Reply #31: Andy wasn't alone in getting your "state's plight" wrong.

[Wilms]

The status quo in PA was lever machines. THAT was better than what you wound up with.

HAVA does not require the replacement of levers. And that should have been vigorously argued.

But back then nearly EVERYBODY thought HAVA doomed levers, except Doug Kellner, NYS BOE, who...perhaps not ironically...has been under court order (with the threat of being jailed) to replace them, and now finds the judge easing away from that position. Compare that with a vocal activist appearing in videos with an "Accuvote" vendor.

It's OK. Again, nearly everyone got it wrong back then. But to continue to hold on to erroneous beliefs serves no honorable purpose.

Accepting Holt's half measures is no different than accepting the Cortez/EAC condemnation of levers.

Meanwhile, coming from a state that would be among those to most benefit from this bill, you are uniquely positioned to argue with Holt for a better bill...one providing high confidence and low cost is something you could feel proud of. Among other problems, your current advocacy threatens secure elections in NY State (just as it did little for them in your own state and CT). That's not appreciated.

You have told a judge you agree with Cortez/EAC. You argued that PA was at risk for theft in '08 though Obama's wide margin was not lauded as a surprise. Upthread you, perhaps disingenuously, tried suggesting it was a "paper ballot" election that overturned an election when it seems the factor was the absentee/provisional ballots which would be paper regardless of polling place equipment. You're smart enough to know the difference.

I grow tired of having to come in here and be the bad guy pointing out the specious arguments of respected activists.

Whatever it takes for you to drop the dated rhetoric, download the updates, and get on board would be much appreciated. It's 2009. DREs are are on the way out despite Holt's legislation not passing.