most likely land the person in jail. Dan Giroux, the Buehananrncampaign coordinator for southwest Ohio, accompanied by hisrnattorney, was refused permission to observe the count byrnHamilton County Board of Elections Director Bruce Taylorrn(Republican). Why?rnIn a rare but superb news story on the evening of the 1988rnpresidential election, Dan Rather of CBS Evening News hadrnthis exchange with computer expert Howard J. Strauss ofrnPrinceton University:rnRather: Realistically, could the fix be put on a nationalrnelection?rnStrauss: Get me a job with the company that writes thernsoftware for this program. [Strauss was referring to thernmost common computer program in use.] Then I’d havernaccess to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix arngeneral election?rnIn an earlier clip during this CBS interview, Strauss hadrndropped this bombshell: “When it comes to computerizedrnelections, there are no safeguards. It’s not a door without locks,rnit’s a house without doors.”rnThis CBS spot came on the heels of an article by RonniernDuggar entitled “The Dangers of Computerized Voting” in thernNovember 7, 1988, issue of New Yorker magazine. A l988 governmentrnstudy, “Accuracy, Integrity, and Security’ in ComputerizedrnVote-Tallying” by Roy G. Saltman of the National Bureaurnof Standards, also tackled this subject, but it overlookedrntwo notorious cases in Cincinnati. One case involved a formerrnCincinnati Bell employee who stated in a sworn deposition thatrnhe had been involved in wiretapping into the Cincinnati computerrnon election night in 1979 for the purpose of altering thernvote count. The other case involved a group of women who inrn1985 were videotaped using common household tweezers tornpluck out tabs from punchcard ballots on election night; threernyears earlier, parallel activity had been captured on film in Miami,rnFlorida, when self-proclaimed members of the League ofrnWomen Voters were videotaped using styluses to punch tabsrnout of punchcard ballots.rnBut perhaps the best summary of this subject is found inrnVotescam: The Stealing of America (1993) by James and KennethrnCollier. After quoting the first words uttered by PresidentelectrnGeorge Bush in his November 8, 1988, victory speech inrnHouston, Texas—”We can now speak the most majestic wordsrna democracy can offer: ‘The people have spoken'”—the Colliersrncomment:rnIt was not “the People” of the United States v’ho did “thernspeaking” on that election day, although most of themrnbelieved it was, and still believe so… . In fact, the Peoplerndid not speak at all…. The voices of computers—rnstrong, loud, authoritative, unquestioned in their electronicrnfinality…. The computers that spoke in Novemberrn1988 held in their inner workings small boxes thatrncontained secret codes that only the sellers of the computersrncould read. The programs, or “source codes,”rnwere regarded as “trade secrets.” The sellers of the votecountingrnsoftware zealously guarded their programs fromrnthe public, from election officials, from everyone—onrnthe dubious grounds that competitors could steal theirrnideas if the source codes were open to inspection. . . . Sornwhy can’t the public know what those secret source codesrninstruct the computer to do? . . . . I low else can the publicrnbe reasonably assured that they are participating in anrnunrigged election where their vote actually means something?rnlief one of the most mysterious, low-profile,rncovert, shadowy, questionable mechanisms of Americanrndcmocracx is the American vote count.rnNote: In evcr case where disputes over computerized voternfraud have reached the trial level, the presiding judge hasrnblocked any inspection of the software program used to tabulaternthe votes in the disputed election.rnThe 1996 GOP PrimariesrnThe first GOP contest of the current presidential race was thernAlaskan caucus on February 6, 1996. Alaskan Republicans participatedrnby showing up at a predetermined site and physicallyrnvoting right on the spot. The result was then counted and announcedrnin front of everyone. If voting was done by raisedrnhands, the results were seen by all present. Where paper ballotsrnwere used, the ballots were checked and rechecked with onlookersrnfrom every camp—then and there. Pat Buchanan wonrnthe Alaskan caucus (in the teeth of sustained propaganda fromrnthe mainstream media), beating Bob Dole two-to-one, andrnPhil Gramm four-to-one.rnNext came the Louisiana primary, which had been tailoredrnto guarantee a victory for neighboring Texas Senator PhilrnGramm. Louisiana was largely a voting machine election, andrnso not, strictly speaking, verifiable. There are too many waysrn(well-documented ways) that a voting machine can be riggedrnwithout the voters being able to detect it. But in this primary,rnwith only 42 voting locations for the entire state, any observerrncould see the long lines of patient citizens wearing Buchananrnparaphernalia. And with the Buchanan campaign conductingrnsome of its own exit polls, stealing the election would have beenrnrisky business. Though Buchanan somehow lost a delegaternovernight, he was awarded 13 delegates to Gramm’s eight.rnNext came the Iowa Caucuses, where Senator Dole forrnmonths was widely touted as the state’s “third senator” b- allrnfour of the major T’ networks. I landed in Dubuque, Iowa,rnabout three weeks before the February 12th caucus to work forrna Buchanan ictory. What immediately caught my attentionrnwas that all four major TV networks were publishing polls purportingrnthat 28 [jcrcent of lowans were for Dole, 26 percent forrnForbes, and 12 percent for Buchanan. Then, two days beforernthe caucuses, all four major networks simultaneously changedrntheir tune. Suddenly Forbes was dropping like a rock due to hisrn”negative” advertising. Hedging their bets at the last minute,rnthe networks now spoke of 40 percent undecided. Observingrnthis firsthand fueled mv long-held suspicion: the polls releasedrnby the networks are designed more to mold public opinion thanrnto reflect it. But in this case, the propaganda had failed. Peoplernwere still flocking to Buchanan.rnYet, this strong support for Buchanan notwithstanding, atrnfour minutes before 7:00 P.M., Central Time—four minutes heforernthe Iowa Caucuses were to begin—Peter Jennings announcedrnon ABC that Dole was the projected winner on thernpurported basis of a network entrance poll. At one minute afterrn7:00, the AP wire announced the same thing.rnContrast this with the recent Israeli election, where, despiternexit polling, no media were able to project the winner untilrnthree days after the election. Why? Because that was a realrnNOVEMBER 1996/15rnrnrn