Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 6-28-07: Debate with a Chair (Part 1)... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6368
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 7 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 11:00 pm: | 
|
(Part 1 of a 7-part series.)
The fabric of your democracy is being altered without any public debate. Voting rights advocates are split on whether proposed legislation will restore confidence or nail the coffin shut on our representative democracy.
Our calls for public debate have not been accepted, and due to the importance of the issues involved, Black Box Voting is attempting to develop a more public dialog on these issues, as a public service.
We have culled through over one thousand back-channel e-mails, in which well-known election reform and voting rights leaders on both sides have argued their case.
(right-click photos if they do not appear, and choose "show picture")
Because those with opposing points of view disagree with the value of a public debate, we have represented their arguments with an empty chair, along with an invitation for them to join this debate at any time.
One new issue in the "Debate with a Chair" will be published each day from now through the Fourth of July. You may join in the debate; Click "more" at the end of this introduction to see the whole debate as it evolves. If you are new to Black Box Voting, you'll find instructions for how to join the debate at the end of the article.
ARE WE FACING A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TO DEMOCRACY?
We are on the cusp of enacting massive changes in our election system for the second time in five years. These legislative changes quietly rewrite how elections are conducted – how we will certify the upcoming presidential election, what machinery we'll vote on, our litigation rights, election administration timelines and – most important – the fundamental checks and balances designed to give citizens sovereignty over their own government: states' rights, the public right to know, and secret vote counting.
At issue: how changes in U.S. election policies impact the following:
(1) The necessity for a free people to be able to remove either honest or corrupt governance in order to remain free. This is the essence of citizen control, as contrasted with government control of elections.
(2) The equality of all citizens
(3) The importance of distrusting any shift towards concentration of power
(4) Respect for the rights of average voters (not just experts) to deeply understand and be capable of evaluating their own voting system. (Experts = concentration of power.)
FIRST: THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER TO HAVE A DEBATE
One set of election reformers believes that the only realistic path to improvement is to pass paper trail legislation for 2008, regardless of what rights will be compromised away with that promise. Among the groups and leaders in this category are VoteTrustUSA, Verified Voting, People for the American Way, MoveOn and several computer professionals, including Avi Rubin, David Dill and Barbara Simons.
Another set of voting rights advocates – groups involved in front-lines election watchdog work, election litigation efforts and grass roots citizen empowerment -- believe that the pending legislation represents a "clear and present danger" to representative democracy itself. While these voting rights advocates agree on the need for paper ballots, they believe the other changes piggybacked into current paper trail legislation will destabilize our democracy. Among these groups and leaders: Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting; Nancy Tobi, co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire; Paul Lehto, co-founder of Psephos; Election Defense Alliance; VotersUnite; Brad Friedman, of Bradblog; Mary Ann Gould, of Citizens for Voting Integrity; Coalition for Visible Ballots, Vote Rescue, author Mark Crispin Miller and computer expert Dr. Rebecca Mercuri.
Many citizens who normally look to us for guidance are confused. Leaders are aligned on opposite sides. Groups that normally are adversaries find themselves in alliance, and groups that should be on the same side discover they are opponents. What does this mean? "Debate with a Chair" series will help you get up to speed quickly so that you can evaluate the issues yourself.
Back-channel argumentation on this has been heated:
Here are some of the arguments that have been flying through our e-mails:
"Whoever is giving us this is someone not fighting for -- or even framing – election reform in terms of democracy," say Paul Lehto, the election rights attorney who got the touch-screens kicked out of Snohomish County in Washington, and fought the high profile San Diego "CA50" case.
Should changes be made in the foundation of democracy without calling attention to the issues through public discussion?
Paul Lehto shot out a challenge to key players in the current configuration of election reform legislation:
"For the good of the republic, will you engage in a public debate, in the city of your choice, on a date within the next two weeks or so, with a jury of say 100 citizens, on the question of whether [proposed legislation] HR 811 meets the necessary standards for free people who are citizens of a representative democracy like ours? If I am not important enough, is there anybody that you would debate on the question of what democracy requires in a voting system?"
Following Lehto's question, a new query regarding televising the debate was added into the mix by citizen Chuck Garner.
Empty Chair: "I have no interest in participating in a debate, televised or otherwise...I've already won. Your demand for a debate is a desperate attempt to gain credibility at my expense, and for an opportunity to confuse the issue."
Bev Harris, founder of the national voting rights watchdog organization, Black Box Voting, weighed in:
"One of the core issues in such debates should be how citizens are allowed to retain control of their government when government controls the mechanisms of elections, which mostly take place in secret. I think it would be an excellent public education strategy to host a series of debates nationwide, with proponents of democratic elections vs. proponents of techno-elections."
But advocates of the new legislation were protective of the bill's sponsor, Rush Holt [D-NJ]:
Empty Chair: "If I were Rush Holt, I'd be damned if I would subject myself to the kind of abuse hurled at him from voting integrity advocates ... to say nothing of all of the attacks coming from election officials," said a board member of one of the national election reform groups.
Jonathan Simon of Election Defense Alliance supported the idea of a debate.
"Bev Harris constructively calls for a public debate on the core of the critical issue we are all facing, a debate which might possibly help resolve the confusions of highly informed people such as myself, let alone bring some much needed awareness to the less informed."
Paul Lehto repeated his challenge: "I think we both benefit from an informed and aroused citizenry, so at an important level a debate would be a win-win situation for democracy. Do you accept?"
No dice.
Empty Chair: "My side won this debate before it started, because the anti-HR 811 forces have never presented a feasible alternative," said one of the most academically decorated supporters of the HR 811 legislation.
Overriding Lehto's curiosity about how those votes on the debate were counted, high profile political blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com weighed in:
Brad Friedman: "That is simply untrue. Many of us offered very specific and very feasible alternatives."
An aggressive proponent of the new legislation who first opposed it but now supports it, stepped into the fray:
Empty Chair: "I would recommend strongly not to give Paul Lehto any credibility by debating him."
"Then I'm sure you will call for a debate with me publicly," said Friedman.
But this offer was declined.
Empty chair: "Without two or more viable alternatives, there's no point in having a debate -- just take the one policy that is available and do it."
Take the one policy that is available and do it?
Paul Lehto objected to that frame: "The question should be presented more accurately... in terms of fundamental voting rights in our representative democracy," he said, "I'd like to see Holt proponents actually wrestle with these things."
Sheila Parks, a veteran activist from Boston who has been arguing for Hand-Counted Paper Ballots (HCPB), women's rights, and rights for people of color, jumped in:
"I strongly urge that both Bev Harris and Nancy Tobi are part of this debate, that seems to be forming with all straight white men -- as they duplicate the dominant culture. Not the kind of democracy I am at all interested in and no better than what we have now - no matter how many Holt Bills get legislated or do not get legislated. And Rebecca Mercuri too."
"I'll debate anyone, any time, anywhere," said Nancy Tobi, co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire, who views the proposed legislation as "a clear and present danger."
Empty Chair: "An hour of Paul Lehto blowing hot air and quoting 18th century statesmen vs. me saying 'Where's your bill?' is not going to be very illuminating," the empty chair pronounced. "No more 'debating' for me, at least on this topic."
 Mary Ann Gould, chair of the Coalition for Voting Integrity and host of "Voice of the Voters," a radio talk show which focuses on voting rights issues, says she has tried for months to get anyone -- any time -- to defend the proposed legislation. She's had just about everybody who's anybody in the election reform movement on her show, but her requests to discuss issues with proponents of the sweeping changes in the 2007 legislation are always answered with: "No."
Had enough? Perhaps it's time to distill out the key arguments from both sides so you can make up your own mind.
To recap what we'd like to discuss here:
How do changes in U.S. election policy affect...
(1) The necessity for a free people to control their own elections in order to remain free
(2) The equality of all citizens
(3) The importance of distrusting any shift towards concentration of power
(4) Respect for the rights of average voters (not just experts) to deeply understand and be capable of evaluating their own voting system.
This is your country. These are your rights. Your election system will be one of the legacies you leave to your children. So, when would be a good time to navigate this intellectual terrain? (How about now?)
Bev Harris: Can we, then, start with clarifying this point of common ground, which underlies selection of voting mechanics.
1. Can we agree that freedom depends on the ability of citizens to control their own elections, holding them beyond the power of the government to manipulate?
2. Do we have consensus that we have the right to dislodge public officials that we don't want, and if so, is this right to vote people out of office fundamental to democracy?
3. And if so, does the current system secure that right?
Paul Lehto: I suggest piercing through literally many truckloads of extraneous technical info by simply asking if the computer sitting next to you is secure against your own attempts to manipulate it. If a computer cannot be protected from an insider, it fails the most basic test for self-government because it is not secured from the government's potential tampering.
Empty chair: Of course there is no bill for Hand Counted Paper Ballots ("HCPB") in this Congress. It didn't get reintroduced, because there was no support in the last Congress. Of course one can make some people happy by proposing a bill that will never ever pass. That makes everyone feel good, eh? Even the vendors and election officials would be happy, because of course a bill calling for HCPB will never pass Congress.
Mary Ann Gould: We have been approaching from the "WHAT to do" level, drawn into the "fixing" symptoms started by HAVA. No one wins from this level of focus! Our nation was founded on a Vision -- overarching ideas -- such as people could govern themselves, that all power flows from and to them; that citizens have the right to overthrow and replace governments that do not serve our interests.
Then the Constitution was written to create principles to support the ideas/beliefs of the Declaration. In turn all legislation is supposed to be within the framework of the Constitution based on the values of the Declaration. Without an overarching framework, we lack a guide to develop and evaluate legislative, regulatory and government processes properly. We then get a mess like HAVA and a further patchwork like the mutated Holt and radical Feinstein bills.
We MUST have that framework of overarching principles to both guide and evaluate changes in how we conduct elections.
Bev Harris: Can we, then, start with clarifying this point of common ground, with underlies selection of voting mechanics:
- Do we have consensus that the right to dislodge a crooked government is fundamental to democracy? This refers back to the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence.
If we agree on that, we can then proceed to discuss which mechanics secure and protect that right, and which ones don't.
Empty chair: Let me boil it down:
1. Where is your bill?
2. Where are its cosponsors?
Paul Lehto: There can be no discussion? This is all democracy deserves?
Jonathan Simon: The antagonists in this debate -- call them the democrats and the cybertechnocrats -- are not converging on common ground. They are miles apart, loaded with distrust and contempt, speaking different languages. Is it any wonder solutions seem so maddeningly beyond reach?
How about this for debate points that are "within reach":
Nancy Tobi:
1) The proposed legislation codifies secret vote counting
2) The proposed legislation cements control of secret vote counting to the executive branch
3) The proposed legislation provides sets the scene for unlimited litigation on election challenges.
4) The proposed legislation has many big ticket items that are unfunded.
5) The proposed legislation will not provide any relief for 2008.
WE WANT: A simple stripped down bill
 Empty chair: Here is the menu of choices:
- HR 811
- bupkus
To be continued...
* * * * * * * * * * *
You can join this debate by registering with this site and posting your comments. In the Black Box Voting forums, you can also express your agreement or disagreement with the arguments by adding stars to the left of each post.
One new debate topic will be posted each day through the Fourth of July.
June 28 - Thursday
1) Debate over whether to have a debate
June 29 - Friday
2) Debate over whether flawed election legislation is better than no election legislation
June 30 - Saturday
3) Debate over voter intent vs. voter verification (DRE controversies, are audits the way to go…)
July 1 - Sunday
4) Debate over federal control vs. concentration of power
July 2 - Monday
5) Debate over the public right to know
July 3 - Tuesday
6) Debate over litigation and enforcement issues
PERMISSION TO REPRINT OR EXCERPT GRANTED, WITH LINK TO http://www.blackboxvoting.org |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6369
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Ah, just noticed -- and with photographs, this forum doesn't like to be edited, so I'll clarify here.
July 2 - Sunday
should read:
4) Debate over concentration of power vs. dispersed power (EAC issues, etc)
FOURTH OF JULY
7) Debate over the road map back to a real representative democracy
|
Chuck Garner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Chuck_garner
Post Number: 40
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:07 am: |
|
A lists and B lists
It might help to know exactly who is and who isn't supporting H.R. 811. I just sent an email to the ACLU (B list, but should be A list) asking them to withdraw their endorsement for this subsidy for the needy (snark alert!)Republican voting machine industry, which you can do also by emailing Kitt Barrett, Member Services Coordinator, kbarrett@aclu.org, or calling her at (212) 549-2545. These organizations need to be informed when they're doing things in the service of the voting machine industry. And in the case of the ACLU, they were doing it without my permission, or Molly Ivins either, had she a say in the matter. In the ACLU's Summer of 2007 newsletter they include a tribute to her and reveal that she left almost half of her estate to the ACLU. Are they really so stupid as to think Molly would've endorsed computerized voting using hackable Republican election machines? Let the disinfectant light of truth shine on these B list people.
(Message edited by Chuck_Garner on June 28, 2007) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6370
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi, Chuck, and thank you for working on getting the debates televised -- your concept, had the chairs not been empty, was inspiring.
If you get a chance, hit the "edit" on your posts (icon is at right, top of your post, looks like a pencil on a paper with writing). substitute something less personalized for the word "evil" -- at least at this stage -- because that word will create a sub-fight that is not relevant to the discussion. Let's HAVE a public discussion first.
I know that several people are working on creating a "roll call for democracy" -- sort of like your A and B list -- in different ways, and you'll see that evolving shortly.
First, we contend, these issues deserve public discussion (I know you've been in on some of the back-channel discussions, Chuck, but let's give the public a chance to size things up for themselves). After the argumentation has reached the public domain, which will be happening over the next few days not just here but at other sites, then I think it is appropriate to request a commitment from citizens, public interest groups, and members of congress and state legislatures to show where they stand. |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 976
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 9:52 am: |
|
quote:"Do we have consensus that the right to dislodge a crooked government is fundamental to democracy? This refers back to the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence."
Good question given the sedition law and the unwillingness of the Congress to act on the already documented law breaking of the Bush Administration.
And while Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he was against the Constitution and it is the Constitution that is invoked in courts, not the Declaration.
The question is similar to the 'right to petition the government for redress'; one can petition all one wants but there is NOTHING that says the Congress MUST respond to such petitioning in any sort of timeframe.
So I would have to respond to the question that whereas participants in this forum may agree to the idea that citizens have the "right to dislodge a crooked government is fundamental to democracy?" that doesn't make it so.
As an ACLU member, I thank Chuck for the phone number and will be calling.
And 'empty chair', upon what actual facts is the statement "a bill calling for HCPB will never pass Congress." made?
RE the empty chair's questions of where is the bill and co-sponsors; empty chair, simply stated, there is not a need for a bill or co-sponsors and efforts would be better expended 'fixing' the HAVA atrocity than trying for new legislation; empty chair, when will you realize that there are so many laws on the books that enforcement is untenable? Congress seldom admits mistakes, choosing to pass new legislation as the 'fix' for lousy legislation(and in the case of HAVA, corrupted legislation) so until Congress admits it's mistakes, it shouldn't push new legislation; that's why there is no bill or co-sponsors(and shouldn't be).
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6372
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Bruce, the sovereignty of The People is woven throughout the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It is clear that we have the RIGHT to sovereignty over our government, and that we have the Constitutional right to choose our representation.
Choosing our representation means that we have the right to kick the bums out if we decide they are bums.
Like us, the founders engaged in a great deal of written argumentation and at various times, there were shifts in their thinking. The final issue, though, is never what a particular person is or thinks, but what the principles are and how we can improve the structures to embody those principles.
The Declaration of Independence set out principles. The Constitution was designed to provide a structure for those principles. The Bill of Rights was designed to further clarify and buttress the structure.
All three documents emphasize the right of The People to have sovereignty over their government, and in the end, all of the founders agreed with this. Along the way, some were quite nervous about this concept, as can be seen in their writings to each other. Jefferson, and his home state of Virginia, argued consistently that The People have the right to control over the governmental structures they create.
And Sheila Parks, above, would have gotten along well with John Adams's wife Abigail, who wrote letter after letter telling her husband to redress the unequal position of women while he was setting about writing up these documents. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:35 pm: |
|
quote:RE the empty chair's questions of where is the bill and co-sponsors; empty chair, simply stated, there is not a need for a bill or co-sponsors and efforts would be better expended 'fixing' the HAVA atrocity than trying for new legislation; empty chair, when will you realize that there are so many laws on the books that enforcement is untenable? Congress seldom admits mistakes, choosing to pass new legislation as the 'fix' for lousy legislation(and in the case of HAVA, corrupted legislation) so until Congress admits it's mistakes, it shouldn't push new legislation; that's why there is no bill or co-sponsors(and shouldn't be).
This, in my opinion, is demonstrably incorrect. A bill need not be any more than one that rescinds another bill. Having no bill means no change; if the current situation sucks (and it does), having no bill at all is not a useful alternative. If HR811 wasnt't sucking all the attention and time, maybe you could get some attention on a good bill. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6373
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Brant: Bingo!
1. No bill is better than a bad bill that breaks things even worse (sorry about the grammar in that, which I'm sure is atrocious)
2. A clean, stripped-down, good bill (NOT an "amendment to Holt") needs to be produced.
We should remember that the Holt Bill used to be five pages. It is now 62 pages. That is indicative of a "Christmas Tree" bill where every special interest group came in and hung an ornament on it, resulting in an unwieldy monster that no one can agree on, much less administer if we have the misfortune of seeing this thing passed.
The "Holt Bill" somehow got away from him. It's time to do something simpler and more sensible. Just put the thing out of its misery.
However, this is Friday's debate topic. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6374
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:59 pm: |
|
EMPTY CHAIR: Having just spoken to one of the empty chairs on the phone, I can provide an alternate point of view:
quote:An Empty Chair I'm a pragmatist. The Holt Bill has momentum so whatever we do, we need to tack it on to the Holt Bill as an amendment.
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3879
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Many of us here at BBV, and many others, proposed amendments to HR 811 already. It's not as if we didn't do everything we could to improve it. We didn't refuse to engage with any positive opportunities that bill could have offered. There was no shortage of specific suggestions. (Though there were lots of trollish claims--unfounded--that BBV was criticizing without offering alternatives.) Virtually none of them were integrated into the bill, however, but changes were adeopted that made the bill even worse!
Doesn't Dennis Kucinich have a bill mandating hand counted paper ballots? This is an alternative bill. Why do people pretend it doesn't exist? |
Chuck Garner
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Chuck_garner
Post Number: 41
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 4:01 pm: |
|
The new HR 6200
By now most of you will have read Lora Chamberlin's report about Kucinich's reintroduction of HR 6200 under a new number, which would render Empty Chair's argument that there's no alternative as wrong. It sounds to me like Lora is really discouraged and needs our very best arguments in favor of the new bill so she doesn't keep wanting to tinker with Holt's Trojan Colt to make it less treacherous. It can't be done, because the basic premise is wrong, and Occam's razor still applies. Anytime you make something more complicated than it needs to be, right away the first question should be: why? Here in Lassen County the answer was to be the fastest; not the best or most accurate, and it is still a concealed scandal, a huge boondoggle because nobody wants to take the blame for it. There simply was no justification to spend that much money for 35 precincts, unless it was to guarantee election results- which apparently has been the case. Dems don't win here. But I digress. My plan is to shame every organization that supports HR 811 without the membership's consent into withdrawing that support until the respective members get a chance to vote on it. This is easy- just point out that support for this abortion is climbing into bed with the Republican computerized voting machine makers, the same ones who gave us Bush and the neo-theocons for 8 years and the incredible damage that they've caused to our country, and turning over control of our elections to them forever- or until global warming kills us all, whichever comes first. Not only do we have a moral obligation to defeat this encroachment, but the law of self-preservation trumps everything else. More oil is not only not the answer, it is the worst possible answer. We can do better.
(Message edited by Chuck_Garner on June 28, 2007)
(Message edited by Chuck_Garner on June 28, 2007) |
David Blodgett
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ghost
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 4:11 pm: |
|
I beleive it was Joeseph Stalin who said, I'm paraphrasing here, "who someone votes for is irrelevant, who counts those votes is." That being the case I think debate is most important, national referendum is not a bad idea either. No american should feel safe allowing those in power to control the electoral process. It should be firmly in the hands of the citizens and transparent. If we do not believe in a free and open electoral process, and our leaders are saying it does not even deserve discussion, why the hell are our troops dying to grant that right to others?--D.N. Blodgett |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6376
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Well Chuck, I liked your post until it got to blaming everything on the Republicans. Feinstein is a Democrat, and right now she's pushing one of the most treasonous bills ever proposed. Pass that and we're looking at a free fall into fascism. In some ways, the Feinstein companion to the Holt Bill is WORSE than the Patriot Act.
Please note that the Holt Bill, which many of us contend is dangerous to democracy, is being pushed by Democrats and does not have bipartisan support. I have heard that bipartisan support IS out there -- but for paper ballots, not a 62-page overcomplicated unimplementable encyclopedia of untested concepts.
You're right about one thing: Simplify.
You're right about another thing: There is a power grab going on.
And let me add another concept: If you want to do a power grab, you need to have change. You can't grab power if people are sitting there comfy as puppies in a blanket. You wait until there is change afoot, and you plant little time bombs in the proposed changes. The more complicated the proposal, the easier it is to plant your time bombs.
This needs to be short, simple, and I look forward to debating -- FOURTH OF JULY -- RIGHT HERE FOLKS -- the exact form such simple remedies should take. We have to do this in a way that does not complexify things, which will help block efforts turn meaningful election reform into a Trojan Beast. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6377
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 4:33 pm: |
|
And I now have a photo of the marvelous Sheila Parks:
 |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 977
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 6:01 pm: |
|
When Holt's bill was 5 pages, he couldn't get enough co-sponsors; it was simple(tho lacking) and couldn't get 'traction'; remember, it died in the last Congress;so how does a legislator get co-sponsors? By putting stuff into a bill that the co-sponsor wants.
Sorry, but there are so few real rep's of the people in Congress that a 'simple' bill will find itself demeaned just because it's simple.
Bev, I'm going to disagree with you regards what you wrote in response to my post.
"Bruce, the sovereignty of The People is woven throughout the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It is clear that we have the RIGHT to sovereignty over our government, and that we have the Constitutional right to choose our representation."
***You are correct but sovereignty means nothing without the means to assert it; see Iraq. And , from my understanding, citizen's are 'sovereign' over their own States but please find me politicians in California who actually act upon:
"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."***********
Choosing our representation means that we have the right to kick the bums out if we decide they are bums.
*******OK BUT that is a differing modus operandi than "the right to dislodge a crooked government is fundamental to democracy?"; 'kicking the bums out' is different from 'dislodging a corrupt government',especially when used in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence; I think the question needs to rephrased and take into account a system that is set up to strongly favor incumbents and that has the revolving door of government, private industry,government,etc..****
Like us, the founders engaged in a great deal of written argumentation and at various times, there were shifts in their thinking. The final issue, though, is never what a particular person is or thinks, but what the principles are and "how we can improve the structures to embody those principles."
****This is the basic argument between the Federalists and the Democratic Republican's at the time of the creation of the Consitution, how those 'structures' can be 'improved'.*********
The Declaration of Independence set out principles. The Constitution was designed to provide a structure for those principles. The Bill of Rights was designed to further clarify and buttress the structure.
All three documents emphasize the right of The People to have sovereignty over their government, and in the end, all of the founders agreed with this.
***Yes, but those who were the 'people' at the creation of the Constitution certainly weren't the "people" of today; the "people" of today came about thru Constitutional Amendment and years of struggle by many***
Let me suggest the following change as a beginning point for consensus:
"Do we have consensus that citizen's of the United States have a sovereign right to specify how they democratically choose their elected officials in the Republic and the processes and mechanisms by which such elections are held?" |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6379
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Actually, Bruce, you're wrapping a lot of words around a simple concept and I think you are confusing the issue.
Let's look at the issue in the following limited frame:
If you have a family running a Kentucky county: A sheriff, the mayor, the judge, isn't that family a key part of the local "government"?
Government does not always refer to a massive federal power structure.
Now, suppose you live in that Kentucky County, and you're seeing wrongdoing and falsification of records. You and enough others in that location have decided that you want to dislodge this group in your government. You learn that they count votes in secret and have custody of the audit documents and the voting machines, and that The People in this location cannot control or even find out any information about the elections that keep this family in office.
Are your rights to choose your representatives being secured?
This is very simple: If you live in a democracy, DO YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT to dislodge a crooked government with your vote -- or not?
I think it's clear that The People DO have that right.
This applies, no matter whether the scope is one government official or several, and whether the scope is local or federal.
This right is an inalienable right, you are born with this right, and it is the government's duty to secure and protect that right.
If the government sets up a system that grants itself the right to count your votes in secret, is it securing your right to displace it or not? Obviously, NOT. |
John Dean
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Bozosforbush
Post Number: 919
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 10:39 pm: |
|
I'm going to lay down the troll-fighting hammer, and just be a citizen here...
I don't understand why this all has to be so difficult.
This is America...this is supposed to be the shining example to the rest of the world of how great a country can be. "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." - this is supposed to be the most fundamental, ingrained belief in all of us, regardless of color, party, sex, religion, etc.
So why is this all so difficult?
Why are some Americans (and Canadians) making machines that can cheat? It's treasonous! Why are some Americans determined to prevent other Americans from voting, or having their votes counted honestly? Why can't we just all agree that we need to fix "the whole enchilada," instead of piecemeal efforts to fix certain things, that at the same time open up other cans of worms?
Is the mighty dollar worth a soul?
Is Tolkien's Ring of Power, now cleverly disguised as the power to control counting votes to determine who gains power and who loses it, more important than our souls?
Are lies, disinformation and deception, the ticket to heaven, for those who believe in heaven?
IMO it's all pretty disgusting.
Deserter, brain is fried, no WMDs, yada yada yada. No wonder we clowns laugh.
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6380
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Well John, while working on compiling tomorrow's debate, I came across this, and it applies to the issues you raise. Part of the formula needed to prevail is to actually TALK about what democracy is, as you just did. In fact, our founders emphasized that we should talk about the principles, and both the Virginia and Washington state constitutions refer to the importance of recurring frequently to the principles of democracy.
The specific discussion of voting machine issues within the framework of PRINCIPLES and our RIGHTS has really not been tried, and now that we are using this approach, we see that people quickly agree (especially those who are not already indoctrinated with the idea that they must give up rights)
quote:Paul Lehto: The only thing that can defeat this, in the long run, is giving up, despair, illusions that the other side is too powerful.
When we win converts we do not ever lose them back to the vendors. It's a one way street. So it's only a matter of time. It may not be by 2008 (though it could be if everyone focused passionately on democracy) but it will come.
Because there are so few ways we can be beaten, and can't be attacked directly, the ones still available will be used: fear, depression, despondency, distraction. On the other hand if we keep our eyes on the prize of democracy, and talk democracy talk, in the long run we are invincible.
Talking about democracy and the Declaration of Independence is what worked for women's suffrage (The Seneca Falls statement is a rewording of the Declaration of Independence) and for Martin Luther King, Jr. ("I Have a Dream" speech). Talk of democracy even works by abuse to encourage Americans to support an invasion of Iraq.
Remember the sources of our power and don't be afraid.
|
J. E. Quidam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Quidam2
Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 2:30 am: |
|
How many Representatives shall we have in Congress? Though the Constitution explicitly sets the size of the Senate at two per state, there is no corresponding formulation for determining the size of the House of Representatives. In 1789, this omission was considered to be a significant deficiency that needed to be corrected. As a result, the very first amendment ever proposed by Congress would have mandated a minimum number of Representatives as a function of the population.
PLEASE READ:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm
This may relate to topic #4 "Debate over concentration of power vs. dispersed power" |
David Blodgett
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ghost
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 4:15 am: |
|
I like your hopefulness John, but I cannot recall America having ever been the shinning example, though I would like that. Historicaly however it does not hold weight. All Americans save for "Natives", are either imigrants or the decendants thereof. They came here in hope of a new life, a better life, with freedom of religion and the freedom to pursue thier own life as they saw fit.
Sadly, to achieve that they slaughtered the "Natives" who did not want to "move over", enslaved the Africans to enrich themselves, and exploited the poor whites seeking religious freedom through indentured servitude. A bright shinning example would be lovely, but we Americans have not been one. We have had bright shinning Americans however. These people; Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, and others, struggled against injustice and often were sucessful.
What we need to be that bright shinning place of hope for the world is nothing less than bright shinning leaders. Now how can we elect such people to office if we have no faith in the electoral process?
As it stands our "leaders" do not even want a debate. This means they do not want our input. Im sorry John, but a democratic republic which does not want the input of it's citizenry is no longer valid.
You and I John, along with all the other people here and elsewhere that love this country and want that Bright Shinning Dream we were raised to believe in to be a reality, We are going to have to build it ourselves. The founders of this land were human beings and understood that human beings make errors, suffer from greed for money and power, and tend to become corrupt when placed into positions of power.
With these things in mind they created our government so that we could change it when we encountered problems. I think we can all agree there are problems, so we are obligated to change things to remove those problems. Debating how best to do that is the first step. We must speak out, even if we are beaten down, riddiculed, or jailed for doing so.
D.N. Blodgett |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3880
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 4:34 am: |
|
David,
Thanks for the reminder that our actual American history is quite different from the myths that we have been fed.
As you pointed out, there have also been people--famous and not--who have embodied the American dream (justice, democracy, equality, liberty). At least documents such as the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights help by pointing the direction.
It will take commitment on our part to start by engaging in a dialog about how to align our governing structures with our aspirations. We must ask for this dialog--demand it--as often as is needed until it occurs. We can't afford to sideline ourselves just because the task is daunting or because others don't want to be bothered. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6381
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 6:57 am: |
|
We can look at America's checkered history with human rights two ways:
1) Our nation was founded on principles rather than organized around a king, emperor, czar, or other personality. We did not live up to those principles
or
2) Our nation was founded on principles, and a large part of our history has been the struggle to hold the nation to those principles on which it was founded -- with some success, as in the case of freeing the slaves (finally), capitulating (finally) to women's demand to vote, and requiring (at last) that people with disabilities be treated as people.
We have failed spectacularly in other areas, like the ramming through of the corporate personhood legal precedents, the adherence to two-party power structures rather than proportional representation, the enabling of political bribery through campaign contributions, and the removal of public vote counting to make it secret.
Put in this light, we can look at our history as a series of pendulum swings -- toward The People, away from The People, toward The People, away from The People. Right now we are obviously in a phase where the pendulum is swinging away from The People, and it is our job to reverse the swing.
This time, we should try to grab a little more territory for The People. |
Jim Hogue
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jim_hogue
Post Number: 16
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 9:52 am: |
|
No matter how you slice it, an unauditable system of collecting data, any data (especially votes) is preposterous. Why is this so hard for politicians to understand? Why is this not something that all Americans can grasp?
We of Vermonters for Voting Integrity met last night, and we are working to establish the supremacy of the paper ballot despite an antagonistic Secretary of State (Deb Markowitz), who is essentially a saleswoman for Diebold.
Jim Hogue
|
Jean Braun
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Alarmed
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Thanks for bringing this debate to the public!!! The wonderful part is that there are so many impassioned participants.
Perhaps the best solution is to refer the matter to a large blue ribbon committee with many, many representatives from BBV.
I do think that the electronic machines are so glamorous that we won't be able to get away from them. But we can use them to insure that they work for transparency (e.g. giving each voter a ballot with an ID which can be checked on a web site which posts every vote.)
Public auditing is something we shouldn't give up! Voters must be allowed to witness counting - especially at the neighborhood precincts. |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 979
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Bev, I know you moved onto 6/29-I'm going there next- BUT I will still disagree re "Actually, Bruce, you're wrapping a lot of words around a simple concept and I think you are confusing the issue."
When the phrase "dislodge a crooked government with your vote" is used, that IS a different idea than 'vote the bums out' because the form of government is NOT being changed.
Yes, the Declaration of Independence is in that vein of 'dislodg(ing),etc.' but voting out the bums is simply exercising the right inherent in the current government.
Disagreement also occurs re "you're wrapping a lot of words around a simple concept and I think you are confusing the issue." I think I'm creating a question that is inclusive of 'both sides' initial perspectives, meaning that it is a question that avoids the emotive aspects of the problems/issues. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6383
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 7:55 pm: |
|
I don't necessarily define "government" as synonymous with "form of government" and we still have disagreement on that anyway, because we certainly DO have the right to alter our form of government. That is explicit in the right to have a Constitutional Convention, and I believe that we do have that inalienable right.
However -- we can remain apart on that and still have consensus on this: We have the right to vote the bums out. The government has an obligation to secure our rights. The current system does not secure our right to vote the bums out. Agreed? |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 981
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 10:20 am: |
|
agreed |
JDaisy Beckett
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jdaisy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Keep It Simple Stupid:
There is only one solution to our voting problem.
Only one solution that will solve all the problems* associated with the process and that is Hand Count Paper Ballots (HCPB). NOW.
Nothing currently available to voters works. We must begin from scratch to invent honest unhackable machines. That's what IS impossible.
HAND COUNT PAPER BALLOTS can be done, NOW, and we must do it for the sake of our democracy.
Consentrate ALL behind HCPB in '08. Do It NOW or democracy dies NOW.
K.I.S.S. K.I.S.S. K.I.S.S. K.I.S.S. K.I.S.S.
*exception being the sight impared. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1391
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 2, 2007 - 4:58 am: |
|
Remember, no right is 'inalienable', if no one fights for it when it's stomped on. |
Casey Reed
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Voternm
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 9, 2007 - 8:40 am: |
|
After a lawsuit claiming disenfranchisement of the voter from their vote using DRE's and winning, the Governor of New Mexico and presidential candidate Bill Richardson, co-sponsored a paper ballot law and it was passed in New Mexico. Now the paper ballots are being counted by scanners and memory cards that can easily be corrupted and there is no language for audits or recounts, so paper ballots are ALMOST as useless to election integrity as DRE's. WE (the American people) need federal standards from legislation that stipulates that elections are the point that the U.S. constitution transfers the power of the people to run their government to their representatives and elections are the PEOPLE'S most important business, not corporations. Such legislation needs to stipulate:
1) There will be No corporate involvement in election machinery certification, operation, maintenance, or software loading, programming, or certification. These functions are the people's business and corporations have consistently been shown to be resistant to letting people participate, certify, witness, audit, or recount elections. Therefore, people will perform these functions; and to be in compliance with this stipulation,
2) All software used on any machine or device that is associated with or counts ballots in any capacity for any election is to be made open source and registered for public inspection and review at the office of each County Clerk's office and Secretary of State's office wherein said software is used. Further NO machine will have any I/O ports of any kind. No modems wireless or otherwise, and no connections to any network. All power supplies are to be filtered so no high band data communications could occur or battery supply packs are to be used if 120 volt supply sources can not be used with transmission blocking equipment; and to check software performance,
3) All machine counts are to audited with hand counts, such that 5% of all precincts in every county are to be audited. If a county has 3 machines, one is audited by counting 100% of the ballots by hand and checking the totals against the machine memory count print out, or poll tape. If any difference is found the hand count is the official count, further all precincts in the county with any discrepancies found are to be counted by hand and if any more discrepancies are found in more than two precincts in any one county, the entire state is to be hand counted and all machine counts thrown out; and to assure this is done correctly,
4) No hand counts for audits or recounts for county or state can proceed without registered voter witnesses. At least 3 witnesses are needed for each precinct recount. No ballots will be recounted by hand without three witnesses per precinct being present during the counting; and to further the security and validate the election of higher office,
5) All presidential, congressional, and state governor races will be hand counted with at least three witnesses, one from every registered party on the ballot. No ballots are to be counted without witnesses present; and to secure this reasoning it is to be stipulated,
6) Elections are the people's business, not corporations, and corporations do not have the rights individuals have. The 1886 Supreme Court Case of Southern Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County did not grant the Constitutional rights of the individual to corporations. Further, what is in the best interests of corporations is frequently NOT in the best interest of the people. Much like the tyranny of King George of England that motivated the American Revolution, today's tyrants and corruption sources of our democratic processes in the United States are corporate lobbies, corporate control of the public print and broadcasting media, corporate control or corruption of governmental agencies, such as the CIA, FBI, and domination of election protocol. This law is designed to help end corporate or corrupt intervention from corporate interests and return democracy to the people of the United States. We have no democracy if we do not have open and transparent elections that the people are involved with and witnessing, with no corporate involvement.
Where are the federal guidelines? We need this kind of uniform standards act, as much as we needed civil liberties and the legislation that started the needed corrections to stop racism and abuse of minorities during the days of Martin Luther King Jr.
(Message edited by VoterNM on July 09, 2007) |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 50
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, July 9, 2007 - 9:49 am: |
|
Casey asked us...
"Where are the federal guidelines?"
You've got a choice, my friend!
You can have the current EAC with its shiny veneer of corrupt partisanship in which the citizens play no part!
Or you can wait for the new, improved "Holt II" version of the EAC with its permanent federal management of elections under a corporate aegis in which the citizens play no part!
Don't you just love the choices you have in our free society? |
Paul Lehto
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Paul_lehto
Post Number: 25
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 8:18 am: |
|
Correction to post above by Brant Lamb saying "Remember, no right is 'inalienable', if no one fights for it when it's stomped on." This isn't true.
Inalienable means it can't be lost, waived, transferred, sold, taken away, destroyed or otherwise impaired in any way, even if one wished to do just that...
Inalienable rights can only be denied or violated, but it doesn't affect the existence of the right.
Rights are not rights because they magically stay preserved at all times, rights are rights because there is a weak or strong tendency to have them stomped on, and gives the one whose rights are stomped on usually all 3 of the following:
(a) a cause of action in courts
(b) a strong political argument and
(c) an ethical claim on other people to respect the inalienable right.
Having an inalienable right puts a person in the strongest possible argumentative position. Perhaps gunpoint is stronger, but it's not an "argument" or rational approach of reasoning.
THere's absolutely no reason to be against an inalienable right or not to accept it, unless you really don't like freedom or whatever the right is, in question. Like i was quoted as saying above, the only enemies are despair, depression, distraction, denial, division, and the other Terrible D's. Don't let the D's get you Down. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 4103
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 9:56 am: |
|
Thanks for adding that, Paul.
There are some interesting discussions on rights in two more recent threads here--I'd be interested to hear your views. You might have to scroll down a bit in each one, or search for the word "right" or "rights" in the page, as the discussions covered a lot of topics.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/54625.html
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/72/68710.html |
|
|
