Time to defund corrupt voting systems and elections officials and county

[diva77]

supervisors and voting machine vendors and lobbyists who have perpetuated overt racial discrimination in our elections while committing and/or enabling numerous forms of election fraud.

[SheltieLover]

1. This!👆

This cuts right to the core!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Problem with the word "defund" is that it's a reactive word not a proactive one

It identifies a problem but doesn’t suggest a solution.

That is why it sucks as a word to use for social change.

[diva77]

4. In the case of Los Angeles County, CA, defunding would be a very pro-active

measure.

In 2018, the LA County Bd of Supervisors approved a budget close to $300,000,000 to "upgrade" voting systems in LA. We had hand marked paper ballots which are the most transparent form of voting, and the Supervisors, without blinking, approved the County Clerk's request (if the votes are counted by the guy asking for the $$, what are ya gonna do if you want to stay in office?).

The actual amount of money the RR/CC was slated to receive from the CA state budget in 2018 was $41,000,000 plus $11,500,000 from the federal Consolidated Appropriation Bill of 2018, and $8,000,000 from State Assembly Bill 1886.

Somehow, the LA RR/CC managed to balloon the original $60 million to $300 million and in our most recent election where they rolled out the non-transparent albatross BMD machines, they closed down the precincts, set up a paltry few "voting centers" and created the biggest show of CHAOS in our elections, ever, in LA with people waiting in line for hours to vote, botched registrations, etc.

We have a staggering homeless problem and rotting public school infrastructure which disproportionately affects POC. Maybe "defunding" is the wrong word, but the allocation of money is so out of whack and funneled into corrupt, inept uses. Something needs to change.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. "Re-allocation" would work better than "defunding."

"Defunding" somehow implies they are just going to eliminate public law enforcement entirely from the budget.

[diva77]

7. I agree. Good point.

[Hortensis]

3. So you want to shift their FUNCTIONS and FUNDING to...who?

That's what "defund" means. Btw, those creating those corrupt systems have been "defunding" elections all along, and they intend to finish the job.

Their goal is probably faux elections in a faux democracy, so we'll always need some election funding, but one polling place in a county should do for most and controlling the outcomes certainly doesn't require expensive accurate-counting systems. Right?

[diva77]

5. check out reply #4

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13569805