|
|
Login or register: |
|
|
 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Resources: ImageServer Friends: Jon Sullivan Mark Blair |
|
|
|
||||
| ||
| I am part of a vocal but seemingly tiny portion of the US population who still believes that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged. A great many people think some odd things happened in Florida in 2000, but it is my belief that Florida in 2000 was a stepping stone and learning experience, a trial-run if you will for the 2004 election. In 2000 we had a few, very large problems with the voting process. In 2004, we had wide-spread almost ubiquitous voting irregularities: From a greater turn out in many counties than the population in those counties, to the vast almost statistically impossible difference between exit polls and results to suppression of voters in more ways than can be counted to the explosion of the use of closed electronic voting machines manufactured by companies with strong political ties. The corruption in 2004 was so wide spread that calling it anything but a massive criminal conspiracy would be way off the mark. So what can we do? I have been asked this many times. I've asked this myself of my friends and colleagues. There are numerous ways to approach each of the above problems. I encourage everyone, everyone, on both sides of our two-party system to work as hard as possible to ensure every willing voter can vote, and every open mind is informed. The effect of local, grass-roots efforts cannot be overstated. I support the Black Box Voting.org group, and their work to bring truth and security to electronic voting machines. We can also work at the federal level. Senators Boxer, Clinton and others have proposed a new act, the "Count Every Vote Act of 2005". This act works to ensure fairness in electronic voting machines by mandating open source code, paper reciepts and public certification. It also works to provide fairness to everyone, including the disabled. Please, read the text of the act, and if you agree with it's content, contact your senators and congressmen. Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer have both put on-line their support of this bill. Please, everyone in this country needs to work to the best of their ability to protect our rights and freedoms from enemies both foreign and domestic, no matter how much those enemies might wave the flag and talk about preserving freedom and morality. Watch their hands, not their lips. | ||
|
Comments: Rocko (2005-03-12): I don't think I ahgree with you about anything. At all. Just saying. Erik (2005-03-12): You don't need to agree with my motivations for supporting this act. Read it yourself. Do you think it a bad idea to implement tighter controls on voting machines? Do you think it a bad idea to reduce voter frustrations? Why not support this bill? Even if there is no fraud or misconduct whatsoever, this act would only lend greater credibility to election outcomes! anonymous (2005-03-21): This act will not give elections more credibility, it will be the opposite. It will encourage illegal aliens to vote, multipul illegal votes. Hell you will be able to drive across whatever state you live in(the state of denial i have to assume from your above post)and vote from sun=up till sun-down.Just remember that if the dum-o-craps can vote multi times so can I! Erik (2005-03-21): Two questions: 1. Exactly how will this bill encourage or allow illegal aliens to vote, or anyone to vote multiple times? 2. How do you rationalize your superiority over the "dum-o-craps" when you have just announced your willingness to subvert the voting system by voting multiple times? Josh (2005-04-05): Erik, in regards point one, I think what the poster might referring to was Section 201(a)(1): "The determination of eligibility shall be made without regard to the location at which the voter cast the provisional ballot and without regard to any requirement to present identification to any election official." Erik (2005-04-12): Josh, thanks for pointing this out. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what the current law is regarding presenting identification, but I know I have never had to show ID, I just sign in a book next to my name and address. Certainly the security of the process could be improved, but I don't see even the above making things worse. anonymous (2005-04-13): Nor am I a lawyer. But, by allowing people to register to vote on Election Day and vote, and then to �have that vote counted in the same manner as a vote cast by an eligible voter who properly registered during the regular registration period� would defeat its purpose to "count every vote." In other worlds, it would effectively give officials zero time to determine whether an applicant was in fact eligible to vote or not. I've never been asked for my ID either, but the bill would require polling-officials to �accept and process a voter registration application for an election for federal office unless there is a material omission or information that specifically affects the eligibility of a voter.� It goes on to say that a failure to provide a Social Security number, driver's license number, or proof of citizenship cannot constitute a "material omission." It�s not understood what _would_ constitute a "material omission," however, it would allow anybody who is not registered, who is not a citizen, and who doesn�t have any identification to show up at the polls to register and vote. All the while, I _do_ have to show ID to rent a car, a movie, or get a library card. I'm not particularly opposed to same-day-registration, but what this bill stipulates would make it absurd. I agree voting standards need to be changed, but this bill would make it practically impossible to "count every vote." Josh (2005-04-13): sorry that last post was me... Erik (2005-04-13): Would a lack of registration constitute a "material omission"? If so, then at least it wouldn't be worse. If absolutely no identification or correlation to registration records would be required, then there really would be no stopping multiple votes, which I doubt is the case, even a "dum-o-crap" as Mr. anonymous puts it, would not write a bill like that. In fact, as I read it, the act amends current law, which does require registration, so this would not countermand that stipulation. quixote (2005-08-08): Sheesh. Sometimes I think that there's no hope for this (formerly) great land. If people can quibble that's it's a bad idea to count every vote, we're not in a democracy anymore. Anyway, I didn't even know about this bill, so thanks for the info! permalink |
