Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

S17 Has four cosponsors (the bill that BBV is trying to defeat)

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 » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:55 AM
Original message
S17 Has four cosponsors (the bill that BBV is trying to defeat)
I know very little about this bill, the text is not up at Thomas yet.

What I know is that BBV has started a campaign to defeat this bill, instead promoting a republican bill over it.

I also know from news reports that the bill will be focused on the types of voting issues which were the basis of the democratic challenge to the Ohio electors.

i.e., it minimizes the red herring of the voting issue: electronic voting machines.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:8:./temp/~... |/bss/d109query.html|



Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 1/24/2005 Sen Rockefeller, Jay - 1/24/2005
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 1/24/2005 Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 1/24/2005



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
torque Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. The fact that bills are rolling out daily should be a clue
They are trying to pressure us into compromising our rights. Indeed some of our own are pressuring us. None of these bills solve the problem of fraud. None. This is the first wave of crap so be patient. Try to remember who owns and controls this country ok? It's you and I folks!!! And we can write our own F***king election bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. BBV is pushing a republican bill
I seriously doubt that the dems are trying to take away our voting rights and the republicans are trying to preserve them.

But if you want to think that go ahead. You might want to rethink whether you want to be spreading this message on a dem website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I dont' either BUT
they certainly could do just that very job inadvertently (cf. Chris Dodd, Steny Hoyer, Hillary Clinton).

The real and abiding danger here is that these legislators don't yet know and understand enough about the issues to craft meaningful, let alone HELPFUL legislation.

I don't know anything about this bill either, but it was only weeks ago that Barbara Milulski stumbled on this issue by personal experience -- do you think I feel totally comfortable that she's got it right going in? Hell, I wouldn't even necessarily trust John Conyers. A good number of voting ACTIVISTS don't fully understand all the issues or have all the answers.

For example, many people are in favor of early voting. I am NOT -- definitely, absolutely, positively NOT. It just gives whoever wants to play games a lot more time to figure out what they need to to and do it. Plus, there are enormous vulnerabilities if done on computerized voting machines, and a good bit of early voting is (see Florida).

Etc. That's just ONE thing of many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I agree about Early Voting.
It's another scam from the Sunshine State. (Want to buy some swampland?)

Also, of course they don't know enough about the issue. If they did, they wouldn't think they lost an election just because their opponent won by a large MARGIN! Margins mean NOTHING with hackable electronic voting! They don't have a clue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
55. Early voting - hey, don't forget TEXAS!
We have it too. That should be a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I'm expecting BBV to trash Conyers eventually
"I wouldn't even necessarily trust John Conyers" is a nice start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Who is "BBV?"
Bev Harris? Forget about her. If she has any real evidence, it will eventually come out. Until then, forget about her. Look to VerifiedVoting.org and the other orgs trying to fix this ballot verification problem now.

Conyers is a true hero. This doesn't mean he knows everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. not just Bev Harris
BBV is Bev Harris and those like her that are exaggerating the electronic voting machine threat and diverting attention from the real voting problems.

They will respond to all legislation aimed at the real problems, by criticizing them for falling short according to their BBV red herring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. so did you figure out the difference between the bills yet?
????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. The most important difference is this:
Dodd/Clinton/Dem bill will not require implementation until 2009, and any machines purchased before then will be exempt. Meaning that for the next 4 years (including 2 major federal elections) counties/states can continue to purchase machines with no paper trail. AND, when the bill goes into effect, the machines purchased before 2009 will be allowed to remain.

The Ensign Bill is simple and will be enacted immediately, as though it had been part of HAVA. It closes a loophole created by HAVA in defining 'paper trail' Ensign's bill will require that there is a VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT that will override a machine count in case of audit/recount. The voter will APPROVE that paper ballot. The Ensign Bill is identical to the one he proposed late last summer. At that time it had BIPARTISAN support but Congress never got around to debating/voting on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
43. i know
i'm trying to see if Cocoa understands the difference.

It's not a time for grudges or prejudice, it's a time to get something done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Not sure what you mean...
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 02:42 PM by meganmonkey
about grudges and prejudice?

on edit: I just read the dialogue more carefully - I'll leave it up to you and cocoa to figure that side out. I am just trying to present facts where I see them lacking. ;)
I didn't mean to imply that YOU didn't know the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
51. Congress didn't get around to debating it becasue they couldn't get
a hearing on it because Tom Delay in the house wouldn't let them have one and I think it was Trent Lott in the senate but I'm not sure. Do you remember when they had the press conference (or maybe one of them said it on the floor during their speech) both Boxer and Tubbs Jones said they couldn't even get a hearing on any reform legislation which was one reason why they felt they had to force the debates?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. Of course DeLay, Lott, Hastert and McConnell have to be held accountable.
But that's a separate issue and if the Congress and/or the Shrub continues to block verified voting then then it will be left up to the states and the courts to sort it out. This is where Rigel99 and the people of GA are doing us a great service! But this shouldn't be used to block legislation at the federal level that would also be helpful to the cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. Rigel99?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. See Andy's post on these two bills; explains most questions people asking:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This bill by no means is complete but it is a step in the right direction. Ensign is a repub but the Dodd bill is terrible. There ARE republicans who are concerned about fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. Cocoa: Ohio was an outrage. Electronic voting was a coup.
Nationwide Republican-owned secret, proprietary source code for counting all our votes. Having arranged this inherently fraudulent, egregiously non-transparent election system, you think they didn't use it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Ohio wasn't about voting machines
it was about other things first, and voting machines was way down on the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Arnebeck thinks it was about tabulation of votes; says 65,000 votes
were shifted from Kerry to Bush and all the voter suppression, while criminal and despicable, was just a red herring to throw people off the track of where most of the votes were lost. Not just Arnebeck saying this; Susan Truitt and the other lawyers working on the case. Have you read all the Freepress articles on this? Wasserman and Fritakis have also written about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
60. WRONG WRONG WRONG
The Whole Election was about Preprogrammed , Electronic Voting Machines and Electronically entered and altered Central Tabulators.
The reason that the other topics gained so much attention was because they were easily observed and verifiable.
The true Election vote count manipulation was done thru the Electronic machines and this is what enabled the BushReich to win in Ohio and the rest of Amerika.
You say there is no proof, Sorry to disappoint you, there was proof.
ALL the anomalies, overvotes, touch screen vote changing, aberrations, etc were wholly and solely the result of INTENTIONAL HUMAN Intervention and Manipulation.
This is Prima Facie evidence of electronic vote manipulation.
REALITY- There is no fucking thing as "COMPUTER GLITCHES"
Everything a computer does is the direct result of a human action-i.e. program and code writing.
Its 2005- Computers do not work off of Black Magic-
Computers do what humans program them to do. PERIOD
It is 2005 and in Amerika, so-called home of "Democracy", we, the citizens of Amerika, have no legal avenue to impound and forensically
investigate the software and servers in the electronic voting machines and central tabulators.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
54. Not helpful.
Cocoa says "BBV is Bev Harris and those like her that are exaggerating the electronic voting machine threat and diverting attention from the real voting problems."

There are a ton of people and organizations getting active in this. Just calling everyone you don't like or don't agree with "BBV" does not advance the conversation.

"those like her"?

There is no way to exaggerate the electronic voting machine threat. No way. It is impossible to make it bigger than it is. All of the election flaws and fraud, electronic and otherwise, add up together to make stolen elections, and the wrong people hold the most powerful offices on the planet, and control the most powerful weaponry, enough to blow life on the planet to smithereens. How can we exaggerate the threat?

At the same, the other threats are not small potatoes either -- voter intimidation and suppression, registration tricks -- all those have and did cause people to lose the right to vote in 2004, and historically.

The only red herring is your use of the vague term BBV.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
30. Conyers legislation does not deal with E-voting problems either; just
"paper trail." I will keep shouting it: One of our primary tasks is to educate our legislators who for the most part are clueless, except the ones in on the fraud, and they understand it only too well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Conyers is not clueless about election fraud
like I said, I fully expect many such comments about Conyers from BBVers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. I was not in any way denigrating Conyers. I think he is an absolute hero
and I admire his efforts. I also think he doesn't realize the magnitude of the problem with electronic tabulation of votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #40
70. how do you know what Conyers bill does or does not do?
Amaryllis --

Obviously, you have thought about this a great deal, but you are saying things that don't square with the facts as I understand this. The Conyers bill hasn't been introduced yet. It's not that the ink isn't dry, the drafting has not even been finished. How can you say so definitively what it does or does not do?

"Conyers legislation does not deal with E-voting problems either; just "paper trail." I will keep shouting it: One of our primary tasks is to educate our legislators who for the most part are clueless, except the ones in on the fraud, and they understand it only too well." What? Again, the bill isn't done yet, so what are you basing this on?

"I also think he doesn't realize the magnitude of the problem with electronic tabulation of votes." On what do you base that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
71. Also agree about early voting
Lots more ways to play around with the votes if you're voting early on touchscreens and less ability to audit. At least now the polls are close to home and the head counts can be tracked by voters to see if they match the vote totals by precincts. The way early voting was done in GA I never could figure out where the early votes went when it came to reporting them. There are no precinct totals on the website.

http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/election_results/d...

Our precinct supervisor had no idea how the early votes would be counted -- would they go in a bucket --"early voting" , be added into precinct totals somehow, or were they just thrown into the county results. There were gazillions of early voters here, some who stood in line for up to 4 hours. Did their votes get counted? Who knows except for Diebold and friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
62. It is not a question of the Dems taking away voting rights. The Ensign
bill is just a better designed bill, and goes into effect immediately.
Just because a republican sponsored it doesn't automatically make it a bad bill and just because a dem sponsors a bill does'nt automatically make it a good bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
63. I had a meeting with a republican senator that introduced legislation
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 06:25 PM by helderheid
here in Utah. It was successfully amended to change the "unalterable vote record" to read "unalterable paper vote record" and introduced it to read that it required a voter verifiable paper ballot receipt. Only 3 of the nine on the committee were Dems. Not EVERY Republican is out to steal votes!! :( :eyes: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. electonic voting machines are not the red herring, they're the
real issue!

voter suppression is the red herring...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
41. You got it gary! See my post #38. Exactly what Arnebeck says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Cocoa, before you back it, why DON'T you READ it?
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 12:20 PM by Bill Bored
Find out exactly WHEN we would have VVPBs under this legislation, if ever, and find out if there is anything in it that could NOT be enacted if Ensign's bill were passed right away to provide VVPBs in time for the 2006 election.

My hope is that if we first get the VVBP, via Ensign's bill NOW, any other desirable provisions in S17 can still be implemented. Before you start a divisive campaign against a bill that happens to have been introduced by a Republican from Nevada (where because of the gambling industry, they know a thing or 2 about machine fraud BTW!) and is currently backed by every verified voting group I know of, at least READ the actual legislation.

You're beginning to sound like some kind of bumper-sticker partisan hack. I don't care if the bill was introduced by a member of the Baath party, if it helps our democracy; we should support it! You seem to be making an ad hominem argument by saying it's a "Republican" bill. This is a technique worthy of Limbaugh and Hannity.

Try to stay with the program, will you?

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. text is not up yet
in general, on DU, partisanship is considered normal, and calls for bipartisanship are very often scorned.

Only in the crazy world of BBV would there be near-unanimous agreement on DU for supporting a republican bill over a democratic one, and to compare someone who calls for supporting the dem bill to Limbaugh and Hannity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. what in god's name are you talking about?
Andy is NOT BBV. Progressive Democrats of America is NOT BBV. VerifiedVoting.org is NOT BBV.

Do you even see what the difference in the bills is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. What she said!
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 12:30 PM by Bill Bored
I guess that's why so many DUers supported the Greens and Libertarians when they wanted to recount Ohio, even though our own party leaders went away with their tails between their legs, huh? Give me a break!

Cocoa, go to chuckherrin.com and read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. the democrats CHANGED the Washington state results
while Bev Harris was down in Florida rummaging through garbage cans, the DNC was fighting and succeeding in getting Gregoire in as governor.

The DNC was even mocked when they solicited funds for the recount.

Which is especially ironic since Washington state is Bev's home state, and Andy Stephenson's home state.

Andy even ran for Sec. of State of Washington State on a voting integrity platform, and I don't recall his role in the recount there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. He was working on OH and FL at the time, which given the stakes
were slightly more important. I am pleased that Gregoire won, but she won because she had the support of the party. Kerry and the party gave up because they thought the MARGIN in OHIO was too large. I hope Kerry is proven wrong, but meanwhile, we need to prepare for the future and you can't do that by ignoring the ISSUE of black box voting.

Are you saying you have faith in these machines and their vendors? If that's what you're saying, come out and say it so we can move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. what any of this has to do with
supporting a bill that gives a voter-verified paper ballot is beyond me. :shrug:

it's time to let go of grudges and get something done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I don't get it either (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
48. Since you asked what my role was. ..
my role is what it was to raise awareness in my country about voting reform issues. I have many here in Washington State who were first educated by me on the need for voting reform. I have an e-mail list of 10,000 people. People I have talked to one on one about the need for voting reform.

I have a former campaign manager now friend that I trust to speak in my place at Meetings in the state. I am in constant contact with the friends I have made over the last two years. Friends, who are now active in voting reform, because I energized them.

My role right this minute is to ensure for the Citizens of Washington, Maryland, Georgia, California, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, every American, a voter verified paper ballot. I see that in Ensigns Bill. If Dodds bill was submitted by God himself, I would still not support it. It is bad legislation and leaves the door open for more paperless DRE's as well as cryptography. Oh but I forget...you trust the machines. You believe they are fine...at least that is what you have said for two years now. Perhaps it is little wonder you are pushing Dodd's bill.

You have faith in the machines...fine...I do not. You have poo pooed the evidence, and on more than one occasion you have been proven wrong! I for one will give up my paper ballot when they pry it from my cold dead hands. If you are an enemy of the ballot...are you also an enemy of the people, of Democracy?

Oh and news flash...Bev and I are no longer associated...to try and imply otherwise makes you look silly...to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
65. Speaking of your former campaign manager--
--he did fine standing in for you at the Rolling Thunder voting rights seminar last week. Back on your old home turf, we are trying to get 1025 fixed to get BALLOT back in, and educate our state legislators on this.

I also talked to a Dem party member from Snohomish who knows Bob Terwilliger. Sez Bob is a pretty decent guy who is clueless about computers essentially backed into a position where he has to defend sunk costs. And he is considering the possibility of going all absentee with optical scanning.

Also, the Seattle Weekly did an article on the Lehto paper which took unauditability seriously. Your seeds are sprouting now, Mr. Appleseed. Not to worry, we'll keep pollinating and irrigating away back here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. I love you
:loveya:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
33. See post #26 for the text of the bill n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. The bills I've seen so far ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE
More analysis is necessary and, I would be personally inclined not to back up REPUBLICAN LEGISLATION.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. i just pm'd you
please read it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaulVB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I will (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. And if you want to talk about an "industry"
what would you call a major political party that solicits millions of dollars in donations for campaigns that may never have a chance to win because of rigged elections? Now THAT'S an industry! And for once, it's not the Republican party who are the industrialists! You see, THEY own the machines so their guys CAN win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. the DNC solicited funds for the Wash State recount
which resulted in Gregoire now sitting in the Governor's seat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. By the skin of her teeth!
But if the allegations about the machines in WA are true, she should have won without the need for a recount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. BBV entering into it now is just sad
face it, BBV had nothing to do with the victory in Washington.

And again, the irony is stunning, that it happened in the home state of Bev and Andy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. LOL
Andy does not work for BBV! Why do refuse to see that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
50. How funny you can armchair quarterback...
I was monitoring the elections in the Central tabulator...where were you? The fact Washington was Screwed up is because people like you refused to listen. Oh...but we have the attention of the people of Washington State now.

The Grass roots here are strong that is why the recount went as well as it did. Funny thing...most of the problems in King county, trace right back to Diebold...maker of our fine voting system and voter registration system.

BTW make yourself look even sillier by tossing out the Bev and Andy meme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #25
64. Andy and BBV parted company long ago.
Thank the gods....

Please read the Democratic bill BEFORE you endorse it. Otherwise, you cannot really comment knowledgeably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #21
66. So did Move On
and it was the grasroots activists, most of whom didn't even vote for her in the primary, who did the legwork to track down all the people with provisional ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
26. TEXT OF ENSIGN's BILL HERE: (followed by differences between it and Dodds)
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 01:44 PM by meganmonkey
This is the bill from 2004 - the bill he is proposing next week is identical:

Voting Integrity and Verification Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate)
S 2437 IS
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2437
To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 18, 2004
Mr. ENSIGN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration
________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Voting Integrity and Verification Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH PRESERVATION OF A VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT PAPER RECORD.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new clause:
`(i) permit the voter to verify the accuracy of their ballot (in a private and independent manner), by allowing the voter to review an individual paper version of the voter's ballot before the voter's ballot is cast and counted;';
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by inserting `discovered on the individual paper version of the voter's ballot' after `to change the ballot or correct any error'; and
(ii) by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;
(C) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and
(D) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
`(iii)(I) preserve the individual paper version of the voter's ballot, after the voter has certified that the same accurately reflects the voter's intent, as the individual permanent paper record, and
`(II) preserve such individual permanent paper record at the polling place in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (2)(B)(i); and';
(2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking `subparagraph (A)(iii)' and inserting `subparagraph (A)(iv)'; and
(3) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph:
`(2) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The voting system shall produce an individual permanent paper record for each ballot that is cast which provides for voter verification of such record in accordance with paragraph (1)(A) and which meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).
`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-
`(i) The voting system shall produce an individual permanent paper record for each ballot cast that is either--
`(I) preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within such polling place; or
`(II) in the absence of such manner or method, which is consistent with the manner employed by the jurisdiction for preserving paper ballots in general.
`(ii) Each paper record produced under clause (i) shall be suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot voting system.
`(iii) All electronic records produced by any voting system shall be consistent with the individual permanent paper records produced by such voting system. In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast.
`(iv) The individual permanent paper records produced under clause (i) shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.'.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

----------------

The most important differences between this and the Dodd bill:

Dodd/Clinton/Dem bill will not require implementation until 2009, and any machines purchased before then will be exempt. Meaning that for the next 4 years (including 2 major federal elections) counties/states can continue to purchase machines with no paper trail. AND, when the bill goes into effect, the machines purchased before 2009 will be allowed to remain.

The Ensign Bill is simple and will be enacted immediately, as though it had been part of HAVA. It closes a loophole created by HAVA in defining 'paper trail' Ensign's bill will require that there is a VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT that will override a machine count in case of audit/recount. The voter will APPROVE that paper ballot. The Ensign Bill is identical to the one he proposed late last summer. At that time it had BIPARTISAN support but Congress never got around to debating/voting on it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. Sounds like we should support the Ensign bill. Hands?
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 02:20 PM by Peace Patriot
"At that time it had BIPARTISAN support but Congress never got around to debating/voting on it."

This lack of action didn't just happen. Tom Delay ACTIVELY PREVENTED any transparency measures from making it out of committee. This is important to know. The BushCons set this election system up the way it is, deliberately--to keep themselves in power forevermore. And Democrats did not have the focus or the will to fight it. Think about it.

This election system is INHERENTLY FRAUDULENT. BushCon companies own and control the SECRET, proprietary source code that COUNTS ALL OUR VOTES. No public review of the code. No paper trail in a third of the country. Partisan control of elections, a la Stalinist Russia.

The Democrats should have burned down the Capitol to get this changed!

At the very least, they should have made it a campaign issue, and should have been warning voters and supporters ALL ALONG.

They did not. It's THEIR JOB TO GET VOTES. They are POLITICIANS. And they didn't KNOW?

So either we have the stupidest bunch of people in Congress that the world has ever seen, or too many of them are pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the rich (in their hearts, and wallets) and secretly like Bush and his ME domination plan, or they are SO POWERLESS they can DO NOTHING to help us restore democracy. Or some combo of these.

We've got to be realistic. Does the Ensign bill have any chance? (-after it's fully vetted, of course). Should we spend time and energy promoting it--time and energy taken from state by state efforts (like the one in Calif. right now--the BushCons trying to smear one of our few good Sec. of States, Kevin Shelley)?

We need to think these strategy questions through.

I have to go to my day job now--will return to this important discussion late tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
69. my question also
should we support and promote the Ensign bill?
After reading meganmonkey's post with details of the bill, I am still a little confused

"individual permanent paper record" is not the same as paper ballots.
Does Ensign bill mean paper ballots or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
34. Thank you, meganmonkey, for providing info. It is my greatest...
...fear that clueless, uninformed, stupid, blind or collusive Democrats in Congress will further destroy our right to vote at the federal level

...and I'm especially fearful that they will hamstring the public's only remaining real avenue of remedy, state election rules, either by bribery ($3.5 billion in HAVA money) or by unwisely reducing state control of election rules because of Ohio (reducing it in ways that hamper the public at the state level).

...it is also a fear of mine that Ohio is a red herring, and that the BushCons set it up that way, to divert attention from massive electronic fraud nationwide...

...although an equally good hypothesis is that they had to go all out--and use nearly every fraud backup plan they had in place--to overcome the massive turnout of anti-Bush voters. This latter makes sense re: why Republicans would do such visible, egregious and offensive things in Ohio, especially against black voters--bound to kick up a shitstorm? Because they had no choice? Because any bigger electronic theft--beyond the 3% to 5% they did--would have been too noticeable-- and they knew they could count on centrist Democrats to abandon black voters in the crunch?

(I'm getting a bit cynical here...ahem...)

I think we have to restore our right to vote state by state--and meanwhile try to head off stupid, clueless Congressional Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. And the truth is, there is no chance we will get an ideal passed and
implemented in time for the 2006 elections. The Ensign bill is, IMHO, a great first step.

Another VERY important thing to remember is that, in theory, many of the examples of fraud/irregularities broke laws that already exist. Simply making more laws that will not be enforced will not help us either. The real goal is to keep on working on exposing the fraud that happened this last time and making sure some people get into some serious trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. I am totally with you.
The Dodd bill is useless, and Ensign's can be enacted for 2006. It is likely to be implemented, as it has a shot at bi-partisan support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. I appreciate that
I just hope people read far enough on this thread to get to the rational opinions - even if they don't agree, at least they are informed. I fear that people get so riled up when no facts or details are offered and make irrational decisions on WHO to believe, instead of learning and trying to figure out WHAT to believe.

KEEP HOPE ALIVE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #34
53. partly they did it because they own the courts and therefore can get
away with it, just like they did in FL in 2000 and again in 2004. THey seem to operate outside the law and to shamelessly and fearlessly break the law.

And I absolutely agree with your statement, "...fear that clueless, uninformed, stupid, blind or collusive Democrats in Congress will further destroy our right to vote at the federal level"

I keep saying we MUST educate our legislators; we do have many good- hearted and honest people who are simply ignorant. I had no idea how ignorant until I started working on all the e-voting stuff last summer.
Even Boxer said she didn't know there were problems in other states; that she knew about OH because Tubbs-Jones wrote to her! And she is one of our staunchest alllies.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
36. I don't understand what you are saying here??
Are you saying that you think touchscreen fraud is not important?
or that the Dem bill assumes its not important?
or the Repub bill assumes its not important.

TS fraud was documented to be one of the most important issues in terms of votes swung; and was clearly a major factor in who won in Washington and Florida, and a significant factor in Ohio and New Mexico(might have made the difference there too); as well as having major impacts in many other states.
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Note touchscreen fraud includes default of straight Dem & undervotes &
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 02:24 PM by berniew1
at least hundreds of thousands of votes and perhaps millions were swung by indirect programming defaults that were programmed into computers in many states that defaulted very large number of Kerry votes to blank or Bush or libertarian from straight Dem ticket voters in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, S. Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. etc.
Many voters did not understand that if they voted straight Dem ticket that their vote for President would either not count or be counted for Bush or another presidential candidate. This fact was extremely poorly publicized and affected huge numbers of votes.

Likewise there were huge numbers of votes swung by defaulting undervotes to Bush in many states- such as Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, and several other states.

the Dems and most people just weren't paying attention to how the
vote compilers were set to count; and it appears millions of votes may have been counted for people they weren't intended for- just by the way the compilation routines counted the votes.

http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #39
58. berniew1, this has been mentioned so many times
and if it's true, it should be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation. It could explain so much and it's so simple! It also shows that our BOEs are totally incompetent or in collusion with the vendors/Republicans and so obviously, they can't be trusted whether they are bi-partisan or not.

It's not rocket science to test something like this. It's not even really a hack or security breach. It's just a matter of CONFIGURATION. If it's true and there is documentation to support it, why isn't it more widely publicized and why aren't Kerry's lawyers all over this shit?

I'm not saying it ISN'T true, I'm just asking why our party appears to be taking it lying down and why more whistle blowers aren't coming forward. It may not even be fraud if the voter has the chance to correct the error before casting the vote, but it is unacceptable if it favors one candidate over another consistently.

I haven't looked at all your links yet, but how well documented is this. Is it in the machines' user manuals for example? And what can we do to publicize this more if its truly the DOCUMENTED behavior of these machines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. Why not support filling in the gap with the Republican bill and
then working on meaningful voting issues for a more comprehensive bill that actually deals with all our concerns?

I'd like to see a verifiable paper trail for the '06 election and whatever bill can be passed quickly to be in effect for that election needs to be passed.

In the meantime a bill that addresses the electronic voting/source code issues can be drafted along with any other concerns.

I'd like to see prohibiting a SoS holding a simulataneous position of any form in any campaign added to be in effect for the '06 election.

Also I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to include severe penalties for any voter suppression for '06.

However any adjustments made for '06 shouldn't take the place of a comprehensive bill that includes all issues. For me that includes a constitional amendment giving every citizen the right to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. I concur with everything you said...
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
72. Thanks :) I just hope it's how it goes. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
44. Wrong thinking regarding how to get election reform;it will be fairly easy
There is consensus developing that getting election reform passed through Legislatures and Congress controlled by special interest who like the way things are is a pretty hopeless task. Unless the Media really publicizes the fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections- which they haven't shown any indication of doing.

But there's another way. Election reform can be passed in all states by initiative- getting petition signatures to put a measure on the ballot in most states to pass similar comprehensive election reform. The majority of the public supports it and there isn't much the special interest can do to counter the effort, without making clear who is trying to prevent open transparent voting systems.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. excellent point Bernie Yup--- Paper trial is good--open source code is t
too----both is even better--Repubs not owning 5 major players in Voting Ind. Thats even better
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zan_of_Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #52
57. Paper BALLOT is good. No source code at all is even better.
Here's the thing.

They are clever. They are ruthless. They have boatloads of money sloshing around, to buy media people and people in Congress. And, people to sit on web sites and spout baloney.

They like chaos, and they like not being predictable.

They don't mind killing 100,000 Iraqis, who had the audacity to be living on large lakes of SUV juice.

We have to somehow figure out how to get ahead of them, and not in a predictable way.

I say sure, we should support the paper record bill of Ensign. He thought that was federal law several years ago, and then it was interpreted that no, it's not included in the legislation that the voter gets to verify a paper record. So, in a way, what should already have been law was not, and we lost ground.

But, we have to think creatively about what THEY will do next. None of this is a fortunate accident for those who "won" the election.

Blackwell, who hangs out with neocons like Richard Perle at hawkish right-wing groups -- it's no accident he was in place in the swing state to pull that crap.

The only reason they had to pull so much obvious, blatant stuff like voter intimidation in Ohio was that CASE OHIO had blocked the introduction of all DRE machines into Ohio early in 2004. Otherwise, it would have been smooth sailing in Ohio with DRE manipulation, much harder to detect (impossible?) in a recount.

Next will be massive manipulation of registration, which is now supposed to be electronic by state instead of county. Plus, additional tricks with military and overseas voting I predict -- this is a HUGE block of votes -- in fact, if it were a state, it would be the 13th largest state in the union. Remember, they already tried to implement an internet voting thing called SERVE for overseas and military that was a joke. There was an uproar, and they backed down. But, it's like a spore, lying in wait, until no one is paying attention, then I bet it will reconstitute itself.


Joseph Smallhoover, former chairman of Democrats Abroad, said there are about 6.5 million civilians overseas and 500,000 service members and their dependents. --Bipartisan Request Seeks Halt to Internet Voting; Groups Fear Citizens Abroad Will Be Compromised, by Dan Keating, Washington Post, January 30, 2004; <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61273-20... >

A medium sized state is roughly 3.5 to 4 million people. So, the military/overseas vote is larger than medium/large states like Wisconsin, or Washington State, or Maryland or Colorado or Arizona or Alabama. It is a little bigger than Massachusetts. The 6.5 million civilians overseas would be #13 in the list of states, if they were a state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
59. Actually, I think it's only 43 states that allow this.
There's a thread on this but I've lost it. Eaglenetsupport is the lawyer who's working on it but he/she didn't start the thread. It's buried in some thread about Ohio or something. A lot of good stuff from low posters is buried in some of these threads. Important stuff!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #44
67. I'm all for Initiative/Referendum (started yet?), but I'd quibble...
...with your claim of a "consensus developing" against reform. I don't see it. Can you describe it more concretely?

And the media ignoring the fraud/theft issue doesn't mean much. During 2001 we took the "not fair and square" number from 15% to 50% in less than 9 months, with a total media blackout. We have the truth again, and can do it again. Despite the DC/Media Analstocracy.

As I said, I/R would be great too. Attack on any front we can.

It's only action that's needed. Any and all kinds.

___
www.thedeanpeople.org
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 Sat Sep 20th 2014, 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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