Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

self-delete

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
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:20 PM
Original message
self-delete
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 04:55 PM by Impeachment_Monkey
Refresh | +9 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. That article is bullshit, it misrepresents the bill entirely. Rush Holt is good on this issue
"Requires the voting system to require the use of or produce an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voter's vote, created by or made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast and counted. Requires the voting system to provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any system-made error in the voter-verified paper ballot before it is permanently preserved.
Requires each ballot produced to be: (1) suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system; and (2) counted by hand in any recount or audit conducted with respect to any federal election. "

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-811&... (from summary of leglislation)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That summary does look good. hmmm.
So do you think the Election Defense Alliance is a bogus outfit? Their website looks legit.
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org /

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Based on that article, they are not legit --but they are likely more than that article
the author doesn't explain the "whys" involved.

she strikes fear into everybody about nationalizing election standards, as some bogeyman. but it was different state and local standards currently in use that gave us the 2000 debacle and 2004 nonsense in Ohio.

different state and local standards have allowed all sorts of shenanigans for ages in our country. national standards would go a long way to avoid that.

finally, regarding auditing, one of the problems of the current system is how disparate the auditing is among states, how no papertrail is required in state after state. some states don't even do proper auditing.

when the federal government gets involved to fix a national problem, a number of things happen:

1) standards are put into law
2) adjudicatory/regulatory bodies are appointed/created to enforce them

any federal solution to vote auditing and paper trail requirements are going to have measures that the author is making a bogeyman out of.

in short, i think she's crazy and possibly ignorant. if i were a legit organization, i would not put such a document on my website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. you may be right. i decided to self-delete the post. ~nt~
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. i'm sorry to give you a hard time
it was really reserved for the article, not you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That's why I love DU
many minds work better to decipher the truth than does one mind in isolation in a blizzard of dis-information.

thanks for clarifying your intent. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. The article is a year and a half old. The bill is dead.
Edited on Sat Dec-20-08 04:48 PM by Wilms
But there are 7 recommends as I post.

Impressive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. the article had a Dec. 20, 2008 date at the top of page
i assumed that meant that was the date of the article.. where did you see otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. ahh ... nevermind, i found it .... at bottom of the page all grayed out.
Story last updated:
Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:17:00
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Jul 25th 2014, 06:46 PM
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