Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 5-17-07: You have 2 weeks to restore... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6263
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 9 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 4:55 pm: | 
|
By Paul Lehto
In the land of the free, and the home of the brave ... Congressional intent to eliminate "We the People" from our own elections -- Congressional failure to secure and guarantee basic rights to all Americans
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them . . ." —Patrick Henry
"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death." ---Patrick Henry
WILL AMERICANS ALLOW LIBERTY TO BE WRESTED FROM THEM WITHOUT A STRUGGLE?
A bipartisan Congress will, in the next few days, attempt to violate your #1 Inalienable Right. Having talked to many folks, I've not yet found an American who says this warning is not well taken. Although each person I've talked to understands they're being cheated by this, they just tend to think that other Americans won't listen, or think Americans too busy to preserve their own most basic rights.
Are Americans, in fact, too lazy or stupid to defend their own freedoms anymore? Some say that a few words about their own history will bore them to giving up their republic without so much as a fight, especially with an election law attorney writing like this as if he's Paul Revere. Will cynicism mean that Americans give up the fight for their rights on their own soil?
Nowadays, some say American attention spans are so short that they won't be able to finish an essay like this of just a few pages, even when told that Abe Lincoln's "government of the People, by the People and for the People" depends on it. I'm told regularly to use extremely few words, give a quick action request at the end, so that Americans can go back to their slumbers.
But I don't believe the pessimists. I choose to address all of those who read this as concerned citizens, instead of addled consumers. I believe that Americans respond when they know what's at stake. The USA did not become the world's richest country and sole military superpower for no reason. They will read a few more paragraphs of context that help explain why this is so important, before it's time to prove why your #1 Inalienable Right must be defended.
Americans by and large remember the sacrifices of citizens and soldiers over the generations -- millions of them who worked, fought, and died for the dream of American democracy – and they will not allow democracy to slip away during our generation -- on our watch -- if they understand clearly what's at stake.
WALKING THE WALK
So, to be clear, please let me explain. As an offer of my own seriousness about this, let me simply say I don't particularly need this fight: I've been in the hospital several times in the last year for as long as a week, and though medical bills and devotion to this cause have emptied the savings, and although fatigue follows me daily, and with two young children to worry about, I am nevertheless convinced of the need to give this my all.
After having sought the counsel of some fellow citizens and lovers of democracy, and short of funds and energy for renewing my license anyway, I've let my attorney license expire as a form of resignation as a lawyer, I will not have clients any more – other than American Democracy. I feel that what I've learned about elections I can not ration and sell at $200 an hour, when as many as possible need to know some things, and soon.
In reaching this decision, I realized that the principles of our representative democracy are actually more important than life itself.
Otherwise, if this were not the case, how would you convince a man or woman to sacrifice their life for this principle of democratic self-government? By what other persuasion would we send our young to the front lines of war other than with some version of Patrick Henry's famous patriotic challenge:
"Give me Liberty, or Give Me Death?"
Americans believe that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
NEEDED: A FEW MORE SENTINELS OF DEMOCRACY
But on our watch, there haven't been quite enough sentinels of democracy, there have been too few watchdogs of our Constitutional and Inalienable Rights: those Rights we're endowed with by our Creator under the Declaration of Independence. That Declaration of Independence, and those American men and women took on a King and the world's mightiest military – they dared greatly. The wanted to remake the history of the world in favor of the principles of self-government. A revolution of perspective would, they believed, restore this continent to a state of Nature, with free and equal citizens joining in communities to protect their individual rights and the commonwealth.
AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON IDEALS
Today, historians write that we were the first nation founded on ideals – like "no taxation without representation," like "legitimate political power comes only from the people" via free and fair elections establishing the consent of the governed, and that laws in derogation of the natural rights of the People are Void and without effect.
On the purpose of government, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "governments are instituted to secure [our] rights." Thus from that day in 1776 forward, we would have "Government Servants" or "public servants," with the People as the Master of the government, and not the other way around. With the right to vote for representatives and others, the People would never again be slaves to Tyranny or governmental abuse of power.
Consequently, under the Declaration of Independence, the People have the Inalienable right to "alter or abolish" their Government servants if they no longer serve them well. Today, we sometimes refer to this as the right to "kick the bums out." The very recognition of "inalienable" rights present at birth were an example and precedent for the whole world because, for the first time in European historical memory, the individual human being was an independent source of power and rights, just by virtue of being born. In these notions, the Founders learned from both John Locke, and perhaps even more from the advanced civilization of the Iroquois, with its three branch form of government. We all remember that humans are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty, and … though the last word was originally "property," the Founders changed the word "property" in that phrase to the more familiar "pursuit of happiness."
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT "GRANT" RIGHTS -- IT'S PURPOSE IS TO GUARANTEE THEM
The emergence of the "pursuit of happiness' in place of property emphasizes that Liberty is ultimately more important than Property. The real core of the American Revolution, the new idea with which the Founders wanted to "begin the world anew" was specifically that a government does not Grant rights (nor does it possess any rights); rather, as a servant of the people, the purpose of government is to Guarantee the rights of the people.
Pledged irrevocably to these ideals, the signers of the Declaration pledged and lost their Lives or their Fortunes, but they still retain their Honor today. By intentionally enslaving the Government as servant of the public's rights and happiness, the energies of a whole nation of individuals of diverse races, colors and creeds were unleashed to maximize their potential. As a result, Freedom, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, arises when a government of limited powers, working in trust, guarantees the individual rights of all citizens, thus unleashing the maximum potential of each person.
INSISTING THAT OUR COUNTRY LIVE UP TO ITS IDEALS
At the Seneca Falls Declaration of Rights in 1848 that launched women's suffrage movement, and again in Washington DC in Martin Luther King's civil rights speech "I Have a Dream" speech, the history of American can largely be told as a process of women and minorities and their families and supporters insisting that our country live up to its ideals, that it make good on the promises of the Declaration for everyone. Though heroes like Susan B. Anthony worked their whole lives without seeing a ballot in their hands, their vision and their engines of progress forced the American Dream to grow. They insisted that the country make real its ideals, and they made it so. As many state constitutions and the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights state, frequently recurring to fundamental principles is necessary to the preservation of Liberty and free government.
Today, we are faced with a choice of recurring to our own principles of Freedom and Democracy, or letting democracy die. Whenever we do not regularly bring to the fore these principles, they are eroded, chipped away, violated and harmed – just by the very process of not being considered because they are not at the negotiation table.
Though popular, Freedom is always at risk of intentional harm from people who think they have a better idea about how to live our lives or run our country than ordinary Americans do. Some of them are so convinced they will happily force you to go along for your own good. But freedom is only free if you are safe being unpopular.
NOT EVERYONE WISHES TO PUT THEIR FATE INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE
Our representative democracy is always at risk of harm or manipulation because the passions of the day or the business interests at issue don't wish to leave their fates to a majority vote sometimes any more than you or I would like to have a spouse chosen for us by majority vote. Power is endlessly addictive to humans, once some government officials taste it, they don't want to stop and may try to stay in office by crooked means. Those of us on the internet often inform just our like-minded friends about internet polls in order to get them to help vote up our side of the issue. But this one-sided get-out-the-vote effort on our part makes the internet poll even less scientific or accurate than it was in the beginning, and because of this distortion it's the moral equivalent of stuffing the ballot box. Now, given that we all try to stuff the ballot box for fun in these internet polls, imagine a real election where the stakes are just a little higher: like for example control of the world's richest country and sole military superpower up for grabs in a presidential election. Ever heard of the name President RutherFraud B. Hayes? That name was quite popular back in the late 1800s. Around that time, there was so much violence, intimidation, bribery and pressuring at and around the polls that the secret ballot came along as an innovation to reduce the intimidation and fraud.
But the secret ballot did not make all the pressure on elections go completely away. It just moved location and changed tactics.
So now at last, we are left at the point of seeing where we are losing our most sacred democratic rights. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is one channel of political legitimacy and that's the elections. Everyone who votes takes a side and is biased. Many political issues have both sides believing that great injustice will occur if they lose an election. Most especially, because the government relies on elections for 100% of its power, money and legitimacy, it has a huge conflict of interest and can not administer elections without a check and balance from the public.
NOWADAYS WE, THE PEOPLE, CAN'T COUNT AND CAN'T WATCH THE COUNTING
But We the People have been eliminated from a meaningful role in elections, because nobody counts and nobody can watch the counting of the vote on the new electronic machines. After well over a century of successfully hand counting paper ballots under the supervision of the public and the parties, and although the number of workers it takes per thousand hand counted ballots has essentially not changed, we've grown fond of the wonders of computer and grown tired of Election Night labors for democracy. Various types of computers have come in to take up the slack, both optical scanners using paper ballots originally, and touch screen computers, counting well over 80% of our ballots in complete invisibility and secrecy.
We the People are no longer able to keep our eyes on, or supervise, our own elections. We've been eliminated from elections by "modernization." The "modern" computers are amoral slaves that do whatever they are told to do without regard to law or democratic ethics. Their electronic hard drives operate invisibly. They might offer some convenience, but they also make us stand in line to wait for machines, and richer counties have shorter lines than poorer counties. As might be expected given the nature of computers, numerous studies establish that one person with access to one results disk for about one minute can place a virus that can alter an entire county's election results, or alter an entire state's election results. Though elections have always been under pressure because of their stakes, this increases enormously the amount of cheating one person can do, how quickly they can do it, and how easily they can erase the evidence of what they did.
YOUR VOTE HAS AN SDD -- SOFTWARE DRIVEN DEVICE
It gets even worse. The software that counts is the only thing that knows the true count, even the officials have no idea if the scanner or touch screen numbers are correct, barring the rare, expensive and (in Bush v. Gore 2000) terminable hand recount. We've been taught to be frustrated with the hanging chad to embrace the computer, claiming the chad is paper, but in fact it is a punch card, and every punch card ever made was for a computerized process of counting.
COMPUTERIZED VOTING: YOU CAN KICK OUT THE HONEST POLITICIANS, JUST NOT THE CROOKS
WARNING: With computerized voting, your inalienable right to kick the bums out, or your inalienable right to alter or abolish your government through elections, doesn't exist. It is not secured for you by your government. They are not guaranteeing this right for you. In fact any corrupt election insider could, for money, partisanship, pressure, threat or in the belief of doing a great justice to the whole Nation, alter the election results undetectably, erasing the steps along the way. As long as the total number of votes match up roughly, and one doesn't cheat more than say 20 percentage points, a whole industry of political pundits will chalk up the surprise victory to the last minute attack ad, or great get out the vote campaign, or a problem with the "loser's" platform, the weather, or any of dozens of other colorable excuses.
In short, with computerized voting by optical scanner or touch screen, your vote is simply whatever the invisible computer instructions say it is, computers can be programmed many months in advance, and instructing the computer to wait til election night poll closing before changing votes will defeat every test that ever happens, which are all with small amounts of votes anyway. With a computer, it is really irrelevant what it does in a testing period the day before or the day after, it matters only what the computers in the real election (and we all know which ones they are) are actually instructed to do, on Election Day and election conditions.
This means that you do still have the right to kick out an honest politician, you just don't have the right to kick out a crooked politician. But of course, that's precisely when the inalienable right to kick the bums out is most needed: with a no good cheating bum.
Some folks in our government are accidentally or purposefully not checking in with or recurring to our fundamental principles frequently, as needed to preserve liberty and free government. If they did, they would recall that our Founders taught us that power corrupts, they would not ask us for trust. They would recall the America is about checks and balances, a form of distrust, and not about trust. If they checked in with the Declaration of Independence, they would in the second paragraph realize that governments are instituted to secure us our rights. In order to SECURE the right to kick the crooked bums out as needed, our elections must be secured FROM the government. Our elections must be beyond the possible or ready manipulation of the government. If you are not serious about your rights or your freedoms, you don't need to take this seriously. But if you are serious about preserving American rights and American freedoms, most especially the freedom to get rid of any crooks, you had best cast a suspicious and jealous eye on the Public Liberty of elections. Be a sentinel of democracy, don't let democracy wither on your watch.
ADHERING TO PRINCIPLES MEANS OUR ELECTIONS MUST BE PUBLICLY CONTROLLED
President McKinley said that Americans agree on principles, they disagree on politics or the application of principles. The principles outlined here for the protection of freedom and democracy are our Nation's most sacred. They are revered by Americans. An August 2006 Zogby poll I paid for with help from Nancy Tobi of New Hampshire and Michael Collins of electionfraudnews.com established that an incredible 92% of Americans supported a vote counting system where vote counting is observable by the public and the public can obtain information about vote counting. http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1163 This is one of the highest political values ever measured in polls, yet the 90% secret vote counting that is taking place in America shows how incredibly out of touch our government, of both parties, is with every demographic group in America.
The only kind of voting system that is compatible with your inalienable rights and mine is one the public can watch like a hawk, and one that the public controls, and that it can observe. Given it is the duty of government to secure and guarantee our rights, specifically including the right to kick them out, elections have no choice but to be publicly controlled.
Those are the principles. Now for the politics that get a little debatable with some people. Essentially in the only system that provides for public control and observable elections is known as precinct counted hand counted paper ballots. Simply put, this system is running unopposed in the democracy race. We do not have a choice of much completely different systems. The ability to peacefully preserve freedom and democracy through elections is far too valuable for any objection to it to have weight.
WHY YOUR CONGRESSMAN NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU PERSONALLY TO STOP THE NEW SECRECY REQUIREMENTS
But the Congress won't listen. Neither party listens to the needs of democracy, so they must hear from YOU the citizens. On May 6, 2007 the House Administration Committee reported out a modified bill called HR 811, also known as the Holt bill. In that bill's markup in committee, it got better and it got worse in various particulars, if you follow the debate. One way in which it got much worse is that instead of source code for the computer that would be given away for any citizen's inspection, they committee put in language that made the source code a government-recognized trade secret, available only to "qualified" experts, and then only if a strict nondisclosure agreement is signed that incorporates trade secrecy laws of the states, which almost always contain harsh punitive damages and attorneys fees clauses for violating the secrecy.
This language is particularly ominous. I know of no time before that an American legislative body has ever tried to pass law to reinforce secret vote counting. Of course, having a copy of the source code does not tell us if that code is the same as what's used on election day, nor does it tell us what the actual voting computers are asked to do on election day. It would be, of course, illegal for the software to differ, but it is readily possible to conceal a double Trojan Horse, for example, such that it is highly resistant to being found. It is not possible to verify that a piece of software remains unchanged, if it were, the problem of viruses would be solved since each program could self-verify whether or not it had been changed. As stated in the classic computer paper "Reflections on Trusting Trust" the only code you can trust is the code you wrote yourself and know nobody else has accessed.
As a consequence of all of the above, while computers have many wonderful uses, they are not compatible with democracy.
CONGRESS NOW CLAIMS TO BE THE JUDGE OF ITS OWN ELECTIONS
On the same infamous day of May 6, 2007, the House Administration committee did more than just insert language that would give a specific statutory "anchor" or claimed basis in law for secret vote counting. On that day they also dismissed, without allowing discovery via the Congress or hearing any evidence in the Congress, 4 Congressional election contests.
Three were in Florida and one in Louisiana. A remaining fifth contest in Florida's 13thCongressional District was not dismissed but already has a state court ruling holding that "trade secrecy" overcame the need to investigate the truth in that Congressional election. In another, Florida's 24th, candidate Clint Curtis collected many hundreds of affidavits showing his official results were underreported by 12% to 24%. The House Administration Committee ignored and refused to hear this evidence, dismissing this and 3 other contests without any discovery of facts or any evidentiary consideration.
Pursuant to a self-serving law called the Federal Election Contest Act, the Congress claims to be the judge of its own elections!Thus, in one case that I personally litigated near San Diego California, in a June 6, 2006 special election for Congress, one of the candidates, Brian Bilbray, was sworn in only 7 days later, on June 13, 2006. The June 13 Congressional Record recites that there were 68,500 uncounted votes on the very first count! This was considered a bellwether for the November 2006 congressional races, and Francine Busby led in all of the pre-election polls except one controversial one right before the election, where it's claimed she made a gaffe. But regardless, the Congressional Record admits the results were unofficial, there were 68,500 uncounted votes in a race with a margin of less than 5000 votes, and it was weeks prior to the earliest date anyone can file an election contest or a recount request. But the Congressional Record states there are no "known" disputes or contests. Mr. Bilbray, a former Congressman known to many of the members, was sworn in.
Subsequently, when two lady citizens sued to contest the election, Mr. Bilbray claimed that no state or federal court had any jurisdiction since only the Congress had an exclusive jurisdiction thanks to his premature swearing in. He cited Art. I, sec. 5 of the Constitution for the idea that the House could not be second guessed after an unconditional swearing. This insult to democracy and the people of the 50th District was made worse. For having the audacity to question Mr. Bilbray's election termination maneuver, Bilbray countersued with a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) counterclaim for damages and attorney fees, a suit usually brought by the little guy against the big corporation. Plaintiffs Jacobson and Ritt never asked for money, they simply wanted their rights and their votes counted. But even for that privilege, the election officials jacked the recount price up about 7 times higher than similar races, for an estimated cost of $150,000. That's one expensive personal right to vote.
THE DEVIL'S IN THE DEADLINES
Our government "servants" while often noble in motivation, are also too frequently lazy or corrupt. Few know, since it was only reported in local Ohio news, that convictions have been obtained for rigging the 2004 presidential recount for Bush and Kerry, requested by the Libertarian and Green parties. As shown by two felony convictions for rigging the Presidential recount in 2004 in Cuyahoga county Ohio show, partisanship is by no means the only motive that distorts elections. In cases like the inflated recount price tag above, government officials are very uninterested in having their first "official" counts made to look bad (they're human), and they are also very uninterested in working through Thanksgiving (one of the motives in Ohio's presidential recount rigging convictions). In a nutshell, recounts and audits are so hazardous because they have many legal hurdles and take place after the election, when lots of pressure is put on the "sore loser" to concede. This means that only the first count really matters, and certainly the first count controls headlines, and swearing-ins.
The presidential election, in particular, has a special time limit of December 13 that came into play with Bush v. Gore that makes post-election "remedies" very unreliable. But, it is very gravely concerning that the first counts are secret. Literally only the hacker or rigger knows what the true count is. The greatly enhanced ability to cheat means we have reached more than just a dangerous time for democracy. With no basis for confidence in election results because indeed we have no evidence at all of the counts, we are forced to take the elections purely on trust instead of evaluating the evidence and the checks and balances.
A CRIME AGAINST DEMOCRACY: ELIMINATING THE PEOPLE FROM CONTROL OF ELECTIONS
Publicly controlled elections must be restored immediately, based on considerations of the values of democracy. If we only consider non-democratic values like convenience, we'll end up with a non-democratic system. Harry Truman laid it out straight: If you want just efficiency, you'll get a dictatorship. The most likely route to a loss of freedom comes when realizing that a successful election criminal gets to be an election official or set election policy. What if a bank robber got to be bank president and set bank vault policy? Thus, when protective of liberty and looking for suspect election criminals, look in office.
In contrast, the longtime values of democracy are openness, inclusion, equality of one person one vote, consent of the governed, and the rights of the people to alter or abolish their government. These and related values are the ones we should frequently refer to, use as compass guides to keep us pointing in the right direction. Even if we don't achieve our ideal destination, we are lost indeed if we can not orient ourselves in the direction of progress.
The congressional election contests unfairly dismissed, the California election contest prematurely terminated by swearing in, and the problem of secret vote counting on electronics share a common theme: It is not possible to run democratic elections without a major role by We the People, and the government has too many conflicts and partisanships to do the job of auditing itself, investigating itself, or potentially undermining a fellow Member in Congress.
The necessity of a role for We the People in controlling elections should not surprise us, we are after all the master, the government the servant. In the Judiciary branch, for example, We the People still walk in to the jury box and judge innocence and guilt, life and death, liability and non-liability.
But our elimination from our proper role controlling elections? This is a crime against democracy. We need to remember who we are as Americans, and act soon to tell the House and the Senate in DC and in our state houses, that we will not stand for secret vote counting, that they most definitely will not pass laws purporting to authorize or legalize that even indirectly, that it is a shame of immense proportions for them to vote for secret counting of votes in their own re-election races, by simply amending the Help America Vote Act with HR 811 without abolishing secret vote counting. That this huge conflict of interest, voting on their own re-elections, ought to sensitize Congress to a great need to act against its own perceived interests, and that politicians who love representative democracy and their own constituents surely ought to be competing with each other to see who can restore more power to the people in elections than the other guy.
Because if they don't, if they keep the secret counting easily manipulated by insiders and their cavalier attitudes toward election contests, our #1 inalienable right to kick crooked bums out will remain violated and denied by our own government. Denying We the People the steering wheel of elections keeps our government "stuck on stupid" and out of touch with the public, unable to obey the public will. Without elections, featuring voting as the right that controls all other rights, it is we who are the slaves, and not the government.
This, if it remains, is a revolution against democracy. It is un-American. It must change by all means necessary.
FIRST, SECURE OUR RIGHTS. ARGUE ABOUT POLITICS LATER.
The Star Spangled Banner always ends with a question:
"O Say Does that Star Spangled Banner Yet Wave,
"O'er the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave?"
A land of free and brave people will not fight amongst themselves on partisan elections results, they will first secure their most important inalienable rights. A land of free and brave patriots will never again let their elections get out of their sight, or out of control.
So if you feel as I feel, if you wish as I wish, that America will never become a banana republic with an out of control government, then talk to your fellow rulers, your fellow citizens, spread the word far and wide, and make the US House, the US Senate, and your state legislatures here Freedom's bell, so they know what it sounds like. We are not the Slaves, we are in charge. We are watching. We demand control of our elections. We will not give up. Democracy and Freedom both depend on that.
* * * * *
http://www.psephos-us.org
Paul Lehto practiced law as an Everett, Washington business law and consumer fraud attorney. He served on the Washington State Board of Governors and by appointment eight lawyers with regulatory authority over what WA continuing legal education. He was voted a Rising Star in both 2003 and 2004 and nominated as a Washington SuperLawyer by Washington Law and Politics magazine. Prior to graduating with honors from Seattle University School of Law, Paul worked for a state senator in Michigan and managed several counties as a field organizer for the senator's Congressional campaign. Paul served as one of the so-called army of 17,000 lawyers on election day 2004, which eventually led to the publication of a well received paper on evidence of election irregularities in Snohomish County Washington. Paul was lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Snohomish County and Sequoia to eject electronic voting machines with their secret vote counting from the elections in Snohomish County, represented by another member of the Board of governors, Randy Gordon. He is helping to lead a national wave of lawsuits using legal theories similar to the Snohomish lawsuit. Paul is co-counsel on the CA50 lawsuit which has just been appealed to the California Supreme Court. Lehto co-founded Psephos, focusing on restoring democracy to this country.
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6264
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 5:12 pm: |
|
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and bolld, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
-- Samuel Adams |
Russell Novkov
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rnovkov
Post Number: 188
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 8:08 pm: |
|
We need to defend our liberties and the constitution.
Russell J. Novkov
|
Paul Lehto
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Paul_lehto
Post Number: 22
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Thank you Bev, and Russell, for your pithy and powerful comments. Russell, especially for simply affirming what it is that must be done not only now, but always: defend our liberties and the constitution. As Ben Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention: "It's a republic [i.e. a representative democracy] if you can keep it!" }\i
When should we act to forward this to fellow citizens along with a request to consider seriously that their rights are worth 15 minutes of their attention at this critical junction? NOW. (Not on Our Watch)
When should be give direct commands to REPRESENTATIVES to terminate secret vote counting and stop voting themselves secret elections if they want to be able to show their face in the district? NOW. (Not on Our Watch)
Let them all "hear Freedom's bell, so they know what it sounds like. We are not the Slaves, we are in charge. We are watching. We demand control of our elections. We will not give up. Democracy and Freedom both depend on that."
Because if we don't each of us individually make this clear (we will not always hear each other, but the offices will), and if we don't individually realize that the 92% Zogby poll and the core of American rights means it is extremely safe to be visible on this issue and to talk to even strangers on this issue, then we've not been a good watchdog of our own liberties.
Paine said that those who wish to enjoy Liberty must "like men, suffer the fatigues of supporting it." He meant not to be sexist per se, but to mock those who would not work for their own freedom and liberty.
If we don't work for this now and make it an eternal vigilance again, it is more and more arguable that we are not fit to be free.
As soon as we each raise our voices against secret vote counting, that proves it is the politicians who are the stupid ones, thinking they can vote themselves secret vote counts by fellow incumbent politicians and that we won't notice. But until then, we're the suckers who are having our most precious rights stolen from us, and acting like nothing's up.}} |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Paul,
There is no federally given right to vote, to count votes, or to watch votes being counted.
In fact, any federal jurisdiction over anything electoral, other than the Congress' power to be the Judge of its own elections, which is over 200 years old, not recent, is a recent and novel idea.
Ironic, isn't it? What you have found novel is as old as the Republic, and what you find core (the right to count votes or observe same) is not even a federal matter at all.
You seek to create something that does not exist - a "national" election.
States, my good man, states.
The call to arms is meaningless at a federal level, and the best response to Holt is its complete and utter unconstitutionality.
And besides Paul, one of the key precepts of a Republic is that the people decide nothing other than who the deciders will be.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 18, 2007) |
Alan Brau
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 121
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:03 pm: |
|
"In a nutshell, recounts and audits are so hazardous because they have many legal hurdles and take place after the election, when lots of pressure is put on the "sore loser" to concede. This means that only the first count really matters, and certainly the first count controls headlines, and swearing-ins."
This is the reason that DRE's must be banned. Regardless of provisions for recounts and auditing in HR 811, we all know that the first result is the only one that counts.
Paul, as always your words inspire patriotism and fill me with a sense of purpose. Thank you for suspending your law career for this noble pursuit. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Alan,
You're a Pennsylvanian, so I've got to tell you directly that Paul has it wrong for us. The first count (Tuesday night's) means absolutely nothing in our state. The one that started today at 9:00AM in your Board of Elections meeting room is the only one that counts because it is the only count that will ever be done. Are you there watching it? It will likely continue through all of next week.
You should also know, as Paul Lehto should but apparently doesn't, that concesions have no legal weight, and are nothing but a quaint anachronism and tradition. A conceded election is still won by the conceding candidate if it is later found that the early returns were in error.
In our state, until a Certificate of Election is issued by the State or County government, and the signed and sealed (embossed) returns are certified, no election is decided.
The two exceptions are for U.S. Congress and Senate, where the Secretary of the Commonwealth sends a returns report to the Clerk of the relevant house, who issues whatever certificates are required.
Mr. Lehto apparently thinks this is something new. I assure you it goes back centuries.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 18, 2007) |
Alan Brau
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 122
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Kurt,
Please explain Sarasota (FL-13) and the other contested elections where the re-count never seems to happen. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Alan,
The book has not been closed on FL-13....yet.
It is being handled where all such contests in history have been; in the Congress, following their established procedures.
Don't hold your breath for a Congressional recount ever in the Keystone State. There is no provision in law for it at all. Any question goes to the relevant house of Congress, as the original Constitution requires. Nothing new.
Here's an interesting tidbit, though. We now have a recount law (Act 150 of 2002, I think) that provides for a recount of statewide races, which presumably includes U.S. Senate. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a close Senate recount were not finished by the date the Congress convenes.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 18, 2007) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 4:24 am: |
|
Actually, on edit, that recount law is NOT Act 150 of 2002, but Act 98 of 2004, I now believe. Just wanted to clean that up. Act 150 was PA's HAVA implementation law, and the recount law was definately done in late summer of 2004. |
Alan Brau
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alan_brau
Post Number: 123
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 10:15 am: |
|
Kurt,
The point is that the initial vote carries by far the greatest weight. CA-50 (Busby vs. Bilbray) and four recent contested congressional elections which have been dismissed by Congress, without any investigation, speak to this problem. Momentum/efficiency/expediency seem to be the factors which determine acceptance of election results (I am excluding the courts, who rarely are involved except for SCOTUS in 2000).
I would like you to concede that in the current political context, in nearly every case, the initial result is upheld. Appeals have failed almost uniformly. It is difficult, if not impossible, to overturn the initial result, even if there is evidence of machine malfunction, human error or illogical results. If you disagree with this point, please give me all examples for the last 6 years where a challenge has been successful. If you suggest that the reason that challenges have been unsuccessful is that the machines have been accurate in the first counting of the votes, I suggest that you take a gander at the numerous irregularities described here at BBV. I doubt that you could say "election results are upheld because the DRE's get them right every time" with a straight face. You are a former elections official, however, and I will not underestimate your ability to say anything with a straight face. 
I agree that the appeals process (recounting the vote in an independently verifiable way if the results are contested) must be legislated. I would not assume that the legislation itself, without meaningful enforcement, will change anything. |
Paul Lehto
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Paul_lehto
Post Number: 23
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 12:11 am: |
|
Kurt you are quite wrong with some strong statements you are making.
First of all, your whole approach is completely backward when you speak of "federal" "granting" of various rights. The entire notion America was founded on is that governments are "instituted to secure these rights" (see para. 2 Decl. Independence). They are not rights-GRANTORS in the voting context, the American government does not grant rights, rather we are born with them endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... one of these is to "alter or abolish" the government, which is via elections or in the manner of 1776.
So first of all, I'm wondering where do you get your information? I know you are an election official, but I am surprised by the confidence with which you make inaccurate statements. Can you give case citations or something?
First of all, you state there is "no federally given right to vote." Wrong. Because it is read into the "fundamental rights' jurisprudence under the US COnstitution, THERE IS a federal constitutional right to vote. (you can read the Constitution and you won't find it, but it has been recognized by Courts in this method for a long long time.) Moreover, for president, once the legislature chooses to pick electoral college members by popular vote as all states have for a long time, then there is a right to vote for president which attaches and is protected by the US Constitution. (Prior to that, there would be no right to vote for President as stated in Bush V. Gore but only because the legislatures could choose their electors directly)
SECOND, you state "there is no federally given ... right to count votes..." It's unclear what you mean by this.
Third you state "there is no federally given ... right to watch votes being counted." There is a section of the Voting Rights Act that establishes some authority for that. But more importantly under fundamental rights jurisprudence and because Constitutional circumstances at the time of adoption would be read into the general principles of the constitution itself, clearly the expectation of the Framers was that vote counting was a public event. Thus, that would be part of the Framers' basic expectations and would direct what rights structurally go along with the Constitution.
We have federal constitutional rights of interstate travel and to move from state to state. You'll never find that in the express words, nor will you find a right of privacy, but the Justices have found these to relate to assumptions so basic that they were no-brainers in 1789, like the fact that the states were NOT forming separate countries by unified states, it is implied that they may not put up fences and border guards and that US Citizens may freely move from state to state.
On one other occasion, Mr. Bellman, I recall that you made broad sweeping and inaccurate claims about the law, and I gave you a state Supreme Court case Waters V. Gnemi and you had to stand corrected though you suggested it unusual. Here again, you seem to take delight of some sort in repeatedly claiming I'm wrong.
I'm starting to get tired of this, though other folks surely contribute to my sense of fatigue, so I'm about to issue you the same challenge that sent somebody else running away today: Would you like to bet a thousand dollars on your statement, for example, that there is no federal right to vote?
One thing I already miss about litigation is the ability to take BSers to trial, and get to the truth. Is there some mechanism you could think of Mr. Bellman, so that the truth could be reliably ascertained and the misstater of facts held responsible in some way?
States, states, states. Yes states run elections both state and federal under Art. I, sec 4, and I filed a brief on that just a few weeks ago in the Calif Supreme Court. Congress can displace "such regulations" under Art. I, sec 5 if it passes statutes that specifically preempt state regulations. So with regard to federal elections, we have a hybrid where federal law applies in some areas, state law in others.
You are confused about Art. I, sec 4 and 5 as well.
Here you can see on page 27 I believe that Jacobson v. Bilbray was recognized as significant litigation regarding democracy for the 2006 federal elections by international election monitors. http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2007/03/23567_en.pdf
I have to wonder Mr. Bellman, what kind of person can read the above essay, and come up with the kind of misstatements that you make as a basis for ignoring the whole essay? |
Paul Lehto
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Paul_lehto
Post Number: 24
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 12:16 am: |
|
Mr. Bellman, I have an idea. Since i've no connection to blackboxvoting.org as an officer or anything like that, How about if you pay $50 as a donation to BBV for each inaccurate statement you just made? I'll stand behind my words if you stand behind yours. |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 38
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 12:42 am: |
|
But Paul... you're BBV Action Crew!
It says so right here... ;)
"Common Errors of Election Integrity Activists #2"
... soon to be a major motion picture... |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3833
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 2:09 am: |
|
Udar--you're probably just kidding re: "BBV Action Crew" but in case you're not--
Those tags are stuck on by the forum software package. They are not an indicator of affiliation with BBV or of any BBV-related level of permissions or authority. The forum software sticks these labels on, using various labels according to the number of posts a person has made. It's meaningless (though admittedly misleading to people who don't realize this).
I wish those labels could be replaced by something less misleading--
e.g.,
Forum Participant
Regular Forum Participant
Frequent Forum Participant |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3834
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 2:18 am: |
|
Paul,
Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. Maybe we need to cut and paste excerpts from this whenever someone makes inaccurate statements regarding voting rights. It's impossible for someone to respond to such statements without a background in case law.
Where Kurt mentioned no right to count the votes, maybe he meant no right for the public to personally count the votes. If this is what he meant, would this be an accurate statement? (How broadly is "public count" interpreted? Observable by the public? Do-able by the public?)
Bev, this kind of material needs to be someplace where it can be easily accessed and referred to. (E.g., Voting Rights - Legal - Federal)
Is there any chance that PA courts have held to a particular interpretation on which Kurt bases his statements? If so, have the PA interpretations been challenged up to SCOTUS? (Maybe PA interpretations are mistaken, but no one has bothered to challenge them?) |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 39
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 2:18 am: |
|
Catherine,
... soon to be a major motion picture starring Anthony Hopkins and the subject of yet another lengthy treatise by an errant zapkitty...  |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 8:24 am: |
|
Paul, Catherine,
Here's the problem. Better legal minds than mine OR yours have declared the complete absence of a federal right to vote - namely Todd Cox of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
Let's look at the facts. Take a Presidential election out of the picture for the moment, because I think we can stipulate that it brings some unique differences to the table, like the safe-harbor deadline for elector selection.
Let's take a "federal" but non-Presidential year instead, like 2006 or 2010, okay? If voting in that election were a FEDERAL right, which I content it is NOT, then the facts we presently have existing would do great violence to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
If I were a recently released from incarceration from a penal institution felon, in some states, I am prohibited from voting (Florida for one, but there are many). In other states, I can register and vote immediately without getting any paperwork or permission from anyone (Pennsylvania is one example). Remember, Paul, election is for U.S. Congress, not Township Auditor, okay?
Another example. If I am a duly registered voter who gets injured and hospitalized on the Saturday before an election (for Congress), in most states there is a mechaism by which I may vote an absentee ballot and have it counted (this assumes I am STILL hospitalized on the following Tuesday). In Pennsylvania, there is no way I can vote at all. The final emergency absentee ballot deadline passed the day before, on Friday, at 5:00PM.
Third example. I am a voter voting at the "wrong" polling place on Election Day, but in the correct county. I am voting a provisional ballot. If I am doing this in Ohio in 2004 or 2006, my vote is never counted. I am sure you can provide other examples. If I had done that in Pennsylvania, my ballot counted for every office, no matter how high or low, that was in common with my correct polling place.
Three major examples. Together they comprise perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of real voting experiences in a high turnout election. Yet none of them have any recourse in federal court.
I could give you more examples, like run-offs in some states for Congress and the lack of them in others, but I think my point is made.
If the right to vote were federal, no court would allow these clear violations of the Equal Protection clause. No Paul, Catherine, Bev, the right to vote is a state right, not a federal one.
And don't try to bait ME, Paul, take it up with the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund attorneys. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3837
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 9:24 am: |
|
Kurt,
I see the issue as being different. You are mentioning several special situations where there is a problem due to a specific state law.
My sense of what Bev and Paul were discussing, is that there is, indeed, a federal right to vote assuming one is functioning within whatever state laws apply to administer the votes of a particular state. States don't have the right to prevent a person from voting without some legal reason (such as the examples you cited). Thus, there is a federal right to vote. State laws would have to pass muster with the US Constitution (e.g., they couldn't be laws that would discriminate against one group of people, if the DOJ Civil Rights Dept. is doing its job).
If I understand it correctly, there is a federal right to vote. States pass laws for their administration of this function. These laws must be constitutional (comply with both state and US constitutions). States can't arbitrarily stop someone from voting--at least, not legally--although this seems to be an all-too-common occurrence. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 10:02 am: |
|
Catherine,
Forgive me the quibble, but you ALL have this exactly backwards.
The fundamental right to vote is not "given" (thank you, Paul) but "recognized" and "stated" and "enumerated" in state constitutions. Any attempt to find such a right in the federal constitution requires mental and legal gymnastics, not that lawyers are ill-adept at those. Hehehe.
The right to vote and conduct elections started as a COMPLETELY and UTTERLY state function. It can be shoehorned nowhere from any clause of the early Constitution as a federal issue.
That started to change only around the end of the Civil War. Before the Civil War, the accepted use was "The United States are [fill in the blank]." After the Civil War, the accepted use was "The United States is [fill in the balnk]." The federal government before the Civil War was not much more of a player in civil matters than the U.N. is today. People identified their citizenship as "I am a Virginian", not "I am an American."
All that is by way of illustration that the early Constitution just naturally ASSUMED elections and voting were entirely state concerns.
That started to change. The right to vote is STILL a state right. HOWEVER, we now have several federal Constitutional Amendments that restrict states from abridging or denying that right, ONCE GIVEN BY THE STATE GENERALLY, for various reasons: race, prior condition of servitude (slavery), age (but only for those over 18), gender, and more recently by statute, language and physical disability.
So why do the federal courts allow the differences I stated above? Because since they do not address any of these reasons here directly (interpretation is wider for the Constitutional ones, narrower for the mere statutory), they are none of the federal government's business. Because the fundamental right to vote isn't itself federally recognized, only the right to not have it "screwed with" for specific reasons.
Now here's the KEY point. Paul Lehto and Bev and you and about a few thousand other activists would very much like that federal protection widened to create a general right to vote, to count the votes, and to watch every step of the counting and certifying of those votes. And you SEEM to want that done at a federal level. It IS far less crappy work that way. Easier, too.
Problem is, rhetoric aside, it doesn't exist yet. Does it as some great abstract principle? Yeah, maybe so. Assume something, state it loudly and often enough, paint signs, walk around public buildings, hang bedsheets from overpasses, and soon a critical mass will believe it and act on it. Right, Bev? Or go get a podium and a whole passell of microphones, stand in front of a courthouse, timely pound on the podium a few times for emphasis, employ a few Latin phrases and big words, and look earnestly into a TV camera, maybe make your eyebrow twitch a little in righteous indignation, maybe bite your lower lip in Clintonesque concern, and you can have America eat out of your hand. Right, Paul?
Or you can do the honest and correct thing and try to get a Constitutional Amendment sponsored and passed to actually have the right. Here, I'll even write it for you.
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The right of The People to vote in all elections for federal office, including for President and Vice President, shall be a federally recognized and enforceable right, justiciable in the federal courts, regardless of reason.
Section 2. The right to so vote shall be by paper ballot, which must be counted in full public view, and such counts shall be challengeable in the federal courts.
Section 3. The Congress shall have such power as necessary to pass laws to enforce the intent of this Amendment.
Now go get a sponsor. I bet you can get this one passed in Congress. But then the States have to give up their sovereignty over elections. The ratification could get dicey.
You see, Paul and Bev, I'm weary of it all too. I'm tired of tacky publicity stunts and camera ops. I'm tired of the pontificating in substitution for lobbying and legislating. I'm tired of stunts. I'm tired of the political rhetoric. I'm tired of Chicken Littleism. I'm tired of former friends who become pariahs because they dare to dissent. I have been CONSISTENT throughout, despite momentary beliefs about what I believe on the part of others.
1) HAVA is a piece of scrap, but is the law.
2) HB811 is a WORSE piece of scrap, that should NEVER become law, BUT IF IT DOES, it will ALSO be law.
3) I think the federal government needs to back the hell off.
4) I think all DREs have problems, BUT SOME MUCH MORE SO THAN OTHERS. Some should be eliminated immediately, some should be re-engineered with due diligence or replaced over time.
5) I like the IDEA of HCPB, but I fear that in some places, like where I live, people will hate the crap out of them.
6) I object STRENUOUSLY to the assumption on some people's part that election officials are inherently crooked. Most are sweet people who are just trying to do their best. A few are bad actors. A few of THEM keep getting new positions. (Hint, hint.)
7) Walk a mile in an election director's shoes before you consider him an ogre.
8) Don't take shortcuts. Election reform is hard, slow, dirty, thankless work. People who try to convince you there are short and easy answers are charlatans.
9) The federal ITA process is a sham. Good state certifications are too rare, but the good ones do exist.
10) Not EVERY Republican is a crook. Not every Democrat or Green is a saint. All parties have people who think CONSTANTLY about how to game an election. Most of them like the low-tech ways just fine.
11) There is virtually NO ONE in the election admin field as smart about computers as the 1000th smartest computer security expert, and the smartest computer security expert doesn't know as much about the way REAL elections are run as the 1000th smartest county election director.
So there.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 20, 2007) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 11:43 am: |
|
Alan,
The answer to YOUR specific inquiries about "overturning the initial results" is due to a legal structure that has existed since the beginning of elections - and that is that the official count (the one that is STILL going on right now in 67 county buildings in Pennsylvania from the May 15 Primary) is LEGALLY entitled to the "presumption of validity" and the "burden of proof" falls to all who would dispute that count.
Is that a ridiculously high burden? Well yes, it really kinda is. Want to dispute the official returns in Pennsylvania? You need five voters IN EACH PRECINCT YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE to allege a fraud or error has occurred. You need a $50 filing fee in EACH PRECINCT, and those five electors you got, remember them?, well, they've got to post a bond also which puts them at financial risk if the challenge is then found to be frivolous.
The fact is that RIGHT NOW, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, the contesting of an election is NOT a level playing field. It is not like a simple civil trial. You can't slightly tip the scales of justice and win. You need clear and convincing, because our courts have consistently and universally held that the official count is entitled to a HUGE presumption of validity.
Why have they done that? Because up until now, VERY VERY seldom has an election proven to be invalidly decided. Has it happened? Oh my yes. Purdon's Title 25 (Westlaw Publishing) is loaded with examples in "Notes of Decisions". So it happens, but rarely. Why rarely? Because election administrators are NOT in the business of casually calling winners. They use the best tools they are given and take their tasks EXTREMELY seriously, FOR THE MOST PART.
And why? Because if they screw around with an election and they get caught, THEY GO TO PRISON. Schuylkill County, PA. The Election Director previous to the present one. He went to prison for changing valid paper ballot votes into overvotes, and changing undervotes into supposedly "valid" votes. If I get queasy about paper ballots at times, that's one reason. That was a real election, in a county that borders mine. And not that many years ago. Paper ballots are NO panacea, people. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Paul,
What was the outcome of your appeal in the case noted in footnote 98 on page 27 of the osce paper? Is it still pending?
I see absloutely nothing in the osce paper that in any way alters my analysis. Perhaps my piece at 10:02AM system time puts a finer point on it.
Saying, "there is no federal right to vote" is admittedly several things. It is 1) too simplistic, because it isn't obvious at first glance, 2) just viscerally troubling to most folks, 3) contrary to typical public perception, and 4) a distilled shorthand statement based on a long and complicated analysis, and those types of things tend to *iss people off. So it comes off as incendiary rhetoric. I'd suggest you also need to examine your rhetoric for similar flaws, Paul.
None of that alters my fervent belief in its ultimate truthfulness.
And Paul, while I am not now and never have been an attorney, my comments on some areas of election law have been accepted for publication in the University of Pennsylvania's Law Review, PENNumbra.
I have litigated several election law cases pro se and except for one in which I knew I was overreaching but went for it anyway because it was combined with two other cases I also filed, I have never lost an election case.
Oh wait, I misspoke. One case I originally filed was MANY years later reversed by the State Supreme Court after I was no longer a party. If that counts, then I guess I lost that one, but my position prevailed at trial court. Actually, it was long moot by then, but the Roe v. Wade style mootness exception principle kicked in.
By the by, Paul, Waters v. Gnemi, being a Mississippi STATE Supreme Court case, merely buttresses my essential point. It is a STATE case, and although you cited it artfully in Kentucky (grats on that...well done), when another state has its OWN jurisprudence on the subject matter contrary to the holdings in Waters, then whatever pesuasive value Waters has disappears down the rat hole of that state's own holdings due to stare decisis, raising AGAIN that these are essentially state matters.
But wait! It gets better! In Pennsylvania, some election cases (ballot access specifically) have gone back and forth between our state and federal courts wherein the State Supreme Court has ruled that it is not even bound by decisions of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Now to me, that's weird as hell. But there it is.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 20, 2007) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:42 am: |
|
MR. LEHTO, I HAVE IT!
Since in MOST cases, these voting machine vendors are in different states than the jurisdictions using them, maybe federal jurisdiction can be argued under the Interstate Commerce clause. Worth a shot!
This is ESPECIALLY true if the out-of-state vendor is involved with election-to-election machine prep, not just a one-time purchase. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6274
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 5:06 am: |
|
Catherine -- thanks for the suggestion about altering the way the software identifies people. I'm going to do that.
To all BBV readers: The number of posts (including the "number of posts in this thread") is not an indicator of expertise.
I notice that Kurt Bellman has not taken Lehto up on his suggestion to have Kurt pay a donation of $50 for each incorrect statement he makes. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 8:12 am: |
|
Bev,
I stand by each and every point I've made. |
Tim Gooch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Timthefoolman
Post Number: 74
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 9:45 am: |
|
Kurt,
If I weren't already married, and if it were legal in my state, and if I weren't hetero...
 |
Joseph Hall
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Joehall
Post Number: 125
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:00 am: |
|
Any chance Paul could post an executive summary of his writing that started this thread? I, unfortunately, don't have time to read all of it... and skimming it would only result in getting what I want from it. I hope all is well, Joe |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3844
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:58 am: |
|
Bev,
Maybe those of us who post the most should be called Big Mouths
That would get rid of the implication of expertise.
(Just joking! Though there is a grain of truth in it.) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Let's not lose track of one thing. Paul Lehto and I agree that HB811 needs to be stopped. We merely disagree (mightily) on reasons and specifics.
Can't that be good enough? |
Del Young
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 19
Registered: 01-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 28, 2007 - 7:29 am: |
|
I have to emphatically disagree with Paul Lehto statement (though I agree with others particularly on the inalienable rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution... still weighing Bellman and Lehto points, but that's for later)
"It's a republic [i.e. a representative democracy] if you can keep it!"
The U.S. was founded as a republic (compound)
Back to the republic
Harry Fuller Atwood
Chapter II
THE REPUBLIC
The present great war crisis has aroused the world to serious thought about government and the best form of its administration.
If the people of all nations could be awakened to the tremendous truth that a repulic is the only form of government that has solved governmental problems successfully and given wholesome and desirable results, it would compensate in part for the awful sacrifice and carnage of this tragic time.
One of the serious aspects of present-day tendency is the reckless and inaccurate use of governmental terms. Almost daily Russia is spoken of as "the new republic."
That phrase is as inaccurate as it would be to speak of a drunken man as a new example of temperance. To speak of Mexico as a "republic" is as inaccurate as it would be to speak of fanaticism as a new form of reverence. To call China a "republic" is as far-fetched as it would be to speak of insomnia as a new form of rest.
China, Mexico, and Russia at the present time are all types of democracy. In each instance the pendulum swung all the way from the extreme of autocracy to the extreme of democracy. It did not stop at the golden mean. These countries are not republics.
England, Italy, Belgium and France are frequently spoken of as the allied democracies of Europe; yet with one exception each country supports a royal family at a tremendously large expense, which is one of the elements of autocracy.
It would create considerable confusion of thought in the medical world if we should speak of disease as health; if in the realm of law, we should speak of crime as a contract; if in the realm of nature, we should speak of a cyclone as a sea breeze; if in the commercial world, we should speak of a bankrupt as a business success; if in the religious world, we should speak of the dime novel as the Bible; yet these are fair illustrations to parallel the inaccuracy that prevails in the present-day use of governmental terms.
The terms republic and democracy are thoughtlessly and inaccurately used almost synonomously in dictionaries, in encyclopedias and in political literature and discussion.
This country is frequently spoken of as a democracy, and yet the men who established our government made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy, gave very clear definitions of each term, and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
Surely no one has more valid authority to use governmental terms, or to make definitions of those terms, than the men who evolved the best form of government the world has ever known.
The statements of Hamilton and Madison, who were designated as the spokesmen and interpreters of the work of the Constitutional Convention, make it absolutely clear that the founders of the republic had in mind a very marked distinction between these two forms.
In the Federalist Madison says:
"What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitutions of different states, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holand, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a misture of aristocracy and monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics.
These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions."...
...Educate yourself
On September 18th, 1803, Hamilton wrote to Pickering:
"The plan of a constitution which I drew up while the convention was sitting, and which I communicated to Mr. Madison,... was predicated upon these bases:
1. That the political principles of the people of this country would endure nothing but republican government.
2. That in the actual situation of the country it was in itself right and proper that the republican theory should have a full and fair trial.
3. That to such a trial it was essential that the government should be so constructed as to give all the energy and stability reconcilable with the principles of that theory.
"These were the genuine sentiments of my heart, and upon them I acted."
In his great and exhaustive work on "Political Science and Constitutional Law," John W. Burgess, after analyzing minutely the forms of government of the four leading countries, makes the following deductions:
"I do not believe it is utopian to predict that the republican form will live after all other forms have perished... It is a hazardous venture to prophesy what the form of the future will be. It seems to me, however, that that form will be a republic... It seems to me evident that the destiny of history is clearly pointing to the United States as the great world organ for the modern solution of the problem of government as well as of liberty."
Article 4 Section 4, of the Constitution provides:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government."
It is inconceivable that the Fathers would guarantee a republican form of government to every State in the Union without the absolute intent of providing that same form of government for the nation.
It would seem that the founders of this republic, after a careful survey of the governments of history, concluded that autocracy resulted in tyranny and democracy merged into mobocracy, and they strove to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy by establishing the golden mean and founding a republic.
The new form of government provided for by the Constitution and evolved in 1788 was the first republic the world had ever known, and it may clearly be defined as follows:
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who, working together in a representative capacity, have all power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenues and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
In an autocracy authority is derived through heredity, regardless of character, capacity, or conduct. Rulers are chosen by virtue of their membership in the royal family; the people have no choice in their selection.
In a democracy authority is derived through mass-meeting, the initiative, the referendum, instructed delegates, or any other form of direct popular expression.
In a republic authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials to represent them.
The attitutde of autocracy toward property is feudalistic. This is unjust and results in protest, and finally in rebellion, on the part of the people.
The attitude of democracy toward property is communistic or socialistic. This negates property rights and results in chaos, mobmindedness and riot, finally terminating in destruction of the very property itself.
The attitude of the republic toward property is that of individual ownership, resulting in thrift, respect for law, individual rights, and orderly, sensible, economic procedure.
The attitude of democracy toward law is that the will of the majority shall prevail, regardless of whether it be based upon deliberation or is governmed by passion, prejudice and imp8lse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
The attitude of the republic toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence and with strict regard to consequences.
There is no such thing as a representative democracy.
To use that expression is equivalent to speaking of a temperate drunkard.
The very essence of democracy is that the people speak direct.
There is no such thing as a "democratic republic." To use that expression is equivalent to speaking of gluttonous nourishment.
The very essence of a republic is that the people speak through representatives. If there is such a thing as a democratic republic, what other kinds of republics are there?
There is no such thing as a democratic autocracy. To use that expression is equivalent to speaking of gluttonous starvation.
This line of reasoning will be clarified in the following chapter on "The Golden Mean."
The expressions "representative democracy," democratic republic, and democratic autocracy are among the most dangerous and misleading in current use...
BACK TO THE REPUBLIC - THE GOLDEN MEAN: THE STANDARD FORM OF GOVERNMENT
by Harry F. Atwood
Laird & Lee, Inc., 1918 |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 5:02 am: |
|
Interesting that they use the phrase gluttonous nourishment as an impossibility, because it wasn't and isn't. It's now called over-eating.
And to their 'first principles' as listed here:
quote:(2) a legislative body, who, working together in a representative capacity, have all power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenues and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
They currently don't have ALL power of legislation, don't many states have the power of referendum? Also, isn't the judiciary also elected in most states? If their 'definition' is taken to be exclusively correct, then we don't have a repbulic either, but a mix.
(Message edited by brantl on May 29, 2007) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 7:26 am: |
|
Brant,
That's why my state is pretty much a Republic. I have NO rights of referendum other than those my state legislators specifically authorize.
If they don't pass a law authorizing it, it can't be on a referendum, PERIOD!
And the fact that I vote on judges is ALSO determined by the Legislature.
BTW, I am not really a fan of referendum. Our limited experience is that it is merely used as a "CYA" when the Legslature wants to avoid fallout on an issue. Last example: a tax shift from property taxes to income taxes for schools. 494 of 498 school districts voted NO. And one of the four may swing that way after all absentees and provisionals are added. |
Charles Novitski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Novitski
Post Number: 3
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 8:19 am: |
|
Because of the flaws in DRE and OpScan machines, I think that, as well as there being a voter-verified paper ballot as in Holt, we should make the first count a hand count only. This is the main point.
Then, if we wanted to, we could then have a second hand count to double check it as I am told some countries do, or as Switzerland does to have a second count by machine, but only as a check and only hand counts or hand recounts of paper ballots would be valid.
Another way to look at it is that there is a 100% audit of every election, with only the hand recount being valid. Most elections around the world are paper ballot only and hand count only.
What do you think and have others advocated such a position? |
Marian Beddill
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 76
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 9:00 am: |
|
Quote: "Most elections around the world are paper ballot only and hand count only."......
Fundamentally, I demand a double-check on the counts, whatever system is used "first".
I have advocated hand-counts of VVPB. I would love to have everything hand-counted, but even that needs a double-check, and I can yield on some practical aspects, like using OpScans on hand-marked paper ballots - but only if there is some level of audit, by hand-counting.
Comparisons with hand-counts in other nations have a serious snag - many of those elections have only a single race on the ballot. Where we usually have 20-30 races (or more) on an ordinary ballot, I must grant that the resources needed to hand-count every one of those races are very large. Maybe we can and should afford the expenses of salaries, training and supervision to allow hiring enough teams to do the hand-counts (which I believe must be some kind of double-counts, also, since even the best people can make mistakes.)
My best solution: OpScan on VVPB, with mandatory random-samples hand-counted. There are also details about how to do the hand-count, including percentages and sequences, that I'll skip here.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Charles Novitski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Novitski
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Marian,
Thanks for you comment. I agree with you advocacy of hand counts of VVPB.
The current may 9 version of Holt, that allows OpScan on VVPB (as well as DRE's that make VVPB) and 3% random audits by hand. The problem with this is: If someone is cheating on an election to switch the presidency for example, they need to cheat in a few precincts in a few counties, lets say 0.1% or 1% of the precincts. A 3% random audit will probably not catch them (and will just look like a machine fluke in the rare case that they do.) 3% random counts are only useful to catch broad problems with much of the software or much of the hardware. The rare cheat, which is all that is needed, will likely go undetected for election after election.
By the way, the auditing process has to be "in public", but it should be also "transparent." For example, if the auditor in public pushes the random number generator button on his computer, we don't know if it is really random and if it is really programmed to avoid the several precinct the dishonest auditor knows are incorrect and he doesn't want checked.
Why are we so lazy that we don't take the effort of a hand count initially to do it right in the first place? Isn't our democracy worth it?
Charles |
Marian Beddill
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 77
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Excellent recommendation, Charles, to do hand-counts and do them right. My own county has been pretty good, except that they hand-count too few batches for my book.
Our random selections to name the Precincts a year ago, were the old-fashioned - drawing a number from the hat, in the lobby of the Elections office. I liked that.
Then "economy" entered the game, and our all-VBM ballots (60,000-70,000) are bundled into random batches, but we still picked batches to be hand-checked. The citizen observers present in the central counting room, were directed to point out (select) the batches to be hand-counted, seconds after the machine-count, while the pile of ballots were still in the out-hopper of the OpScan counter and the totals were not known. That batch was then sent to the staff table and hand-counted for the designated race, all in the presence of members of the multi-partisan citizen observer team.
I continue to believe that the knowledge that a random check will be done, is the greatest deterrent to intentional tally-fraud, in my mind the worst kind. It should also catch many cases of accidental machine errors, but no guarantee for all such errors.
Fundamental, I again emphasize, is a team of citizen observers, allowed to be present and watchful at all the activities -- from the moment the ballots are placed in the control of the Elections Office (at a pollsite or the Post Office), until the batches are boxed and sealed for storage in the secure vault.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Charles Novitski
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Novitski
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Marian,
I think that random selection should be done more formally than you describe. If people just call out precincts, and a group wanting to avoid certain precincts, one person in the audience can dominate by either forcing their choice, or forcing when a precinct to be avoided is mentioned by somebody else. Better to have a strict method.
Charles |
Marian Beddill
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 78
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 8:48 pm: |
|
I agree generally with your assesment, Charles. I simply described what our county now does - and could have added the critique which you did.
In fact, our machine-run batches are now not precincts, they are mixed-precinct batches from anywhere in the County, about 300 ballots per batch. (The ballots are coded for Precinct Number, so the machine tally can keep the votes properly allocated.)
And the way they worked it, the batches were themselves "anonymous" (just the next 300 from somewhere/everywhere). Each selection was done by one person - then the following selection alternated - by a member of an opposing group (usually D/R). So your scenario of the crowd over-ruling the selection did not happen.
I have strongly advocated for a much larger hand-count volume - like the proposals that Kathy Dopp and others have been advocating. The factors are not that complicated - percent-confidence desired, number of counts (batches, etc), spread between top-two in a close race, etc.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3855
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Marrion,
Batch processing and auditing (if done with suitable sample sizes) could possibly find certain kinds of random errors due to programming or calibration.
But if the counting mechanism somewhere had been set to tinker only with ballot counts from certain precincts in certain situaions, it would be impossible to identify a precinct-based pattern. One might (or might not) find certain "errors" but they'd be useless for the purpose of diagnosis or remedy. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, June 4, 2007 - 5:28 am: |
|
quote:BTW, I am not really a fan of referendum. Our limited experience is that it is merely used as a "CYA" when the Legslature wants to avoid fallout on an issue. Last example: a tax shift from property taxes to income taxes for schools. 494 of 498 school districts voted NO. And one of the four may swing that way after all absentees and provisionals are added.
What else are you going to do when the legislature is spineless, because they are unwilling to alienate the money, when they know the legislation has to be passed? Think of it as a check/balance (whichever suits you). |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1107
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, June 4, 2007 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Brant,
That would be a better point if we could do a question based on voter/citizen initiative. We can't. All we get is questions posed specifically BY the legislature, in wording THEY write. They even wrote exactly how the "plain English explanation" must be written.
Embarrassing, isn't it? |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1368
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - 5:12 am: |
|
If I had a referendum system built like that, I would consider it a substitute for the legislatures' balls. |
|
|
