Hello: I think Howard really meant to say"I resemble this"
Peter

Hooray for RAW STORY!
Hooray for VR!

I resent anybody messing around with my vote!!!

from the reaction, I'd say the VR Divestiture campaign has hit a nerve...

cool.

Clearly he is shocked, shocked! (Giggle)

We know they don't give a damn about our franchise of democracy.

We know they are more than happy to count the votes, secretly.

We know we have a bunch of neconsters and an idiot trashing our economy, our credibility, our core values, the very meaning of 'America' because they supplied the tools to steal not one, but at least three elections.

We KNOW. And, we are NEVER GOING TO FORGET.

"Not one line of software between an American voter and a valid election; not one line, ever again" --- that's how I see it. How about you?

Peace.

PROVE MY VOTE COUNTS, NOW.

Mr. Van Pelt, prove to us that you're not a crook by not acting like a crook. The people who count the votes should not decide who wins the votes, hence VR's agenda for instituting a policy that supports as such. Prove to us that the machines aren't being hacked, hence VR's policy supporting open voting systems viewable by all. Nobody is calling you a crook, but the machines are definitely crooked.

And it doesn't only pertain to voting machines.It also pertains to gaming machines.
Machines with hidden source code seem to have a history of not being honest.

The analogy to gaming machines is apt. Since casinos have to make profits, slot machines are programmed to pay out less than they take in. Pretty basic. It doesn't mean the companies that make the machines are filled with crooks.

Voting machines can be manipulated to achieve whatever result the USER wants. Professor David Dill of Stanford University, who doesn't necessarily subscribe to conspiracy theories, has said publicly that the machines are vulnerable to hacking and manipulation that can't be detected as long as the source code remains private.

And, it just so happens that the companies that make the machines are all tied to the Republican party, which adds a patina of suspicion to the mix. So, Mr. Van Pelt...I join the chorus that says THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT NO MANIPULATION OCCURRED.

He can't do that, of course, and doesn't want to try.

Awww . . . they seem a little upset.

"The reason we got rid of paper ballots to ensure the accuracy of elections??????????????????"

As I was reading that one I literally laughed out loud, if I had been eating something I would have choked.

These people have to be really stupid themselves and are beyond arrogant . .but then again look at their hero they put in office.

Oh God, poor abused Howard. He resents our distrust! I'm not going to lose any sleep over his discomfort; he's been central to our nightmare.

Well, what the 'ell else would he say? "Oops you caught us! You're right. We did it!"?

If he acts like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc., he then feigns surprise that people call him a quacker - even resents it... Book 'im, Dan-o.

I've got you up on my site too, Brad. I'm certainly no RawStory, but it might getcha two or three hits for it.

~A!

The way I see it, they had the chance to prove us wrong, to cooperate with investigations, cooperate with the courts, to come forward and help answer all those serious questions about the elections 2004. So I don't want to hear their crap now. YES we think you're crooks, partly because of the way you've acted over the months. So now you can SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

Nana #14

Very well put.

Let's imagine for a moment that the voting machine industry were the pharmaceutical industry. A given machine was found to have produced unhealthy results...nobody died, but democracy went into toxic shock from a machine that flipped votes from the challenger to the incumbent, very possibly enough votes to change the outcome.

The F.D.A. protects American citizens by examining every drug before it's offered for sale. The drug industry passes the extra research costs along to the public in the form of higher prices. When a drug is found to have severe side effects, it's pulled from the market, often voluntarily by the company.

But there's no F.D.A. for voting machines. The people who make these machines say, "Trust us," yet it so happens they're all partisan Republicans, and the candidate they've twice elected under highly suspicious circumstances is their chosen candidate, Bush.

Electronic machines without paper trails are the democratic equivalent of a dangerous drug. Optical scanners that permit wholesale flipping of votes during the tabulation process are democracy's heroin. Mr. Van Pelt might not like being the target of suspicion, but he's the equivalent of a drug company executive operating without the F.D.A.

Mr. Howard's chose the word "crooks" to describe our view himself and his cronies. His choice. So Mr. Howard thinks we should just "trust him". In two words, Mr. Howard, "NO, NEVER". Keep going, Brad and everyone. You will succeed! Failure is not an option in this vital issue.

Thank you Robert, I appreciate your analogies. I think the distinction between the makers and users is important, as is the lack of distinction between the makers and the users.

Such a typical reaction from these people. They resent that we want transparency in our elections and our fighting for it. Of course if their personal finances were being handled this way they would freak out.

We will organize and rise up like the Fremen of Frank Herbert's Dune and take on the Emperor and the evil Great Houses.

:laugh:

Oh happy day, Brad!

Finally, after long last, our voices are finally being heard! (I guess this would mark the first time since December 2000 that liberals and progressives have shown some backbone.)

Keep up the good work Brad!

Havel would be proud - another velvet revolution, and in one of the most democratic countries in the world! Thse companies have no idea of the forces gathering at their door. In a few months, they will understand, and some will start changing, breaking the united front they now show.

They have one major problem: their opposition to allowing every voter to vote, and have the vote counted accurately, is just plain immoral.

Because it is immoral, they will have to give way and change.

For the first time, Brad, I really think we can win this.

One of the larger vote machine companies was sued by Black Box Voting (link here) and settled one part of the case for a couple million or so.

The next phase of that lawsuit is in progress even as we speak. It is the discovery phase. I participated as did other BBV members in thinking up things to ask the guys like Howard Van Pelt.

Here's an outstanding comment from the Raw Story article:

“This looks fairly political and not something we’d pay a lot of attention to,” said Alfie Charles, a spokesperson for Sequoia Voting Systems, one of the firms singled out by the campaign.

Is Mr. Charles implying that there shouldn't be any connection between elections and politics? Transparent spin like this is not going to deter anybody!

Nice to hear from you Robert, wise opinions as always. The point I was trying to make with slot machines wasn't the payout scale, but the verification of them.The slot machine industry has an even shadier past than the voting machine industry (randomization of chances run by the mob? Yikes!), but it has cleaned up. Not because of self ethics in the industry, but because of legislation. Casinos have the agenda of making money. A few win, most lose. Casinos get rich. The odds that you're not going to win are well known. However, the machines are tested by independent bodies. Casinos by law can't own the machines. Some states have their own testing systems. Some have independent bodies do it. Voting machines, as of now, have no independent verification. And since voting isn't a kind of "trade" that gambling is. There's no reason to keep the source code hidden.

The minimum standards for testing slot machines aren't done with voting machines. How did that slip by? In the naive way that Clint Curtis assumed that hidden source code would never fly. Early on, I assumed that these voting machines had the minimum requirements that slot machines had. How wrong I was.

regarding comment #7:

A lawyer might be able to comment on the following excerpt from an old dailykos comment:

"...There is an old legal doctrine on the books known as "Res Ipsa Loquitor." It is a Latin phrase which basically means, "Let the object speak for itself." How is Res Ipsa Loquitor applicable here? Well, in theory, when something goes awry concerning an object or instrumentality which is in the exclusive control of a person or persons, be it equipment or the like, and that failure does not normally occur without fault or without negligence, then the burden to prove that the object or the machine did not malfunction in a certain way then legally shifts to the owner or exclusive possessor of that very object or machine.

Respectfully, under the principles of this specific, time-tested legal doctrine, I would contend that Diebold, et al., should be required to prove how any of its vote machines malfunctioned in any given instance, or put another way, they should have the burden of proof to demonstrate that all of its machines functioned properly, just as they were intended to function. You know, when you really think about the fact that our democracy itself happens to be at stake, that isn't asking a whole lot...."

excerpted from:
http://www.dailykos.com/...ory/2004/11/30/185532/75)

George - Excellent catch. Kos is a bit circuitous "navigation-wise" and I don't always glean their best. Thanks for the quote.

This election was such a sham, it's hard to know where to start.

Even if you remove all of the Diebold, etc., irregularities from the equation, you still have issues like THIS, which are overwhelming, and just as important (as pointed out by Greg Palast).

Every vote DOESN'T count. It is JOB ONE to change this.

Mr. Van Pelt's use of the old Richard Nixon phrase, "I am not a crook" rings rather hollow when after a long investigation by a special prosecutor, it was proved he was a crook, and Nixon resigned in disgrace. Keep up the pressure.

When Van Pelt says, "They think we're all crooks," does he mean, "I'm not, but the rest are," or does he mean, "None of us are?"

Interesting that he added the word "all" to his harangue. If this industry were honest, one would think "They think we're crooks" would suffice as a defensive statement.

Stay tuned for an intra-mural battle among these companies, the Clean Genes vs. the Rascals. As the VR progresses and they feel the heat, expect Van Pelt and his colleagues to start attacking each other, like Blackwell and Petro in Ohio.

RE: RLM #30. I whole heartedly agree. By Mr. Van Pelt's use of the word "ALL" in his statement, it leads me to believe that either he has knowledge or is reasonably supicious that someone in the voting machine business is crooked.

And if that's so, Pushcat, and Van Pelt's company happens to be one of the honest ones (it might be), he's going to resent being bundled with the others.
Any good company in this business won't accept draconian regulation easily if there are only a "few bad apples." That's why I predicted an internecine war.

If there were no F.D.A., and Merck, for example, sold a drug with dangerous side effects, the public would wonder, "How many other companies are doing this?" We don't see that when the occasional problem arises. The system works, because every company is forced to be honest.

There will always be honesty somewhere in the mix. It is a fact of life. The infighting is just as important as the outside opposition. Some people have the wisdom and foresight to know that criminals are eventually caught. It's the law of physics. The old adage, "honesty is the best policy", is there for a reason.

If the word "crooks" is used enough in any form at all in reference to these people, it will stick and get into the people's subconscious.

So I'll start by saying, "YES, YOU ARE ALL CROOKS"!

In fact, I will sing it out from the mountain top.

And if they are all on the defensive, the honest ones will come forward and prove they're honest. That will leave the crooked ones isolated, and complaining about "liberals" and "conspiracy theories."

We're winning right now.

I don't think they're CROOKS. I think they're TRAITORS!!