Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA

[Wilms]

Secret Vote Counting Crammed Down the Throat of Democracy

Special Report for “Scoop” Independent Media

First in a Series on HAVA and the EAC

by Michael Collins
Washington, DC

Thursday, 20 April 2006

snip

What is this secrecy in vote counting, really? To have the votes counted in secret by your political enemy is the picture of tyranny. To have the votes counted in secret by your political friend is the picture of corruption. To even desire such an unaccountable power is itself corrupt. So how is HAVA cramming this down the throat of American democracy?

snip

Martinez provides contradictory responses to these first two questions. First, he says Congress did not take away any rights or intend to trump Lehto’s state rights. Then, he seems to think about it and seems to get Lehto’s point: Observing electronic voting doesn’t give the citizens information about what’s going on in electronic vote counting.

Finally, in a stunning remark, Martinez (a lawyer) says that the restoration of rights is the citizen’s responsibility. Basically, the response is, Get a bill passed in your state: “…you better define your state law if you want to see what’s going on with the machines…” This constitutes a tectonic shift in the role of the federal government, from the preserver of individual and citizen rights to an indifferent pusher of technology which eviscerates those voting rights.

Citizens are now informed that it is now their job to patch their rights up after the government damages them, provided they have the ear of their legislators. Of course, today the reelection of those legislators depends on the outcome of the secret vote-counting programs. With each new electronic election, given the hardball nature of politics today, our representatives would have to weigh whether they need to be nice to those corporations, or risk retaliation in the secret vote-counting process. The burden placed on today’s citizens is enunciated in the most casual way by the EAC Commissioner: “…you gotta … write a law”. Sure, citizens do this every day, no problem.

The final sentence of the second exchange is worth reading carefully. It reveals just how little thought EAC has in fact given to this issue. In one sentence, the Commissioner says HAVA does not “trump your rights”, but acknowledges “that may be the effect ”; but if that is “the effect”, well, sorry “that’s not what the intent was”. This argument is little more than a complex version of “Ignorance of the law is our excuse”, or a reflexive denial of intentional wrongdoing.

Did Congress give any thought to voter rights within the states in the drafting and deliberations of HAVA? To democracy? To the very credibility of our system of government? Did the EAC spend any time at all considering voter rights while implementing this act that claims to help us vote, or at least to help a fraction of this country’s disabled population? How do the disabled themselves feel about having only a fraction of their community served by HAVA, and having democratic vote counting as a whole denied to all of society, in their name? The picture becomes clearer below:

snip

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm

[FogerRox]

1. Whos that guy Mike Collins?

LOL

KNR

[Land Shark]

2. big laugh line on that one. But in case anyone don't know, it ain't ME.

[FogerRox]

3. It aint me.... yup that one is AUTO matic

[autorank]

4. Hey, I resemble that remark. Get to recommend myself...once again.

...but would I ever trust a club that had me as a member...probably not;)

I am that man, Michael Collins.

Take your pick...



Is it real or is it Memorex.

Michael Collins wouldn't take any cramdowns and never allowed himself or his people to fall for a stipdown or lockdown. He said, this is simply unacceptable. It's wrong to be occupied, it's wrong to have no voice in our current or future state, and it's wrong to be treated like slaves rather than free men and women. Collins was called an extremist but in the end he negotiated skillfully with British to remove them from a place they did not belong. Good for him, we should all be Michael Collins.

Freedom from the oppressors!

[Wilms]

7. Tough choice.

But I'll go with the image to the right.

[autorank]

5. The "cramdown" as seen on Mark Crispin Miller's blog - go comment.

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

A crucial essay Posted by MCM

Cramdown, Stripdown, Lockdown Democracy In The USA
Thursday, 20 April 2006, 10:44 am
Article: Michael Collins
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm

SIMPLE QUESTIONS -- TROUBLING ANSWERS

* Q&A Session with a Commissioner of the Elections
* Assistance Commission Reveals Massive Violations of Citizen Rights
* Secret Vote Counting Crammed Down the Throat of Democracy

Special Report for "Scoop" Independent Media
First in a Series on HAVA and the EAC
by Michael Collins
Washington, DC

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) was passed on the heels of the Florida 2000 presidential election and its "hanging chad" problem. These ambiguous ballot chads riveted and frustrated the nation for a couple of months in late 2000. However, few thought the solution to the ambiguity of hanging chad evidence of a voter's intent would be to completely eliminate that evidence.


Main Page of MCM Blog...posted by Paul Lehto, aka Land Shark

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

DRE emergency!! Stewart v. Blackwell....

From Paul Lehto:

Re: Stewart v Blackwell, to-be-published 6th Circuit case that came down Friday April 21, 2006; opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0143p-06.pdf

On Wednesday evening our time (Thursday New Zealand time) as you know the "Cramdown" essay was published on the NZ Scoop site, arguing that DREs are being crammed down the throat of American democracy by the structure of HAVA as it interacts with voting rights. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm

On Friday, the Cramdown just became force feeding with a firehose. It held that punch card and central count optical scan systems were, RELATIVE TO TOUCH SCREEN DRE's, unconstitutional under the Equal Protection of the US Constitution as interpreted by Bush v Gore.To the extent voting technologies have differing error rates, it creates a huge force to require statewide DREs (or other technologies). Uniformity avoids such equal protection claims.

However, as pointed out Wednesday in the cramdown piece, HAVA heavily favors DREs in its structure and probably in its outright intent (though we need not resolve the question of intent to see and prove the actual impact in favor of DREs from the statutes themselves, among other factors)

Previous History: The United States District Court had previously denied the Pro-Touch Screen plaintiff's equal protection claim, which said that punch card and central count optical scan systems violated the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution by disproportionately disfranchising minority voters. The District Court also held that it would reach the SAME result under either "rational basis review" or the higher and only meaningful standard of review of "strict scrutiny".

Holding: In reversing the District Court's unpublished decision with a decision to be published, the 6th Circuit followed BUSH V. GORE and held that some counties counting a certain way while other counties counting another way violates equal protection. The 6th circuit held that it was bound by precedent of Bush v Gore.

[Wilms]

6. Here, here. Get yer MCM permalink.

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2006/04/crucial-essay.html

[Land Shark]

8. thanks for the permalink Wilms...