You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #64: I see Nancy's losing her touch [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
64. I see Nancy's losing her touch
I like my propaganda to be more colorful and contain lots of graphs and charts,
plus some nice murder conspiracy theories.

While we're talking about propaganda, did Nancy's buddy, "she whose name will will not use",
send out a fax to election officials this time?

Nothing like aligning yourself with anti paper groups to save democracy, eh?
We know that ultimately/politically Holt's bill isn't going to take away lever machines, and NY will have time and options to decide what NY wants to do. But forget that, lets get on to the nuttieness.

Oh, and I'll try to get some graphs and charts for my next post.

NOW HERE'S SOME PROPAGANDA:

Re: URGENT: EMAIL TO HOUSE ADMIN TO GET ON THE RECORD Message List

Reply | Forward
Message #21499 of 21588 < Prev | Next >

Thank you, Nancy. I will mention here that Black Box Voting cannot do any more
federal legislative (lobbying) faxes for quite a while, because there is a cap
on such activities (we are allowed to do some lobbying, but it is capped in
terms of time and financial investment, so we have to track it). We did do this
second fax as you requested. Here is what I sent to 2,299 elections officials
(we had one remove request last time, from a Vermont official):

Dear Elections Chief, March 30, 2007

This is the last communication from Black Box Voting on this matter, and I
apologize for using your fax lines once again. I didnt want to, but I believe
this is important.

As you know, Black Box Voting and others have pointed out dangerous provisions
in the Holt Bill: unfunded mandates, for equipment that does not yet exist, and
shifting regulatory power over elections from your state to the federal
government.

I thought you'd be interested to know that your efforts, and those of many
citizens, have now caused the mark up of the Holt Bill to be DELAYED for at
least two weeks. I have been told that congressional fax machines whirred all
day long, gumming up the "fast track" on this bill.

I have learned that there is one additional step if you would like your comments
to be memorialized into the congressional record. Though your faxes stopped the
train (temporarily) it turns out that your faxed comments will not be entered
into the record. If you feel strongly about this and want your opinions entered
into the congressional record, here are the instructions:

The deadline is today (I know; like we have nothing else to do). The procedure
is to e-mail your comments on the Holt Bill to: janelle.hu@...

The instructions we received are: (a) Submit a letter to the above e-mail
address with your comments on the Holt Bill; (b) In the letter, explicitly
request that your comments be included in the congressional record.

The House Administration (full committee) is still planning to mark up Rep.
Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (HR. 811), but
the schedule has now been moved forward at least two weeks.

Theyre saying, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." We say: "Do
not let the Congress be the enemy of democracy."

While the most pressing issue for many elections officials will be the unfunded
mandate, the reason Black Box Voting believes this bill is the enemy of
democracy is that it contains a Trojan horse. While offering citizens the
glittering promise of a paper trail, the hidden peril in the Holt Bill is that
it makes the EAC permanent and expands its powers. Thus, the Holt Bill
transfers permanent control over the administration and equipment for elections
to the federal level.

Whether or not you like the current administration, please consider this: By
making this change permanent, the Holt Bill requires us all to "trust"
forevermore that every single president will appoint four benevolent cronies to
tell you how to run your elections. The founders of this nation were thoughtful
enough to provide for long-term stability by requiring dispersal of power, and
it was their wisdom that gave power over elections administration to the
states. If the Holt Bill extension of the EAC is passed, at some point in our
future just one goofy president could install very inappropriate people to
specify how elections will be run. But the way it is now, all 50 states would
have to get goofy at once, and Black Box Voting believes thats a good, stable
safeguard. In fact, the only appropriate use of federal legislation over
elections, we believe, is in the area of protecting civil rights not federal
meddling with local mechanics and procedures.

The peril of EAC usurping state powers over elections:
"Centralized executive power"
www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3657

Thank you for your patience with receiving these two faxes from Black Box
Voting.

Bev Harris Director Black Box Voting


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:40 pm

Hide Message Option

View Source
Use Fixed Width Font
Wrap Lines

Bev Harris <bev@...>
black_box_vo...
Offline
Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360


Forward
Message #21499 of 21588 < Prev | Next >

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CASE_OH/message/21499?unw...




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -2009 Holt Bill. E-Voting: Making a Bad System Worse Wilms  Mar-29-09 02:24 PM   #0 
  - K&R...nt  kster   Mar-29-09 02:44 PM   #1 
  - I see Nancy's losing her touch  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 06:26 PM   #64 
  - I don't know why progress has to be "incremental." What the fuck is this matter with  Peace Patriot   Mar-29-09 03:02 PM   #2 
  - I could not care less how many voting systems have a paper trail  gristy   Mar-29-09 03:07 PM   #3 
  - I meant "no paper trail at all." I chose the phrase carefully. It includes paper ballots  Peace Patriot   Mar-29-09 03:45 PM   #4 
  - Because if you go for "all or nothing" you will get NOTHING.  Yellow Horse   Mar-30-09 05:45 AM   #9 
     - 100% HCPB ain't going to happen.  Wilms   Mar-30-09 10:05 AM   #13 
  - Here come the NYers! (See this comment by a REAL Democrat!)  Bill Bored   Mar-29-09 04:46 PM   #5 
  - K&R!!  Stevepol   Mar-29-09 05:09 PM   #6 
  - K&R we ALREADY HAVE our rights, the govt is violating them, it's their JOB to guarantee them nt  Land Shark   Mar-29-09 10:23 PM   #7 
  - We've all heard this crap before and I for one am sick of it.  Yellow Horse   Mar-30-09 05:33 AM   #8 
  - The rhetoric can be nauseating, I agree.  Wilms   Mar-30-09 09:58 AM   #12 
  - Wilms, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was decided in 2006 on PAPER BALLOTS.  demodonkey   Mar-30-09 06:38 PM   #16 
     - Glad the recount happened in that particular case.  Wilms   Mar-30-09 09:48 PM   #18 
        - The recount was requested by the losing candidate, as I recall.  demodonkey   Apr-01-09 09:01 PM   #19 
           - Looks like it was a count or re-count of absentee and provisionals.  Wilms   Apr-02-09 05:49 AM   #20 
           - If there were voter intent issues with the paper ballots, I think lever machines  Bill Bored   Apr-03-09 11:05 PM   #21 
              - Well if history follows the pattern we will get a GOP Gov in 2010  demodonkey   Apr-05-09 06:49 AM   #28 
  - "Real reform?" that's pretty funny....if you're referring to Holt's bill...  Land Shark   Mar-30-09 12:02 PM   #15 
     - You prefer the "dreary future" of paperless DREs for millions of voters if this bill doesn't pass??  Yellow Horse   Mar-30-09 07:03 PM   #17 
        - I've been a major factor in getting rid of paperless DREs in my county at the time  Land Shark   Apr-05-09 02:07 PM   #33 
  - OK, on these two arguments  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-30-09 07:22 AM   #10 
  - ...paper ballots have been used to correct election outcomes, and that will continue...  Wilms   Mar-30-09 09:48 AM   #11 
  - did I say that paper ballots are ALWAYS used to correct election outcomes?  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-30-09 10:35 AM   #14 
     - We DO know the Holt bill is HEADED toward 100% hand counts, only statistics are used to limit work  Land Shark   Apr-05-09 02:10 PM   #35 
        - sorry I missed this  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-10-09 04:59 AM   #59 
  - OK, let's compare!  Bill Bored   Apr-04-09 12:58 AM   #22 
     - you know about the local election  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-04-09 01:16 AM   #23 
        - Local elections can only be confirmed with full hand counts.  Bill Bored   Apr-04-09 03:53 AM   #24 
        - I'm surprised this "lever" discussion is still going nowhere after a week.  Wilms   Apr-05-09 02:24 AM   #26 
           - where can it go?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-05-09 08:23 AM   #30 
              - "...a paper audit trail that actually gets audited?" Yeah that. nt  Bill Bored   Apr-05-09 01:06 PM   #32 
              - I'm not not interested? Pardon?  Wilms   Apr-05-09 02:09 PM   #34 
                 - maybe I'm misreading the posts, then  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-06-09 08:07 AM   #36 
                    - Slow down.  Bill Bored   Apr-06-09 05:41 PM   #37 
                       - mmm  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-07-09 12:28 PM   #38 
                          - I think I said vote switching DURING an election is impossible on levers.  Bill Bored   Apr-07-09 01:40 PM   #39 
                          - mmmmm  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-07-09 02:17 PM   #40 
                             - Couple of points:  Bill Bored   Apr-08-09 12:03 AM   #41 
                                - mmmmmmm  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-08-09 08:03 AM   #44 
                                   - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  Bill Bored   Apr-08-09 01:12 PM   #46 
                                      - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  Wilms   Apr-08-09 09:26 PM   #50 
                                      - You win only because long subject lines have to separated with spaces. nt  Bill Bored   Apr-10-09 05:47 PM   #63 
                                      - well, you don't know that  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-09-09 07:37 AM   #52 
                                         - Hmmm. Exit Polls. Andi Novick.  Wilms   Apr-09-09 08:33 AM   #54 
                                            - Wilms, why are you blowing smoke about this?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-09-09 03:37 PM   #55 
                                               - Me?  Wilms   Apr-09-09 09:03 PM   #56 
                                               - sure  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-10-09 04:52 AM   #58 
                                               - And your doubt about Novick's legal strategy has been noted, repeatedly.  Wilms   Apr-10-09 10:03 AM   #60 
                                               - huh?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-10-09 01:57 PM   #62 
                                               - It's not the state board. It's ERMA.  Wilms   Apr-10-09 10:34 PM   #65 
                                               - how is that a way to keep the levers?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 05:48 AM   #72 
                                               - That's not how some see it.  Wilms   Apr-14-09 09:21 AM   #74 
                                               - nu?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 11:31 AM   #75 
                                               - How many more times do you want to go around this issue?  Wilms   Apr-14-09 12:06 PM   #78 
                                               - so, your view is that the federal case is closed?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 12:24 PM   #79 
                                               - That's a bit rude.  Wilms   Apr-14-09 12:40 PM   #80 
                                               - I'm a bit frustrated  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 01:10 PM   #81 
                                               - How many more times to you want to go around that same point?  Wilms   Apr-14-09 01:46 PM   #82 
                                               - you're only responsible for the weakness of your argument  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 01:49 PM   #83 
                                               - And I already told you there is the issue with the money NY took. n/t  Wilms   Apr-14-09 02:12 PM   #84 
                                               - what part of "Section 301" do you find ambiguous?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 02:35 PM   #85 
                                               - What part of I went over this with you last summer don't you get?  Wilms   Apr-14-09 02:41 PM   #86 
                                               - you linked to nothing in particular  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 02:48 PM   #87 
                                               - links  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-13-09 01:28 PM   #68 
                                               - Nice work.  Wilms   Apr-14-09 09:11 AM   #73 
                                               - CORRECTION! Hockley-Delgado's margin was 47 votes -- not 67 votes. (Pretty close race.) nt  Bill Bored   Apr-14-09 11:58 AM   #76 
                                               - lessee  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 12:02 PM   #77 
                                               - Wilms isn't -blowing- smoke  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 12:31 PM   #61 
                          - Now I get it. In fact, you'd trust your vote in an inadequately audited computer tabulated election.  Wilms   Apr-08-09 12:05 AM   #42 
                             - I sometimes wonder  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-08-09 07:33 AM   #43 
                                - Obviously there's no perfect system.  Wilms   Apr-08-09 10:30 AM   #45 
                                   - grunt  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-08-09 01:18 PM   #47 
                                      - When was the last time a scanner jockey mentioned anything about a scanner failure?  Bill Bored   Apr-08-09 08:58 PM   #48 
                                      - BB, Im not trying to take your levers, but a fact or two here please  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 11:47 PM   #66 
                                         - I spend about as much time on federal E.I. legislation as Bush spent on Bin Laden!  Bill Bored   Apr-11-09 02:26 AM   #67 
                                            - maybe you should take the time to get to know your own US senators  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-15-09 11:31 PM   #88 
                                      - Don't worry. Be happy.  Wilms   Apr-08-09 09:24 PM   #49 
                                         - that's incorrect  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-09-09 07:27 AM   #51 
                                            - I am mistaken. You did mention a problem attributed to a jam.  Wilms   Apr-09-09 08:17 AM   #53 
  - This is misleading.  garybeck   Apr-04-09 11:24 PM   #25 
  - Holt's 3/5/10% audit will not give a high statistical confidence in close elections.  Wilms   Apr-05-09 06:33 AM   #27 
     - Andy wanted voter-verified paper ballots with meaningful audits, but he was also a realist...  demodonkey   Apr-05-09 06:53 AM   #29 
     - Andy wasn't alone in getting your "state's plight" wrong.  Wilms   Apr-05-09 08:47 AM   #31 
        - Enough of this. I grow tired of being called a liar, and doing so is beneath you Wilms.  demodonkey   Apr-13-09 03:52 PM   #69 
           - No.I didn't call you a liar.  Wilms   Apr-13-09 09:01 PM   #70 
           - NY state is making no arguments for levers; the people of NY State are.  Bill Bored   Apr-14-09 04:25 AM   #71 
     - the article referenced in the OP is plain wrong  garybeck   Apr-17-09 01:49 AM   #89 
        - I'm not defending Tobi, or her rhetoric.  Wilms   Apr-17-09 08:41 AM   #90 
           - I agree with you. I'm just saying it is wrong to say "making a bad system worse"  garybeck   Apr-17-09 11:13 AM   #91 
              - I agree with much of what you wrote.  Wilms   Apr-17-09 07:53 PM   #92 
  - here's my thoughts on this:  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 12:13 AM   #57 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC