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: 
...
|
| 6-17-05: Report on Calif. meeting -- ... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 599
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 19 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:46 am: | 
|
The growing split between government and taxpayers was evidenced at the California voting systems hearing on June 16. There were many first timers at the public hearing, a sign of revival for our Democracy. Hundreds of ordinary citizens filled the generous-sized auditorium to standing room only. Connie McCormack, Los Angeles County Registrar of Elections, and Deborah Hench, San Joaquin County Registrar, showed up to chastise taxpayers (McCormack) and praise Diebold (Hench).
Partisanship problems
The meeting got off to a contentious start when the assistant secretary of state began with a political statement attacking former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. The crowd shouted at him, waving their agendas, and several citizens expressed outrage at this attempt to turn a nonpartisan voting system meeting into a partisan speechmaking opportunity.
Gamesmanship to reduce expert testimony
New California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson committed several procedural gaffs. His department announced that the expert testimony provision normally followed under public meetings law would not be allowed, and he also changed the public meeting procedures to prohibit "time waiving" to allow citizens to give their own speaking time to experts or others.
This "no expert testimony" rule was reversed just before the hearing opened, too late for experts to rearrange their schedules in order to attend and make presentations. Panel members began the meeting 30 minutes late and then, after finally allowing experts to speak, chided them for taking too long to speak, urging the last-minute and hastily assembled experts to finish before lunch.
Even though we knew that the panel intended to block expert testimony, Black Box Voting brought expert Harri Hursti over from Finland to deliver his devastating presentation to the panel.
Hursti testimony
Hursti did no speechmaking, simply stuck to the facts. See upcoming technical report (due next week) for details.
Hursti's no-nonsense testimony, while heavy going for the crowd, was put into the record in such a way as to invoke a fiduciary duty on California officials.
The California voting systems panel asked not a single question of Hursti.
The Diebold damage control man, Marvin Singleton, who works for Public Strategies, a public relations firm handling crisis management PR for Diebold, seemed more interested than the VSPP panel in finding out what Hursti might know. He peered over Hursti's shoulder to look at Hursti's communication device, and tried to engage him in conversation.
California technical expert David Jefferson is no longer on the panel, but is now in the background on an advisory panel. We will watch what he does, after the technical report comes out.
Citizen courage
Dozens of citizens spoke, many prefacing their statements with admissions that they hate doing public speaking, but feel the issue is too important to stay silent on.
Diebold, by the way, pretty much left the building after the first two hours. They sent few representatives and those individuals seemed uninterested in hearing any public remarks.
(NOTE: Kathleen Wynne has been videotaping citizens who stand up to obstructive officials. For example, Sacramento attorney Joan Quin showed unwavering resolve to speak, when California officials ommitted her from the list of speakers and then, after she asserted her right to speak, interrupted her, and then tried to talk over her. She continued to speak even when two security guards showed up. Black Box Voting has been collecting videotapes of citizen courage in public meetings. We will upload them next week when we get off the road. We hope you will click the video graphic on our home page for updated video clips, to see several citizens in many states, show courage in the face of government adversity. These clips will provide inspiration to all who have been bullied or ignored by public officials.)
More BBV testimony
Kathleen Wynne testified about Diebold's habit of paying large sums to grease the procurement railroad, pointing to Cook County's Juan Andrade's $20,000 per month paycheck from Diebold, for lobbying which he has failed to file disclosure documents on.
Bev Harris testified very briefly, trying to salvage the two minutes alloted to her while working around repeated interruptions from the panel. Her testimony went about like this:
"Voting is a public trust. Therefore, the ethics of any vendor purporting to sell a trusted voting system must be examined. What must be examined here is what Diebold Inc. knew, and when-
(Interruption from the panel)
"In 2001, Diebold Inc. made an offer to acquire Global Election Systems. Soon after this offer, the purchase price offered by Diebold appeared to have been heavily discounted -- 25 percent, then another 25 percent, then 50 percent. It appears that Diebold acquired Global almost for free. What was happening while all this discounting was taking place?
"Typically what happens is that due diligence takes place. During due diligence, for a company making products with software, there is an examination of the software by an outside expert. Now, it becomes very important to know what Diebold knew and when, in order to determine whether California should do business with this company at all.
"There are only three possibilities:
"(1) Diebold did not do due diligence on the software. If this is the case, the company is negligent and California should not do business with it-
(Interruption from the panel)
"(2) Or, Diebold did due diligence-
(Interruption from the panel)
"(2) Or, Diebold did due diligence, found the design flaws, but chose to sell the products anyway. If this is the case, the company is negligent and California should not do business with it.
"(3) Or, Diebold found the design flaws, and wanted them in there. If this is the case, California must not do business with this company."
Jim March shot a heads up to the panel, listing problem after problem that had been proven with Diebold. He ended with a question on the odds -- "we are not going to stop looking into this," he said. "and if you certify, you are betting that Diebold will never lose a single round with us."
Committing taxpayer money on Diebold may not turn out to be a good bet.
(side note): When one government official placed a request to have Black Box Voting board member Jim March's motorcycle towed, another official pulled him out of the meeting to rescue his cycle. Perhaps what was objected to was not its parking, but its freedom of speech: On March's motocycle, paid for with the proceeds of a Diebold Qui Tam (false claims lawsuit), are the words "Paid for by LieBold."
More procedural problems
Another gaff committed by the California government was this: The report from California on new systems must come out within 30 days after examining the system. They examined the new systems on April 1, making May 1 the deadline for their report. However, they did not publish the report until June 10 -- one day AFTER the deadline for written public comment, which was June 9. This problem was caught by
California researcher Jody Holder.
At the meeting June 16, the deadline for written public comment was extended until the end of the month. Therefore, the Black Box report (technical report on memory card tamperability) will get into the public record.
In addition, Jim March and Bev Harris submitted formal requests invoking a California statute to require a special examination of all memory card programming for all Diebold voting systems, touch-screen and optical scan, old and new, in the state of California.
March and Harris have also requested a formal California review of the ES&S memory card structure.
Restructuring?
There seems to be some scurrying around in the background to restructure the California Voting Systems and Procedures Panel. The panel did not vote at the public meeting, withholding their votes until later. It is unclear whether Secretary of State McPherson will be taking more control personally, or whether there will be another public meeting for the VSPP vote.
It has become clear that the certification and approval process is either incompetent or a sham, and ordinary citizens are standing up to be counted.
A growing disconnect between the citizenry and their government
Theme for the government and vendor: Recertify a slew of new Diebold products. Theme from the citizenry: Decertify Diebold and invoke the California law banning Diebold from doing business in the state for three years.
Many citizens expressed astonishment that Diebold is even allowed to bid in California nowadays. California officials didn't do their job to decertify this stuff in the first place -- either because they lacked the skill to understand the design flaws, lacked the integrity to take action, or lacked the courage to resist political pressure.
When public officials ignore evidence, give the public two minutes to speak (while granting for-profit vendors hours in private behind closed doors); when public officials steamroll ahead with decisions to certify products from a company with a history of ethics violations -- when public officials do this despite the efforts of those who pay their salaries, then force THE PEOPLE to foot the bill for something we don't want, never asked for, and aren't consulted about -- it starts to become personal.
In fact, the continuing lack of accountability shown by public officials on these matters is bringing THE PEOPLE much closer to uttering three devastating words:
"Taxation without representation"
The size of the crowd and the volume of shouted objections will only grow if the government continues to fail to listen to the will of the people.
Permission granted to reprint, as long as you include link to Black Box Voting.org -- feel free to distribute to your lists. |
linda_franz
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: linda_franz
Post Number: 124
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Gee, where have I seen these tactics on the part of state or local governments before?
At the county level, "public" participation is usually limited to two or three minutes. I've seen committees, responsible for decisions, take testimony from BOTH sides using the couple-minutes rule.
Then when it was time for the committee to debate the issue, the proponents were allowed to participate and were seated across from the committee so the committee could ask them questions.
The public could witness the debate but WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. Not even to correct wild inaccuracies. The decisons were made without any further input or consideration from the public.
You get your two minutes and no rebuttal unless a person on the panel or committee elects to let you speak again- if the head of the panel will allow it.
Equal time, representation, justice? No way. One side gets double or triple access and input.
Another area that needs correcting. Watch the laws regarding public participation. Reality is, they are limited to patronization, not participation.
There may be more venues to contest the decisions of committees and panels but you won't be told about them.
Find out if you can appeal a decision and the procedure, time limits, etc., for doing so. That may or may not involve going before a hearing examiner, etc. This process usually does not require a lawyer but check the rules.
Taking decisions to court is another venue. |
jimmarch
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: jimmarch
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
We have now asked the California SecState's office in official fashion to replicate the Black Box Voting/Leon County/Harri Hursti findings:
http://www.equalccw.com/19202request.pdf
We then made a similar request to have them do the same for ES&S:
http://www.equalccw.com/19202requestess.pdf |
cleanbean
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: cleanbean
Post Number: 14
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Thank you.....
...for the wonderful article describing the Diebold hearing I was unable to attend. I loved the details you provided, and had a variety of conflicting emotions while reading it - happy citizens care, distraught our gov't doesn't.
...for showing up. My heart filled with gratitude that so many did make it to the meeting and I am especially grateful for BBV's presence.
...for your words of determination. Knowing that the tenacious tentacles will seek out Diebold/ESS attempts to corrupt California's voting system and expose them gives me hope.
...for inspiring me anew. I will write to the members of the House and Senate Elections Committees, my own representatives (again), and I am pretty good at emailing listserves of organizations I think might have members that will take action.
As far as your request, is the SoS's office obligated by law, or the statute, to investigate your suspicions? Why didn't you ask to examine it yourself, or ask that an independent expert be allowed to do so? Or is this where people like me come in and demand it?
This statute was located by a great California voting integrity researcher, Jody Holder. For years now he has been working quietly, producing devastating material. At first reading, we thought we'd be able to do the examination, but on closer reading the law has the Secretary of State do the examination. However, that wonderful word "SHALL" is in the statute, regarding promptly providing the report. I assume that means promptly providing the evaluation, not promptly turning people down on the evaluation.
I'm tabling for the California Clean Money Campaign at the Gay Pride Parade in SF this weekend. (>100,000 expected) I will put out a 1/4 sheet Call to Action on this. What do you think is the most important action for Californians to take right now?
I believe I read that the Asst. SoS is the Diebold mole put in place when they ousted Shelley. He used to be a lobbyist for Diebold or something. There have also been Diebold moles installed in the elections offices of Solano and Alameda Counties (and no doubt others).
The Diebold guy is Ortega, who was a senior executive with Rose & Kindel, Diebold's lobbying firm in California. The fellow who delivered the anti-Shelley political speech is William Wood, I believe.
I just need to know if there's any updates or actions since the hearing and your requests before I start a-writin'.
Recommend waiting for the technical report. It knocked my socks off while I was editing it, and I already knew most of the material it would contain. That report will be out by mid-next week.
Oh, and one more thing.....
Thank You, BBV!
Karla Bean
P.S. I can't wait to see the videos!
Karla, I join Kathleen in expressing our appreciation for your kind words. I LOVE the videos. We almost had 'em up today, but had to take care of a couple details first. I know Kathleen is counting on having them up tomorrow if at all possible. -- Bev Harris |
kathleen_wynne
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: kathleen_wynne
Post Number: 77
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
hi cleanbean,
thanks for your kind post.
just wanted to let you know that we hope to have a couple of the California videos up on the site by tomorrow. The good citizens of California were eloquent and passionate. I know you and others will be inspired by their words and their courage. We also will be posting videos of citizens from other states expressing their courage in the face of obstructionist election officials. Hopefully, it will encourage others to stand up and be heard. From their examples, we hope to see all of America stand up and fight for our democracy! Together, we can win this fight.
As for your question about what actions Californians should take right now...well, it would be appreciated if you would alert and encourage people to read the "Black Box Voting Technical Report", regarding the memory card "hack" demonstrated in Florida several weeks ago. We are presently finalizing the Report and then will submit it to our attorneys for their review. Depending on how soon the attorneys finish vetting the Report, we anticipate (hope!) to be releasing it within the week.
We, at BBV, believe the report will start a whole new, healthy dialogue amongst the citizens of our country. In fact, we are counting on it. It also will be very interesting to see the responses from both the political and the technical factions to this Report. The evidence presented in this Report should change minds on what we are truly dealing with regarding the root causes of the many problems inherent in our voting process and, ultimately, what we must do to solve it. More importantly, this Report will give the American people straight answers concering the vulnerabilities of these Diebold optical scan machines based on hard facts and not theory. These facts should also prompt citizens to ask hard questions about the other voting systems that are being used throughout the country, which are probably just as vulnerable as the Diebold OS machines. In any event, we cannot take any chances and we must demand that they be checked out in similar fashion too.
It would be particularly gratifying if the BBV Report innovates citizens to get involved and help solve the voting issue, which has systematically robbed the American people of the integrity of their votes for far too long. BBV is committed to those changes that will assure that the American people will finally be put in charge of our voting process and not leave it up to the "experts" any longer. It's about time, don't you think?
Keep up the good work.
Kathleen |
johnwashburn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: johnwashburn
Post Number: 12
Registered: 04-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
When available, I will need a copy of that report for here in Wisconsin. I have been working since March, 2005 to block the acceptance of faulty voting machinery by insisting the machinery conform to statute requirements. A report on the corrupablity of the tallies, goes to the requirement in 5.91(11); accurate tallying.
How do I get a copy? Preferable in PDF?
In Liberty,
John Washburn
|
kathleen_wynne
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: kathleen_wynne
Post Number: 78
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
John,
As mentioned above, we hope to have our report finalized within a week. The Black Box Report will clearly show that the Diebold OS machines have a huge security hole with the memory cards, as well as vulnerabilities in the central tabulator, meaning that neither the poll tapes nor the central tabulator logs are safe from tampering. This renders any recount using the machine tallies an exercise in futility, which means only the paper ballots are left standing.
My point is, I think it would be premature to insist on machines conforming to any statute considering that the architecture found in the programs of these machines are so terribly flawed. In fact, our expert indicated to us that there would be no way for the vendors to easily fix these problems and that they would have to re-engineer and re-program the entire system, which would take considerable time and money to do so. Leaving the question, what do we do about elections in the meantime? This goes to the very heart of how we should solve the voting issue, which, in my opinion, should exclude the use of any of these machines; again, leaving only hand counted, paper ballots at the precinct level as the best solution thus far.
The Report will be in PDF format. Do keep checking the BBV website for a notification of when the Report will be released.
Kathleen |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
I recieved this in a newsletter from VerifiedVoting.org:
AUTOMARK BALLOT MARKING DEVICE PASSES FEDERAL TESTING
The ES&S Automark ballot marking device recently passed federal qualification testing and yesterday received a qualification number from the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED). See the notice detailing the status at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=5807
When looking for alternatives to paperless direct recording electronic systems (DREs), there are a few important factors to consider.
* Precinct-count optical scan equipment offers higher reliability and lower cost than DREs.
* Optical scan technology is preferable because it means voting takes place on paper ballots.
* Disabled voters should be able to mark a private ballot without resorting to a paperless system and, although some people complain about mobility impaired persons having difficulty moving paper ballots to the ballot box, the AutoMark has accessibility features, such as a sip/puff interface that most paperless e-voting machines do not have.
The Automark technology offered by ES&S fulfills all of the above three requirements. It falls into a category of voting technology that gets high marks from Verified Voting Foundation. These are ballot marking devices that allow disabled voters to cast a private ballot and are designed for use with precinct-count optical scan equipment. For more information on ballot marking technologies, see: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/ballotmarking
Verified Voting Foundation doesn't endorse any specific equipment or manufacturer, but we're encouraged that technology like the Automark exists on the market today and is federally qualified for use in elections.
The availability of ballot marking devices contributes to the strong case for choosing precinct-count optical scan devices over e-voting machines, especially over those machines that have no paper trail.
AND this is what I wrote them back:
While I understand the economics,etc. about optical scan machines versus paperless DRE's, you're endorsement of such machines flies in the face about what has been discovered about the Diebold optical scan machines.
And you do not answer or address those discoveries.
IF there is an optical scan voting machine that does not use memory cards running a 'executive' upon them, please let me know so that I can urge my county supervisors to obtain such machines.
Sincerely
Bruce Sims
San Diego,CA 92116 |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
I just recieved this response from the California Secretary of States office to a letter sent to them via email on 6/12/2005:
Thank you for your email.
Secretary McPherson is committed to an open, thorough, impartial, and public process for review of voting system approval applications. He wants the best technical, experienced, scientific and public information available in order to make a decision. To help Secretary McPherson have access to the widest public information and best technical assistance, he's established two advisory groups: The Voting System Panel, which an advisory, information gathering body and a second advisory group, the Technical Assistance Board.
Secretary McPherson is committed to a partnership with people, vendors, and election officials to meet challenging deadlines and new opportunities.
Sincerely,
Elections Web Mail Representative
Dear Secretary McPherson:
It is with interest that I read your remarks in the news release of June 10,2005, numbered 05:058(pdf form).
You state: "Deadlines are only a means, a measuring stick, a milestone, to an end. We must never elevate the importance of a deadline above the goals of greater voter participation and electoral integrity."
You also state:"my first objective in California is restoring public trust in the Secretary of State's Office and the statewide, nonpartisan implementation of elections..."
So why is it that the "State (is)likely to overlook Diebold flaws" as indicated in this article: http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_2794436
How does "overlooking flaws" address 'electoral integrity'? How does "overlooking flaws" address 'restoring public trust in the Secretary of State's office'?
That ANYTHING associated with a voting machine be hidden from the public record is a ludicrous proposition,especially the idea of 'trade secrets'. I have been in the computer business over 25 years and signed many non-disclosure agreements. In fact,the employment contracts I sign usually have such a non-disclosure of 'trade secrets' clause within them that I must sign if I wish to be employed. And both statutory and case law are consistent in the judgment and
punishment related to violation of such non-disclosure agreements.
So when "State elections authorities have obscured the full nature of those problems by blacking out parts of test reports that have been released under the state Public Records Act and declaring other documents too full of Diebold "trade secrets" for public release.", it belies your statements quoted above.
And since you gave your speech here in San Diego -La Jolla to be specific-perhaps you should be aware that the Diebold optical scan machines used in San Diego are the same machines shown to be 'hackable' in 3 different ways in Leon County,Fl.? And that there is a mayoral election shortly in San Diego? Where is the 'electoral integrity' in such a situation?
In closing, I respectfully request you direct your State Department to do as you state:" "Deadlines are only a means, a measuring stick, a milestone, to an end. We must never elevate the importance of a deadline above the goals of greater voter participation and electoral integrity."
And elections themselves are a 'deadline'. If such elections must be postponed on the basis of electoral integrity, then be assured that the public will be understanding IF the reasons for such postponement are made readily available to the public.
Sincerely,
Bruce Sims
San Diego,CA 92116
Wow. Great letter, Bruce. And you've been doing a wonderful job with this -- even though public officials haven't always done THEIR job, you, as a public citizen, are certainly doing yours! -- Bev |
tractionpads
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: tractionpads
Post Number: 4
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
"If a man made it, a man can take it apart."
Every voting machine has ways to manipulate it. Voting manipulation can take place anywhere there aren't eyes. Only the public can prevent voting fraud.
"Paper trail" is not the solution. The Ohio attempt at a recount proves this. Ohio officials were allowed to choose the tiny proportion of votes to be recounted ~~~ the fox with keys to the henhouse. Who gave him the keys? We all did, when we walked out of the polling place.
The question is, when are we going to insist on paper ballots, counted on the day of election, in the polling place? We don't have to solve other peoples' problems ~~~ we have to solve our own neighborhood's problems.
Our problem is, we're letting our "baby," that is, our ballot, get in a car with a stranger. Your ballot, if you create a physical one, is carted off in a sheriff's car on election evening, never to be viewable by any member of the public or press ever again.
It might be shoved into a huge scanner, a machine that only a very few officials are able to "fine tune." Then again, how does anyone know if his/her ballot is put in the scanner at all, or tossed out, used as an ash tray, or folded up to keep a table from wobbling? No one is watching!
Sure, Los Angeles lets the public watch, behind bullet-proof glass. One sees long trays of what seem to be ballot cards, being pushed through scanning machines. But where have those cards been, between the time they left the voting place, and now?
Observers who, on rare occasion, have had a chance to see ballot cards (such as contributors to this forum), say that they've seen the cards already organized into stacks, candidate by candidate.
This means that these ballots, prior to the public-viewed scanning, have been put through some sort of machine and sorted into groups. And if they've been sorted into groups, it's possible that certain amounts of ballots are culled off of any stack.
Large counties such as Los Angeles routinely do a 1 percent "hand recount" after every election, to "verify" that the machines were counting correctly. But, guess what? Again, it's the officials who pick the precincts that are recounted in this 1 percent! It's never a random pick!
If just a few neighborhood "precincts" in our "land of the free" stand up, and insist on our rights, to use paper ballots that are then counted in the very same room where we voted, on the same day we voted, watched by as many of us as can fit in the room, and who have never been excluded from any part of the room that day as long as there's room to stand, then I'm sure the rest of the "land of the free" will be quick to follow.
That is the only way we can ever come close to an accurate count.
And think about it: Imagine that no voting machine or scanner is tampered with, at all. We still will not have any way to know what the count really was! Because the public never witnessed the count being done.
The only way the public can know that a count is accurate is to watch the counting from start to finish, each of us in our own neighborhood, so that there is no time at which the uncounted ballots are out of the public eye.
Like your toddler in a crowd, once you let your ballot out of your sight, there's a big chance your precious vote will be lost forever.
It should be understood that in order to vote responsibly, one must not only cast a ballot, one must connect with others and, as a group of citizens, watch over the counting of the ballots until one's precinct's totals are posted publicly for all to see. Once those publicly-witnessed numbers go up, the danger of manipulation is past.
Everyone who, unthinkingly and uninformedly, calls for "immediate" tabulation of votes is playing into the hands of those who are cramming voting machines down our throats.
Get together and talk it over with people in your neighborhood. Each precinct is only a few blocks long and wide.
This takes having rapport among your neighbors. It can be done. Many suburbs are full of people who don't know each others' names, but it is easy to rectify this in your own neighborhood.
To begin with, you might go down your own street, introduce yourself, and ask each person if they would like to share their phone number, to call if anything of importance comes up. Make a list of those numbers, and give a copy to each person who gave his/her number. I did this last Christmas, and found that 12 out of 16 households on our street were happy to be on the list.
You'll be surprised how nice it is to know a lot of peoples' names on your street, and to say, "Hi Chris!" instead of just sheepishly nodding to the half-stranger you live out your days and years with. It's so much easier to communicate on anything at all, after this "ice breaking."
After you've gotten to know some of the people around you, suggest a meeting about local vote counting. Probably not many will come from your own street ~~ but that's a start. You can also put an ad in the local Penny Saver, "Call me if you live in east _____ and want to get together to talk about vote counting in our neighborhood." (I'm sure you can write a better ad than this!) It might cost you $10, but it could help start a national landslide toward hand counted paper ballots.
And there's not a lot of time to spare. "They" (whoever "they" are) are starting to eliminate precincts all together, such as in Florida. "They" want to just count the votes through "centralized tabulators." Without precinct boundaries, neighborhood people will not know who is in their group, thus local people will have huge problems organizing among themselves. "Use it or lose it." We should protect and use the existing precinct system, before it's too late!
The county registrar-recorder (or however it's called in your state) has maps of each precinct, street by street. They can give you a copy.
Whew! It's hot. But not as hot as it's going to get if we don't protect our precincts and our votes.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Salisbury
La Mirada CA |
ubetchaiam
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 45
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi Kim; please see:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#1138
and provide your opinion. BBV is not for this initiative but I see it as a step in the right direction; unfortunately, once an initative is approved, it can't be altered. |
|
|
