READER COMMENTS ON
"Holt Election Reform Bill Continues to be Supported by Democrats and Their Public Advocacy Groups, While Being Criticized by the Election Integrity Community"
(16 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/14/2007 @ 2:48 pm PT...
This is simple...
Is there a single one of the 435 Congresspeople who we would consider to be an "election reform advocate" or a member of the "Election Integrity Community?"
Simply have them propose AMENDMENTS to the bill when it comes up for vote.
Start now! Work with the staff for this congressperson (or people) to make sure the CORRECT wording of the amendments is ready. Position all the necessary organizations to SUPPORT these amendments. Start setting up members of the blogosphere to support the changes when they are proposed.
IF you are going to bother going to their dance (i.e. taking part in the drafting process) then PLAY THE FRIGGING GAME THE WAY THEY PLAY IT. Don't BITCH about it and waste our time --- GET IT DONE!!!
We don't have to stop the Holt Bill, we only have to CORRECT and IMPROVE it. If we didn't have control over the house, it would be hard (Ney impossible) but we DO, so it should be a cakewalk.
Stop whining and start winning.
P.S. And if we do not have ONE member of congress who is prepared to offer the necessary amendments and who listens to Brad Friedman (one of the two or three most knowledgeable and prominent bloggers on this issue) on matters of electoral integrity, then we do NOT have the house at all --- the corporate party has it solid, and we are doomed.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 2/14/2007 @ 3:01 pm PT...
Thank you for the update Brad. From someone who has seen your work and efforts over the last 2 years, i find it painfully obvious what needs to be done. Contrary to expert opinion, the correct question you ask is why do these people support an inferior bill that doesn't correct the recently privatized system of electronic vote counting in secrecy without a paper ballot trail? It is my view that these people are fcking robots. There interests are NOT the interests of WE THE PEOPLE BUT TO MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE INTERESTs that ultimately own the REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC PARTY and do not care to fix the system.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/14/2007 @ 8:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 12:04 am PT...
Charlie #1, I believe we have one, Robert Wexler D-Boca, Fla. He appears to 'get it' from what little there is in the media about him.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 12:57 am PT...
There's no way these incumbent pricks are going to give up their lock on power. They've convinced themselves that they are the only ones that know how to run the country and they intend to stay there. Congress is the mob that rules, but they only believe in rules for us.
We can't catch ourselves holding our heads any longer, wondering why both parties can't understand the simplest concepts imaginable.
We're going to have to find a way to count our own damn votes, Clint Curtis style, or does Florida have a new law which prevents people from signing affidavits. We've got to find a way to convince people that the whole thing is a sham and have them vote outside of the system entirely while our friendly politicians drive truckloads of OUR money to Diebold's door for their virtual voting playact.
Maybe I don't know how Washington works, or maybe I know all too well how it works!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 1:23 am PT...
(Slightly off topic, but on topic below)
I hear this thing about Air America in Sacramento going off the air in two weeks, to change to another friggin ESPN sports now (their station they can do what they want.) Anyway, a local station ch 13 (glad they covered it) went around asking people if they knew what Air America was. Like nobody knew it was there! Nobody knew what it was, or ever even heard of it.
There's the problem. We just can't get the damn word out. It's too bad we couldn't legally hijack the EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM. Put EAS to a real practical use. I have been pretty busy lately, but I want to put up another freeway blog sign. Has anyone done this besides me, I got like zero feedback on this.
anyway . .
I endorsed the Revisions to HR 811.
I sent a email/letter to Doris Matsui.
What about all the others?
(That's just MY state)
Anyone know where we can send out a message to ALL congress at one single time? It's like the government is hidden from the friggin people, unless the really know how to get there and have the technology to do it.
Who's going to tell them if NOBODY can figure it out?!
Things are stacked against us. The Congressman from a different district does NOT want to hear from outside of his own. This is crap. How do the Lobiests do it?
Brad, consider a self standing thread on just
"Essential Revisions to HR 811"
Maybe it's pointless.
Maybe we've lost the United States.
(I hate to say that)
This makes my head hurt.
At least get folks brainstorming on it.
It's too quiet around here!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 1:27 am PT...
I also tracked down the moveon.org feedback form and hit them with a reply about HR 811.
I knew this bill was going to be a nightmare.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 5:55 am PT...
Charlie L #1
Spot on, right on, and well said. As far back as 1988 this article and this report, show that activists and government officials have known precisely of the electronic voting machine issues and dangers.
Yet we are worse off than we were twenty years ago. Maybe because what was warned could happen did happen. That is stolen elections.
One person still certifies the machines no matter how many ITA companies claim to do the certification (The Lone Tester). Super Shawn.
It is time to join the process and propose amendments and submit amendments to the committee in the House. To testify. To work with both parties to get it done.
To do the same thing that has failed for twenty years is not a winning tactic.
And by the way, the House is only the half of it at best. The senate will have to approve of all of it too. So pick the senator and begin a meaningful dialogue.
Shall I suggest the senator and house member to focus on? That is, the relevant committe chair persons? Shall I send them a copy of the report I cited above?
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 6:39 am PT...
Ok, since you asked , here is a link to a place where we can watch it unfold.
The latest is "Referred to the House Committee on House Administration". Here is a link to that committee. The website still has 109th congress info on it and needs to be updated to the 110th. Coming ... hey they are in the early stages of the 110th congress.
BTW that committee and its chairwoman is busy working on the contested elections in Florida at the moment.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 7:08 am PT...
There is another consideration beyond the House bill HR 811 and the Senate bill (S ???), and that is the Supreme Court.
Has it changed from being politically active while at the same time hypocritically demanding "strict constructionism" (which means neoCon ideology)?
Note what one law professor says:
Rather, Rehnquist had a pattern of picking and choosing --- based on not the legal but the political merits --- which statutes he would honor, and which he would deem unconstitutional.
When legislative judgments were consistent with Rehnquist's view of the world (as, for example, with the death penalty), he tended to defer to them. But when Rehnquist's own strongly-held views clashed with legislative enactments (as in the area of states' rights), he showed no hesitation about striking them down.
This inconsistency naturally gives rise to the concern that Rehnquist's legal opinions were driven more by his own policy preferences, than by legal principles. And for those, like Rosen, who want to portray Rehnquist as a guardian of the Court's integrity and virtue, this is an important concern to address. After all, the Court's legitimacy depends, most of all, on the idea that law is different from politics, and that the justices - unelected and life-tenured --- base their opinions on something other than their own personal views.
(Law Professor Lazarus).
As I said above, Charley L in post #1 points out the fruitlessness of a McDonald's type activism that bitches for a few minutes at the beginning of a cycle, then caves in a temper tantrum if the biotch does not get each and everything demanded.
We need a philosophy and activism that will stay the correct course and likewise change course where merited.
There are major enemies of freedom and democracy, proven by decades of corruption as the links in post number 8 above show. Same ole same ole for these past decades.
Now pull up the socks, wipe the snot off the nose, wash the face, and get serious about presenting good, robust, and problem solving amendments to the House and Senate committees doing the legislation.
And don't start out with "Your fucking bill sucks".
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 7:28 am PT...
One virtue of paper ballots that appears to overlooked,
is that it allows people to vote FASTER. A common problem
in previous elections was of waiting in line for hours
because of having too few voting machines, sometimes because
machines broke down. At a voting site, if there are only
2 working machines, only 2 people can vote at one time.
With paper ballots, a DOZEN people or more could vote at
one time. The only limit is physical space, and paper
ballots can't break down. Shorter wait times would translate
into more people being able to vote. The implications of this should be obvious.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2007 @ 8:56 am PT...
This info is so vital. Is there any way you can get this post of yours re HR 811 cross-posted at Rep. Conyers blog ( http://johnconyers.com/blog )! He has been a mighty ally of yours on this election integrity issue and he's outspoken and courageous. Lots of added exposure over there and a sure link to ACTION on the house floor I would think.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2007 @ 6:05 am PT...
I completely agree with post #1 (Charlie L). It is the nature of politicians that they only move on an issue when pushed from the outside. I strongly suggest asking Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) for help with the needed amendments. She is in high House Democratic leadership and I believe has the ear of Speaker Pelosi. She is a forceful advocate, and has been progressive on this issue in the past. She has also publicly apologized for her earlier refusal to believe that the 2004 Presidential election could have been stolen.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2007 @ 11:34 pm PT...
Alright I just removed my endorsement.
Well, I looked at this again. I don't want ANY network
connectivity at all.
Let me make my position clear right now.
No electronics, unless strictly used to help the disabled PRINT a paper
No digitized data, unless strictly used for a backup and not the
No networks, no telco, no lan's or wan's or wireless.
So, I guess yes, remove my endorsement.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/16/2007 @ 11:51 pm PT...
For all we know AT&T could fuck with the TWISTED PAIR for the modem. You don't know.
Plus I want these ELECTRONIC machines that count --- gone 100%.
I make my stand on this. And you know what, if you all want to support Holt's bill with all the reforms, fine, we'll agree to DISAGREE.
I have had it with this shit.
I know physics, electronics, networking.
We already can't vote.
So fuck it.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/17/2007 @ 10:45 pm PT...
There's this notion of a general strike. When your elected representatives decide they don't have to listen to the great unwashed, the great unwashed can shut the motherfcker down. When Bush/Cheney decide they can attack Iran without the okay from us, SHUT IT DOWN. Don't buy anything, don't go to work, or school, JUST SHUT IT DOWN. When the Senate and the House refuses to let us vote the way we want to, SHUT IT DOWN. When you finally get tired of reading angry essays, SHUT IT DOWN. That's the only power we have, that if we're not allowed to be citizens, then we stop being citizens on purpose. There's got to be some way of getting through to these meatheads that business as usual doesn't cut it anymore.