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 #15: Kuznik v. Westmoreland may not have made the right arguments. [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
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Kuznik v. Westmoreland may not have made the right arguments.
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 09:45 PM by Bill Bored
For one thing, the EAC has NO rule-making authority over the states, regardless of what your SoS and the EAC may have said. Nassau County, NY finally got that clarified in the US Court for the Eastern District of NY and even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. And it's perfectly clear from reading HAVA. Your lawyers may not have read HAVA.

Also, we know that levers comply with HAVA, except for Accessibility which could be provided by any number of voting devices for disabled voters, including the ones that mark paper ballots by machine, or the VotePAD. That's a HAVA-compliant voting system. And it requires just one accessible device per poll site -- not per precinct. Your lawyers may not have read HAVA.

Finally, HAVA only applies to federal elections. Those 3 races max. could easily be hand counted 100% if lever machines were used for all other elections in a state. So even if levers were NOT allowed to be used in federal elections, there is NO reason to entrust ANY vote-counting to software. Your lawyers may not have read HAVA.

Finally, I'm sure there's something in your State Constitution to protect voters. So to the extent that a software-based voting system violates that protection, it's unconstitutional. Since HAVA does not require such a voting system either, no state should have to implement one. Maybe your lawyers didn't read your state constitution, or HAVA.

Let's stop beating around the bush with audits that will never be conducted and recounts that winners will always oppose and losers will only want unless they're seen as "sore losers" like Gore and Kerry. That system has been shown not to work, time and time again. At best it allows the courts, and sometimes incompetent election lawyers -- and of course the computers -- to decide our elections -- NOT THE VOTERS.

Even in MN, if you have a margin just a wee bit higher than 0.5% (according to the software count mind you), you're back to roughly a 3% hand count instead of a Franken hand count. And Minnesotans are calling for the 0.5% to be lowered but WITHOUT a risk-limiting audit to compensate for that! That's another example of jumping off a cliff without a rope -- just like New York has done by switching to computers without effective audits or recounts which was in FACT NYVV's POLICY.

It's time the VV crowd came up with another plan. I know it's not easy, which is why some of them say it will take DECADES to fix this problem. I'm not willing to wait that long -- are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

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