Refresh   Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
March 29, 2009 at 10:38:12

Must Read 2   Valuable 2   Well Said 1   View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 3/29/09:

2009 Holt Bill. E-Voting: Making a bad system worse

FACEBOOK
submit to twitter
submit to reddit
submit to digg

Tell A Friend

By Nancy Tobi (about the author)     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com     Permalink

For OpEdNews: Nancy Tobi - Writer

Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) is getting ready to introduce his 2009 electronic voting bill. Interested readers can review the 65-page proposal here. Holt has been trying for several years to pass one version or another of this bill.

The federal Voting Rights Act requires observable vote counting. Many state constitutions demand a public voting system with public vote counts. The Holt Bill mandates computerized voting systems, and enforces concealed vote counting.

Concealed vote counting violates our voting rights.

The Holt Bill extends the federally sponsored 2002 e-voting Ponzi scheme, when Congress, through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), invested $4 billion taxpayer dollars into a fraudulent e-voting promise, causing the states to scoop up computerized voting machines and voting registration systems that turned out to be as fraud-friendly as the firm of Madoff Investment Securities.

If you think the Madoff Ponzi scheme was extensive, consider this e-voting rip-off.

The e-voting scheme promised huge returns: High tech, efficient elections. Voting systems that can meet the needs of every voter with a disability, every voter speaking a language other than English, you name it, e-voting will do it. But there was nothing behind this promise.

The e-voting legislation invested taxpayer dollars into an industry producing fraud-friendly voting systems, with built-in double and triple sets of accounting books, audit reports and logs that drop data tracking of programmatic events like changed vote counts and the like.

This is the industry whose product gave a negative count of 16,022 votes for candidate Al Gore in the Florida 2000 election, delivering the wrong President to America.

The 2002 Congressional e-voting bill also established a White House agency (the Election Assistance Commission, or EAC), which perpetuates e-voting failures by drafting new e-voting standards and schedules for the states, which can never - in reality - be met. The EAC drafts standards for e-voting equipment that hasn’t been built, hasn’t been tested, and, which is so complex that no ordinary election official could possibly operate independently of private industry control.

The EAC e-voting scheme has the states investing in equipment that will require upgrades or replacements in each succeeding election. In this scenario, the e-voting industry gets richer while America's elections become pilot runs to test new technologies!

The $4 billion e-voting systems - and the multi-millions of continuing taxpayer e-voting "investments" since 2002 - have delivered truly catastrophic elections.

Machine breakdowns. Unprovable election results. Unlimited avenues for manipulation.

Once the states used up the first $4 billion federal dollars, they were left to their own devices to come up with the continuous cash flow required to service, repair, and replace the error-prone e-voting systems. Not to mention costs for storage, transportation, certification and recertification.

Now comes the Holt Bill with a new provision that will up the e-voting ante by requiring states to purchase entirely new technologies: high tech, high cost, highly complex, computerized assistive voting technologies that do not even exist yet.

Many citizen activists, myself included, have opposed previous versions of the Holt Bill.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
No to Holt's

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

 

Book Recommendations for "Corporations E Voting"
Voting policies of institutional investors on corporate governance issues (Corporate governance service)
by James E Heard


Number of pages: 42
Publisher: Investor Responsibility Research Center

An assessment of the SEC shareholder proposal rule
by Donald E Schwartz


Number of pages:
Publisher: Georgetown Law Journal

View All Book Recommendations

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

FACEBOOK      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      NETSCAPE      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
 

This is so true! by Virginia Martin on Sunday, Mar 29, 2009 at 2:21:43 PM
Here we go again by Michael Collins on Sunday, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:03:46 PM
Nancy how is requiring paper ballots a bad thing? by E. Nelson on Monday, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:14:06 AM
Check Out seeVote by Dennis Kaiser on Monday, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:57:59 AM
Addition by Dennis Kaiser on Monday, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:59:02 AM

 

 

 

Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Copyright © 2002-2010, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum