READER COMMENTS ON
"Email from Tarrant County, TX: 'Democracy is Dead Here'"
(29 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 2:10 pm PT...
That's what I've been saying! The Dems rolled over and are silent about e-vote fraud!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 2:10 pm PT...
Our country is a sham, with these 2 parties running it.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 2:36 pm PT...
Brad nailed it from the very beginning. Unless Americans demand paper ballots, hand-counted, as in Germany, France, Canada, and Japan, democracy is dead in America.
See my "How American Elections Became a Criminal Enterprise" at www.hermes-press.com
Brad is cited with thanks.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 2:38 pm PT...
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 3:00 pm PT...
If now's not the time to start a new political party, I don't know when is.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 3:01 pm PT...
Michelle - Thanks for the link. I had seen your story previously (and much appreciate the hat tips there, btw) but wanted to touch base with you on a thing or two. Couldn't find your email address at the site, however, nor did you give it here. So if you could email me I'd much appreciate it.
Note, I'm hitting the road for the next several days and will be on and offline (mostly off, I hope!) for a bit. So please keep emailing me if you don't hear back right away. Should be reliably back on line by mid-week next week. U can wait to contact me until then if you like.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 3:58 pm PT...
Tell us something we don't know! Maybe this is another state that need the SOS to be sued.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 4:08 pm PT...
Here is the plan:
1) Win the Secretary of State Office
2) Convert to Electronic Voting Machines
3) Program machines to favor your party
4) Have a press release or two to talk about how well the vote went (along with the war)
5) Illegally squash any recount
You fill in the rest
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 4:16 pm PT...
It looks like the vote rigging software still needs to work done on it before it can rig the vote correctly (i.e., without anyone noticing the crime). It's actually supposed to change the outcome of an election, without changing the total number of votes! Maybe halliburton should be contracted to help these incompetent voting machine engineers do their job better. Otherwise, I fear the vote-rigging in 2008 will be chaotic, and prone to liberal bloggers' complaints. Still, keeping the illusion of democracy is important to the planned, gradual changeover to a pure dictatorship --- it helps keep the masses uninterested in what the neocons (and some neodems) are up to.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 4:32 pm PT...
"... You fill in the rest"
Not much left to fill in! IMHO
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 4:34 pm PT...
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 3/22/2006 @ 5:00 pm PT...
And yet people keep insisting that the Dems should be supported. Support individually ethical candidates, but don't support the DNC until they start acting like something other than Republican lite. Pathetic. The rest of the world laughs...well actually probably cries for what is going on here and yet the unwashed masses seem not to care.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 3:05 am PT...
It's all bipartisan alright, a bipartisan effort to steal every election. Disgusting, is it not? This is my home state. At least we may be building grounds for a lawsuit, as one of the other posters above mentioned. Tomorrow a.m. there is a hearing at the Sec. of State's office for citizens' input regarding the recertification of Diebold for Texas. I am going to speak, loaded for bear. Thanks, Jim March, for giving me great ammunition!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 3:19 am PT...
Vickie, bring an elephant gun, you're gonna need it
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 6:58 am PT...
Vickie K, Good luck on your speaking before the Texas SOS tomorrow. Jerry Lobdill is a long-time, very good friend of mine. I'm also a retired computer programmer (21 years) from Tarrant County. I've come up with a method to make electronic voting both viable and accountable and I wish you would keep this in mind as you speak tomorrow and in the future. Perhaps we can get some company to do it this way.
Electronic voting is done then two printouts of the voters choices are made, one to the voter for verification and the other to the "barrel" (that's the holding area in the machine for ballots that have been cast.) At the close of voting the hand count from the barrel is compared with the electronic total. Thus we have both speed and accuracy from the evoting and accountability from the printout. One other thing, the source code ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY MUST be given to the election officials!
That's it. That's all we have to do. Neither Diebold nor any other company does this but what I have is a simple system. I believe in computers and I believe they can, if properly used, be helpful in a fair election process, both for speed and accuracy. But just as a hammer can be used to bludgeon as well as build we must be vigilant this computer tool is used properly.
Thanks so much
Tarrant County (Fort Worth) Texas
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 8:00 am PT...
I think there's a small problem with your concept. If the number of ballots in the "barrel" equals the number of ballots the machine claims to have processed, is that proof that the tallies of votes for candidates is correct? And if we do an end run around that problem and actually manually count the votes each candidate got by examination of the ballots in the barrel is there any way that there could be a discrepancy due to vote rigging?
I think the answers are "No" and "Yes". Hmmm....back to the drawing board.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 8:36 am PT...
Democrats put the vote rigging machines into motion in the first place, and have been fighting tooth nail and claw to keep them in place!
Why do they hate our freedom?
Democratic Sen Dodd and Democratic Rep Hoyer urge rest of congress NOT to
amend HAVA to require voter verified paper ballots:
“Dear Colleague,” Rep. Robert Ney, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D), Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Chris Dodd (D), March 3, 2004.
They warned that amending HAVA to require VVPB would cause
"numerous adverse unintended consequences. Most importantly, the proposals requiring a voter-verified paper record
would force voters with disabilities to go back to using ballots that provide neither
privacy nor independence, thereby subverting a hallmark of the HAVA legislation.”
Georgia's Secretary of State, Cathy Cox, (Democrat) could easily be considered the official Poster Girl for Diebold Election Systems, Inc. ...
Maryland's Secretary of State, Linda Lamone (Democrat) is a staunch defender of Diebold:
Maryland is of national interest because Lamone is the President of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) and the most vociferous advocate for paperless voting in the United States.
Joe Andrews, former head of Democratic National Committee now a Diebold lobbyist:
September 30, 2005 - 07:25 am:
Joseph J. Andrew, who was head of the Democratic National Committee from 1999 through 2001, is now lobbying for Diebold, where he is demonstrating that he is even more mendacious than the veracity-challenged Mark Radke, the PSI (damage control) firm's David Bear, the protective Marvin Singleton, and the script-reading Joe Richardson.
Harris Miller, running for US Senate as Virginia Democrat,
As head of the ITAA, Miller specifically lobbied Congress against verified voting, on behalf of the interests of Diebold and other manufacturers of paperless e-voting machines --- members of ITAA:
The vendor community doesn't like it.
"We oppose the idea of a voter-verified paper trail,"
says Harris Miller, president of the trade group Information Technology Association of America. Introducing paper into the mix, he says, defeats the improved efficiency and reliability e-voting promises. "There was never a golden age when paper ballots were accurately counted," Miller says. Adding paper to e-voting will only make the process of administering elections more costly and time-consuming without improving accuracy, opponents assert. http://www.cio.com.au/in...d;558873322;fp;4;fpid;21
More about Harris and Diebold, as well as other things not so positive here:
Steve Metcalf, former democratic NC state senator turned Diebold lobbyist.
Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (Resigned 3/27/2006)
George Nixon Gilbert, democrat and Director of Guilford County NC Elections:
12/24/2005 High Point Enterprise. Company Root of Controversy- by David Nivens, staff writer.
Gilbert calls the Diebold critics “fanatical.”
“These machines are used in states from Georgia to California,” Gilbert said.
“Diebolds are just as reliable as other machines. They all use the same software and they all have software errors.”
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 8:57 am PT...
to NC Voter;
To say "Why do they (Democrats) hate our freedom?" almost disqualifies you for sane and rational discussion, but here goes anyway.
You have to realize the difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties is that the Democrats don't always agree (hooray most of us say and rightfully so.) We are not lock step the way Republicans are. So, for SOME Democrats to be for Diebold machines is worrisome but not earth-shattering the way I presume it would be for Republicans. What is it about your party that just cannot stand questions? Whoops, pardon me, that was a question, wasn't it? Darn there I go again.
Then, too, in 2001 after the Florida debacle I wrote a letter to the editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram extolling the virtues of electronic voting. I didn't realize at the time how people could callously mis-use this wonderful technology.
If you don't understand the problems with Diebold, or any computer system without source-code divulgience and proper paper audits trails, you may not understand the need for a solution that results in fair and free elections.
So, NC voter, why do you hate my freedom to speak out?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 11:37 am PT...
State Law mandates that only two officials are required to canvass the vote. The actions of the county chair were in line with state law. The false vote totals were easily explained if you follow the sequence of events (not the imaginary one contrived by Mr. Lobdill). It's easy to see what happened.
You should be careful about dealing with Mr. Lobdill. He's known as slanderer and a crackpot. Quite simply he's enraged by the defeat of his candidate for county chair. He's now willing to engage in a "suicide" type campaign to discredit the local party.
He's not well and has no credibility.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 12:09 pm PT...
To Bob Smith,
You said, speaking about my friend Jerry Lobdill, "He's not well and has no credibility." I can believe he has no credibility WITH YOU.
I have known Jerry for a long, long time and I would not presume to diagnose his ailments (if any.) So, my question to you; are you his doctor? Are you even a doctor?
I do believe, sir, you are engaging in name-calling and to most folks that leaves you with no credibility.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 1:50 pm PT...
Just stating the facts. No one believes a word out of this guy's mouth. Dave, you must be his only friend.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 3/23/2006 @ 5:32 pm PT...
A slanderer and a crackpot? Oh my!
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 7:06 am PT...
Can I get you to understand saying "He's not well" if you are not his doctor is NOT stating a fact, but gossip? And that, at least in my mind, cheapens anything else YOU may have to say.
BTW, I do not choose my friends based on how many friends they have. I couldn't care less if you are the most unpopular person on the planet. If you are my friend, you are my friend.
And I don't agree with everything Jerry says, nor does he agree with me. Right now we're discussing computer systems in voting and having a disagreement about that issue.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 7:48 am PT...
When we don't have a vote..our lawmakers on both sides, whether overtly or not, pass legislation to keep it going...why not start thinking our of the box. Cannonfire had an excellent piece on Ghandi's way. Make the govt. irrelevant. Don't buy what they are selling you. Speeds up the process.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 8:25 am PT...
The canvass provision for the primary is Sec. 172.116 of the Election Code, not section 67.04. Section 67.001 clearly states that this section applies to each general and special election held in this state. Art Brender was in error in his email claiming that section 67.04 applies to the March 7 election.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 11:38 am PT...
The information I gave in Comment #25 above was provided to me by the Texas Secretary of State's office, Melinda Nickless .
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 3/24/2006 @ 2:50 pm PT...
Yet again Jerry 100% wrong. No big surprise.
Sec 67.04 "Procedure for Local Canvass." This is the procedure by which the local canvass is executed. This is the provision which governs the process that Mr. Lobdill is complaining. Lobdill is 100% incorrect when he states that a quorum must be present. Don't hold your breath in waiting for him to apologize. He won't.
Section 172.124 "reporting precinct results to the secretary of state" governs reporting the precinct results to the secretary of state.
The funny thing is, neither provision mandates a "quorum" as Mr. Lobdill states. This is a prime example of the way Lobdill operates. The facts be damned, Lobdill just wants to fight. Like I said before, he's a sick individual.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 3/25/2006 @ 7:12 am PT...
Two things: First, this emphasizes, again, problems with e-voting. Secondly, I take this with a big grain of salt since the race in question was for county chair. That position, when contested, always has a lot of emotion, accusations and counter-accusations. The biggest red flag about the emotions involved was the accusation about not having a quorum of precinct committeepersons present. If everything depended on a quorum of pct committeepersons, nothing would ever get done. And a lack of a quorum is always invoked by the losing side.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 3/27/2006 @ 5:47 pm PT...
Still nothing from Lobdill. He gets called on his b.s. then he runs and hides. How typical.
Printing his material is reckless and slanderous. I suggest you pull his post.