BBV - Electronic Voting Violates the Constitution - Important Read***

[shance]

I just picked this up from an old email by Lynn Landis.

Found this at www.whoseflorida.com

Voting Machines Violate Constitution - Who Will Launch Legal Challenge?

by Lynn Landes

Wanted - one or more really good constitutional lawyers. Why? Voting machines. We need to challenge their use in our elections.

Voting machines violate the Constitution and threaten what's left of American democracy like no terrorist ever could. Only a handful of private companies sell and service the machines that register and tabulate votes in U.S. elections. And it's all done in complete secrecy. We've lost control of our election process and Congress doesn't seem to notice or care.

Over the last several years, particularly in 2002, election results in the U.S. have come under increasing suspicion due to widespread voting machine "glitches" and unexpected election upsets. In an overwhelming number of these questionable elections... Republicans won. That makes sense. Republicans, such as U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), long ago cornered the market in voting machine sales and service.

(snip)

Once the machine is in the polling booth critical parts of the voting process become unobservable and, therefore, violate Articles I & 2 of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

to my knowledge no individual or organization, such as the NAACP, ACLU or Common Cause, have challenged the constitutionality of voting machines. Although plenty of distraught candidates have gone to court accusing the voting machines of miscounting their votes, but to little avail.

In a November 1996 article for Relevance magazine, Philip O’Halloran wrote, "Many court cases involving allegations of fraud were brought against vendors of electronic systems. There were no convictions. Was there ever any proof of tampering presented? No. Part of the reason for this may be that during the litigation the plaintiffs were never given access to the vote tabulating program, and hence there was no opportunity for anyone to establish evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations.

(snip)

We should point out that even if the court allowed the plaintiff’s experts to inspect the source-code, there would be no proof that the code provided to the court was, in fact, the selfsame code used in the particular election in question."

(SOOOOO.....)

How can a machine-produced vote ever constitute a legal vote?

Isn't it merely circumstantial evidence of a vote produced by a machine that may or may not have been cast by a voter?

(Sure looks that way to me....)

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

1. don't worry...

I read here on DU that there are plans to sue for de-certification of the machines and $15 trillion in damages as soon as someone can find a lawyer who works for free.

JC

[RainDog]

2. lawyers take such cases all the time

however, they do not work for free. they work for a percentage of what the jury finds for damages.

I'm sure you know that.

Erin Brockovitch's story was all about just such a situation, except instead of Constitutional issues, she was just dealing with a company which was lying about the damage it was doing to people's heath as they lay dying from cancer.

[shance]

3. Question: Why are orgs like ACLU not jumping on this as anti-Constitional

I dont understand that. Are they uninformed?

[Junkdrawer]

5. It seems that between 12/12/2000 and 11/05/2002 there was...

a quiet, determined effort to "fix" some of the problems with the Florida debacle.

One of the main items of contention was the punch card machines that routinely produced over-votes and under-votes. It was noticed that these "antiquated" machines were primarily found in poorer precincts while wealthier precincts had either optical scan or touch screen machines. The latter machines where seen as preferable since they could be programmed to prevent under and over votes.

Armed with this perception (and presumably unaware of WHO made these machines) a determined effort was made by leading Civil Rights leaders to get the Federal government to fund the purchase of these machines nationwide. Thus the $5 Billion Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was forged and passed.

So, it’s worse than uninformed, although that is part of the problem. It was a pitched battle to get us out of the frying pan and, unintentionally, directly into the fire.

[shance]

7. These organizations need some lobbying by DU members who belong

Any DU members of ACLU, Common Cause, would be doing themselves a favor by calling or faxing these organization with some information on Electronic Voting.

[JackRiddler]

4. What is your motivation?

Why do you and your apparent cohort Cocoa show up to trash every BBV thread as mere alarmism? This is all either of you seem to do.

Let's keep this simple. Please answer two questions:

1. Can an electronic ballot be faked, either by the operator or an outside manipulator?

2. Can this be prevented, easily and in a failsafe manner, by requiring that all machines print out a voter-verified receipt (which is then deposited in a ballot box and used as the paper record in the case of a possible recount)?

If you answer yes and yes, then what is your problem with BBV? Why don't you get off their backs and let them solve this real problem by forcing the obvious solution?

[Junkdrawer]

6. TFHP has made his motivation abundantly clear...

as long as our hosts determine that he stays, Ignore is the best option.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

8. just trying to help

I missed the part where I trashed anything on this thread as alarmism.

It was posted here just yesterday that a search was ongoing for a lawyer who'd sue Diebold for $15 trillion, for free. Seriously, I swear I couldn't even make that up if I tried. Do a search if you don't believe me. I'm just answering the original poster's question.

JC

[JackRiddler]

9. Please answer my questions...

I think these two questions are reasonable and quite easy to answer - both are "yes" or "no," and the third question, about your motivation, only applies if your answers to the first two are both "yes."

I don't know what was posted here yesterday, nor by whom. But I have noticed that you usually come into all BBV threads and trash them as alarmist. My comment to you relates to this general activity of yours, of which the sarcastic comment here is but a small part.

[TinfoilHatProgrammer]

10. sarcastic comment?

What sarcastic comment? I reported exactly what was posted here yesterday. Seriously.

???

JC

[JackRiddler]

14. You're not going to answer the question, are you?

Please answer the above questions. Two simple, yes or no questions, with a third raised only if you say yes to both. I am open with you (whatever the differences), you can be open with me. Otherwise we have nothing else to talk about on this thread.

[shirlden]

11. I have been meaning to research this issue.

So far have not had time. Are there any Duers who have worked on this at all ?
We need to start a discussion thread on this.

:kick:

[shance]

12. Yes. AND there should be an class for all kids on the Constitution

I had no idea how much I would want to know more about these two documents then now.

[dusty64]

13. Since when did

violating the Constitution every stop the extreme right, they use it as toilet paper.