Sunlight Seeker
Look up national or state donors or check where your Congresspeople are getting their money.
Media Campaign Tools
The Democratic Agenda
*Tips & Talking Points for Letters to Editors
Email The Media
*Email Iowa and national media, five at a time
Framing The Message
*UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
Simple Framing
*A step-by-step guide on how to frame progressive issues, by George Lakoff
DemSpeak
*Values Inventory, Message Identification and Development, Engagement & Rapport Strategies, Framing and Reframing Language, Strategic Development and Deployment of Frames, Mediaspace Injection Choreography, and Framing/Media Crossfire training of Capitol Hill Legislators, new TV spokespersons for progressives, Talk Radio callers, and Progressive Leaders
| January 2008 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
no4gman - Tue 15 Jul 2008 10:46 PM CDT
evaroberts - Tue 15 Jul 2008 01:20 AM CDT
Sam Garchik - Mon 02 Jun 2008 10:10 AM CDT
atomburke - Fri 23 May 2008 03:49 PM CDT
salman - Fri 23 May 2008 06:28 AM CDT
|
Friday, January 18

How many former IDP staffers does it take to run a caucs?
by
Sam Garchik
on Fri 18 Jan 2008 07:00 AM CST
How many former IDP staffers does it take to run a caucs?
By Sam Garchik
Apparently 3, but that's only if the state is Nevada, and only counting the ones that I recognize (Hessburg, Sime, and Brock). Let me know if I miscounted.
Stay tuned. NV Caucusing starts on Saturday!
Tuesday, January 8

Choose President with Rock, Paper, Scissors
by
Sam Garchik
on Tue 08 Jan 2008 07:48 AM CST
Choose President with Rock, Paper, Scissors By Ed Fallon
Zogby has Obama by 13 and McCain by 9 in NH. Stay tuned for results on Wednesday. Meanwhile, this from Fallon
Ive heard lots of entertaining stories from this years Iowa Caucuses, but none beat the following. In my caucus, a handful of Kucinich supporters were not viable. I laid out my case why John Edwards should be their second choice. A young gal explained her rationale for Obama. After
20 minutes of haggling, a flustered Kucinichite threw up her hands and
said their group would caucus for whichever candidates representative
won a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. So, like two gladiators, Obamas champion and I strode forward to battle, best out of three. Id done a lot to prepare for this years caucus, but never imagined Id have to hone my Rock, Paper, Scissors skills. The alacrity of youth prevailed. I lost, but our Edwards group remained viable, and the delegates were split evenly among Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Quirky stories like this are the fun stuff caucus folklore is made of. But the important message from this years event is the unprecedented turnout: a record 239,000 Democrats, excited about the prospects for substantive, long-overdue change. And the two candidates most perceived as advocates for change John Edwards and Barack Obama won 68% of the delegates. Both in Iowa and nationally, the status quo is in trouble. And its about time. Americans are fed-up with lobbyists and corporations running the show. Theyre tired of watching the elite get richer while the rest of us struggle. Theyre
dismayed at the growing ranks of the poor and uninsured, and the lack
of attention to a host of looming environmental disasters. Like never before, theyre pessimistic about the future. Yet, like never before, theyre hopeful and energized. Im energized, too. Ive preached a progressive-populist message of reform since my first campaign for the Iowa Statehouse in 1992. For
a long time, it was a lonely place to be, as state and national
Democratic candidates blabbed party-line pablum that was generic,
vacuous and as inspiring as yesterdays oatmeal. But thats changing, and changing fast. Our challenge is twofold. First,
we have to sort out the candidates who actually mean change from
those who are just mouthing what pollsters tell them the public wants
to hear. Second, regardless of which candidate we supported in the Caucuses, we reformers have to band together. United, we will be unstoppable! Ed Fallon
Saturday, January 5

First-time caucuser welcomed to Iowa politics
by
Sam Garchik
on Sat 05 Jan 2008 08:03 AM CST
First-time caucuser welcomed to Iowa politics
By Genie Gratto
Genie was a new caucuser in IC 18. I welcome any other caucus submissions. In re. Hil not being viable, I wonder how that went in other precincts, and what it might mean for NH and beyond...
The snow on the ground matched the picture I carried in my head when I moved to Iowa in 2005: Tromp through inclement weather. Gather with a few hundred of your neighborhood friends. Tell the rest of the country what’s up with the whole presidential thing.
I got in line Thursday around 6:40 p.m., shuffled into Longfellow Elementary with the rest of my 18th Precinct neighbors, and signed in as an uncommitted Democrat. Then I joined the more than 700 adult caucusers in a gym built for a couple hundred elementary-aged kids.
“I don’t care who the nominee is, as long as it’s someone from this party,” remarked a man behind me. To my left, a couple entertained their baby.
Although every caucuser received a pink ticket on the way in the door, ostensibly to assist with the count, temporary precinct chair Dave Leshtz tried to organize the crowd to count themselves. Section by section, people raised arms, then dropped them as they called out a number. The uncounted crowd rumbled. There had to be a better way, right?
Sure enough, moments later, a caucus volunteer ran through the door to announced 720 distributed pink tickets. The hands-in-air count ceased. Caucus mathematics parsed that out to 108 caucusers needed for a candidate to be viable.
Let the caucus games begin
I spent the caucus season planning my attack, and decided that, when presented with the eight options (from Obama to Gravel), my best bet was to stay undecided. However, I planned to start in the Kucinich camp – I admit a fondness for the quixotic plan to establish a Department of Peace, as well as for sticking my thumb in the eye of the establishment.
Round One began. The Obama, Edwards and Clinton caucusers stayed in the gym, but the lower tier supporters and those who remained Uncommitted headed to classrooms. “If you’re supporting Gravel, see me,” Leshtz said, and the lone Gravel supporter, apparently, did do just that.

We took an early count in the Kucinich room and had 68 at hand. The fact that we were 50 short of viability but within an adjoining door’s reach of the Uncommitted proved too tempting. Within minutes, the Kucinich faithful had handed out talking points and dispatched emissaries to convince the Uncommitteds to join up.
“I’m only Uncommitted because I haven’t decided between the top three candidates,” growled a gray-haired woman at the front table of the Uncommitted room. “I want them to come and talk to us. Not you guys.”
It took a few more rebuffs before the Kucinich group reformed in their own room, now joined by a Richardson emissary. After the unsuccessful effort to lure Uncommitteds into the room, the Kucinich camp was down to approximately 50 and the Richardson camp claimed to have nearly 70.
Final count at the end of Round One: Richardson, Dodd, Biden and Kucinich supporters had firmly avoided viability. The Uncommitted camp still held 35 caucusers. Obama was running away with the night at 302, and the Edwards camp had 159.
The biggest surprise to me was that Clinton was not yet viable, with only 80 caucusers at hand. Hillary was in trouble.

The splintering sound of Round Two
After Leshtz announced the official Round One numbers, the non-viables returned to their rooms and the school filled with the frenetic energy of last call at Iowa City’s downtown bars. Get your orders in now, folks, or don’t get counted.
The Richardson and Kucinich camps negotiated heavily the idea of joining as Uncommitted caucusers. If they could recruit enough people—130 by caucus math—they could even send two delegates to the Johnson County Democratic Convention on March 15. One delegate, claimed this plan’s supporters, would vote for Richardson, the other for Kucinich.
. “Maybe I’m missing something, but if we’re Uncommitted, how do we verify that our wishes are even carried out after tonight?” I asked. “How do we know our vote will be counted?”
A second-time caucuser sidled up to me. “Oh, you’re just a new one,” she said. “You just don’t get the Caucuses yet, but you will.”
Then one of the staunchest Kucinich supporters said he liked Richardson’s foreign policy, and that he might just go to the Richardson room. Other so-called Kucinich supporters snuck out one of the two classroom doors and the numbers shrank further. “The Kucinich camp makes a splintering sound,” I posted to Twitter.
Obama representatives came in to remind the Kucinich folks that Denny K had asked them to throw in for Obama in case of emergency. “But don’t you guys have plenty of supporters?” one Kucinich-ite asked. “How about if you send some of them here so we can get a single delegate?”
For future reference, Caucusers: The big man on the block isn’t giving up his supporters so you can get a delegate. Don’t even bother asking, or you’ll get that same look that the Obama corraler gave the Kucinich supporter with that pretty little option.
Time to be counted
Shortly after the Kucinich camp started falling apart, Letsch announced the final five minutes of Round Two. Faced with the choice of sticking around for the continued nonsense of negotiating with the non-viable Richardson campaign or actually being counted for an excellent candidate, I threw in the towel and followed my secret plan: I was heading for Edwards’ pastures.
In the gym, the Hillary supporters frothed next to me—they had 102 of the necessary 108 caucusers, but were using their position next to the gym door to rally the the lower-tier voters streaming in. “Six more votes!” they chanted. “Five more votes! Four more votes!”

With 30 seconds to go, they hit 110, narrowly beating the threshold for viability and netting themselves two delegates.
Final count for the rest of the top tier: Obama, 342 caucusers and 5 delegates; Edwards, 234 caucusers and 4 delegates.

Delegating authority
Letsch called for volunteers from each camp to witness him call in the results, and I wandered up to the table out of curiosity. When he hung up and I turned around, the Edwards precinct captain was standing in the middle of the gym writing down names.
“You should get on the list to be an alternate delegate,” said Sam Garchik of Blog for Iowa, a fellow Edwards caucuser. “They almost always seat all the alternates.” I followed his advice. After all, what could it hurt to be on the list?
The Edwards precinct captain read the first delegate nominee’s name aloud, and the man in question balked. “I didn’t know that was what I was signing up for.”
Garchik looked at me. I looked at Garchik. “She’ll take his place,” he said.
A voice-vote later, I blocked off March 15.
“Out East, you probably have to make calls for six years to even get noticed by the party, right?” Garchik said. “Not out here. Welcome to Iowa politics.”
Genie Gratto still can’t believe she’s politicking in Iowa, and while she takes it very seriously, it makes her giggle nonetheless. She blogs about the rest of her Iowa life at The Inadvertent Gardener.
Friday, January 4

Holy Congressman, Batman. That guy's from Washington State. What's he doing at my caucus!
by
Sam Garchik
on Fri 04 Jan 2008 11:57 AM CST
Holy Congressman, Batman. That guy's from Washington State. What's he doing at my caucus! By Sam Garchik
I gave the details to Deeth at Iowa Independent. Check his diary out. All I can say is how badly does Jay Inslee want to be president? Or, How badly does he owe Hillary a favor?
Meanwhile, 719 people later, in IC 18 its Obama 5, Edwards 4, and Hillary 2. Barely. Hill needed the second go around to be viable, which means she may go down in flames in NH. Either way, progressives Obama and Edwards, behind over 220,000 Iowans (that shattered 2004 by over 100,000 people!), march on solidly.
So, I'm just thinking of how things might go if Clinton looses NH. If Hill gets wiped out, there will be an Obama candidate (he), and an anti-Obama candidate (Edwards). This could get really interesting.
And at BFIA, there are new links on the IA group bar (IA Bike Coalition, and IA House Dems), and the poll is gone. If we're lucky, we wont get to caucus until 2016. If you know what I mean, wink wink...
Thursday, January 3

We Must TAKE Our Country Back!
by
Caroline Vernon
on Thu 03 Jan 2008 03:12 PM CST
We Must TAKE Our Country Back! By Caroline Vernon
Whether it’s health care,
the cost of education, our environment or global trade, Corporate America is holding
us all hostage to the almighty dollar. Greed continues to trump need as corporations
make record profits while more and more Americans fall into poverty every year.
Congress allows industry to write policy, and legislators don’t even read the
bills they enact. The average person would lose their job for gross negligence.
The pharmaceutical/insurance lobbies make billions on the grief of others, systematically
denying people essential treatment or drugs in order to save a buck. Half of
our taxpayer money goes to the Pentagon who “loses” over a trillion dollars and
“it’s nothing but a thing” yet we
have to beg to fund health care for our children. Agri-Business dominates at the
expense of our environment and health as 85% of our food is now genetically
modified, our meat is ridden with hormones and antibiotics, and pesticides have
permeated the water table. Global trade agreements allow corporations to
exploit for profit with no safeguards in place for workers or the environment.
It is our moral imperative
to stand up and say no more! John Edwards seems to be the only candidate that
understands that we have to make an aggressive push to take our country back –
the key word being “take”. While it is important to be able to bring everyone
to the table, we can’t continue to allow Corporate America to eat all the food.
Which comes down to,
follow the money…
Edwards and Obama are my
two top picks but there are some important distinctions to be made here. I think
Obama is awesome and I will support him whole
heartedly if he gets the Democratic nod, but as an activist, and more
importantly as a mother and your sister, there is way too much at stake in this election, not
only for our country but for the planet. Corporate America
will never give up their stranglehold on America or the rest of the world so
we must TAKE IT from them! There is no negotiating a moral standard… and frankly, that’s
what this election is about.
There are two main issues
that concern me about Obama; the fact that he voted for the Peru Trade
agreement (more of the same of what ails us), and more egregiously, the fact that he is promoting nuclear energy. Coincidentally,
Obama has accepted a lot of money from Exelon Nuclear and only stopped taking
corporate monies this past year once he decided to run for President. I commend
him for that recent decision but I am horrified that he is promoting nuclear power.
The current energy bill before Congress may have 10 billion dollars allocated
toward renewable energy, and that rocks, but if you look at the whole pie, it’s
too little too late! 25 billion is allocated for guaranteed loans to build new
nuclear sites and billions more for coal fired plants. I mean, this is what I
am talking about people… Corporate America writing OUR policy! Do ya’ll
remember all the hoopla about storing the nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain?
Do you want that in your backyard? Is it OK as long as it’s stored in someone
else’s backyard (out of sight, out of mind)? Do you really think our Earth Mother will be served by that? We need to save Her in order to save ourselves. Almost everything we do generates some
form of waste by-product. Instead of adding to it, especially nuclear waste, we need to use our
considerable ingenuity to invent our way out of this mess. It is our only true
hope. What we absolutely cannot afford
is more of the same… business as usual.
Corporate America has had the resources and the necessary information to create new technologies for decades. Rather than doing the right thing, and truly be leaders of innovation, much of their resources have been spent preventing said technologies from entering the marketplace because, God forbid, that could hurt their bottom line. If their shareholders weren't so blinded by their own greed, they would be able to recognize the incredible opportunity that is presenting itself NOW. Corporate America and our elected officials could simply CHOOSE to lead this necessary technological revolution, but it remains to be seen.... so it's up to us.
We must TAKE our
country back!

Last Minute Comments
by
Sam Garchik
on Thu 03 Jan 2008 08:35 AM CST
Last Minute Comments
By Sam Garchik
Zogby now has Clinton at 24, Obama at 31, and Edwards at 27. Richardson is 4th at 7. The real story is on the Republican side, where Ron Paul has as much support (10 pts), as John McCain. A McCain loss to Ron Paul? Paul might also beat Thompson, who now stands at 11. Ron Paul 3rd in Iowa would be brutal to both McCain and Thompson. Huckabee now has 31 to Romney's 25. We'll know how this all winds up tomorrow, at any rate..
Also, over 1700 people have voted in the BFIA caucus poll. I'd be surprised if Gravel gets anywhere near 25%, but Obama's numbers may be accurate. Who can tell?
Now, with the big show in mind, and for those of you who are caucus wonks, here are some resolutions that have been sent my way. Keep them in mind if you chose to stick around after the preference groups. The real party work begins then.
IVI Resolution to support optically-scanned paper ballots
WHEREAS, an accurate and verifiable tabulation of votes is essential to democracy, and WHEREAS, numerous analyses and reviews over the past two years [1] have shown that electronic voting systems are prone to error and vulnerable to tampering, and WHEREAS, in the 2006 election, 78 Iowa counties used direct-recording electronic voting machines (touchscreens) as either the sole voting system or as a supplemental voting system, and WHEREAS, direct-recording electronic voting machines do not allow the voter to see how their vote is recorded and do not allow for an independent recount, and WHEREAS, experience in other states has shown that adding printers to electronic voting machines in an attempt to produce a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) fails to resolve either basic security issues or the difficulties of conducting recounts on this equipment, and WHEREAS, voter-marked paper ballots, counted by optical scanners or by hand, provide the most reliable record of voter intent, and WHEREAS, in 2007 the Iowa Legislature mandated that direct-recording electronic voting machines not be used without VVPAT printers, and WHEREAS, in 2007 the Iowa Legislature joined a growing number of state legislatures in mandating an eventual phaseout of direct-recording electronic voting machines, WHEREAS, unless adequate state funding is forthcoming, the phaseout of direct-recording electronic machines may take an unacceptably long time to accomplish; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Iowa [Democratic/Republican] Party supports allocation of sufficient state funds for counties to replace all direct-recording electronic voting machines with optical scanners and ballot marking devices to serve voters with disabilities, in time for the November 2008 General Election; and THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Iowa [Democratic/Republican] Party supports federal legislation allocating funds to reimburse states for purchase of optical scanners and ballot marking devices. [1] References available at www.IowansForVotingIntegrity.org Resolution in support of changes to election administration WHEREAS, Iowa election officials strive to uphold the states reputation for fair and accurate elections, in an environment of limited choices and growing concerns about the reliability of electronic voting systems, and WHEREAS, the national testing process for electronic voting systems has been discovered to be severely deficient and burdened by conflict of interest, and WHEREAS, due to the complexity of computer voting systems, election officials have become increasingly reliant upon voting machine manufacturers to perform election functions, and WHEREAS, many of the world's most respected computer scientists contend that computer tabulation of votes must be verified by post-election hand counts of a random sample of paper ballots, and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Iowa [Democratic/Republican] Party supports a requirement for post-election auditsi.e., hand counts of paper ballotsof a sample size and selection process sufficient to ensure that the correct winners were designated for all statewide and federal races, and THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Iowa [Democratic/Republican] Party supports the expansion of the Iowa Board of Examiners of Voting Machines and Electronic Voting Systems to include experts competent in the evaluation of computer code, and THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Iowa [Democratic/Republican] Party supports the public administration of elections, and the creation of a transparent, bipartisan public body to support counties in the performance of administrative functions for which counties now depend on voting machine companies.
Tuesday, January 1

PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH THE IOWA CAUCUSES - AND WHAT EVERY IOWAN CAN DO
by
Sam Garchik
on Tue 01 Jan 2008 05:24 PM CST
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH THE IOWA CAUCUSES - AND WHAT EVERY IOWAN CAN DO
By Black Box Voting
Zogby now has Romney down by 4. Stay tuned for Wednesday and Thursday updates. Meanwhile..
Black Box Voting needs live IOWA CITIZEN REPORTS on Jan. 3. Note that the Iowa caucuses must allow observers and must allow both video and photography, as long as you do not disrupt the proceedings. You do not need to be a member of the party to observe or videotape (but you must be registered for that party if you want to participate in the caucus).
In some locations, there will be a Republican caucus AND a Democratic caucus in the same building, giving observers the opportunity to capture evidence in both parties' caucuses.
Below is an update on election integrity problems with both Republican and Democratic caucuses, in addition to info on how to find your local caucuses.
LATEST BLACK BOX REPORT ON IOWA CAUCUS PROBLEMS AND ISSUES:
The Republicans are running such an opaque dog and pony show that, unless they correct procedural issues, citizens nationwide should demand that Iowa lose its "first in the nation" status. Here are the issues for Republican caucuses:
1) Black Box Voting has received reports that political operatives have urged citizens NOT to ask too many questions and NOT to take photos or video of precinct caucus results, warning them that only "conspiracy theorists" would want to independently confirm the announced results.
It is your DUTY as a citizen to oversee your governmental processes. Because Iowa caucus procedures lack basic checks and balances, such as posting the precinct caucus results at the precinct caucus location for the public to examine, it is actually very important for members of the public to take video and photographs and share them.
WHAT TO DO: If you see or hear anyone ridiculing, name calling, or implying that citizen oversight actions will cause "blowback" on their candidate, please REPORT THIS to Black Box Voting, via e-mail or online, live-time forum reports in the IOWA FORUMS section at Black Box Voting, http://www.blackboxvoting.org
2) The Iowa Republicans have NOT publicly agreed to promptly release precinct results for the Jan. 3 caucus. Instead, we are seeing bait and switch tactics, as they emphasize to caucus participants that the counting will be done in public at the precinct. While they keep your eye focused on the front end, a switch can take place at the back end. When they release a total result to the media without releasing the individual precinct results at the same time, there is no way at all for citizens to confirm that their precinct results added up to the announced total.
Please CONTACT both the Iowa Republican Party and the Iowa Secretary of State to tell them you expect to see those precinct results published at the SAME time they announce the statewide total. Iowa Republican Party: (515) 282-8105 Iowa Secretary of State: 515-281-0145 515-281-7142 (Fax) sos@sos.state.ia.us
(But aren't caucuses "owned" by the parties and not the Secretary of State? It's like this: If Iowa wants to position itself as the first in the nation for caucuses, perhaps the ONLY possible influx of mass tourist dollars in January in Iowa, they need to run transparent caucuses with proper checks and balances. If they don't citizens nationwide will recommend dropping the Iowa First in the Nation concept).
3) One thing the Republican Party of Iowa has done RIGHT is making caucus locations transparent. All you have to do is go to http://www.iowagop.org and click the map to find every Republican caucus location in a county. Not so for the Democrats, who are making it harder to get a complete listing!
4) We have received conflicting reports as to the procedures at the Republican caucus. A spokesman for the Republican Party of Iowa told Black Box Voting that the votes would be written on paper and counted in front of candidate representatives and observers, then signed off on by precinct captains or whoever they've got in charge. WHAT TO DO: If that's the case, get a photo of the signed results and e-mail it to Black Box Voting - crew@blackboxvoting.org -- or upload it directly to the IOWA FORUM section of http://www.blackboxvoting.org.
Another report says the vote will be by a show of hands, then the winner announced. In that case, it will be important to come equipped with a video camera to capture the show of hands!
In either case, at the end it all goes into a black hole. Party officials dial a result into a cell phone, which goes we don't know where, following a telecommunications routing that is unspecified, and is totaled up in a central tabulation program made by a vendor no one knows the name of, programmed by we don't know who, and voila! The result is announced.
WHAT TO DO: Get video and photos. Anecdotes don't do diddly. Report to Black Box Voting any efforts to tell citizens they are "conspiracy theorists" or "hurting their candidate" if they take photos and/or video.
IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAUCUSES - ISSUES AND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS:
1) The overcomplexified, overcomputerized, silly smoke and mirrors game:
Again, we see the Amazing Randi in action -- look here, don't look there. Your attention will be drawn to the transparent "count the warm bodies" procedure at the precinct, with no explanation of exactly how the results were arrived at on the other end, after they go into a computerized central tabulation black hole.
Here, in part due to pressure from Black Box Voting, the Iowa Democratic Party says it is at least making an attempt to publicly and promptly release the precinct results. But then comes the overcomputerized, unexplained, overcomplexified process that is front-loaded with reasons it might not happen.
The concept here is simple: THE PUBLIC needs to be able to see the precinct results before they leave the precinct and after they are accumulated into the total. The precinct results BEFORE should match the precinct numbers AFTER, and all of these should match the final total. WHAT TO DO: Encourage our local county Democratic Party to add the simple step of posting a copy of the signed precinct results at each location.
2) About the results web site: the Democrats are saying there will be a special Web site that precinct totals will be posted on. The catch? They have yet to publicly announceannounce the name of the Web site or even confirm publicly that this will happen. There has been some talk of using a password only for the media and/or caucus attendees to be able to see, which would be inappropriate. The public needs to see. WHAT TO LOOK FOR IF THE PRECINCT RESULTS GO UP: Get screen captures of any wandering tallies or changes in figures during the tally process.
IT MIGHT NOT BE PUBLIC: Look for a rationale in the form of a fear of "overloading the Web server."
And realize that there is NO REASON to withhold precinct results from the public because you are creating an automated special program that may get overloaded. Let's think about this:
The results can be extracted as a simple spreadsheet and posted as a PDF file that is only about 25 pages long. There is no earthly reason for the simple uploading of precinct results to become a techno-extravaganza, nor to give out special passwords just for the press or for caucus attendees. It needs to be made available to everyone. 3) WE DON'T REALLY KNOW: How this computerized tabulation will occur. Who is the vendor? Who programmed it? Who owns the server?
The Iowa Democratic Party has a bit of a black hole as well, with an automated cell phone-initiated computer tabulation. In 2004, this was handled by a fellow named David Vogelaar and his colleague, Andrew Brown. We don't know if they are the ones writing the program this time, but regardless -- any time data goes through this kind of process, questions arise as to how the program works, whether citizens can check what went in to compare with what came out, and so forth.
WHAT TO DO: Get photos of the results sheets, which are supposed to be signed off on by precinct leaders. E-mail the photos to Black Box Voting - crew@blackboxvoting.org. Do not interfere with any of the goings-on. Get video if you can. Upload the video to youtube.com and e-mail a link to Black Box Voting or post it directly in the IOWA FORUM at Black Box Voting.
4) THE LAST CONCERN: This brings us to the last concern regarding the Democratic Party caucus procedures. For both parties, the telecommunications routing of the data enroute from the precincts to the final announced totals is important. Who has access to this along the way? There is an interesting situation with the Iowa Democratic Party's official caucus site. It is called "iowafirstcaucus.org" -- http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org -- and this is not actually owned by the Democrats, but the site says it is "paid for" by them.
The domain name and the server for iowacaucusfirst.org appear to be owned by The Forbin Project (weird and creepy science fiction name, Google it) -- maybe someone's idea of a joke. The Forbin Project is part of VGM, and the principals of VGM/Forbin seem to be big Republican donors, and very vested in privatized national healthcare providers. What I found interesting was the candidates they have chosen to donate to -- like Randy "Duke" Cunningham of San Diego (why were these Iowa guys supporting him?) and Ohio's George Voinovich, and another fellow who's under investigation in Iowa named Nussle.
The Iowafirstcaucus server provides the location mapping for the precinct caucus locations. In fact, to find out where to go if you want to observe or participate in Democratic caucuses, go to http://www.iowafirstcaucus.org. THIS WILL BE IMPORTANT IF: If for some reason the computerized centraltabulation and results server is routed through or sitting on iowafirstcaucus.org, that's a conflict of interest problem, in my book. "THE END" ... for now. Long report, looking forward to hearing from you this week to learn of your observations.
Bev Harris Black Box Voting bev@blackboxvoting.org
* * * * *
Black Box Voting is supported entirely by citizen donations. To support 2008 Election Protection Actions click here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html or mail to: Black Box Voting 330 SW 43rd St Suite K PMB 547 Renton WA 98057
|
DFIA Events Calendar
Add Your Event Here
|