Bev Harris: question....has ANY democrat leader jumped on the wagon?

[cthrumatrix]

I posted a thread asking why the democratic leaders are not more vocal on your tremendous work.

This question get's to the root cause of what is happening to our politics, leadership and direction of our country.

Who is DEMANDING that no computer voting take place in Cailfornia or nationally until we can validate our voting procedures.

If the democratic leaders aren't supporting you....why?

Thank you.

[donsu]

1. I too was wondering about tues. Ca. election

what's to keep them from rigging it.

first they give misleading poll numbers

and then they win a rigged election and when voters say 'no way' they can point to the "poll numbers" and smirk at you.

[jiacinto]

16. Why are they misleading?

Because they don't agree with what you want them to say?

[acmavm]

2. The thing that is most confusing to me about the democrats not screaming

about the possible rigging of the elections is that they stand the most to lose, so why the silence? It simply doesn't make any sense. They must have been conscious during the 2000 fiasco, at least one would think so. So they should be the people freaking out the most about the possibility of another election theft. I think that this behavior, or lack of, is just mystifying.

[cthrumatrix]

3. exactly.....what is going on here? don't they care?

[shirlden]

4. There is a thread on this today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=149893

It seems the DNC has endorsed a voter-verifiable audit trail. Though we would, of course, like that to read a voter-verifiable paper ballot.

:kick:

[cthrumatrix]

5. dosn't help in california I guess

[Eloriel]

7. It HAS to be a ballot as opposed to an audit trail

We already have an "audit trail" in Georgia. All it can do is regurgitate rigged vote tallies or, if used to print the "images of ballots," print the tampered with ballots.

In fact, the whole, entire, elaborate physical security surrounding these machines (including their little zero-out reports) only serve to protect rigged votes (if an election has been rigged) and does virtually NOTHING to protect votes FROM being rigged from within, or reveal that they have been rigged after the fact.

Too, an "audit trail" can't be used in a recount. In fact, in Georgia, even if we had "voter verified paper BALLOTS," they couldn't be used in recounts because the only LEGAL vote in GA is the electronic vote, and paper isn't electronic.

I am SOOOO against the use of the term "audit trail." To me it's one of those Republican tricks (whether it originated with Republicans or not): we'll give you what you want, but we'll do it OUR way, which means you don't get what you want at all, just the appearance of what you want.

Eloriel

[BevHarris]

9. Right on. Language and nuance makes all the difference.

Paper trail means it doesn't have to be the legal record of the vote
And the term "receipt" -- aargh! It is a BALLOT.
The voter verified BALLOT must be the legal record.
And we have to get rid of these dumb restrictions surrounding who can count the paper BALLOTS and when.

[revcarol]

6. Kucinich has been all over this issue.

He wants to take this out of the hands of private firms, make it governmental and open for inspection, testing.

Oh, but that's only political, and no one listens to him anyway.AAAARRRGH. :puke:

[LWolf]

10. Dennis brings this up

over and over when he speaks publicly, and has mentioned working on something to introduce in the house. I don't know if he is referring to the Holt bill, or if he is working on another one. But I know he has been speaking about it regularly.

So...for those wanting to hear a Democratic Leader jumping on the bandwagon:

1. Pay attention to Kucinich.

2. Demand that the media pay attention to Kucinich and report what he has to say. Demand that the media jump on the Kucinich bandwagon, and you'll hear all about BBV. And the $87 billion. And....every other issue of concern to democrats.

[Cocoa]

8. because the issue is disputed

HAVA got passed, I think overwhelmingly, so it seems the voting machines are considered a good thing in Congress.

The most significant questioning of the machines is the Holt bill, which has at least 40 democratic co-sponsors.

[Octafish]

11. Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced legislation in May 2003.

http://holt.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=6282&type=Home

[Terwilliger]

12. Because they wouldn't want to stir the pot

as usual, they'll let the grassroots get the thing rolling downhill...then they'll RUN to catch up to the train, THEN make it look as if they were the initiators of the questions

[linazelle]

13. I think you have to realize the media coverage of dems is limited...

They don't get much of an opportunity to support these kinds of issues publicly. So, while I am troubled that it seems like they aren't addressing the BBV issue, I am also not sure that it isn't because they aren't concerned or haven't actually done so.

[loudsue]

14. I'm pretty sure the fix is in for Tuesday's election....

With the wingnuts coming out with polls that hit the television, saying Arnold has it by a mile, yet the more independent polls saying it's a very tight race....and these guys AREN'T getting the public media time.

There are FAR MORE electronic/hackable voting machines in Calif. now than there were in 2002, and the repukes are determined to take Calif. away from the Dems.

If my gut feelings on this are correct, and Arnie wins, my question is: How many more elections will be stolen before something hits the fan??

Or is the public just not capable of believing how insidious this problem is? It is pretty unthinkable, if you grew up with all the pride in Democracy that I grew up with.

People have been lulled into believing that an honest election is true.

It is true, only if you're willing to fight like the devil to keep it that way!!

O8)Thanks to all the DUers who are helping turn this mess around!O8)

[RedEagle]

15. 16th LD Dems "Get It"

More of the LD's are "getting it." The state Dem party endorsed voter verified paper ballots. It's happening, but it's a hard battle when the Secretary of State won't even let a voter-verified paper ballot system into the state to be certified. And it's hard when the SOS office is right there to "good old boy" them on the issue and assure state legislature's were're just over the top on this security issue.


RESOLUTION TO PROTECT VOTERS RIGHTS TO A FAIR VOTE
COUNT

RESOLUTION (Approved 10/4/2003)

WHEREAS THE 16TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT DEMOCRATS
BELIEVE:

Voting systems utilizing new technology, such as
Touch Screens (DREs) and the internet, do not all
produce a physical, voter verified copy of each voter
selections as an independent audit, and

Computer based systems are subject to errors,
breakdowns, and design flaws, computer based systems
inherently cannot be secured to the extent required to
protect voting integrity; and source code may not be
available for public inspection, and


By 2006, states must meet the HAVA Act requirements
of replacing punch-card machines and must provide
disabled voter access to private voting, and in
Section 301, HAVA requires that a permanent paper
record with a manual audit capacity shall be
available as an official record for any recount", and

Voting equipment and machines meeting the 2002
standards will best meet those needs;

THEREFORE THE 16TH LD RESOLVES THAT:

voting systems in Washington State be prohibited for
purchase or use by the State and its Counties unless
they ----
- incorporate a voter verified physical ballot,
deposited at the polling place in a secure ballot box
or be delivered by the U S Postal Service; and
- operate such that the voter is able to void a
ballot and cast a new one;
- maintain the anonymity of the voter; and
- are certified under 2002 Federal standards;
and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT

elections systems management policies and rules be
established in and for Washington State and all it's
counties that ---
- establish that physical ballots have
precedence over electronic data as the true copy of
voter intent for recounts when required by statute or
if challenged; and
- require random checks of the physical ballots
against the computer system totals for system audit
purposes.