Reply #47: AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love you. I adopt you as my MOTHER! Or Sister!

www.libertywhistle.us

Americans Need Not Accept E-Voting, nor Presidential Results
-Among circumstantial evidence, a common thread: e-voting machines don’t 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 aren’t 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 we’re 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 it—without the rule of law, US election results simply aren’t 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 world’s 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.