Are "impurists" threatening US democracy?

[kster]

News From Underground

Monday, March 19, 2007

I pass this piece along out of my great respect for Steve Rosenfeld, a seasoned champion of election reform, who has done great work not just as part of Bob Fitrakis's team but in various progressive roles. I've learned a lot from him. Because of that, and as the issue here is vital, I
urge you to consider carefully his argument in favor of Rush Holt's bill.


I'd like you to consider it, as well as the full range of counter-arguments against the bill--
which, like those other "purists" mentioned in Steve's piece, I don't support. While I respect Steve's point about the frequent need, in politics, for incremental measures, I think that HR 811
could easily do more harm than good. I oppose it only for that reason, and not because it isn't
perfect.


I do believe that halfway measures are a bad idea in certain instances. You wouldn't ask a serial rapist merely to cut back on his offenses, or urge a crack addict to restrict his drug abuse to certain evenings of the week. (For a less fanciful analogy, there was chattel slavery, and the Holocaust; and now there's the war in Iraq, as well as most of BushCo's other policies, both foreign and domestic.) In short, it's sometimes wrong to act as an "impurist." The problem with this bill, however, is the fact that it will leave the process highly vulnerable to fraud in the next election, while also giving people a false sense of security.


My view, as you no doubt know, is that we ought to be primarily engaged in getting out the word--as far and wide as possible-- about the vast election fraud committed by the Busheviks in 2002, 2004 and 2006. Once that's been done, not just by us but by the Democrats, the media and honest members of the GOP, it will no longer seem "unrealistic" to demand that DRE machines be banned, and that a range of other tough reforms be put in place. As one of those who's toured the nation speaking on the subject, I have no doubt that most Americans (by far) would not just acquiesce in revolutionary change, but would in fact demand it, especially once they know what's really happened to (what they believe is) their democracy.




http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2007/03/are-impurists-threatening-us-democracy.html

[galloglas]

1. HCPB NOW!

Not later... NOW!

[kster]

2. Why do you hate America?

In America, we have ballot counting devices, because it is, WAY, to hard for us to hand Count our own ballots, what if them ballots have multiple races on them, then what, We can't possibly count ballots that have multiple races on them.

:rofl:

[nicknameless]

3. Yep.

K&R

[BeFree]

4. Education

I have said all along that if no one knows how the machines stole votes, then they'd not go along with reform because they would see no need.

Florida now knows that votes were stolen... why do you think the repub governor down there is calling for $32M to be spent getting rid of the paperless counters?

Follow the money. If the feds don't finance the DRE's then the DRE's will not be used. If we can stop congress from funding HAVA then it will be up to states to fund the machines.

Then control over the damn things will be closer to our reach. How many times have I been told that the "reason we have these e-vote machines is because HAVA demanded we have them." NY said "screw you" and now is our chance to screw HAVA. Just do it.

[Land Shark]

5. Only threats to democracy are those who take and compromise sacred rights

which by definition are not subject to being compromised or "burdened" in any significant way, that is why they are RIGHTS! They wouldn't be rights if they were subject to compromise by half, or nonavailability for a number of more years, or in some jurisdictions but not others.

If you consider a public transparent count (without which we have no confidence whatsoever, rationally, in results) to be a democratic right (I believe it is INALIENABLE, if anything at all is inalienable) then our democratic rights have been improperly compromised by Congress, vendors, and "impurists" on democracy's rights.

Any impurists reading who care to respond? One must be able to say simply "There is a right not to be tortured, and there is no substantial compromise on that point" without being accused of being UNCIVIL.

No, God forbid. In defense of the most sacred rights of all, let us not rain on any parade by impurists or be uncivil. :sarcasm: Actually, it is still the best policy and my intention to be as civil as possible, but when it comes down to actual necessity, Americans get together, vote and fight militarily for these things, as in the American Revolution and since.