Here is the Letter that I just got from Senator Levins office.

[Pam-Moby]

Dear Mr. XXXXX:

� � � � � Thank you for contacting me about the 2004 Presidential
election and
election reform.� I appreciate hearing your views on this
matter.

� � � � � Allegations of voter suppression and election fraud as
well as
questions about the reliability of our voting systems are
serious concerns.
As the 2004 election results are certified and evaluated, we
must work to
address any issues that may arise.� We must ensure that all
eligible
citizens have the opportunity to vote and that every vote is
counted.

� � � � � According to the Committee for the Study of the American
Electorate,
in the 2000 presidential election 2.5 million votes out of 101
million were
not counted.� In other words, many Americans made the effort to
participate
in our democratic system, yet their votes did not count.� This
is simply
unacceptable.

� � � � � In 2002, I supported the Help America Vote Act (HAVA,
P.L.107-252),
which is a major step toward correcting many of the inadequacies
of our
election system.� This law established a set of standards to
correct voting
errors and to ensure accessibility for the disabled.� It also
encourages
states, along with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology
(NIST), to set uniform benchmarks and reporting requirements for
voting
system performance.� In addition, HAVA ensures that the most
effective
voting equipment is available to states by funding research and
pilot
programs, performing studies on voting technology, and providing
explicit
voter guidelines and certification programs.

� � � � � HAVA authorized funds for each state to purchase new
voting systems
that comply with HAVA’s standards.� In Michigan, the Secretary
of State
convened a HAVA Advisory Committe to review the available
systems and
Michigan’s needs for future elections.� In 2003, Michigan’s
Secretary of
State announced that she selected an optical scan voting system
for
Michigan.� The optical scan voting system requires voters to
place a mark
in a designated spot on the ballot next to the name of the
candidate
receiving the vote.� When the votes are counted these marks are
read by an
optical scanner.� The optical scan voting system creates and
preserves a
paper trail of each vote, thereby greatly enhancing the security
and
accuracy of election results.

� � � � � In February 2004, the Information Security Institute at
Johns Hopkins
University released an analysis of electronic voting systems
(http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf). This and other reports found
major flaws
in certain “direct record electronic” (DRE) software
programs, often
referred to as “touch-screen” voting systems, which were
used in several
states.� If left uncorrected, these flaws could intentionally
enable
unscrupulous persons to modify existing votes or to cast
multiple votes by
using a counterfeit voting card.� � Because of the fundamental
importance of
fair and accurate elections to our democracy, I support
providing
additional funds for HAVA programs to ensure that all voting
systems and
procedures, including DRE systems, are secure, accurate,
recountable, and
accessible.

� � � � � HAVA also establishes provisional voting systems to ensure
that no
registered voter is turned away from voting booths, allows every
blind and
disabled person to cast a vote privately and independently, and
utilizes
statewide voter registration lists and verification systems for
voters who
register by mail to permit only eligible voters to vote.� This
law also
established a new federal agency, the Election Assistance
Commission, which
is a bipartisan group of commissioners who have no rulemaking
authority but
issue voluntary guidelines for voting systems and their
requirements.� This
commission also carries out the grant programs, provides for the
certification and testing of voting systems and studies election
issues.

� � � � � Unfortunately, President Bush and the Congressional
majority provided
insufficient federal funding for HAVA programs prior to the 2004
election,
which prompted great concern.� The Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus
Appropriations
Act (P.L.108-199) allocated $500 million to improve our
electoral system,
only half the amount authorized for FY04.

� � � � � While HAVA has gone a long way toward reforming our
electoral system,
more needs to be done.� I am hopeful that during the next
Congress we will
be able to work together on a bipartisan basis to address these
concerns
and to restore the public’s faith in the electoral process.
The goal of
ensuring that every vote counts is essential to ensuring
democracy.
American voters deserve an electoral process that is both secure
and
accurate, and I will continue to work to ensure that every
citizen is
afforded that right.

� � � � � Thank you again for writing.


Sincerely,
Carl Levin

[sepia_steel]

1. Ugh

What a a crock of shit. HAVA is a glorified theft device.

[punpirate]

3. Yup. HAVA, as written,...

... helped create the problem we have now. Levin will eventually figure that out when he loses in the next election.

[saracat]

4. But on the bright side, he isn't uninterested

and he didn't say he wouldn't contest!

[LiberalHeart]

13. I think he did say he won't -- he glosses over the issue....

...by talking about doing all that other stuff AS the vote is certified ... not before it is certified.

[Pam-Moby]

2. ????

The Mr. XXXXX is my husband.
The only problem is, he never answered the question if he will stand with Conyers...!

[RevCheesehead]

5. That's your answer.

"No, but we'll look at HAVA. Much safer, politically."
(I majored in "reading between the lines.")

[Pam-Moby]

6. Mr/Mrs RevCheesehead

Don't say NO...Now you have done it. You have put me in tears. :cry: :cry: :cry:

I will not give up hope until Jan 6th thank you...! I thought in the waiting for 2 weeks for the email from Levin...that Levins PC had exploded.

[RevCheesehead]

10. I'm sorry, Pam - I didn't mean to burst anyone's bubble.

I think I'm in major snarky mode right now. I certainly didn't mean to come down on ya.

I think there are many good points in the letter. It sounds like he is very well-informed on the issues - and that is a major step! He took the time to respond to the letter - and that, too, cannot be ignored.

Maybe he's a poker player, and isn't ready to show his hand. But he certainly has noted that he isn't going to just sit around and do nothing. That, too, is important.

Personally, I'm hopeful, but not completely convinced, that someone from the Senate will stand up. Too many people concerned about their political future, they can't see the forest for the trees. They just don't realize that the whole damned forest is being stripped away from them.

I would recommend to any Senator to watch "Bulworth" - a movie about a Senator who decides to end it all. He begins to tell the truth - the REAL truth - and discovers that he is empowered, both internally and externally.

Peace to you, Pam. Let's wait and see what happens.
Ruth

[Pam-Moby]

15. I hope....

Today I called 10-15 Senators and few I talked with for more than 5-10 minutes each. During the call to one of the Senators office, the guy took the time to explain some of the pitfalls of standing would mean. He said it will not change anything at this point. If one did stand, they are 90% to fail due to the majority issue in the Senate. So his idea was to keep working on voting issues. I told him that we have had 4 years of this. I asked how many more years. I got an honest answer. I DON'T KNOW!

[zann725]

35. I think we're beginning to see the meaning of "inside the Beltway"

We appear to be just 'We The People' who our Reps don't have to face all that often. Reps who now know (some for as long as the last few elections) that we really don't even elect them. So that doesn't give us much clout.

Though I shall still hopeful that at least one Senator with a conscience and some balls (not necessarily male) to stand up for Democracy. I shall believe at least one will...until my eyes tell me otherwise on Jan. 6.

[nursebear]

12. Nobody's going to stand with Conyers

It's not the political expedient thing to do.

I realize I'm new here, but y'all are making a big mistake thinking the election of 2004 is going to be overturned.

Discount the voter fraud for a minute. (And I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Just pretend for a moment that it could never be proved.)

And then consider these facts for a second:

1) 3.5 million more people voted for Bush than for Kerry.

2) Assume that even only 70% believe the election was fair and honest. (And I'd be willing to be that it's more likely that 80-95% believe the election was fair and honest.)

That means a senator would have to risk his/her political career to appease less than 1/3 of his/her constituents. Worse than that, he/she is willing to fly in the face of more than 2/3 of his/her supporters.

I realize y'all hate Bush...what you have to realize is that most of the country doesn't. The common every day citizen believes Bush was elected fair and square. That's the side the senators HAVE to go with. The side of political expediency.

You can hate Bush all you want. You can moan and stomp your feet, be disgusted, write emails, fax letters, etc...etc.. In the end it boils down to the same fact of life:

George W. Bush won by 3.5 million popular votes. And not a single senator is going to stand with Conyers and dispute that. Not if that Senator wants to be re-elected.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but you'd be better off working with your congress critter and senator to investigate and file articles of impeachment for Bush.

[NV Whino]

16. You perhaps don't understand

Standing with Conyers is not about "overturning" the election, it is about officially investigating election fraud and voter disinfranchisment.

[SicTransit]

33. You perhaps don't understand

but if any Senator stands with Conyers, that slams the door down on any official investigation of election 2004 etc. Because such an objection will make it into an extremely partisan issue, no Republican will touch such an investigation with a 10-foot pole, because any involvement in such an investigation will be looked upon as justifying the attempt by the Democrats to deligitimize the Republican presidency.

No Republican cooperation equals no investigation. There is no such thing as a Congressional investivative committee that only has Democrats sitting on it. No such animal. Any such investigation will be exactly like Conyers' "hearings" - toothless, no powers whatsoever, reduced to begging people like Blackwell to answer, and receiving no response (and not being able to do anything about that).

For 2 hours of grandstanding you seem to be willing to give up on having election 2004 ever officially investigated. Either that or you (and Conyers and others) just didn't think things through to their logical conclusions.

[consciousobjector]

18. The numbers are 42%

of Democrats believe the election was fraudulent - according to a CNBC ( I think) poll a week or so ago (I'll try to find the link). It's the same one that said 18% of the general population believes the same thing. And this is with the total news blackout concerning Election fraud.

Also, the Senate Democrats know that election fraud happened, and know that if elections are rigged, they don't have a chance anyway - what's to lose?

Also, since at this point the stress of the contest of the votes is largely the disenfranchisement issue - a civil rights issue. The promotion of civil rights and fairness is not a "nutty" or "tin foil" issue. How can it hurt a Congressperson to go up against an abridgement of civil rights in the protection of citizens who have no other recourse?

[Democrat Dragon]

20. 3.5 million CAN be stolen!

According to some calculations, if the popular vote were to agree with the exit polls, KERRY WOULD HAVE WON BY 6 MILLION VOTES! Although he might not have won by that many, it gives you a pretty good idea of the scale of the fraud.

[Pam-Moby]

22. If Bush is so liked

why is his job approval rating below 50% currently? Also the 3.5 million that he supposedly won by I believe is inaccurate because of the fraud that took place. Many people based on raw exit poll data believe that Kerry actually won by approximately 6 million votes.

[nursebear]

32. As I understand it...

And I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong...

But there was only one outlet for the media services for exit polling on Nov. 3rd.

And Exit Polls are not subjected to the same scientific and statistical standards as other polls during the campaign. Basically exit polls consist of people asking voters as they leave, "Who'd you vote for?"

Isn't possible that these exit polls were set up in urban areas that skewed highly to the Democrat side of things? And neglected rural areas?

We saw during the campaign poll results skewing ever where from Bush up 10 points to Kerry up 10 points, with most of the major ones, Gallup, Harris, WSJ/NBC, ABC/Wash Post, etc showing the contest to be 1-3% for either side with a 1-3% MOE.

The weekend before the election most of the polls had Bush winning by 3% with a MOE of +/- 3%

Bush won by 3%.

The whole argument is unconvincing. I'm supposed to believe in a one agency exit poll conducted who knows where asking who knows who.

Or I can believe that the election was along the same lines as many different reliable surveyors, using established scientific and statistical principles, that have been shown to be fairly accurate over the past 20 years.

I'm sorry... I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade, but your argument and logic don't wash.

[sepia_steel]

37. WOW

you are either masquerading, or you are seriously uninformed. or both.

[nursebear]

40. Okay, so inform me

Takes 2 seconds to tell somebody they are uninformed. Take the additional 2 minutes to inform me.

[Pam-Moby]

38. Explain this to me

In the Ukraine's recent election the US found that there were large discrepancies in the exit polls versus the actual vote and raised concern of a stolen election. The exit polls we have been using for many years have almost always reflected almost consistently with the outcome of the votes except for the last three elections, 2000, 2002, 2004. Also a broad range of people were asked how they had voted which also should reflect on the outcome of this election which it did not.

[nursebear]

43. Honestly, I don't have answers to your questions...

Did you have answers to mine?

All I know is that exit polling has always been suspect. (I have a minor's degree in statistics... not that it's worth anything, but people better educated than me have told me that exit polling has always been suspect.)

If I had the money, I'd commission Gallup and two other respected polling groups to each phone survey say 50,000 people (which is a pretty big size, since most polls only do roughly 1000)... and I'd ask one simple question.

Who did you vote for on Nov. 3rd

George W. Bush
John F. Kerry
Other
Did not vote
Don't remember

If Bush doesn't get 50% +/- the margin of error (with 2 of the 3 polling groups), then I'd say something screwy is going on, and I'd expect congress/senate to investigate.

But knowing what I know of exit polls, doesn't convince me. Exit polls are like the chocolate candy of the nutrition world -- yeah, it'll fill you up, and it may even taste good, but the result isn't going to be healthy.

[JNelson6563]

50. Ironically you fail to mention

that the opposition candidate in the Ukraine who got shorted in the initial (fraudulant) vote was the one leading the charge to get a re-vote.

Oh how wonderful Kerry would be if he showed half that much leadership! Oh I know! Let's blame Levin! *sigh*

Julie

[sepia_steel]

36. Yeah.

Let's just all stop now. Nothing is wrong. Never was, y'all. :eyes:

What is this "y'all" stuff? Do you not dislike Bush? I've read all your talking points a million times before, and your posts seems suspect.

[nursebear]

39. Suspect of what?

Not cow-towing to the Democratic Underground party line?

I'm new here, I admit that. If you want to suspend my account or other wise banish me, it's no big loss to me.

I've just been lurking and reading all of this stuff about how Jan. 6th is supposed to be a "historic day" and I'm just telling you it ain't gonna happen... and I'm giving you good reasons (aka "Talking points") about why it ain't gonna happen.

If you want a forum where everybody believes the same thing, everybody thinks the same way, and it's "hoorah do or die!" than this isn't the forum for me, and you can banish me to the realm of the internet.

If however this a forum where people can actually think for themselves, come up with some disagreeable assessments based on good solid facts and analysis, then you'll probably want to keep me around.

I've voted Repub. I've voted Democrat. I think the Repub party is lost in never never land right now. I think the Democrat party can once again be a party of greatness, but it needs to be brought back from the brink of destruction. When I say, "Ya'll" I saying it as somebody who is on the outside of the Dems looking in. I think the Dems can win a lot in 2008 if they change a few things. Right now the Dem party is not a party that wants me. I hope to change the minds of some Dems to bring the party to me... and I see my self as a standard bearer of moderatism for the next decade or two.

But... I'm at the whims of the all mighty DUers who grant or remove access.

[newyawker99]

45. Hi nursebear!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[nursebear]

49. thanks!

I hope to find a home here.

[Leilani]

7. Just a wild guess,

but I wouldn't count on Sen Levin for Thursday.

[GetTheRightVote]

8. On the positive side of it, he may be leaving himself open to make

the stand on Nov 6th. He may not want to telegraph his actions before hand. This is what I am praying for until that day arrives.

:kick:

[garybeck]

9. I GOT THE SAME LETTER FROM LEAHY

Who writes these letters anyway, Karl Rove?

[RevCheesehead]

11. Word for word, the same?

That may signal something else, entirely!

[garybeck]

14. I'm going to have to dig it up

I may have trashed (recycled) it because it made me so mad to see HAVA mentioned as an accomplishment.

If indeed they are almost the same, that would be a very real problem that we should all be discussing.

[doodadem]

21. Letters from the Senators

I got something similar from Senator Feinstein (I'm in Calif.)when I first started emailing weeks ago. Also received a cheery little note back from Senator Russ Feingold's office. Have not gotten anything yet from our best hope, Barbara Boxer, which is unusual. I generally hear back from her promptly. I also called her office today numerous times before finally getting thru to a staffer.
Have also heard nothing from Kerry's office after repeated emails the past few weeks. Olbermann said on his show tonight that Kerry just left for Asia. How can he do that? Purposely missing the opening days of Congress, or purposely absenting himself from this vote? I read an interview with him a few days ago in Newsweek that was just pitiful--why he thought he lost the election, how he planned to "learn" from it, yada yada. Very depressing, he was distinctly in loser mode.
Contrast that with Yushenko (sp?) and the Ukraine. That guy acted like a winner from the get go, and yea verily, it happened.

[Gloria]

34. Amazing how a letter like this can be coordinated, but the DNC

can't coordinate the information Conyers has collected and make sure every Democratic member of Congress understands what is going on!!!

[newyawker99]

46. Hi doodadem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[theboss]

24. Yes, it signifies you got a form letter.

I'm assuming he's gotten a fair number of letters like yours.

[garybeck]

25. but if Levins and Leahy's letters are the same, that would be a problem

obviously it's a form letter

what we're saying is that it's very odd that two senators would have the same form letter.

[theboss]

26. Oh. Well, that would be a little odd, I guess

(I misread the post).

I don't know. I've never written a senator. Whenever my family or friends have needed something, we call our guy who calls the Senator directly. (And, no, I have not called regarding this issue because our guy would look at me like I grew a third eye).

[hootinholler]

17. At least he's more on top than Sarbanes:

Re: Moss V. Bush Action needed. Time is of the essence.

Dear Mr. Hoot:

Thank you for contacting me about allegations of voting fraud during the 2004 Presidential election. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

Elections in the United States are administered at the state and local level. However, Congress sets standards for federal election procedures and provides funding to enable state and local officials to comply with these national standards. For information about the administration of elections in Maryland, you may wish to contact your representatives in the Maryland General Assembly.

As you may know, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), P.L. 107-252, was enacted in October 2002. HAVA created a new federal agency with election administration responsibilities, set requirements for voting and voter-registration systems, and provided federal funding for this purpose. While HAVA does not supplant state and local authority over election administration, it did require:

* Voting systems used in federal elections to provide for error correction by voters, manual auditing, accessibility to disabled persons, alternative languages, federal error-rate standards, voter privacy, ballot confidentiality and uniform standards for what constitutes a vote on each system by January 1, 2006;
* Provisional voting to be available to any voter not listed as registered beginning on January 1, 2004; and
* States using voter registration to use computerized statewide voter registration systems that are accurately maintained by January 1, 2004.

In my view, it is critical to ensure that states have sufficient funding to implement all aspects of HAVA. For that reason, I have consistently supported legislative efforts to increase funding to modernize voting machines, improve the administration of elections, insure the accessibility of polling places to the disabled, as well as other important goals of HAVA. Most recently, I voted for an amendment to the FY2004 appropriations bill adopted on October 24, 2003 that increased funding for the implementation of HAVA by $1.5 billion

Some states, as you may know, have decided to use their HAVA funds to purchase electronic voting machines. HAVA does not require this, thus it is important that states that have decided to take this step ensure they have uniform best practices, training, and election day procedures in place that can protect the integrity of the voting process. Congress is also working on ways to improve the integrity of the election process in coordination with state and local efforts. S. 2437, the Voting Integrity and Verification Act, would amend HAVA to require that voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record. On May 18, 2004, S. 2437 was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, where it awaits further action. Although I am not a member of this Committee, you may be assured that I will keep your views in mind should S. 2437 or related legislation come before the full Senate for consideration.

Throughout my career in Congress, I have supported efforts to strengthen representational government and improve the process in which federal elections are administered. In our democratic system of government, it is crucial that every member of the public be confident his or her right to vote will be unhindered, that his or her vote will be accurately counted, and that he or she has full trust in the integrity of our elections. Requests have already been made to have the General Accountability Office investigate allegations of fraud in the 2004 elections, and you may be assured that I will closely monitor these investigations and continue to work for the betterment of our democratic process.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance to you in the future.


With
Thanks for contacting me, in the future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than clicking reply.

With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator

[genius]

19. OK what does this mean?

[BarbinMD]

23. They're form letters

They have one for every type of letter/e-mail they receive.

[garybeck]

28. obviously... but two Senators shouldn't have the same form letter

[Machiavelli05]

27. ohh you gotta love the Monarch Sysstems generated letters

Some intern brought up your name, punched in a numeric code and generated that letter and folded it and sent it. Obviously an outdated letter, hasnt been updated for the possibility to challenge ohio's votes.

Dont get upset tho - generating auto correspondance is the low point in an interns day too.

[mikelewis]

29. Don't get discouraged about Levin... Just because he has a D

next to his name does not mean he belives in democracy or cares about America. If you know anything about Levin, you know his words are as as worthless as any Republicans. He is as fraudulent as this election, time and patience will show this to be true. For now, ignore this worthless mans words.

[understandinglife]

30. What matters is how many of us write and call them and what We The...

...People tell them we expect.

It would be strategic foolishness for any of them to give those who are systematically attacking the core of our franchise of democracy any form of warning or indication of what to expect until the 6 Jan 2005 Joint Session of Congress is underway.

What has mattered and what will matter is what We The People DO.

Then we will evaluate what those who work for us do and then we will know who our partners in democracy are and who the enemies of our franchise are.

And, we have less than 48 hours before we know.

Peace.

"Who bought the green shoes: daddy or Karl?"

[Pam-Moby]

31. Who bought the green shoes: daddy or Karl?"

KARL DID IT!

[yojon]

41. Malloy is right- the democratic party is dead. (sigh)

Poor Senator Levin is clueless.

[sabra]

42. Others have received the same letter...

While it had some good points, it looks like more of a canned letter. Not sure what to expect from him for Thursday...

[me b zola]

44. Sounds so similar to responses I've received

from other Senators.

HAVA:puke:

Well, I HAVA idea, I'm not going to accept their crappy-*ss answers.

I HAVA plan to continue to work for the restoration of our civil rights, voting rights, and our Democracy

In the mean time, I believe that these same Senators do not HAVA chance to keep their jobs much longer if they keep licking the boots of the repukes while spitting on their own constituents.

[Imagevision]

47. Pacify-Pacify-Pacify -- and Kerry plans on running again? no-way!

[GOPBasher]

48. Ummmm hello Levins

All machines need to be verified, not just in Michigan.