Experts provide a 2004 voting report to the nation on 12/07/04

[texpatriot2004]

The 2004 Vote: What Really Happened? Experts to Provide a Report to the Nation, Getting Past Rumor and Innuendo

12/6/2004 10:35:00 AM

News Advisory:

Rumors of nefarious election activities and tales of disenfranchised voters still swirl around the Internet, nearly a month after the presidential election. Election Day revealed problems in our voting systems, including registration issues, timely provision of absentee ballots, the reliability of voting machines, inadequate numbers of poll workers and efforts to intimidate voters and suppress turnout.

On Tuesday, Dec. 7, Common Cause, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and The Century Foundation will conduct a non- partisan in-depth look at voting in America that will reveal exactly what happened on Election Day. The organizations will sponsor: "Voting in 2004: Report to the Nation on America's Election Process," featuring voting experts, state and federal officials and organizations that had workers on the ground on Election Day, observing and collecting information. Below please find an agenda.

WHAT: Voting in 2004: A Report to the Nation on America's Election Process

WHERE: G-50 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

WHEN: Tuesday, Dec. 7, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

SPEAKERS INCLUDE: Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Rep. Steny Hoyer (D- Md.), Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.)

OTHER FEATURED SPEAKERS: Barbara Arnwine, executive director, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights; Jehmu Greene, president, Rock the Vote; Wade Henderson, executive director, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Ralph Neas, president, People for the American Way; Leslie Reynolds, executive director of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDE: American Civil Liberties Union, American Families United, the Brennan Center for Justice, Demos, Electionline.org, George Washington School of Law, Johns Hopkins University, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Association of Secretaries of State, Rock the Vote, The Advancement Project and Verified Voting

David Dill, Avi Rubin and more
For the agenda, please see link:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40356

[rockedthevoteinMA]

1. So this is separate from the forum Conyers is holding?

Looks like it's gaining some steam! :)

Thanks for posting this!

[texpatriot2004]

4. It looks like a seperate event to me. n/t

[corbett]

15. Yes, It's Separate And With A Separate Agenda

As the other replies have indicated, this is a separate hearing with the broader purpose of fixing 2004 problems in 2006 and 2008. It could help the Conyers event, hinder it or be neutral. You can read the agenda at

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=259543

The overall posture is the pursuit of the truth but in a completely non-partisan fashion. They seem to be less interested in correcting the Ohio numbers than the Green/Libertarian effort.

I'm not sure what to make of the invitation of Senator Mitch McConnell to speak except that he's a RELATIVELY moderate Republican.

Either way, the Conyers event should be hotter.

[KoKo]

2. I hope C-Span will cover this live or tape it for later coverage.

[GregD]

3. Don't expect a lot from that crowd

This is ALL about future reforms, and will have NOTHING to do with the 2004 election.

LCCR has been our enemy when it comes to paperless e-voting.

Ney is evil incarnate - go look at the House Admin Committee web site

Holt does not believe, last I heard, that there was fraud. I have an insde track on this one.

NASS is not going to do anything about the current election.

Dill already is on record saying nothing went wrong, to a sufficient degree, that the results would change.

Ditto ACLU, Brennan Center, Electionline.org.

I repeat - this is about advancing toward future reform, which is a good thing, but nothing more. Don't read too much into it.

[Boredtodeath]

5. Grandstanding

They cannot have enough data to come to a conclusion.

We can only assume they are trying to shut down the discussion.

[glitch]

7. How on earth would they know? The machine counts are NOT verified

So what justifies these statements:

Holt does not believe, last I heard, that there was fraud. I have an insde track on this one.

Dill already is on record saying nothing went wrong, to a sufficient degree, that the results would change.

FAITH?

[GregD]

13. Are you asking why I assert these postions?

I worked as Dill's webmaster for 9 months, and know him better than most folks here. I'm not going to say I can read him like a book, but I do know how he generally thinks about these things. Here is what Dill says publicly.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5249
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5302

I think you will find that my prediction is accurate.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was in SF for the demonstration at Pelosi's office most of the day.

[glitch]

14. No, I was asking how they could hold these positions. Thanks for posting

the articles.

See, my problem is they say we need the manual recounts to verify the vote, which I agree with. But then they use the unverified machine counts to say that a manual recount is unlikely to overturn the election.

How can they base that speculation on what they agree could be faulty data? I just can't see how they can assume the 3.5 million
popular vote margin is correct without verifying the vote count manually.

David Dill is remaining circumspect, which he has to be. I understand that. But as an anonymous poster on a public board, I don't.

Dill's a computer scientist, he knows about complex systems and how a small 'error' can lead to huge differences in results. Same goes for Rush Holt, physicist.

I wasn't questioning your assertions. I should've been more clear, sorry.

[KaryninMiami]

8. Agreed. This does not appear to be a fraud investigation team...

If they could include Gregg Palast or William Rivers Pitt or Conyers or Arnebeck I'd feel better about this but as it stands- it does not seem to be related to overturning this election.

Anyone know of any big groups in DC that could get it together to organize a rally that morning? A few thousand people shouting THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED or COUNT ALL THE VOTES would add some excitement to their meeting... Is there a public area for an audience? Maybe we could send a few people to listen in and make some noise? Just a thought. I'm in a troublesome mood these days and getting tired of these "going nowhere" meetings that have the illusion of concern.

Furthermore, if they are not including an in depth discussion about the electronic voting machines and the evidence of tampering (and it does not appear that they will be), then there isn't much they will accomplish. As long as we are using those machines as they are today, we will never have a fair, legal, verifiable election.

Back to work I go. Thanks for the vent break!

[BR_Parkway]

9. But having future reforms talked about at same time that Conyer

is doing his forum puts more pressure on MSM to cover all of it.

[rodeodance]

11. this Tuesday, Dec. 7, & Conyers is Wed, dec 8

Not a conflict--in fact--it might give Conyers and his team some good stuff. We can hope!!

[texpatriot2004]

6. kick

[texpatriot2004]

10. kick it again

[eleny]

12. I wonder if this was scheduled because of the Conyers hearing

To discredit it in advance?

[Wordie]

16. kick

[Eloriel]

17. Steny Hoyer and Bob Ney are the bad guys, IMO

They're the architects of HAVA, pushed by the ITAA (massive lobbying orgnization which by their own admission on a private conference call to strategize about how to counter the bad publicity for the voting industry actually admitted that "the only reason" they lobbied for HAVA was to get a bunch of federal money into their clients' coffers).

Bob Ney actively kept any reform legislation from making it to the House floor, and Steny Hoyer has been vocal -- almost strident, under the circumstnaces -- in his defense of voting machine technology.

Anyone care to look up how much campaign money these two bozos (and throw in Chris Dodd, too) have gotten from the voting machine industry and/or ITAA? I've never taken the time to do that, but I'd love to know.