READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For August 31, 2007"
(47 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 8/31/2007 @ 8:19 pm PT...
Tonight I went to the kickoff fundraiser/dinner for Clint Curtis's campaign for congress. I was active in his campaign last year, and I'm proud to be doing the same for the coming election. Tonight was a really great experience on many levels. The turnout was great, and there were a lot of people there that I knew. I also had the opportunity to meet a lot of people for the first time ranging from Bob Bowman to DailyKos' Darksyde. There was a buffet dinner served, and many people spoke at the podium about Clint. Guts, integrity, honor, courage and determination were continuing themes throughout these speeches. I was really happy that so many people came out to support him. Clint is someone I'd be proud to have representing me in Washington, and it was clear that a great many people felt the same way. Honestly, with all the buzz about attacking Iran and the imposition of martial law, I'm not sure we'll be having elections next year but in the case that we do, I'll be doing my part to send Clint to Washington.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 4:52 am PT...
John, you quoted a questioner who asked:
Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States ...
That train left the station long ago with the first version of the Constitution:
Although the states are responsible for running elections, Congress has authority to affect the administration of elections. Congress’ authority to regulate elections derives from various constitutional sources, depending upon the type of election. With regard to federal elections, Congress has constitutional authority over both congressional and presidential elections. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, known as the Elections Clause, provides Congress with broad authority to regulate congressional elections
(GAO Report: "The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration", emphasis added). I don't know which elections your quote is targeted at.
It behoves anyone who is enlightening voters about congressional authority in election matters, to specify whether or not the subject is a congressional, presidential, or state election the purported enlightenment is about.
Otherwise it can be just another one of those plentiful exercises these daze that merely casts sand in the eyes of the voters.
The article I linked to is a must read, especially for those seeking to become an enlightener in federal election matters.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 8:36 am PT...
Good link, Dredd; thanks.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 12:40 pm PT...
As a member of Move-on, I just received a poll asking whether move-on should back the latest Holt bill.
I have been away and have not kept up with the changes in the bill. I suspect that all of its problems are still there? That is, it allows for paper trails, use of DRE's, and empowers executive-controlled controlling body?
Does someone know whether this bill has improved to the point of being good?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 1:30 pm PT...
The bill is worse now than it was before. Holt has even said it is no longer his bill; it is Microsoft's. I voted that MoveOn should not support the bill.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 1:40 pm PT...
Actually, no.... what came out of committee markup kept many of the original flaws in the bill and added some more. It's much worse than the original 811.
And now the Dem House leadership, unclear on the concept of just why it was getting such a negative reaction, has been messing with it even further in search of an unattainable "compromise".
Unattainable because Holt and his dwindling company of supporters are still lying nonstop about what the bill does, while those who've read what the bill actually says have been trying to convey the facts of this bill over the "Holt Noise Machine".
What the final bill will look like when it's passed after it comes up for a midnight vote sometime is unknown and will not have been publicly debated beforehand... and ain't that a hell of a way to rewrite how our democracy runs?
The solution is simple: Holt needs to cease his empire-building efforts within the bill, sunset the EAC as was originally intended, and pay strict attention to what's needed to get us through 2008 while engaging all interested parties in extended discussion regarding permanent solutions.
Debra Bowen in California has shown one possible way to handle it... but the openess and transparency Bowen has both shown to voters and is trying to restore to CA's elections are apparently anathema to Holt's back-room politicking.
After all, the last quote attributed to Holt on this matter was "... the voters are uneducated..."
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 3:11 pm PT...
Thanks for the comments on the MoveOn issue. I just received it, too, and was unsure about how to vote. I will vote NO.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 5:51 pm PT...
The political hacks have spoken in this thread. I suggest that you give your own mind a chance at grasping the reality.
Some of the hacks have said that others are lying, implying deceitfully that they have the one and only truth. That is not the case.
If you have ever watched The McLaughlin Report on PBS, you know about the range from 0 to "metaphysical certitude".
That is what the hacks here that call others liars on this matter are espousing. That they have found metaphysical certitude on this bill.
Bullshit. They are ignorant and do not grasp the concept that reasonable people can differ.
The HR 811 status is murky and constantly changing in the House during this, the 110th Congress.
I take no position on it for or against, because as my next post will show, it will not get past filibuster.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 6:02 pm PT...
RE: S. 559 and HR 811
The Congress is bi-cameral and both the House and the Senate versions must be dealt with before there can be a conference committee. Such a committee fuses House and Senate variations of bills into one body of text.
Then, that morphed version must be passed by both the House and the Senate, resulting in bi-cameral legislation which is then sent to the president to sign or veto.
The Senate filibuster prevents any bill from going to the floor for an "up or down vote". That applies to the final morphed version as well.
Thus, the fate of any congressional legislation (whether House or Senate) ultimately faces the power of the Senate filibuster at least once.
It takes 60 votes to grant a cloture motion, which is the motion that brings debate to an end (stops any filibuster), and which allows an up or down floor vote in the Senate on the bill.
The dems in the 110th Senate, which started in January, have had only 48 voting members, the repubs have had 49, and the indies have had 2 voting members. In any tie vote, Dick Cheney casts the tie breaker.
Thus the republicans have been able to obstruct, thru the filibuster (about 50 times so far this year), any legislation their leaders have opposed.
My research tells me the republicans will filibuster this legislation because they do not like the House language that allows "qualified persons" to peruse the source code of electronic voting machines, nor do they like the Senate language that allows "any citizen" to peruse that source code.
Remember that Debra Bowen in California was given much power to evaluate the EVM vendors by examining the source code of those EVM's.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 6:08 pm PT...
I have read thru the house report on HR 811. It comments on the amended version, not the original.
In the amended version the requirement for open source code to be afforded to any citizen was weakened to now say it can be reviewed only by "qualified" people.
I noticed that the minority (republican) view is:
H.R. 811 is the majority’s hasty attempt at election restructuring that received insufficient deliberation from their members and zero support from Republican members of the Committee.
(Report 110-154, emphasis added). One thing the republicans did not like was, in their words, that HR 811 would weaken intellectual property rights:
these alterations are aimed at limiting the use and value of electronic voting systems, weakening intellectual property rights, infringing on state’s rights, federalizing and micro-managing the administration of elections, expanding enforcement by private parties
(id. at page 77 of the pdf, emphasis added). The voting machine companies like Diebold, whom the republicans own and support, do not want the source code to be publicly scrutinized.
So they argue that property rights of the Diebolds of the world are more important than open election machine source code is to the american people.
Black box voting is ok by them, because they don't even want the watered down and weakened HR 811 provisions to become law. They go on to say:
Allowing access to the source code for voting machines will give the blueprint for manipulation of elections and the ability to irrationally criticize the software to the point that it negatively affects voter confidence.
(id at page 80, emphasis added). So as long as only the republican owned and controled Diebolds of the world have "the blueprint for manipulation" it is ok by the republicans on the committee.
The "ability to irrationally criticize" is the only avenue they can see, but what about rational criticism by the best universities in america? How could that negatively affect voter confidence?
These dazed republicans fail miserably to recognize, as the recent California reports show, that open source code gives the people power over EVM vendors.
The republicans on the committee want a faith based system where the fearless leader is trusted blindly.
The republican position is so Stalinist, because as Stalin pointed out, it is they who count the votes that decide everything. Especially when done in secret.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 6:14 pm PT...
Random thought on a Saturday evening... nothing concrete and people should take it with a pound or two of rock salt... once I commented here re Conyers. Something like "... just keep him after impeaching somebody or the other and keep him the hell away from making tech law..." or something to that effect.
And it just occured to me that while Holt may indeed be a literal rocket scientist (which would also explain his trust in the computers used in e-voting when that trust is not shared by actual computer security specialists)... but... has Holt ever steered any large technically complex bills to successful enactment before?
Regardless of the alarm bells that should shriek to wake the dead when any federal election reform law becomes "a large technically complex bill"... that's all that Holt's offering us now.
But the way the bill has mushroomed out of control might be indicative of other things in addition to techno-hubris and bureaucratic empire-building... things such as inexperience in this particular area of "a large technically complex bill"?
Did Holt's enthusiasm for election reform, noted as genuine by everyone involved before all this went sour, did this enthusiasm get him in over his head? And after he was swamped did his hubris lead him to accept as gospel anything said by anyone that seemed to offer a way forward while saving face?... even if those doing the talking were the self-interested and often outrightly partisan EVM vendors and election officials?
This is speculation, is all, and does not excuse the other problems with both the bill and Holt's attitude towards the people it affects. I was just wondering if there is anyone with any insight into this area?
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 6:55 pm PT...
Oh. Dredd's been at it again while I've been typing randomness. So I'm a "political hack" now? Does this mean I can stop coding and instead start hewing down politicians?
(Not so farfetched, perhaps, as I'm a Libertarian Nekomimiist with Rakugaki leanings... so most folks hereabouts seem to think of me as sitting comfortably to the right of Attila the Hun... )
And hey, Dredd, please explain what good does it for America to have Holt permanently redefine as a "paper ballot" something that is never required to be counted?
And if anyone really is curious about the other deceptive tactics documented in the long and winding mutation of Holt's Fiasco just ask Bev Harris and others involved with the election integrity movement .. they've often bore the brunt of it.
As far as the older versions of 811 that have long since been overwritten by creeping corporatism are concerned... there's only one version of the bill that will be voted on by the House. And that ain't the version Dredd longs for.
And, finally, what is making me angry now: Dredd's repeated assurances that we should just not bother with the bill because "congress won't pass it anyways"...
... hey, Dredd, have you forgotten everything ELSE the damned Democrats have voted for in the new congress?
Little things like, say, the warrantless surveillance of Americans? Passed just over a month ago if you'll recall.
Anyone who relies on this congress to pass or not pass anything is a fool.
Holt has turned out a bad bill. It needs to be fixed or scrapped and emergency measures for '08 put in place while it's reworked.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 9/1/2007 @ 7:42 pm PT...
It's too bad Brad's "off the grid" right now... camping, or I'm sure he would tell you the bill is awful and should not be passed.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 1:41 am PT...
The HR 811 bill sucks.
It's been confusing to pay attention to, it's been pushed on folks even though it is a bad bill.
It does NOT remove electronics from doing the actual counting.
Really the crust of the biscuit here is:
There can be no public oversight ever...As long as the votes are counted electronically. People can not SEE electricity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
You want to print paper ballots to be hand counted that's a different matter, I support electronics (in nearly any form to help the disabled) that PRINT paper ballots, I DO NOT SUPPORT electronics that COUNT VOTES.
You should NOT SUPPORT electronics that COUNT VOTES.
HR 811 SUPPORTS electronics that COUNT VOTES!
If you agree with what I am saying above, then you should NOT SUPPORT HR 811.
Screw all the non-sense.
Keep it simple!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 2:12 am PT...
Edward R. Murrow - 1954
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,"
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason,
if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men,
not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."
And so good night, and good luck.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 6:29 am PT...
The political hacks condemn the junior democratic Senators for voting with republicans on a recent bill, but do the same by joining the republicans on the Holt / Nelson bill.
Hypocrisy ... stay out of bathrooms for awhile until the heat blows over.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 6:38 am PT...
The same can be said for Debra Bowen in California, whom everyone praised.
She kept DRE machines, and allowed the other machines to be re-certified.
How is that so different from Holt / Nelson? They outlaw secret source code, Ken Blackwell and Karen Harris, and require "archival quality paper ballots" for each individual vote cast.
Debra Bowen has not require even that much. She does not posit that anyone can see the source code, nor are archival quality paper ballots required.
Praise for one but hate for the other, under similar circumstances? Even Brad said a little progress is better than zero progress.
That is a progressive view IMO.
At any rate, there will be no federal legislation requiring any citizen to be able to see the source code for the reasons given in Post #9 above.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 11:30 am PT...
By now there is no excuse possible. But even after his various
desperate evasions "talking points" have been thoroughly (and repeatedly) discredited hereabouts Dredd insists on rearranging them into yet another meaningless pattern and tossing them into the comments ad infinitum hoping to snare someone... anyone...
But for the record and by the numbers:
... Dredd played the partisan card thusly...
"The political hacks condemn the junior democratic Senators for voting with republicans on a recent bill, but do the same by joining the republicans on the Holt / Nelson bill."
So you are saying that because the Republicans will vote against a bad bill for their own reasons then the rest of us must vote in favor of that bad bill just to avoid being seen as "voting with the Republicans".
But it's not about who is Right and who is Left... it's about what is right and what is wrong. And Holt's bill has gone terribly wrong somewhere.
... and then Dredd played the Holt card of misrepresenting what Debra Bowen is doing...
"The same can be said for Debra Bowen in California, whom everyone praised."
No, that cannot be said about Bowen. Bowen is in the middle of applying emergency first-aid to the ongoing disaster of California's electoral process. A disaster invited by and encouraged by both her predecessor and corrupt and/or negligent county election officials.
Holt, on the other hand, took it upon himself to curb and prevent many of the abuses that had led to the current voting fiasco... which wasn't a bad thing for a congressman to do... at least until he let entrenched and partisan special interests rewrite his bill into an even greater fiasco.
"She kept DRE machines,"
You mean the DRE's that now must meet stringent new security requirements before the recertification takes effect, are limited one to a polling place and are also required to have a 100% manual audit thus making them essentially paper ballot printers for the disabled?
Note that DRE's in normal usage do not print paper ballots, despite Holt's lies to the contrary, because Holt's Fiasco does not require that each of these purported "ballots" actually be counted... ever... but Bowen's mandate that 100% of the printouts be counted crosses that line and you can call them ballots. Barely
There is one particular brand of DRE that Bowen will allow somewhat wider usage of, after it meets stringent new security requirements before its recertification takes effect, and that I beleive was an error on Bowen's part. But it's an understandable error and does little to detract from the good she has accomplished and is trying to accomplish.
"and allowed the other machines to be re-certified."
You mean the other machines that generate actual paper ballots and now must meet stringent new security requirements before the recertification takes effect?
Simple. Bowen is dealing responsibly with a situation she did not create but with which she must deal with immediately using the tools she has at hand.
Holt had no such restrictions... and thus has no good reason for why his effort has turned out so badly.
... and now Dredd folds, stops playing his cards altogether, and drifts into a dreamland that never was and never will be...
"How is that so different from Holt / Nelson? They outlaw secret source code,Ken Blackwell and Karen Harris,
Holt's HR 811 now requires and mandates Federal protection of secret vote counting source code. As for Nelson's S 559, a copy of the original Holt bill with a couple of improvements... this bill seems to be irrelevant, as this version of the bill has remained stagnant and was never updated to either counter or embrace the various Holt mutations. And remember that Holt's original bill had serious problems of its own... problems that Holt and Nelson have refused to address all along.
... and require "archival quality paper ballots" for each individual vote cast."
Calling a dog turd an ice cream cone doesn't make most people want to lick it. Calling easily gamed DRE printouts "paper ballots" doesn't make them actual ballots when there is no requirement whatsoever that each one actually be counted.
"At any rate, there will be no federal legislation requiring any citizen to be able to see the source code"
There is no such legislation in contention or even under discussion. Both currently active candidates for election reform legislation, Feinstein and Holt, both mandate Federal protection of secret vote-counting software.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 7:13 pm PT...
I emailed my congress man Tom Allen(D) from Maine and asked him to vote against HR811. He emailed me back twice to say that he co sponsored Holt's bill and a lot had been added ...it was in committee. Any tips for my next email. I'm not as quick as you all.Allen is running against Susan Collins in '08 and has become quite responsive.I sincerely need help and want to get the right info to him.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 9/2/2007 @ 9:19 pm PT...
Write him back and inform him that the bill was voted out of committee and since then it has been changed twice. The bill looks nothing like the bill that he co-sponsored. He needs to read it and then vote against it. Even Holt has begun to say that the bill is no longer his; it's Microsoft's bill.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2007 @ 3:57 am PT...
So you are saying that because the Republicans will vote against a bad bill for their own reasons then the rest of us must vote in favor of that bad bill just to avoid being seen as "voting with the Republicans".
No, I am saying that folks like you have divided the EI movement so that some in it are against a bill pair (S 559 / HR 811) that mandates open source code in place of a black box.
Open source code is why the republicans are against HR 811 and S 559. Read their own words in my post #10 above.
And Holt's bill has gone terribly wrong somewhere.
You can't even agree with others in the movement as to what it says (original or amended), nor to a process that would discern what it says in the manner the judiciary does (legal hermeneutics).
And so your solution is to strong arm and demand that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation.
If the movement can't agree to what the text of the paired bills say, how can the unknown (what the text says) be agreed to? Some of us are not duplicitous, believe it or not, and when there is a bona fide ambiguity we say "reasonable people can differ".
Some folks have learned that two seperate and divided realities are not made into one simply by stubbornly demanding, like a red-neck, that one's own interpretation is the gospel truth and anyone not agreeing is a demon. That "reasoning" is the sacred ground of Rev. Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson types.
Bowen is in the middle of applying emergency first-aid to the ongoing disaster of California's electoral process
That is also needed nationally, not just in California. "Good Elections ... they are not just for California anymore" - Dredd.
And Nelson's S 559 heads in the same direction Debra is, without getting there all at once. Debra could not get there all at once either. The current EVM situation is a national emergency if you believe Brad and John. I do.
So we need some movement in the direction of open source code, no internet or wifi communications, outlawing Blackwell and Harris, and archival quality paper ballots that will be counted at least once for starters.
Nelson's S 559, a copy of the original Holt bill with a couple of improvements... this bill seems to be irrelevant, as this version of the bill has remained stagnant and was never updated to either counter or embrace the various Holt mutations.
When you came over here did you study civics very much? I suggest that you learn how our bi-cameral congress works.
In the general process of congressinal rules and American law, both versions (S 559 and HR 811) must be voted on (in committee or on the floor), any remaining differences hammered out in a conference committee composed of both House and Senate members, and then the final unified version they hammer out must be passed by both the House and the Senate by floor votes before it goes to the president. Get informed. S 559 is anything but irrelevant.
There is no such legislation in contention or even under discussion.
You are drifting off again. Wake up. We are talking about S 559 and HR 811 and they are in contention and they are under discussion.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2007 @ 1:41 pm PT...
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 9/3/2007 @ 3:31 pm PT...
... sadly Dredd said...
"No, I am saying that folks like you have divided the EI movement so that some in it are against a bill pair (S 559 / HR 811) that mandates open source code in place of a black box."
Does it hurt to compound lies like that in front of everyone?
1. No. Holt and company have divided the EI movement by deliberately trying to play various groups against each other in their attempts to first discredit and then drown out the original EI criticism of the original hr 811 bill. The rather sordid affair with the unfortunate Kathy Dopp being the latest known example. And even that underhanded trick is failing as the factions that were polarized read the latest mutations of the bill and realize that it wasn't the Holt critics who were lying to them. All of the supposed discord is just standard machine politics from a standard machine politician.
2. HR 811, "Holt's Fiasco", mandates secret, closed source source code hidden from citizen oversight.
"Open source code is why the republicans are against HR 811 and S 559. Read their own words in my post #10 above."
HR 811 has nothing to do with open source code. Why do you persist in this lie?
S 559 hangs in limbo... a copy of Holt's original flawed bill with a couple of secondary improvements... useless and not required to be considered with any House bill... including HR 811. And should its sponsors attempt to bring it back into play in the Senate that does not make HR 811 any less of a screw-up, nor would that resuscitation magically make the problems in "Holt's Fiasco" just vanish.
The purpose of the paired bills is to encourage dual independent scrutiny of BOTH bills.
HR 811 must judged as a bill in its own right.
As far as S 559's open source provisions are concerned... The intent of the language in HR 811 protecting secret vote-counting software is clear, Holt and company worked hard for it and Holt and company must answer for it.
And, furthermore, despite your erroneous assertions hereabouts that open source code will somehow magically solve all problems and malfeasance... assertions strongly disputed by every reputable computer scientist that I'm aware of... the only reason citizen access to the source code is needed is so the EVM vendors and their codependent-enablers among election officials can't continue lying about how "secure and trustworthy" e-voting software is.
Exposing the code exposes the lies and some of the vulnerabilities... it does not make the software "secure and trustworthy".
"You can't even agree with others in the movement as to what it says (original or amended),..."
Wrong. You are again trying to imply massive discord when in fact it seems that very few people who've actually read the bill (as opposed to taking Holt's or an intermediate organization's word as to what it says), very few people who've actually read the bill disagree with what Brad, John, Bev, Ellen, Nancy etc think of it.
"... nor to a process that would discern what it says in the manner the judiciary does (legal hermeneutics)."
This is by far the silliest of your endless pro-Holt arguments. You tacitly acknowledge that you must twist the plain meaning of the bill's words through legalistic contortions that defy all logic and reason in order to get the bill to say what you want it to say instead of what it actually says.
But the Supreme Court will simply go by the plain meaning of the words in the bill and not your jumbled-up contortions...
... or are you truly unaware of the Court's standing doctrine regarding the text of legislation?
"And so your solution is to strong arm and demand that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation..." snip rest of mind-numbing yada yada yada distortions apparently based on Dredd's above contortions...
"So we need some movement in the direction of open source code, no internet or wifi communications, outlawing Blackwell and Harris, and archival quality paper ballots that will be counted at least once for starters."
Along with Dredd's previous suggestions to replace election officials with citizens and an "election court"... I think these are signs of progress in Dredd actually discussing election integrity matters instead of pro-Holt propaganda... progress that should be acknowledged and encouraged.
"When you came over here did you study civics very much? I suggest that you learn how our bi-cameral congress works."
When I came over here?
And as much as you worship the (still flawed) bill that is S. 559 I've got some sad news for you: there is no requirement that S 559 be taken into consideration in drafting the Senate response to the House's 811.
No requirement at all.
Instead the only movement being seen in the Senate is with Feinstein's S. 1487... which is actually a law even worse than Holt's Fiasco
"You are drifting off again. Wake up. We are talking about S 559 and HR 811"
No. You are. Should S 559 suddenly return from its... extended hiatus... I predict that it will be promptly mutated to match 811's provisions and I shall then shall mock you severely... yet again...
"... and they are in contention and they are under discussion."
By you... and...? ... me, perforce... and... ?
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 1:27 am PT...
Thanks John...will email my reps. today with that info. It is nice to know for a brief time that Allen is listening to voters since he is trying to win support for Sen. campaign.I comment on Maine blogs.I really like both Micheaux and Allen...my reps. Even though Micheaux(sp) is blue dog..he punched a time clock for 20 years at the mill. That gives him creds. in my book.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 2:04 am PT...
Just emailed Michaud and Allen my state reps. asking them to vote no on HR811. To Allen "Holt says the bill is no longer his, it's Microsofts'.Just had to add...Why does a bill have to benefit corporations instead of U.S. citizens before it is allowed on the floor?Is it true the definition of fascism is the meeting of corporations and govt.?"
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 6:32 am PT...
Does it hurt to compound lies like that in front of everyone?
Since you are a tag team member of the mud thought wrestlers, you get by with ad hominem attacks posing as logic. I don't because the admins are biased against me because I speak up where I see weakness in argument.
I think your practice of calling someone a liar for presenting their honest estimation is an intellectually dishonest and corrupt practice. You should learn better techniques.
I will put my long time record on this blog against your neophyte record here anytime. You showed up as a johnny come lately, after I had been here years before you.
Your only purpose is to trash the Holt Bill in McArguments even tho you admit to having no formal training for skills that teach statutory construction. S 559 and HR 811 must be interpreted by American law, not Hungarian notation, that deal with statutory construction (interpretation).
You had not even heard the term / technique before I asked you about it. You ignored it then and still do now.
And, by ignoring it you have become, in your own mind, an expert at it. Why else would you do an ad hominem attack against someone practiced in the law except that you have no intellectual comprehension of the matter at hand?
You have not fooled me for one moment from the beginning with your shilliness and lack of substance. A typical republican shill seeking thrills thru obfuscation is the pattern you present.
There is no consensus agreement in the EI movement about what S 559 and HR 811 say. So why then do you persist, like a fundy preacher declaring you are the one possessor of the gospel truth about election statutes, in calling those who disagree with you a liar?
Why can't you ever, even once, cite the text of the bill and your way of interpreting that text you cited? That is normal discourse in these matters.
I think it is because your arguments are phony baloney, and you know such McArguments will not prevail anywhere play pretend is not allowed. Such as a tribunal convened to interpret an American statute by the American rules of statutory construction.
I know American law and how statutes are interpreted by American courts, and for certain I know that it does not matter how comic book shills interpret statutes by relying on hubris, ignorance, and dilitory platitudes.
You have my support in removing those who would be persuaded by your McArguments from the EI movement and into your personal following. It cleanses the movement.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 6:51 am PT...
For those who are not fundies, who do not possess the one true gospel of election truth, and who are learning still, I offer this definition of "ballot" to show how unclear and uncertain the terms are that some in the movement throw around like it was a piece of concrete:
Ballot, a method of voting by way of a form that lists the voter's options. The ballot was preceded in early America by other methods of Voting, such as by vocal statement or by letting corn or beans designate votes cast. During the early national period, the paper ballot emerged as the dominant voting method, and many states allowed the voter to make up his own ballot in the privacy of his home. Almost immediately, however, the Political Parties, motivated by a desire to influence the vote, started to print ballots as substitutes for handwritten ones, a practice that was constitutionally upheld by a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in 1829. These "party strip" ballots listed only the candidates of a single party and were peddled to the voters on or before election day. Voting by such ballots was almost always done in public—contrary to the notion of a secret vote cherished today. The system of party ballots led to widespread intimidation and corruption, which were not corrected until the ballot re-form period of the 1890s.
Between 1888 and 1896, civic groups and "good government" supporters convinced over 90 percent of the states to adopt a new ballot patterned after one introduced in Australia in the 1850s to eliminate vote corruption in that country. The Australian ballot was the exact opposite of the earlier party ballots. It was prepared and distributed by the government rather than by the political parties, it placed the candidates of both major parties on the same ballot instead of on separate ballots, and it was secret. Still in use in all states at the end of the twentieth century, this type of ballot successfully eliminated much of the partisan intimidation and vote fraud that once existed; it also facilitated split-ticket voting.
During the 2000 presidential election, however, ballot irregularities and inconsistencies, particularly in the state of Florida, illustrated that significant flaws still remained in the American ballot system. Reforms, including the use of computerized ballots, were under review in many states after the Florida controversy touched off a national debate over which ballots should be used for national elections.
(Answers Dot Com, emphasis mine). Election problems are as old as dirt and corruption, and anyone who claims to have the one true election religion is a carpet bagger seeking to put someone in a bag.
I hope they sweep up the weak minded and take them to the Hale Bopp comet where the true gospel of election truth lives.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 7:02 am PT...
Kentucky, one of the fifty "experiments" (a.k.a. "states") the early Americans called them sometimes, makes a try at defining a term:
"Ballot" or "official ballot" means the voting machine ballot label, ballot cards, paper ballots, an absentee ballot, or a supplemental paper ballot which has been authorized for the use of voters in any primary, general or special election by the Secretary of State or the county clerk.
(KAR). Why doesn't some priest of the election religion posting here save them from hell and get them to election heaven? Preach to them the Holt truth and nothing but the Holt truth, so help you election god!
Forget American law, this is religion baby, so spread your tiny faith and fly away into election perfection and praise those wonderful priests who saved you. Hail Bopp!
Or make up your own mind after studying the text of the law pursuant to American interpretive law, like the Americans I hang with do.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 8:58 am PT...
This is a challenge to you to a debate about what the text of the original S 559 and the original HR 811 (a.k.a. HR 811 IH) says.
I will only do so if you agree to keep ad hominem, straw man, and other fallacies of logic out of the debate.
This is so the readers can be benefited by an honest and comprehensive discussion which they can verify by looking at the text being debated and discussed. I have linked to the official GPO PDF files, above, for each bill.
These GPO links have line and page numbers, in the text, which we must reference when we make an assertion about the text.
In other words the debate is not about us, but instead it is about using time wisely to benefit Bradblog readers. Our english comprehension and statutory interpretation techniques will be exposed for all to see.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 9:58 am PT...
Nelson's related bill (S. 559) to Holt's bill (HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH) has some good text:
It shall be unlawful for a chief State election administration official to take an active part in political management or in a political campaign with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority.
(S. 559, page 46, lines 11-15). In my opinion, this language would outlaw the Ken Blackwell syndrome, where Ken Blackwell was Secretary of State in Ohio, and at the same time he was a campaign manager for Cheney / Bush.
Likewise, Debra Bowen would not be allowed to be the campaign manager in California for Hillary Clinton's campaign while Debra is Secretary of State in California.
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 10:10 am PT...
Nelson's related bill (S. 559) and Holt's bill (HR 811 IH) has some more good text:
No voting system used in an election for Federal office shall at any time contain or use any software not certified by the State for use in the election or any software undisclosed to the State in the certification process. The appropriate election official shall disclose, in electronic form, the source code, object code, and executable representation of the voting system software and firmware to the Commission, including ballot programming files, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, executable representation, and ballot programming files available for inspection promptly upon request to any person.
(S. 559, page 12, lines 2-14, HR 811 IH, page 12, lines 2-14).
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 10:21 am PT...
Nelson's S. 559 and Holt's HR 811 IH have some more good text:
No voting system shall contain, use, or be accessible by any wireless, power-line, remote, wide area, or concealed communication device at all ... No component of any voting device upon which votes are cast shall be connected to the Internet at any time.
(S 559, page 12, lines 16-24; Holt HR 811 IH, page 13, lines 11-19).
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 10:38 am PT...
Your longtime record doesn't buy you anything against even a one time commenter in terms of the strength of an argument or even veracity of what you say. The only definition of "ballot" that is applicable is the one in the bill/s. The language that applies is no longer the original, but as it reads after being mauled in committee. It's worse than pointless to debate the original language. Your ad hominem attacks are at least as frequent as anyone else's, and it doesn't matter how many posts you make, how long you persist in whipping dead horses, how outrageously you brag about your tenure or your conceptions of terminology, the truth is still the truth. Everyone else is talking about the present state of the bill/s, not the original/s. Just because the original is all you have to go on doesn't mean it can still serve as the basis for disagreements with people who are talking about how it stands right now.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 10:44 am PT...
Assuming arguendo that Nelson's S. 559 and Holt's HR 811 IH require some usage of paper ballots, those bills IMO would then have some more good text:
All voter-verified paper ballots required to be used under this Act (including the emergency paper ballots used under paragraph (14)) shall be marked, printed, or recorded on durable paper of archival quality capable of withstanding multiple counts and recounts without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots, and capable of retaining the information marked, printed, or recorded on them for the full duration of the retention and preservation period called for by title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1974 et seq.) or under applicable State law, whichever is longer.
(S 559, page 15, line 25 - page 16, line 13; Holt HR 811 IH, page 16, line 19 - page 17, line 7).
Is anybody here opposed to the principle that if paper ballots are used, they should be of good enough quality to last thru all counts and audits without fading?
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 10:54 am PT...
Agent 99 #33
Read this post on a later thread than this one and if you can't see you are wrong about the bills and that I reveal more about the bills than the biased posters here, including yourself, then I will post the whole thing here for every reader's perusal.
Just because you can delete text I post and play prosecutor does not give you an advantage either. Either your posts are valid or they are not, just like everyone else, including my own. You should let the readers decide for themselves. This is not high school.
Read the text of the bills as I do and quote them. That is the honest and unbiased way.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 11:23 am PT...
Dredd, prove to me that either of the bills you link are identical to the ones that will be voted on. You have been calling John Gideon, Brad Friedman and the_zapkitty, among others, names and papering this site with quotes from bill language that, as far as I can tell, is no longer the language in the bills. You quote discrete parts that are affected by other parts not quoted. This is definitely not high school, yet you seem to be relying on people paying as much attention as they did in high school. It concerns me that people look at your "legalistic"-looking posts and think you're saying something with a sound basis. It might even be as bad as you undoing a great deal of Brad's and John's work this way. Everyone whose work I admire and word I trust is absolutely against 811 and you keep soldiering on as if they were all dopes and you're the one whose judgment is sound. You keep picking fights with people who are participating in good faith. It's especially galling when you say you are agnostic about this legislation, and yet get this obnoxious about it. Maybe somebody put some LSD in my coffee.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 4:51 pm PT...
Agent 99 #36
I am sure that you think you can support your false charges, and I am sure that you cannot.
Additionally you say:
as far as I can tell, is no longer the language in the bills
Is it only you that can say the government printing office documents I link to directly from the congressional website are no longer the real McCoy?
You never cease to amaze me. I guess the real documents are on the religious site of the one true gospel of election truth. I don't go there.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 4:56 pm PT...
Look at the dates on the bills at the Thomas links you provided, Dredd.
Take your head out of your ass.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 5:28 pm PT...
811 was February 7... link not working as of now. Which MAY mean they're updating with the marked up bill now....
559 was February 13.
MEANING the bills were earlier drafts than those under discussion.
Thomas is never up-to-the-minute. If it were, more people would actually know precisely what is going on.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 9/4/2007 @ 10:33 pm PT...
While I am loath to get in front of Dredd's steamroller and offer him another excuse to proclaim he is the victim of a "tag team", the facts are with Agent 99 on this one.
Quoting the original text of the bill as you did above (some of which, btw, I'm proud to say was actually written by yours truly) means nothing when it will not be voted on. HR 811 has changed many times over, and the provisions you quote from it (as well, those re-printed as Nelson's S. 559) while may be just swell taken on their own, don't make up for the dangers in the rest of the bill...or for the fact that those provisions no longer exist in HR 811!
As to S 559, you can quote it all ya like. But as long as it's been referred to the Senate Rules Committee, presided over by Diane Feinstein, it won't see the light of day, since she has her own Election Reform Bill to be used as the Senate counterpart to HR 811.
At this point, of course, Nelson's bill is looking pretty damned good! If only because it reminds us of the once-much-much-better original Holt bill! But then we're reminded that a) Holt's original bill still had enormous failures, beginning with allowing DREs, and the fiction that a "durable paper ballot" as printed by a DRE was somehow different than a toilet-paper roll printed by a DRE and b) Nelson's bill is going nowhere.
As ya know, I love ya, Dredd. But you, apparently, seem to be the one whose invented your own "true religion" on the Holt bill. One that nobody else, not even pro-Holt EI advocates, seem to be buying.
But you're welcome to keep selling, if you want. Even the Edsel had a few buyers. Good luck!
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 9/6/2007 @ 4:23 am PT...
The text I quote above still does exist in at least one, still very alive, version of the bill.
That is HR 811 IH as I have repeatedly pointed out by linking to the official congressional website. The S. 559 IS is also very alive.
I do not use non-official documents when I link, as 99 incorrectly stated, I use the official website and GPO generated PDF version of the documents.
The fact is that when others link to HR 811 documentation they tend to link to a version on a non-official website or to the one on this blog, which is not an official document either.
The facts are that there are two official versions of HR 811 (IH and RH), and both are still players. And John posts today that there may be other amendments, the bills may go back to committee, etc., so the dogmatic statements are at best half baked unless linked to official documents.
It is important to note that HR 811 RH is an amendment to replace HR 811 IH. Until HR 811 RH is passed, HR 811 IH is still a player.
And the purpose of my posts and usage of the text of the various versions (including S. 559 IS) was to focus on several principles.
That focus illustrates that you advocate and reject at the same time, obviously good principles.
And you do so because these bills will not bring what you see as election perfection (ban of DRE machines). I agree that they do not ban DRE machines outright, but I also point out that such legislation cannot ban DRE machines usage outright. The congress can only ban them outright in federal elections, but can not in local, county, and state elections.
But you reject the notion of passing legislation that will make it easier to monitor what the DRE's are doing if the states continue to choose to use them, and thereby give the Stalins of the world heartburn if they try to game elections.
I do not think your position is fully thought out is all I am saying. It is ok as far as it goes though.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 9/6/2007 @ 4:51 am PT...
For those who are congressional documents challenged, the original document introduced never changes, no matter what the date on it is. There is a good reason for that.
Therefore HR 811 IH (the original) will always be as it was when originally introduced. Even 5 years from now.
Otherwise there will never be a paper trail of what happened. Paper trails are happy trails in some contexts. Without paper trails there is no history to read in a book.
It is like a complaint filed in federal court (another branch of government). Even tho one, ten, or more amended complaints are filed, the original remains the same always. DUH!
When appellate tribunals peruse the history, which is preserved in the paper trail called the "Record on Appeal", they look at the original and the amended versions to know the history of the morph. They do this because it gives them a clue as to what the folks where thinking when they amended.
The "IH" on the end of any House legislation on the site indicates the original. The "RH" ending indicates an amended version reported out of committee. They do not delete the original IH nor the amended RH.
And when an amendment is in the nature of a replacement amendment (as HR 811 RH is), if it passes on a floor vote the original text is no longer a player. But if the replacement amendment fails on the floor, the original text is still a player. That is because the House voted to reject the replacement and stay with the original.
Either way, both the IH and the RH versions remain for the historians and for the courts that review these things "to determine the intent of congress" when they are deciding on appeal what the text of the bill legally says.
Yep #38, "take your head out of your ass", the date is not dispositive of the matter.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 9/6/2007 @ 6:24 am PT...
Nelson's S. 559 IS and Holt's HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH have some other good text:
The manufacturer and the election officials shall document the secure chain of custody for the handling of all software, hardware, vote storage media, ballots, and voter-verified ballots used in connection with voting systems, and shall make the information available upon request to the Commission.
(S 559 IS, page 13, lines 12-18; Holt HR 811 IH, page 14, lines 6-12; Holt HR 811 RH, page 18, lines 17-24).
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 9/6/2007 @ 9:01 am PT...
This link explains the difference in HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH, and the mandated voting sequences that must be followed while processing them.
And why you may not get it if you expect the wrong sequence of voting events on the legislation.
Clue of the day: there is no such thing as a valid "perfecting amendment" or "amendment in the nature of a substitute" until passed by a floor vote.
Until voted on at the floor and passed by a valid majority, text in any amendment or bill is nothing more than proposed. Any proposed text is just as valid as any other proposed text. Until passed by a majority floor vote, all such underling texts are equal.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 9/18/2007 @ 1:17 pm PT...
Really enjoy your website. Thank You.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 11/6/2007 @ 11:47 am PT...
Hi! Your site appeared very useful to me. Excellent work, thanks.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 11/21/2007 @ 11:40 am PT...
Great Job!Been putting down Torginol for 20 years,Nice to see a sight that i can relate too.