Why have the Dems not insisted on getting rid of the black box machines?

[blues90]

I would hope by now most voters are aware of the fraud and how these machines even count the votes. We know this is how 2004 was stolen yet the Dems have not even made an attempt to ban these machines.

I really do not understand this . They won't look into the crimes of the Bush admin , impeachment was off the table and the Dems have the power so why are these damn machines and the paper ballots still counted on them . Am I missing something here ?

[iceman66]

1. Soon enough I fear,

they are going to wish they had!

[SharonAnn]

15. What are you talking about? Some of us have been actively fighting since 2000 and

have gotten many changes made, though we're not done yet.

How dare you say "Why haven't Dems done this?"

We have worked nationally, state by state, community by community. We have gotten local laws changed, state laws and equipment changed, funding in place, etc.

Frustratingly, here in TN, after years of effort, funding in place, and the State Supreme Court saying this cerifiable systems with qa paper ballot (in this case optical scan) MUST be implemented for the 2010 elections, the new GOP majority decided not to do it because of state budget problems, etc.

BUt we have been working on this for years at many, many levels and in many ways.

Where have you been and what have you done?

[robinlynne]

2. You couldn't be more right!

[pocoloco]

Some Dems are Dim.

Some Dems wore the letters off their keyboards attempting to sound the alert in 2004.

[tekisui]

3. The Dems have benefited from whatever the system is.

They have the majority. Why would they change anything that has brought them that?

[MrMickeysMom]

4. I figure it's the "moving target" that keeps things from happening...

... there is one episode after another, instead of a concentration of efforts to:

lobby or bug their rep about campaign finance reform
lobby or bug their rep about voter reform
lobby or bug their res about run-off voting

Surely we can start somewhere.

[spanone]

5. the states have to pay for them and they don't want to hear about it

[laughingliberal]

7. A big part of it. Each state decides what type of voting apparati to use

Our Secretary of State here in NV (interstingly a Republican) refused to have the touch screen machines here without a paper trail and that's what we have. Kind of weird, too, cause he then ran for Congress and voted 100% with Bush.

My husband knows this guy and ran into him after his 1st term was up. He asked him what the hell he was thinking moving so far to the right after he got to Washington. He just mumbled something about needing to secure his standing in the party and looked sheepish. Guess we should all be grateful he was a true moderate before he got there.

[wiggs]

6. Huge question. Has anyone in congress, including Conyers, even tried to offer

some legislation about verifiable elections?

[dotymed]

10. IMO

"they" have already agreed who the "winner" will be. They have proven that D's and R's are the same gangsters. They may spout different meaningless crap at each other. This is theater (like WWF) only it is meant to keep the people divided and not concentrating on important issues. Political, sleight of hand. Watch this hand not the other one.

[SharonAnn]

16. Yes, where have you been that you don't know about the many bills?

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. The DLC likes them

Don't believe me? Look at the 2004/2008 New Hampshire primary results.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Obama is a DLCer also. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. Well, that's debatable. And he's certainly surrounded himself with enough of their kind.

But at the time of the NH primary, the DLC was 100% behind Hillary, who they had assumed would be the "inevitable" front runner without any serious challenger, pretty much since the day after they took a dive in Ohio in 2004.

[Captain Hilts]

17. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but this one just doesn't work. nt

[timeforpeace]

11. When you win elections you like them. When you lose you can blame them. See?

[Jakes Progress]

13. Because to do so would anger the republicans.

We can't do that you know. Bipartisanship and all.

[gleaner]

14. It makes no sense to me .....

but there are still Bush people in this administration, and that makes even less sense. Why not get rid of them and let them go back into private life? Wasn't that one of the things we were voting for?

[blues90]

19. At this point I really don't have any idea what we voted for.

I am shreading my ballot when it arrives this time. I am done , both parties are nothing but liars and sell outs. Everyone of them has either a name or money that gets them their position. It's all rigged and all lies .

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Just a guess

The mass hysteria from the BBV conspiracy theorists about how Democrats will never ever win another election again so long as there are electronic voting machines turned out to be dead wrong and that probably discredited the cause.

[Enrique]

20. they LET the dems win both houses and the presidency

to throw us off of their grand plot! :tinfoilhat:

[BeFree]

22. Just a guess?

Well, a very bad guess.

The, what you call, "mass hysteria" did get rid of most electronic voting machines that were used in 2004. So, your guess that they discredited the cause is a very bad guess.

And they got laws passed to make audits happen.
What we worked to do is take the 'guess' out of elections.
We want everyone to be sure that the winning candidate actually won.

Thanks for your support?

[Canuckistanian]

21. Ahh, "black box" schemes only work in close races.

Oh, wait.....