Reply #15: I believe it was stolen but don't believe that leading with that is the

[Amaryllis]

way to get people interested in election reform. I think we win far more people by talking about the need for verifiable elections that by trying to convince them it was stolen. Most anyone can understand that counting votes on proprietary software with no way to verify the outcome has no place in a democracy, and that we need verifiable, transparent elections based on checks and balances rather than faith-based elections with secret vote counting by private, for-profit corporations with political and financial conflicts of interest.

I like Chuck Herrin's approach.(Republican computer security expert.)
http://www.chuckherrin.com/ConservativeEmpathy.htm
http://www.chuckherrin.com/LiberalEmpathy.htm

I dont agree with Cocoa that this column directly opposes the election reform movement. It expresses my view accurately, and I am very active in election reform. How I discuss it here with is different than how I present it in public. It's all in how you frame it if you're trying to get people to see the need for transparent elections. If you read Bradblog, you will notice he never claims the election was stolen. He just presents the facts and lets people make up their own minds. Land Shark does a great job of framing the debate also and he never talks about stolen elections in presentations.