Does this bother you? (from Verified Voting . org )

[garybeck]

on this page:

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5249

it says:


We do not believe that there is any more reason to look for problems in this election than in previous elections,

What? What about the fact that there are more paperless electronic voting machines than ever before? What about the fact that two Republican companies have siezed a virtual monopoly on the vote counting business? What about the huge problems with the exit polls?To say there is no more reason to look for problems this time is ludicrous!!


Unproven charges of fraud damage the country. They undermine the legitimacy of elected officials, upon which our government is based, and undermine confidence of the voters in the election system.

HUH? I'll tell you waht is damaging to the country - the theft of an election and sweeping it under the rug by statements like this. That is exactly what we need to do - undermine the confidence of the voters in the electoral system because it is broken and we are never going to fix it unless people realize it's broken!!!

So far, we have not seen convincing evidence of either fraud nor of a major error in the Presidential election. As of this writing (11/14/04)...

Maybe they should update their site. There is plenty of convincing evidence. How about the 95% turnout in several precints in Ohio? How about Triad illegally manipulating the scanners and computers for the recount? How about Bev Harris finding the original audit logs in the trash? How about the stickers covering up the Kerry votes in Ohio? How about 7 PhD analysts calling for an investigation? This is not convincing evidence?

[Fly by night]

1. I agree. This "position paper" is hopelessly outdated. On November 15 ...

..., I was still a young man -- as was the evidence for the 2004 election theft. I think it would be good for us to write verified voting and remind them that we're closer to the Ides of March than we are to pre-Thanksgiving at this moment. It's time for verified voting to get up, catch up and get with the program. They should issue an updated "position paper" on the 2004 election theft -- that's the least they can do.

[garybeck]

3. I think as it is, that page

whether or not it's intended, that page serves to cover up the fraud not raise awareness.

[Fly by night]

12. Kick. A major web-site updating is overdue on this "position paper". n/t

[marions ghost]

2. How about if we

here email Verified Voting and ask them if they are standing by this statement at this point, or if they would like help updating their site?

I agree--this does not help at all. Could just take what you wrote above and modify it, then email to them.

[TexasLawyer]

4. Those statements bother me, too

The text seems to make more sense than the headings on that VV web-page.

For example, the heading that reads "Unproven charges of fraud damage the country. They undermine the legitimacy of elected officials, upon which our government is based, and undermine confidence of the voters in the election system."

goes on to say in the text:

"if the anomaly occured in particular county people should talk to the local election officials in that county, and talk to political scientists who are experts in election behavior to see if the analysis makes sense and whether there are other explanations."

So, it would be better for the title to that section to say something like "Making accusations of fraud that are easily explained as non-frauds (like the Dixie-crat voting in the small Florida counties that seemed at first glance to be cases of fraud) hurts those who are assembling strong, well-supported cases of voting anomalies that bear much greater scrutiny".

But saying that questioning an election "damages the country" is a right-wing rationale for shutting down the entire enterprise of election examination and reform. This is NOT a wise position to be taking.

[garybeck]

5. I don't see how you can tell if a charge is true or not, without

making an accusation and having some kind of an investigation.

if people are supposed to not speak about anything unless they already have 100% proof, then there would be no need for any investigations into anything, or even trials.

If there is a certain amount of credible evidence, it is actually the DUTY of people to talk about it and raise awareness. then it will stand the test of public scrutiny. and if it does, then an official investigation or trial is required.

this website/statement undermines the whole process by saying it is bad for people to talk about election fraud.

[TexasLawyer]

11. Exactly

And with something like election fraud, it is likely that the ONLY evidence of fraud that people can initially assemble will be circumstantial. There is very strong statistical evidence that manipulation happened, but it is not "proof" that it occurred.

That is why we need a thorough investigation, then some grand juries, then some indictments and then some trials-- what we are looking at are serious crimes against the country!

We don't need to PROVE a murderer perpetrated a murder BEFORE we convene a grand jury to explore whether he needs to be indicted. We need to have a case for believing he did it and some evidence. Then we need to get statements under oath, to examine and weigh the evidence, etc... All of this needs to happen PRIOR to proving (beyond a "reasonable doubt" and to the satisfaction of a jury, at least) that a crime occurred and that this particular person is the one who did it.

In the context of election fraud, it is bizarre to require "proof" before speaking out. It puts the cart before the horse.

[Amaryllis]

6. This is horrific! Makes me wonder how much we can trust verified voting. I

agree with those who say we need to find out if this is their current position. They have been recommending Holt's bill for a long time, which would indicate at least SOME understanding of the perils of e-voting, one would think?

[joevoter]

7. kick

[garybeck]

8. let's all take 5 minutes to drop them an email

I think if we point out a few things on that page and our concerns, we will at least get a response, and maybe they'll update the page.

here's the webform for contact

http://verifiedvoting.org/contactus.php

[garybeck]

10. here's what I wrote to them

hello,

I have some real concerns about the information you have on this page:

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5249

Specifically, you say:

"We do not believe that there is any more reason to look for problems in this election than in previous elections"

What about the fact that there are more paperless electronic voting machines than ever before? What about the fact that two Republican companies have siezed a virtual monopoly on the vote counting business? What about the huge problems with the exit polls? Aren't these simple facts a reason to look into this election more than before? These conditions did not exist before.

"Unproven charges of fraud damage the country. They undermine the legitimacy of elected officials, upon which our government is based, and undermine confidence of the voters in the election system. "

I disagree 100%. consider our legal system and how it works. people make charges and then there is a trial and the jury decides. That is the model we have to follow. Furthermore, what damages our country is fraudulent elections and the suppression of information to raise awareness thereof. The only way to change this is to make people aware of the problems with our election system. This includes making warranted charges against individuals and companies who have been seen to be involved in improper activities.

Lastly this statement really bothers me:


"So far, we have not seen convincing evidence of either fraud nor of a major error in the Presidential election. As of this writing (11/14/04)..."

I would like to request, that since your organization is considered an authority on the subject, you have a duty to update this page and include more up-to-date information. Since 11/14 there has been A LOT of convincing evidence that needs to be discussed in the public arena. Your outdated statement is helping prevent this discussion from happening. Are you not aware of these facts (and others):

How about the 95% turnout in several precints in Ohio? How about Triad illegally manipulating the scanners and computers for the recount? How about Bev Harris finding the original audit logs in the trash? How about the stickers covering up the Kerry votes in Ohio? How about 7 PhD analysts calling for an investigation? This is not convincing evidence?

Please do your duty and update the webpage. You don't have to stick your neck out and make accusations, but you should at least say that there is some convincing evidence out there that needs to be investigated thoroughly and cite some examples. I feel until you do this you are undermining the efforts to fix the problems by unintentionally covering up the facts.

Thank you
Gary Beckwith

http://election.solarbus.org

[Fly by night]

15. Wrote them too! Short and sweet -- update or lose your credibility n/t

[Senator]

9. They need to be reminded that Coup2000 is NOT "in doubt"

That the US Comm. on Civil Rights made a legal finding of unlawful, racist result. (Recommended prosecution - "still pending".)

That the FL Supreme Court found that Harris acted "contrary to law." (In one of the few rulings that was never overturned.)

That no one seriously defends BushvGore as a matter of law, or even of rational logic. (And that stopping a vote count is treasonous election fraud, even if done with black robes on.)

That an election is a survey, not a contest. And that the extrapolation of uncounted ballots in FL demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the people of FL wanted Gore by tens of thousands of voters.

That if they wish to limit their activities to arguing "vote counts" they are just as "Stalinist" as the election thieves themselves.

(Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. - Josef Stalin)

------------
www.thedeanpeople.org

[understandinglife]

13. Asleep at the wheel. (nt)

BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION; 24/7

[trudyco]

14. Emailed my 2 bits - GRRR. nt

[Stevepol]

16. I emailed a response too. I wonder if the opinion of VV has changed.

The article was dated about two weeks ago before the latest articles from Freman and the cohort of PhDs responding to Mitofsky/Edison's paper about the exit polls came out. Maybe they (VV) have retracted that position by now. I didn't see the article when I made a quick scan of the site just now. Could have missed it. Hope David Dill hasn't drunk somebody's kool-aid. I asked in my email what kind of evidence would convince him of fraud. Exit polls are about the only evidence possible when you can't audit or the powers that be won't audit (or they just audit 3% of the vote and choose the counties that they'll recount, or in the case of NH they only recount 11 precincts).

[Cocoa]

17. it increases their credibility, if sincere

This is the kind of thinking of a legitimate organization.

[New Earth]

18. please tell me you are joking

credibility? in who's eyes? certainly not the voters. :eyes: :shrug:

[Cocoa]

19. I meant in my eyes

I don't know about anyone else.

[Bill Bored]

20. I had to edit this post about 10 times to get it right!

Actually, they're just saying they don't have a smoking gun. They may not be impressed by some of the other evidence such as exit polls, etc. They may be unaware of the fraudulent Ohio recount, so updating is a good idea.

As far as undermining confidence, they should know better. There is no evidence that there wasn't fraud, since the vote cannot be verified in so many states! You can't have unverified voting and confidence at the same time.

[marions ghost]

21. Really -- the lack of logic we are seeing is really amazing...

"There is no evidence that there wasn't fraud, since the vote cannot be verified in so many states! You can't have unverified voting and confidence at the same time."

You said it!!

I sent an email, too. If anybody gets a response, please post.