READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For February 14, 2006"
(6 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/14/2006 @ 7:05 pm PT...
Full on TRO in Arizona and Pennsylvania....
Take them all the way to the edge of COURT and back, and delay HAVA immediately. Be like Paul Lehto and make indeed, the argument that "none of these machines, in fact, which are touch screen or any machine which has secret source code ought to be used to count votes."
The entire argument violates the constitution. That's how Paul Lehto won.
Thats how you will get your required 5% audit, and how a state such as UTAH will enforce the law for this.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/14/2006 @ 7:08 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2006 @ 7:32 am PT...
Doug E #2
Where "According to the constitution" does it state that "the vote SHALL NOT be counted in secret where no one can see"?
It is quite easy to search the text of the constitution for what the text really says.
The word "vote" appears in the 12th (electors, not the people, vote for pres and vpres; only congress present, not the public; modern TV can make it open), 14th (2/3 vote of congress can pardon eligibility effects of rebellion, etc), 15th (all races can vote), 17th (people's right to vote for senate established), 19th (women can vote), 24th (eradicate poll tax), and 26th (18 yrs old can vote) Amendments.
It also appears in Article II (how electors, not the people, vote for pres & vpres - modified by 12th amendment).
Originally there was no right of the people to vote for senators or for the president.
Voting in such cases was done by vicars, ie "electors", people who purportedly represented the people and voted for president in their stead. These electors are state legislators who have been elected by state law to state legislatures.
Election functionality is largely a matter of local (state) procedure, unfortunately.
That is why different voting machines from different voting machine companies can be working at the same time in one state, or all states.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2006 @ 12:27 pm PT...
"That is why different voting machines from different voting machine companies can be working at the same time in one state, or all states."
You miss the point. Read Lehto's entire argument in the court cases cited; and you'll see where it says in the state constitution's clause that voting in secret violates the fourth ammendment. He has made it crystal clear: Secret vote counting violates the rules of the constitution.
Its been spelled out in plain language, not the electors but in fact the vote itself.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/15/2006 @ 2:50 pm PT...
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/23/2006 @ 5:27 am PT...
Doug E #4
Here is the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " (link here).
It is your responsibility to correct the falsehood, not mine.
I merely put light on it and you should react to light favorably, not unfavorably.
Your proposition and reply are looney tune.