and objective assessment of the risks to election integrity associated with Ohio's voting systems. The three manufacturers of voting systems in Ohio are Election Systems & Software; Diebold Election Systems and Hart InterCivic.

Testing is expected to be complete by Sept. 20, 2007 or as mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of State's office and the experts who are selected, according to the request.

">To view the RFP, click here (PDF).

">To view a county by county map of Ohio's voting systems, click here (PDF).

">To view facts about the EVEREST project and the RFP, click here (PDF).


Media Contacts:
Patrick Gallaway, Director of Communications, (614) 752-2450
Jeff Ortega, Assistant Director of Communications, Media: (614) 466-0473.

Well I don't know about this. The goals could get very mirky here for they don't start out very clearly, in my opinion.

I don’t understand why we keep avoiding the basics.

  • Why we’re not getting systems designers first find out what is needed for fair, accurate, transparent elections, then bring in the computer scientists to decide how these machines pose risks to those basic needs/ thus what needs to be developed.
  • Or why we keep starting from the massive security and operational limits of the machines, to see how we might “mitigate” risks – when such mitigations have proved also too costly, only partially reliable (leaving the other parts able to improperly sway elections) and completely impractical to rely upon for the decisions of who will be our next president etc.

I do wish this project great success. But I also wish this office would define/take a clear stance on such things as

  • election integrity
  • accuracy - ( not as some expert’s mathematical probability, especially not in some audit that takes place after some election, mainly to pacify the people still disgruntled that we still can't see votes being counted; we still can't count them ourselves if we wanted to (we can only look at some long skinny paper tapes that some other secret software told the machines to print something on) - but as accuracy as we all know accuracy)
  • transparency – so we all can verify our votes in ways that make sense to human minds, make sure that results make sense, and can watch our votes being counted – not have them announced from some secret software that we’re only told “just counts,”or by some other “experts” who looked at probabilities and mitigations
  • independent – to stop this burgeoning of computer “experts” and academics eager to build whole new careers, on more billions of our money over this 2002 HAVA fiasco and the impossible-for-fair elections machines it's left us with throughout the nation.
We'll be following this one closely to see if it helps or further hinders democracy.....
When will enough be enough? Who will finally say it- ENOUGH!
Let's cut our massive and continuing losses, and get on with teh business of democracy!

The Future Looks Bright - not politically pushed, pulled or stained

Last Monday, at the June 11 board meeting Jane Platten was chosen as the new Director of the CCBOE.
We are fortunate. This was a decision made with managerial wisdom for the voters of this county and without bending to past political pressure, and future political hopes of a few.
Platten has demonstrated herself bright, caring, and deeply capable as a manager who understands the purpose of elections.

The last paragraphs of last Sunday’s PD article says it all. And knowing Platten it is far from a fake statement. She truly understands:

She will deal with budgets, polling issues and computers. With each issue, she will make an addition to her to-do lists on her wall or fire off late-night e-mails to her staff. She said she will manage the office with her staff's input, as well as the community's.

And it's all done for one reason:

"It's so that people like my mom and dad can go to vote with confidence and know that the privilege of voting will be handled correctly. . . . To many people, voting is sacred."

Here is Last Tuesday’s PD article by Joan Mazzolini about Platten’s being chosen.
Interim election director stays
New Board of Elections votes, 3-1, for Jane Platten
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Joan Mazzolini
Plain Dealer Reporter
The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections members surprised many by appointing their interim director to
the permanent position Monday.
Jane Platten, 39, started at the board in March 2004 as head of administrative services, includ ing human
re sources, pur chasing and community out reach. But last year, she had been tapped to turn around poll
worker recruitment and training for the November election.
"I look forward to continuing my work as director of the Board of Elections," Platten said after the meeting.
"The work at hand is one of an 'us proposition' that involves the whole community.
"I understand that to be accountable we need strong partnerships with the secretary of state, the county
commissioners, county prosecutor and, ultimately, the voters," she said. The board is still under
administrative oversight by the Ohio secretary of state's office.
During the May 2006 primary, hundreds of poll workers were no-shows and hundreds more complained of
poor training that left them ill-prepared to set up the new touch-screen voting machines used countywide
for the first time. Hundreds of polling locations opened late.
Even with her success in November, and the successful May primary she conducted recently, her
appointment came as a surprise to many.
The board's 3-1 vote for Platten highlighted some behind-the-scenes disagreement.
While board members Inajo Davis Chappell, Eben "Sandy" McNair and Rob Frost voted for Platten, Jeff
Hastings voted against.
After the meeting, Hastings said "Billy Denihan" had been his first choice, though he praised Platten and
said he is convinced she will do an excellent job. He pledged to do everything he can to help her succeed.
Platten is the fourth director of the board since 2000. Her predecessors, Bill Wilkins, Tom Jelepis and
Michael Vu, all left under controversial circumstances.
William Denihan, 69, had been the front-runner initially after applying for the position under the former
But appointing a new director stalled when Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner asked the four board
members to resign earlier this year. The former director and deputy director had just been forced out of
their jobs by the board because of the disastrous May 2006 primary, despite the successful November
Platten, who was asked to serve as interim director during the search, did not apply for the position at first.
Platten became interim director in March.
But she put her name in after the new board went against the advice of the search committee and began
accepting new applicants.
Platten's official salary was not determined at Monday's meeting. The position's salary was advertised as
up to $120,000.
Board members said they are eager to move toward finding a deputy director.
"Platten will be significantly involved in that search," Hastings said.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
jmazzolini@plaind.com, 216-999-4563
© 2007 The Plain Dealer
© 2007 cleveland.com All Rights Reserved.

And here is the link to the PD Sunday feature about our new CCBOE Director.
New elections chief focuses on lists and plans
Sunday, June 17, 2007
John Caniglia
Plain Dealer Reporter

Here also is the link to the PD editorial
reminding of how difficult (and dangerous) Platten’s new position can be. Four CCBOE Directors since 2000.

But lucky for us and her, none of those people came in with the experience, talent and drive behind them that Platten has. None of them came in with such strong support of so many agencies from the Secretary of State on down; and none came in with the also majorly important ingredient- a majority of a board so determined and willing to get citizens’ elections right, far more than political deal-making (…at least not yet, and hopefully not at all.)

I will be posting film of Platten’s last Wednesday’s swearing in by next week.

As example of just one of the tasks before Platten and the board is demonstrated by this list of staff positions on the CCBOE web site. There are a number of key slots to fill well, as Platten continues to build and support currently committed staff members:
Director Jane Platten
Deputy Director
Elections Coordinator
Administrator of Community Outreach and Administrative Services

Monday, June 18, 2007

And Vu AGAIN- A Must Read - San Diego Activists for Democracy Remain Outraged

Fox 6 News in San Diego has been following the voter outrage in San Diego caused by the hiring of Michael Vu.
In my own just getting back to blogging after some time off here, I must begin by catching up on the late May activist activities there, and the (unprecedented - for Cleveland) wonderful media coverage Vu's questionable background is duly receiving.

Paul Lehto, nationally well known elections integrity lawyer and activist there , along with attorney Ken Simpkins sent me these links.
They are truly worth a good look.
Start here: ( Just goes to show you how a little documenting and a lot of working together nationwide can can help us help our country's democracy.) This, "Questionable Background" went up on May 21, 2007:

Then still listed as a "hot topic"on May 23, the "Voter Outrage" video went up:

Then more printed content went up on their site:

Lehto and Simpkins, so-founders of an organization named Psephos, also held a news conference.
Lehto wrote in an email:
A gift from Psephos to Interim Registrar Michelle Townsend, Registrar-Appoint Deborah Seiler, Asst. Registrar-Appoint Michael Vu, and, most importantly, a gift to Diebold:
We Present to you, this 10 minute feature expose' on FOX TV in San Diego, to honor your corruption of the recounts in the 2004 presidential election, to give tribute to your secret vote counting software, to indict the entire electoral process in Ohio, to indict the entire electoral process in San Diego, to remember that thousands did not receive their ballots in Ohio, to condemn the loss of voter registrations, and to make damn sure that Judge Corrigan's comments (the trial judge in the felony convictions in the Ohio recount rigging in the 2004 presidential elections) are remembered and available on video:
On video, Judge Corrigan says to the convicted Ohio election officials: "Protecting other people, I don't know, it seems unlikely that your superiors didn't know." ---Judge Peter Corrigan
Then there is (not yet available on webstream) a five minute discussion interview that aired live in which Psephos pointed out that Vu was the superior, where Psephos attorney and co-founder Ken Simpkins pointed to the lack of accountability of these appointed election vendor apologists, and denounced the lack of checks and balances and lack of citizen control over elections. Consistent with earlier coverage of the San Diego Union Tribune quoting Psephos' Paul Lehto, Deborah Seiler's 12 years with Diebold and Sequoia were acknowledged for her skills as "one of the nation's foremost apologists for electronic secret vote counting." Ken rocked!
We also had a packed Supervisors in a mid-morning meeting with numerous public comments taking on the supervisors for approving secret vote counting, buying millions more in machines the day before this public comment, and being unresponsive to polls stating that over 80% of San Diegans want a transparent voting system. Some citizens were getting so upset two got ejected from the room, but each public comment in favor of democracy was greeted with enthusiastic applause, and even a comment by a Supervisor about the patriotic war in Iraq got greeted by widespread boos and hisses. Many local citizens and activists attended and a half dozen or more made comments.
Our press conference at 1030 was also well attended by TV and print media. Here's the Fox News link for the San Diego story (first half of it)
or go to www.fox6.com and choose the link to today's feature story QUESTIONABLE BACKGROUND.
A special salute to Ohio activists like Adele Eisner, and Kathleen Wynne who got critical video for the Cuyahoga case, and others who played key roles in developing the Ohio evidence against Vu.
Vu's record is now following him wherever he goes, as it should. Off the record, media is calling the whole thing "sordid."
You could say that the weather is San Diego is HOT. When the election PR department and officials refuse to respond to repeated calls for comment, they are IN HIDING.
But politicians should know that when it comes to elections, they can Run for office, but they can't Hide. They can't hide the vote counting -- nor can they hide from the cameras in San Diego either.
Paul Lehto, Co-founder, Psephos (SEA-foss)
Ken Simpkins, Co-founder, Psephos
Linda Poniktera, Co-founder, Psephos

Then there are the stories in the San Diego North County Times like this:
Protesters criticize county elections hirings
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer
May 23, 2007
SAN DIEGO -- Tuesday's county Board of Supervisors meeting drew a restive crowd, with two people ejected, while dozens of other electronic voting opponents protested recent hirings for the county's elections department.

Between 40 and 50 people showed up at the board meeting to protest the county's recent decisions to hire Deborah Seiler and Michael Vu as the county's top two elections officials, registrar and assistant registrar of voters.

The protests also included sharp criticisms of electronic voting in general, and devolved into shouts from audience members, rebukes from supervisors, and a declaration from county Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard that Seiler, Vu and electronic voting were here to stay.

Seiler, who most recently served as the assistant registrar of voters in Solano County, also worked as a sales representative with Ohio-based Diebold Elections Systems, and was directly involved in the company's sale of 10,200 "touch screen" election machines to San Diego County.

Protesters said Seiler had a conflict of interest because as a Diebold employee, she benefited financially from the sale of the machines to the county, and because she, as a former Diebold employee, supported a system that could rig elections.

Vu, meanwhile, resigned in February as executive director of Ohio's Cuyahoga County election board, where two elections workers were convicted of rigging a 2004 presidential election recount.

Protesters said Vu's resignation and the problems in Cuyahoga showed he was incompetent.

Vu could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Seiler, who will take over as county registrar June 4, said in a phone interview after Tuesday's protest that she hoped people would consider her entire elections career when judging her.

The 57-year-old Seiler's elections experience started in the 1970s, and she said it demonstrated a "clear dedication to voters and the process of elections administration."

Among other jobs, she spent seven years with the California secretary of state's office, eventually becoming assistant to the secretary of state for elections and political reform. She also served as a commissioner for California's Fair Political Practices Commission, worked in the private sector with Diebold and a rival, Sequoia Pacific Systems, and as an elections officer in Solano County.

Seiler said she believed that the fact she was familiar with three different types of electronic voting systems added to her elections experience.

"I'm not beholden to any of those companies," Seiler said.

Ken Simpkins, leader of a recently created local elections watchdog group, opened Tuesday's comments, telling supervisors that San Diego County had become the "laughingstock for the country for election integrity" by hiring Seiler and Vu.

Chief Administrative Officer Ekard -- who has publicly defended his hirings of Seiler and Vu, and who previously characterized many anti-electronic voting critics as "conspiracy theorists" intent on undermining public confidence in elections -- immediately responded to the criticisms.

Ekard said election integrity was "paramount" to him, county workers and supervisors, called electronic voting criticism "tired arguments," and defended Seiler and Vu, calling them honorable people with decades of elections experience who would ensure the integrity of the county's elections.

At a break in the meeting, Simpkins said that he and other electronic-voting opponents believe that the machines can be rigged to register "secret votes" -- electronically tabulating a vote for a candidate the voter did not select while printing out the name of the voter's chosen candidate on the printed vote copy that was designed to prevent fraud.

"Mr. Ekard and his board are overseeing the implementation of a system of secret vote counting in San Diego," Simpkins alleged. "It cannot be an accident that the most controversial elections officials in the country... are here in San Diego."

Members of the audience broke into applause at the end of Simpkins' and subsequent protesters' comments, a demonstration that county officials routinely ask audience members not to do. However, board Chairman Ron Roberts chose not to admonish the audience until it was the county's turn to speak in response.

Ekard told the audience he supported the two new election officials.

"I understand that there are those of you who disagree with my hires," Ekard said. "I have heard you. I have listened to you. I disagree with you, and that's it. They will be on staff to ensure ..."

At that moment, a woman in the audience shouted out, challenging Ekard.

Roberts stopped the proceedings, and asked the woman to leave, saying that county officials had politely listened to the protesters.

But then, another woman, Becky Hostetter, angrily shouted back at Roberts that county officials had indeed interrupted the public speakers, a charge that seemed not to be true unless she referred to Roberts' telling speakers when their two-minute time limits were up.

Roberts then told Hostetter to leave, which prompted her to yell even louder as she retreated.

"What you're doing is wrong," Hostetter shouted, her voice increasing in volume as she continued. "You're subverting democracy -- and we won't have it!"

Ekard again tried to finish. Crowd members once again jeered, and Supervisor Pam Slater-Price lashed out.

"Excuse me please," Slater-Price said. "During the time you were speaking, we did not boo, hiss, catcall or laugh. That is very rude and totally unacceptable behavior."

Board members, meanwhile, listened only to five of the public speakers at the beginning of the meeting, choosing to trail the remainder until the end of the meeting, which concluded without incident.

Meanwhile, at the break, the audience members held a planned demonstration outside, holding up placards such as "Stop ignoring the voters of San Diego County," and "Seiler and Vu = sleaze X 2." One woman, wearing a pink "Impeach Bush and Cheney" T-shirt and a wolf mask, carried a poster-sized sign emblazoned with a quote attributed to deceased journalism icon Edward R. Murrow, "A nation of sheep soon begets a government of wolves."

Although the county of San Diego ran a relatively problem-free set of elections in November 2006 with its electronic voting machines, and most voters seemed to like the machines, electronic voting has not outgrown controversy that suggests that they could be rigged to throw elections.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, herself an electronic voting critic, has ordered a "top to bottom" $1.8 million retesting of all California electronic voting systems.

Bowen said she hoped the review could be finished by August, and that electronic systems could be decertified if they prove vulnerable to tampering.

Meanwhile, Simpkins' watchdog group has filed a complaint with Bowen's office alleging that county officials committed several crimes and wrongdoing during last November's elections.

County officials have responded to queries from Bowen's office, but no determinations have been made.

-- Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com
Or this:
County's registrar Deborah Seiler says she hopes to win over critics
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO -- New Registrar of Voters Deborah Seiler said Wednesday that she wants people to know she's committed to serving voters, and that she hopes to win over critics who say she never should have been hired by the county.

Sitting in her unadorned office, Seiler, 57, said that she and county officials knew her appointment would be controversial -- because she had spent two years working for Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems and was part of a marketing team that helped sell 10,200 electronic voting machines to San Diego County.

Those critics have said Seiler's background represents a conflict of interest.

But Seiler rejected that allegation Wednesday -- as well as suggestions that electronic voting machines are inherently dangerous because they can be rigged -- in her first official batch of interviews as registrar. She said she worked for two years with Diebold in a 30-year elections career that included 11 years with the secretary of state's office in Sacramento, and, most recently, three years as registrar in Solano County.

"There is no conflict of interest -- legal or ethical; I have no financial ties to any company," she said.

Elections officials have used computers to help count votes for 40 years, Seiler said, long before recent moves to "touch screen" and other electronic machines created controversy.

For example, she said, the old punch cards that people used for decades were actually counted by computers that "read" the holes.

Seiler said she was not saying that electronic machines could "never" be rigged, or that elections officials shouldn't be careful with their use. But people have been sounding alarms that computers were not safe to count votes for decades, she said, and those alarms have not become reality.

"I think that's good context for voters," she said.

Meanwhile, Seiler said she plans to try to talk to a few local groups who have loudly criticized electronic voting -- at protests such as a recent county supervisors meeting that saw two people ejected.

"As registrar, if there's even a small contingent of people who are concerned, then I'm concerned," she said. "I want people to trust the system. Or I want people to at least understand the system."

Seiler said the county's own touch screens performed without a hitch Tuesday in a special election in Vista for residents to decide whether to allow the city to adopt a charter.

However, Seiler -- and counties across California -- still do not know if they'll be able to use their electronic systems in the state's February presidential primary elections.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced last month that she plans to review all the existing systems in an investigation that will include computer hacking "penetration teams," and that the machines could be decertified.

Seiler said Wednesday that she and county officials are worried because Bowen's review has created uncertainty that could make pulling off three big elections in 2008 -- February's presidential primary, a local June primary, and November's presidential election -- more difficult to pull off.

Elections officials say that primary elections are often the most difficult to coordinate because ballots -- which must be printed in four languages -- must also be printed in several different types because voters in primaries can only vote only for their respective party's races.

Seiler said she doubts that Bowen can actually conduct a "top to bottom" review in the next two months, which could leave county rushing to find backup options by February's primary.

Seiler said that Bowen has stated that the review would be done using 2002 federal guidelines that were 6 inches thick.

"It takes the (federal elections agencies) eight to nine months to go through hundreds of thousands of lines of source code; these people (Bowen) are going to do it in three weeks?" Seiler said.

Seiler also questioned Bowen's use of computer hackers to test the safety of electronic machines. A number of government, academic and private computer groups have hacked into existing systems in laboratory settings, showing vulnerability and arguing the machines could possibly "throw" elections.

But Seiler, as other elections officials have said in the past, said the laboratory tests lack real-world safeguards. For one thing, she said, the laboratory hackers would be given the "secret" source code for the machines.

"If you give a burglar the keys to your house and the floor plan, they're probably going to get in," she said.

However, Seiler and other county officials said their biggest worry is that Bowen's review could throw electronic machines into a sort of limbo that could leave counties struggling to figure out how to run the impending elections. For example, she said, the Bowen review could leave electronic voting machines certified -- legal for use -- but attach security conditions that would make them too expensive for counties to use.

In that case, counties could go back to using paper ballots. But, Seiler said, federal laws that took effect in 2006 say elections officials can't make disabled persons -- such as the blind -- use paper ballots. She said that's because someone would have to help them fill them out, and they would not be secret ballots.

If that happened, Seiler said, counties could be scrambling to find some alternative -- not electronic and not paper -- to use.

Seiler also said she was comfortable with the county's decision to hire another controversial elections official, Michael Vu, as assistant registrar.

Vu resigned in February as executive director of Ohio's Cuyahoga County election board, where two elections workers were convicted of rigging a 2004 presidential election recount. Cuyahoga county also made news in November 2006 when electronic voting problems prompted a federal court to order 16 polling stations to stay open more than 90 minutes after the 7:30 p.m. closing time. Despite the problems, Vu was praised by other elections officials for his work, and he said he decided to resign because he felt the Cuyahoga elections board wanted new leadership.

Seiler said she saw no problems with the county hiring Vu -- who was hired before Seiler.

"He went to court, there was all this media attention, and he was under intense scrutiny," Seiler said of Vu's relation to the convicted workers. "If there had been something there, I think they would have found it -- or indicted him."

-- Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.
There they all are now sounding somewhat like an uninformed or defensive replay of the crazy-making days of Cuyahoga. Even the North County Times editors have not put in the time to see that going back to paper ballots for elections would be the most courageous, futuristic jump for democracy made in years. Instead in their non-researched, non-understanding fog of blindly accepting electronics as some magical, wiz-bang answers to all, they call activists "regressive.
And there are all the players - still trying to perjoratively sling the term “conspiracy theorist” against those who’ve actually not rested until the real conspiracies have been exposed over the past few years, and against those who just want proven facts brought to light.
Still trying to scare people from having real elections with verifiable election results by trying to make the majority assume that current DRE’s, especially Diebold’s, are the only solution for handicapped access, when they are definitely not.
Still trying to convince people that because the vendor robber-barons and the politicians who loved them ( and their ability to undetectably manipulate elections) have gotten away with shoving this equipment down the throats of the electorate nationwide– on our multi-billions – and with not even enough time or information for the right questions to be thought to be asked by legislators approving HAVA , let alone the right answers being demanded – that now, it would somehow be foolish or wasteful to not only cut our continuing huge financial outlays to these same companies, but to take back our elections from the few profit guzzling, private companies who now control everything about them – including the results, through their secret software.

And how nice of Seiler to want Diebold critics to at least “understand” the equipment. Seiler’s problem is, however, that we are not without the facts any longer - as many election officials were when she was first passing this junk off to them. We DO UNDERSTAND, and that’s why we know the machines are unacceptable, as is her being in that conflict of interest position, and Vu’s being an election official anywhere after his demonstrated lack of competence and integrity here in Cuyahoga.

Funny how Mr’s. Eckard, Haas et al. want us to believe that Vu took criticism here ( and I really DO wonder which Cuyahoga election officials praised him, besides his order giver, Mr. Bennett) because of Cuyahoga’s size in Ohio.

But funny how the Cuyahoga elections board - without Vu (and the previous board)- is turning into a model of respect, efficiency, working together and human care – no protesting need be thought about, let alone needed.

Funny how more and more information is coming out here about just how incompetent and without integrity Mr. Vu was when he was here in Cuyahoga.

So the two big questions regarding Vu remain:
Will he be called back to finally face the charges that are due to him?
And will San Diego ever let him talk to the media ever again?
(They haven't so far....)