Reply #2: It would allow a high degree of false confidence; not working when needed

[Land Shark]

The pro-machine people will have such a long list of talking points (the Holt bill becomes their talking points as well) that trying to explain why FURTHER major reform is still needed will be almost impossible.

If you really think Holt is a step to getting rid of machines SOMEDAY, then your support of Holt is in bad faith (for an ulterior motive beyond the face of the bill itself). Maybe that's politics, but it's also a price that will have to be paid.

Strategically, it's better to have reality be more obvious, than it is to pass the pain reliever of Holt that puts america on massive pain killers and high on Confidence, because Holt is precisely named the "Voter Confidence...." act.

It's a dead end, killing field for democracy. As you know, i go around making arguments on this all the time. WillYourVoteBeCOunted suggests I argue the case on every issue way too much. I really really really don't like the available arguments after Holt is passed. They are much weaker.

I've never received an answer as to what are our "killer" arguments for Step Two: Post Holt? Can you answer that?

on edit: My county got rid of Sequoia DREs by vote of the county council January 4, 2006. My lawsuit was one factor in that. This proves that PUBLIC FOCUS results in dumping DREs (other factors feed into that focus too, of course). Why can't we just work on PUBLIC FOCUS?? There are other successes around the country besides the one you cite.