The November 14, 2006 elections will be a land mark event in the sense that its results can bring the government back to the people where it belongs or ensure the continuation of a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Consequently, we should be damn sure that the ballots express the will of the people.
The incumbent administration that presently controls the three branches of our government is aware of the fact that so much have been done during the past six years which it has to account for with the people. Consequently, it will employ the full power of its benefactors to obtain the results that will keep it in power. It cannot do otherwise. The power of big money prevailed over the power of the people in the previous elections since 2000.

How did they do that? Through all means possible (within the law) that money can buy. No less than the US Supreme Court jumped into the act by handing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush via a shameless decision to stop the counting of votes. That was an immoral thing to do by such an august body. But no one can deny that it was all legal. Brought again to a similar situation (God forbid), considering its current makeup, the US Supreme Court will not hesitate to deliver again on behalf of its benefactors if asked to do so.

But it will be asking too much of the judiciary branch of our government to do such a repeat performance. Big money has other tricks under its sleeves. This time, automation will do the trick. Electronic Systems have been installed all over the country to record and count votes. A recent study conducted by Princeton University computer science professor, Edward Felton, found that electronic voting machines used across much of the country are vulnerable to hacking that could alter the vote totals or disable machines selectively. In a paper posted on the University's web site, the professor and two graduate students described how they had tested a Diebold AccuVote-TS machine they obtained, and found ways to quickly upload malicious programs and even developed a computer virus able to spread such programs between machines.

Diebold Election Systems of Allen Texas questioned the report by claiming that the study ignored newer software and security measures that prevent such hacking.

What conveniently was not explained was the fact that even if there were such software, they were not permanent features of the system and can only be selectively used. And who would we think decides what systems get it? The manufacturers of the electronic voting systems further questioned why the Princeton University report was not submitted for peer review, as is commonly done before publishing a scientific research.

Felton said he and his colleagues thought it necessary to publish the paper as quickly as possible because of its possible implications on the November midterm elections. About 80 percent of American voters are expected to use some form of (no paper trail) electronic voting in the upcoming elections which can change the makeup of the two houses of congress. Notwithstanding the publication of the report, if software capable of modifying all records, auditing logs and counting votes can be designed and easily installed as alleged by the study, there is nothing anyone can do to stop hackers other than to switch back to hand counting of votes.

Electronic voting system advocates know this and are counting on the ease by which software can be installed sans any forensic evidence of their having been used. There is hardly anytime to stop the hackers unless steps have already been taken to scrap the electronic machines altogether. Otherwise we can almost predict another victory of capitalism over our beloved DEMOCRACY. God Bless America.

ANTONIO R. SERNA
1205 Magnolia Avenue
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
Tel. (707) 795-5677