Why I am for HCPB (hand counted paper ballots)

[kster]

April 5, 2006


Here are some of my problems with "mandatory random audits" of op scans (the Holt Bill) and why I am for hand counted paper ballots (HCPB):

- The audit would have to be 100% = and then, the machines and the HCPB would be audits for each other. And then why bother with the machines? They cost us so much money. They build the coffers of the Republicans. They are rigged. What is there good about them? Unless there was a 100% hand count, I would be opposed. And then we come full circle, again, why bother with the machines? To placate? I am not interested in placating these psychopathic, immoral, deranged criminals that are running and ruining this country and our beautiful planet Earth.

- I have a doctorate degree and I have been working against the e-voting machines for four years now at least, and I do not understand the percentages and how that will work. And if I don't, I don't thinkfeel any ordinary citizen, registered voter will either. Nor will the people who run the elections. And unless we send mathematicians and statisticians around the country explaining to everyone on election night how to do these audits - or even before election night - I don't see how they will get done in the first place. My most important point here being that I believe it is crucial that every plain Jane and plain John on the street understand perfectly, easily and effortlessly exactly what our voting process is. I don't think that is possible with the mandatory random audits, as I have tried to elaborate on above.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sheila_p_060405_why_i_am_for_hcpb__28h.htm

[AFFIRM]

1. Grateful yet Scared

Once again we hear so much evidence of the Republican misuse of power. I am, as are many in this great nation of ours, grateful to finally "hear" opposition to this egregious culture of corruption. As you will remember, during the first few years of the current administration, nearly no one spoke out against this Republican 'Ring of Power.' Those who did, were so publicly humiliated that they often lost their very livelihood. I am reminded of The Dixie Chicks for some reason here.

It is with a great gratitude that I now hear the media openly willing to challenge this President and his cronies in Congress. It would indeed appear that an increasing majority of this nation is now beginning to open its eyes to see our current leadership for the sham that it is. However, it is with great fear that I view the upcoming elections in November. In this day and age of integrity challenged election results, how can we possibly be assured of seeing accurate responses of the public in any race? It matters not whether the truth be known by the public if their political responses are somehow gerrymandered by incumbents.

Preceding the 2000 election, national attention was focused on integrity of the chief executive as we had all been embarrassed by a Presidency that was rendered no longer effective because of having an affair in the oval office. In 2004, our attention was sneakily diverted to issues of gay marriage. I say sneakily because although not one member in the press was willing to stand up and address this foul play, the truth was, not one democratic incumbent or challenger had suggested the we nationally legalize gay marriage. It was indeed a diversion from allowing us to focus on the real issues that were beginning to plague the Republican Party.

Now here we are in 2006, seven months away, focusing on immigration issues that were solved years ago. What we are not seeing perhaps here, is the fact that ever since this President took office, these laws written in the 1990's have been less and less enforced. Thus giving the perception that they aren't working.

Every single democratic incumbent in both houses of Congress owes every citizen of this nation one thing over and above anything else at this grave hour. You owe us a national debate on our election system. Although I for one, am not suggesting an overhaul, it is indeed imperative that we have a verified, secured system of polling in place come November. A system that can reasonably guarantee us election results with integrity.



P.S. The above text is certainly not copy written so please feel free to repost this anywhere in which you believe it might be seen by the right eyes.

[kster]

2. Welcome to the DU, and I agree

"Every single democratic incumbent in both houses of Congress owes every citizen of this nation one thing over and above anything else at this grave hour. You owe us a national debate on our election system".

Yes they do.

[Kurovski]

4. Welcome, AFFIRM!

Welcome aboard the "Straight-Talk" express! :hi:

(We bought it in a close-out sale from John McCain.);-)

[vickitulsa]

5. Let me extend a big WELCOME to you, too, AFFIRM!

By all means, and even though I'm not one of the "oldtimers" here at DU myself, I'm sure DU can benefit from your gifts of insight and rational assessment, along with great articulation skills. I'm glad you okayed our using what you wrote here; I'd like to couple the OP and your response and forward them to everyone in my list! Is that all right with you, too, kster?

And if this thread slips down the page too fast and draws too few posters to have a chance at making the Greatest page, at least I'll know that I can count on both of you for future posts I'll want to read.

(Naw, I'm not sucking up ... I really mean it!) ;)

[kster]

6. Forward away ! Thank you vickitulsa....

for the kind words in this post.

[AFFIRM]

8. Absolutely

.... and thank you for the kind words ...

[vickitulsa]

3. I am so glad to see this posted! And I hope this thread draws

many comments and makes it to the Greatest page for more DUers to see. Thank you, kster!

I have been musing on this very idea for some time and concluded just what you did about the necessity of HCPBs and thus the logical LACK OF NEED of e-voting machines. All switching to the machines does in the end is to destroy our confidence in our system and make a lot of wealthy manufacturers even more wealthy!

I admit I have not yet been able to focus on the Election Reform discussions here at DU, but I've been on VerifiedVoting's mailing list for a couple of years, so you know I'm very concerned about this issue.

In fact, I'm beginning to think this may be THE issue everyone who cares about the future of this country should be concerned about, since without fair elections, we essentially do not have a democracy anymore! (No doubt this has been said in the ER forum a great many times already, am I right? :))

Since I haven't been in those ER conversations, however, this is the first time I have heard anyone come right out and say that all we need are the paper ballots ... to be hand counted and available for recounts, just like we always used to do it. What everyone was comfortable with. How many regular American citizens out there would likely agree that they trust the plain old paper ballots more?

And it seems like the most simple and therefore easy and perfect notion to build a "public service campaign" upon, too, doesn't it?

"VOTE ON PAPER
SO MUCH SAFER
E-MACHINES ARE
JUST NOT CLEAN!"

I imagine it would be pretty easy for most voting precincts to return to paper balloting if they have already shifted to the machines, wouldn't it? I just can't see the downside!

I haven't done this yet, but I think I'm going to start informally canvassing everyone I talk to, even strangers whenever I can, to see how folks in my town feel about paper ballots versus e-voting. I have a hunch that in good old Republican Tulsa, Oklahoma -- which until about 15 years ago was, along with the rest of the state, strongly Democratic, always, and which saw fit to oust the incumbent Repub mayor yesterday and put a Dem back in office -- folks will speak fondly of the days of paper ballots....

[AFFIRM]

9. Paper Ballots

It is rather hard to hack paper ballots, and rather easy to hack a diebold machine. The paper ballots worked well in Florida 2000. YES Thats right, I said they worked well. What did not work well was the fact that billions of corporate dollars were funding a large media push to discredit their validity.

In addition, I recall reading a certain article placed on page A29 of my local paper in mid November of 2000. The Secretary of State in Florida, who initially called the election for Bush, had years before had an affair with Governor Jeb Bush. Wow! No conflict of interest there! While I must give the publication credit for exposing this item, I must also blast the media establishment as a whole for never bringing it further into the nation's attention.

Ballots must be returned to paper form and all media outlets must return to a non profit status. Do not misunderstand me here. I do not support any action that reduces the salaries our journalists or other media support personnel currently make. I simply state that, as journalism is the only profession specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it ought to be comprised of non profit industries rather than corporate conglomerates. It has become all too easy for large media conglomerates to merely report the news that will serve them well with their stockholders.

[EFerrari]

7. K&R