Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:21 PM
Original message
Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results
www.libertywhistle.us

Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results
-Among circumstantial evidence, a common thread: e-voting machines dont meet rule of law in vast areas of US
-Grounds to reject 2004 results already exists
By Dan Spillane The Liberty Whistle

(SEATTLE) 11/14/04 While plenty of questions remain after the 2004 elections concerning electronic voting equipment, so far evidence of fraud is said to be circumstantial. Therefore, the media has jumped to the conclusion that nothing was awry during elections, and has been running duplicate stories, more or less claiming internet activists are engaged in conspiracy theories.

Yet activists have only reviewed facts and figures, most of which are spewed out by computer equipment. Absent paper ballots, however, the reliability of these figures is completely and utterly dependent on the diligence of pre-certification for said equipment; this certification ensures elections are carried out under the rule of law, and give equal protection to e-votes and actual ballots. And therein lies a profoundly big, and ugly, fly in the 2004 election results ointment--a fly that quickly trounces the all clear signal echoed in the US media.

You see, it turns out the manufacture and pre-certification of e-voting equipment is largely centralized in the US; moreover, direct (rather than circumstantial) evidence of insecure software, and outright fraud has surfaced recently, related to the central certification lab for US voting equipment. What this means in practical terms is that votes in large e-voting counties all over the US arent being given the equal protection and consideration as those in counties with paper ballots. In short, the alleged equivalence of electronic records with paper ballots is a sham, in not one, but many areas of the US. Add into the mix, e-voting equipment and certification has never survived (let alone been submitted to) a proper legal challenge what were left with is a moral, ethical and legal obligation to throw out the 2004 election results.

It only follows then that any state which includes 2004 e-voting results in a tally cannot certify final results until it is demonstrated that the underlying diligence in e-voting certification is equivalent to the paper ballot, and one person, one vote. But if such a claim is made in coming days, Americans have absolutely no reason to accept itwithout the rule of law, US election results simply arent free, fair, nor democratic.

So while there may not be direct evidence that Bush stole the election, as rumored on the Internet--there is also no direct evidence that he won either, for the very same reason. As they say in computer circles, garbage in, garbage out. Certainly, the worlds largest democracy needs more than unsubstantiated electronic numbers to name a president. It follows then, US and world citizens have the right of rejection, protest, and direct action-- as they see fit--until the rule of law in US e-voting elections is established.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does anyone know anything about this site?
Is it credible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 09:01 PM by DanSpillane
I have studied the voting certification, legal system, etc. in many states....

I also work with Bev at Black box.

I don't know that there is a better comprehensive expert on the subject.

If you really want to accept the election results, despite the lack of the rule of law, feel free. Oh by the way, I have some Enron stock to sell you--certified by Arthur Anderson.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Hardly
There is no way I would believe that people as thoroughly corrupt and vile as the RNC would hesitate at stealing the election.
The point I am trying to get at is: if the information is valid, but the site (rightly or not) is seen as a bunch of tinfiol hatters, then it doesn't matter how valid the information is-it will be discredited by association. The Repigs have been doing just that for a long time. That's exactly what they did with Memogate-the sent out a fake memo with the information on it, then used the fact that the memo was fake to claim that the information was wrong.
I'm not dissing the information or the source-I just don't want to see that kind of thing happen again. It's really pissing me off these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The information just came in--
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Kick
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Par Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. KICK
BREAKING -- SATURDAY NOV 13 2004: Black Box Voting has launched a fraud audit into Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Indeed.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. You need to break out of a mental rut
An important underlying trend of our times is that people get more of the information they actually use to make decisions from the internet than they do from monopolized corporate "news" media.

The corporate monopoly tries to defend itself by writing off the newer sources as just "conspiracy theory". But it just won't work anymore. It's the prejudicial press which is losing peoples trust now. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. PS The case against e-voting is FAR stronger than the WMD case
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 09:34 PM by DanSpillane
Food for thought--

If the president can take action to kill based on PHONY evidence, don't each one of us have the right to take action based on REAL evidence against e-voting?

Take action based on this measure...

Based on the example set by the president, each one of us has the right to REMOVE the president from office, by a long shot.

Get busy! Scream, break things, run naked. Make a sign saying "I DON'T ACCEPT THE 2004 ELECTION RESULTS"

Such action would be completely just, and moral.

IT'S UP TO YOU!
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Evoting is clearly illegal
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 10:10 PM by teryang
...by constitutional standards. But the remedy is to prepare the litigation ahead of time and get injunctions to preclude the use of unreliable electronic methods. Of course, if no one with standing will do that, the problem can't be fixed after the vote has occurred. It costs at least tens of millions of dollars to prepare such scientific litigation and then have an executable plan to go into action when a candidate challenges it ahead of time.

It is also illegal to change the voting method in a particular national election after the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. so DO something about it
Edited on Sun Nov-14-04 10:29 PM by DanSpillane
Quit whining, get out tommorrow, break something, run naked with a sign.

GET OFF DU and take your clothes off.

No more mr nice guy and girl. Look what happened to the democratic party.

Make your statement LOUD for all to hear. Make it CLEAR. Make it MATTER.

Amidst all the "concern" over this issue, no hero has been jailed in an act of civil protest.
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-14-04 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I'm doing something every day
I have to pick my fights, because I don't have the 10s of millions of dollars it takes nor the standing to bring political suits for injunctive relief.

I have been telling people this for three years here. It isn't "whining." That is one of those loaded anti-rational words that rightist's have popularized in their efforts to control political dialogue. It always disappoints me when someone on the democratic side picks up these ad hominen attack methods.

Oh, maybe you're a "whiner," accusing others of being a "whiner." Is that low brow enough for you of so little insight?

How many battles have you fought with the government or giant corporations alone in the courts? This isn't that type of fight. It requires macroeconomic resources. Perhaps you don't understand such efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-16-04 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Your missing some things here
There was activism ahead of time which succeeded in some states such as New Jersey and California. If you've got some bright volunteers, it doesn't take "tens of millions of dollars" to do.

It is not illegal to make every attempt to correct demonstrated fraud in an election. If the machines leave no paper trail to recount, having everyone who signed in to vote, vote again by paper ballot would be a perfectly legal recount.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-22-04 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Don't think so.
Edited on Mon Nov-22-04 06:25 PM by teryang
You need to read the federal election code. The method of election may not be changed after the fact. The laws in place prior to the election are set in concrete after a particular date.

There is nothing wrong with activism. But activism can only change the future with respect to elections conducted electronically with no paper trail.

When the legislature has chosen particular methods and dates with respect to the selection of electors, the only way to fight it is in the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knowbody0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
11. this is the only logical path
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaze Diem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. The ONLY answer to this problem..check out this member list..
Thanks Howard Dean too.

Progressive Movement is the only thing that makes sense.

http://www.progressivemajority.org/leadership/profile.a
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-15-04 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. Kick
 Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep 17th 2014, 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles 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