READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For February 22, 2006"
(6 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 2/22/2006 @ 6:29 pm PT...
John, You missed the important news in Ohio; the Libertarians have filed a motion of reinstatement for the recount suit citing the new clause that the procedures were ignored and again mishandled in 2005...
Its gotten interesting there. And Kathy pointed out something very good I read, the whole procedure behind the Diebold TSx all having IR ports is cited in the constitution for illegal grounds.
It should be possible just with the Diebold TSx machines alone, to file an injunction lawsuit in California, Utah and finally like Lynn Landes has done nationwide. Even with the conditional guidelines, Diebold has nothing to "protect" for the IR port manipulation; and other hacks which would make their certification null and void. According to the clause, that alone would disqualify it from being considered "useable" for state election races.
Now we force the California committee to issue subpoenas, and we will really get under that hood for the real deal this time.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/23/2006 @ 4:29 am PT...
The legal structure of our congress does not support a multi-party system, and is designed for a two party system. It is a winner take all affair.
This is not good, but it is reality.
Under the law of the House and Senate, "the Senate divides its tasks among 20 committees, 68 subcommittees, and 4 joint committees" ... "The chair of each committee and a majority of its members represent the majority party. The chair primarily controls a committee’s business" (link here).
Take an example where republicans win 30 seats, independents win 28 seats, greens win 29 seats, and democrats win 13 seats. We can now easily see that this will not work well.
The republicans with 30 seats end up as the majority party. Remember that the majority party and the majority are not the same thing in our system. The majority, in this example, is 70 votes (greens, indys, and dems), but the majority party is the republicans because they got those 30 seats.
Therefore, they get the committee chair on each and every committee, and they get the majority number of members in each and every committee of congress.
So, in our system, the majority of seats would be governed by the minority republican 30 seats.
Anyone see any way to improve this?
I do. The polls show that the body politic favors democrats in the upcoming election, and voting democrats into the majority is the public will.
We would have an easier time prevailing upon them to change the rules.
It should be pro rata based upon percentage of seats.
Committees should be distributed to all parties based upon percentage of seats in a pro rata configuration.
Otherwise, when independents, greens, democrats, and other parties fight each other the republicans always remain the majority party and therefore always control the congress.
Click Here and Support Clint Curtis
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/23/2006 @ 6:20 am PT...
You said "the whole procedure behind the Diebold TSx all having IR ports is cited in the constitution for illegal grounds".
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/23/2006 @ 7:13 am PT...
Brad: Someone wrote an article about election fraud on rense.com and mentioned you and your work several times. Congrats. You're a one-man wrecking crew.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/23/2006 @ 2:51 pm PT...
Dredd You still do not understand how the system really works. Once instant rankoff voting becomes law, then maybe you will. It doesn't matter how many committees there are which way once you have full proportional representation.....and the InfraRed Ports are yet another step to proving the machine's un-usability.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/24/2006 @ 6:01 am PT...
Your posts, for some reason, become more and more distorted on some issues about which you have no mental acumen.
It would be better if you just backed off and became more aware of what you think you are saying and what you are actually saying.
Way before you showed up here, and way before you ran into trouble with Jim March, and way before Brad suggested you listen to me on some issues, we here took pride in the careful construction of our posts.
When we link we link to relevant and intellectually honest support. You have given up the quality of posting BRAD BLOG is famous for.
I am only asking that you get back up to the quality of posts old timers here at Brad Blog are noted for.
Unless you do not want to be part of that.