Response from Dr. Pastor (Fed. Election Reform) to my letter

[KaryninMiami]

Snips from my letter to him follows below. He's asking for our suggestions--I say we send them!

Dear Ms. xxx

Thank you for your recent comments about the need for election reform. The Commission on Federal Election Reform was established to achieve that goal.

Common Cause (www.commoncause.org) and the Election Protection Coalition (www.electionprotection2004.com) registered hundreds of thousands of complaints related to the 2004 presidential election. Public confidence in the electoral process is low, and reform is needed. This was underscored by a meeting convened by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and other groups in December 2004. I was invited to testify and remained for the entire day. The audience was deeply concerned about the state of the electoral process, and many advocated change.

After the hearing, I spoke with President Carter, who said he would favor establishing a panel to examine U.S. election reform. As you may know, he co-chaired a Commission with President Gerald Ford in 2001 that made recommendations that led to the Help American Vote Act (HAVA). I worked with both of them on that Commission and, indeed, worked with President Carter on election-monitoring projects for seventeen years at The Carter Center. As President Gerald Ford was not able to Co-Chair this panel, we consulted with Republican leaders who spoke with President Bush. They proposed former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III. President Carter has worked with Mr. Baker many times and is extremely pleased to work with him again. With such highly-respected Co-Chairs, we expect that Congress will take our recommendations seriously.

We solicited suggestions for other members of the Commission from a wide range of groups, and the Co-Chairs selected the members. It is comprised of approximately one-third Republicans, one-third Democrats, and one-third non-partisan leaders. You can read the bios of the members at www.american.edu/Carter-Baker. The Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University is organizing the Commission with the support of the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the Knight Foundation.

Our current challenge is to look beyond the partisan perspectives and fashion proposals that address the problems in a practical, democratic, and effective manner. We would greatly appreciate your ideas as we carry out this work. Please send them to [email protected], or mail them to 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Suite 265, Washington, DC, 20016.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert Pastor

Executive Director,

Commission on Federal Election Reform

Snips from my letter to him:

Dear Mr. Pastor,
There seems to be quite a lot of conversation going on regarding how many of us are actually involved in the election reform movement and how many of those have written to you. I can assure you, that there are far more then 7 or 8 of us. My guess is that the number of Americans who are as deeply concerned as I am about the state of our electoral process is in the millions.

Mr. Pastor, in 2002, the year Florida first started using electronic voting machines (touch screen ES&S), I selected my choice for Governor and the other elected officials and referendums on my ballot. The machine asked me to recheck my vote. I did - and it said that I had voted for the other candidate for governor- not the one that I had selected. It was on the third try that my vote finally reflected my choice.

I will never forget how violated I felt at that moment knowing that there was a chance my vote did not count. Never did I imagine, until I shared with a friend what had happened when I voted, that there had been hundreds (maybe more) who'd had the very same experience. Machine malfunction? Perhaps. Deliberate default switch? Perhaps. We'll never know.

Since that day, I have become obsessed with learning all that I can about the way these machines work and the multiple ways they can be tampered with, as well as the multiple problems that can arise with the use of these machines.

Since that day, Clint Curtis, a programmer for Yang Enterprises, has presented a sworn testimony, followed most recently, by a lie detector test, that he was hired by Yang in collaboration with Feeney, a Florida elected official, to design a software program that could rig an election.

Since that day, millions of people like myself, have been working relentlessly to let the world know that something is terribly wrong with the way our country votes and that our right to vote and have our vote counted in the way it was intended is in serious jeopardy.

It's these people who you are hearing from. It's these American citizens, who are deeply concerned that a commission formed to look into these issues, may not be looking at the facts- all of the facts, so that they can make an honest, non-partisan assessment of how this country votes and make significant changes based on that assessment.

Last week, over 200 of us gathered in Nashville, to explore all of the facts on the 2004 election. We came from around the country-- people of all ages, professions, lifestyles, took the time to gather together to do just that. This was a grassroots effort that was truly one of the most inspirational and powerful gatherings I have ever attended.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Pastor. This is issue has to do with the basic fundamentals our democracy. It is therefore, in all of our best interests to know that all of the facts related to election issues-- including the statistics, reports and details that the hundreds of election reform activists have been working on for the past two years, are explored as part of the work of this commission.

The emails you are receiving are coming from concerned Americans who want the truth exposed and want to know, beyond any doubt, that our elections are fair, verifiable and credible and reflect the will and intent of the people. Otherwise, there will never be any faith in our democracy which Mr. Pastor, is what concerns us most of all.

Sincerely yours,

Karyn Miami, Florida

[meganmonkey]

1. Hmmmm...the response sounds kinda generic to me

I'd like to know what he really thinks. I hope something good comes from the commission, but it remains to be seen, IMHO.

(And why hasn't he answered MY letter? :P )

[Melissa G]

2. good letter, thanks for sending it! n/t

[garybeck]

3. 2 suggestions to him

need more computer security experts. that's fine if he wants to be all non-partisan about it.

I think Avi Ruben at Johns Hopkins has to be one of the most respected computer security experts. he teaches computer security and evaluates computer security systems. He's not partisan. He should be on the panel, or at least asked to present information.

Chuch Herrin obviously looks at it from a non-partisan angle...

Pastor can count all the democrats and republicans on the commission he wants but there is a lack of computer security experts. And the experts speak in one voice. I don't know of any computer security experts saying DREs are fine. It's only the voting machine companies that lie like that, and the republicans just hear what they want to believe.

they should have more computer security experts.

the other suggestion is to get rid of ACVR. Who cares how they got there, just get them off.

[tommcintyre]

4. Munro and Baker must go too. Conflict of interest n/t

[garybeck]

7. I think they can justify having Baker

by saying Carter is there.

I know, it doesn't make sense but they say, one Dem and one Rep. Of course some people will twist and lie and say Baker was doing a good thing in florida 2000.

but ACVR has to go. it really makes one question the entire commission having them there at all.

[pauldp]

5. I got the exact same response.

Form letter. Nice to see they are looking at every complaint individually...Not!

[autorank]

6. Damn and I thought that Pastor letter was just for me (LOL(

This Pastor guy is a real ass kisser. I did a workout with CSPAN on and he was being interviewed. I thought :wtf: and listened to it. Well my heart rate was pounding. He is a name dropper, just thrilled to be working with Carter and Baker, whom he greatly admires. He thinks there are some people who have questions about the election but the numbers and facts show, according to Pastor, that it was a clean election. My reaction was, WELL FUCK YOU BUDDY. But he's such a dweeb butt kisser, I couldn't even muster up the energy to say it. Sooo, I wrote him this letter and got the reply above. Golly gee, I got a form letter back.

Here is my response to the form letter. I dumbed things down so even these idiots (including Carter, for the time being or forever if he caves) can understand.

--------------------

Dear Election Commission:

I have two recommendations for the Commission.

1) Revert to paper ballots exclusively except for those with physical challenges.

Paper ballots end the questions raised by voting machines. They are counted by real people who can be watched by other real people. They are stored and saved for later review. They are unbiased.

I'm talking about a real paper ballot that you mark (the kind they use in other countries). No machine intervention at all.

As for those who cannot mark paper ballots, there are enough voting machines out there to cover anybody who needs them.

2) Elections should supervised by nonpartisan citizens or professionals.

Having Harris as election commissioner in Florida 2000 and Blackwell in Ohio 2004 and, at the same time, having them as the Bush State Chairmen is obscene. This must stop.

I cannot tell you how absurd it is to have voting machines produced by companies that make campaign contributions to candidates, i.e., Diebold. It destroys public confidence in the election process and threatens our democracy. It is equally destructive to have a state or other election official serve in the campaign or come from the partisan position of any candidate in an election.

Very truly yours,

Funk Homey G
1 Pissed-off Democrat Way
The Country Formerly Known as
The Land of the Free

[garybeck]

8. The letter I sent to him was much more nasty and I got the exact

same response.

they don't care what we think.