Reply #87: What "just ain't right" wilms

[Steve A Play]

Is that nowhere in this thread did I or anyone else from BBV.org mention VoteTrustUSA. Where exactly did I give you the impression that I or BBV.org questioned their honor?

Perhaps I linked that document for the reason I stated in my post. "If anyone has any questions about what constitutes an "insider" vs. an "outsider" in the election reform movement, they should read this document." Do you disagree that these people I'm referring to are "insiders" in the sense that they 'play nice' and work within the system?

Another reason I posted this might be to add some pertinent facts about David Dill's lack of financial interest in the outcome of the fight against e-voting and it's inherent lack of security and transparency. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it if not for the bold-ed line in the post below.

Post #12

WillYourVoteBCounted
12. Bev Bots in DU, and folks new to activism

The issue is that Bev Harris has launched an attack against HR 550,
and Land Shark is assisting her.

If you go to her website, you will see that she is referring to him.

So, how do you feel about having a Bev Bot advising folks in DU on
election reform?

Bev lambasts HR 550 as if it were of the same ilk as HAVA.

HAVA was written by and for the voting machine companies and congressmen
receiving donations from them.

HR 550 was written by Congressman Rush Holt, a physicist whose
only interest is in protecting the vote.

Verified Voting endorses it, led by Computer expert David Dill, who has
no financial interest.

So, please DU'ers, be forwarned, Bev Bots abound here in DU.

And the new people who get her newsletter don't know about her background.

Just doing my part to get all the facts out to the reality based community. :)

This is where the first mention of VTUSA was made.

WillYourVoteBCounted
8. sorry, here is why I am mad

Some of our very own Vote Trust people have been working against the other vote trust members while

VTUSA had about 200 people in DC lobbying for HR 550.

They did great, got 9 more co sponsors, including 3 republicans.

now it is clear that Bev Harris needs this as a method to divide up the voting

integrity community.

Otherwise, if she wanted to oppose HR 550, why didn't she do it years ago?

And I have no respect for her whatsoever.

She has never done anything in my state except fleece people out of

donations.

So people in VTUSA disagree among themselves on HR 550 and that somehow is Black Box Voting.org's fault?

You say "Personally, I'd rather we think of this as a discussion, than act on it as an argument", I agree. Facts are facts so I'll stick to facts.

HR 550 is basically table scraps from a meal we paid for off of a table we own. Calling something a "Gold Standard" has a very specific connotation. It means that something is as close to perfect as you can get it. HR 550 has been pushed on Capitol Hill as a "Gold Standard" piece of legislation. That terminology, used in conjunction with a bill this weak, gives a false sense that if passed, things are getting better, when in fact, you've just made things a whole lot worse. It's just a matter of what your ultimate goals are.

If your ultimate goal is to eliminate electronic voting (except for the disabled), and concentrate instead on a paper balloting system that can be easily hand counted, you must first establish your legal right to count all of the ballots. Creating a federal law that places a legal ceiling on what percentage of votes will be hand counted, and under what circumstances, is dangerous at best.

On the one hand, you might argue that it's a step in the right direction and you can always raise the number later on. On the other hand, they might just tell you to go pound salt when you ask because they already gave you everything you've asked for. Remember, we're asking the very people who are in office because of these machines to make these changes to the law. There's nothing stopping them from adding a line to this law in the future stating that this 2% hand count will be the only one allowed under the law. Laws are a double edged sword. You must always be mindful of how your opponent will attempt to use it against you.

I want to hand count 100% of the ballots, and under HR 550 they're offering me 2%. That's not an offer that I'm willing to accept. My only desire is to ensure that I can count all of the votes if I so choose. This law may very well threaten my ability to ever do that. It's all in how it gets tweaked later on and there are no guarantees on how that will happen.