Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dayton didn't understand the objection - but he understands the problem.

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 » Places » Minnesota Donate to DU
 
latteromden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:24 PM
Original message
Dayton didn't understand the objection - but he understands the problem.
I know many of you are disappointed with Dayton's, well, objection to the objection on the 6th.

But don't think that he doesn't know that fair voting is extremely important.

Take a look at S.1980, from the 108th Congress, titled the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003. It was created by Graham, Clinton, and, yes, Boxer.

Six cosponsors:

Sen. Dayton, Mark
Sen. Hollings, Ernest F.
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R.
Sen. Nelson, Bill
Sen. Schumer, Charles E.
Sen. Wyden, Ron

Now, take a look at Section 4 of the bill:



SEC. 4. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT RECORD OR HARD COPY.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

`(2) VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(A) VOTER-VERIFICATION IN GENERAL- The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B).

`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record, each individual paper record of which shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter at the time the vote is cast, and preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within the polling place on Election Day for later use in any manual audit.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system before the permanent record is preserved for use in any manual audit.

`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.

`(C) SOFTWARE AND MODEMS-

`(i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

`(ii) No voting system shall contain any wireless communication device at all.

`(iii) All software and hardware used in any electronic voting system shall be certified by laboratories accredited by the

Commission as meeting the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii).'.



Obviously, as his remarks in the Senate on Thursday show, he did not understand the purpose of the challenge. Many DUers, in fact, think the same thing: that the objection was for the purpose of changing the outcome, not ensuring the right to vote and a paper trail or ballot. Why didn't he know this? I'm not sure. Was it the fault of his constituents, us, the ones actually following this, who knew what the challenge was about, but didn't contact him because we didn't think he would do anything? Possibly.

However, it's easy to see that Dayton "gets" the problem of electronic voting, even if he does not believe that there was widespread fraud that would could change the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rican1 Donating Member (144 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's his job to know what the objection was about
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
latteromden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It was our job, as the supporters of the objection, to inform him of the
purpose of the challenge. We were the ones pushing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rican1 Donating Member (144 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-08-05 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I admit I did not contact him
But I'm sure some of his constituents did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Two separate groups met with his staff Tuesday and Wednesday
One guy flew out to Washington on Wednesday to have a 20 minute meeting with him, which ran to 40 minutes, and there was a follow up ater.

He knew as much as we know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I was one of the groups who met with his office.
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 06:48 PM by Carolab
I understand his position. I didn't at first, but I do now.

Some have said he should have "said nothing"; I thought so at first as well. Then I realized that by stating that there was a possibility of setting a dangerous precedent, he got that concern into the record and made it quite clear that he was concerned that the electorate could get "disenfranchised" altogether if the power to object were to be abused. Without the indisputable proof/evidence of fraud, the Republicans would have made mincemeat out of both the Democrats and the process, and would have found a way to turn this process against us in the future.

Dayton is a smart man and he understands the strategy. I am still 100% in his camp and I will continue working with his office locally on election reform. In addition, I will work on his re-election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demrock6 Donating Member (717 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. I emailed him about it and asked him to stand with Boxer..
But I can agree he did the right thing by not.

Boxer did this to bring up the problems in Ohio, and that did get addressed. We needed one Senator to pull this off, I think the rest of our guys did good in a way by keeping their mouths shut. It will not piss of the moderates on the other side of the aisle that they have just began to work with nearly as much. It was a win for Democrats as we got our issues in Ohio out in the open. Blame a republican controlled senate and house for not further investigating the problems. I hope I don't sound republican lite but I think we need all that allies we can get right now, and that means not loosing allies.

Here is my email to Dayton:

Hello, Senator Dayton. My name is Adam. I had the luck of briefly meeting you a the John Kerry rally at the Metrodome back in October.

The reason I am writing is to be just one more "of probably hundreds" asking you to join Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) in looking into the 2004 Ohio election. I am probably sending you this late as January 6th is only hours away but feel I have to do something! As you know we need at least one Senator to allow them to debate on the floor. "At least that is my understanding?"

I think you have been doing a great job exposing this administrations problems and offered some good ideas for not only Minnesota but for the nation. We need you now more then ever. WE NEED TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW OUR VOTES GET COUNTED IN EVERY STATE. I believe Minnesota has a law that states we need to have a paper trail with all elections. It is a good law and it should be federal law. No politician should be afraid of recounts or vote investigations unless they have something to hide.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to helping you keep your seat in the senate as we need people like you in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yes, he is on the Senate Rules Committee that oversees election law
And he has pledged to demand election reform:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. it was the first item in the "Dayton Digest"
an e-newsletter

From Washington

Dayton Calls for Immediate Electoral Reform
In the wake of the second consecutive Presidential election that left many voters feeling disenfranchised, Mark vowed to use his position on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees election law, to demand immediate election reform. In a speech on the floor of the Senate, Mark pledged to fight for this legislation over the next 2 years and called on his colleagues to support measures that "safeguard this process so that, in fact and in perception, the American people know they had the right to vote, the chance to vote, and their vote was counted, and that the will of the majority ... was faithfully, honestly, and accurately carried out by everyone responsible for doing so."


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 Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Minnesota 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