Says Little Interest in Washington for True Election Reform, Federal Agency Created after Florida 2000 Election 'Put Together With Spit'
By Brad Friedman on 7/10/2006, 10:01pm PT  

"We really had to put together a federal agency with spit," says Rev. DeForest Soaries in a great interview by Tim Dickinson for Rolling Stone exposing (again) the cruel federal hoax.

Soaries was the first chair of the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) created by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in the wake of Florida 2000. He's a Republican and a Bush appointee. Apparently, one of the few honest ones left. He resigned some time ago, apparently out of frustration with the EAC and the fact that the entire commission seems to be little more than a bad joke.

Here are a few choice clips from the interview...

ROLLING STONE: What led you to resign?

DeForest Soaries: It wasn’t until I worked in Washington on an issue as generic as this that I realized how pitiful and perhaps how hopeless Washington really is. For God’s sake…if any issue should be the catalyst for bipartisan cooperation, this is the issue: voting.

It was probably the worst experience of my life. I found that there is very little interest in Washington for true election reform. That neither the White House nor either house of the Congress seems to be as committed to guaranteeing democratic participation in this country as we seem to be in other countries. It’s an embarrassment that we don’t have a broad enough consensus among political leaders that true reform should take place. I could count the members of Congress on one hand that took these issues seriously.
...
We don’t have a performance rate for machines. If we discovered that of 10,000 Diebold machines model XYZ, 1,000 break down during the day, is that acceptable or unacceptable? If it were a toaster we could tell you, it were a tire we could tell you. If a certain tire malfunctions a certain number of times then they have a recall.

We have no basis for having a recall of any particular type of voting equipment because there are no standards. And when we do have standards, even these standards are required to be voluntary. So is a one percent error rate good? Is a two percent error rate good? 5,000 votes cast, only 4,000 counted? Is that success or failure?

So when you ask me about Ohio, you can recite to me the worst data that anyone has unearthed in Ohio, I would have to say to you — very technically — so what? What does it violate?

It may violate your sensibilities, it may violate my sensitivities, it may violate someone else’s sense of fair play. But the Secretary of State of Ohio has proven that you can get straight through an election by saying: We broke no law. You see the problem?