This is what Thom Hartmann says needs to be our sound bite:

[Amaryllis]

"Privitizaion of the vote is a crime against democracy."
He said this at the Portland Summit.

For profit corporations with highly partisan poltitical and financial conflicts of interest counting our votes on trade secret software that not even election officials can view: privitization of the vote. Crime against democracy.

[rocktivity]

1. Privatization is a crime against democracy, period.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Amaryllis]

5. True, but he is suggesting this in regard to elections in particular,

because even people who can't/won't get into stolen election can see this.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Privatization = Fascism the way it is being done by BushCo

[Amaryllis]

6. He said that too.

[MrModerate]

3. As a sound bite it lacks a certain . . .

intelligibility.

Am I guessing he was talking about Diebold/Black-box voting?

[Amaryllis]

4. Yup. Corporations controlling the voting systems that count our votes,

and voting machines, and software. For profit corporations with highly partisan poltitical and financial conflicts of interest counting our votes on trade secret software that not even election officials can view.

[MrModerate]

7. That being the case, I think the Stalin quote is more pertinent:

“Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

And if you could figure out how to frame it, could be a real shocker. It's just the sort of thing to put a chill down the spines of essentially center-right, "American values" voters we need to recapture.

[bleever]

8. Nominated and kicked.

Thanks!

[petgoat]

9. Corporatization of the Vote-Count is a Crime Against Democracy n/t

[garybeck]

10. shouldn't it be "privitization of the vote COUNTING"

I think it's a little awkward without the word "counting" in there.

[Amaryllis]

16. You are right, Garybeck!

[Land Shark]

11. "secrecy of vote COUNTING" seems best to me, also consider

"outsourcing vote counting means outsourcing democracy"

Those who seek to count votes secretly have a corrupt desire, which is the unchecked exercise of power/discretion. They seek to avoid the oversight of the public concerning the PUBLIC'S ELECTIONS. Public control is the essence of democracy's definition, trying to avoid that control and oversight is a crime against democracy.

[garybeck]

12. privitization vs. secrecy ?

is vote counting by private companies OK, if it is not secret? if there is open source code, and random audits, what do you think?

personally I think if there are checks and balances in place it is possible to set up a system that is safe, and virtually impossible to rig.

our financial markets, banking systems, payrolls, credit card systems, all are done by private companies, but there are protections against fraud.

the problem with our election system is that there simply is NOTHING in place to protect against fraud. Stealing an election would be easy to do and virtually impossible to detect with the current system.

but if audits and checks and balances were in place it is possible. even with hand counted paper ballots, there have to be protections.

So, is secrecy the main issue, or is it just the fact that they are private companies?

[Amaryllis]

17. I think it has to be publicly owned. There should not be a profit motive

in the picture when it comes to elections.

[Land Shark]

19. Open source protects ONLY against risks related to Vendor rigging

whether by individual programs or as corporate strategy or whatever. It does nothing to protect against the computerization of the vote:

1. invisible votes public can't see
2. one person can rig entire election by moving electrons around
3. theft of election, remotely.
it goes on and on, this is not a complete list

elections officials would have to have a procedure to see that each version of software in machines actually matches the one that is official, and that no disappearing code instructions are added at any point in the process, etc.

[kster]

20. Answers

Q)Is vote counting by private companies OK.

A)No.

Q)If there is open source code, and random audits, what do you think?

A)Not with these particuLar companies.


Q)Personally I think if there are checks and balances in place it is possible to set up a system that is safe, and virtually impossible to rig.

A)Again possible, but definitely not with these particular companies.

Q)The problem with our election system is that there simply is NOTHING in place to protect against fraud. Stealing an election would be easy to do and virtually impossible to detect with the current system.

A)100% Correct

Q)But if audits and checks and balances were in place it is possible.

A)Yes,but the checks and balances should have been there in the first place if these companies where trying to sell voting machine's for public elections.

Q)Even with hand counted paper ballots, there have to be protections.

A)Yes but the people know how to make sure the ballots get counted,with the e-voting machines,most voters have to rely on other people (Not fair) to the average voter.

Q)So, is secrecy the main issue,
Or is it just the fact that they are private companies?

A)Both, and with me its the fact that I trusted people in power to protect my vote and to make sure it was being counted, now that I looked into this, and found out that they did not, I have no trust in them or the vote stealing machines, no matter what they say.

Because I have been betrayed nothing short of PBHC will do.

[Amaryllis]

15. I like that. Someone else just said that the term privatization sounds

anti- business to some.

[elehhhhna]

13. Crime. Affront. Murder. ABORTION of...

Yeah I like the last one.

As in : Diebold--ain't them the PRO-abort-democracy muthrfuckers?

[stickdog]

14. The voting booth needs to be the one place in America where

corporations don't count.

Democracy is imaginary when elections are proprietary.

[kansasblue]

18. "Privitizaion of the vote is a crime against democracy."

i like it