self-delete

[99th_Monkey]

[snot]

1. K&R'd

[CreekDog]

2. That article is bullshit, it misrepresents the bill entirely. Rush Holt is good on this issue

"Requires the voting system to require the use of or produce an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voter's vote, created by or made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast and counted. Requires the voting system to provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any system-made error in the voter-verified paper ballot before it is permanently preserved.
Requires each ballot produced to be: (1) suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system; and (2) counted by hand in any recount or audit conducted with respect to any federal election. "

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-811&tab=summary (from summary of leglislation)

[99th_Monkey]

3. That summary does look good. hmmm.

So do you think the Election Defense Alliance is a bogus outfit? Their website looks legit.
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

[CreekDog]

5. Based on that article, they are not legit --but they are likely more than that article

the author doesn't explain the "whys" involved.

she strikes fear into everybody about nationalizing election standards, as some bogeyman. but it was different state and local standards currently in use that gave us the 2000 debacle and 2004 nonsense in Ohio.

different state and local standards have allowed all sorts of shenanigans for ages in our country. national standards would go a long way to avoid that.

finally, regarding auditing, one of the problems of the current system is how disparate the auditing is among states, how no papertrail is required in state after state. some states don't even do proper auditing.

when the federal government gets involved to fix a national problem, a number of things happen:

1) standards are put into law
2) adjudicatory/regulatory bodies are appointed/created to enforce them

any federal solution to vote auditing and paper trail requirements are going to have measures that the author is making a bogeyman out of.

in short, i think she's crazy and possibly ignorant. if i were a legit organization, i would not put such a document on my website.

[99th_Monkey]

8. you may be right. i decided to self-delete the post. ~nt~

[CreekDog]

9. i'm sorry to give you a hard time

it was really reserved for the article, not you.

[99th_Monkey]

10. That's why I love DU

many minds work better to decipher the truth than does one mind in isolation in a blizzard of dis-information.

thanks for clarifying your intent. ;-)

[Wilms]

4. The article is a year and a half old. The bill is dead.

But there are 7 recommends as I post.

Impressive.

[99th_Monkey]

6. the article had a Dec. 20, 2008 date at the top of page

i assumed that meant that was the date of the article.. where did you see otherwise?

[99th_Monkey]

7. ahh ... nevermind, i found it .... at bottom of the page all grayed out.

Story last updated:
Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:17:00