 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 31, 2007 at 10:03:03
EAC for Dummies: How the White House has designs on your elections by Nancy Tobi Page 1 of 3 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on consent of the governed and whose governance is based on popular representation. Rule of law is an essential feature of a republic. The American Republic lives or dies on the ability of the people to control the government. The Framers of the Constitution gave control of our elections (the lockbox of the Republic) to the individual States and not to the United States, to ensure that the dispersed power of citizens as represented by their state governments could check and balance the centralized power of the federal government. The general public, and most particularly many in the election integrity movement, are blissfully unaware of the dangers posed to our American Republic by a little known entity called the Election Assistance Commission. 
This White House Agency was slipped into the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in a late night, behind closed doors meeting, by the architects of that law: Congressman Bob Ney (now a convicted criminal), Congressman Steny Hoyer, Senator Mitch McConnell, and Senator Chris Dodd (now a presidential candidate).
We can only guess at their motivations for creating an Executive agency composed of four White House appointees with the power to control the nation’s elections.
Whatever prompted the HAVA architects to do this – against their own legal counsel’s advice – they certainly didn’t consult the wisdom of the Founders.
Founding father Alexander Hamilton:
"Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?" --- Federalist No. 59, 1788
The architects of HAVA are not alone in their disdain for the wisdom of the founders. Several contemporary Congressional and Senatorial leaders are furiously trying to pass legislation to expand the powers of the Election Assistance Commission. The most infamous of the proposed bills are HR811 (the "Holt Bill") in the House, and SB1487 (the "Feinstein Bill") in the Senate.
Congressman Rush Holt, in a July 2007 "town meeting" with constituents:
There should be -- and there has not been -- a federal commission that oversees elections. The Help America Vote Act created one, it has not worked well -- so we, could say, well, that each state could do what they want... You know, you know, a lot of people get nervous at the mention of name [Ken] Blackwell -- in Ohio. He was the Secretary of State... he was also a candidate for office at the same time. He was also the chair of the re-election committee for a Presidential candidate. Even while he was supposed to be the impartial overseer of the elections.
So if we leave it to the states, it's not so good. So what I prefer to do is strengthen the EAC... but it remains to be seen whether we can do that.
The historical imperative to resist granting control over our elections to the federal government might convince subscribers to Mr. Holt's articulated goal of the error of their ways. Common sense alone belies the utter absurdity of handing control of the electoral mechanism itself to those who will subsequently be elected by it. And handing control to the White House is beyond absurdity.
Unfortunately, most American citizens don't even know this coups d'etat has occurred, and is being irrevocably cemented into place. They are unaware that the very foundation of the American Republic is being ripped out and replaced with an entirely new system of governance. Free, fair, and open public elections controlled by The People are being replaced with costly, high tech, complex, opaque, computerized, corporately-owned electoral theatre controlled by the White House, the Legislature, and the Judiciary.
Even many election integrity activists fail to understand the fundamental problem with the EAC. They say, if only the "right" people were appointed to the Commission, all would be well.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
It's time to abolish the EAC
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
www.democracyfornewhampshire.com
Nancy Tobi is co-founder, former Chair, and website editor for Democracy for New Hampshire (DFNH). She is also a founder and Chair of the NH Fair Elections Committee. Nancy is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 11 comments |
|
Posted it on DIGG.com
Great article. Posted it on DIGG.com: Warning: A White House Executive agency (EAC) designs all voting systems! by Nancy Tobi- This White House Agency (EAC: Election Assistance Commission) was slipped into the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in a late night, behind closed doors meeting, by the Republican Congressman Bob Ney (now a convicted criminal). Executive agency composed of four White House appointees with the power to control the nation's elections! by Fritson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Friday, Aug 31, 2007 at 9:48:42 PM  (0+)
|
|
Nancy
What is your solution? I want the exact same voting systems used in every state because I think that the system with the best record, and lowest error rate, should be universal (optical scan, whatever). by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 1, 2007 at 9:34:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: aren't you the guy who
didn't want a constitutional convention because it would destroy the constitution and the republic? well look what you get--what you fear happening at a convention. yet at a convention, nothing is ratified, in the meantime, folks like nanci would be able to propose common-sense solutions before the nation. by john de herrera (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 165 comments) on Saturday, Sep 1, 2007 at 10:25:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Me?
You got the wrong person, I'd love to see a bunch of constitutional conventions! by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:38:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here is a solution
The EAC's website defines their responsibilities. The Standards Board consists of the top state and local election officials from every state. It is a representational board. Here is a reallocation of EAC responsibilities after we eliminate the Commission: Generate technical guidance on the administration of federal elections. – HAND OVER TO NIST & STANDARDS BOARD WITH CITIZEN REPRESENTATION Produce voluntary voting systems guidelines. – HAND OVER TO NIST & STANDARDS BOARD WITH CITIZEN REPRESENTATION Research and report on matters that affect the administration of federal elections. – HAND OVER TO STANDARDS BOARD WITH CITIZEN REPRESENTATION Provide information and guidance with respect to laws, procedures, and technologies affecting the administration of Federal elections. – HAND OVER TO STANDARDS BOARD WITH CITIZENS REPRESENTATION Administer payments to States to meet HAVA requirements. – HAND OVER TO GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Provide grants for election technology development and for pilot programs to test election technology. – ELIMINATE THIS FUNCTION. Manage funds targeted to certain programs designed to encourage youth participation in elections. – HAND OVER TO DEPT. OF EDUCATION Develop a national program for voting machine testing – HAND OVER TO NIST & STANDARDS BOARD WITH CITIZEN REPRESENTATION Maintain the national mail voter registration form that was developed in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), report to Congress every two years on the impact of the NVRA on the Audit persons who received federal funds authorized by HAVA from the General Services Administration or the Election Assistance Commission. – HAND OVER TO GSA, USING INSPECTOR GENERAL Submit an annual report to Congress describing EAC activities for the previous fiscal year. – HAND OVER AS APPROPRIATE TO ENTITIES PICKING UP FUNCTIONS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE Certification, recertification and decertification of voting machines - DELEGATE TO THE STATES by Nancy Tobi (79 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 9:24:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: NIST corrupted already
I would not trust the the NIST. They have hundreds of pages backing up the administration on 9/11. Then I saw a video of the guy who designed the NIST computer model which was supposed to test theories on how the buildings in NYC fell on 9/11/01. He said he had to tweak the model three times to get the buildings to fall. He had to keep weakening the strength of the outer walls while maintaining the weight they had to support. After the third "weakening" the "model" towers finally fell. Forget trusting the NIST while Bush controls it. Forget the EAC all together, and fight to have the Holt bill tabled. Then we can start fighting, on the very local level, to hand count our own votes. If we can do that, than we can save ourselves. by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:28:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mandate Hand Counts
The only way we will ever get back to elections results we can trust is to hand count our paper ballots. In the precinct, immediately after the polls close, in front of any interested observers. What we save by not buying machines would pay for the counters, at least the first time. The only role the Federal Govt. should have is to mandate paper ballots and hand counts. Otherwise, Amendment 10 should be followed to the letter. This is a state issue, and the Feds should have nothing to do with it. by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:16:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Well you should ask, John R.
One thing for sure, is the idea that optical scanners or any kind of computerized voting maching can be part of the "solution". It is this kind of ignorance that perpetuates the continued control of our elections by the voting machine industry, owned and operated by Republicans, dedicated to Karl Rove's dream of permanent Republican control of the U.S. This is obviously a subject that you know nothing about, but you're not alone. Please read Michael Collin's http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm, Election 2004: The Urban Legend. Hands-on elections, HCPB Now! by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Saturday, Sep 1, 2007 at 12:48:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This doesn't answer my question
by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:37:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Federally controlled elections aren't all bad per sec
Nancy, The problem isn’t with federally controlled elections per sec there are many countries around the world that do and don’t suffer shenanigans the US does. Australia is one such country. One problem as we see it is that it is who in the Federal Government that controls the election. Much of Australia’s politics is as every bit dysfunctional as yours in that they are both dominated by partisan politics both major parties believing they are the one true god and the other the devil incarnate. In truth they are both nearer the latter option than the first. We have a quasi independent Public Service (Australian Electoral Commission) that promotes from within, no board seats for political stooges. If the govt. of the day disposes of one head the next is just as likely to be as apolitical. In this way the Govt of the day can’t control elections. Each seat (district) boundaries are set and new seats created by our electoral commission. They constantly monitor the number of registrations/voting trend and when creating new seats it ensures that the mix is about even. (We have mandatory voting). The AEC controls the voting processes. The AEC conduct all (including State and council elections). No Florida stealing the vote here. Consistant methods and systems make tampering difficult.You are cursed with different systems in different states all over seen by a politically biased individuals. Add to this a dysfunctionally uneven College allocation System that favours the paries not the individuals all add up to a system in dire need of remedial change in order to maintain the democracy it was intended to engender. Things have changed dramatically since the founding fathers deliberations. The parties have changed, extreme religion (money), corporations' influences are all new factors that pervert democracy and must be taken into account today none of which were even in the founding father's comprehension of the time. The Australian electoral Act is an act of both houses of parliament and difficult to change. I repeat the problem is who in a federal system controls the act. The best thing for your country would be to create an Electoral Commission but make it independent of the executive. Make it an amendment to your Constitution answerable to the joint houses. The act could be sufficiently clear as to limit its power to the apolitical administration of elections. Most important though is that the head is a bureaucrat not an elected (politically compromised) official. by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:28:12 AM (0+)
|
|
The "Gold standard" exists...
but you still don't have a clue, or you wouldn't be making stupid statements like "whether paper or not" because no paper implies that you find electronic votes acceptable. THEY ARE NOT. It also implies that you think the tabulation of ballots by computers is okay. IT IS NOT OKAY. Just tryin' to help you out here, John. In view of the huge body of literature that exists on this subject (and growing everyday) it's difficult for me to believe that you're just now becoming aware of the problem. How about global warming? Is that also a subject that you know nothing about? Maybe it's just a coincidence, but most republicans are unaware of any problems in these two areas, so, unless your role is that of a fifth columnist in the employ of the voting machine industry, I'd advise you to get crackin' on your education in these two fields. There's a companion piece to "Election 2004: The Urban Legend", titled "Sludge Report #177- Bigger Than Watergate II", found at: http://www.scoop.conz/stories/HL076/S00164.htm/ but as I said, you have a whole lot of catching up to do. by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:08:03 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
