THE "PLAN" FOR KICKING ASS AND TAKING NAMES: ON BEHALF OF DEMOCRACY AND AGAINST HR550

[Land Shark]

THE "PLAN" FOR KICKING ASS AND TAKING NAMES: ON BEHALF OF DEMOCRACY AND AGAINST HR550

Somebody called IndyOp asked what is “Paul Lehto’s plan on HR 550?” (This bill reference is to the “Holt Bill,” which would add “paper trails” and audits of 2% or more of the paper trails on electronic touchscreen voting machines.) See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x459748

IndyOp’s stated purpose was to “cut to the chase.” While Nancy Tobi and I have addressed the details of the bill at some length in other essays, this post will also cut to the chase. For these details, See e.g., http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_061118_stopping_h_r__550_be.htm

The real question is not about any specific individual or personality. The real question is what do the People of the United States want in their voting systems?

In the short post below, I’ll try to identify both what the people of the United States want, as nearly as it can be measured (public supervision and oversight of elections and especially vote counting), and what my plan is regarding HR 550 (possibly kicking ass and definitely and quite literally taking names.. but more on that later.)

A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD LOGICAL ARGUMENT:

If we live in a “representative democracy”, and surely we are told we do,

And

If the unique sine qua non of democracy is not elections per se (which other systems share) but the reality that all legitimate power comes from the people and from nowhere else,

And,

If those in the “House of Representatives” are “representatives” of the people, and surely they are,

And Given That

As Citizens Active in this area of elections know well by now, fully 92% of the American Public in an August 2006 Zogby poll expressed support for a voting system that specifically allows the Public to “Witness vote counting and obtain information about vote counting”

And Further Given that

When these “representatives” of the people are voting on HAVA amendments or voting on elections in general, they are voting on the circumstances and validity and legitimacy of THEIR OWN RE-ELECTION TO POWER, thus giving these representatives a rather large conflict of interest,

Then,

Why, oh Why,

Oh someone PLEASE explain….!

Why, or HOW,

IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

OUR “REPRESENTATIVES” can possibly or conceivably get away with telling We the People -- the overwhelming 92% supermajority of We the People -- that it is “politically unrealistic” to expect a voting system that would satisfy the most basic values and concerns of the 92%????

That is, per Zogby and a tiny bit of logic in italics, it would have to be a non-electronic voting system that the public can “Witness” the vote counting on, and obtain information on the vote counting on.

In contrast, the Electronic Voting regimes to be further institutionalized by bills like HR550 (the Holt bill) will never allow the public to witness the vote counting or obtain information about it. (they can only get information on 2 or slightly more percent of the secondary paper trails). So how can the Holt bill, or an amended Holt bill, be the only “realistic” option, and how in the world can “representatives” DICTATE to the People of the United States what is “realistic” in terms of checks and balances on the elections of these same Congresspeople? Excuse me??

How could a true Representative of the People DARE to deny the 92% of the American people their wishes IN THE PARTICULAR CONTEXT OF ASSURING THE VALIDITY AND LEGITIMACY OF THIS ‘REPRESENTATIVE’S’ OWN RE-ELECTION???

The public overwhelmingly rejects the unavoidable secret vote counting realities of electronic voting even if they don’t ALL fully realize how messed up e-voting is, quite yet. But many do. The numbers grow every day.

The HR 550 / the Holt Bill totally fails to deliver on one of the most widely held political values ever measured, which “political value” of witnessing vote counting also happens to be the critical and indispensable right, probably the most inalienable of all inalienable rights if Holt proponents believe any such rights to exist, and instead of furthering democracy helps to institutionalize invisible, unaccountable electronic ballots that totally avoid public oversight of elections. The Holt bill, IN ANY FORM, current or Amended, that allows invisible vote counting without public supervision is therefore utterly deficient for that and many other reasons. See, for example, <http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_061118_stopping_h_r__550_be.htm>

If there is any area at all in which the Congress is OBLIGED to truly serve and to be a public servant, it is in the area of their own &%!@!* Re-elections. Congress has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS DICTATING POLITICAL REALITY TO THE CITIZENS REGARDING THE TERMS OF THEIR OWN RE-ELECTION.

NONE.

ZERO.

NADA.

ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS LUCKY if THEY ARE NOT A CONGRESSPERSON, BECAUSE IF I EVER HEAR A CONGRESSPERSON TALK ABOUT "POLITICAL REALITY" IN TERMS OF WHAT LEVELS OF ASSURANCE THE PUBLIC IS going to be "ALLOWED" CONCERNING THE LEGITIMACY OF CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS....I’ll TELL THEM STRAIGHT UP THAT THEIR TALK OF “POLITICAL REALISM’ OR THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO WALK THE WALK ON THIS ONE ISSUE IN ANY DEGREE WHATSOEVER IS NOTHING SHORT OF THE TALK OF AUTHORITARIANS GIVING EDICTS ABOUT WHAT THEIR SUBJECTS CAN REALISTICALLY EXPECT OR DESERVE, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE TALK OF DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES SERVING THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND WANTING OPEN AND HONEST ELECTIONS..

Let me spell it out:

The 92% desire for public supervision of vote counting is totally and completely non-negotiable. By any one. At ANY time. It is the indispensable element of freedom and democracy. There MUST be public supervision and oversight of elections, it is totally indispensable. Our representatives are uniquely disabled from issuing morally binding edicts in the area of elections, because they are necessarily self-dealing when they act in this area. To countermand, undermine, defeat, or distract the 92% from their unambiguous goal of publicly supervised elections with oversight and accountability to We the People is nothing short of being an enemy of democracy.

We can see how many very good people who really do believe in democracy can apply the normal rules and accept these calculations of “political realism” for a while. But elections are a totally unique area. It is totally fundamental. It is totally non-negotiable for freedom-loving people.

The Question Presented: Why can’t a “representative Congress” give us a voting system where voting can be witnessed by the people and the people can obtain information on vote counting, when 92% or more of the American public supports this and we have a new Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress???

In reality, has anyone EVER been dealt a STRONGER political hand? Why not play it?

This is Truly an historic moment.

In response, I daresay that millions of Americans will ultimately join myself, Nancy Tobi, and thousands of activists across the country, in insisting on public supervision of elections without compromise, not because we wish to be uncompromising, but because we CAN’t compromise without losing a verifiably real democracy, and that is far too great a price to pay.

Because of the unprecedented importance of this historic moment,

Because of the undeniable and overwhelming public support for Transparency in elections,

Because of the critical and indispensable importance of public oversight of elections and the accountability of government to prove and show that it has provided the people with plainly legitimate elections that any average citizen can understand to be legitimate without substantial burden or expense to the citizen,

Because of all of these, we will be TAKING NAMES.

We will record, by video whenever possible for elected officials, the names of all citizens, congresspeople, or other persons who attempt to defeat, deny, dilute or distract the debate from this most indispensable of rights of democracy.

You who are against the most indispensable of all rights, will go down in history as having done so. WE will do everything in our power to keep alive the memory of the names of those Representatives, Senators, lobbyists, and citizens who attempt to defeat the legitimate democratic wishes of virtually 100% of all Americans.

We will contend that these names will live in infamy as those who failed to support democracy in a time of its great need. Perhaps we are wrong and public supervision of elections is truly unnecessary, or that public supervision need only be of 2% of something, or 5%, or whatever.... and instead, these names will instead be an Honor Roll of sorts. Leave that to history to decide.

It is time for all Americans to decide if you are for democracy and public oversight of elections, or against it as “unrealistic” in our newly Democratic Congress.

In the end, we need only inquire persistently into WHO or WHAT POWER is trying to tell us that the wishes of the 92% are unrealistic in order to see that Power evaporate, or be exposed for its hostility to democracy – at least its hostility to democracy in time for 2008.

Untold millions of activists and soldiers died for democracy. We have exactly ZERO right to make political calculations of convenience in our day and age in order to compromise that democracy that was purchased at such a very high price.

Only two days away from a week in the hospital on IVs, I don’t feel very feisty. But I will do everything in my power between now and January to insist on democracy instead of further institutionalizations of voting systems that eliminate the public from any oversight in elections, when the government sure as heck can’t “oversight” itself when its own paycheck and power is being determined via elections.

There is only one possible debate: Is public oversight of elections really necessary in democracy, or not? That it is really necessary, we hold to be a self-evident truth.

There will also be perhaps some attempts at distraction when Holt proponents state actual or feigned offense at being placed in a poor light, but at the end of the day the clarity of the importance of this fight is really critical and necessary for democracy and therefore far more important than the feelings of some or their critique of the style or approach of an individual advocate. If that were not the case, it would be hard to motivate soldiers to risk life and limb in battle for freedom and democracy if all it added up to wasn't even as important as a few people saving face. That being said, this particular advocate knows that the vast majority of Holt Proponents really care deeply about democracy in the same sense as the above, and have only (to date) been too willing to make deadly compromises that we in this generation, in fact, SIMPLY HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPROMISE.

Fundamentally, HAVA and electronic voting are a fraud whereby public supervision of 100% of election vote counting at precincts BEFORE results are first announced (in many cases) is eliminated and we are invited to engage in a "debate" about whether we'd like to "audit" 2% or perhaps 5% if we're "really lucky" some number of days After the winner's been announced and the media has moved on to picking drapes and wallpaper styles for the new incumbents. "Audits" will never satisfy.

So we will take names, as a way of ensuring that those who fail to support public oversight on election vote counting will appreciate the gravity of the historical moment. As others have said "This is for all the marbles." Democracy is nobody's plaything or political football, we defend it based on necessity and obligation, not political calculation and convenience. As such, we'll gladly go down in a vote if it comes to that, knowing that there is not a single thing about public supervision of elections IN A DEMOCRACY that is too much to ask. But even then, we'd have total clarity about the anti-democratic forces we were up against at that point, and thus be much better situated to fight on.

Is this taking of names a threat? No, it is a way to insist on TRANSPARENCY in the fight for democracy as well. And, as they say, it’s not a threat, IT IS A PROMISE. It is a promise on several levels. “…That government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.” It is a way to peacefully, nonviolently, force the issue to be about what’s really most important in elections, and essentially universally agreed upon. We the People deserve to treat ourselves to at least that, if not for ourselves, then for those who fought to get us here.

The theft of public supervision and oversight on elections must be restored, because we have absolutely no real assurance of democracy until it is restored. So begins, this Roll Call for Democracy. Stand up and be counted. It will be VERY interesting, because NO ONE really wants to be seen as being on the other side.

[BeFree]

1. Oh yeah, sure

I trust the politicians to come up with a way to decide who gets to represent me. That way, its out of my hands and totally up to them. Knowing that they all just love democracy the way I do, and that they would never do democracy harm, I can just sit back and let them come up with whatever convoluted system they think best allows them to get re-elected.
<<<<<<<<<=>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, that is how some people must be looking at this situation, eh?
We have an historic opportunity to alter the political reality and it is an opportunity that we must not walk away from. HCPB for federal offices at least. Opportunity knocks, who will answer the call?

[Land Shark]

2. Bingo. But if they design a secret way, that makes it all better, right?

on edit: I'm thinking I should have emphasized the following instead of a couple things I did emphasize:

"...there is not a single thing about public supervision of elections IN A DEMOCRACY that is too much to ask."

[BeFree]

3. Indeed

Is it too much too ask too have best possible way to count our votes?

I think not. Compromise shouldn't even be on the table.

Can there be too much public supervision? Again, I think not.

Those who would support offerings that would take away supervision and deny the best of all possible systems are those we need to convert. And we're gonna do just that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. Absolutely superb, Paul! You know, if I were an American, what would

really make me as mad as a hornet, is the fact that, while the US is supposed to have been the matchless champions of open government, even the wretched and despised United Kingdom has open elections, using paper and pencil and with public servants overseeing it - not partisan hirelings.

The Irish people fairly recently refused voting machines and, despite Hugo Chavez's massive electoral victories, I think I read the other day that the he is going to do away with them in Venezuela, in favour of openly-countable paper ballots, as being too easy to subvert. And doesn't he have a significant investment in Diebold or Sequoia?

And yet the Stockholm Syndrome, Beltway Democrats still feel so beholden to the far right that they baulk at defying the latter's anti-democratic priorities! And you're right, their names, like those of the traitorous Supremes will, indeed, live in infamy long after all of this becomes history.

[mom cat]

15. Actually, the headline on that article about Venezuela was a bit

misleading. What they are proposing is Holt lite. However, at least they use open source softwear. I think that Oregon has the right idea: Paper only. Then we need ti insure that it is hand counted with lots of unimpeded witnesses.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. Agreed. I think it would be both a responsible action on Hugo's part for,

the country's future, and a slap in the face for the anti-democratic US voting-machine advocates, if he changed the Venezuelan system to a "paper only" one.

[mom cat]

27. I believe that Venesuela is a (part?) owner in Sequoia.

[FogerRox]

85. Mom cat... Ah.. no.

[mom cat]

98. Thanks for spurring me to dig a little deeper into this:

This is still rather second hand:
11-08-2006, 02:00 PM
Imri
slim goodbody Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern Liberties
Posts: 4,027

Re: Hacking Democracy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Got a link?

All I could find... from ABC News


Quote:
Meanwhile, Congress is reviewing separate reforms to sharpen scrutiny of voting equipment companies after the March 2005 sale of Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., one of the largest U.S. voting equipment companies, to Florida-based Smartmatic Inc.

Smartmatic operates voting machines throughout Venezuela, and CEO Antonio Mugica has said the Venezuelan government has no stake in the company. But Smartmatic's ties to Venezuela a nation whose president, Hugo Chavez, recently called President Bush "the devil" has raised eyebrows.


and from ZNet...


Quote:
But probably the biggest news last week regarding electronic voting machines, for US and Venezuelan voters, is the U.S. government’s current investigation of Smartmatic and rumors that the voting machine manufacturer may potentially have links to the Venezuelan government. Smartmatic is the privately owned Venezuelan parent company of Sequoia Voter Systems, one of the oldest and top voting machine manufacturers in the United States. Smartmatic itself provided the machines for the 2004 Venezuelan Referendum, and is in charge of providing the voting machines for the Venezuelan Presidential elections, which are set for December 3.

__________________

http://www.maneo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41271

I don't know if that helps since the poster did not give links to the information.

[FogerRox]

128. I didnt donate this time around, so I cant do a search

By memory, the folks who faked the Chavez exit polls are connected to the 2 people in VEnezuela, who USED TO OWN a bit of Smartmatic. Who also owns some of the Anti Chavez press. ITs important to set the stage,

-Who owned the Anti Chavez press in Venezuela ? Oligarchs.
-Who ran the erroneus exit polls? Oligarchs funded thru a CIA front.
-What roll did Jimmy Carter and the VVPB audit play?
-Why would the CIA, the Carlyle Group, & GHWB allow "THEIR" voting machine company to be sold to Venezuela? Essentially putting 50,000 voting machines in the USA under Chavezs's control..... I dont think so.

Try a search with my name, and some keywords here at DU.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

177. Ion Sancho

Ion Sancho Issues Statement Supporting HR 550

The HR 550 Lobby Days brought to DC not only passionate citizens interested in e-voting reform but also election officials who have been forced into technology battles that they never wanted to fight. Participating in the Lobby Days events today is Ion Sancho, Supervisor of Elections of Leon County Florida. Sancho, as those who follow e-voting issues may recall, organized a series of tests of Diebold's touchscreen voting technology that (once again) exposed a series of serious vulnerabilities.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004546.php

[galloglas]

193. Ion Sancho is NOT in favor of Holt HR 550

You quoted Ion Sancho, truncating a statement printed by EFF, and it reads,


"The independent authority of election officials to provide honest and impartial elections conducted in a fair and efficient manner is under attack today."

Indeed, Mr. Sancho does believe this is true. I sure do! But under attack by whom??

After all, it was Mr. Sancho himself who was attacked by the machine vendors for allowing Harri Hursti to demonstrate the hackability of machines, which the vendors had guaranteed were safe.

After Hursti proved Mr. Sancho's machines to be no more secure than an open cash register, it was the vendors who threatened Mr. Sancho, by refusing to negotiate the sale or lease of ANY machines to his election authority in Leon County, Florida. Correct?


So, are elections under attack? Yes, of course, they are!

But not by unnamed or unknown parties. They are under attack by the very corporations who are responsible (unConstitutionally, IMHO) for providing the machines, the software, the oversight, and the technical expertise to run the unConstitutionally outsourced elections!


Sancho continues in the quote you gave:

"Partisan politicians in conjunction with some voting machine vendors are taking away the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate. Congressman Holt's bill is how we must begin to protect our votes and end the erosion of public trust in our elections."

I have the greatest respect for Ion Sancho. He would shill for no one, IMHO. But the only possible advantage Sancho could see to the current Holt HR 550 is "paper". And, to a paperless Ion, that might seem a step in the right direction.

But, how can anyone endorse a bill that is not yet on the table? After all, HAVA, like this administration's War against Iraq, was supposed to solve problems, not compound them!


The HR 550 which was on the table provides a system which some states, including Missouri, have largely implemented. Yet, in the wake of the disastrous national elections in November, 2006, the shortcomings of the "paper" that the original Holt bill provided are painfully obvious.

And Sancho is in no better position than you, or I, (and possibly less so) to judge whether any future Holt Bill would;

A) cure any of the existing problems, or;

B) prevent "Partisan politicians in conjunction with some voting machine vendors are taking away the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate."



To remove any doubt about the accuracy of my statement regarding Sancho's personal expertise, I offer this quote which Sancho himself made to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney during the "Hursti Hack".

Elections Supervisor Sancho stated that he "totally depends on the computer expertise of one person to run his elections" --his IT man, TJ.

Congresswoman McKinney's immediate response to TJ (who was there): "That makes you a powerful man!" Entirely too powerful, I believe.



So, your subject line "Ion Sancho issues statement supporting HR 550" seems totally misleading. There were NO qualifying statements by, nor any qualifying questions asked of, Mr. Sancho. If you had titled it "Sancho against the use of paperless machines", then, I might not object.

Yet, you either fail to notice, or choose to disregard, the fact that Sancho himself names the parties endangering democracy. In so doing, he shows us the remedy!

He said "Partisan politicians in conjunction with some voting machine vendors are taking away the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate."

If the voting machine vendors are the guilty parties, why not just ban them from the electoral process??

THAT would cure the problem!



Or is the problem primarily with the "partisan politicians", that Sancho knows, who have worked "in conjunction with" the corporate voting machine vendors??

After all, we could ban the corporate machine vendors by passing a law! But would those "partisan politicians" work to scuttle any legislation banning these "enemies of Democracy", identified by Sancho?

If that is the case, how do we get rid of those "partisan politicians", unless they are impeached, or recalled?

Perhaps we should first identify those "partisan politicians" that Sancho speaks of. Determine which qualities, positions, and actions define those "partisan politicians who are taking away the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate".

It seems like a very important thing to do.

Especially since some, many, or all, might now be gathering to find a way to "deep six" any bill which would guarantee "the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate". Or, maybe even passing a modified HR 550, to effectively prevent "American citizens from casting their votes and have them verified as accurate"


After all, what could be more important than to rid ourselves, to use Sancho's description, of any "partisan politicians who are taking away the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate"? It seems, to me, that Sancho's straightforward description of their actions defines them as "enemies of democracy".

[OnTheOtherHand]

197. Ion Sancho: "Congressman Holt's bill is how we must begin to protect our votes..."

This statement obviously can't be reconciled with yours, unless we allow you to define "in favor of." Think about it. You are careening toward an all-spin zone.

[Joe Chi Minh]

230. A beautiful post, Galloglass. Particularly, this bit, I think:

"Perhaps we should first identify those "partisan politicians" that Sancho speaks of. Determine which qualities, positions, and actions define those "partisan politicians who are taking away the right of American citizens to cast their votes and have them verified as accurate".

It seems like a very important thing to do."

Spot on! Another giant step for mankind! It serves notice on them that they're about to be identified, named and shamed. And if they don't care... fine. They will do.

Just as the big companies and their primary beneficiaries do, people need to carry around a little black book in their minds of their enemies. It's how the worldlings manage to crush the people so successfully. Their attitude isn't "Come day, go day, roll on Sunday." Where the Almighty Dollar is concerned, there is no more purposeful individual on the planet than the snake-in-a-suit CEO and directors of the largest corporations.

No wonder in Christ's parable, the employer of the dishonest steward commended him for his resourcefulness. The point being that the "children of this world" tend to be wiser than Christians in obtaining what they want, applying their will and intelligence in a purposeful way, in terms of their own squalid priorities.

With truth on our side, here we have only to apply the same degree of worldy intelligence and purposefulness in identifying the miscreants and shooting them down in flames, before they can carpet bomb us yet again.

If we do, they're sure going to miss that smell of napalm in the mornings.

[nicknameless]

5. Thanks for this, Paul.

K&R


Hope you're feeling better

[Febble]

6. I'm sorry, but denouncing

those pursuing election reform as "enemies of democracy" because they don't agree with your prescription for reform is McCarthyism, pure and simple. Calling a threat a promise makes it no less a threat.

It has no place in a progressive movement.

[Land Shark]

7. My argument for democracy has "no place in a progressive movement"

yet you call MY argument McCarthyism. That's pretty ironic.

What I actually said was that without public supervision we have no democracy, so those who advocate courses of action that tolerate or approve of the absence of democracy in violation of the desires of at least 92% of the American public can be called enemies of democracy:

Let me spell it out:

The 92% desire for public supervision of vote counting is totally and completely non-negotiable. By any one. At ANY time. It is the indispensable element of freedom and democracy. There MUST be public supervision and oversight of elections, it is totally indispensable. Our representatives are uniquely disabled from issuing morally binding edicts in the area of elections, because they are necessarily self-dealing when they act in this area. To countermand, undermine, defeat, or distract the 92% from their unambiguous goal of publicly supervised elections with oversight and accountability to We the People is nothing short of being an enemy of democracy.

Do you, Febble, or do you NOT, favor complete public supervision of elections?

I anticipated your style of objections as to form, but what is your position ON THE MERITS?

[Febble]

8. Not ironic at all

There are many things that don't belong in a progressive movement, and denouncing those who don't agree with you is one of them. It's not democratic.

Of course I favour complete public supervision of elections. So, I am confident, do the sponsors of Holt's bill. They include people who have been at the forefront of the election integrity movement.

There may be differences as to strategy - there may be differences as to what should and could be federally mandated. These differences should be debated. I welcome debate, critique, and improvement to the bill - or even its replacement by another bill.

But this is not what you are calling for in this post.

Edited to add: of course I don't say that your argument does not belong in a progressive movement. Arguments are key to a progressive movement. That was my point.

[Land Shark]

9. nobody cares about Me, the issue is public SUPERVISION of democracy

I anticipated your type of non-response, you fit the prediction perfectly.

So, if you favor complete public supervision of elections WHY DON'T YOUR POSITIONS MATCH THAT in terms of what you actually support? (HR550)

I am making a DEFINITIONAL argument:

If one does not recognize that all legitimate political power comes from the people, one is not a democratic with a small "d"

Similarly, I am arguing that if one does not, as a practical matter, support full public supervision of elections in 2008, one is not democratic with a small "d" at least for purposes of the 2008 presidential election -- because there is no full public supervision of elections possible when invisible trade secret electronic software/ballots are used.

You are dancing around the issue, Febble.

[Febble]

28. I am not dancing

but it seems to me that you are dancing a very strange dance.

Yes, to be "democratic with a small d" one must recognise that "all legitimate political power comes from the people". I do recognise that principle, ergo I am "democratic with a small d"

But you then use a different definition, which is not "similar" at all:

"to be democratic with a small d" one must "support full public supervision of elections in 2008".

It is not "similar", because although surely all "democrats with a small d" would applaud "full public supervision of elections in 2008", and in that sense "support" it, they may differ from you as to the best strategy of achieving "full public supervision of elections" in the future. Some people think, rightly or wrongly, that it is worth, as a first step, making hand-countable paper ballots mandatory in all states, together with mandatory random manual audits. Last time I looked, this was what Holt's bill did.

Now, it may not be the best tactic; Holt's bill might be better strengthened; the bill might be better replaced by a better bill.

But by excluding "Holt proponents", from your second definition of "democrat with a small d" you appear to insist that only those who not only agree with your goal, but who also agree with you as to the best the means of achieving that goal, are worthy of the name of democrat. This is, IMO, simply not democratic.

I simply do not agree that:

There is only one possible debate: Is public oversight of elections really necessary in democracy, or not? That it is really necessary, we hold to be a self-evident truth.

Frankly, I think this is scarcely even debatable, precisely because it is "a self-evident truth". What can, and should, be debated, is the means by which public oversight of elections could best be achieved. My concern is that the debate is likely to be made less, not more, fruitful by any attempt to paint anyone who does not agree with your own approach as an "enemy of democracy".

But whether we agree or not, I wish you a good recovery!

[Land Shark]

39. Holt proponents should be making the arguments for democracy like I make

because they really don't have a good reason for denying us full public supervision and witness-ability so to make up for that they have to grant it, or else substitute A LOT MORE audits, etc. I do not favor that, but in any case, Holt proponents should not let my bad smell, poor argumentation, and terrible tone stop them from pressing strongly for democracy in an intelligle form that can inspire the public and thus put representatives on notice that they may face electoral revenge for opposing the people if we can get legitimate elections by chance or by fighting for them.

[Febble]

41. Well, they do

John Conyers is one of the most articulate proponent of democracy I have heard. He was a beacon in 2004.

[Land Shark]

10. There is Room for LOTS AND LOTS of things in the progressive tent

but those opposed to democracy-in-fact is NOT one of them.

Just like progressives believe in tolerance but not for the radically intolerant, progressives believe in democracy, but not the anti-democratic.

So again, there are LIMITS to how big-tent any political movement can be.

If you are against democracy-in-fact, you are Outside the tent, pure and simple. I consider public supervision of vote counting to be an indispensable element of democracy-in-fact. If there is a debate here, that's where it would lay: is public supervision of elections in fact an indispensable element OR NOT?

[Febble]

31. Yes

absolutely unambiguously. I agree with you. It's why I'm here.

I am not opposed to "democracy-in-fact". There is no room for anti-democracy Inside the Tent.

OK?

So, the big question is, given that your democracy is currently so broken: how do we best fix it?

And there are some who take the "no compromise" approach - HCPB or die - and there are others who take the wedge-in-the-crack approach - mandate manually auditable paper ballots and random manual audits, and keep hammering at the wedge.

Debating the relative merits of these strategies is worth doing, I would have thought. But it seems to me to be entirely counter-productive to describe the Wedgeites as "opposed to democracy-in-fact". They have a legitimate argument.

It's one I happen to find persuasive. But certainly the Democratic win of both House and Senate is a fantastic opportunity to get a bigger wedge into a bigger crack.

[Land Shark]

35. here's the bottom line

there are places where we can play legislative games of compromise and where incremental strategies still help: More data being pumped out on elections faster, more remedies and faster ones whenever officials don't follow existing laws are two examples.

But at the core we have secret vote counting, so long as that is in any part preserved, and public supervision in any part denied, the fraud will move to the unaccountable portion of the election system. So partial improvements in this area are pure illusion, and creators of dangerous false confidence.

Plus, the public simply MUST control the territory of public supervision as the base from which any and all legitimate rights or audits would emanate. Without the unimpeded ability to witness and investigate, it's an easy matter to hide and give plausible explanations...

[Febble]

40. Most of that

doesn't follow, and none of it is a bottom line.

The "bottom line" is that nothing is worth doing unless it is actually possible. The tricky part is the art of the possible.

No "proponent of Holt" is advocating "secret vote counting". What Holt mandates are ballots that CAN by manually counted. Sure, it needs strengthening, and now can be. But ultimately, all actual counting is secret - even hand counts. What is important is that the counts can be independently checked. This can't be done with electronic votes. But it can be done with electronic voting systems that produce independently and manually recountable paper ballots. If paper ballots exist, and if the paper ballot count trumps the electronic count, then the secrecy is over.

[Land Shark]

52. Last chance for Febble, perhaps i've not been clear

this 92% indicates nontransparency is extremely unpopular with the public. WHY IS IT POLITICALLY NOT POSSIBLE OR "UNREALISTIC" TO GET RID OF THE NONTRANSPARENCY NOW, and serve 92% of the public?

Please answer as directly as you possibly can. Thank you.

[Febble]

53. No, you've not been clear

Tell me how you propose to GET RID OF THE NONTRANSPARENCY NOW.

Then I'll tell you whether I think it is politically possible or realistic.

[Land Shark]

56. oh c'mon that's really disappointing

you guys are the ones that keep saying it's "unrealistic" to go for HCPB but now you won't say WHY when I outline a specific and I think powerful argument that can get us there relatively quickly. Unless, of course, arguments don't matter much any more. Which to some significant extent has become true but if that IS true, then there's a real and VERY serious issue for us to focus on.

ACTION PLAN: EVERYBODY, whether holt or hcpb or open source really pounds on the democracy arguments such as but not limited to those in the OP. Then they go on to pitch their own particular proposal. Each side is then laying the foundation for future action by whichever side wins, or even if no side wins at all. We can move forward with a powerful coordinated strategy that still allows everyone to do what they wanna do.

Seems brilliant to me. Whatcha think??

[Febble]

60. So you are saying

people can support Holt as long as they "pound on the democracy arguments" .

That's the action plan?

[Land Shark]

63. well i can't stop them, but this could be a compromise strategy

among the camps to move forward more effectively than we otherwise might "separately", yet while still remaining "coordinated" in the sense of agreeing that our real fundamental values must be articulated regularly and that those are the values of democracy

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

94. the ole' "your either with us or against us" bit

sounds terribly familiar.

[Land Shark]

11. Febble if you fly over here from the UK, I'll buy you a drink and tell you

in the nicest most civil way, that there are a few things you just can't do to democracy, and if you DO, I can probably still be your friend, but I can't call you a friend of democracy.

Are there any violations of democracy that you would RULE OUT and that you would admit would make someone an enemy of democracy? WOuld only completely halting elections work? You mean fake elections are perfectly acceptable, as long as most people can't tell for sure if they are fake or not?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[galloglas]

29. Wow!!

You don't mince words, do you!:hi:

[galloglas]

74. Should not have removed # 25!

Those were elegant words!

[Land Shark]

76. As far as I know, it was a Brit on Brit exchange, it was a cultural experience

to behold. a bit overly honest, I suppose. I'm not necessarily disputing the mod decision, I'm just describing the afterglow in the penumbra surrounding this former post. slightly haunting. There must be more ghosts in the UK. on edit: darn my geo-ignorance, is Scot also Brit. what an embarrassment not to know. Seems to me that scotland is part of Britain.

[galloglas]

81. Seems different to many Scots!

Did you see "Braveheart"?

There are many who never wavered from that cry to "Freedom!" which William Wallace shouted with his last breath, while being drawn and quartered.

And a good thing for America, too, for most who were not destroyed by the British were transported to what would become the United States. And as the recent book (Born Fighting)by the newly elected Senator from Virginia, James Webb, points out, it was these rough men who conquered the Western Frontier and assured the survival of our nation.

Many other Scots were transported to the Ulster Plantation in Northern Ireland, again surrogates for the British masters. But, in Ulster, they fought the Catholic Irish who hated the British as heartily as did the Scots.

The irony of it all is that they (those Scots and Irish) are descended from the same warrior blood lines, the Dal Riadans, who swept in Scotland from Ireland in the 1100s. They are not a people easily defeated, nor easily thwarted in the goals they seek.

Which bring me to the point of the eloquence that the moderator was compelled to remove.

The Irish were first invaded by the English (more accurately, the Normans) in 1169 by a relative of William the Conqueror, named StrongBow. As recently as this week, in the six counties (of 32 in all Ireland) still governed by the Crown, a pro-British paramilitary threw a chemical bomb (unsuccessfully) into Stormont Castle in an attempt to assassinate the two major leaders of the IRA who were there for peace talks.

This being 2006. And, the Irish, inhabitants of "the land of sad songs and happy wars", still struggle to free the remaining six counties, which they have done since 1922. Prior to 1922, it was the whole of the island of Eire, that needed freeing. Which brings me to Irish words of eloquence (which presage a very long memory, over 800 years, in fact).

In 1803, an Irish patriot named Robert Emmett was caught and sentenced to hang by the British. He was buried in Stephen's Green, in Dublin. But, while standing in the dock, he was allowed his last words. They go like this.

My lords, you are impatient for the sacrifice-the blood which you seek is not congealed by the artificial terrors which surround your victim; it circulates warmly and unruffled, through the channels which God created for noble purposes, but which you are bent to destroy, for purposes so grievous, that they cry to heaven.

Be yet patient! I have but a few words more to say.

I am going to my cold and silent grave; my lamp of life is nearly extinguished; my race is run; the grave opens to receive me, and I sink into its bosom! I have but one request to ask at my departure from this world--it is the charity of its silence!

Let no man write my epitaph: for as no man who knows my motives dare now vindicate them. Let not prejudice or ignorance asperse them. Let them and me repose in obscurity and peace, and my tomb remain uninscribed, until other times, and other men, can do justice to my character; when my country takes her place among the nations of the earth, then, and not till then, let my epitaph be written. I have done.


And Robert Emmett still lies, to this day, unmarked in Stephen's Green. But, on the day that sovereignty of the remaining six counties passes to the Republic of Ireland, that epitaph will be ready for his grave.


I only hope that all of us who fight for justice and democracy, from the self-same overlords that hung Robert Emmett (though now they now be US powers-that-be), will be as stalwart in our refusal to surrender our sovereign votes as been the Scots and the Irish!

[Febble]

101. Scotland is part of Great Britain

and also of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but not of Great Britain.

Brush up your facts here.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/20/6453/39287

edited to remove snark

[galloglas]

103. Oh, I know my bleeding facts!

And, by virtue of becoming "part of Great Britain", Scotland in 1701, and Ireland in 1803, they are, indeed, part of Great Britain. That is, in much the same way that Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, and the Phillipines became part of the US.

In other words, in the same manner that the ancient tribal lands of the Native Americans became part of the US. To say nothing of those parts of the US which were formerly held by Spain, then Mexico, in what is now part of the western United States. (or Oregon and Washington were once in the Dominion (odd word, no?) of Canada.

And you're familiar with Hollywood, Mexico, I believe, where all the film studios are?

Yes, those transitions of sovereignty were much like that which Great Britain nearly had, and much of France did have, at the hands of Herr Hitler, in the middle part of the past century.


And, while we are speaking of it, how is it that Britain evacuated the Irish provinces of Munster, Leinster and Connaught? Not to speak of Dublin Castle?

Haven't seen a bloody Black and Tan in years, outside of a bottle of stout!

Y.N-O.S.,

PS. While you're at it, could you ship back all the Nobel prizes for Literature, mistakenly sent to bloody England, for the work of the Irish and Welsh gentlemen who actually earned them.

You might start with G. B. Shaw, then proceed to Yeats, etc.!

Indeed, ye who do not learn from history will be doomed to repeat it.

BTW, is that your consuming interest in debunking our bollixed US elections, Febble? Wanting to get the Colonies back, eh?

[Febble]

106. Um....

I just confirmed that Scots were Brits, and linked to a DKos diary I wrote about the British Constitution.

But it's true that I'm a Scot.

However, I think you will find that far having a "consuming interest debunking your bollixed elections" I'm rather consumed by trying to get them de-bollixed.

Edited to add: my post was not addressed to yours, but was in response to a query by Land Shark.

[Joe Chi Minh]

32. I've had those two, Febble and OTOH, from along distance. As I hope they have me.

When there is so much at stake, so many people's very futures, not to excoriate the purveyors of endless prevarications and evasions, would be a betrayal.

There's a time and a place for the genteel discourse of a vicar's tea-party. But this is neither.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Land Shark]

45. Febble .... Is in the house! Oh Febble?

Actually she got paid part time a while back, according to her automatic sig, by Warren Mitofsky, I don't think there's an update to that but I'll let her set the record straight.

I'm still not getting a straight answer to how these CONGRESS PEOPLE will respond to my argument in the OP, that's the main thing, kinda irrelevant to me if febble gets paid. I've heard a lot of argument that there's this other way to skin the cat, but i've heard NOT why my direct demand for democracy won't work.

[nolabels]

49. I wish I had the kind of hope you have

I see the bastardized voting systems as just the latest step in their rich oligarch in stealing what they could never do legally without force. They can't steal it outright or there would be civil war in this country. They have run out options with shell games and hat tricks so dividing us against each other and stealing why we are looking the other way is the only option. There is no way all these machines could be making all these strange mistakes one way unless they were programed to. I have seen quite a few people with evil hearts so i really don't need to consider if there would people to do this.


I even don't think it will be a problem to prove how it was done. The problem i see is getting to people to understand why it matters

[Febble]

51. Jeez

what on earth has that got to do with anything?

You can check my sig in every comment of mine (unless DU is on the blink).

What "update" do you have in mind? That it remains true that I was hired by Warren Mitofsky? That it hasn't become untrue in the mean time? Yes, I worked for one month for Warren Mitofsky. That was true last week, and it's still true. I expect to the day I die you will find that I worked for one month for Warren Mitofsky. It certainly won't ever be true that I worked for more than one month for Warren Mitofsky, because he is dead. I expect he will still be dead next month.

And you, Land Shark. Are you now, or have you ever been, paid?

Oh - you meant paid to post. Ah. No, I've never been paid to post. Have you?

[Land Shark]

54. never paid to post, no

actually as an attorney if I post on a client matter I am probably deemed to be "paid" to hold that opinion even if I'm not paid directly and don't bill that time. Perhaps that's too strict a view, I don't know. i've had two paid election related litigation matters, other unpaid ones.

Febble are you paid (not to post) but to hold certain opinions? (in effect, though perhaps not literally paid per opinion or anything like that) In other words are you totally free to impugn the work of your former employers, or obligated contractually or ethically to uphold either the work or the client's good name?

This is just a curiosity for me. You needn't answer if you don't wish to. I want to point out that I more or less teed that up for you to set the record straight as I figured you would since i've seen you post on that before. For my own part I would defend my clients of course but they are private citizens so there's not a great deal to defend.

[Febble]

57. No, I am not paid to "hold certain opinions"

Yes, I am free to impugn the work of my former employers, and I am not obligated contractually, or ethically to uphold either the work or the client's good name.

It never even crossed my mind that I would not be. I am perfectly happy to answer the question, and astonished that it should even be asked.

And in fact Mitofsky wasn't my employer. He was my client. I invoiced him for one month's work. He contracted me to try to find out what factors contributed to the exit poll discrepancy, and for no other service.

I would never, ever, accept payment to "hold certain opinions". As an academic, I would find that anathema. Actually, I simply couldn't do it. You may have noticed that I tend to hold rather forceful ones of my own.

[Land Shark]

61. ok

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

110. have you won any cases for your election case clients? n/t

[Land Shark]

116. I want to thank you sincerely for helping to make this post so successful

by continually keeping it kicked, it is the most viewed post on the present two pages of ERD, except for one or two TIA threads (i happily yield) One autorank post (who agrees with me, I do believe) and my "Landslide Denied" buddies at Election Defense Alliance (post by emlev)

at 2,200 page views, we're doing well. Thanks in part to your kicks

Now to answer your question, none of my cases are over yet, except the pro se-filed case in KY, which is over, that was dismissed on appeal where KY law did not allow any amendments to the original filing which was by the clients before I got involved, based on the clients not serving the thing on time (service was, amazingly, by the defendant Clerk) and that some of clients lost by more than a 2 to 1 margin which bars an election contest under another statute in KY.

All out of state cases have a total of 2 attorneys on them, so it's not just "me" and "my" cases, strictly speaking.

These questions though have been asked and answered before, so please research the threads before repetitively asking these questions. In my former home county of Snohomish they got rid of the DREs but I nevertheless am still pressing the issue of a refund from Sequoia, so that's on appeal.

Are you somehow ignorant on what I'm doing, do you think it's embarrassing somehow to me, or is this a waste of my time, or just to help me kick this thread? I'm unsure here of your purpose.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

126. so that means NO. n/t

[Land Shark]

139. what means "NO" (please help me kick this post again, thanks) nt

[Febble]

33. Yes, the following,

in no particular order, would be enemy of democracy:

• Someone who arbitrarily insisted on all registrations be on 80 gram paper in an apparent attempt to suppress Democratic registrations.
  
  
• Someone who didn't order enough voting machines to ensure that everyone had adequate opportunity to vote.
  
  
• Someone who designed a voting machine that didn't do the job it was specified to do, and couldn't be independently audited.
  
  
• Someone who designed and implemented a robo-call system designed to make people think that Democratic candidates were making nuisance calls.
  
  
• Someone who thought that elections weren't as important as saving time and effort, and thus failed to ensure secure custody of ballots at all times, or to effect a truly random recount when it was requested.
  
  
• Someone who lied to the electorate about the reasons for going to war.
  
  
• Someone who intimidated voters, or distributed misleading flyers about the date and location of an election.
  
  
• Someone who illegally purged legitimate voters from voter rolls in order to suppress the Democratic vote.
  
  
• Someone who implemented a "push poll" purporting to be a legitimate poll, but with the actual purpose of disseminating damaging information about another candidate.
  
  
• Someone who stuffed a ballot box, or rigged a voting machine.

I'd like all who did this in either of the last two US elections brought to justice.

However, someone who tried to craft and get passed a bill that would try to reverse the erosion of democracy, by mandating voter-verified, manually countable paper ballots and random audits in every state - that person, IMO, would not be an enemy of democracy.

[Land Shark]

34. ANyone who won't let Me watch the vote counting, or other citizens watch

is engaging in a behavior more corrupt than most of your examples. To even desire the ability to count votes in secret is, IMO, a corrupt desire.

[Febble]

42. Bullshit.

Really.

Are you seriously suggesting that "proponents of Holt" harbour a "desire" to "count votes in secret"?

[Land Shark]

46. don't think I said that at all. I can tell when you are getting exercised

you're normally more careful than to read things into what I'm saying like that.

When it comes to democracy, it only matters a little bit whether one actively works against it, or is merely asleep on guard duty, AWOL, or otherwise grossly negligent.

How about putting it this way, it's not a good idea not to make the argument set out in the OP, that congress simply can't dictate the circumstances of its own re-election. Others can change the form or wording, please respond to the core argument. Won't it help create a political opening? For anyone who wants to use it, whether HCPB or Holt?

[Febble]

50. Well, as I've said before

I often find it difficult to know what you are saying, but it sounded like you were saying that proponents of Holt were enemies of democracy.

If you weren't, fine. I apologise for the hissy fit.

So you are saying that elected representatives shouldn't dictate the circumstances of their own re-election.

That sounds reasonable, until I consider the alternative: that unelected representatives dictate the circumstances of the election of the elected representatives.

What are you proposing?

[Land Shark]

55. Strict scrutiny of ANYTHING legislators do re elections with the idea

of protecting the public from the self-interested depredations or pro-incumbent, anti-challenger depredations of incumbents who by definition pass 100% of all election laws except for initiatives or referenda in those states that have them.

A preference for, and an encouragement of citizen initiatives to be called Sunshine in Elections in those States where they are available. unfortunately it won't cover federal elections and the feds don't allow initiative and referenda.

An awareness by citizens and a reminder to legislators that in this particular area of elections, the roles are reversed and legislators truly ought to be deferring to the citizens and We the people, instead of in their normal role of passing laws that we are obligated to obey in many cases whether we know of those laws, or not!

[galloglas]

22. Missouri weighs in, saying "Show ME!"

Moved to more appropriate spot

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Chi Minh]

237. On the contrary. it should be obvious to anyone interested in politics

and elections that, given the recent context of nationwide elections in the US, that, as landshark pointed out, the least wriggle-room for fraud allowed the Can'ts will certainly be quickly discovered and exploited.

Why do you think pencil and paper is used so widely throughout the world? Surely, because, while no system could ever be perfect, it would be by far the most secure and above board (literally, oddly enough, if you consider the table-top on which the votes are counted in full view of onlookers, as a board).

So, whether deliberately or unwittingly, however actually innocent in theological terms, those antipathetic or outright hostile to pencil and paper votes and the closest monitoring and accountability of the whole process, would indeed be enemies of democracy.

While, since they would be aiding and abetting the CRONY-Communism of the very rich, (an all together more evil and sinister form of Communism than that of rich film stars, writers, etc, acting against their own economic interests in favour of what they perceived to be the public good; although I dare say you and the Can'ts would disagree, Castro and Stalin were not cut from the same cloth) their Democratic critics could indeed be accused of McCarthyism, but on what a superficial and misleading level.

Another and all together more sensible and appropriate way of looking at them would be as the answer to the question, "Quis custodet custodes?"; guardians of democracy, resembling MCCarthy only insofar as they are vocal in their denunciation of crony-Communism and militant opposition to it. I think the distinction could scarcely be more extreme and dramatic.

The Democrats are, even by definition, the "custodes", the guardians of democracy; but if there is a danger that some of them will be persuaded that fifth-columnists should be welcomed into the party as bona fide Democrats, why then it is incumbent on those who recognise the Trojan horse to roundly denounce the horse's hidden occupants for what they are. Kumbaya is one of my favourite hymns but, frankly, a spiritual sing-song round the camp fire should wait until the Dems have first performed all the most obvious practical things that they can on the natural level to sort out our world. Christ's injunction to pray at all times is not countermanded thereby.

I would be very happy to see all Democrats sitting around an enormous camp fire, singing Kumbya, which you seem to desire in a metaphorical sense, but alas, in politics, the renunciation of one's critical faculties in favour of an expansive bonhomie in any political context, never mind this one, just doesn't commend itself to me as being at all a rational proposition.

[IndyOp]

12. So, cutting to the chase - you want 100% hand-counted paper ballots?

You said you want "public supervision of elections" and that you will be videotaping those people who don't allow it. I am still just guessing that you want 100% hand-counted paper ballots and absolutely no machines involved at any point. It is just a guess, because you've still not said...

I would prefer to have this debate with you keeping a focus on the practicalities -- how will voters cast their votes, who will count them, when, where, what is the likelihood that particular municipalities will allow the change you or I are recommending? Until we can do that, I am going to resist responding to further posts - I am concerned that our exchange will just create more ill-will and will not move us toward a practical compromise.

I take it that you want 100% hand-counted paper ballots in spite of the fact that HR550, IF it were revised to require optical scan ballots, would allow 100% hand-counting in all jurisdictions (county, state) that were willing to do so?

Paul - What I am recommending is that we work this as a step-wise process to be completed before the 2008 elections. Modify HR500 to require paper ballots that CAN BE hand counted (a significant chunk *must* be hand counted in the automatic random audit) - then work our state legislatures to require a 25% or 50% or 75% or 100% hand count if that is what the public in that area so desires.

Precinct-count optical scan ballots with automatic random audits are our best bet for a first step in HR550. New York is moving happily toward precinct-count optical scan systems. Be of good cheer! Now New Yorkers who support you can push for BIG, BIG automatic audits.

IMHO, the pressure against hand-counted paper ballots is not from Congressmembers - most of whom don't give a flying fig how hard County Clerks have to work to make an election occur. The pressure against hand-counted paper ballots comes from the Clerks -- some of whom remember the bad, bad old days of 100% hand-counted paper ballots and who don't want to go 'backwards'. I think your focus on "fighting Congress" is misplaced. The work that must be done is with the people who run the elections. They are willing to listen, they just don't see why they should if their county has never had a problem - and they don't believe their county ever has had a problem. Have *you* Paul and Nancy -- have *you* taken a County Clerk/Election Supervisor to lunch to talk with them about the problems you see and the solution you want?

I hope you will take time from DU to rest... :hi:

On Edit: Organization, clarity, content, remove some unnecessary emphasis.

[Land Shark]

13. Nancy has taken LOTS of clerks to lunch, I SUE THEM

each approach has its advantages.

The big problem is that clerks wish to AVOID OR MINIMIZE ACCOUNTABILITY.

They are government servants pure and simple, they are NOT separate POWER SOURCES to be negotiated with *ultimately*, they have expertise and experience worth considering, but their opinions are to be disregarded in the final analysis to the extent they try to avoid public supervision of elections, which we consistently and predictably see them advocate and move toward. It's a main attraction of e-voting.

Just like the burglar searches for and eventually finds the unlocked window, focussing on the specific mechanics of the election is a hugely confusing waste of time.

What we need to be able to do is FULLY SUPERVISE whatever system is in. Without that, you can have a great system in 9 out of ten ways, but the burglar will find that 1 unlocked window.

Only public supervision and lots of eyes can save the system, so much is at stake that there will always be lots of pressure to cheat.

I could spec out a system as good as almost anybody, but it will be USELESS and misleading without the PUBLIC SUPERVISION i'm talking about.

You're wasting your time, INdyop, in "improving" a secrecy-based system, beacuse the fraud pressure, like the burglar, will move to the "unlocked window" in a heartbeat. The public simply has to have dozens of guards posted...

[IndyOp]

16. Wow! I am delighted to see that I agree with you on several BIG issues here...

"The big problem is that clerks wish to AVOID OR MINIMIZE ACCOUNTABILITY." <- :applause:

"... they have expertise and experience worth considering, but their opinions are to be disregarded in the final analysis to the extent they try to avoid public supervision of elections, which we consistently and predictably see them advocate and move toward."
:applause:

"What we need to be able to do is FULLY SUPERVISE whatever system is in. Only public supervision and lots of eyes can save the system, so much is at stake that there will always be lots of pressure to cheat." <- YES! YES! YES! GO, PAUL!
:yourock:

Avoiding public supervision of elections is "...a main attraction of e-voting." This I agree with somewhat. I think it is a very real attraction for Jim, Beth, or Andy that errors are unlikely to be detected on many e-voting systems. I think, however, that they are also really impressed by the neat-o modern technology, they like the fact that the DREs are smaller and easy to transport, they like the fact that there is NO PAPER -- because paper is a pain-in-the-ass to transport, keep secure... Please note that I have *no sympathy* for their anti-paper attitudes. They have a J-O-B that they are being paid for and that job requires (in my opinion) the use of paper ballots for secure, accurate, and reliable elections.

More to come in a separate reply...

:hi:

[Land Shark]

17. Glad we agree! But I'm hoping the OP discussion stays focused

on the issue of the necessity of controlling the "real estate" of full public supervision of elections.

We the people have gotta SEE it and supervise it because otherwise the fraud moves to the holes that we can't see OR AT THE VERY LEAST confidence is apprprpriately undermined even if the election crooks are too stupid to find the hole/ unlocked window that's still left.

ultimately, there's no such thing as computer 'security', one can only raise the cost a lot to penetrate a system,leaving penetration only to governments, large corporations and CIAs/KGBs -- exactly the people I, at least, was most concerned about in the first place.

Computers CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE SECURED, at least for a presidential election. For dogcatcher, as a practical matter it can be made too expensive for outside access, but the insiders can still take $5K to throw the dogcatcher election, and since they will know the type of audit they will face they can work around that fairly readily...

[Bill Bored]

43. This sounds a bit like security through obscurity to me:

You wrote: "and since they will know the type of audit they will face they can work around that fairly readily..."

I don't buy this. If the audit (or whatever you think it should be called) is done properly, there is no workaround.

[IndyOp]

19. We should focus on specific mechanics to develop a plan for public oversight

"Just like the burglar searches for and eventually finds the unlocked window, focusing on the specific mechanics of the election is a hugely confusing waste of time."

I disagree. I think we've located the source of our conflict and that makes me hopeful...

The real work of supervising elections, as a citizen, is maddening when there are dozens of different e-voting systems & you are being locked out of the process by the local Board of Elections. (I am keeping in mind that supervising elections is, ultimately, not possible if there aren't paper ballots!)

Several election activist groups have published documents that help members of the public know what to ask about re: pre-election logic & accuracy tests, election day procedures, canvassing and recounts. It is still confusing and frustrating because they systems work differently. Further, many County Clerks don't know their own voting systems well enough to allow meaningful public participation. My County Clerk is dependent upon the vendor to come to town to set the clock forward on our piece-o-crap DREs so that he can run the public testing of the voting machines. The Board members each cast 5 ballots on three machines and think they've actually tested something -> :eyes:

We need to discuss the specific mechanics of the election so that we CAN demand meaningful public oversight -> If we were able to put one (or at most two) type(s) of paper-ballot voting system(s) in place then we could help citizens across the nation do more effective public oversight by being able to provide them with very clear guidelines about what to watch for. Even more important: If there were one type of election system then we could write laws that REQUIRE election supervisors to allow public participation and oversight along each step of the way.

Laws that require public supervision should allow:

• Citizens must be allowed to watch the County personnel or vendors "set up" the election using the software provided by the vendor. (Which should all be open-source!)
  
• Citizens must be allowed to develop "test decks" to run through the voting system before the election to test the vote-counting software.
  
• Citizens must be provided 'credentials' to observe set-up of the optical scan counters at the precincts on election day and to observe the counters throughout the day for any evidence that overvote or undervote protections are not working.
  
• Citizens must be allowed to randomly selected precincts or machines for auditing immediately before the polls close on the election day and will be sent out to those locations to hand count the paper ballots at those locations. All races must be counted during the audits, which are to be automatic - conducted no matter the outcomes - and which are to be adjusted in size depending on the size of the county and/or number of ballot styles in the county.
  
• Citizens must be allowed to accompany ballots from the precinct to the Clerk's Office.
  
• Citizens must be allowed to witness the handling/counting of any ballots received by mail.
  
• Citizens must be allowed immediate access to election results for each precinct - for each machine - so that we can conduct statistical analyses to detect any machines that deviate from others.
  
• Citizens must be allowed to call for recounts.

Having one type of voting system would allow us to write really specific laws that election supervisors could not skirt around. The BOE in my County would not allow us to touch the voting machines during the so-called "Public Testing of the Voting Machines". They were defensive. They would let each member of the public fill out one paper ballot and a member of the BOE would push the buttons for us -> It's been a while since I was treated in such an outrageously patronizing manner and I was *not* amused. :grr:

"I could spec out a system as good as almost anybody, but it will be USELESS and misleading without the PUBLIC SUPERVISION I'm talking about." Yes, you could spec out a system -- and my point is that it would be very USEFUL to do so because it would allow us to write the laws that require the public supervision you are talking about.

HR550 is about the specific system. It is Step 1. And we must pass additional laws - hopefully at the national level - that will allow full citizen oversight. We have to pass the laws that require purchase or new equipment *now* in order to have it in place by 2008. We can pass laws that require citizen oversight later this year or next and have those in place by 2008.

I am very much on your side re: public oversight. I don't think we need to exclude electronic counting systems in order to have meaningful public oversight -- get the paper ballot based optical scan systems in place & demand meaningful oversight.

Note: I want HR550 beefed up considerably - it should end the purchase of all DREs immediately. No more. All new purchases of voting equipment must be voter-marker paper ballot systems that allow up to 100% hand counts. If any law suits are won against voting machine vendors, that $ must be used to purchased precinct-count optical scan systems. More... HR550 needs to be improved - not killed.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

77. hows that working for you? N/T

[Joe Chi Minh]

232. Precisely.

[Land Shark]

14. IndyOp, I've directly challenged you and anyone in favor of HR550

it's all in the OP, and you and febble so far, can ONLY see fit to CHANGE the subject.

Febble objects to what she considers name-calling, essentially, but avoids the issue that way.

IndyOp, you pressure for a specific fact-based proposal, perhaps because any such specific proposal can readily be criticized or characterized in some way as "unworkable" or presently without widespread announced support,

but FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT

is whether democracy can survive without public supervision of elections and whether activists have any business whatsoever in supporting proposals that do NOT support public supervision of elections.

Your opinion, IndyOP?

[IndyOp]

20. We need voting systems specs to pass laws that require citizen oversight...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x460763#460816

:hi:

[Febble]

38. No, I don't avoid the issue

although I think that "name-calling" does (not my term - and it was you who coined the names).

The issue is, as you state:

The theft of public supervision and oversight on elections must be restored, because we have absolutely no real assurance of democracy until it is restored.

And all who love democracy agree.

What, IMO is a distraction from the issue is what you say next:

So begins, this Roll Call for Democracy. Stand up and be counted. It will be VERY interesting, because NO ONE really wants to be seen as being on the other side.

Of course no one "wants to be seen as being on the other side". But this is sleight of hand, because you do not define the "other side" as those who do not believe that "the theft of public supervision and oversight on elections must be restored, because we have absolutely no real assurance of democracy until it is restored", but as "proponents of Holt". This is a non sequitur, and avoids the key issue, which is, simply, how to "restore... public supervision and oversight" that is your shared goal.

Of course elections that do not have public supervision and oversight are undemocratic. But even hand-counted paper ballots do not guarantee "public supervision and oversight". What in the UK, guarantees "public supervision and oversight" is the fact that those ballots are counted in public under the oversight of several hundred people, bi-partisan scrutineers, television cameras, and the candidates themselves, and a key aspect of that counting that makes this degree of oversight possible is its speed. I expect that eventually the actual counting will be done by optical scanners. In which case I would expect the same degree of "public supervision and oversight" to be applied. And just as hand-counts must be audited for errors (and recounted if there are errors) so must any other form of count.

I agree that paperless electronic voting is impossible to supervise, and therefore should be banned. But I happen to consider that a first step towards supervised counting would be the mandating of manually countable ballots, plus the mandating of random audits. This is not "avoid the issue" - it is tackling it head on.

It is also being prepared to debate the best approach with those we regard as being on the same side and with expertise in the conduct of elections, instead of sanitizing ourselves from contact with compromise by referring to those who embrace a less pure strategy than you advocate as "enemies of democracy".

[Land Shark]

47. oh well, then forget the enemies of democracy stuff if it offends

one's sensibilities

activists of all stripes need to be emboldened and let loose.

i am not truly interested in critiquing citizens, it is congress that is the focus. that being said citizens ought to focus more seriously on the gravity of any compromises they make and not fold too quickly. Too date many have been far too compromising on something that was far too costly too obtain: democracy.

You have your route to "get democracy back." I could call it going from London to New York via China. You recommend your own route, but the OP asks how will the route that I am identifying be stopped, if the community of democracy activists embraced it as a direct demand for democracy, and then pursued their own plan B's, either HCPB or audits, Holt, etc as they see fit...??

[kster]

58. I like "enemies of democracy" I mean, once you

know and understand that the Politicians are indeed counting the votes in secret, you can't possibly believe, that them same Politicians are going to make any serious attempt to stop themselves from being able to do it, and anyone who defends HR550, and thinks the Politicians will stop themselves, is either gullible at the least or an "enemy of democracy" at most.

I know the majority at the DU are not gullible, they know and understand, so.............

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. John Conyers, enemy of democracy

Oh-kay.

[kster]

62. Does Mr.Conyers know and understand that the votes

are being counted in secret? If he does, Then yes, he is an enemy of democracy, mind you I have an autographed copy of his book.

[Land Shark]

64. Conyers tries to do the right thing, look for him to change his position

in the coming months, along with kucinich and then many others. I'm not authorized to say this and don't have any inside info, just a prediction here. At the very least, the position against secret vote counting will be made clear by these guys.

[kster]

66. I believe that your prediction will happen........ nt

[galloglas]

73. And a second for Kster! Take the witness stand, OTOH...

John Conyers is an honorable man (wanna debate that, OTOH?).

What may have seemed a good idea in 2004, or early 2005, does not seem good in late 2006. Specifically, HR 550, or any modified, souped-up, overhead cams on your HR 550, or any other extraneous bullshit.

John Conyers can easily see HR 550, and its ultimate inadequacy, in the aftermath of the 2006 elections. For instance, how many elections of the sixteen, or so, suspect election were reversed by the DRE "toilet paper trails"?

So a question to you, OTOH.

What do you have against democracy? Simply put, just pure simple democracy? And are not handcounted paper ballots, counted and posted at the precinct, the very essence of democracy? Do you find the "technology" of the hand count of paper ballots too daunting?

Just what, if you were to testify before a Congressional committee on this matter, would be your arguments against a hand count of paper ballots and for a corporate monopolistic trust of the franchise on my right to vote, and to assure it is counted? That assurance exercised by myself by watching, with my own two eyes, the count of the ballots in my precinct?

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. I love democracy

No, handcounted paper ballots are not "the very essence of democracy." Whatever else they may be, they certainly aren't that. What a weirdly impoverished idea of democracy that would be.

I haven't argued for "a corporate monopolistic trust of the franchise." I haven't even argued against handcounted paper ballots, per se. If you want to pick that fight, there are other people you could look up.

I think you give John Conyers very little credit if you think his opinion of DREs has been appreciably altered by the 2006 election.

[galloglas]

91. Well, does that mean....

I haven't even argued against handcounted paper ballots, per se

That if you aren't against them, you would be for them?

If not, why not?

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. who, me?

I might pause to point out that this thread isn't about me. The thread is about the OPer's compulsion to make a List of enemies of democracy. Or, rather, he apparently now claims it actually has nothing to do with that; it was just intended to inspire us all to fight harder for democracy, each in our own way. Or something like that. I'm sure that the 200-odd Democratic co-sponsors of HR 550 feel much better now. (And of course, I'm no slavish defender of HR 550, as you may already know.)

Basically my feeling about hand-counted paper ballots is that their advocates should have to implement them successfully in at least one large jurisdiction before they start demanding them as a national mandate. When people start haranguing me about how democratic principles require that we all insist on something that it has never crossed most people's minds to ask for, I think to myself that they ought to have to actually convince a bunch of people of their case first. It seems sort of, y'know, democratic that way.

EDIT TO ADD: By the way, I can't tell whether my comments in the second paragraph actually apply to the OP. As far as I can tell, when pressed by Febble to say what he actually supported, he took the view that that was a dirty trick to force him to say something that might be construed as unrealistic. He preferred instead to try to force Febble to say something that he might construe as anti-democratic. All in good fun, of course, and with inspirational intent.

[galloglas]

97. Why not this, then?

You state:

"Basically my feeling about hand-counted paper ballots is that their advocates should have to implement them successfully in at least one large jurisdiction before they start demanding them as a national mandate".



Why not ask why anything other than HCPBs should be in implementation (even if such has been implemented already) given that hand counted paper ballots proved themselves successful from the time of this birth of the country until mechanization made something else possible. That is a period of over a hundred years, and elected about half of our Presidents.

This seems eminently reasonable to ask since a) the electonic voting systems available today have proved themselves flawed, and vulnerable, and b) the voting public (basically, the owners of the "right to vote", as opposed to corporate or bureaucratic "persons") has never been given the option to choose between a system which has successfully worked in the past and the current system which is obviously problematic (if not, indeed, a system with the capacity to permanently corrupt, and derail, a democratic nation).

I think it is impossible to argue that the current system is not problematic, or you and I would not be at this DU forum. On the other hand (pun optional), hand counted paper ballots are not problematic, provided that the persons counting the votes can do basic arithmetic, and that the entire voting process is observable from start to finish, with the tallied results posted at the precinct where cast.

I challenge anyone to offer a cohesive, coherent argument against hand counted paper ballots, other than "machines are faster" or (and this would be an argument needing proof) they are "cheaper".

Neither argument holds water when it is weighed against value of a self-governing society, which Americans have fought for, and died for, over the span of two hundred years.

I will concede that anyone with sufficient skills in sophistry can find a way to avoid, or obfuscate, the issue. But to win it, when balancing the worth of a foolproof (if slower, or even a more costly) method of preserving democracy, and the Constitutional right to vote, against anything method less certain, or less transparent is, I venture to say, impossible.

So, for anyone willing, please provide the argument that any method weighed against the a) the certitude of the vote, verifiable by the human senses, and the consequent preservation (or return) of democracy, is the choice that we should, as a free peoples, be using.

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. I really don't care what you venture

I fully understand that you think you are right. It doesn't interest me that much.

In the real world, the burden of proof is not on the rest of us to convince you that HCPB are not a good idea. If you care about this issue, you need to find a way to do some effective political work. Effective political work is not the hallmark of this thread.

There have been some substantive HCPB threads here before, and perhaps you would like to start one. I don't think it's even appropriate to discuss substantive policy issues on this particular piece of scorched earth.

[galloglas]

104. Ahhhh, I've have seen this play!!

Indeed, Aeschylus, isn't it ? "Sophistrata", no?

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. look around you, or don't

You, collectively, have got a little argument going about whether John Conyers is an enemy of democracy, or the circumstances under which he would become one. You've got the usual suspects lined up to hurl brickbats. You've got some hard-core election integrity activists spitting mad.

By all means, pick a fight with me. I'm sure that will get you much closer to the goal you think you seek. And once everyone gives up on talking with you at all, well, then you've won, right?

[galloglas]

107. Spitting mad? It was after all, a simple question.

It goes like this...

I challenge anyone to offer a cohesive, coherent argument against hand counted paper ballots, other than "machines are faster" or (and this would be an argument needing proof) they are "cheaper".

Neither argument holds water when it is weighed against value of a self-governing society, which Americans have fought for, and died for, over the span of two hundred years.

I will concede that anyone with sufficient skills in sophistry can find a way to avoid, or obfuscate, the issue. But to win it, when balancing the worth of a foolproof (if slower, or even a more costly) method of preserving democracy, and the Constitutional right to vote, against anything method less certain, or less transparent is, I venture to say, impossible.

So, for anyone willing, please provide the argument that any method weighed against the a) the certitude of the vote, verifiable by the human senses, and the consequent preservation (or return) of democracy, is the choice that we should, as a free peoples, be using.


So now, is it Italian? Verdi's "Obfuscato" ??


And when you answer with "I fully understand that you think you are right. It doesn't interest me that much.", I am not surprised... for it has not interested Diebold, Rep. Ney, or Jack Abramoff, either.

Still, you cried out lasted night, "I LOVE democracy!" when I inquired, then I put to you the question above. But now democracy (mine, at the least) does not interest you that much?

Well, OTOH, it doesME! And I want mine back. I want to cast my ballot, and to SEE it be counted! But, I suspect that does not interest you either?

So, tell me.

Is it that none of you can answer the question, in a straight-forward manner? Or is it that you WILL not?


If not, why not?

[Febble]

108. I offer no argument

against paper ballots. I think they are essential. It's why I think that Holt 550, even without amendment, is a heck of a lot better than nothing, as it would ensure that voter-verified paper records in a form suitable for manual counting, and with the status of a ballot in the event of a conflict with an electronic count, would be mandatory throughout the US.

I also offer no general argument against hand-counting. It works extremely well in the UK. But I do caution against the notion that hand-counts per se offer security against corruption. They don't. Ukraine was stolen on hand-counted paper ballots - ballots were destroyed before they were counted. There was an attempt at election theft in the UK at the last election - ballots were stolen with the apparent aim of ballot-box stuffing.

Moreover, what makes our handcounted system work is that the count is done under public scrutiny - much more scrutiny than, I think, could ever be achieved at your precinct level. Large public crowds, candidates, TV cameras and bipartisan scrutineers are present at each count.

But of course, the "count" itself is secret - as it must be. It is locked inside the heads of the tellers, just as the counting software is locked inside the code of an optical scanner. It's actually probably less reliable. What makes our count better than yours is not that it is done by skilled tellers per se, but that it is publicly checked - audited, if you like - and if the total is in doubt, a full recount happens immediately.

Another important aspect is speed. Our count is fast. This means that custody of the ballots can be pretty well assured at all times (the weak link is the transport to the count, but we have pretty good protocol for that too). It is all done in one night. If it were slower, there would be more opportunity for corruption.

I cannot see how your complex ballots could be counted fast enough to ensure anything like the continuous public scrutiny that is available at our overnight counts. I'm open to suggestion, but that is the problem I have with the idea of precinct-level hand-counts.

Therefore, I caution against the presumption that handcounting is in itself any kind of panacea. Audits will always be necessary, as well as oversight.

And that's why I think that the Holt provision of paper+audit gets the foundation stones in place. But it would be good to improve Holt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. I regret that I misoverestimated you

on edit: you might reread my previous post a few times, as it was rather short, but you seem to have managed to misread it anyway.

[BeFree]

115. No answer?

Here, I will try to answer you:

Since there is nothing wrong with Diebold that can't be fixed with a little 550 tweak, there is nothing to worry about. There is no proof that your vote was stolen, sure, there is a ton of evidence - but no proof - so all you have is an assumption, an asumption that goes against my assumption, so therefore your assumption does not interest me.

[galloglas]

121. Dohh!! (Slap!) I shoulda known it! n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

129. right, and I'm sure you remember me saying all that, too n/t

[galloglas]

145. Right. I remember now...

But I think Be Free was being satirical.

Did you happen to go hoist on Be Free's lampoon??

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. turn his name in now, thats the rule

take names, get a video, turn Conyers in.

Also, turn in Congressman Mel Watt, he signed on too.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

88. Mel Watt, enemy of democracy

Take his name. I know he will be scared of you.

[Land Shark]

118. At this point, I'm not sure any one is in Congress, but i suspect some are

You'd have to:

(1) Know full well that public supervision is being denied on elections. If you look at or google the words Cramdown stripdown lockdown you'll see in part a transcript of an exchange I had with the vice chair of the EAC who did not seem fully aware that public supervision was being denied but upon having it pointed out, he acknowledged how state rights, at least in some states, very well were apparently being denied by the invisible electronic vote counting being rammed down the throats of states by HAVA, and then

(2) proceed to support HR 550 anyway, even after knowing that it denies public supervision of the elections under which these Congresspeople will themselves be subject to re-election

See, if it's me and I'm a friend of democracy, I want my election transparent and open, and I don't push for situations where it is anything other than above board.

On the other hand, if I'm an (substitute your term here for "enemy of democracy") then I would go around telling the little people that they simply can't expect to be able to witness vote counting or obtain information about these important matters....

This is why I predict John COnyers will change his position once he becomes aware of (1) above.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

90. about that list of names.....

that reminded me of another list:

Joseph McCarthy's involvement with the cultural phenomenon that would bear his name began with a speech he made on Lincoln Day, February 9, 1950, to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia. He produced a piece of paper which he claimed contained a list of known Communists working for the State Department. McCarthy is quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party, and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department." This speech resulted in a flood of press attention to McCarthy and set him on the path that would characterize the rest of his career and life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

[troubleinwinter]

95. Only 205?

Here are 222 cosponsors of HR 550. Of course, this doesn't count the other "enemies of democracy" on this thread.

Nearly two years of work to get these sponsors to see the issue and begin working with us to try to address it and begin working hard on a solution.

Should we tell these people "Oh, nevermind, it's all just a bunch of crap pushed by the enemies of democracy"? Or should we work with these people to pass HR550 and continue to work with them while they are with us to improve it?

Maybe we should cut off our nose to spite our face and shit-can a coupla years of very hard work and maybe the tooth-fairy will give us a perfect law in time for 2008. Or maybe we need this one in place and have some time to improve it with the willing ears of 222 House Represetatives.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 2/2/2005
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. - 3/2/2005
Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 2/2/2005
Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 11/18/2005
Rep Baca, Joe - 9/19/2006
Rep Baird, Brian - 2/2/2005
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 2/2/2005
Rep Barrow, John - 9/6/2005
Rep Bean, Melissa L. - 7/11/2006
Rep Becerra, Xavier - 2/9/2005
Rep Berkley, Shelley - 4/5/2005
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 2/2/2005
Rep Berry, Marion - 3/17/2005
Rep Biggert, Judy - 11/14/2006
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. - 2/16/2005
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. - 2/16/2005
Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 2/10/2005
Rep Bono, Mary - 9/28/2005
Rep Boren, Dan - 9/6/2006
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. - 6/14/2006
Rep Boucher, Rick - 4/5/2005
Rep Boyd, Allen - 3/2/2005
Rep Brady, Robert A. - 4/20/2005
Rep Brown, Corrine - 2/16/2005
Rep Brown, Sherrod - 2/9/2005
Rep Butterfield, G. K. - 3/17/2005
Rep Capps, Lois - 2/2/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 5/3/2006
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. - 9/27/2005
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. - 6/24/2005
Rep Carnahan, Russ - 9/13/2005
Rep Carson, Julia - 2/16/2005
Rep Case, Ed - 2/2/2005
Rep Castle, Michael N. - 9/6/2006
Rep Chandler, Ben - 4/25/2006
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 2/2/2005
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel - 9/13/2005
Rep Cole, Tom - 2/2/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 2/2/2005
Rep Cooper, Jim - 2/2/2005
Rep Costa, Jim - 9/6/2006
Rep Costello, Jerry F. - 9/6/2006
Rep Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. - 7/20/2006
Rep Crowley, Joseph - 2/16/2005
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 2/9/2005
Rep Davis, Artur - 7/27/2006
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 3/2/2005
Rep Davis, Jim - 3/2/2005
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 2/14/2006
Rep Davis, Susan A. - 4/20/2005
Rep Davis, Tom - 2/2/2005
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. - 2/2/2005
Rep DeGette, Diana - 3/2/2005
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 2/16/2005
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 3/10/2005
Rep Dicks, Norman D. - 2/2/2005
Rep Dingell, John D. - 3/17/2005
Rep Doggett, Lloyd - 2/16/2005
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 2/16/2005
Rep Edwards, Chet - 7/28/2006
Rep Emanuel, Rahm - 2/16/2005
Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 4/5/2005
Rep English, Phil - 3/7/2006
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. - 2/2/2005
Rep Etheridge, Bob - 2/16/2005
Rep Evans, Lane - 11/18/2005
Rep Farr, Sam - 2/2/2005
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 1/31/2006
Rep Filner, Bob - 2/2/2005
Rep Fitzpatrick, Michael G. - 6/24/2005
Rep Ford, Harold E., Jr. - 3/10/2005
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. - 7/27/2006
Rep Frank, Barney - 2/9/2005
Rep Gerlach, Jim - 4/25/2006
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. - 9/28/2006
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. - 9/28/2005
Rep Gordon, Bart - 4/5/2005
Rep Green, Al - 4/25/2006
Rep Green, Gene - 6/24/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 2/16/2005
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. - 2/16/2005
Rep Harman, Jane - 4/27/2006
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 2/2/2005
Rep Herseth, Stephanie - 9/6/2006
Rep Higgins, Brian - 2/9/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 2/2/2005
Rep Holden, Tim - 4/25/2006
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 2/9/2005
Rep Hooley, Darlene - 2/16/2005
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. - 9/26/2006
Rep Inslee, Jay - 2/16/2005 Rep Israel, Steve - 4/5/2005
Rep Issa, Darrell E. - 9/6/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 4/5/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 3/2/2005
Rep Jefferson, William J. - 7/12/2006
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice - 2/16/2005
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 2/2/2005
Rep Kanjorski, Paul E. - 5/11/2005
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 2/2/2005
Rep Kelly, Sue W. - 7/20/2006
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. - 5/26/2005
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 2/9/2005
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 2/2/2005
Rep Kind, Ron - 2/2/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/2/2005
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. - 6/24/2005
Rep LaHood, Ray - 4/25/2006
Rep Langevin, James R. - 11/13/2006
Rep Lantos, Tom - 2/2/2005
Rep Larsen, Rick - 2/9/2005
Rep Larson, John B. - 7/28/2006
Rep Leach, James A. - 4/25/2006
Rep Lee, Barbara - 2/2/2005
Rep Levin, Sander M. - 7/13/2005
Rep Lewis, John - 2/9/2005
Rep Lipinski, Daniel - 7/10/2006
Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 9/28/2006
Rep Lowey, Nita M. - 3/2/2005
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. - 4/25/2006
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 2/2/2005
Rep Markey, Edward J. - 4/5/2005
Rep Marshall, Jim - 6/21/2006
Rep Matheson, Jim - 2/9/2005
Rep Matsui, Doris O. - 4/25/2006
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn - 2/9/2005
Rep McCollum, Betty - 2/9/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim - 2/2/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. - 2/2/2005
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 4/26/2006
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. - 2/2/2005
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 3/2/2005
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 9/6/2005
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. - 3/2/2005
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. - 4/26/2006
Rep Melancon, Charlie - 7/10/2006
Rep Menendez, Robert - 9/13/2005
Rep Michaud, Michael H. - 2/9/2005
Rep Miller, Brad - 7/21/2005
Rep Miller, George - 2/9/2005
Rep Mollohan, Alan B. - 2/2/2005
Rep Moore, Dennis - 2/2/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen - 9/6/2005
Rep Moran, James P. - 2/2/2005
Rep Murphy, Tim - 2/8/2006
Rep Murtha, John P. - 2/16/2005
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 2/2/2005
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - 2/9/2005
Rep Neal, Richard E. - 9/13/2005
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 3/7/2006
Rep Oberstar, James L. - 2/2/2005
Rep Obey, David R. - 2/2/2005
Rep Olver, John W. - 2/16/2005
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. - 6/6/2006
Rep Owens, Major R. - 2/9/2005
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - 2/9/2005
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 2/2/2005
Rep Pastor, Ed - 2/16/2005
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 2/2/2005
Rep Pelosi, Nancy - 4/25/2006
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 9/28/2006
Rep Petri, Thomas E. - 2/9/2005
Rep Pomeroy, Earl - 9/21/2006
Rep Price, David E. - 2/2/2005
Rep Price, Tom - 9/12/2006
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II - 2/16/2005
Rep Ramstad, Jim - 9/6/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 2/16/2005
Rep Reyes, Silvestre - 7/28/2006
Rep Ross, Mike - 2/9/2005
Rep Rothman, Steven R. - 3/2/2005
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - 4/25/2006
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch - 3/9/2006
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 6/6/2006
Rep Ryan, Tim - 2/9/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 2/2/2005
Rep Salazar, John T. - 6/24/2005
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 2/9/2005
Rep Sanchez, Loretta - 2/2/2005
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 2/9/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 2/2/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. - 2/2/2005
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. - 6/24/2005
Rep Scott, David - 6/28/2006
Rep Scott, Robert C. - 2/2/2005
Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 2/9/2005
Rep Shays, Christopher - 5/3/2006
Rep Sherman, Brad - 2/2/2005
Rep Simmons, Rob - 7/12/2006
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh - 5/5/2005
Rep Smith, Adam - 4/5/2005
Rep Snyder, Vic - 2/16/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 2/9/2005
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. - 7/10/2006
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 4/5/2005
Rep Strickland, Ted - 3/7/2006
Rep Stupak, Bart - 3/10/2005
Rep Tanner, John S. - 11/13/2006
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. - 5/10/2006
Rep Taylor, Gene - 11/18/2005
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. - 6/13/2006
Rep Thompson, Mike - 2/16/2005
Rep Tierney, John F. - 2/9/2005
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 2/16/2005
Rep Udall, Mark - 2/9/2005
Rep Udall, Tom - 3/2/2005
Rep Van Hollen, Chris - 2/2/2005
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 7/13/2005
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. - 5/2/2006
Rep Walden, Greg - 2/28/2006
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie - 2/9/2005
Rep Waters, Maxine - 4/6/2006
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 3/10/2005
Rep Watt, Melvin L. - 9/28/2006
Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 2/2/2005
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 4/5/2005
Rep Weldon, Curt - 4/26/2006
Rep Wexler, Robert - 2/2/2005
Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 2/15/2006
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 2/2/2005
Rep Wu, David - 2/2/2005
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 2/9/2005

[kster]

96. After the 06 election, if they stay on this list they are

gullible or the "enemies of democracy", all 205 of them.

Under the Neocons, I may have signed on to this garbage also, but, they are no longer under the Neocons thumb, are they?

[troubleinwinter]

99. Wowee.

You don't read very carefully. Joseph McCarthy claimed to know of 205 "communists".

There are 222 cosponsors of HR-550, who you view as "enemies of democracy" for their understanding that there is an urgent problem and are standing together to publicly acknowlege and begin to work with us to solve it.

How old are you? If you are beyond 4th grade, you might want to look up "Cut off your nose to spite your face". It means to 'disadvantage yourself in order to do harm to an adversary'. Alternatively, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. Good luck with that. Really. If you feel that calling our congressmen "enemies of democracy" is going to facilitate election reform, go for it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

100. should someone send the OP to the Congressmen/Enemies on the list

Shouldn't they be warned?

They have been designated enemies of Democracy,
on a public message board with thousands of viewers.

We have seen what happens when these types of messages
have been posted on other message boards.

The "enemies" get harassed by nutcases.

I am surprised that Skinner is allowing this OP.

[Land Shark]

117. what would be the basis for censoring the post?

[kster]

112. If they know the votes are being counted in secret ,

and they should know that, they should not stay signed on to hr 550, they would not be doing their job, They will be doing harm to democracy by allowing these corrupt machines to continue to count our votes in secret.

http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

111. you threatened, not challenged

That is how some lawmakers may take it when your o/p is
faxed, emailed and snail mailed to their offices.

[BeFree]

114. Good

The bastards need to feel threatened.

[Land Shark]

119. threatened with being called a name if they insist that their own elections

be nontransparent and not subject to public supervision.

This is UNREASONABLE?

What kind of transparency "activist" mocks this argument as being completely over the top?

[BeFree]

123. Don't criticize the government

The last thing we want to do is to make our leaders afraid of us. They have it so we are afraid of them, and we shouldn't upset them apples?

But not all activists operate under such narrow confines. There comes a time and place to destroy such proclivities and that time is here, and now.

[galloglas]

130. Is this not the FISA logic?

You say:

"you threatened, not challenged"

A decision to enumerate, and remember, the positions of persons who choose to eliminate, or disregard, a transparent democracy is a threat?

That is how some lawmakers may take it when your o/p is
faxed, emailed and snail mailed to their offices.

Is that not also the position of the "Unitary Executive" regarding its actions in Iraq? Going further, even, than opposition "faxed, emailed and snail mailed to their offices", to include phone calls intercepted domestically as evidenced by the observation of Quaker groups, by Federal agents, who peacefully protest the war?

Since when does it makes sense to extrapolate that pacifists, demonstrating peacefully against a pre-emptive and violent military incursion against a neutral nation (Iraq), would be likely to become enemies of the state, presenting a possible threat of violence.

Yet, FOIA requests to the Federal government have produced just such logic, and answers, in regard to the USJP demonstrations. Seems the next step is to appoint these Executive goons a #00? agents, with licensees to kill. It was, after all, Hitler's next step.

So, tell me, what constitutes the threat? The wording of the text in the OP, or the "perceptions" of those whom the OP suggests compiling lists of?

[Land Shark]

135. I'm threatening to check their voting record, after they've had a chance to learn this

and then call them enemies of democracy if they won't let the true supervisors in a democracy, the people, supervise their OWN elections.

WHo sympathizes with people "threatened" by this. Actually I think Congress is quite used to hearing that their voting record will be used to tar, feather, and call them friends of sexual predators or coddlers of terrorists. Enemy of democracy? If a person wants to deny the public the ability to supervise THEIR OWN ELECTIONS, where the govt is of course incompetent to supervise due to conflicts of interest, if that's not an enemy of democracy, what is?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

138. you should sign it and mail it to each congressman

If you stand behind your op ed:

Sign your op ed with your real name and addresss,
print out 200 + copies,
and send it to each congressman.

[Land Shark]

141. I've asked people to come out from hiding and announce real name and address

and people alert the moderators for that. Oh boy.

Tell you what, I will email John Conyers right now and use the term enemy of democracy in the same context as above, and as I've stated I believe that confronted with the facts he would never be an enemy of democracy, he'd either drop his support for HR 550 or at the very least announce some kind of opposition to the bill's defects in this regard.

He would not, I don't think, attack the person upholding the values of democracy for perceived excesses of zeal. He'd be a lot more likely to smile, say atta boy keep it up, next time just use a slightly different phrase and it will be more effective. Even if he kept his position the same, he'd acknowledge that the point has some strength.

That's what the naysayers on this list refuse to do: admit there's any thing to the point at all. They'd rather say it's poorly written, antagonistic, attack the style or praise the strategy of 550 than to ANSWER THE CORE QUESTION the OP presents.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

143. If you really believe in your OP

then hopefully you will feel strongly enough
to send it in full, as written, as posted on
the internet for everyone to read,

to the congressmen who you intend to hold accountable.

Conyers may not read DU in his spare time.

Why send him an edited version?

If you mean everything you say about how you are going
to hold them accountable, tell THEM that.

And I hope you will be proud enough of your work
(in its entirety) to sign your name to your
challenge/op ed when you send it to the congressmen.

Be proud of it.

I am not asking for you to put your name on it here at
democratic underground.

Just since you are proud of the OP, send it in its entirety to any congressmen.

Unless you prefer to wait untill after HR 550 passes, and then blame
congress for not having heard about your warning.

[Land Shark]

154. Here's why you are simply trying to taunt me, in an immature way

This "oped" as you call it is ALREADY PUBLISHED TO THE WORLD, as you essentially recognize above, and my real name is not the biggest secret.

So, having no real issue and nothing to talk about, you taunt me to mail copies to Congress. (where it will take a month to get through anthrax screening and not be read because they only read specific constituent mail) Oh yeah, perhaps congress doesn't read this. But if you think it's a big concern you can email the link to congress yourself. I hope you will.

So you are wasting our collective time here, but I thank you for the kick.

But in the end, I might be able to do you one better, if I can get enough volunteers and opportunities, and we can get the reactions of the Congress on camera. The Congress simply HAS TO, under democratic practices, respect public rights in elections as I've argued, so if the People's/"the Boss's" rights are not being respected they have every right to call their government "servants":

1. unfaithful servants
2. disloyal representatives
3. enemies of democracy

But once again, WillYourVoteBCounted REFUSES to answer the central question of the OP, stated again and again, as to what the real argument is against public supervision ON THE MERITS, and if there is none, then there's absolutely no business telling We the People that something short of full public supervision is the only "realistic" option in the Congress as they set out to determine the circumstances and conditions of their own elections and re-elections.

Congress has absolutely no justification for calling HR 550 "realistic", and all the tiny remaining number of HR550 defenders can manage to do is object to my phrasing like "enemy of democracy", they simply can't even muster a response on the merits.

This is why people PM me with glee that HR 550 proponents are cornered, thrown on their backs like beetles with legs flailing in the air.... because they can't answer the question on the merits.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

155. undemocratic labeling of those who disagree with you

I take issue with this message board being used to publicly
demonize activists, DUers, and Congressmen, anyone who disagrees with you.

THAT is undemocratic.

Look what happened when similar rhetoric rhetoric and
tactics were used against Nick Berg by the Free Republic
another internet message board:

Nick Berg's Killing: 50 Fishy Circumstances, Contradictory Claims ...4)
FreeRepublic website listed the Berg business as an "Enemy of the State". ...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477

Pehaps those who disagree with you demonized in much
the same way that Nick Berg was.


Here "Landshark" said:

"You who are against the most indispensable of all rights, will go down in history as having done so. WE will do everything in our power to keep alive the memory of the names of those Representatives, Senators, lobbyists, and citizens who attempt to defeat the legitimate democratic wishes of virtually 100% of all Americans"

Finally, you can't speak for virtually 100% of all Americans.

[Land Shark]

156. There's a ton of room to disagree, Republicans, Socialists, Constitutionalists, etc.

parties of every stripe, they all fit, and can win elections fairly and squarely in the Democratic tent. There's no room, even, for the House UnAmerican committee going after "communists" because as shown in italy, communists could even win elections and function within a democratic framework.

But there's no room for those who do not uphold the very essences of democracy. Given so much room (above) to disagree, I have to wonder at your commitment to desperately trying to dog me and make me look bad, while never answering the question on the merits. It appears that you have no defense, you truly don't care for or are against the full conditions necessary for democracy, or at least your personal animosity for me or my approach here as you see it overwhelms your commitment to democracy.

But there are a few things, even in conditions of freedom, that one can't do. Treason and anti-democracy come to mind.

There's a huge difference between someone with an army and a police force saying something and the government doing it. That's one reason the Founders recognized that individuals have rights of speech and other individual rights and the government does not. Comparing me to the government would just get you a D in Political science.

[stellanoir]

18. ahhh with all due respect. . .

Mr. Shark,

If this powerful diatribe and testimony can pour through you when you say. . .

". . .Only two days away from a week in the hospital on IVs, I don’t feel very feisty. . .",

then when you're feeling as though you've regained your chops, I may just have to crawl under my rock again.

No seriously, the myth of our having a representative legislature when at every turn in recent years they've ruled in favor of the interests of their corporate donors over the interests of the common folk has been so grueling.

That pattern is only accentuated even moreso when our two top allegedly elected officials say repeatedly and dismissively "I don't pay attention to polls," (TRANSLATION: they don't give a flying flop about the will of their constituents) the majority of the population wants our troops to get out of Iraq, and an even greater percentage want accountability and transparency in our elections.

Still as I was typing this, at the top of the hour news on NPR they just mentioned EVM's switching votes in Florida and how it has shaken voter confidence. Duhhh. Yet perhaps the worm is turning ever so slowly.

I am of course of the opinion that HAVA can't be tweaked or modified but should be repealed entirely.

What do you think of Kucinich's bill though?

[Land Shark]

21. 6200 would save the presidential election for 2008

the question is whether congress can be left behind.

[galloglas]

23. Missouri weighs in, saying "Show ME!"

In a new YahooGroup, [e-mail], I have posted our version and wording of what we want from out state. It is listed below.

Any comments, Counselor? Any suggestions? Does it fit the plan?




Show Me The Vote is dedicated to the proposition that all elections should be;

1) open and transparent to the public, from the casting of the ballot to the final counting of ballots. Further, that the final tabulation of ballots be made and posted at the place they are cast.

2) that the sanctity of the voting franchise is an inviolable right and, as such, the control of elections must never be given over to private or corporate entities.

3) that voting is the Keystone upon which democracy rests, and where there is no accountability and transparency, there is not democracy.

4) that it should be the choice of the people as to what manner and method should be used to cast and count their votes.

5) that the manner of casting and counting of votes should be intelligible to the least sophisticated of voters. To that end, our common human senses of sight and hearing should be the method used to measure the outcome of elections.

6) that, in keeping with maximum transparency and intelligibilty, voting should be carried out on hand counted paper ballots. Further, that those ballots be archived for their lifetime.

7) that those officials responsible for the day to day administration of electoral process owe their first allegiance to voters whom they serve. As such, those officials should administer, and carry out, elections in the manner chosen by the voters.

8) that all elections should observable by citizens and the press, from the time that the polls are first opened until the final tally is completed and posted.

9) that the citizens of any democratic government have the inherent right to determine, though observation, the fairness and accuracy of all elections.

10) and, to that end, we demand that the state of Missouri abandon the use of electronic or mechanical marking or counting devices in favor of hand marked and hand counted paper ballots.

So say we all:

To that end, we voters demand of Missouri, one and all,


"Show Me The Vote !"

[kster]

26. I am Kster, and I approve of this message

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2991880&mesg_id=2991880

K&R........

[Roland99]

30. Hand-counted. Paper. Ballots.

Accept nothing less!

[Bill Bored]

36. Got HCPB in Snohomish yet? nt

[Land Shark]

37. I don't live there any more, but we have the Oregon all vote by mail system

there, replacing the touchscreens. It is popular in oregon so far as I can see but activists are divided on it in WA State. on edit: a few weeks a year we still have an apartment in everett, but spend more time elsewhere with our planned return becoming uncertain.

[Bill Bored]

48. OK, so do you have HCPB in Oregon yet?

How about your county in Oregon?

AFAIK, they mail in their ballots and they are counted in secret by optical scanners.

Proposals by activists in Oregon require a sampling of ballots with a 1% margin of error (and that's only for statewide races, isn't it?). In any case, that's an audit -- pure and simple.

So what do you propose for Oregon, or for your county in Oregon?

Are those proposing the audit "enemies of democracy" too?

Glad you have your health back, BTW!

And there are other questions concerning states like Virginia (autorank's state) where no one really knows who won the Senate race or the 2005 AG race, and where recounts are impossible. And New Hampshire (Nancy Tobi's state) where, like any other state, HCPB is allowed, but apparently does not take place throughout the state. Diebold Op Scans are all over the place up there! How do THEY decide when to hand count anything?

And what's all this NONSENSE about Secretaries of State being in charge of election systems? Shouldn't there at least be bi-partisan election administration???

Honestly, all this sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black sometimes.

New York is the only state without e-voting. The reason is because we have refused to deliberately misread HAVA and we have truly bi-partisan election administrations who don't agree to walk off cliffs so readily.

[Land Shark]

65. You don't know what state I live in now primarily BB

half the time, i'm traveling so much to OH, CA, KY, NY, MI and so forth that I don't know where I live. I don't have a place where I am most of the time, but no matter where they are located

ONCE THEY KNOW about secret vote counting, they gotta change, or they are an enemy of democracy or recklessly messing with democracy, as the case may be...

[BeFree]

67. It boils down to

Whether private corporations are to be involved in the process. With private corporations involved, profit becomes a big factor and openess is limited.

550 keeps private corporations in the process, therefore 550 is not democratic and anybody supporting 550 is being anti-democratic.

More openess and zero profit margins are the only way to run this ship of state.

[Land Shark]

68. especially in elections, sometimes you gotta fall on your sword and do right thing

for profit corps may be especially hesitant to do that, since in addition to being human they are under a legal duty to produce profit, and under usually personal incentive structures to get profit, instead of honestly report that the machines just ain't working...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

78. will you sue Oregon for HCPB? N/T

[Land Shark]

79. of course not, i'm not an OR lawyer have no OR client nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

84. have you won any of your election cases? n/t

[galloglas]

142. And your question implies what?

edit: hasty grammar


Captain Dreyfus did not win his case, either.

So, is your implication that the case made by the defense in J'accuse is that of an unworthy legal advocate?

Or is your statement merely a "potshot" from a sniper's post, at someone who argues his case openly and honestly?

My question to you seems, at the least, to warrant an answer.... No?

[Land Shark]

157. She won't answer your question, or mine on the merits from OP

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

89. popular, like DREs. Do you have HCPB where you vote?

"everyone just loves voting on the touchscreens".

Popular. State of the art.

DO you have HCPB where you vote, or where you live?

[kpete]

69. Land Shark - Taking names and throwing chairs

So much for you trying to take it easy-

Perhaps there is NO way to hold a shark down...k

[troubleinwinter]

70. Is that you Bev? Hahahahaha!

I haven't read such an attack on fellow dedicated election reform supporters and activists since.... well, nevermind.

"Forget the 'enemies of democracy' stuff if it offends you." If I call you a 'complete childish asshole' and it offends you, just forget it, 'K? If I call you 'a major egotistical jerk who claims it's Paul's way or the the highway, you traitors', and it offends you, just forget about it, K? If I say that I find your approach to the issue like that of a four year old who wants to have the whole cake now rather than a thoughful approach and discussions by many smart, experienced and devoted activists, forget it if it offends you, OK?

You apparently love polls and statistics ONLY when they suit your OWN purpose. You claim, "fully 92% of the American Public in an August 2006 Zogby poll expressed support..." "the 92% of the American people" No, Paul, 92% of the American public expressed no such thing. It was a POLL. What percent of the American Public was polled? You present this teensy sample as being the utter truth of the entirety of people's views, yet reject an audit and random recount of 2%, 5%, 40%, 99% as having any validity. Which is it?

I find your post one of the most isulting and intolerant posts I have ever read on DU towards people here trying to work toward clean elections.

It appears deliberately divisive.

"We will record... the names of all citizens..." "these names will live in infamy as those who failed to support democracy" Sounds like something one might read on freerepublic.

"i am not truly interested in critiquing citizens" You did a mighty intense job of it, nonetheless.

"the goal of publicly supervised elections with oversight and accountability to We the People" It is my goal. But apparently, my support of HR 550 as a beginning makes me "nothing short of being an enemy of democracy" in your eyes.

[Land Shark]

72. All's forgotten, no problem. But you still should consider whether you

really have the right to experiment with democracy that's been purchased at a very high price, by putting off indefinitely and certainly past 2008 the restoration of public supervision of elections. I hope that's not asking too much, or that the right person, besides me, has to be the one who brings it up, or that you resent being asked to think about it because you've already thought it through, because we should be willing to acknowledge our actual ideas and feelings authentically about democracy even if I'm the village idiot bringing the subject up belatedly or in an offensive way to you.

So, essentially, democracy is always in order.

I think we can honestly say that all legislation in this post-HAVA world is an unique experiment in surgery on this newly bionic/electronic democracy, and that it's dicey, and not simple. worth thinking carefully about for all of us, no?

But it's doubtful that this is the first time you've heard about these things. Don't let your feelings of dislike for how I write and challenge people to question whether they are really doing the right thing interfere with your objectivity in terms of how you are personally going to push democracy to be restored and on what timetable.

As always, troubleinwinter, I appreciate the challenge of your response. I've never really benefited by being called Bev, (you've done that before as I recall) in that it doesn't lead to any productive or challenging responses on my part. Is there something I'm missing there?

YOu, in fairness, do quote that I'm not really focused on citizens, so thanks for that. I want to get people thinking as deeply and seriously as possible about democracy, and if they already have they will just experience my writing as beginning-level and ill informed, but not any kind of threat or insult that prevents them from considering the important issues of the day.

It's ok by me if some people get annoyed with me. Especially if their annoyance at the idea of some "list" somewhere just sparked a consideration of democracy and a REDOUBLING of commitment to Holt, i'd be happy. Ultimately, their interest in or love for democracy has got to be stronger than pique. And they can't really read my post and get annoyed and NOT also get the idea that public supervision is an angle for them to consider as they do care about democracy. So that's sweet success, to me. it's been a good day watching the kids here and posting as catch can.

Thanks for the post, troubleIW. You've thought about it, that's all I can ask. I thank you for giving me so much of your time.

[troubleinwinter]

86. "list"

"consider whether you really have the right to experiment with democracy.... worth thinking carefully about for all of us, no?"

Each of us has the right to examine the issue and work and fight for democracy and work toward the goal. People in this forum, and many other citizens and activists have been doing very serious thinking and EFFECTIVE WORK on this issue. "experiment" is your interpretation.

"Don't let your feelings of dislike for how I write and challenge people"

I mind your insulting people.

"As always, troubleinwinter, I appreciate the challenge of your response. I've never really benefited by being called Bev, (you've done that before as I recall) in that it doesn't lead to any productive or challenging responses on my part. Is there something I'm missing there?"

No, I have never called you Bev. The subject line, "Bev, is that you?" was something of a joke, indicating (as in the first line of the message) that I had not seen such attacks against serious elections reform supporters and activists since Bev's many attacks. Perhaps you are missing the point that people working toward election reform who may not be Paul Lehto followers are not "enemies of democracy", any more than people who are not Bev followers are on Diebold's payroll. Subtle, I know, but nonetheless...

"YOu, in fairness, do quote that I'm not really focused on citizens, so thanks for that."

Actually, I quoted a couple of your attacks/threats mentioning "citizens" and then your claim that you were not attacking. It exhibited your hypocrisy in your own words.

"I want to get people thinking as deeply and seriously as possible"

No, I don't think so. I think you are trying your damnedest to shut down discussion on the issue by painting anyone who may support HR550 as "enemies of democracy". It is UGLY, and you appear to be trying to shout people down.

"It's ok by me if some people get annoyed with me. Especially if their annoyance at the idea of some "list" somewhere just sparked a consideration of democracy and a REDOUBLING of commitment to Holt, i'd be happy. "

So your post was for the purpose of flame-bait? To annoy? Your post about "taking names" and "We will record... the names of all citizens..." "these names will live in infamy" "nothing short of being an enemy of democracy" was to annoy and sew discord? You now claim that your rudeness and insults toward those who support HR550 was just to make you happy?

Plenty of people here don't care for me or my opinions, but I don't post bullshit crap for the purpose of annoying or insulting people who disagree with me solely in order to rile people.

"Thanks for the post, troubleIW. You've thought about it, that's all I can ask. I thank you for giving me so much of your time. "

If I might impose a bit more on your time, I am still interested in your response regarding your claim that "fully 92% of the American Public" express support for anything.

[BeFree]

113. Good question

"If I might impose a bit more on your time, I am still interested in your response regarding your claim that "fully 92% of the American Public" express support for anything."

Ok, good question. So, can you find ONE person who thinks the vote should be counted in secret? Like it is with the Diebold voting machines?

If you can find that one person, we can add that name to the list of people who are anti-democratic.

It follows that anyone who thinks it's ok that our vote be counted in secret by Diebold et al, is anti-democratic, whether they admit it or not.

[Land Shark]

120. yeah, people commonly use a poll's pecentage result to say things in the form of

XX% of the american people approve of George Bush's job performance....

Troubleinwinter implies that we can only say that 33 out of 100 people polled believe that... But the entire idea of the poll is to estimate what We the People think and I'm going to stand by that formulation.

What I don't understand is why troubleinwinter, a democracy activist, wants to limit and tear down the Zogby 92% poll? Trouble says she's angry or insulted but will she do anything to get back at me including tearing down one of the bases for the verified voting foundation's Transparency Project, the 92% poll? What gives?

I mean, when even Verified Voting Foundation says "92% of all demographic groups in the country support" transparency (see http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6386 )
and trouble supports that group...

what gives????

[troubleinwinter]

124. Survey says??

I am trying to ascertain why you claim in the OP:

"fully 92% of the American Public in an August 2006 Zogby poll expressed support for a voting system that specifically allows the Public to “Witness vote counting..."

"How could a true Representative of the People DARE to deny the 92% of the American people their wishes..."

"...the overwhelming 92% supermajority of We the People....concerns of the 92%????"

"The 92% desire for public supervision..."

"...the 92% from their unambiguous goal of publicly supervised elections..."

"...92% or more of the American public supports this..."

"...the wishes of the 92%..."

Yet on reading the Zogby article, it says no such thing. It says:

Asked whether Americans have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes, 92% of respondents concurred.

It appears to me that 92% of those 1,018 persons polled assumed that citizens already have the right to know how how officials count votes.

The actual question on the poll was:

“In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process. Which of the following two statements are you more likely to
agree with A or B?”

Statement A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes.
92%

Statement B: Citizens do not have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes.
6%

Neither/Not sure
2%

I think the question was poorly written, as the actual response choices are whether one can obtain information about how officials count votes.

Zogby further says:

80%—said they want votes to be counted in front of observers representing the public.

Why the persistence in misrepresenting the nature of the 92% figure in your assertions, rather than the 80% (indicating they want votes to be counted in front of observers representing the public) that the poll evidently showed? Why not simply be truthful and accurate by using 80%?

[Land Shark]

137. You're mischaracterizing the actual question answers

The answers both refer to the right to VIEW how election officials count votes and refer to the right to obtain information about how election officials count votes. That parallelism set forth in the question itself is why the answers you suggest are unclear would definitely be understood by all listeners immediately after hearing the text of the question itself to refer to both witnessing/viewing rights as well as informational rights. Because the question makes clear that there are two separate rights, viewing rights and info rights, in that context the choices A and B are not at all ambiguous.

18. In some states, members of the public have the right to view the counting of votes and verify how that process is working. In other states, citizens are in effect barred
from viewing vote counting even if they would like to view the process.

A: Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes.

B: Citizens do not have the right to view and obtain information about how elections officials count votes

[troubleinwinter]

147. That post is funny. Really. "both refer... parallelism... unclear... question itself..." Hahaha!

Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes.

It is simple and clear to anyone having passed seventh grade grammar.

No, the question does NOT make clear "that there are two separate rights, viewing rights and info rights" at all. Read up on coordinating conjunctions. One might think that proper interpretation would matter to you, since you solicited donations for this effort. One might think that an attorney would know the difference in meaning between "and" and "or". But whatever suits your own purpose, eh??!!

Puhleeze tell us why you persist in using this crap number, rather than a more legitimate 80% number? I do not argue the 80% number. But using this asinine 92% and defending it makes you look like a liar. Or a manipulator. Or stupid. Or other.

Why do you feel the need to use a bullshit number?

I am stumped and amazed.

Stumped. Amazed.

[BeFree]

125. What gives?

I guess some people are afraid of sharks?

Territory. The shark has invaded their territory. That's it.

I've noticed this with activists. Most of us are single minded and when some common shark begins to question their boundaries they get all nervous and runny. I've found it most difficult to sneak onto an activists turf and when caught find it best to show some teeth and let them know you mean business, as you DID in the OP, or to tuck tail and submit to their whims.

Whatever. We need activists and they need us, and we all realize it as soon as we realize it. And sometimes even a little trouble during the winter is good for what ails us?

[troubleinwinter]

131. I'll try.

Am I supposed to get down on that level to try to speak to you? Well, OK.

My question is why a shark used "92%" eight (that's 8 to you) times in its original post, but never uses the number 80%?

It wrote the survey question itself, so why is it "afraid" to use the actual real poll results of its own question?

I guess I am suposed to make fun of your user name now. OK. "Free!!! Buy one line of bullshit and get another free!"

[BeFree]

133. You are too cute, and fiesty!

Grand qualities!

Actually, I agree with you about the 80%. No big deal.

Can you name one person who is knowledgable who would want to have votes counted in secret? That's the gist of the 92 or 80. I've actually argued that the 92 was too small, that, as I have here, argued that 100% of anybody with knowledge of voting systems would not want secret counting.

So what you seem to be doing is arguing semantics.... for what possible reason I have previously posted. Do you have some other reason you wish to share with us?

On edit: I wrote earlier......

"And sometimes even a little trouble during the winter is good for what ails us?" .... As an honest attempt at showing your worth to the discussion, but I can see how you may not have taken it as such.

[Land Shark]

136. You guys are both wrong on the 80 v. 92 issue

the 92 question refers to the public being 'barred from viewing vote counting' and....

the 80% figure you quote is a different question involving different factors

the 92 question is designed by Zogby and approved by me to test a system that allows public supervision vs. one that doesn't

[lonestarnot]

71. Alrightie then. Let's do it!

[Land Shark]

75. Let's get the list of who voted for an against HAVA, for starters

Let's remember that it's choicepoint that keeps the dossiers on citizens, not us, but this "will you be counted" approach is a device to get activists and citizens to think as seriously as possible about the threats to democracy.

Do you really think these Congresspeople who tell us that HR 550 is the most we can "realistically" expect will say that on video?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

82. taking names thing reminded me of something

This taking names thing reminded me of another incident of taking names, as described by
blogger "Kurt Nimmo" -

“I’d put the FBI on you and that nutty Barrett and find out what the hell you guys are up to,” threatened O’Reilly, basically insinuating that scholarly research is a crime, as of course “everything changed” after nine eleven, including the right to exercise the First Amendment. But then, as we know, or some of us know, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are now effectively dead and, increasingly, it is a crime to question the government, especially in an academic setting, same as it was after the Nazis took over in Germany

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=604

[Land Shark]

122. it's just like a roll call vote, and those against public supervision

of THEIR OWN ELECTIONS are going to be called a name, according to the OP, once they know full well they are proposing that their OWN elections be unaccountable and secret vote counting, and proceed to tell US, the public, that this is all we the little people can expect.

WillYVBC, do you think it would be reasonable for Congresspeople to adopt this posture, regardless of what names they are or are not called (questions of style and strategy from the OP)

In other words, put aside the overwhelming urge to take me to task, ridicule me, warn others about my perceived excesses, etc., and ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Do you think it would be reasonable and politically tenable for Congresspeople to adopt this posture, i.e., of affirmatively pushing for THEIR OWN ELECTIONS to be held under secret vote counting conditions/electronic voting, and to further state that the public is simply asking too much when it asks for publicly supervised transparent elections in our "democracy" because this goal is no longer "realistic" for the world's richest and most powerful country in this day and age??

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

127. Too late to rationalize your op now. Threats and all. n/t

[galloglas]

144. Then should we assume this?

That given Land Shark's answer to your question(s) about the OP ?

"In other words, put aside the overwhelming urge to take me to task, ridicule me, warn others about my perceived excesses, etc., and ANSWER THE QUESTION:"

that you will not, or cannot, "ANSWER THE QUESTION:" ?


One other thing, given your penchant for reaching back into time and citing that there were so many who signed onto HR 550 in the "fog of (HAVA) war".


Do you feel that all of those who "were for the war in Iraq, before they were against it" should have their feet held to the fire to continue their support for it? This despite the obvious fact that those in Congress were misled, or lied to, in order to give the POTUS the power to pre-emptively strike a non-hostile nation?


Or, like the Democrats who supported the War against Iraq, would you feel that a mass defection from HR 550 would be warranted (as it is with the Iraqi War), given the disastrous effects of the HAVA mandate?


That, regardless of whether those effects arose from a law (HAVA) that was passed with "inadequate intelligence", or with the collusive efforts of Congressman Ney (and others), and the aid and lobbying money of Jack Abramoff (and others), with the intent to do HARM to America's vote?

Indeed, had these 200+ Congressmen known then what they know now, do you still think that these members of Congress would have been for HAVA (which, upon reflection, might better be termed the "Harm America's Voting Act")??

[kster]

146. 206 according to their website

H.R. 550 currently has 206 co-sponsors
http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html

But thats besides the point, If we don't have time to count the ballots by hand, how the hell are we going to find time to audit the machines, right in the middle of the election :shrug: Maybe if we just HAND COUNT THE BALLOTS instead of auditing the secret corporate vote counting machines from the get-go, We would have enough time to HAND COUNT the PAPER BALLOTS.

:)

[troubleinwinter]

148. 222. I listed the names of all 222 cosponsors in post #95. I guess you didn't read it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00550:@@@P

[kster]

149. They can't find the time to update their website?

you say they are not "enemies of democracy" but yet they can't update their own godamn website, give me a break.

[troubleinwinter]

150. Yes. "enemies of democracy" spend all their time & energy deliberately NOT updating their websites.

It's how you can identify "enemies of democracy".

So you have read the 222 names now?

[kster]

151. When it comes to my kids future,

the Politicians need to get off that list, AND THEY NEED TO GET OFF IT NOW!! Enough of the games, the secret vote counting is OVER!! Only a matter of time, GOT IT!!

[Land Shark]

158. the persistence with which the other side here goes on and on

not answering the OP on the merits yet resisting, do you think it means more that

(a) there is some unexplained and undisclosed desire to make me and/or the OP look bad? i.e. a smear of some sort..., or

(b) there is really no Pull being felt by those HR550 proponents THAT ARE POSTING HERE (not all) for democracy, because they continually refuse to recognize that the point about congress dictating to us what's "realistic" is a problem for them to maintain in light of what is supposed to be the case in a real democracy: people in charge?

(c) both

[galloglas]

160. I think it must be "C"

Obviously "B" is the basic reason, but these proponents of HR 550 (or its legislatively altered Frankenstein offspring, waiting in the wings) seem unable, or unwilling, to say why they continue to chant "Don't look behind the Wizard's curtain!!"

You they see as "Toto", the doggedly persistent "Machina ex Deus" who threatens to reveal to the audience (the voting citizenry of this Nation) that there is nothing more behind the curtain than small-spirited people who are bent upon legislatively establishing a "Halliburtonization" of our elections.

That, of course, requires them to smear you (option A), and all others who agree with you, as "dreamers" (at best) and as "obstructionist" (currently) at the other end of the scale.

But persist as "Toto" did, and the characterization will become progressively more severe, until (they hope) the marginalization becomes complete.


But, alas for them, they have to maintain complete control of the message, or "Toto" (or even a big gust of wind) may pull that curtain back and reveal the Naked Truth. That HR 550 has no clothes!


You put them in the impossible position of taking your RFK like question, about elections, "I say why not?" (about electoral transparency with public oversight and control), and make them convince one and all that it is "not realistic", yet to do so without ever answering your very forthright question.


Their only desire is to keep the question that you have raised both unanswered, and out of the minds of the citizenry, long enough for them to get into Congress and push the voting citizens of this country over the precipice of "Halliburtonization".

They cannot answer you truthfully, and their worst nightmare is that the question will not fade from the minds of the voting citizens.


It is, in truth, a very simple proposition:

You have said, rightly, that voting is the sine qua non of democracy. That is something they dare not deny. Yet you have asked the proponents of HR 550 the one question which they dare not, cannot, answer. "Why not use a voting system which PROVES, to one and all, the true, verifiable result of that periodic electoral function."


That is what they cannot answer.
And, in my mind, it raises this question, "Unless they wish us to take, upon Faith, what some government or corporate appartachik tells us, why not let us see for ourselves? Just 'Show ME!!' "

It's that simple.
"If the sun rises, let me see it rise. Let me see that is a fact, by allowing me to verify it with my own eyes?"

Likewise, "If George Bush (or Brian Bilbray) has won an election, let me see that is, indeed, the case, by allowing me to verify it with my own eyes."


They are justifiable afraid. You have asked for proof of those things which are verifiable. They are hardpressed to find a reasonable explanation why they should not accomodate you... and the rest of American voters.

The best the can now say is "That's not reasonable!", and hope that time passes quickly before others begin to ask, "Why not?".


If your question, "Why not?", becomes everyone's question, then they are lost. Consequently, you (and all others) must keep this question foremost in the minds of all, especially the members of Congress.

Keep yelling. Keep demanding an answer. Don't eat sushi, and pass on the Polonium shaker.

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. you are confused

Maybe beyond confused. Are you under the impression that WillYourVoteBCounted is running interference for electronic voting? I sort of understand why people might think that of me (umm, anyone who disagrees with TruthIsAll must work for Diebold, right?). But I don't understand why anyone would think it of WYVBC. And I can't tell what other construction to place upon your peculiar post.

Land Shark can keep yelling, and perhaps eventually any who disagree will simply leave the room. What will that have accomplished? Do you really think that a major obstacle to the implementation of HCPB is that people push back against polemic like the OP? If all your "enemies" in this thread fell silent, how much closer would you be to the goal?

I do not accept the premise that "public supervision of elections" entails hand-counted paper -- and even if I did, I have no reason to believe that the public at large does. I also don't accept the premise that hand-counted paper (even with considerable procedural elaboration) constitutes "public supervision," guarantees "public supervision," or assures verification of election outcomes. (Mexico, anyone?) No one has to refute any of these premises. Some may hold them, some may not.

It's all well and good for Land Shark and others to bluster about "the full conditions necessary for democracy." The thing about democracy (or whatever one prefers to call our system) is: he doesn't get to make that determination. There are all sorts of things I think are essential to the full fruition of democracy, but I don't assume or say that anyone who opposes them is anti-democratic. But if I did, it wouldn't make any difference. I don't get to make that determination either, except of course in my own mind.

If you can demonstrate majoritarian support for HCPB, fine. If you can develop majoritarian support for HCPB, fine. That would probably be harder work than raging on DU.

Land Shark elsewhere in this thread writes:

This is why people PM me with glee that HR 550 proponents are cornered, thrown on their backs like beetles with legs flailing in the air...

I don't have much to say to that, except, Ewwww. I can't believe he posted that on a public board. Way to win hearts and minds, kiddo. Maybe I will take a long shower now.

[galloglas]

162. You said it. I did not!

You said:

Maybe beyond confused. Are you under the impression that WillYourVoteBCounted is running interference for electronic voting? I sort of understand why people might think that of me (umm, anyone who disagrees with TruthIsAll must work for Diebold, right?). But I don't understand why anyone would think it of WYVBC. And I can't tell what other construction to place upon your peculiar post.

I assume the confusion to be your own. I only asked WYVBC (or anyone else) to post an answer to Land Shark's question... And I am still waiting.

And your beliefs about whether ""public supervision of elections" entails hand-counted paper or your thoughts that "I also don't accept the premise that hand-counted paper (even with considerable procedural elaboration) constitutes "public supervision," guarantees "public supervision," or assures verification of election outcomes. (Mexico, anyone?) No one has to refute any of these premises." don't make any difference.

Land Shark lays out an argument that the people's vote belongs to the people. He further states that "outsourcing" of same is a violation of the people's Consitutional rights. I think this is particularly true in the case when the people are denied even the ability to confirm that their votes, and those of their fellows, have been cast and counted as intended.

Land Shark has laid out an either/or proposition to everyone, and many seem to want to find shades or grey.

The fact is, many things can be boiled down to either/or cases, i.e., "did the sun rise this morning?"

One needs only to look out the window to verify that with human senses. Is it too much to ask that the human senses also be allowed to confirm what are stated as Humkan Rights and Constitutional privileges?

The fact is, the more things that can be boiled down to black and white choices, the more time we have to devote to those troublesome aspects of life that DO contain shades of grey.

So, when Land Shark offers a point and allows for any, and all, to put forward an argument about the black and white nature of the question "Do we have a democracy?" or "Can a citizen account for the proper compilation of his vote?", it seems passing strange that he is offerred no argument, only distain.

It simply becomes obvious when those to whom the question (or offer) has been put are evasive or obfuscatory. I can easily see that it is so. But, I can only speculate as to the "why?".

Many, including yourself, have proven adept at evasion. Perhaps you might to try stepping up to the question and, addressing it directly, proving yourself in the arts of persuasion?

[Febble]

163. OK, I'm confused:

What is the question (or offer) that Land Shark has put?

[galloglas]

165. I believe they are two.

(Note: Concerning WYVBC, I posed questions in post #144, which were not answered).

But, regarding Paul's posts, I think that there are two which need addressing:


#1

How could a true Representative of the People DARE to deny the 92% of the American people their wishes IN THE PARTICULAR CONTEXT OF ASSURING THE VALIDITY AND LEGITIMACY OF THIS ‘REPRESENTATIVE’S’ OWN RE-ELECTION???

This question asks about the failure of the Congress to allow the people to be able to validate the casting of and, more specifically (probably), the ability to observe, visually the counting of those ballots.

Paul elaborated this way: The public overwhelmingly rejects the unavoidable secret vote counting realities of electronic voting even if they don’t ALL fully realize how messed up e-voting is, quite yet. But many do. The numbers grow every day.

But, the question itself, is at the top, under the #1:



#2

The Question Presented: Why can’t a “representative Congress” give us a voting system where voting can be witnessed by the people and the people can obtain information on vote counting, when 92% or more of the American public supports this and we have a new Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress???

My words here: I am of the belief that we are not so devolved from our cousins (Gaelic, Norman, Saxon, or Angles) who live in the British Isles that we Americans can not count high enough to establish a consensus as to the totals of HCPBs. Consequently, there does already exist a system which fills Paul's requirements in question #2.

My question. "Why will Congress not allow us the (proven) solution cited above? That one in use by our cousins from the British Isles?"

[Land Shark]

166. I've posted in many different modes, tones, approaches, etc.

In this thread alone, people posted with surprise at my restraint given some reactions.

But the bottom line is, and it appears we're dealing with OTOH here who I Ignore, that

it simply doesn't matter whether I write in an challenging, inflammatory, concililatory, technical, or any other matter, the SAME pro-Holt people dog the post with the same kind of sarcasm, calling me Bev Harris, calling it incoherent, etc., even as it becomes a top rated post and many people clearly understand it all quite well.

For some reason, a tiny few are committed to not understanding. They say they are in favor of demcoracy like the rest of us, but they don't get the "democracy" in the OP at all, not a single point registers with them. It seems to be that there is an overriding desire to tear down either the author of the OP, or anyone who disagrees with the Holt position of keeping evoting, with modifications of some sort as prescribed by the Holt bill.

WHile surely my OPs are not perfect, let me be charitable and say that the detractors here are not perpetual F students, but they so regularly fail to comprehend they start to appear very strongly that way. Knowing that they are not the stupidest lights in the whole world, we start wondering about what they are trying to accomplish and why not just ignore my OPs??

And that being said, yeah, they don't have an answer to those questions, because if they did they'd be forced to realize that it would be "realistic" to have a lot more public superivsion in elections.

[OnTheOtherHand]

175. why not just win the argument?

Land Shark (who is proud to say, often, that he Ignores my posts) seems happy about the premise that HR 550 proponents have been "thrown on their backs like beetles with legs flailing in the air."

Kelvin Mace fielded a DU poll on this subject back in late July and early August, in which 47 respondents said they supported HR 550 and 9 said they opposed it.

So if Land Shark wonders what "a tiny few" are trying to accomplish, he certainly is not alone in his wonderment.

If this be "sarcasm," so be it. At least I'm not lumping people with tyrants or likening them to bugs.

[Febble]

168. OK

But the first is a loaded question, loaded, moreover, several unshared and unclear presuppositions: it is not clear what "92% of the American people" actually wished for, and it is not clear that the "proponents of Holt" "dare deny" it.

The statement with which apparently 92% of the Zogby poll respondents agreed with was that:

Citizens have the right to view and obtain information about how election officials count votes.

which must be one of the most badly worded survey questions I have ever read. Even supposing that most of the 92% of the Zogby sample understood the statement to mean that they considered that they ought to have the right (and not that they already had the right) to view how election officials count votes (and not to view information about how election officials count votes), and that viewing "how election officials count votes" meant "the ability to observe, visually, the counting of the ballots" it still doesn't explain how supporting a bill that many of its proponents see as ensuring that a) all states have ballots that could, in principle, be observed being counted (clearly not the case at present) and that b) a minimum proportion of those ballots would indeed be counted, amounts to denying} 92% of the American people their wishes.

As to the second question:

There are many voting systems in which "voting can be witnessed by the people" and "the people can obtain information on vote counting": what is at issue is not whether Congress can give you this, but what kind of system this might be. It is certainly not clear to me why HR 550 should not be the basis of this kind of system.

It strikes me as ironic that Land Shark is so dismissive of a bill that would mandate minimum 2% random audit, when his own poll was of a not-entirely random (because no poll is entirely random) sample of .0005% of American voters. I have no problem with the tiny proportion of voters in his poll, although I have serious issues with the question. The issue is not the proportion but the sample size, and it is because of the Law of Large Numbers that we have heard so often about that with an adequate sample size, inferences can be made about a population with a high degree of confidence. This is even truer of audits than of polls, because audits can be truly random if an appropriate protocol is observed.

So my view of audit legislation is that it should:

• mandate voter-verified paper ballots with the full status of ballots, with secure custody of those ballots at all times
  
• mandate unpredictable random audits of adequate sample size to allow the accuracy of any given race result to be corroborated with a high degree of confidence.
  
• that failure of an audit (a discrepancy between a manual and machine count that is outside the specification of the machine) should trigger an entire manual recount of that race.

HR 550 does not mandate all this, but it is, IMO, on the right track. If it could be strengthened, it would go a long way towards granting the inferred wishes of an inferred 92% of Americans to be able to "view and obtain information about how officials count votes".

I may be wrong. But what it seems to me the debate should be about is not whether proponents of HR 550 are, or are not, denying some inferred percentage of Americans some inferred wish, but whether it would make, as apparently intended, US elections more transparent and secure, or whether, say, hand-counted paper ballots at precinct level would be better. Frankly, I don't think so. My fear is that hand-counted paper ballots at precinct level would be a recipe for the kind of election corruption that happens throughout the HCPB world. The unit of counting is too small, and I think the oversight would be inadequate.

But surely it would be a better to have this debate, than a lot of posturing about which of our friends are enemies.


edited for typo

[OnTheOtherHand]

164. I'm not evading anything

If you would care at any point to translate that odd rant about "Toto" and "Halliburtonization" into ordinary English, that would be fine. Whatever.

Land Shark has asked many questions, generally rhetorical, often incoherent. I guess I'll choose the one he put in a box in the OP: "How could a true Representative of the People DARE to deny the 92% of the American people their wishes IN THE PARTICULAR CONTEXT OF ASSURING THE VALIDITY AND LEGITIMACY OF THIS ‘REPRESENTATIVE’S’ OWN RE-ELECTION???" And you will note that my posts respond to this question. No one has presented evidence that anyone has denied 92% of the American people their wishes (etc.), so the question appears to be based on a faulty premise. Actually, I thought that was obvious.

On edit: you add in your response to Febble a second q: "Why can’t a 'representative Congress' give us a voting system where voting can be witnessed by the people and the people can obtain information on vote counting, when 92% or more of the American public supports this and we have a new Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress???" No one has presented evidence that Congress is unable or unwilling to "give us" a system that 92% or more of the American people supports. Second verse, same as the first.

And you add your own question: "Why will Congress not allow us the (proven) solution cited above? That one in use by our cousins from the British Isles?" To which I suppose I would have to rejoin: whaddya mean "us," paleface?

Hence, I repeat myself, not without annoyance: if you can demonstrate majoritarian support for HCPB, that would be fine. If you can develop majoritarian support for HCPB, that would be fine.

[galloglas]

152. "I guess you didn't read it"

:wtf:


You wrote:

I listed the names of all 222 cosponsors in post #95. I guess you didn't read it.

Uh..., WTF?

You specify the number "222", as of it signified spmething, and ignore the question, directly below?

Indeed, had these 200+ Congressmen known then what they know now, do you still think that these members of Congress would have been for HAVA (which, upon reflection, might better be termed the "Harm America's Voting Act")??


That, in addition to the whole text of post #144, the subject of which is, "Then should we assume this?"

Which also carries the very direct (and apparently ignored) predicate, "that you will not, or cannot, "ANSWER THE QUESTION:" ?


Then, posting a Thomas.gov location, you dodge questions like Neo, of Matrix, dodges bullets?

Geeesh! That's persuasive.

[lonestarnot]

153. Newt the poot is into thought prevention lately.

[midnight]

80. I'm with you on this one too. No visibility on vote counting, No

Deal....

[kster]

92. I agree, a test for everyone, just ask any 12 yr old, one

question, if you are voting for the class president, after all the kids get done putting their vote into a shoe box, do you want the teacher to count the votes in front of the class or do you think she/he should take the shoe box outside the classroom to count the votes.

I already know the answer, because I just asked one.

Now if a twelve year old knows better, I would hope most adults would know better. :-)

[In Truth We Trust]

132. Constitutional Amendment: Hand Counted Paper Ballots or FASCISM k&r

[Cocoa]

134. this is dishonest garbage

it's almost impossible to figure out exactly why you oppose HR 550.

It's like many of the other "election reform" posts. Seemingly deliberately designed not to be able to be read.

John Conyers is in favor of HR 550, by the way.

[Land Shark]

140. thanks for the kick, but what's "dishonest" about it?

And, do you really think that congress can dictate the circumstances of its own election to be less than transparent and not pay a political price for that? If they would pay a political price for that, then how could it possibly be "unrealistic" to ask for more public supervision of elections, or rather, TOTAL public supervision of elections?

[hunter]

159. Pigs are flying again, I'm agreeing with Cocoa.

What a load of posturing your original post is, Land Shark.

Because of all of these, we will be TAKING NAMES.

We will record, by video whenever possible for elected officials, the names of all citizens, congresspeople, or other persons who attempt to defeat, deny, dilute or distract the debate from this most indispensable of rights of democracy.

That sure does sound like Bev Harris. And, wow, does it ever "dilute or distract from debate..." Perhaps a bit of projection????

Do I need to PM you my name, phone number, and address for your mighty list, or do you already have it? There are a lot of very fine Representatives there I'd be pleased to be associated with.

[Land Shark]

167. Transparency is enormously important and indispensable

and the only meaningful transparency is visible transparency, otherwise only computer experts or statisticians even potentially benefit from the transparency.

Meaningful Transparency allows public supervision of election.

If you do not support meaningful transparency in elections that facilitate public supervision, you can PM me your name, etc., but I'd rather hear your explanation for why you don't care. The presumption of the OP is that everybody does care about democracy, the hope is that if one takes away the distraction of "realism" and focus on teh reality of democracy, we can find very large supermajorities in favor of public supervision of elections.

[hunter]

169. If you dig way, way, back in my DU posts...

...I'm always afraid to do that... I may have been present at the birth of this hideous idea -- that we might create a regulatory environment in which these machines could continue to exist, and that bills like HR550 (or the involvement of EFF...) might somehow enable that.

This is no longer a great fear of mine. I believe we can dismantle this monster from many directions, and it's harder for me to see why I should oppose legislation like HR550.

Ultimately I see a large scale shift to optically scanned mail-in ballots, with the current sorts of electronic voting machines being increasingly viewed as troublesome, expensive, and almost entirely redundant.

If we do keep using electronic voting machines, they will be used mostly by disabled voters and will produce a ballot identical to the hand marked optical scan ballots used by others.

At my own polling place I see a huge trend for people to skip the use of these very irritating machines, and simply drop off their absentee ballots. That in itself, at least here in California where the law supports it, will be the death of these machines.

Good things are happening. I'm pretty sure this one issue is what catapulted Debra Bowen into office, there are few other explanation's for Bruce McPherson's loss. People had experience with these machines, they didn't like or trust them, and McPherson got blown out of the water for his assurances to "the voters of this county and the entire state that the voting machines of California are secure and reliable."

[Kelvin Mace]

170. Threats of "taking names:

is EXACTLY like Bev.

Either you are doing it our way, or you are an enemy of democracy.

I, for one, am fed up to the back teeth with these threats.

[Land Shark]

172. please don't hurt me

but, if you don't favor full public supervision of elections, you're not exactly friendly to democracy, which is government by the people, for the people, well you recall.

It's ironic that one of the biggest problems you see is rhetorical excess, as you see it, in favor of democracy.

So what's your term? Or do you find public supervision unimportant?

[Kelvin Mace]

178. My position on this is clear

and can be found here, and in NC Law.

I am totally in favor of public supervision of elections, just not in the delusional mannerbeing advocated here.

HCPB are NOT going to happen, attempts to smear people who disagree with this view not withstanding.

HR-550 is the foundation for BBV reform, folks who oppose it either don't understand what is going on, misunderstand the concepts in play, or are collecting a paycheck.

[Bill Bored]

196. Hey Cocoa, for the record, are you for or against HR 550 "as written?" nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

171. "I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation..."

After agreeing to pay Diebold attorneys $10,000 in restitution, and
a plea agreement that reduced the charges from 3 felonies to 1,
(which may be reduced to a misdemeanor following 1 year of good behaviour) -
Stephen Heller said this about electronic voting -

"In my view, Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America.
We must not allow a private corporation to run our elections for us in secret,
using secret machines and secret software.
The only thing secret about our elections should be the secret ballot.
I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation requiring
that all voting machines must have a voter verifiable paper ballot,
be run on open source software code, be subject to inspection by
independent computer experts, and that each election have a random
sample ballot recount.
Only then will we have a chance of restoring true integrity to American elections."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/exclusive-convicted-whis_b_34815.html

[Land Shark]

173. This statement is likely influenced by the prosecutor and or Diebold as part of the plea

unless you can show specifically otherwise. In any event, it implicitly opposes holt as written since holt does not provide for paper ballots as written.

[Febble]

174. Define a paper ballot

and say why what Holt would mandate is not a paper ballot.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

176. You mean that Dieobld wanted him to say this:

You said:
"This statement is likely influenced by the prosecutor and or Diebold
as part of the plea"

Nothing in your comment applies to Heller's quote.

Bull biscuits!

Who is gullible enough to believe that Diebold wanted Stephen Heller to
make this statement?
This time I bolded a different part of Mr. Heller's quote.

"In my view, Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America.
We must not allow a private corporation to run our elections for us in secret,
using secret machines and secret software.
The only thing secret about our elections should be the secret ballot.
I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation requiring
that all voting machines must have a voter verifiable paper ballot,
be run on open source software code, be subject to inspection by
independent computer experts, and that each election have a random
sample ballot recount.
Only then will we have a chance of restoring true integrity to American elections."

If you don't get it this time, then keep reading it over and over and over.

This was in a blog by Brad Friedman posted at Huffington Post,
as indicated by the link.

[Land Shark]

181. I've been around enough criminal cases and even worked on a death penalty case

statements on pleas of guilty are not "fully free" like you seem to think. It's possible that it is an unvarnished opinion, but very ambiguous and hard to know. Obviously he admits he's under great pressure, otherwise he would not agree to be adjudicated a felon.

If you think it's a totally free statement and not under any duress, I'll just let it go at that. But it's very common that HELLER's words would be negotiated in terms of what he can say BECAUSE THE ESSENCE OF THE CONDUCT HE'S CHARGED WITH IS DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION, and Diebold wants to stop that information flow. For these reasons, one certainly can not presume he's free to talk and say anything he knows or what's on his mind.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

183. so you think Diebold told him to say Diebold shouldn't be in elections?

Sure I believe that and I just fell of the turnip truck, too!

[Kelvin Mace]

179. BULLSHIT!

holt does not provide for paper ballots as written.

from the bill:

'(i) The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast. For purposes of this clause, examples of such a record include a paper ballot prepared by the voter for the purpose of being read by an optical scanner, a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location), a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device, or a paper print-out of the voter's vote produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the record permits the voter to verify the record in accordance with this subparagraph.


Several paragraphs down we read:

`(iii) In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast.

Now before you go all lawyer on me and say that the key word "ballot" is NOT used, it is certainly spelled out that way since it talks about the "offical record of the vote" and is the intent of the law. There can be two records, but ONLY one ballot. The digitial count can ONLY be the OFFICIAL ballot IF it agrees with the paper record. IF IT DOES NOT, then the paper record IS the offical ballot.

To say that Holt does not provide for a paper ballot is completely dishonest.

[Land Shark]

180. a "ballot" is what's counted on the all-important FIRST count

when it comes to DREs, it is not called a "ballot" it's called a "printout" and only in certain auditing situations will the paper DRE print out ever prevail over the original electronic ballot.

I don't think the "maybe someday" standard of HOlt in terms whether the paper counts on the DRE makes the paper trail a "ballot"

In fact HAVA says that the definitions of votes and vote counting are set by state law, so Holt would not control what the state considered to be the vote

I would agree that the paper ballot exists with an opscam application, but that's not my or our focus here.

[Kelvin Mace]

182. If the system is OpScan

then the paper IS counted first. Only on system like TS are the digital results looked at first, but MUST be verified in the audit phase.

Again, the law is clear on intent and implication.

[Land Shark]

184. I agree with you.

But, as a practical matter the electronic ballot on DREs is counted first, and then 2 or more percent of the precincts are subject to being overridden based on audits, which are in turn subject to legal challenge that I believe has substantial risk involved, that those partial audits are the functional equivalent of partial recounts which were struck down under Bush v. Gore. Even if someone else is of the opinion that this will NOT be the result of litigation, there is still RISK, we would only differ as to the amount of the risk. RISK alone, may well convince a Gore or a Kerry that it is not worth their career to challenge the election...

But anyway, I am glad we agree on the basic facts. Some people miss the fact that the ballot of record is counted first under opscan and is paper, but the Holt ballot on the first count is the electronic ballot, still.

on edit: As written, Holt provides for paper "records" whereby the paper "record" happens to be the ballot on first count for opscans, and not for DREs. This is why I used the phrase you highlighted, that holt "as written" didn't require paper ballots because to me the all important count is the first count and it is enormously expensive and difficult to overcome that first count one or two weeks later.

[Kelvin Mace]

185. No,

The Holt law doesn't state which is the ballot. It states that there shall be a paper record for machines without paper (TS). The paper record shall be audited to assure accuracy with the digital count. IF there is ANY deviance, the PAPER record shall represent the voter's preference.

You also don't seem to understand that in the case, ANY deviance between the paper count and the digital count on a TS system indicates one of three things:

1) You miscounted the paper. (Recount the paper by hand and doublecheck)

2) The software/hardware has failed to properly record the votes as recorded on paper (this is grounds for a complete recount by hand of the entire affected race).

3) Someone tampered with the system (call the FBI).

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

198. the Canadian Ballot

Countries that use HCPB also have very tiny ballots, and
in Canada, they do not vote for their Prime Minister.

Voting in Canada Made Easy

For the benefit of my readers, the majority of whom are American, here's a very quick primer on how voting works here.

We don't vote directly for the Prime Minister. Rather, we vote for the MP -- that is, Member of Parliament -- to represent our electoral district, which is called a riding. The closest analogue to an MP in the American system is a Congressman or Congresswoman.

The winning candidate for the riding is determined by a "first past the post" system, which simply means that the candidate who gets the most votes win, regardless of how slim the margin of victory. That winner becomes the riding's MP and gets a seat in the House of Commons, one of three parts of Parliament (there's also the Crown -- represented by the Governor General -- and the Senate, who are appointed by the Governor General based on recommendations by the Prime Minister).

The leader of the winning party -- the one with the most seats in Parliament -- then becomes the Prime Minister
http://accordionguy.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/23/1720282.html

US Politicians would have to be persuaded to have more elections more frequently.

US citizens might have to let their US Congressman cast the vote for Prime Minister.

Compare that to the ballots we typically use in every election

I am all for change, but this type of reformation doesn't come over night,
and it won't come if paperless voting is not banned.

It won't come until voters see the value of a paper ballot, even
if it is optically scanned.

[Febble]

186. This isn't logical, to my mind.

and in any case, the important thing is not the name but the function it serves.

A paper ballot is a piece of paper on which a vote is indicated, and is the legal record of that vote being cast.

The process of counting always involves that vote being represented in some other form, whether it's digital code in the software of an electronic vote counter or patterns of neural firing in the brain of a hand-teller. The point of there being a legal paper ballot that trumps all those representations is that it means that the count can be checked. This is not the case with paperless DREs, nor with DREs in which the paper record is not suitable for manual recount, which is why both would be outlawed by Holt.

It's also not the case with levers, of course.

But it seems to me to be the critical part of what is required: a voter-verified legal record of the voter's intention that has legal status, and can be re-counted independently of the original tally, whether that tally was done by human eye, optical scan, or a direct electronic increment to the total.

And I'd call that a ballot. I wish you guys had them.

[Land Shark]

187. The most important thing is when the ballot gets counted.

You seem to be implying that DREs have TWO ballots. Otherwise what the heck are the election officials reporting on election night with the DRE results?

[Febble]

188. No, I'm not

saying that at all. I'm saying that under Holt, there would be one ballot, the paper ballot.

The issue is how the ballots are actually counted. In ANY counting process, the vote on the ballot is converted into something else - whether it's a bead on an abacus, a neural representation on someone's mental numberline, or piece of digital code. And you guys should trust ANY of those counting systems because none of them are reliable.

BECAUSE they are not reliable, you need a PAPER BALLOT, that can be audited in some way - in other words, recounted to check that the count is correct.

The count is not the ballot. The ballot is the ballot. On election night, officials are reporting the count. That count needs to be audited, no matter how the tally is actually done. That's why I support audits.

[Land Shark]

189. Whatever gets COUNTED LATER is a second class ballot if a ballot at all

this issue was litigated in San Diego as well, atty Ken Simpkins did, on whether the county could deliberately take polling place paper ballots and not even start to think about counting them until two days after the election, and actual finishing the count about 2 weeks after the election. The court ended up ruling the damage to the plaintiff was "speculative" (of course it's a secret ballot) but the earlier reports (DREs) were more republican than the later paper ballots, as borne out by the zogby poll where we asked people what kind of ballot they used and there were significant partisan differences in ballot styles.

Despite the court thinking its speculative (wrongly, IMO) I want my ballot to have an equal chance of mattering on election night, at the very least, and not relegated to an audit or a count that doesn't even start until much later. That is clearly second class. SOrry if I don't explain this clearly enough, but there isn't any activist in San Diego I know of that is "unconcerned" or thinks this late counting of paper ballots as a class is fine.

[Febble]

190. Well, I think that the timing of counts

and recounts is an important issue, and one I feel fairly strongly about. I've said in a few posts that I think speed is important, because the longer it takes between an election and the completion of the count, the more opportunity there is for the chain of custody of the ballots to be broken. I'd like everything to be done very rapidly, and for no-one to concede until it's done. That's what we do here. The hand count is completed by next day, and if there is any concern, then the recount takes place immediately. No result is announced until the recount or recounts are complete.

And it is also essential that the paper record are truly hand-countable - not illegible pieces of paper that get jammed in the printer. All these are problems any legislation needs to address, and there are lots of improvements I'd like to see to Holt, or in a replacement to that bill.

But my experience of our (generally excellent) system leads me to conclude that its essential features do not necessarily include the actual fact of hand-counting. It's the fact that we are so fast, and the fact that because we are fast, and because the count occurs in at constituency level, there is massive public oversight at all times. This would remain true if we used optical scanners, although if we do move to that, I would certainly expect (and campaign for) random checks (against manual counts) that the scanners were counting correctly.

I'm just not sure what the US equivalent of our system would be. Your precincts are tiny compared with our constituencies, and I cannot see crowds, candidates and TV cameras flocking to every precinct to oversee the counting. And unless that happened, you would have a very easily corrupted system.

I absolutely agree with you that public oversight is essential. The question is exactly what that oversight ought to be and over what. Custody of the ballots, to me, is as important as the counting of them, and it is the independent randomised checking that those counts are accurate, rather than the counts themselves, that I would consider requires public oversight, which would include the randomisation protocol for the audit.

[Bill Bored]

191. How did Heller get outed in that whistle-blower case anyway? nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

192. he could have gotten whistleblower protection if.......

Don't know if someone named him or if the papers were traced back
to the firm he was working at. Then that firm could check all computers'
activities.

The DA's office said that Heller would have had whistleblower protection
if he had turned the documents over to state authorities instead of BBV.

Posted on Wed, Nov. 22, 2006
Actor apologizes for copying key documents on election equipment

In the midst of his legal troubles, Heller was hailed by digital rights and political activists as a whistle-blower who tried to do the right thing by giving the documents to the advocacy group Black Box Voting.

Prosecutors countered that Heller was nothing more than a thief who could have been shielded by whistle-blower laws if he had given the documents to state authorities rather than the group.

"He would have been protected," said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office. "He didn't do that."

Last Monday, Heller pleaded guilty to a felony count of illegally accessing a computer and making copies. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16078778.htm

Thats why I say that potential whistleblowers should get good legal advice first
so that they will be protected. Then blow the whistle!

The guy sacrificed much, but I doubt he can write a book about
his experience, since he has even been made to apologize to Diebold.

Imagine how things would have turned out if he had turned the docs
over to Kevin Shelley himself, instead of to an intermediary party
who then turned the docs over.

Maybe then he could have filed a big multi million $ lawsuit against Diebold.

[Kelvin Mace]

194. He also could have gotten protection if he had been added

to the original qui tam suit. But Bev wasn't about to share the cash.

Also, the newspaper reports she fingered Heller for the police:

Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting, told investigators that Heller met her in a Ventura County park in early 2004 and gave her the documents. She turned them over to the secretary of state and the Oakland Tribune.

Now turning them over to the SoS was the correct thing to do. Turning them over to the newspaper is where her escapades got an innocent man charged with multiple felonies. She turned it over to the paper to make sure she got the credit. If she had held on to the papers and let them reside only in the hands of the SoS and the CA AG, then they probably would not have been able to prosecute Heller.

Now, I am sure Bev's excuse for giving them to the paper will be that she had to be sure that the SoS acted on the information. This is not really an excuse. She could have waited a reasonable time for the state to do its job, then turned the papers over to the press if they tried to ignore it.

Bev couldn't do that, since she felt she might never get the credit for her efforts unless she made sure the press covered it.

Also, by giving it to the papers, she insured that the AG wouldn't be able to launch any surprise raids with search warrants, since Diebold had plenty of warning to bury any further incriminating evidence.

In the end, Bev got a fistful of cash, Heller got a felony conviction and the voters of California are still stuck with Diebold, Bev's lawsuit having been settled with prejudice for a paltry sum.

Bev'c cut was around $72,000.

Certainly better than thirty pieces of silver, but then there is inflation to consider.

[steveheller]

199. I am Steve Heller

I am tired, damn sick and tired, of the Bev Bashers who continue to use my case to attack her. I neither know nor care what their ulterior motives are, but these people like Kelvin (David) are deliberately lying and distorting the facts of my case in order to attack Bev.

As I have said on DU on at least 3 previous occasions, Bev Harris never did anything to harm me or my legal defense. In fact, Bev Harris went out of her way to help me and my lawyers defend me, and she never did ANYTHING to harm me in any way. This is MY CASE, I know the details, and I am telling you the facts. If you believe "Kelvin" over me, you're a fool. Again, this is MY CASE and I KNOW THE FACTS of my own case!!! Bev Harris never did anything to harm me. To me personally, Bev Harris is a hero. To me as a voter and taxpayer in California, she is a hero. I can only form an opinion about a person by my own experience with them, and all of my experiences and interactions with Bev Harris lead me to believe she is a person of great integrity and loyalty.

Regarding me joining the qui tam lawsuit. Bev asked me, during a phone call in fall of 2004 (shortly after I found out I was under criminal investigation), if I would join the suit as a co-plaintiff with her and Jim March. I asked my lawyer about it, thinking it might be a way to pay my legal bills. My lawyer told me that I could not under any circumstances join that lawsuit. My lawyer said one of the strongest legal defenses I had was that I was a "defendant with clean hands" (my lawyer's phrase). I had not done anything for my own profit, and had not done anything to try to make a profit off the situation. My lawyer told me that joining a civil suit with a potential for a cash payoff for me would greatly damage my defense. She told me that I must not do ANYTHING to give the appearance of trying to profit from my case. As some of you may know, I am an actor, and a number of friends from the entertainment industry approached me with ideas for book and movie deals, but I had to steer clear of such things in order to remain a defendant with clean hands (although I don't need to steer clear of such offers any more, and in fact serious interest has been expressed by legitimate players in Hollywood, and I have a meeting with one of the said legit Hollywood players this coming Friday morning. Hopefully something will come of that soon, but that's another story). But let me make this clear: Bev Harris DID invite me to join the qui tam suit, and on the advice of my attorney I did not join it. But Bev DID give $10,000 to my legal defense fund, by far the largest single donation the fund received. And she gave it immediately after my wife started the defense fund, when we were most in need of immediate cash. That $10,000 of seed money, so to speak, allowed me to continue my criminal defense at a very critical time. In addition, Bev made several pleas on my behalf to her contact list, and those pleas generated thousands more dollars in donations.

Regarding what the D.A.'s office has said since my case was resolved: First of all, Ms. Gibbons, the spokesperson for the D.A.'s office, is spinning faster than a plate spinner at a Russian circus. The DA's office received a lot of criticism for prosecuting me, and their spin is that "if he'd only come to us first." Bullshit. Let's examine the possible scenarios, shall we?

If I'd walked into the DA's office and said, "Hey, I'm temping at a law firm, and here's what I saw in confidential, attorney-client privileged documents," they would have arrested me on the spot for breaking attorney-client privilege.

If I'd walked in and said, "I have reason to believe the integrity our elections, and thus of our democracy, is being undermined, but I can't tell you why I know this or where I saw the information about it," they'd have just laughed at me.

If I'd gone in and arranged some kind of immunity and then told them what I saw, they wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing about it because the information I would have given them was attorney-client privileged information and they would have been prevented by law from acting on it. What would you expect the DA to do, get a search warrant on Jones Day's offices? No judge would grant them a warrant for attorney-client privileged documents, especially on the hear-say evidence of a temp word processor. Plus, the "necessity defense" law in California says that attorney-client privilege can only be broken in the case of "imminent bodily harm." At a hearing on October 20, 2006, my lawyers argued that in my case the imminent bodily harm was not to a person but to the entire nation, because Diebold was using crooked, illegal software in their voting machines, and with a presidential election only months away (from the time of my theft of the documents) the potential for harm to the very underpinnings of our democracy was real and imminent, that such harm was of a much more serious nature than bodily harm to any one individual, and thus the necessity defense should be allowed. The judge ruled that a trial court at his level (technically, his court is called an Inferior Court, as opposed to a Superior Court) cannot expand the definition and limitations of the necessity defense and that only an appellate court could decide whether or not the necessity defense should be expanded to include "imminent bodily harm" to the nation. And so, the judge did not allow my attorneys to use the necessity defense, and this same interpretation of the law would have prevented the DA from acting on the attorney-client privileged information that I might have given them while under a grant of immunity.

A piece of advice: don't listen to the DA spin on my case, or any case. They will spin it in their favor every time. When they say that I could have been protected if I'd come to them first, they are saying something that is not true. It's irritating, because what they say makes me look stupid, and also because the last thing the judge said at the hearing where we reached the plea agreement was "I hope the parties involved with not spin this case on the blogs or in the press." The DA's office has decided to ignore the judge's request. Shame on them.

Also, here is another point I have made, yet this point is ignored by the Bev Bashers because it is in their own interest to ignore it. Read this slowly and carefully, because it is the truth. The DA knew long before they had even heard of Bev Harris that I was the one who stole the documents. One truthful thing the DA's office said is that I left behind the "perfect electronic trail." I did indeed. Let me explain. Jones Day, along with most large law offices, uses a program called iManage to manage documents on a large system. The only way to open documents on the system is to go through iManage. I'm sure there is a way to hack into the system without using iManage, but while I am an expert with Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint, I don't know the first thing about networks or hacking. So to open and print the documents I stole I used iManage to search for and find docs on the system using the client-matter number Jones Day assigned to Diebold, then opened them, read them, printed them out and took them home. And every time I used iManage to open, print, download, email, save, create, revise, etc. a document, I left an electronic trail. The law firm did their own internal investigation and found that someone using the temp login I was given when I came to work there, during the hours I worked there, at the computer to which I was assigned, opened and printed in one night every document with the Diebold client matter number. They gave their report to the DA who conducted their own investigation, and the DA confirmed everything Jones Day had found. The DA even had security photos of me coming into and going out of the building on the night in question, the electronic records of the key card I was given to get into and out of the parking garage and access to the elevator and the locked doors of the Jones Day office, and the time sheets from my temp agency to prove I was working on the night the docs were taken.

So as I've posted on DU and elsewhere, Bev Harris DID NOT GIVE ME UP TO THE COPS. The cops already knew I was the one who stole the documents!!! I'll say it again, please remember this and pass the word around. Bev Harris DID NOT GIVE ME UP TO THE COPS. The cops already knew I was the one who stole the documents!!!

The only reason Bev Harris met with the DA was because my lawyer asked her to. She made a special trip to Los Angeles to do so, at her own expense, on her own time. At my lawyer's request Bev went over the docs I stole with the DA to show them what was important in the docs, and why I was thus a whistleblower and not a criminal. Again, my lawyer asked Bev to meet with the DA and tell them what she knew about the docs, because the DA already knew I was the one who stole the docs. At that point we weren't trying to convince the DA they had the wrong man, or didn't have enough proof to charge me. We knew they had the proof, and they knew they had the right man. What we were trying to do was convince them that in the interests of justice they should not charge me, and at my lawyer's request Bev tried to help us do that. It is my belief that Jones Day exerted a lot of pressure on the DA to charge me with felonies rather than misdemeanors, and to come down on me as hard as possible. Jones Day is a very powerful, very rich law firm with political connections to the highest levels of power in Los Angeles, and indeed in Washington. Their power over the DA far outweighed mine, and thus I was charged with 3 felonies.

Just please remember, whatever else you may hear, Bev Harris did not harm me or my legal defense in any way. And since I'm the horse, you're hearing it from the horse's mouth.

Also, please remember whatever "Kelvin" (David) says about Bev Harris in relation to my case is a lie. I don't know who he is or what his affiliations are, but he is desperately trying to smear Bev Harris. I don't know why, and I don't care why. Just please don't believe him, at least in regards to my case. I know what happened in my case, "Kelvin" does not, and please take my word for it on any matters that relate to my case.

In general, I would like to thank the DU community for all the support, donations, encouragement and kind words you-all have thrown my way.

Steve Heller

[kster]

201. Thank you, Steve Heller, for setting the record straight

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Kelvin Mace]

203. No record has been set straight

IF this is Heller, his identity has not been verified by Skinner.

There are plenty of people who to this day, still believe in Bev Harris, despite the facts staring them in the face.

[kster]

205. Bev exposed the secret vote counting machines, I'd

like to get rid of them machines by going back to PBHC, You keep telling me that Americans aren't capable of counting their own ballots, without the use of those machines.

It does seem to me that you oppose anyone who wants to get rid of those secret vote counting machines. :shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

207. Again, my efforts are on the record

and on the law books.

You can try and spin it any way you choose, but facts are facts.

I am quite content to wait and see who is right, you or I in 2008.

Also, stop trying to give Bev all the credit for what happened with Diebold files. About a good half-dozen or more people here at DU did the heavy lifting for Bev.

Bev is a computer expert like my cat is a quantum physicist.

[Kelvin Mace]

202. Asked and answered

I already addressed the issue that Bev was wrong, whether you think so or not.

Am still waiting for confirmation of your ID by Skinner.

Ms. Harris and her allies have routinely posted to this forum as other people.

What I have said about Bev is found in the newspapers, her emails and her posts here when she was allowed to post.

We have asked for evidence of Bev's expenditures, and thus the evidence provided is highly questionable. If she wanted to document her claim that she donated her share of the qui tam suit to BBV and that she gave Stephen Heller $10,000, she would post the appropriate documentation, i.e. canceled checks, BBV's Schedule A.

Ms. Dudley (aka Harris) has been caught repeatedly in lies and has ZERO credibility with this community (with exception of a few apologists who remain for whatever reason impervious to fact.

[Land Shark]

216. You guys were offered strong proof back in April, 2006, you looked the other way

here's what happened

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=423451 WillYourVoteBeCounted started a thread on Heller to raise funds for him via his website, stating among other things that Bev “burned her source” readers were asked to please contribute to this website for Heller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=423451&mesg_id=423973 In this link Steven Heller appears, stating "I am steven heller," and "bev is a person of integrity" Heller strongly defends Bev's actions in this incident.

Immediately members there, previously claiming to love Steve Heller and wanting to raise funds for his victimization, in part by Bev according to them, instead start to turn on Steven Heller, who's now getting in the way of the bev bashing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=423451&mesg_id=423980 WillYourVoteBeCounted claims we don't know if steveheller is steveheller or not, do we?? "how do we know this is the real one, we’ll get the real one donations"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=423451&mesg_id=423983 Steve Heller provides a very reasonable proof mechanism= email to the website that WillYourVoteBeCounted was soliciting donations for Steve's legal fees! Brilliant! "use my email address to prove who I am it’s on the donations page you are referencing..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=423451&mesg_id=423990 WillYourVOteBeCounted refuses this method, still insisting that whoever responds to the email on the site she was pushing people to contribute too could be just about anybody. She says she went to Whois, and the site owner could be “anybody”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=423451&mesg_id=425491
The thread is later locked at WillYourVoteBeCounted’s request, ostensibly because people are being "outed" on that thread.

Under the circumstances, I think it was incumbent on those same posters there who are critics on this thread (WillYourVoteBeCounted, Kelvin Mace, Troubleinwinter, etc) to verify if that was the real steve heller" which of course it is and was. Now they just pretend to be surprised and claim this doubt about identity AGAIN.

It seems you folks know full well this is the real Steve Heller, and you've known full well what the truth was since the above thread in April 2006. yet you continue with the story because the desire to smear is so strong.

I infer that because i can certainly see a very strong desire for you folks to smear my thread as well. And these smears are not coming out of a devotion to careful representation of the truth, shall we say.

[troubleinwinter]

217. "ostensibly"????

"The thread is later locked at WillYourVoteBeCounted’s request, ostensibly because people are being "outed" on that thread."

There was no "ostensible" about it. I was one whose personal information was posted by Bev on her site. WYVBC never said that they were being outed ON the thread. Read the words: "Bev Harris has outed 4 of the DU members posting on it." You're an attorney and should understand the meaning of a sentence.

4 DU members have been outed by Bev Harris

I have requested that this thread be locked, since
Bev Harris has outed 4 of the DU members posting on it.

She has used her forum to publicize a DU member's name, city and street,
to out 4 DU members, and has also used BradBlog out those same
4 Democratic Underground Members.

Anyone in DU, just know that this could happen to you.

[Kelvin Mace]

218. Oh please

Now you consider disagreeing with you a "smear". Right, and you claim that folks who oppose your way of thinking are opposed to democracy.

Give me a break.

Could you point me to a post in that thread where I endorse the person who claimed to be Heller?

[troubleinwinter]

222. Wow. Thanks for the memories.

One of your links shows Easter morning when I was told by a DUer that Bev posted my personal information on her website, my name & address. The deleted messages are several kind DUers pointing me to it (deleted because they showed me the link and I later asked that they be removed). And one was a "neener-neener, hahahah, you got yer personal information outed by Bev on her site" post by Pat Veesley of BlackBoxVoting.org.

A bit later was when Bev informed me that Jim "I never go anywhere without a gun" March was in my state and looking for and asking about me. WTF?

All because I had asked for a copy of a public document and posted on DU about her non-response to a question about FOIAs that Bev did not like. (the post of mine is on that thread)

Then she posted some crap/lies on her site about having researched all about me and that I had posted all manner of stuff on many various sites all over the net undermining her (I only post on DU). This was when I realized that she is NUTS. Or a paranoid liar. Or a deliberate liar.

Anyway, thanks for the memories of a shitty Easter morning having had my personal information posted on the internet by Bev, having her post lies about me, and an afternoon and evening of fielding crank calls.

[Land Shark]

234. The info was posted to show NOTICE that steveheller here is real

and that there was an opportunity for you all to easily verify Steve Heller a few months ago.

Regarding the thread back in April, Shutting down a DU thread composed of people who continue to post on DU in other places doesn't seem to do much to stop ANOTHER SITE from posting personal information. But I will accept your claims that shutting down the thread was to stop "outing" as you saw it. THat is still irrelevant to the issue of Steve Heller being real.

And if folks are going to go around accusing Bev of doing nasty things to Steve Heller that Steve says she never did, it seems to me entirely possible, based on what you all regularly state you believe about Bev, that she could "out" all of you not only on her website but in a public lawsuit for defamation, using your real names of course, whereby you'd be outed in some county courthouse and possibly news sources somewhere. Protection of your privacy on DU would then seem to counsel a retraction regarding Mr. heller and the claims made herein.

Surely you'll miss the point here and call me a BevBot instead. BUt if I were you I would apologize to SteveHeller and to Bev unless you can prove Steve a fraud, and then move on to much greener pastures in terms of the issues you have with Bev. Just because you have those issues, doesn't mean that everything you do and every tactic you take is correct and justifiable.

[Bill Bored]

206. Thanks very much for sharing this. At this point however, you have been quoted

as supporting legislation with provisions similar to those of HR 550.

As a true defender of democracy who has put himself at significant risk, as opposed to just talking about it, would you care to elaborate on that? It was the main purpose of this thread until your name was brought up and I was genuinely interested in how you got into trouble, whether BevH was to blame or not.

[steveheller]

210. I'm not an expert on legislation, never claimed to be

I really don't know the details of which legislation would do exactly what. What I DO support is opening up the process and making elections, and the machines we vote on, transparent (metaphorically, of course). The machines should be inspected by independent computer experts who have no affiliation with any voting machine company, the software should be inspected by software experts who have no affiliation with any voting machine company, the software code should be open source code, each machine should have voter verifiable paper ballots (not just a paper trail, but paper ballots), and citizens should be allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The elections belong to us, the citizens, not the voting machine companies, not the election officials... the elections belong to us! We should be able to observe every step of the process, watch how the ballots are counted, tabulated, processed, etc. No secret machines run on secret software, no private corporations being able to keep the machines we vote on secret. Nothing should be secret about our elections except the secret ballot.

[Bill Bored]

214. Well, what we are also hearing is that there should be NO machines at all and...

...that the only way to make it transparent is to hand count everything.

HR 550 requires most of what you're suggesting (albeit with a weak audit provision that could be improved). And there's still some ambiguity about paper ballots vs. trails. But it would require permanent paper records that preserve the privacy of the voter, which means that at least they can't be those thermal paper roll thingies. And it bans undisclosed software, wireless and Internet voting too, all of which are either here or on the horizon if not stopped.

So is that transparent enough?

Because we are debating whether those who support this bill are "enemies of democracy" now, or some such thing.

Now I don't mean to put you on the spot; you're obviously not an enemy of democracy. But do you think hand counted paper ballots are the only way to go or would you accept the metaphorically transparent sort of solution you describe? (I think there does have to be a fair amount of hand counting to verify machine totals myself, but not usually 100% and not necessarily by elimination of the machines entirely. I prefer scanners to DREs because DREs break too often and when they do, voters can't vote -- not because scanners are necessarily any more secure or transparent than DREs.)

So are you an "enemy of democracy" despite all you've been through or would you insist on hand counted paper ballots?

[steveheller]

220. I believe voting machines could work if done right

I think that, under the right conditions - and coupled with the proper federal legislation - electronic voting machines could be a boon to democracy. With the proper oversight and expertise, I believe it's possible to create an electronic voting machine that would make our elections more secure and more accurate, with the election results being a true reflection of the will of the majority of those of us who actually bother to vote. Whether or not we, the people, can overcome the impediments of politics and lobbying pressure from the moneyed interests to actually create and implement such as system (machine and legislation) is another question, and the answer may indeed be "no."

I believe technology has the potential to either improve a situation or make it worse, all depending on the manner in which the technology is built and implemented. Like just about anything else in life, and certainly including something as complex as a national election in the United States, the devil is in the details.

Those who say the details cannot possibly be deviled out and that we should switch to all hand counted paper ballots may prove to be right. But because I am a believer in technology, I think a voting machine could be made that really would be accurate, secure and transparent. It wouldn't be flawless, because no machine is flawless. But I believe it is possible to create a voting machine that would be a great aid in the execution of our most basic function as a democratic republic: our elections.

As for the legislation part; of course any national voting system has to be controlled and under the provision of federal laws and regulations, with real criminal penalties for those who would knowingly undermine such a system, like for instance a voting machine company that secretly used illegal, uncertified software in their voting machines. I am more skeptical of such legislation being created. I see so little legislation that is tight, well written, and not full of loop holes and exemptions for this or that lobbying group. Federal laws covering national elections can't be full of loop holes and exceptions, as so much of our legislation is.

As "that man" currently living in our White House would say, it's hard work. It's tough, and it may take many years to work this issue out. But in my view, this issue is, unfortunately, of dire and pressing importance to the continuation of our republic. The time it takes to create the machine and the legislation may be time we don't have. This, admittedly, may be an argument for hand counted paper ballots. After all, that is something we can implement now.

And yet, I still think the machine and legislation could be made to work.

Steve Heller

[Land Shark]

235. The NIST STS reports states that the computer security community

believes pretty much uniformly that electronic voting machines "cannot be made secure." Of course the EAC did not accept its own expert committee's recommendations yesterday. For more info, see
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x461491

At the very least, if we use computers, a couple bad things MUST be true:

1 The average person is denied the ability to understand, and thus to have rational non-faith-based confidence in, the voting systems without the undue burden of hiring a computer expert, and even then will still have to have faith in the computer expert.

2. Computers simply do what they are told to do, so all the nonelection day testing is completely irrelevant to the question of what the computers were told to do ON ELECTION DAY. Computers are slaves who act without regard to law or ethics, so testing and certification is a red herring unless you could somehow certify that the computer is virus-proof and hackproof and rigproof.

3. There will always be pressure on elections because of what's at stake. At least we all have ideas on how to protect elections if they are VISIBLE but we are pretty much helpless if they are computerized and invisible.

I share your optimism about technology but there are also limits to technology revolving around its invisibility, secrecy and complexity. But this is all part of a good debate.

[stellanoir]

209. dearest Steve

I've been fairly silent yet from the get go my heart has gone out to you and your wife for your intrepid yet torturous efforts in truth telling in circumstances so mired in complexity. Many make all too many false assumptions.

Thanks for all you've done and all you've put up with.

I'm sending you beaucoup appreciation for all your efforts and hardships you've endured as a truth teller during a time at which your ilk may seem to be an endangered species.

We'll get through this period of intense obfuscation or as one spiritual teacher of mine once described it, years ago, "there will be another flood. It'll be a flood of ideas."

Trust me just for a nanosecond, we're almost through it and I've never, ever, ever, questioned your story or veracity.

Healings to you and yours and have a great holiday season despite all the BS.


thanks so much and best

[steveheller]

221. Thank you.

My wife and I thank you very much for your help and support, Stellanoir. We heard from people from all over the world; the UK, Netherlands, Holland, Japan, many from Canada, a few from New Zealand, and from all parts of the United States. Thank you, all of you, for your encouragement. It meant a lot to Michele and I.

Steve Heller

[troubleinwinter]

224. One must understand

that a person who claims to be any persona defending Bev Harris is likely to be taken with a mountain range of skepticism here.

You see, she is renowned for her "sock-puppets". A sock-puppet is when a person (say, Bev Harris) shows up here under another identity (say something like "patriothackd" or "Bailey77", or any of many other tomb stoned names) and sings Bev's praises.

We have become quite jaded when new identities show up claiming to be 'whoever' singing Bev's praises, because most who have been around long enough to have followed Bev's history and drama find it very hard to believe that anyone would take her seriously anymore except her paid Board Members, half a dozen followers and herself.

[kster]

225. Nice try

I hope that all works out for you, I doubt it will, because your crew is all but done. But please keep talking.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[steveheller]

204. Yes, please stop it.

As Brad said, I have better things to do, both for the election integrity movement and in my own personal life, than to respond to your lies and distortions about my case. When you willfully distort the details of my case in order to attack Bev Harris, I cannot stand by silently, because I owe it to Bev Harris to speak out when you slander her thus.

My case has been and continues to be a very big part of my life. You are twisting and distorting the facts of MY LIFE in order to hurt and attack others. I demand you stop it, Mr. Allen. Stop it now.

Steve Heller

[Kelvin Mace]

211. Then you and Brad are certainly free to

do whatever you wish.

I am free to read the newspaper and post about salient points that affect issues I TOO am involved in to this forum. Bev and Brad have their own blog to post anything they wish to. However, they cannot expect to come to DU, where Bev has been discredited, and post praises to her without rebuttal.

I have not "willfully" distorted anything. The newspaper reported Bev talked to the cops and confirmed receiving documents from Stephen Heller. In my book you don't do that to a source. If in your world this is OK, then by all means, enjoy your life.

I am not compelled to agree with your views.

If the newspaper got it wrong, then by all means demand a retraction, point it out to me when it appears and I will retract my analysis.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

227. Andy used to defend her too n/t

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ellipsis]

229. Well, they're definitely out of the film...LOL

Kidding.

He's not alone.


I must say this thread has certainly been informative.

[Kelvin Mace]

233. Now you are channeling Bev

You break the rules, then when you are caught claim conspiracy against you.

Puh-leaze.

I am committed to two things:

1) Getting HR-550 passed (with some changes to strengthen it if possible)

2) Making sure Bev scams no one else.

The only thing you seem committed to on this forum is defending Bev despite overhwhelming evidence of her bad intentions.

[Kelvin Mace]

208. I do not respond to demands from Bev Harris apologists

I cited the newspaper story, quoted it directly. If the story is in error, take it up with the reporter and get a correction/retraction.

If you can, then I will will issue a correction. Calling me a liar when I am citing a public news story does not make it so.

A person claiming to be Heller has made claims here. Bev Harris and her followers have also appeared on this board claiming to be other people.

Even IF the poster is Heller, it changes nothing. According to the newspaper Bev cooperated with the police. If this had gone to trial Bev would have been on the prosecution witness list. If Bev had never filed the qui tam suit to line her own pockets, Heller might have simply gone to the AG and never been prosecuted.

If you don't like what is posted on DU, you have your own blog. If you wish to praise a person who is lining her own pockets (asked Bev about that 50% pay raise lately, Brad?) while pretending to be a libersl activist, then by all means do. Just don't expect people here to swallow the bullshit withour comment.

Again, Bev has committed grevious sins, far worse than anything you accuse me of, yet we don't see any of this vicious criticism of her.

Quit pretending to be even-handed when you are simply another Bev groupie.

[Land Shark]

236. Even if Bev be the Devil herself, you can't do TO HELLER what you're doing

It's amazing how you and especially troubleinwinter think that (1) every single thing that Bev does is wrong, AND (2) many or most you disagree with are either Bev, channeling Bev, or BevBots.

At the very least, do you all see the old "one track mind" dynamic going on here?

I'm concerned about why you think you can continue to upset Heller and distort *his story* of what happened, while you simultaneously claim to support Heller?

You say Bev has been "discredited here at DU." Even if we accept that as 100% true, it only increases the probability slightly that Bev's story re Heller is incorrect, yet here we have HEller himself begging you all to verify the facts and telling you that you're wrong. Yet you don't care. You seem to claim that a newspaper article is still out there for you to get support from, but that still raises the question:

Given that you clearly believe you have many other issues against Bev, why do you continue to maintain this one, to the damage and distress of Steve Heller, even after being confronted with the facts? And even if your facts were right, why is it SO important to discredit or attack Bev on this ONE issue that you will distress, annoy, harrass and ignore Steve Heller?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

195. if only he got legal advice - but he got 3 felonies reduced to 1

Its a stinking shame.

Heller gets charged as a thief - because he gave the Diebold docs
(that showed Diebold was lying to the state)
to BBV.org instead of directly to the govt.

If only someone had given him (good) legal advice -
Heller could have turned the docs directly over to SOS Shelley,
and then Heller would have legally had whistleblower protection.

Morally, he should have been protected, but legally he wasn't,
because he turned the docs over to BBV.org - who turned them in
to the govt.

Diebold would be apologizing to him instead of the other way
around.

[Kelvin Mace]

212. Clarification

Morally, he should have been protected, but legally he wasn't,
because he turned the docs over to BBV.org - who turned them in
to the govt.

Bev also tuned them over to the PRESS.

[kster]

213. Your having a bad day

aren't you, I am so sorry to see that! PBHC NOW!

[Kelvin Mace]

215. Yeah, keep posting that

that'll help.

[kster]

219. Oh my,Your day just jumped from the frying pan to the fire

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=460763&mesg_id=461579

[Kelvin Mace]

223. Nope.

[kster]

226. Yep

[Wickerman]

238. locking

Well, this thread seems to have brought out the worst in everyone. Let's try again in other threads and see if we can't remember that even though we may disagree on tactics we are all seeking fair elections and are working for an improved democracy. Please treat your debating partner(s) with the respect you yourself deserve and expect.

thanks,

Wickerman
DU Moderator